The issue with looking explicitly at the chart for determining what spell levels a character can NO LONGER cast is there is absolutely no text in the game that talks about it, anywhere except in the summoner spellcasting block that should only apply to it as a spont. caster and not the Magus. It is possible that they are testing how people read those charts as a part of the playtest and different people coming to different conclusions about it is worth reporting so that they might choose more clear language based upon their desire.
Trying to use the 4 spell progression as a way of preventing these classes from using staves on the other hand, seems like a massive design mistake to me, which is why I don't believe that is the intention. The 4 spell slot restriction is already pushing MCing into a full casting class as a strong option for these two classes. Letting them ONLY to get access to staves by MCing as well is just a further push away from choosing feats from the classes instead of MC feats. Making sure the language on that is fixed by the final is really not a difficult task for the developers so pointing out that people have different readings on this, wonderful! It shows that the language is not as clear as it could be. Getting worked up about other people interpreting it differently? Is probably self-defeating to playtesting the material as you and your table read it, as you will just get angry over something that one way or another is very likely to change by the time it matters.
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.
A magus can always cast a spell of 1st level, it cannot cast a spell at first level once it lacks those slots. You throwing out the language and calling it silly to suit your own purpose/argument of calling it broken doesn't stop this from being the case. To put it another way, "Nuh uh" isn't an argument.
I have made it quite clear that I do agree that it could be made clearer. But again, it is RAW, this is just how the english language works, your blatant ignoring of this fact and suggesting that it is disingenuous reading needs to be backed up with something.
Now, if either class didn't have the ability to heighten any spell they knew, then sure...
Was the text designed with these classes in mind, almost certainly not. Just a happy coincidence that it doesn't break thanks to their specific wording, it happens in a number of places in the CRB, both positively and negatively.
A Magic Missile is a level 1 spell, it becomes a level 5 spell when cast from a level 5 slot (although not for the purposes of spell identification, because it is still a level 1 spell ofc). But it is still a level 1 spell, you are still capable of casting spells OF a 1st level. The whole point of the limitation is so that people don't cast spells of levels higher than their maximum spell level.
If the summoner didn't have every spell known as a signature spell there might be a hard RAW reading to this saying it didn't work. But as is your reading requires you to both be extremely retentive on RAI while also disregarding the retentiveness required to go with a RAW ruling. All while decrying it as irredeemably broken.
This argument is like being in a house where there is a roof that has a crack in it and needs some fixing, and arguing that the whole roof has collapsed there is no roof and it killed your dog. Yes things need fixing, but let's not pretend like it doesn't work as is just to make a point about something we don't like or are concerned about.
It is quite obvious from your last points that you don't like their design approach, that is not to do with this discussion. This is purely about whether they can use a staff.
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.
What you point to as evidence is what’s bringing subjective views; so we can both point to it as evidence and end up nowhere. That’s why i asked if you can point to anything in any other published material that supports your view since i have not come across it. I haven’t moved the goalpost one inch. In fact I’m not even using the reddit post as an official source for my own point of view since it’s not in a rule book or errata as of yet.
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.
You're not even reading the rules, you're injecting what you WANT it to mean over what the rules actually say.
Both of these are baseless accusations, and particularly insulting ones at that. Anyone can check my post history and note that i go to great lengths to source my information by book, page number and even quote the wording to the best that i can. I won’t say i am perfect, and my interpretation can still be mislead, but to so strongly suggest i not only haven’t but don’t bother to read the rules is well out of line and is the definition of libel.
. . . 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.
“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."
I never said, nor supported, such an idea. Claiming that was where i was arguing from is what i considered straw-manning. Personally i loathe using the term since personally it feels like more of a buzzword, but that’s the best way i can describe how it came across. If this seemed like mud slinging on my part then i have no issue apologizing that it came across that way.
How about we just both fill out our playtest surveys . . .
I absolutely 100% agree. Better wording is something i will always advocate for. I was only debating the idea and not the person. It still comes across as a rather wild interpretation of the rules to me; but we can agree to disagree and support each other for more clearly written rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between "you can't cast spells without a spell slot for that level" and "you can't cast spells from a spell slot without a spell slot at that level".
Does everyone see the difference between those two statements?
So when the spellcasting rules say
your number of spell slots and the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots increase
It is not saying that you can no longer cast spells of lower levels that you no longer have spell slots for. Just that if you don't have spell slots for that level, you can't cast spells from spell slots at those levels.
And where the Staff rules say
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.
It does not require that you are able to cast spells from a spell slot at that level. Just that you are able to cast spells at that level. Don't add words that aren't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I read it, Summoners cannot ever use staves. They lose the ability to cast the spell levels at the point when they can use them. They also lose those lower level spells from their repertoire completely. I REALLY don't like that at all. Is the Summoner only allowed to know 4 spells total, ever? Stupid.
It does not require that you are able to cast spells from a spell slot at that level. Just that you are able to cast spells at that level.
You can't prepare a spell without a slot of that level. You can't cast a spell that isn't prepared. Hence you can't cast spells of a level you don't have slots for.
You can't cast a spell that isn't prepared.
You can cast a spell that isn't prepared. That is exactly what staves allow you to do.
Are people actually playing the rules for staves that you have to have Produce Flame and Burning Hands prepared in your spell slots in order to invest a Staff of Fire?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't cast a spell that isn't prepared.You can cast a spell that isn't prepared. That is exactly what staves allow you to do.
No you can't because you don't have a slot that you can prepare that level of spell in.
IE, if you don't have 1st level slots, you can't cast 1st level spells and if you can't cast 1st level spells you can't use a staff for a 1st level spell: it is as true for slots above the slots you have as much as it is you those under the slots you have. Or are you saying that you can cast a 5th level spell when your highest slot if 4th?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm saying you can cast a 1st level spell. Just not with a spell slot that you don't have. Being able to cast spells at that level qualifies you for investing the staff.
IE, if you don't have 1st level slots, you can't cast 1st level spells and if you can't cast 1st level spells you can't use a staff for a 1st level spell
This is where it fails again to convince me. No where has that actually been determined. The rules say that if you don't have spell slots you can't prepare spells of that level and cast them from your spell slots. The requirements for staves simply says that you are able to cast spells of that level. It doesn't have to be cast from spell slots. Just that you are capable of handling nth level spells.
And again you have stated this without any rules text to back it up. Saying it again isn't helpful.
My version of that sentence is instead: "if you don't have 1st level slots, you can't cast 1st level spells from spell slots" Which matches up with the rules text for Arcane Spellcasting:
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.
I'm not able to sleep with this still hanging over my head, so I am going to have to try and clarify things. And I apologize in advance for pedantic language. I'm not trying to be pompous, I'm trying to be precise so that I am not misunderstood.
First, I understand where people are coming from in thinking that spell slots define spell access. Where if you don't have a single spell slot of a particular level, then you don't have access to that spell level for anything at all. There is a lot of rules language that seems to make that assumption. For example the Spellcasting Archetype feats that only say that they provide spell slots and make no mention of spell access.
For most characters, that assumption holds. But we now have characters where it may or may not be the case.
But I consider spell access and spell slots to be separate and distinct rules entities.
Spell Access: You can cast spells of nth level.
Spell Slots: You can prepare x spells of nth level during your daily preparations.
Part of my justification for this separation is in the definition of spell slots. I quoted it earlier also, but here it is again. "The
number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots." It says nothing about being able to cast spells or not. That is defined separately.
Even though spell access and spell slots are defined on the same table, they are separate. There is precedent for that in spontaneous casters. It explicitly says that the number of spells known and the number of spell slots you have are defined by the same number on the table, but the rule entities are separate. Things that change one value don't change the other automatically.
Similarly, changing the number of spell slots that a prepared caster has available does not change the maximum (or minimum) level of spells that they can cast automatically.
Now, it would be silly for a character to have spell slots for a spell level that they don't have spell access to. Maybe that could happen with negative levels or something like that (but I think negative levels went away in this edition). So having a character with 4th level spell slots but not 4th level spell access would be an error. They couldn't cast the spells that they have prepared.
However, it does make sense for a character to have spell access to a spell level that they don't have spell slots for. They could cast the spell at that level, but they couldn't prepare any spells at that level during their daily preparations. This is the state that I believe the 3rd level Magus and Summoner to be in. They can use the Cast a Spell activity for 1st level spells, but they don't have any spell slots to store spells of 1st level in.
But the staff doesn't care about spell slots. It only cares about spell access. You simply have to be able to cast the spell at the appropriate level. So a basic Staff of Fire only cares if you have spell access to 1st level spells. You "are able to cast spells of the appropriate level". It says nothing about spell slots or preparing spells of that level. The staff doesn't care how much room in your head you have for spells, it only cares about whether you know how to cast the spells that it contains.
Scrolls work the same way. A scroll has a fixed spell level when it is created and cannot be cast heightened. So a 3rd level Summoner that finds a 1st level scroll as loot can still cast the 1st level spell on that scroll. The scroll doesn't care that the Summoner doesn't have a spell slot of 1st level.
------------
First point: does anyone see any logical problems in what I have presented? Any rules that I have missed that would contradict my thinking? Things like that.
You can disagree with my thinking, of course. But I am more interested in knowing if there is something objectively wrong with it.
------------
Second point: Assuming that my logic is a sound and valid interpretation of the rules, I am invoking the Ambiguous Rules clause.
We have here two valid, possible interpretations of the rules as they are written. The first interpretation is that losing the spell slots causes loss of the spell access at that level of spell also. The second interpretation is that spell access is not dependent on actually having spell slots of that level - you can lose the spell slots of a given level, but keep the ability to cast spells of that level.
However, the first interpretation does indeed have "problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended". It creates a scenario where some characters are unilaterally forbidden from using at least two entire types of items. Item types that they would very much like to be able to use. In fact, the classes may be designed with the intent that they use these item types more than other classes. It is 'too bad to be true'.
So instead we should be using the second possible rule interpretation. The one that doesn't cause even more problems for these two classes than they already have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because this is a playtest with a new mechanic the game has never handled before, I think there is validity in pointing out that there is ambiguity and some people are reading the charts one way and others a different, but trying to suss out the legalese of it is not a particularly useful endeavor. Playtesting the classes without staves feels like a massive mistake to me because there are much more effective ways to deny these classes staves if that is the intention, and denying them staves, except if they multiclass is a terrible mechanic.
Having a staff that works one day for the class and not the next time they level up is only going to make players irate for now actual benefit. Which is why, even if there is a problem with the wording right now, which I don't think there is for the Magus (maybe for the summoner) I am confident it will get fixed and all we have to do is say, huh, this play test rule is being read in 2 different ways.
This is from the other thread but I think it helpful in better explaining my thinking.
Losing your 1st level spell slots is losing the ability to cast 1st level spells, and I'm not particularly interested in engaging in a circular argument that amounts to "it doesn't say you can't cast 1st level spells, you just can't cast them."
Things get confusing if you ignore homographs. To illustrate that, let me present my favorite sentence:
I am present in the present to present a present.
I like this one better than "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" because 1) all four of those 'present' words are distinct, separate words; 2) one of those words is even pronounced differently than the other three; and 3) all of them are in common usage in modern English.
So yes, there is in fact a very important and impactful distinction between "can you cast spells of 1st level" and "can you cast spells of 1st level" even though they are identical when written.
Spell access meaning: "can you cast spells of 1st level" - are you able to use the Cast a Spell activity applied to a 1st level spell.
Practical application meaning: "can you cast spells of 1st level" - do you have a spell slot that you can prepare a first level spell in and then cast it from there.
Very different meanings.
It does not require that you are able to cast spells from a spell slot at that level. Just that you are able to cast spells at that level.You can't prepare a spell without a slot of that level. You can't cast a spell that isn't prepared. Hence you can't cast spells of a level you don't have slots for.
A level 10 summoner cannot cast a level 1 magic missile, a level 10 spell can cast a spell of level 1 (magic missile).
The issue here is that spell levels are different before prepared/known.
A magus simply learns spells and they heighten when they prepare them, the spells have their original level until they heighten and thus come from / are of a level.
A summoner has every spell as a signature spell and has the same deal.
A level 10 summoner cannot cast a level 1 magic missile, a level 10 spell can cast a spell of level 1 (magic missile).
No, level 10 slot can cast a level 10 spell [as per heightening]. A magic missile cast from a 9th level slot is a level 9 spell and so on. At no point is a level one spell cast as there is no level 1 slots to use.
The issue here is that spell levels are different before prepared/known.
IMO, meaningless. For instance, a Staff of Fire (Greater)has burning hands, level 1 and 2. a 1st level wizard can't cast the 2nd level one even though you you can first learn that spell at 1st. It's the same thing: you don't have the slot, you can't cast it.
For the signature spell, it doesn't grant you access to spells of a level you don't have: a 3rd sorcerer can't cast a 3th level magic missile anymore than a 20th level Summoner can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.
But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.
There is no assumption: That SAME chart removes the slots and you can't cast spells of a certain level without slots for that level.
Second, access to a spell and casting of a spell are different thing. If I have access to a spell and no bullets, I can't fire it. If I have access to 1st level spells but I don't have slots for it, I can't cast it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.
Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, play it how you want, but it seems incredibly unlikely that it is intended for magus to not be able to use staves with lower level spells (especially since they get a feat which restores 1st level spells 1 level after they lose them).
SO the question becomes why add some added useless situational complexity for no mechanical reason? It is clearly not going to be an issue post the play test so ignoring the effect that staves can have on both classes is a mistake.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.
Sure, quote a passage from a rulebook if it's so clear and defined then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, quote a passage from a rulebook if it's so clear and defined then.But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.
Quote a rule going the other way. The rule that says "you can't cast spells of a certain level from an item without spell slots of that level."
If you are arguing that the rules are ambiguous, I am all for that. But if you are going to demand rules citation from your opposition, be prepared to provide them yourself.
No, level 10 slot can cast a level 10 spell [as per heightening]. A magic missile cast from a 9th level slot is a level 9 spell and so on. At no point is a level one spell cast as there is no level 1 slots to use.
IMO, meaningless. For instance, a Staff of Fire (Greater)has burning hands, level 1 and 2. a 1st level wizard can't cast the 2nd level one even though you you can first learn that spell at 1st. It's the same thing: you don't have the slot, you can't cast it.
For the signature spell, it doesn't grant you access to spells of a level you don't have: a 3rd sorcerer can't cast a 3th level magic missile anymore than a 20th level Summoner can.
That is kinda my point. Spells have levels that are distinct before heightening or casting, that they change when heightened doesn't stop them from being a spell of a level.
This is supported both by the text in identifying spells and heightening. The former having the spell remain it's original level for identification purposes, the latter stating that the spell level is "increasing", which necessitates that the spell was a lower level.
A level 20 wizard can heighten magic missile to any slot from levels 1-10, the spell cast is increased to a level equal to the slot it is cast from, the spell is still a level 1 spell and is only one entry into their spell book.
A level 5 sorcerer picks up a level 2 uncommon spell scroll and learns it, if they want to add it to their repertoire they do not have to find a level 3 spell scroll, they just have learn it as a level 3 spell or make it their signature spell. This is because heightening is separate from the spells level despite altering the spells level. The spell is still a level 2 spell, they have learned at is a level 3 spell for heightening purposes (covered by the spellcasting section in the sorcerer class).
The text in the staff requirements reads
are able to cast spells of the appropriate level
This doesn't reference spell slots, only spells, spells are distinct entities that have defined levels as I pointed out earlier. It is referencing casting spells of a level rather than at a level, which I know I have harped on about but if we are being pedantic with our readings it is important to be consistent. Which is why I linked the definition and will do so again. definition link
"somebody/something belongs to a group, often after some, a few, etc."So, you are able(capable) of casting spells belonging to a level. A level 5 magus can cast level 1 heightened spells, those spells still belong/are of the level 1 group of spells. The spell is a level 3 spell when cast, but it is also its original level.
If it used spell slots as its metric then we could go into why you couldn't cast level 1 spells from a staff if you used up all of your level 1 spell slots for a day even if you had charges remaiuning, and that is silly.
In summary:
- Spells have distinct levels
- Heightening increases levels when cast specifically
- The staff references the spell, not the spell slot.
- A wizard with magic missile has one spell entry not one per level
- Identifying spells identify at their original level, because the spell has a distinct level that only changes when it is cast imparting changes at that point in time.
- A caster is able to cast spells of any level under their maximum. They may not be able to cast spells at any level under their maximum.
Is anyone here actually arguing that the purpose of this rule isn't purely to stop people from casting spells of a higher level than their class is currently able to from magical staves? And if so what is your reasoning?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, I'll lay it out.
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. Casting a Spell from a staff requires holding the staff (typically in one hand) and Activating the staff by Casting the Spell, which takes the spell’s normal number of actions.
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.
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, 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.
In addition, many spells have additional specific benefits when they are heightened, such as increased damage.
So, taken together we see that the Spells you're functionally able to cast via the Spellcasting Class feature are known as Spell Slots. You can cast these Spells, as indicated on the relevant Class level Progression Table as you are provided with a number of them.
You are also able to Heighten Spells from a lower level to a higher Spell Slot, provided you meet all other related requirements (differs by class). This raises the spell level. <<<< Once you Heighten a Spell, it's level changes, period, and you treat it as the level of the slot you are using but here is the thing, Staffs don't care about that and they don't interact with Heightening at all.
The Staff is looking explicitly for spell slots and spell levels here. If you don't have Spell Slots for a given spell level to match the various Spells that are stored in the Staff then you cannot consume the Charges to use the Stored Spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The post I referenced for those asking:
Linkified.
For starters, not an official clarification or errata, meaning it's not an actual rule. Furthermore, it's on some off-beat site that has no direct ties to Paizo. I won't discount that Paizo employees may have Reddit accounts and actually use them, but it's dubious at best to assume that those are the actual handles they use, and it isn't just somebody trying to troll someone or stir the pot for their own amusement. It's the internet, after all, and Reddit of all places is a place for trolls and other mischievous users thrive.
Furthermore, this is something about casting lower level spells with higher level slots for spontaneous casting. Prepared casting doesn't have this problem (though usually it is heightened to levels where it gets inherent benefits by choice, not by sheer happenstance like with Spontaneous casting). Staves do not enter into this equation whatsoever, as this is talking about slots. Staves don't have slots, they have charges, and those charges cannot be spent unless you possess appropriate level slots to cast the spells the staff possesses.
At best you can argue what appropriate level slots are via GM FIAT, because it's not properly defined what that actually means. It can just as well mean exact levels as it would mean minimum level or higher. Either one isn't unreasonable, as a Greater Necromancy Staff wouldn't let me cast a 5th level Vampiric Touch spell with charges just because I have only 5th and 6th level slots, and a 5th level Vampiric Touch may be appropriate here since it has the amount of charges, plus a lower level version of the spell available to me. So could trying to cast a 1st level Grim Tendrils when I only have 2nd or 3rd level spell slots.
Lastly, staves weren't built around the idea of partial spell slot progressions. A 2nd level Wizard has as many standard 1st level spell slots as a 20th level Wizard on the spell slots table (barring feats, magic items, and so on, which aren't part of the spell slot table). Chances are, Staves weren't constructed with the concept of partial spell slot casters in mind, meaning it's very easy to conclude that the lack of staves being functional in certain levels of play compared to other levels of play is obviously an oversight that would need errata in the new book (or the Core) to future-proof this sort of thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, quote a passage from a rulebook if it's so clear and defined then.But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.Quote a rule going the other way. The rule that says "you can't cast spells of a certain level from an item without spell slots of that level."
If you are arguing that the rules are ambiguous, I am all for that. But if you are going to demand rules citation from your opposition, be prepared to provide them yourself.
That's not how this works, the rules say what you can do, not what you can't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how this works, the rules say what you can do, not what you can't.Sure, quote a passage from a rulebook if it's so clear and defined then.But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.Quote a rule going the other way. The rule that says "you can't cast spells of a certain level from an item without spell slots of that level."
If you are arguing that the rules are ambiguous, I am all for that. But if you are going to demand rules citation from your opposition, be prepared to provide them yourself.
And the rules say you can cast a spell if you have slots of the spells level or greater.
Staves working is the null hypothesis for the game design. The burden of evidence is on those who claim otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the new class should be able to use staves, that this is just an oversight of the playtest (which is kind of the point of a playtest).
This could be easily fixed if the just use (0) not (-) for the spell slot of the lower level spells.
I read somewhere on here by one of the Devs (can't remember who) that if there are two ways to read a rule. One that makes things not work and the other that makes it work, use the one that works. Not an exact quote but it was something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly possible. But as it stands, GMs can deny it, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so (even if unfair). This can be especially problematic in PFS.
I believe you're referring to the GM rule that states that if a rule is contradictory or unable to work that the table comes to a compromise as to change how said rule works, with GM having the final say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how this works, the rules say what you can do, not what you can't.Sure, quote a passage from a rulebook if it's so clear and defined then.But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.Quote a rule going the other way. The rule that says "you can't cast spells of a certain level from an item without spell slots of that level."
If you are arguing that the rules are ambiguous, I am all for that. But if you are going to demand rules citation from your opposition, be prepared to provide them yourself.
And the rules say you can cast a spell if you have slots of the spells level or greater.
Staves working is the null hypothesis for the game design. The burden of evidence is on those who claim otherwise.
For Spontaneous spellcasters, this is true. For Prepared spellcasters, that's only true if they have True Strike or Magic Missile prepared as a 2nd level slot, for example. They can't just cast spells for free like that.
You also can't really say whether something is the standard without evidence to claim that it is, in this case, as the positive or negative arguments in this case are on equal footing. The rules can just as easily permit as well as deny staves working for these classes, based on what a GM would consider an "appropriate spell (slot)" for the ability to cast spells from the staff. This isn't like trying to prove something did or didn't happen in a court of law, where "Innocent until proven guilty" translates to "Burden of proof is on those claiming something happened, otherwise it didn't happen."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the rules say you can cast a spell if you have slots of the spells level or greater.
No they don't. If they did, this wouldn't be an issue.
They say if you can cast spells of the appropriate level. You're interpreting "appropriate" as meaning "of the same level or greater" but the rules don't actually say that, and "of that exact level" is at least an equally valid interpretation, if not the more likely one.
It's certainly possible. But as it stands, GMs can deny it, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so (even if unfair). This can be especially problematic in PFS.
Sure, but PFS is not participating in the Playtest. The ambiguity has been noted (extensively), so one way or the other will be addressed in the final book.
For now, play how you enjoy and make a note when reporting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one way or the other will be addressed in the final book.
One would hope, but there are no guarantees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, I'll lay it out.
Cool. Thank you much for this.
I'm rearranging the order of quotes and omitting the rules quotes.
You are also able to Heighten Spells from a lower level to a higher Spell Slot, provided you meet all other related requirements (differs by class). This raises the spell level. <<<< Once you Heighten a Spell, it's level changes, period, and you treat it as the level of the slot you are using but here is the thing, Staffs don't care about that and they don't interact with Heightening at all.
I have no disagreement with this. If you prepare Burning Hands in a 4th level spell slot and cast it, it is definitely a 4th level spell. You are not casting a 1st level spell by doing this.
So, taken together we see that the Spells you're functionally able to cast via the Spellcasting Class feature are known as Spell Slots. You can cast these Spells, as indicated on the relevant Class level Progression Table as you are provided with a number of them.
The problem I have with this is that it contradicts the rules for defining what a spell slot is. Spellslots that you quote says "the spells you can cast in a day are referred to as spell slots." while Spellcasting that I quoted earlier says "The number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots."
The two rules are in contradiction with each other.
Again it seems like there is a confusion caused by the word 'cast'. Preparing isn't the same as casting. A Wizard can 'cast' spells from a scroll. Even after they run out of spell slots for the day. Spell slots aren't what is causing the casting of a spell. You cast a spell from your spell slots, just like a Wizard can cast a spell from a scroll or from a staff. You don't cast a spell with a spell slot.
The Staff is looking explicitly for spell slots and spell levels here. If you don't have Spell Slots for a given spell level to match the various Spells that are stored in the Staff then you cannot consume the Charges to use the Stored Spell.
This is under contention because of the previous contention of the rules.
If we take the stand that spell slots define a character's available casting level, then yes, it is obvious that the staff rules are referencing spell slots indirectly. If you don't have a spell slot, then you lack the casting power to cast spells at that level, and therefore fail the rules requirement needed for the staff.
If instead we assume that a character can cast a spell from an item regardless of whether they have a spell slot at that level, then the staff rules obviously don't refer to spell slots at all. The word 'slot' doesn't appear in the rules text. It only checks for casting power.
And it doesn't make any sense to me that a character that has the casting power needed to cast a 4th level spell wouldn't also have the casting power needed to cast a 1st level spell. Whether they have any 1st level spell slots or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one way or the other will be addressed in the final book.One would hope, but there are no guarantees.
Indeed. At the very, very least (assuming that these two classes should be allowed to use staves and loot scrolls) they should print the spell slot table with '0' for the lower level spells.
And if it is supposed to be that they are not allowed to use staves and scrolls, make a note stating so. Because that is not something that I find obvious that they would be lacking by design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The post I referenced for those asking:
Linkified.
For starters, not an official clarification or errata, meaning it's not an actual rule. Furthermore, it's on some off-beat site that has no direct ties to Paizo. I won't discount that Paizo employees may have Reddit accounts and actually use them, but it's dubious at best to assume that those are the actual handles they use, and it isn't just somebody trying to troll someone or stir the pot for their own amusement. It's the internet, after all, and Reddit of all places is a place for trolls and other mischievous users thrive.
Fixed the link.
I mean, "dubious at best" seems needlessly doubtful when that's a verified account that's been posting his content for over a year. So unless you're arguing that the account was hacked for the purposes of that post and nothing else...
That said, the RAI in this is pretty clear. Is there a problem with the RAW? Sure. But the RAW currently still says you can be an Ancient Half-Elf despite developer clarifications otherwise, so...
im just surprised they havent peaked into this thread with a comment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The post I referenced for those asking:
Linkified.
For starters, not an official clarification or errata, meaning it's not an actual rule. Furthermore, it's on some off-beat site that has no direct ties to Paizo. I won't discount that Paizo employees may have Reddit accounts and actually use them, but it's dubious at best to assume that those are the actual handles they use, and it isn't just somebody trying to troll someone or stir the pot for their own amusement. It's the internet, after all, and Reddit of all places is a place for trolls and other mischievous users thrive.
Fixed the link.
I mean, "dubious at best" seems needlessly doubtful when that's a verified account that's been posting his content for over a year. So unless you're arguing that the account was hacked for the purposes of that post and nothing else...
That said, the RAI in this is pretty clear. Is there a problem with the RAW? Sure. But the RAW currently still says you can be an Ancient Half-Elf despite developer clarifications otherwise, so...
I still disagree that the RAI is clear.
"Can you cast a 1st level spell using a 2nd level slot without the benefits?"
"Yes you can."
That CAN be read as:
Can I cast a 1st level spell (such as Feather Fall) using a 2nd level spell slot without the benefits (additional effects or increased damage)
Yes you can (assuming we're talking about spontaneous casting and assuming that you know Feather Fall as a signature spell and assuming that you mean benefits besides the automatic increased difficulty to counteract, which would still go through and be applied to your signature Feather Fall).
Can it also be read in other ways that support spending higher level slots on lower level spells (say, because you're just plain out of those lower level spell slots) with no benefits (additional effects, increased damage, increased difficulty of counteracting, and so on) of any kind whatsoever? Yes, but without knowing that Jason definitively did NOT have those extra caveats in mind when he answered the way he did, how can either conclusion be clear? Besides engaging in wishful thinking, that is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to hear your reasoning as to why a 13th level magus would be intended to be worse at using a major staff of fire compared to a 10th level magus. Similarly, I'd like to hear why it'd be intended that that 10th level magus can use a major staff of fire but not a basic one.
Let's put aside the convoluted readings for now and just answer that question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to hear your reasoning as to why a 13th level magus would be intended to be worse at using a major staff of fire compared to a 10th level magus. Similarly, I'd like to hear why it'd be intended that that 10th level magus can use a major staff of fire but not a basic one.
Let's put aside the convoluted readings for now and just answer that question.
It's not a case of "They're worse at it," it's a case of "They technically can't do it period."
They are just as unable to use the spells from the staff as a Fighter without any spellcasting dedication could based on certain readings.
|
|
That's not how this works, the rules say what you can do, not what you can't.Sure, quote a passage from a rulebook if it's so clear and defined then.But the Arcane casting of the magus is incredibly explicit. You only gain access to new levels of spells. Assuming you lose access to ones you no longer have slots for is reading into the chart without any textual guidance to do so.Yeah, it’s a huge assumption to conclude a magus can’t use staves. Appropriate level is rules speak for greater or equal level.Quote a rule going the other way. The rule that says "you can't cast spells of a certain level from an item without spell slots of that level."
If you are arguing that the rules are ambiguous, I am all for that. But if you are going to demand rules citation from your opposition, be prepared to provide them yourself.
And the rules say you can cast a spell if you have slots of the spells level or greater.
Staves working is the null hypothesis for the game design. The burden of evidence is on those who claim otherwise.
No, it says spells of an appropriate level.
Nothing works as the null hypothesis.
im just surprised they havent peaked into this thread with a comment.
They dont speak rules with the plebs, no matter how simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to hear your reasoning as to why a 13th level magus would be intended to be worse at using a major staff of fire compared to a 10th level magus. Similarly, I'd like to hear why it'd be intended that that 10th level magus can use a major staff of fire but not a basic one.
Let's put aside the convoluted readings for now and just answer that question.
There's an existing trend to not just abandon older, lower level options for higher ones, but to be required to do so. You can still use your low level slots for damage, but the math of the game is tight enough that, at a certain point, doing so is a wasteful expenditure of resources and actions. Therefore, you are meant to keep whatever damage-dealing slotted spells you want to use in your higher slots, using lower level slots increasingly for utility, and only resorting to cantrips due to them never running out.
Also, Incapacitation spells.
So while the trend doesn't hold for everything in the game, it exists and being forced to use level-appropriate staves of fire exclusively rather than being able to get by all the way to 20th level with a basic staff of fire is in keeping with that trend.
I mean, this is the same company that created Starfinder with its mandatory equipment treadmill. Why not spread the treadmills around, right?
So, taken together we see that the Spells you're functionally able to cast via the Spellcasting Class feature are known as Spell Slots. You can cast these Spells, as indicated on the relevant Class level Progression Table as you are provided with a number of them.
You are also able to Heighten Spells from a lower level to a higher Spell Slot, provided you meet all other related requirements (differs by class). This raises the spell level. <<<< Once you Heighten a Spell, it's level changes, period, and you treat it as the level of the slot you are using but here is the thing, Staffs don't care about that and they don't interact with Heightening at all.
The Staff is looking explicitly for spell slots and spell levels here. If you don't have Spell Slots for a given spell level to match the various Spells that are stored in the Staff then you cannot consume the Charges to use the Stored Spell.
Once you heighten a spell (which doesn't happen UNTIL it is cast as defined by the heightened rules) it does increase the level of the spell. Again, give me your reason why you are ignoring "spells of the appropriate level" nothing you have said here changes this, nothing you quotes demands it to be referring to spell slots.
If you are to argue this, you must explain why the language of "spells of an appropriate level" is used rather than "spell slots of an appropriate level", "spells at an appropriate level" or "spells at their appropriate level".
There are lots of ways to use language to rule the way you are saying it is ruled. Maybe Paizo made a mistake, maybe it is intended to be unintentionally broken, but as written it refers to "spells of an appropriate level" and the character's ability to cast them. This leads to a MUCH saner ruling too.
Again, there are elements of the book that clearly show that the spell its self doesn't change in level, it is the casting process that boosts its level by heightening for mechanical reasons. The level is represented as a static and a fluctuating variable that are often the same but not inherently the same.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've been following this thread and in my logical mind I think, of course they can use staves. So I go and read the specifics, and I can fully understand why someone would throw a flag up and question it.
Seems to be check boxes:
Animal Staff Item 4+
Cantrip Know Direction
1st Level Magic Fang and Summon Animal
Summoner Level 16 (Assume this person decided to not pick a single feat that would add spells to their list)
Available Spell Slots: 2 7th and 2 8th and 5 Cantrips
Have the Spell in your list/repertoire? Sure
Prepare the Staff? Yes! 8 Charges I believe
Can cast spells of appropriate level? Fuzzy. I can cast that spell heightened but I can't cast that spell at level 1. Personally I check this as a Yes. Why? Because it is in my list, and I am allowed to cast it. You can get stuck on the appropriate level but I don't. I can cast it, and I have it in my list as level 1.
Casting a spell from the Staff at Level 1 expends 1 of my 8 charges.
To me everything else is over thinking it. I seriously agree it is poorly worded, but the Staff just requires the check boxes checked for me, and having the spell and the ability to cast it is all that is needed. It's a level check, not an open spell slot.
The counter argument in my head is this. You cast all of your level 1 spells and have no spell slots open then by that logic you no longer have the ability to cast the spell of the appropriate level and cannot discharge the staff. But that obviously isn't the intent, so my initial logic works for me.
That said, the RAI in this is pretty clear.
Hard to know if there IS RAI here: how do we know staves weren't overlooked with the new casting method?
I'd really like to hear your reasoning as to why a 13th level magus would be intended to be worse at using a major staff of fire compared to a 10th level magus. Similarly, I'd like to hear why it'd be intended that that 10th level magus can use a major staff of fire but not a basic one.
Let's put aside the convoluted readings for now and just answer that question.
Most likely for the exact same reason they forget lower level spells: Why would casting your own 1st level spell be different than casting a spell from a staff? Why would you suddenly recall how to cast spells when you use the staff but get brain damage and forget all over again when you drop it?
We don't know RAI because paizo staff don't talk to us about that stuff without full FAQs.
Don't worry, last time I heard we're getting errata before the APG comes out...
I think it's genuinely hard to talk about RAI here. For some options it's kind of obvious but the magus and summoner were specifically built to be limited in their spellcasting options, not being good at using staves could easily be an intentional extension of that.
I could see an eventual ruling going either way.
Again this is one place where the summoner and magus are very different and the final rules on spell slots needs to tuned in to make sure both work with staves without requiring a feat or dedication.
The magus never unlearned spells it loses access to previous spell slots. Instead, they just progressively get to 4 spell slots and any spells prepared into them are heightened to the two highest spell slot levels the magus can cast.
The summoner actually does lose the ability to cast lower level spells. They basically relearn all their spells with every new spell level and their access to lower level spells, instead of heightened spells is more ambiguous.
At the same time, pointing this out feels like enough. Make sure you report your interpretation on your survey so your data reflects which method you used and otherwise, arguing the interpretation as “correct” is like sitting at a stop light and arguing that the light should be green or red right now. It might matter to you and the people in cars around you, but it doesn’t really matter to the rest of the world because the situation will be different the next time it matters. Point out that there is confusion, work it out with your table, and move on.