To start with the description for ring of spell knowledge states that it only works for spontaneous arcane casters. So, the wizard wouldn't be able to use it. Secondly, because of the way it's worded I don't see that it's limited to arcane spells. Only that if it is an arcane spell that doesn't appear on the caster's class list that it counts as one level higher.
Assuming the DM is allowing the wizard to use it, and it can only be used to store arcane versions of spells, then they would need to find an arcane version of the spell. For example a scroll or spellbook created by a summoner that contains the spell.
No, the description of the ring states:
All of them are useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters
That means, the ring od spell knowledge is useless for the wizard, who is a prepare caster.
Regadless, the summoner does get Barkskin as a spell, but the spell lists from the summoner and sorcerer/wizard are different spell lists. A spell appearing on one spelllist doesn't mean a different caster also gets that spell, albeit both casters are arcane casters.
Sorry, Arcanist, not Wizard.
Wizards are not spontaneous casters, so a ring of spell knowledge does nothing for them.
Also, are you playing a CRB only game?
CRB/APG/ACG, everything else per approval.
Secondly, because of the way it's worded I don't see that it's limited to arcane spells. Only that if it is an arcane spell that doesn't appear on the caster's class list that it counts as one level higher.Hang on, so your argument is that an arcane spell would be a spell level higher but a divine spell is totally fine at the normal level? That makes no sense.
an arcanist is also technically a prepared caster by the RAW. But there may be an FAQ somewhere that states otherwise.
An arcanist must prepare her spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, her spells are not expended when they’re cast. Instead, she can cast any spell that she has prepared consuming a spell slot of the appropriate level, assuming she hasn’t yet used up her spell slots per day for that level.
As for arcane vs divine. As I said by the way it's written there isn't a limitation that I see that it has to be an arcane spell. Certainly it strongly implies that it has to be an arcane spell and if I were the DM that's how I would run it because that makes sense. I agree that otherwise it seems strange at best.
edit: after further research I found the following line
Feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster instead affect the number of spells an arcanist can prepare.
which suggests that they should be able to use the ring
Hang on, so your argument is that an arcane spell would be a spell level higher but a divine spell is totally fine at the normal level? That makes no sense.
It's not an argument, it's what the item description says, i.e. RAW. Any sane GM would either disallow divine spells, or remove the "arcane" limitation on the segment for off-list spells.
The arcane/divine(/psychic) distinction is basically made at the time of casting (or crafting). The name of a spell doesn't tell you what it is.
If you have the ring only count arcane spells, then the player would need to "encounter a written, active, or cast version of the spell" with the caster (or crafter of the scroll etc.) being a Summoner, Sorcerer with the Verdant bloodline, or some other arcane caster somehow having access to it (possible from their own ring).
As a general rule spells aren't Arcane or Divine (or Alchemical or Psychic). Spells get their designation from the caster.
Since the Arcanist is an Arcane caster any spell they cast is considered an Arcane spell.
All of them are useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters.
An arcanist must prepare her spells ahead of time ...
So it looks like the Arcanist can't use this ring, but let's say for the moment that they can...
Arcane spells that do not appear on the wearer’s class list are treated as one level higher for all purposes (storage and casting).
Since this spell doesn't appear on the Arcanist spell list it would be one spell-level higher than it is for whoever cast it (cast into the ring/learned through a scroll/etc). Since Barkskin is a 2nd level spell for everyone who can cast it (as far as I can tell) it would be treated as a 3rd level spell for someone casting it from a Ring of Spell Knowledge.
(And because I forgot to include it earlier, a link to BARKSKIN)
Since this spell doesn't appear on the Arcanist spell list it would be one spell-level higher than it is for whoever cast it (cast into the ring/learned through a scroll/etc). Since Barkskin is a 2nd level spell for everyone who can cast it (as far as I can tell) it would be treated as a 3rd level spell for someone casting it from a Ring of Spell Knowledge.
(And because I forgot to include it earlier, a link to BARKSKIN)
unless its divine....
The ring does not have to be taught via a written source. You can teach the ring a spell by witnessing it being cast or examining it after its been cast. For example, you could teach the ring Shield by walking up to a wizard who has Shield on them and making a DC 20 spellcraft check. If for some reason Shield isn't on your class list the wizard cast version of it (being an arcane spell) would be treated as 1 level higher. Walk up to a cleric who has it on them via the defense domain, now its divine and suddenly it falls outside the description of the item in terms of it taking 1 slot higher for not being on your class list.
While its true that a spell is not inherently divine or arcane and that it's driven by the caster. Any spell that you encounter in game will be divine or arcane. Even written sources like scrolls pick up the divine or arcane tag based on who created it.
|
For what it's worth, Pathfinder Society has ruled that the ring doesn't work for divine spells there, if that matters to the GM as a guideline.
Also, this post from Mark Seifter wasn't about the ring specifically, but it does address pages of spell knowledge, which are worded very similarly to the ring.
Arcanists use runestones of power (ACG 234) and spell lattices (ACG 235). They can't use pearls of power or pages of spell knowledge, although clearly the lattices and pages are basically the same thing for the same price except the arcanist clause, so it wouldn't be too weird to just let them use either.wraithstrike wrote:
For the purpose of interaction with magic items such as pearls of power is the arcanist a prepared caster, spontaneous, or both.
That would seem to say that no, the ring doesn't work for an arcanist at all. EDIT: But that allowing it might be reasonable.
I'm tempted to say "No, Barkskin is a Divine spell" but it appears on the Summoner spell list and Summoners are Arcane casters. So it depends upon the caster of the spell and where/how they gain access to the spell in question. If the Wizard in question has some way of accessing Summoner spells, then I see no reason why he couldn't use it. But, just like everyone else pointed out, a Wizard doesn't really have any use for this.
|
|
In a situation where the ring is obviously useful (sorcerer), then it can store barkskin provided the source that the wearer is observing is arcane. So if a sorcerer witnessed a Summoner cast the spell, then the ring can store the spell. Or if there’s a scroll that was scribed by a Summoner, a Sorcerer could use that. So if the GM oks the item working for an Arcanist, and the Arcanist can find an arcane copy of it, then it should work provided the ring is at least a Ring of Spell Knowledge III, and would be cast as a 3rd level spell.
MrCharisma noted this correctly in his post.
Spells are not, in and of themselves, arcane or divine, casters are. The spell becomes of the type that the caster is when he casts it.
|
|
Outside of PFS (and house rules), scrolls, however, are arcane or divine, depending on who created the scroll. So you'd have to seek out a scroll created by a Summoner, which might have a different cost. At a quick glance, it looks like it would be the same as if a Sorcerer had scribed it. 200gp.
EDIT: I should say, scrolls should be arcane or divine, though when appearing in treasure, they're almost never listed that way. Which leads to what seems to be a common house rule that they are both.