Signature Spell Expansion says that "you gain two additional signature spells, each of which must have a minimum level of 3rd or lower."
However, it can't have the listed "minimum level" and also allow for lower level selections. The conditions are contradictory.
Was this supposed to be a MAXIMUM level of 3rd or lower? Or perhaps a minimum level of 3rd or HIGHER?
Agree with Nefreet. Minimum level of third or lower means the lowest level of the spell has to be first, second or third.
Maximum level of third or lower wouldn't make sense, because you can heighten any spell. Minimum level of third or higher would be the opposite and mean you could only select high level spells as signatures.
There's no contradiction.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right. Spell attribute "minimum level", meaning the lowest level the spell is available at, has a maximum value of 3.
Doesn't seem quite so clear cut to me, but I digress. It certainly could have been more clearly worded. I'm not the first person to ask about this it would seem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people are acting like this is normal language. minimum level but then it states the maximum level of the spell?
I believe the reason for the somewhat awkward language is that if they just said "maximum of 3rd level" then that would also rule out spells that exist at lower levels but that you learned at higher levels (say, Dispel Magic as one of your 4th level spells known). Instead, we get an awkward sentence that doesn't include an unnecessary extra restriction.
I don't understand why people are acting like this is normal language. minimum level but then it states the maximum level of the spell?How else would you word it concisely?
I wouldn't. I would have excluded the word "minimum" altogether and added a whole extra clarifying sentence.
OK. Can I get some example rulings on specific spells then in order to fully understand this.
Let's say I have a sorcerer that knows Feather Fall as a 1st level spell, Fly as a 4th level spell, and Phantom Steed as a 5th level spell (the level where it can air walk for one round).
So Feather Fall is a 1st level spell. Does it qualify for Signature Spell Expansion?
Fly is a 4th level spell at minimum. Does it qualify for Signature Spell Expansion?
Phantom Steed is a 2nd level spell at minimum, but I know it as a 5th level spell. Does it qualify for Signature Spell Expansion?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feather Fall, yes. Its minimum level is 3 or less.
Fly, no. Minimum level is 4, which is more than 3.
Phantom Steed, yes. The minimum level the spell exists at is 2. The level you know it at is not the restriction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with RD here, the inclusion of the word "minimum" and the context of what's actually being said run counter to one another. It's extremely obvious that you were intended to be able to use this with "Spells 3rd level or lower" but for some reason the included that minimum word which TYPICALLY tells you that you cannot go BELOW that as the floor threshold but then the following words indicate otherwise.
This would easily be fixed by just removing the word minimum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Without that:
You gain two additional signature spells, each of which must have a level of 3rd or lower.
It sounds like it could only be used on spells that you know at 3rd level or lower. So that interpretation would exclude my sorcerer's Phantom Steed spell since it is known as a 5th level spell.
-------
Nope. After taking 15 minutes working on this, I can't come up with any wording that doesn't have the possibility of being misinterpreted and also doesn't take at least twice as much text to properly describe. I can describe it in a paragraph. I can describe it in a sentence that can be misunderstood. But I can't make it both short and clear.
How about...Hmm... Without that:
You gain two additional signature spells, each of which must have a level of 3rd or lower.It sounds like it could only be used on spells that you know at 3rd level or lower. So that interpretation would exclude my sorcerer's Phantom Steed spell since it is known as a 5th level spell.
-------
Nope. After taking 15 minutes working on this, I can't come up with any wording that doesn't have the possibility of being misinterpreted and also doesn't take at least twice as much text to properly describe. I can describe it in a paragraph. I can describe it in a sentence that can be misunderstood. But I can't make it both short and clear.
You gain two additional signature spells, each with a base lowest casting level under 4th.
"The lowest level at which each selected spell can be cast cannot be higher than 3rd."
"The lowest level at which each selected spell can be cast cannot be higher than 3rd."
Every time I read the original text fresh (as in, revist the thread after doing other things for a while) that's how I read it.
But then I think, "but why is the word 'minimum' there?"
Because if it read "you gain two additional signature spells, each of which must have a level of 3rd or lower" the same interpretation falls out: the spell needs to be capable of being cast as a 3rd level spell or lower.
"each of which has a listed level of 3rd or lower" maybe?
"Listed" and "Lowest Level Cast" are the same thing.
I'm sure that's correct, swoosh, but it's hardly straightforward as evidenced by the existence of this thread and others like it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with thenobledrake. It read so clearly to me that I had to read it twice to figure out why you were confused.
What if it simply said "base level" instead of "minimum level?" Would that be clearer to everyone?
|
I think Paizo went with the word that made the most sense to the most people.
Like anything else they print, there will always be someone who interprets it differently.
I mean, look at past FAQ requests from PF1. Even something as elementary as Weapon Focus was questioned.
If they changed this now, you'd spawn an entirely new crop of interpretations claiming that the change in wording was intentional and means something different.
I say leave it as is, and the next time someone else asks the question, just link them to this thread.
What if it simply said "base level" instead of "minimum level?" Would that be clearer to everyone?"minimum level" is clear that it is talking about the lowest level that a spell can be cast at.
"base level" means the same thing, but could easily be misinterpreted as meaning the level your character learned the spell at in a way that "minimum level" can't.
So no, not clearer to everyone.
Minimum might also mean the lowest level your character can cast it at too...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the biggest problem is that none of these terms are actually defined in the rules. If there was simply a line in the rulebook that said:
"a spell's minimum level is the lowest level that the spell can be cast at."
Then all the ambiguity and possible misinterpretations go away. "You gain two additional signature spells, each of which must have a minimum level of 3rd or lower." It now means exactly what it is supposed to mean.