New spellcasters cant use Staves.

[shroudb]

I highlighted this issue in another thread, but i think it merits one of it's own to see if it's intended or not:

shroudb wrote:

That said, i would love some clarification on their usability:

Staves:

Quote:

You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

So, let's say at level 5, you have 2nd and 3rd level slots as Magus. So, you actually you don't have a 1st level slot and a 1st level spell from a staff is no longer something of an "appropraite level" you can cast.

So, if you have a Staff of Divination (as an example), at level 1,2,3,4 you can use it to cast True strike. At level 5 somehow you are stop being able to use the staff since it only has 1st level spells.

That seems... weird, to me.

That said, all this weirdness goes away with multiclass, but that seems more like a bandaid from the general rule that somehow an item stops working for you when your magic becomes stronger.

shroudb wrote:

And the problem is that "get a higher level staff" doesnt solve it either.

Simple staffs have level 1 spells and are level 4 items.
So, at level 5 when you usually get them, you have 2nd and 3rd level slots.

Greater staffs have up to level 3 spells, but are level 8 items.
So at level 9 when you usually get them you have only 4th and 5th level slots.

Major staves have up to 5th level spells, but are level 12 items.
So at level 13 you have only 6th and 7th level slots.

and etc

but it does seems unintended seeing the Summoner picture is actually holding a staff though^^

[Asethe]

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Both Magus and Summoner can use staves and cast from them as long as their spell slots are at least the required level to cast the contained spells, and they know the contained spell they are trying to cast (either in spellbook, or in repetoire)

[shroudb]

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Both Magus and Summoner can use staves and cast from them as long as their spell slots are at least the required level to cast the contained spells, and they know the contained spell they are trying to cast (either in spellbook, or in repetoire)

the language of Staves specifically requires you to have appropriate spellslots.

You don't.

A level 5 magus, doesn't have level 1 spell slots. A staff requires to have specifically "level 1 spellslot".

"casting a lower spell with a higher spell slot" doesn't give you the lower level spell slots that Staves require by the rules.

[WatersLethe]

I have to agree that the RAW appears to be that they can't use Staves. It's easy enough to allow, but it'd be better to spell out somewhere in the rules.

[shroudb]

it's as simple as changing "appropriate spell slots" to "appropriate spellslots or higher"

but it does need some form of official change imo.

[Quandary]

shroudb wrote:

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Both Magus and Summoner can use staves and cast from them as long as their spell slots are at least the required level to cast the contained spells, and they know the contained spell they are trying to cast (either in spellbook, or in repetoire)

the language of Staves specifically requires you to have appropriate spellslots.

The point of what Asethe is referring to is the requirement to cast a spell is having appropriate slot free. Appropriate does not strictly correlate to "exactly the same", if larger container can hold smaller item then it can also be appropriate, for example. EDIT: Thus the distinction between "appropriate" and "uniquely appropriate", the latter singularly exlusive while the former is not. And Jason Bulmahn's affirmation that Heighten effects aren't mandatory when casting spell in higher level slot (even if most would usually prefer to Heighten when able) is in line with the less restrictive interpretation.

Also consider Standby Spell Feat wording "expending a spell slot of a sufficient level to cast the spell". "More than sufficient" is still sufficient, "sufficient" being used instead of simpler "expending a spell slot of THE [exact] spell level". Speaking in terms of "sufficient" is again in line with less restrictive reading, that higher level slots are also appropriate and (more than) sufficient for lower level spells.

[shroudb]

Quandary wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Both Magus and Summoner can use staves and cast from them as long as their spell slots are at least the required level to cast the contained spells, and they know the contained spell they are trying to cast (either in spellbook, or in repetoire)

the language of Staves specifically requires you to have appropriate spellslots.

The point of what Asethe is referring to is the requirement to cast a spell is having appropriate slot free. Appropriate does not strictly correlate to "exactly the same", if larger container can hold smaller item then it can also be appropriate, for example. And Jason Bulmahn's affirmation that Heighten effects aren't mandatory when casting spell in higher level slot (even if most would usually prefer to Heighten when able) is in line with the less restrictive interpretation.

Also consider Standby Spell Feat wording "expending a spell slot of a sufficient level to cast the spell". "More than sufficient" is still sufficient, "sufficient" being used instead of simpler "expending a spell slot of THE [exact] spell level". Speaking in terms of "sufficient" is again in line with less restrictive reading, that higher level slots are also appropriate and (more than) sufficient for lower level spells.

i answered you to the other thread, but for clarity let's put it here again:

Staves have 2 requirements:
be able to cast the spell (which you qualify)
have the appropriate spell slot (which you dont)

It doesnt matter if you *can* use a level 5 spell slot to cast a level 1 spell. that doesn't somehow generate a "level 1 spellslot".

Casting a spell from a Stave doesn't change the level of the spell. So, if you want to use true strike from your staff (using charges) you will ALWAYS cast it as a level 1 spell. You cannot heighten it unless the staff explicitly has the spell on a higher level.

But even at the heighest level of the staves, they still are lower than your lowest spell slot.

So, if you have a staff of healing that has heal level 1, heal level 2, and heal level 3. You can ONLY cast the spell as a level 1 spell as a level 2 spell or as a level 3 spell (using the charges) you can't say "i use 9 charges on Heal 3 and use a 9th level spell slot"

The problem is that by that time, the halfcasters would only have spellslots of level 4+, so neither the level 1, nor the level 2, nor the level 3 are "appropriate spell slots" for the staff.

[HumbleGamer]

I don't get it.

If it has already been clarified/addressed by paizo staff, what would be the problem then?

[shroudb]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I don't get it.

If it has already been clarified/addressed by paizo staff, what would be the problem then?

they have clarified a completely different issue.

using a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell.

which isnt the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that you dont have low level spellslots and that Staves require low level spellslots to be used.

[SkylerJB]

Actually the staff specifies

Quote:

The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it. You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

You are changing the wording. The staff never checks your spell slots. The requirements are that you have the spell on your spell list (which you di), able to cast spells of the appropriate level (you can, as you can use higher spell slots to cast spells of lower levels), and expend a number of charges (which you can).

It seems like the Paizo staff has also clarify this is how staves work.

[shroudb]

SkylerJB wrote:

Actually the staff specifies

Quote:

The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it. You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

You are changing the wording. The staff never checks your spell slots. The requirements are that you have the spell on your spell list (which you di), able to cast spells of the appropriate level (you can, as you can use higher spell slots to cast spells of lower levels), and expend a number of charges (which you can).

It seems like the Paizo staff has also clarify this is how staves work.

you dont have appropriate spell slots.

you have higher level spellslots.

I cant see how "you can use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells" somehow becomes "your higher level spellslots count as lower level spellslots as well".

A 9th level spellslot is a 9th level spell slot. It's not a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9th level spellslot despite what spells you are allowed to cast out of it.

[HumbleGamer]

SkylerJB wrote:

Actually the staff specifies

Quote:

The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it. You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

You are changing the wording. The staff never checks your spell slots. The requirements are that you have the spell on your spell list (which you di), able to cast spells of the appropriate level (you can, as you can use higher spell slots to cast spells of lower levels), and expend a number of charges (which you can).

I also feel this way.

It might seem not the wisest choice for a non "Magus/Summoner", since you will, for example, using a lvl 6 spell slot to cast a lvl 3 spell, but still this would be possible.

[SkylerJB]

shroudb wrote:

SkylerJB wrote:

Actually the staff specifies

Quote:

The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it. You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

You are changing the wording. The staff never checks your spell slots. The requirements are that you have the spell on your spell list (which you di), able to cast spells of the appropriate level (you can, as you can use higher spell slots to cast spells of lower levels), and expend a number of charges (which you can).

It seems like the Paizo staff has also clarify this is how staves work.

you dont have appropriate spell slots.

you have higher level spellslots.

I cant see how "you can use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells" somehow becomes "your higher level spellslots count as lower level spellslots as well".

A 9th level spellslot is a 9th level spell slot. It's not a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9th level spellslot despite what spells you are allowed to cast out of it.

I think I understand where you are confuse and I hope this example can help clarify things for you. I can see where you are making the mistake.

You believe staves check if you are have access to spell slots. The exact wording which I posted above is seeking [able to cast spells of the appropriate level].

Let's grab you Lesser Staff of Divination for the True Strike spell. Let us say our caster is a 5th level Magus.

The 5th level Magus has four spell slots. As specified by his Heightened Spells ability at level 2, he can choose to fill his spell slots with lower level spells.

But he doesn't need to do. Let us say our Magus has True Strike in his spellbook. We have to investigate, can the Magus cast spells of the appropriate level? Which is can he cast level 1 spells so he can use the Lesser Staff of Divination.

Yes. The Magus is capable of doing so. He can use any of his spell slots to prepare True Strike as a 1st level spell. He is thus capable of casting spells of the appropriate level (1).

As he is able to prepare and cast True Strike, and thus able to cast spells of the appropriate level, he is thus able to use the True Strike from his Lesser Staff of Divination.

I hope that clarifies it for you buddy. I can see the confusion between your choice of words [Appropriate Spell Slots] and the wording of the staff instructions [able to cast spells of the appropriate level] but this should show you how it is done.

[Tectorman]

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Both Magus and Summoner can use staves and cast from them as long as their spell slots are at least the required level to cast the contained spells, and they know the contained spell they are trying to cast (either in spellbook, or in repetoire)

Bolding mine.

Where was this? This fixes a lot of my issues with spontaneous casting in this edition.

[AnimatedPaper]

shroudb wrote:

SkylerJB wrote:

Actually the staff specifies

Quote:

The person who prepared a staff can expend the charges to cast spells from it. You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

You are changing the wording. The staff never checks your spell slots. The requirements are that you have the spell on your spell list (which you di), able to cast spells of the appropriate level (you can, as you can use higher spell slots to cast spells of lower levels), and expend a number of charges (which you can).

It seems like the Paizo staff has also clarify this is how staves work.

you dont have appropriate spell slots.

you have higher level spellslots.

I cant see how "you can use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells" somehow becomes "your higher level spellslots count as lower level spellslots as well".

A 9th level spellslot is a 9th level spell slot. It's not a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9th level spellslot despite what spells you are allowed to cast out of it.

To reword Skyler's post, "appropriate level" is not a single level. It is any slot at the minimum level or above. No one is saying that the 9th level slot counts as a 1st level spell, merely that "slot of the appropriate level" is any slot from 1st-10th for a first level spell.

All that said, this should really be clarified, perhaps in a sidebar in Secrets of Magic (and here on the forum too, of course, but also there). Naming this style of casting would help as well, Scaling progression or something, so that they can pop sidebars in about it without having to insert language like this into each class that offers it.

[shroudb]

The thing is for all of this to work we need BOTH:

a)to count "appropriate level" as "same or higher" instead of simply "same"

"appropriate level" is NOT a rules term. It's just whatever one wants to call it. For someone, "appropriate level" is equal. for others, "appropriate level" is equal or more.

AND

b)to have read a random post in Reddit.

As i said in my original post, i do believe that the intention is to allow staves for said characters.

But having to go through 2 conjectures to make it work, or to be following reddit fanatically, is NOT the right way for a rulebook to be written.

So, this issue does require appropriate clarification and to be addressed in the live rulebook.

[Glancer]

It doesn't have to be a codified rules term if we consider the definition of 'appropriate'.

> adjective: appropriate
> suitable or proper in the circumstances.

You would not be able to cast a 3rd level spell from a staff if you only had 2nd level spell slots available, as you cannot use 2nd level slots to cast a 3rd level spell, and therefore you cannot cast spells 'of the appropriate level'.

Having a 5th level spell slot, for example, allows you to cast any spell you know or have access to of 5th level or lower in that slot (where Jason's clarification comes in). It is 'suitable or proper' (i.e. appropriate) for the purposes of using a staff (in the circumstances), since by virtue of having a 5th level slot you are capable of casting a 3rd level spell.

[AnimatedPaper]

Glancer wrote:

It doesn't have to be a codified rules term if we consider the definition of 'appropriate'.

> adjective: appropriate
> suitable or proper in the circumstances.

You would not be able to cast a 3rd level spell from a staff if you only had 2nd level spell slots available, as you cannot use 2nd level slots to cast a 3rd level spell, and therefore you cannot cast spells 'of the appropriate level'.

Having a 5th level spell slot, for example, allows you to cast any spell you know or have access to of 5th level or lower in that slot (where Jason's clarification comes in). It is 'suitable or proper' (i.e. appropriate) for the purposes of using a staff (in the circumstances), since by virtue of having a 5th level slot you are capable of casting a 3rd level spell.

"Appropriate spell slot" might not need to be defined, but I do this this style of casting should be given a game term so that they can more easily talk about how other rules interact with it, like in this case staves.

It's not like Shroudb is going to be the only one that will read "appropriate" as "same level as the slot in question." And frankly I can see some edge cases where not counting as appropriate for a lower level spell might be the correct interpretation. Getting the language to point out those instances as they come up would be helpful.

[Lucas Yew]

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Where is the exact source quote extant in the Internet? Sure, it's a very welcome clarification and a firm Errata material for RAW loving folks (like me), but I never saw it in written form at least in this very forum...

[Angel Hunter D]

Lucas Yew wrote:

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Where is the exact source quote extant in the Internet? Sure, it's a very welcome clarification and a firm Errata material for RAW loving folks (like me), but I never saw it in written form at least in this very forum...

I haven't seen it either, just people saying it's out there. I can go to Roswell to hear that, I wanna see the text!

[graystone]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Lucas Yew wrote:

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Where is the exact source quote extant in the Internet? Sure, it's a very welcome clarification and a firm Errata material for RAW loving folks (like me), but I never saw it in written form at least in this very forum...

I haven't seen it either, just people saying it's out there. I can go to Roswell to hear that, I wanna see the text!

I'm sure it's in the errata that's coming out before the APG comes out... :P

[Asethe]

The post I referenced for those asking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/fmateq/can_you_cast_a_1st_le vel_spell_using_a_2nd_level/

[Tectorman]

Asethe wrote:

The post I referenced for those asking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/fmateq/can_you_cast_a_1st_le vel_spell_using_a_2nd_level/

I just read that, and I still can't be sure he's addressing the specific scenario at hand (i.e., being able to cast a 1st-level spell by expending a 2nd-level or higher spell slot and gaining absolutely none of the benefits of being heightened, or in other words, being able to downgrade a 2nd-level slot to a 1st-level slot).

In any case, I'm glad you provided the link, but this is not something that should be left to some obscure 3-word reply on an entirely different forum. We've been asking this since P2E launched, and if there is an answer one way or the other, it should be explained exhaustively and then be stickied at the top of the Rules forum, the Advice forum, and the General Discussion forum at bare minimum.

[graystone]

Tectorman wrote:

In any case, I'm glad you provided the link, but this is not something that should be left to some obscure 3-word reply on an entirely different forum.

Yeah, posts HERE aren't official so those off in other places are even more suspect. :P

[Ravingdork]

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell.

WHAT!? WHERE!? WHEN!?

I have been BEGGING for this to be the case since 2E first released!

EDIT: I might have jumped the gun a bit there. Is this true only in regard to staff spells, or can a spontaneous caster use their higher level spell slots to cast lower-level non-heightened spells?

EDIT 2: Should have kept reading. You already posted the source. :P

[Vidmaster7]

It's ok everyone he was just really excited.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

"are able to cast spells of the appropriate level"
is different to
"are able to cast spells at the appropriate level"

Definition: of

RAW as long as you can heighten it is fine as you absolutely can cast a spell of that level, just not at that level.

Probably worth a change for clarity sake for folks though.

[Unicore]

A magus never loses the ability to cast lower level spells, they just lose the spell slots. Once they have gain access to a spell level they always have the ability to cast spells of that level, they just don't have their own spell slots to do so. Scrolls, wands and staves are things that give the wizard the ability to cast spells at that level again, even if they don't have the slots. The wording of the Magus arcane spellcasting feature never mentions losing access to specific spell levels, only gaining them. You are reading into the spell chart if you think that no longer having spell slots of a level means that the magus no longer is able to cast spells at that level.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Tectorman wrote:

Asethe wrote:

The post I referenced for those asking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/fmateq/can_you_cast_a_1st_le vel_spell_using_a_2nd_level/

I just read that, and I still can't be sure he's addressing the specific scenario at hand (i.e., being able to cast a 1st-level spell by expending a 2nd-level or higher spell slot and gaining absolutely none of the benefits of being heightened, or in other words, being able to downgrade a 2nd-level slot to a 1st-level slot).

In any case, I'm glad you provided the link, but this is not something that should be left to some obscure 3-word reply on an entirely different forum. We've been asking this since P2E launched, and if there is an answer one way or the other, it should be explained exhaustively and then be stickied at the top of the Rules forum, the Advice forum, and the General Discussion forum at bare minimum.

Question: Can you cast a 1st level spell using a 2nd level slot without the benefits?

Reply: Yes you can.

You can't really get confused or find it obscure unless you add context that isn't currently there. The question is very specific and the answer is very direct.

I will agree that searching reddit should not be a common way of finding intended interpretations to otherwise subjective rule interpretations since this is maybe the second time i've heard of this as the designers intent since release. It is at least an insight that will hopefully be remedied much more officially.

____________________________________

About Magus and Staves in general; there's nothing to support Shoudb's interpretation. There's actually evidence to support the opposite in the wording of the Martial Caster feat.

Martial Caster wrote:

You’ve strengthened your spellcasting to power you in combat.

You gain two 1st-level spell slots, but you can prepare only certain
spells in them: fleet step, jump, mage armor, magic weapon, and
true strike. Automatically add these spells to your spellbook.

When you can cast 4th-level magus spells, the extra slots
increase to 2nd level and you add the spells resist energy,
spider climb, and water breathing. When you can cast 5th-level
magus spells, the extra slots increase to 3rd level and you add
the spells feet to fins and haste. When you can cast 6th-level
magus spells, the extra slots increase to 4th level and you add
the spells fly and freedom of movement.

Specifically when regarding the spells Fleet Step, Magic Weapon and True Strike. There's no wording to suggest that when these spell slots turn into 2nd Level that you can no longer cast those spells just because they are 1st level spells that can not be heightened. This would imply the Player is always assumed to have the capability to cast these spells. This would naturally mean it's also true for grabbing a Staff of Divination and using the Staff to cast True Strike as a 10th level Magus.

[shroudb]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

Asethe wrote:

The post I referenced for those asking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/fmateq/can_you_cast_a_1st_le vel_spell_using_a_2nd_level/

I just read that, and I still can't be sure he's addressing the specific scenario at hand (i.e., being able to cast a 1st-level spell by expending a 2nd-level or higher spell slot and gaining absolutely none of the benefits of being heightened, or in other words, being able to downgrade a 2nd-level slot to a 1st-level slot).

In any case, I'm glad you provided the link, but this is not something that should be left to some obscure 3-word reply on an entirely different forum. We've been asking this since P2E launched, and if there is an answer one way or the other, it should be explained exhaustively and then be stickied at the top of the Rules forum, the Advice forum, and the General Discussion forum at bare minimum.

Question: Can you cast a 1st level spell using a 2nd level slot without the benefits?

Reply: Yes you can.

You can't really get confused or find it obscure unless you add context that isn't currently there. The question is very specific and the answer is very direct.

I will agree that searching reddit should not be a common way of finding intended interpretations to otherwise subjective rule interpretations since this is maybe the second time i've heard of this as the designers intent since release. It is at least an insight that will hopefully be remedied much more officially.

____________________________________

About Magus and Staves in general; there's nothing to support Shoudb's interpretation. There's actually evidence to support the opposite in the wording of the Martial Caster feat.

Martial Caster wrote:

You’ve strengthened your spellcasting to power you in combat.

You gain two 1st-level spell slots, but you can prepare only certain
spells in them: fleet step, jump, mage armor, magic weapon, and
true strike. Automatically add these

...

the second part is irrelevant.

When you preapare a fleet feet as an example in a 2nd level slot, you heighten the spell to the second level.

The - in Spell levels ALWAYS symbolises an absense of said level spellslot, not merely that you have 0 of that spellslots, but that you lack the spell level at all.

My interpetation is also irrelevant of the fact that you can cast a 1st level spell using a higher level spell as a spontaneous caster without heightening, something very specific.

My interpetation was based on "appropriate spell slot" meaning "spell slot of that level", "appropriate" lacks ANY rule goverining it and it is a valid way to use the word.

RAI may be that you can use a staff, but the RAW even at this point, is just a CONJECTURE that lacks any sort of rule language to support it and hinges on a completely seperate and different issue answered on reddit.

While it may be unintended it needs to be addressed in some form in the release.

As you see here:

Quote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Callin13 wrote:

Actually a - means you dont have access to those slots. Like a Ring of Wizardry would give you no benefit. If it was a 0 I would see no issue with it. Upcasting is not the same as having first level spells but being able to cast a lower level spell in a higher slot making it a higher level spell.

I hope I am wrong in this line of thinking.

I think it's important to follow the rules as closely as possible, even if it seems unreasonable. That's the point of these stress tests: To test the stress. It might be the intent (and probably is) that you can still use staves and such, but the way it's currently written you can't and that ambiguity should be addressed for the final product.

Similar to the Summoner's Primal Roar taking a penalty on the demoralize because the beast isn't speaking the correct language (or any language at all). Probably not the intent, but that's what's written and it needs to be pointed out and addressed, not left to DM fiat.

i'm not the only person reading the strict RAW as forbidding staves from these classes.

[Callin13]

I agree with shroudb. Cant even use rings of wizardry since the -

[Themetricsystem]

Well, that's certainly a problem.

Even if this wasn't the intended interpretation I find the discussion to be very interesting indeed. The - symbol is incredibly disruptive to just about every angle of spellcasting for both of these classes.

I really do wonder if just a flat 1 Slot for every Level of Spell across the board would be preferable.

[Unicore]

The wording on the summoner and the wording on the Magus are distinctly unique. I am not sure that a summoner is capable of casting spells of a level lower than their 2nd highest spell slot, but the language that makes it look that way is absent from the magus, largely because of the way that prepared vs spontaneous casting works.

[shroudb]

To repeat myself:
i do honestly believe that the intention is to use staves.
heck, even the picture of the summoner has one!

But "appropiate spell level" was nice and all when you couldn't "lose" spellslots (so you always had the lower level ones) but now it needs to be addressed with proper rule language.

[Unicore]

The problem is there is no where in the wording of Magus that talks at all about how the chart limits the lowest level slots you can cast. It explicitly tells you to look at the chart for the number of spell slots you have and the highest level spells you can cast.

The wording on the summoner is more explicit because everything about how your spell repertoire works has to be different. I agree that the Summoner looks locked out of being able to cast lower level spells (probably an oversight designed to keep them limited to a total of 4 spells known with no signature spells.

But the Magus doesn't have that limitation. Their spell book can be filled with lower level spells that they are capable of casting, they just don't have any slots to cast them with except by heightening them, which they can do for free. The staff basically gives the spells it has as spell slots that can only be cast with charges.

[shroudb]

Unicore wrote:

The problem is there is no where in the wording of Magus that talks at all about how the chart limits the lowest level slots you can cast. It explicitly tells you to look at the chart for the number of spell slots you have and the highest level spells you can cast.

The wording on the summoner is more explicit because everything about how your spell repertoire works has to be different. I agree that the Summoner looks locked out of being able to cast lower level spells (probably an oversight designed to keep them limited to a total of 4 spells known with no signature spells.

But the Magus doesn't have that limitation. Their spell book can be filled with lower level spells that they are capable of casting, they just don't have any slots to cast them with except by heightening them, which they can do for free. The staff basically gives the spells it has as spell slots that can only be cast with charges.

The issue is that staves dont heighten their spells. True strike from staff of divination is always level 1. It's not like you can spend extra charges to cast it as a level 2 spell or a level 3 and etc

For a staff to allow a spell to be cast at a higher level it needs to have that higher level as an option, like healing staff having heal (1st), heal (2nd), and etc

- on the chart, even if not explicitly stated on the description of spellcasting ability indicates absense of said spell slot.

So then "appropriate level" could indeed mean "same or higher" but again, to find this we have to go through conjecture about a totally sepearate issue of a spontaneous caster in reddit to find something relevant to maybe make a ruling.

For such a core issue i think that's a lackluster solution. It needs much more clearer (ruleswise) language.

[Unicore]

shroudb wrote:

Unicore wrote:

The problem is there is no where in the wording of Magus that talks at all about how the chart limits the lowest level slots you can cast. It explicitly tells you to look at the chart for the number of spell slots you have and the highest level spells you can cast.

The wording on the summoner is more explicit because everything about how your spell repertoire works has to be different. I agree that the Summoner looks locked out of being able to cast lower level spells (probably an oversight designed to keep them limited to a total of 4 spells known with no signature spells.

But the Magus doesn't have that limitation. Their spell book can be filled with lower level spells that they are capable of casting, they just don't have any slots to cast them with except by heightening them, which they can do for free. The staff basically gives the spells it has as spell slots that can only be cast with charges.

The issue is that staves dont heighten their spells. True strike from staff of divination is always level 1. It's not like you can spend extra charges to cast it as a level 2 spell or a level 3 and etc

For a staff to allow a spell to be cast at a higher level it needs to have that higher level as an option, like healing staff having heal (1st), heal (2nd), and etc

- on the chart, even if not explicitly stated on the description of spellcasting ability indicates absense of said spell slot.

So then "appropriate level" could indeed mean "same or higher" but again, to find this we have to go through conjecture about a totally sepearate issue of a spontaneous caster in reddit to find something relevant to maybe make a ruling.

For such a core issue i think that's a lackluster solution. It needs much more clearer (ruleswise) language.

I agree that clarity is a good idea, I just don't see the Magus as being denied the ability to cast spells of a level lower than they have slots for, whereas the summoner does look to be limited that way, and that would be a really weird inconsistency.

[breithauptclan]

shroudb wrote:

The - in Spell levels ALWAYS symbolises an absense of said level spellslot, not merely that you have 0 of that spellslots, but that you lack the spell level at all.

Is there somewhere in the rules that actually says that?

I know that the rules make a distinction between '-' and '0' in the table for ranged weapon 'reload' entries. But they also create a specific meaning to both of those symbols.

So what is the quote of the rule that defines the meaning of '-' in the table for spell slots.

[breithauptclan]

My thoughts on it:

Arcane Spellcasting wrote:

The number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots.

That is the sum total of the definition of what those numbers and dashes on the table mean: the number of spells you can prepare at each spell level.

Arcane Spellcasting wrote:

As you increase in level as a magus, your number of spell slots and the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots increase, shown in Table 1–2: Magus Spells per Day.

It does not say anything about the lowest spell level that you can cast.

The result: If you want to cast spells of lower level than what you have spell slots for, you may certainly do so. You just have to find something to power those spells with other than your spell slots. Scrolls, wands, and staves all work fine.

[breithauptclan]

Ah, yes. I remember where the spell slot table made a distinction between '-' and '0'. That was back in D&D 3rd edition. Looks like PF1 also has that.

So yeah. I am guessing that this sentiment is just a simple matter of edition confusion.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

shroudb wrote:

The issue is that staves dont heighten their spells. True strike from staff of divination is always level 1. It's not like you can spend extra charges to cast it as a level 2 spell or a level 3 and etc

Irrelevant, a staff not being capable heightening its own spells has no bearing on your being able to cast the spells of the appropriate level. As I said before, of and at are distinctly different words and have different meanings (definition in previous post).

Both classes are always able to cast level 1 spells via heightening. The requirement cannot ask for the ability to cast level 1 spells from the staff as that would be a requirement calling for itself to be met as a requirement, and that would be impossible.

I can understand how people could be confused, but RAW it works and the language is correct. Anything else is a discussion on clarity.

------

Requirements to cast a spell from a staff:

- Must have the spell on your spell list

- Are able to cast spells of the appropriate level (yes, you are able to cast spells from any level lower than your maximum, again the difference between "of" and "at")

- Have charges in the staff equal to the spell level that is being cast

[Themetricsystem]

You cannot cast a 1st level Spell if you don't have slots for it, it's just that simple though. The staff bumps into that issue, the Magus CANNOT cast a 1st level Spell if they have access to 3rd level or higher Spell Slots.

Sure you can heighten the spells you know but if you don't have an actual slot the staff fails - period. The question to ask here is simple in regard to a Staff:

"Can you cast a 1st Level Spell AS a 1st Level Spell if you don't have a Spell Slot for it?"

The answer is no, you cannot, not unless you are given the ability to do this as Innate or through other means.

All this "of & at" discussion is silly nonsense and justification of vague language to get the desired effect when in reality the PT rules are broken AF and need to be changed but it's not just a few words that need changing, they need to go back to the drawing board on removing Slots well after you already had the ability to cast them. I don't know what they were thinking wholesale removing lower Level Spell Slots as they advance. I get trying to throttle the number of Spells they can get off but they went WAY overboard. Tweaks for this need to set a baseline minimum of 1 per Spell Level that they can cast in order to avoid this kind of stuff, especially since if they don't and they suddenly decide that - equals 0 then the Rings of Wizardry instantly becomes the utter definition of required equipment for a Magus or Arcane Summoner as non-optional purchases.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Shroudb wrote:

the second part is irrelevant.

When you preapare a fleet feet as an example in a 2nd level slot, you heighten the spell to the second level.

The - in Spell levels ALWAYS symbolises an absense of said level spellslot, not merely that you have 0 of that spellslots, but that you lack the spell level at all.

My interpetation is also irrelevant of the fact that you can cast a 1st level spell using a higher level spell as a spontaneous caster without heightening, something very specific.

My interpetation was based on "appropriate spell slot" meaning "spell slot of that level", "appropriate" lacks ANY rule goverining it and it is a valid way to use the word.

RAI may be that you can use a staff, but the RAW even at this point, is just a CONJECTURE that lacks any sort of rule language to support it and hinges on a completely seperate and different issue answered on reddit.

While it may be unintended it needs to be addressed in some form in the release.

The second part isn't irrelevant unless you're cherry-picking your information for your conjecture. Fleet-Foot is a First Level spell. If you can cast it in a Second level slot you are casting a first level spell in a higher slot. The reason i chose those spells in particular is because they gain no benefit from being heightened, so you aren't actually heightening them unless you're talking about it in the context of counterspell; which would be cherry-picking.

Currently going off the chart you could say they lose the ability to cast that level of spell; which is causing the misinterpretation. You could also say they are just being limited to a select number of slots rather than losing the ability to cast that specific level. Both points hold equal weight if the ruling doesn't favor one or the other. The interpretation you are presenting though is implicit in the idea that "-" means "can not". Can you point to this idea being implied anywhere else in the published materials? If not then your conjecture is only valid by adding context the game does not specifically express. This is where i find fault with your point of view.

For having more specific wording for Staves in general i can agree. Personally i find it somewhat confusing for how Staves are intended to work with Innate Spellcasting like the Runescarred Archetype. I've come to a personal conclusion with it, but it still lacks an explanation in favor or against.

[Cyouni]

Themetricsystem wrote:

The question to ask here is simple in regard to a Staff:

"Can you cast a 1st Level Spell AS a 1st Level Spell if you don't have a Spell Slot for it?"

The answer is no, you cannot, not unless you are given the ability to do this as Innate or through other means.

Well, according to the linked thread, "Can you cast a 1st level spell using a 2nd level slot without the benefits?", the answer is yes, you can.

[Themetricsystem]

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

The interpretation you are presenting though is implicit in the idea that "-" means "can not". Can you point to this idea being implied anywhere else in the published materials? If not then your conjecture is only valid...

Yes, easy peasy.

Every Level of Spell that is higher than your Slot Progressions lists "-" in all Spellcasting Class Tables. If you want to argue that "-" DOESN'T mean that they're unable to Cast Spells of that Level (bear in mind the Staff rules fail to state "from your own Spell Slots" but it absolutely DOES mean that otherwise the " are able to cast spells of the appropriate level" bit is totally meaningless because you an use the Cast a Spell Action with Activated Items like Scrolls and other items that do NOT have this rule baked into it) then they are in no way limited on what Level Spells they can discharge from the Staff because of justifications like:

"I CAN cast the Spell, I just don't have slots yet, if I had a Scroll I could totally cast it... so I use Fireball as a 3rd Level Spell at Character Level 4 because I got my hands on it and it's on my Tradition List."

[Pumpkinhead11]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

The interpretation you are presenting though is implicit in the idea that "-" means "can not". Can you point to this idea being implied anywhere else in the published materials? If not then your conjecture is only valid...

Yes, easy peasy.

Every Level of Spell that is higher than your Slot Progressions lists "-" in all Spellcasting Class Tables. If you want to argue that "-" DOESN'T mean that they're unable to Cast Spells of that Level (bear in mind the Staff rules fail to state "from your own Spell Slots" but it absolutely DOES mean that otherwise the " are able to cast spells of the appropriate level" bit is totally meaningless because you an use the Cast a Spell Action with Activated Items like Scrolls and other items that do NOT have this rule baked into it) then they are in no way limited on what Level Spells they can discharge from the Staff because of justifications like:

"I CAN cast the Spell, I just don't have slots yet, if I had a Scroll I could totally cast it... so I use Fireball as a 3rd Level Spell at Character Level 4 because I got my hands on it and it's on my Tradition List."

That's a pure fallacy and straw-manning. The rules are very clear when you gain the ability to cast a higher level of spell. With both of our viewpoints of equal weight then, please point me to the page/paragraph/sentence that says the Magus loses the ability to cast a spell level without inserting your personal interpretation. It should be easy peasy right?

[Themetricsystem]

EDIT: On second thought, debating you here is not worth the effort, especially since I already gave you the concrete info that was asked, and then you moved the goalpost. I cannot help you if you won't actually read the rules and understand that you have to enforce them evenly across all classes unless special carveouts or rules are given to override the general ones.

How about we just both fill out our playtest surveys and leave slinging mud at each other to the children, I won't play the top-manning fallacy claim garbage which you picked up from somewhere along the way and thought sounded like a strong way to push back in defense of your feelings.

You're not even reading the rules, you're injecting what you WANT it to mean over what the rules actually say.

It's a big problem and it's one that needs to be addressed lest they put in print a pair of Classes that can't use Staffs as is clearly intended or later issue FAQs and Errata to clarify their intent, or better yet, give up, on the whole, losing access to lower-level spell slots as the classes advance. It's clearly one of the experimental and controversial things they stuffed into this PT like they have in every other one going back 5 years in order to test the waters and I'd be very happy to see the concept buried alongside the Leadership Feat and infinite wishes of 1st ed.

[Moppy]

Our view on official rules is that if it isn't in a rulebook or the errata/FAQ, it doesn't exist. There's no way we're going to check read reddit and twitter for rules.

The big one for us was natural 20s on attack rolls not being auto-crits. It says they are auto-crit in the attack rules, but Mr Logan Bonner says it isn't on his twitter, and it should work like every other check, being +1 success level. So I assume he's right, but it's ridiculous to have to look there.

[Vidmaster7]

Moppy wrote:

Our view on official rules is that if it isn't in a rulebook or the errata/FAQ, it doesn't exist. There's no way we're going to check read reddit and twitter for rules.

The big one for us was natural 20s on attack rolls not being auto-crits. It says they are auto-crit in the attack rules, but Mr Logan Bonner says it isn't on his twitter, and it should work like every other check, being +1 success level. So I assume he's right, but it's ridiculous to have to look there.

Like it sort of is in practice. in that it's gonna be rare that a natural 20 isn't a critical (you know usually 20 + mods equals success and then it gets upgraded.) but yeah if your nat 20 somehow added up to a miss you would just hit.

[Moppy]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Like it sort of is in practice. in that it's gonna be rare that a natural 20 isn't a critical

Agree for skill checks, but can happen on multiple attacks.

Might happen on untrained skill checks at high level but that would be a very weird game. The chances of a high level party missing a key skill and being unable to compensate with an item or spell are low.