| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets take a spell like True StrikeI really wish we wouldn't... Every time someone tries to point out why something would be an issue, they point to True Strike... I think that spell might be the biggest problem child the system has. :P
True Strike is kind of like a black hole: it's so powerful that it creates a gravitational field that warps the spell attack math, even for Primal and Divine casters (druids, most clerics, about half the sorcerer's) that don't get the spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
True strike is not a great spell to have too many of. Maybe there are a couple warpriest builds that can do nasty things, but most casters who try to do something like memorized half their spells as attack roll spells and the othe half as truestrikes better hope they never have to move or attack more than one target at a time.
This is really an instance where the supposed worst case exploit is always going to be less powerful than casting better spells out of those slots. Without heightening, this is very much a last gasp desperation move. Not a great game hack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True strike is not a great spell to have too many of. Maybe there are a couple warpriest builds that can do nasty things, but most casters who try to do something like memorized half their spells as attack roll spells and the othe half as truestrikes better hope they never have to move or attack more than one target at a time.
This is really an instance where the supposed worst case exploit is always going to be less powerful than casting better spells out of those slots. Without heightening, this is very much a last gasp desperation move. Not a great game hack.
Exactamundo!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A prepared caster can totally do this, but they would be locked into that choice for the day. Spontaneous casters aren't locked in.
You keep saying "Nothing says we CAN'T do this." Well nothing in the rules states you can't walk through walls, but it's widely agreed upon as a rule. Not to mention the rules for Heightening Spells explicitly says you can not do this. Casting a spell...
You realize that casting a 1st level spell in a 2nd level slot AS a 1st level spell is not heightening? Heightened spells have an increased value equating to the power of the slot being used. I agree 100% about the rules to ‘heighten’ a spell, but that is not in regard to using a bigger slot for the same value as a lower slot.
The word ‘wall’ by default means you can’t walk through it. Definitions matter. You’re equating two separate concepts.
True strike is not a great spell to have too many of.
The magus isn't out yet...
|
...You realize that casting a 1st level spell in a 2nd level slot AS a 1st level spell is not heightening?A prepared caster can totally do this, but they would be locked into that choice for the day. Spontaneous casters aren't locked in.
You keep saying "Nothing says we CAN'T do this." Well nothing in the rules states you can't walk through walls, but it's widely agreed upon as a rule. Not to mention the rules for Heightening Spells explicitly says you can not do this. Casting a spell...
Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. ...a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. ...a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below).
Moved the bold emphasis to the proper place for ya' NECR0G1ANT. Funny how you persist even though none of us have once claimed to be casting the spell "at a higher spell level." :P (We're just using a different spell slot.)
|
A prepared caster can totally do this, but they would be locked into that choice for the day. Spontaneous casters aren't locked in.
You keep saying "Nothing says we CAN'T do this." Well nothing in the rules states you can't walk through walls, but it's widely agreed upon as a rule. Not to mention the rules for Heightening Spells explicitly says you can not do this. Casting a spell...
You realize that casting a 1st level spell in a 2nd level slot AS a 1st level spell is not heightening? Heightened spells have an increased value equating to the power of the slot being used. I agree 100% about the rules to ‘heighten’ a spell, but that is not in regard to using a bigger slot for the same value as a lower slot.
The word ‘wall’ by default means you can’t walk through it. Definitions matter. You’re equating two separate concepts.
You obviously are missing the point. Just because rules don't say you cant do something doesn't mean you can.
You also are ignoring the other valid points I have made and are focusing only on this one point. Like I said before, casting a spell like True Strike at level 1 or level 4 is exactly the same except for the counteract level of the spell. You should not be able to freely cast these spells with any slot you want without using the mechanic SPECIFICALLY designed to do this.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell Slots pg298
Characters of spellcasting classes can cast a certain number of spells each day; the spells you can cast in a day are referred to as spell slots. At 1st level, a character has only a small number of 1st-level spell slots per day, but as you advance in level, you gain more spell slots and new slots for higher-level spells. A spell’s level indicates its overall power, from 1 to 10.
Note that it states “new slots are used for higher-level spells. A spell’s level indicates it’s overall power...”
It does not state that the slot dictates the power but the spell level does. Though, you have inferred that spell slot = spell level = spell power, I see it the slot is a mere battery that a spell level needs to meet its requirement to use. By that basis, nothing stops one from using a bigger battery to fuel a lower level spell.
|
|
Spell Slots pg298
Characters of spellcasting classes can cast a certain number of spells each day; the spells you can cast in a day are referred to as spell slots. At 1st level, a character has only a small number of 1st-level spell slots per day, but as you advance in level, you gain more spell slots and new slots for higher-level spells. A spell’s level indicates its overall power, from 1 to 10.
Note that it states “new slots are used for higher-level spells. A spell’s level indicates it’s overall power...”
It does not state that the slot dictates the power but the spell level does. Though, you have inferred that spell slot = spell level = spell power, I see it the slot is a mere battery that a spell level needs to meet its requirement to use. By that basis, nothing stops one from using a bigger battery to fuel a lower level spell.
That is just false. The rule is explicitly stating that higher level slots are for the higher level spells.
Please stop trying to argue this point. If you want to do it in your home games that's fine, but it is NOT in the rules, and there are no rules that support the theory.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop trying to argue this point. If you want to do it in your home games that's fine, but it is NOT in the rules, and there are no rules that support the theory.
But there is precedent, as well as the Lead Developer's support.
I agree that the rules aren't as clear on the matter as they could be, but there is certainly enough there that we can justifiably argue the point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop trying to argue this point. If you want to do it in your home games that's fine, but it is NOT in the rules, and there are no rules that support the theory.But there is precedent, as well as the Lead Developer's support.
I agree that the rules aren't as clear on the matter as they could be, but there is certainly enough there that we can justifiably argue the point.
There is a reddit post from a Dev on a question that only sounds similar. That's not an official source, and should not be taken as such.
I'm tempted to write up a general feat called "Decay Spell Slot" that allows a caster to sacrifice a higher level spell slot to gain a lower level spell slot. So if a sorcerer had 4 1st-level slots and 4 2nd-level slots and wanted to cast more 1st-level spells that day, the caster would chose to lose 2 of the 2nd-level slots that day and in exchange gain 2 more 1st-level slots that day. Now the sorcerer will have 6 1st-level slots and 2 2nd-level slots for the day. Even if the sorcerer "decayed" a 9th-level slot to down to 1st-level slot, it would still only make one 1st-level slot. Would this (having a mechanic that specifically depowers the spell slots) be an acceptable framing mechanism to satisfy those arguing that letting spontaneous casters use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells is overpowered?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've wound up disallowing it because the oracle in our group could then spend all their 5th level+ spell slots on Read Omens before he went to bed, which is exausting. He could do the same if he picked Read Omens as a signature spell, but that is actually a significant cost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've wound up disallowing it because the oracle in our group could then spend all their 5th level+ spell slots on Read Omens before he went to bed, which is exausting. He could do the same if he picked Read Omens as a signature spell, but that is actually a significant cost.
It does seem like there are a number of spells like this in the game, but the same could be done with focus powers that let you roll 2 dice on recalling knowledge, and then just spending an hour at the end of the day, recalling knowledge about each enemy you faced, getting to roll 2 times and them recording that information for the next time you encounter that creature.
It is a logical and smart thing to do, that is going to be incredibly tiring for a GM and not increase the fun 90% of the time when the party is never going to encounter that creature again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What this case needs to be definitively settled and no longer ambiguous is for errata to alter the part of the rules that says spontaneous casters choose which spell to use when they choose the slot to use in the casting to add the words "of that spell level" if the intent is to lock spell levels outside of heightening, or "of that spell level or lower" if the non-heightening 'undercast' method is intended as Jason's reddit post suggests it is.
In 1E there was a rule explicitly allowing it, so why do we need to explicitly disallow it in 2E?
Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
There was no spell heightening in 1E, so you would have a pseudo version by being able to spend higher level slots for lower level spells. Now that we can heighten any spell to whatever level we choose we do not need this rule. To infer that this rule, which was explicitly stated in 1E is now inherent in 2E is just ridiculous.
The wording isn't "ambiguous"; nothing explicitly says you can do it, so you can't do it.
|
|
The wording isn't "ambiguous"; nothing explicitly says you can do it, so you can't do it.The wording is "you choose which spell you’re using a spell slot for at the moment you decide to cast it."
The reason this wording is ambiguous is the result of nothing explicitly saying you can, but also nothing explicitly saying you can't - in effect, the ambiguity stems from there being a lack of explicit statement at all.
So if a player asks "Why can't I choose magic missile, which I know and is a 1st-level spell, to be the spell I'm using this 3rd-level spell slot for?" there is no explicit answer, though there are some implied answers. That's ambiguous by defintion.
For it not to be ambiguous, the wording would need to have something you could point to and say "right here is the explicit statement that contradicts your interpretation" which you could then pick out and quote for me instead of just trying to handwave away my reasoned point with the equivalent of "nuh uh."
Your thought process of there needing to be explitit rules preventing you from doing things is flawed. If there's no rule saying you can do something, then you can't. The rules for magic are a list of things you can do with it, so anything not listed means you can not do it. You can cast spells of a certain level with that level of spell slot. You can heighten spells to a higher level to cast it in a higher level slot. You can only cast spells on your tradition's spell list. You can only cast spells on your repertoire. You can only cast a spell at the level you know it at.
The rules are a list of allowances, not a list of restrictions. If it doesn't explain how something works, you can't say it automatically works since it "doesn't say you can't".
Also please stop ignoring my other valid points to try to discredit me. I have an extremely valid point on how PF1 handled it and your just ignoring it since it proves you wrong.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fair to say most of the people in this thread have made valid points.
We just happen to have a disagreement. No biggie.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A spell slot is appropriate for a spell if it is of a level at or above that of the spell you are trying to cast. Simple as that. If the rules meant equal to, they would say equal to. They say appropriate for.
I'm pushing it but for some reason I can't FAQ why there isn't a FAQ...
I'm pushing it but for some reason I can't FAQ why there isn't a FAQ...
Its 1st of April, thats why... ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork, if you were absolutely certain that you JB's three-word answer to another question meant what you say it does, then you wouldn't have needed to ask for clarification. You're reading way too much into such a brief answer.
I have a lot of issues with your posts in this thread, but this is my biggest: Ravingdork wasn't asking for clarification in the recent bump, Ravingdork was just asking for a link to the thing which reasonably supports the ability to engage in (what I can only imagine is) a generally niche and/or desperate tactic, for their own benefit. Please try not to misrepresent others for internet points. (Hopefully I'm not doing so either.)
If spells like Read Omens would be a problem for this, they would also be a problem on a staff, or with a prepared caster that can swap out spells, or with a signature spell (which are already needed for direct damage/defense spells). Spells like True Strike are a problem in general for other reasons. You can't solve problems with such spells by disallowing a mega-niche capability like casting a spell in an appropriate (but inefficient) slot, because overuse of them can just pop up in other ways that are no more enjoyable even if closer to "balanced" — you solve problems with such spells by changing the spells, or working out player behaviour, or making other rule changes.
Ravingdork was just asking for a link to the thing which reasonably supports the ability to engage in (what I can only imagine is) a generally niche and/or desperate tactic, for their own benefit.
I just wanted the source link so I could alleviate this poor fellow's concerns about the game.
Also, I go by he/his pronouns.
|
|
Casting spells with higher spell slots without heightening them doesn't fit into this magic system at all. Lets take a look at some rules here, starting with the Spell Slot rules:
Characters of spellcasting classes can cast a certain number of spells each day; the spells you can cast in a day are referred to as spell slots. At 1st level, a character has only a small number of 1st-level spell slots per day, but as you advance in level, you gain more spell slots and new slots for higher-level spells. A spell’s level indicates its overall power, from 1 to 10.
This explains that high level spell slots are intended for high level spells. Next lets look at Prepared Spells:
If you’re a prepared spellcaster—such as a cleric, druid, or wizard—you must spend time each day preparing spells for that day. At the start of your daily preparations, you select a number of spells of different spell levels determined by your character level and class. Your spells remain prepared until you cast them or until you prepare spells again.
This means when you prepare spells, you must prepare the specific level of spells as determined by the chart for your class. For example, a 5th level Wizard can prepare 3 level 1 spells, 3 level 2 spells, and 2 level 3 spells, plus one to each level if they're specialized. They can not prepare a level 1 spell in a level 3 slot, unless they heighten it to a level 3 spell, as described here:
Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell. A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-level slot than its normal spell level,[/b] while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-level spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that level (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below). When you heighten your spell, the spell’s level increases to match the higher level of the spell slot you’ve prepared it in or used to cast it. This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level.
So prepared casters can only heighten spells, not cast low level spells in higher slots. This isn't an issue, since if the spell is available to them, they can heighten it freely. Meanwhile Spontaneous casters have to follow [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=272]different rules[url] for casting:
If you’re a spontaneous spellcaster—such as a bard or a sorcerer—you choose which spell you’re using a spell slot for at the moment you decide to cast it. This provides you with more freedom in your spellcasting, but you have fewer spells in your spell repertoire, as determined by your character level and class. When you make your daily preparations, all your spell slots are refreshed, but you don’t get to change the spells in your repertoire.
The rules for Heightened Spontaneous Spells have been posted earlier in this thread many times, so I will not repost them. But the question is what if I don't WANT to heighten the spell? Well in the classes it says "You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level." The question is what is an appropriate spell level. I say the Appropriate level of the spell is the same level. If Prepared casters are forced to heighten spells when preparing, why should spontaneous caster not be given the same restriction?
It's clear that spell slots are intended only to cast spells of that level, thus the only way to use that slot for a low level spell is the heighten it, or know the spell at the heightened level. The arguments made are just excuses to try to diminish the impact being able to cast any spell with a higher level spell slot would have. Not just with True Strike, but also with spells like Command, Fear, Grease, Jump, Longstrider, Spider Sting, Unseen Servant, Blur, Enlarge, Glitterdust, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Obscuring Mist, See Invisibility, Telekinetic Maneuver, Touch of Idiocy, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Web, Earthbind, Enthrall, Ghostly Weapon, Gravity Well, Haste, Invisibility Sphere, Levitate, Locate, Meld into Stone, Secret Page, Shrink Item, Slow, Stinking Cloud, Wall of Wind, etc., and these are just in the first three spell levels of the Arcane List. None of the mentioned spells need to be heightened to have either their full effects, or effects that are good enough on their own. We use True Strike as a primary example because it's a powerful spell, but the truth is there are a LOT of spells that can be abused using that method. Playing down the impact will only hurt the game in the long run.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Heightened Spontaneous Spells have been posted earlier in this thread many times, so I will not repost them. But the question is what if I don't WANT to heighten the spell? Well in the classes it says "You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level." The question is what is an appropriate spell level. I say the Appropriate level of the spell is the same level. If Prepared casters are forced to heighten spells when preparing, why should spontaneous caster not be given the same restriction?
I think everyone agrees that this is where the ambiguity lies. "Appropriate" is not clearly defined.
It is why there was so much debate about where magi would even be able to use staves, because they might not even have the lower level spells slots in the first place. It is an ambiguity in the game that people are asking for clarity on from a fully supported design perspective.
There are good and logical reasons to read appropriate as equal to, and as up to. The prepared caster elements are particularly unhelpful to breaking this down, because there is never a good reason to cast a lower level spell in a higher spell slot, if you can heighten it for free. It only matters to spontaneous casters because being able to freely heighten all of their spells would be clearly overpowered. Not everyone agrees that wasting high level spell slots on lower level spells is even a good idea, much less an over powered one.
I think there is a strong possibility that we get some clarity with this in secrets of magic as it will be terminology that matters for the 2 new classes being introduced there.
Ravingdork was just asking for a link to the thing which reasonably supports the ability to engage in (what I can only imagine is) a generally niche and/or desperate tactic, for their own benefit.I just wanted the source link so I could alleviate this poor fellow's concerns about the game.
Also, I go by he/his pronouns.
Yeah, I actually saw that post in that thread at some point, but I wasn't sure if that was the whole reason, nor can I be sure of what you go by without it being noted in your profile thing (because my memory stinks and minds could change). ¯\_('v')_/¯
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork, if you were absolutely certain that you JB's three-word answer to another question meant what you say it does, then you wouldn't have needed to ask for clarification. You're reading way too much into such a brief answer.I have a lot of issues with your posts in this thread, but this is my biggest: Ravingdork wasn't asking for clarification in the recent bump, Ravingdork was just asking for a link to the thing which reasonably supports the ability to engage in (what I can only imagine is) a generally niche and/or desperate tactic, for their own benefit. Please try not to misrepresent others for internet points. (Hopefully I'm not doing so either.)
You are misrepresenting what I said, albeit unintentionally I'm sure. Ravingdork asked Jason Bulmahn on Reddit for clarification (see below), then argued on this thread that JB's remark, and his own interpretation, needed no further clarification.
Jason, just to be clear, can you do this even if you're a spontaneous caster? For example, my 9th-level sorcerer knows fireball as a 3rd-level spell. It is NOT a signature spell for her. Could she cast it as a 3rd-level spell (without any of the benefits of heightening) by expending her 4th- and 5th-level spell slots?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork, if you were absolutely certain that you JB's three-word answer to another question meant what you say it does, then you wouldn't have needed to ask for clarification. You're reading way too much into such a brief answer.I have a lot of issues with your posts in this thread, but this is my biggest: Ravingdork wasn't asking for clarification in the recent bump, Ravingdork was just asking for a link to the thing which reasonably supports the ability to engage in (what I can only imagine is) a generally niche and/or desperate tactic, for their own benefit. Please try not to misrepresent others for internet points. (Hopefully I'm not doing so either.)You are misrepresenting what I said, albeit unintentionally I'm sure. Ravingdork asked Jason Bulmahn on Reddit for clarification (see below), then argued on this thread that JB's remark, and his own interpretation, needed no further clarification.
Jason, just to be clear, can you do this even if you're a spontaneous caster? For example, my 9th-level sorcerer knows fireball as a 3rd-level spell. It is NOT a signature spell for her. Could she cast it as a 3rd-level spell (without any of the benefits of heightening) by expending her 4th- and 5th-level spell slots?
Fair enough on my misread, it certainly wasn't intentional. Still, I think he made it pretty plain that the clarification request on Reddit was a long time ago (6 months, itself 6 months after Bulmahn replied), and that he no longer felt it was especially ambiguous.
Here's the entire exchange between the reddit OP and Jason Bulmahn...Note that my question came six months later. JB is likely unaware that it even exists.
I think Ravingdork is trying to persuade people Jason Bulmahn responded 'yes' to Ravingdork's question when in fact he didn't.Not quite. I am trying to convince people that my interpretation is correct. I am not trying to convince people that JB was saying yes to my request for additional, confirming clarity (which was made 6 months ago; I am more certain of my stance these days than I was then).
I do think that Jason's answer is enough though, as neither JB nor the questions OP listed any qualifiers.
And yet you went ahead and continued to portray it as something he was trying to deceive people with or was still unsure of (the quote at the very beginning of this post of mine), and I think that was wrong of you.
Others have already pointed out the other issues with what you said well enough, I feel.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Others have already pointed out the other issues with what you said well enough, I feel.
I likewise feel that others have cogently argued against the notion the spontaneous casters are capable of casting spells using higher-level spell slots without first heightening those spells.
Furthermore, recent comments have been mostly about tone policing and semantic disputes, which I don't have much patience for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, the underlying reason spontaneous casters can't spontaneously heighten non-Signature spells is because the "Heightening Spells" system is used as a replacement for both PF1-style heightening and spell families.
• Heightened (+X) is traditional heightening where a spell gains added oomph as its level is increased (e.g., fireball), or pseudo-heightening families where a spell is given different variants at different levels to address a shortcoming in spell heightening, (e.g., heal for the cure whatever wounds spells).
• Heightened (Xth) is for the other spell families, typically combining all "lesser Q"/"Q"/"greater Q"-style chains into a single spell with scaling effects, e.g., invisibility and the summon whatever collection.
The problem is that combining the two makes heightening spells significantly more powerful than it is in, e.g., D&D 5e's take on things (for the sake of comparing with another free-heightening system); where 5e generally only combined spell families if they were pseudo-heightening families like cure wounds, PF2 is significantly more zealous. Thus, unrestricted heightening would give more access to family spells than intended... which in turn means that spontaneous casters got shafted:
1) Cleric-style prepared casters are unaffected by this. They prepare from their full list, and thus have all common spells available at all times (during preparation).
2) Wizard-style prepared casters get stronger because of this. They learn from a list and then prepare from their "learned" sub-list... but can automatically heighten any learned spell during preparation. This is presumably to compensate for having to choose what they want to cast during preparations instead of being able to choose on the fly throughout the day, but the logic doesn't really hold up when one realises that Wizard-style casters are also compensated by having significantly more options available to them than spontaneous casters.
3) Spontaneous casters get weaker because of this. Due to families being merged with heightening, they're locked out of the free standard heightening that everyone else enjoys to prevent them from abusing it with their spontaneity. Unfortunately, the method used to do so places significant restrictions on them, forcing them to spend more resources than Wizard-style casters when they have less resources to begin with, as detailed at the bottom of this post. (Some spontaneous casters can partially or completely circumvent this lock... but are required to lock themselves into other features and burn other resources to do so. A good example is the Bard, who can become more flexible, or even a true spontaneous caster, at the cost of having to take a polymath muse and devote multiple class feats to doing so. This includes their capstone feat if they want full spontaneity.)
-----
Overall, PF2 really makes you pay for wanting to be a spontaneous caster. Though, upon closer examination of how it does so, it has the strange quirk of blurring the lines between spontaneous and prepared casters, by dint of adding a second determinator: daily preparation.
• Standard "prepared" casters are now spontaneous-preparation and prepared-usage. While they must make their decisions on which spells they want to use ahead of time, they are able to make this decision once a day, every day. They can heighten any spell they know as needed, or choose to use any spell they want; they just have to make the decision beforehand.
• Standard "spontaneous" casters are now prepared-preparation and spontaneous-usage, which does admittedly sound kinda silly. They have the ability to make their decisions on which spells to cast on the fly, but must decide beforehand which spells they want to have available, and at which levels, to choose from, and are unable to alter this choice "on the fly" during daily preparations. (Note that adding to your repertoire is explicitly framed as, whenever you gain a new slot, you also gaining a spell which fits in that slot... which is what a prepared caster does when preparing spells.)
A Wizard's daily preparations now mirror a Sorcerer's casting, while a Sorcerer's repertoire choices now mirror a Wizard's casting: The former allows any and all available options to be selected for use, while the latter has to lock in options beforehand and can only select the ones they made available to themselves (with little to no room for alteration such as heightening). [This creates an amusing scenario where the Wizard is able to intuitively alter their spells on the fly when they wake up in the morning ("It came to me in a dream!"), while the Sorcerer has to study or experiment with a spell beforehand to figure out how to modify its formula for predetermined results, which is basically the exact opposite of how the classes' casting styles are typically flavoured. ;3]
This is something I personally dislike, since it feels like a decision meant to artificially widen the gap between Sorcerer and Wizard, and lessens the distinction that a Wizard knows more spells but a Sorcerer is better at casting the few spells they do know. Though, considering the Wizard's got his own set of woes...
-----
For comparison:
[Note that the term "choice" will be used here to denote spells added to your spellbook/repertoire. This also ignores the wizard's ability to increase their "repertoire" by adding to their spellbook with Learn a Spell, because there's no way we could even begin to fairly compare a Sorcerer's repertoire to "oh, hey, I know literally every Arcane spell in the game, now gimme your money because I'm broke".]
• A Wizard gains two choices at each level, each of which can be equivalent to one to ten Sorcerer choices depending on heightening options available. (A Wizard can spend one of their two level-up spells on Acidic Burst or Shocking Grasp, and gain access to all ten heightened variants. A Sorcerer has to spend ten level-up spells or a choice and a Signature Spell for the same effect. Both classes could also spend one choice on True Strike, although a Wizard could heighten it to increase the number of uses without increasing the effect.)
• A Sorcerer gains one choice for every slot they gain, which is three on odd levels and one on even levels. This matches the number of spells gained by a Wizard... as long as both classes only choose spells which can't be heightened, and the Wizard never heightens their unheightenable spells anyways. The sole exception here is Lv.10 spells, where the Wizard explicitly has two or three choices more for that spell level than the Sorcerer.
• Despite the above, however, the Sorcerer's first choice of each spell level is locked in (as their bloodline spell), meaning that they effectively have one choice less than the Wizard. This, thankfully, does not apply to their Lv.10 choice. The other two spontaneous casters (Bard and Oracle) explicitly gain one less choice than the Wizard, due to maxing out at three slots per level instead of four. [For the sake of generosity, I will assume that the Sorcerer would've chosen their bloodline spells intentionally, even if they weren't locked in.]
• The Sorcerer also gains one Signature Spell for every spell level they can cast, for a total of ten Signatures; each signature is worth zero to nine Sorcerer choices. (A Signature Spell can be freely heightened, just like Wizard spells, but requires you to have added the selected spell to your repertoire at least once already. Thus, learning-wise it is equivalent to a Wizard choice (1 to 10 Sorcerer spell choices) minus a Sorcerer choice (for the choice spent to initially learn it).
• Factoring in all of the above, a Sorcerer will have to spend more resources to be able to heighten a spell than a wizard would have to spend: The Sorcerer must spend either 2+ choices or a choice and a Signature. They are compensated for having more freedom on when they heighten spells, but will have a significantly smaller number of spells they're able to heighten. The Bard or Oracle has it worse; they both get fewer resources to begin with and have to spend more resources to be able to heighten a spell. This issue is most evident once they gain access to Lv.10 spells, though it's present to a lesser extent from the start.
• And remember, the Wizard is being nice enough to never add spells to their spellbook with the Learn a Spell activity, as taking advantage of Learn a Spell would render this comparison wholly impossible.
It would be nice if spontaneous casters could use Learn a Spell to gain the ability to heighten non-Signature spells already in their repertoire. Something like, e.g., a Sorcerer who knows Lv.3 fireball, but doesn't have it as a Signature, being able to use Learn a Spell to add Lv.6 fireball to their repertoire as a heightening option. It would provide a nice parallel to Wizard-style Learn a Spell, and cause less cognitive dissonance than the current spontaneous Learn a Spell (which allows you to learn how to become able to learn the selected spell later on, but does not actually teach you the spell itself... wait, what? xD). Something such as this would probably need to be limited to "Heightened (+X)" spells, though, to preserve the flavour of spontaneously altering spells you already know. And, y'know, to keep the sorcerer from overshadowing impoverished Wizards that can't afford to buy every spell that's not nailed down and on fire. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say the Appropriate level of the spell is the same level.And if the book actually said that too, you'd be correct that there isn't any ambiguity.
It doesn't, though, so there is.
Because the closest the rules come is when they say "new slots for higher-level spells." but that falls short because "for" doesn't mean "limited to be used in that way", such as how I could have "money for rent" but it could still buy me a pizza if that's what I wanted to spend it on.
Okay, but let me ask you this: Since when have the rules been expected to tell you everything you can't do?
Let's follow the order of logic here.
1. It mentions that you can cast spells using spell slots of the same level, because that's how casting spells works.
2. It doesn't mention that you can cast spells with higher level spell slots other than through the heightened spells rules.
3. Buuuuut, it also doesn't mention that you can't do it, and it's a higher level spell slot, so isn't that appropriate?
Now for my own addition that, RAW, is equally as valid:
4. Buuuuut, it also doesn't mention that you can't do it with lower level spell slots, and doesn't that feel appropriate too? So after I become 5th level and learn fireball I should be able to cast a fireball with a first level slot. Oh, but don't worry, I'm not heightening it, so it's fine :)
Now, obviously it doesn't feel "appropriate", but the same logic can be applied unless you can find a spot in the rules where it says you CAN use higher level spell slots for lower level spells other than through heightening. I have yet to see a single line supporting higher level spell slots being usable for lower level spells outside of the heightening rules. The arguments seem to be:
1. That's how it was in pf1 / other games / it feels right
2. It must be an oversight, because that makes spontaneous casters weaker
3. An unofficial answer from a Dev that may or may not have understood the initial question to be referring to spontaneous casters said that you can do it.
And those aren't convincing to me.
On a side note, I'd personally allow it at my table, but RAW it doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This definitely needs an errata whether to cement NO or allow YES;
only then I'd be able to decide whether to make up an explicit house rule or not on allowing a Fireball (3) cast with a 4th level slot...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, the designers didn’t think to define appropriate because it was the same as first edition. It was so obvious to them they didn’t consider it would be read differently.
It is a little confounding to me to use the word "appropriate" when there is only one spell slot that could possibly be appropriate. Rereading the heightened spells description on page 299 of the core rulebook:
really does leave open the question, "what happens if a spontaneous caster uses a higher-level spell slot, but doesn't know the spell in a higher level?"
Some people seem to think this is impossible, but no where in the rules does it really explain what a spell slot is and what it means for a spell slot to be defined by its level. I think there were just a lot of assumptions that everyone already knew this, and trying to describe it narratively would mean trying to make more logical sense out of vancian casting than I think anyone really wants to try to force into a mechanical section of the rule book.
But the way that I read that sentence in the rule book, it just seems like what would happen if a sorcerer tried to cast a spell using a higher level spell slot, without knowing the spell at that level, is that the spell would just not be heightened.
Hmm... I think the answer might lie in the spontaneous casters' individual Heightening Spells sections.
When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells. This increases the spell's level to match the spell slot. You must have a spell in your spell repertoire at the level you want to cast in order to heighten it to that level. Many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain levels. The signature spells class feature lets you heighten certain spells freely.
This section is reproduced word-for-word in the Bard description, and mostly unchanged for the Oracle description.
When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells. To cast a heightened spell, you must have the heightened version in your repertoire; for example, you can't cast a 3rd-level version of a spell that is only in your repertoire at 1st level. Many spells have specific improvements when they are heightened to certain levels. The signature spells class feature lets you heighten certain spells freely.
If we go strictly by this, then a spell cannot be upcast without heightening it. Heightening it does not necessarily unlock a heightened effect, going by the third sentence, which would imply that using a Lv.2 slot for true strike is indeed considered to be heightening the spell.
This interpretation is also required for dispel magic to function properly. As a generic magic counteract, its effect is wholly dependent on its own level compared to the target effect's level. Dispel magic is explicitly called out as not being able to counteract warp mind, a Lv.7 spell, which means that dispel magic can be heightened to Lv.4 (absolute minimum spell level required to be capable of counteracting a Lv.7 spell); similarly, antimagic field, a Lv.8 spell, states that it can't be affected by dispel magic unless dispel magic is a higher level than it, which means that dispel magic must be heightenable to at least Lv.9. Thus, dispel magic is broken (in the "not functional as intended" sense) if heightening applies only to spells that can be heightened (i.e., spells that have an additional stated effect when heightened), as that would mean that it is unheightenable, and by extension incapable of ever being a high enough level to counteract antimagic field. Thus, casting it with a Lv.9 slot must logically be considered to be heightening it to a Lv.9 dispel magic effect, despite the lack of text stating that it can be heightened, and not leaving it as a Lv.2 effect supplied by a higher-level slot. And from this, we can conclude that casting a spell with a higher-level slot is indeed considered to be heightening that spell, unfortunately for our poor spontaneous casters.
Can is the operative word.
“When you get spell slots of 2nd level and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-level spells”
I keep reading that sentence as optional regarding the “can fill those slots with stronger versions...”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see. I interpret it as giving the option of "stronger versions of lower-level spells versus spells of the slot's actual level", myself, rather than as giving the option of "stronger versions of lower-level spells versus base versions of lower-level spells," myself, because being able to upcast without heightening creates a rulings nightmare for spells like dispel magic, where the sole benefit of heightening is that its level matches the consumed slot's level.
"Why can he counteract that antimagic field, but I can't?"
"Because he made dispel magic a signature spell, and you didn't."
"But we both burned our only Lv.10 slots on it!"
"I know, I know, but yours is still a Lv.2 effect, but his actually scales to the slot's level."
"That's unfair! >.<"
"It is, yeah, but them's the rules."
I'm gonna be honest, if something like the above happened, any sane GM that isn't out to get the party would probably rule that dispel magic is based on the level of the slot used instead of the spell's level (thus making it a free signature for all spontaneous casters), or that it can't be upcast at all unless it's a signature or you have it in your repertoire at a higher level (thus forcing it to follow "all upcasting is heightening").
-----
And now that I think about it, upcasting without heightening also lets you cheese continual flame (by declaring it a Lv.2 spell regardless of the slot level used, though that's mostly a non-issue because it's another "effect depends on spell level" case (and thus upcasting without heightening would make a continual flame cast with a Lv.10 slot count as a Lv.2 spell for counteracting). That's liable to leave a bad taste, too, and be a pain in the rear to keep track of.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I was trying to explain is that being able to use higher level slots spontaneously for lower level spells, without heightening them, leads to abuse. Some spells don't care about being heightened since their effects don't scale, and counteracting isn't an issue. To be able to cast those spells many times over, WITHOUT investing your signature spell in it, breaks the balance of Spontaneous casters. There would be very little reason to pick a prepared caster if this were the case, even with free heightening of spells, because Spontaneous casters can then get all the spells they need with little to no downsides.
If you want to be able to use any spell slot for any spell you know, be a level 20 Polymath Bard. Otherwise invest your Signature Spells in the spells you actually want a ton of.
|
How does this interact with Counterspell for Spontaneous Casters/Sorcerers?
To me, it seems like this interpretation allows for top-level Counteract Check for a number equal to 2-8 times as many spells as a Wizard since the Slot is the only thing that matters here for them unlike for Wizards who need to have the specific spell prepared in a specific slot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep track of the spell level being cast and less the slot used as long as the slot meets the minimum requirement.
Besides the waste of resources using a 10th level slot for a 2nd level continual flame, stating what slot your using versus the spell level itself matters naught to recording. “I have a second level continual flame active” is all that the character needs to say as long as a first level slot wasn’t what was used. Adding the focus to which level slot was used in the recording is just trying to add complication. The same can be used when casting dispel magic or any other spell.
I’m also still failing to see an issue with balance or “too good to be true” moments. Using a six level slot for True Strike is a waste no matter if it’s heightened or not as the alternatives for that slot level are vastly superior.
Frankly, in the end I go with the rules of the GM running. Usually that’s me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I was trying to explain is that being able to use higher level slots spontaneously for lower level spells, without heightening them, leads to abuse.
I understand the claim you're making, I just don't think you've sufficiently proven that it does, in fact, lead to abuse or even imbalance.
In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that not allowing it creates an imbalance in that it makes spontaneous casters (particularly the sorcerer) subpar classes.
How does this interact with Counterspell for Spontaneous Casters/Sorcerers?
To me, it seems like this interpretation allows for top-level Counteract Check for a number equal to 2-8 times as many spells as a Wizard since the Slot is the only thing that matters here for them unlike for Wizards who need to have the specific spell prepared in a specific slot.
This is easy.
Did you heighten it?
Yes > It is harder to counteract.
No > It is very likely to be counteracted.
Note that using a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell is not the same as heightening it to that slot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already did a detailed breakdown as to what the difference is between the two interpretations.
If you permit the undefined faux-heightening to have more slot flexibility it turns into a situation where Spontaneous Spellcasters have between, again let me stress this, effectively two to TEN TIMES as many spells known than is described in the rules in their highest level slots.
Appropriate means you pair the Spell Level with the Slot Level. Quit trying to spin theories based on what is NOT written, that's just flat-out absurd and as reasonable as allowing a rogue to permanently blind any opponent they can strike because they aimed for the eyes because "The rules don't say I can't do it!" This is the Rules forum and it was established well over a decade ago that if you want to discuss the rules you MUST accept that the Rules were written in a "permissive" fashion and NOT a "prohibitory" way because otherwise the Core Rulebook would be thousands of pages long and the game would be unplayable.
Regarding your reply RD: That's wrong, here are the rules realting to Counterspell for Sorcerer.
[Sorcerer] You expend one of your spell slots to counter the triggering creature’s casting of a spell that you have in your repertoire. You lose your spell slot as if you had cast the triggering spell. You then attempt to counteract the triggering spell.
Right there, the feature ONLY cares about the SLOT you expended. I guess this idea not only has Sorcerers cabible of effectively having 20+ Spells functionally able to be casted in 9th level slots (Even more than this if they're Arcane casters, thanks RoW), they are also able to Counterspell a 9th level spell using your 9th level slot despite not knowing or ever being able to actually cast that spell AS a 9th level spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I was trying to explain is that being able to use higher level slots spontaneously for lower level spells, without heightening them, leads to abuse.I understand the claim you're making, I just don't think you've sufficiently proven that it does, in fact, lead to abuse or even imbalance.
In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that not allowing it creates an imbalance in that it makes spontaneous casters (particularly the sorcerer) subpar classes.
Then you haven't been listening. I listed off a couple dozen spells that don't care about heightening, that it would be great to be able to cast a ton of times. Allowing this also means you would have a MUCH larger pool of available spells for higher level slots, rivaling even wizards. For example, for a level 6 slot a Sorcerer should have 4 spells available, plus 1 for each level under it because of signature spells, for a total of 9 spells that can be cast from that slot. If we let them cast anything in that slot without heightening it, that would be up to 24 different spells available to cast at any time you want, just for that slot. That's way more versatility over prepared casters, who have to lock in their spells at the start of the day.
If you want more spells available you should be getting wands or staves. With this being allowed whats the point on those items for Sorcerers?