Really stumped here. I've never had these things interact this way, and they stem from one source.
One of my players has a level 12 weapon, plopped in *mental block* spell gem (item level 11), and also has Technomantic Dabbler as a general feat.
I have a few questions:
1) Does Technomantic Dabbler make him a spellcaster, and I mean overall? The sentence that contains the spellcaster bit is also the same one that mentions what ability modifier to use for the spells. I'm hesitant to say yes, since it makes those spells spell-like abilities, and sounds like the intention is to use the CL only for calculations, not to qualify for prerequisites and whatnot.
2) The spell thrower fusion says you can cast the spell "as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class's spell list", but does that make you a spellcaster for that moment if you need to overcome SR? So if he is level 12, does he roll 1d20+12? Or does he just roll a d20? Also, because some spells can be both Mystic and Technomancer, which ability mod is added to the spell DC if it is a spell gem which can be both (if any)?
3) Technomantic Dabbler gives those spells as spell-like abilities, does this mean they are actually a caster? The same argument goes for equipment/items; using something that allows you to use an ability that is like a spell doesn't make you a caster, so why would this feat or feats like it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For everyone's reference:
If you are proficient with and wielding the weapon, as a full action you can cast the spell contained within the spell gem rather than make a normal attack. This allows you to use the spell gem as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class’s spell list.
Unlike the normal rules for using a spell gem, it does not matter if the gem’s item level is higher than your caster level (even if your caster level is 0). However, if the spell gem’s item level is higher than your base attack bonus, once you’ve spent the full action to cast the spell, you must succeed at an attack roll with the weapon against an AC equal to the spell gem’s level + 1 or you fail to cast the spell. This roll represents your expertise with the weapon, and no actual attack or ammunition is used. If you fail to cast a spell from a spell gem, the spell is expended harmlessly and the spell gem is destroyed.
Only spellcasters are capable of using spell gems—if you aren’t a spellcaster, you’re unable to make use of the knowledge that the gem unlocks. You don’t need to know the spell within a spell gem to use it, but the spell must be on your class’s spell list (or have otherwise been added to your spell list) and you must have a high enough key ability score to cast it. If the spell gem’s item level is higher than your caster level, once you’ve spent the full casting time of the spell, you must succeed at a caster level check with a DC equal to the spell gem’s item level + 1 or you fail to cast the spell. If you fail to cast a spell from a spell gem, the spell remains within the gem and you can attempt to use it again.
To craft a spell gem, you have to know the spell you’re encoding into the gem. If a spell requires expensive materials as part of its casting (such as raise dead), you must provide those while crafting the gem, and the gem’s price is increased by the price of the components. You can create larger, compound spell gems with multiple spells in multiple lattices, with a price equal to the total price of all spells stored within it. Such spell gems can be used to cast only one spell at a time.
So..
1) It is not clear. I have concluded that they are spell casters, but effectively have those 3 spells 'on their list', which then consists of 3 spells. This is for the sake of spell gems.
2) Most definitely yes, it would make no sense otherwise. As for which class list to treat it from, I lean toward two boats that end the same. One, they get to choose which list its is from (they choose). Or, my preference, they just use whichever stat is better when casting ('cause why not?).
3) In the text it doesn't say spell-like ability anywhere. Therefore I am under the impression that they are not spell-like abilities. Is like is not is, would be my argument, therefore no caster.
For everyone's reference:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **...
I actually didn't realize it doesn't say "spell-like ability" and very specifically omits that verbiage as well as states that they are spells. Not even sure show I missed that distinction. Thanks for the catch.
As far as the second instance: I would say if they are that spellcaster, they should add that specific caster's ability mod. However, another quick read doesn't affirm for or against using whichever mod they may have that is higher. I just think it makes more sense that if they are a spellcaster from that feat, they should really only understand how to cast or invoke spells in "that way" (i.e. INT-based vs WIS-based).
However, in the instance of spell throwers on non-casters, which ability mod (if any) should be applied? I've been meaning towards just 10 + spell level, since it calls out potential "level 0" casters, meaning they expect non-casters.
|
|
It just seems unnecessarily limiting, especially considering they are not really using their own abilities, but those of the spell thrower.
Right, they do expect non casters and it specifically says "...it does not matter if...", leading me to again focus on the fact that the spell thrower is doing most of the heavy lifting. And it taps into the appropriate aspects of the 'caster'.
It is mostly unclear and you can run it as you like. I for one view it as a 'why not?'. Why not allow them to use it in the most effective way? The highest level spell you can cast with a spell thrower is 1/4 you level anyway. As spells are made within the scaling system AND a spell gem doesn't cost nothing (nor does a spell thrower cost nothing, nor does the item they need of specific level in order to cast cost nothing), I say give it to them. They're spending money and full round actions on them. They've paid for it.
The highest level spell you can cast with a spell thrower is 1/4 you level anyway.
That's "a spell level no greater than one-quarter the weapon’s item level" not the character's level.
As to the OP questions:
1) Yes, by the way the feat is worded, but a very limited one. The spells gained from the feat are the only ones on your "spell list."
2) Since the fusion is technically "casting" the spell in the spell gem, instead of the character*, I'd say the effective caster level is the character's BAB for overcoming SR (or anything else).
3) See the wording of the Psychic Power and Stage Magic feat chains. They are explicitly spell-like abilities. Likewise, magic items are magic items. Neither of these make a character a spell caster.
*- note that the Arcanamirium Sage archetype's Spell Gem Manipulation feature lets you cast spells from a spell gem; however, you either need to expend spell slots (which the Connection Inkling and Technomantic Dabbler feats do not grant) or can only do so once per day.
|
|
...yes Dragonchess, the weapon's item level. Allow me to rephrase:
"The highest level spell you can cast with a spell thrower is essentially 1/4 your level."
That was my intention, I am sorry I did not say it. Though, that specificity is generally irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make which was, lower level spells are not going to be overpowered due to how the game is designed.
"2)" The fusion is in fact not technically casting the spell. Technically, the fusion is allowing the user to temporarily be treated as a spellcaster ("This allows you to use the spell gem as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class’s spell list."). Therefore, the caster level is your character level because you are, at the moment, considered a caster.