Is ther a rule in Pathfinder that does not allow to use bonus spells from high ability score to cast lower level spells?
You don't get the bonus spell slots for a high ability score unless you can actually cast spells of the relevant level.
There are many posts on this subject, but no final answer to this question.
Is ther a rule in Pathfinder that does not allow to use bonus spells from high ability score to cast lower level spells?
You don't get the bonus spell slots until you reach the level that is necessary to cast that level spell.
There is a distinction between "spell per day -" and "spells per day 0", where the latter allows you to use bonus spell slots for the given level.The is no definate rules text on the matter AFAIK, but that doesn't make it a houserule. It is simply how it always have been.
From a balance point of view, it would be absurd to allow it, since it would enable casters to use those spell slots for metamagicked version of the spell, which only requires a higher spell slot and isn't a higher level spell. The system is clearly not cut out for having quickened, maximized or dazing spells in abundance from level 1.
There are many posts on this subject, but no final answer to this question.
Is ther a rule in Pathfinder that does not allow to use bonus spells from high ability score to cast lower level spells?
EX: Ability score is 20 (wis,int or cha)i get:
1 level spell: 2 bonus
2 level spell: 1 bonus
3 level spell: 1 bonus
4 level spell: 1 bonus
5 level spell: 1 bonusI am a third level character, and can cast spells of 1 and 2 level.
But can i convert my bonus spell from 3, 4 and 5 level to 2 level spells.
If i am a wizard with high int i can remember more spells, if i am a cleric with high wis i can ask for mor spells.....
Is there a definitive rule on this question or is it a house rule..
Thanks....
Rules for spell slots and high ability scores
Rules for preparing spellsA spellcaster always has the option to fill his higher level slots with lower level spells, HOWEVER he must have access to the slots first. "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."
So, let's say your example caster is a 3rd level Wizard with a 20 INT -- he can cast 4 first level spells (2 class + 2 high ability), and 2 second level spells (1 class + 1 high ability). He could, if he had need to, prepare 6 Magic Missile spells (magic machine gun!) However, those 3rd, 4th and 5th level slots from high intelligence? He can't touch them until he's higher level -- they're not "his" spell slots yet!
No. Same reason you can't normally use a higher level spell slot to gain more lower levels spells, no matter how much you like fireball, you can't have more.
I'm afraid this is a pre-Pathfinder rule. You can have more fireball.
A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.
Now, with regards to the bonus slots, I'm likely to go with ENHenry/HaraldKlak. That said, I'd like to see developer input on what they intended (because I suspect the above rule is new). Certainly a little precision of language here would go a long way...
One could almost RAW (e.g. from the cleric class) "receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1-3)" - ok, so I get the bonus slots. Then look at Table 1-3 "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level" - ok, so I can't cast high level spells. Then look at the rule I quoted above - ok, so I can fill those slots with lower level spells that I can cast. Or go the way HaraldKlak is worried about, with metamagic feats. Though, "in abundance" is a a bit strong for "at most four/day." At first level you'd only have one or two metamagic feats, and likely only one or two slots that could accomplish each feat (even with a 20 in the ability score).
I GUARANTEE this is not how most people play, and it would shock me if... frankly... anyone does this, especially if they came from 3.5. That said, perhaps a little editing would be beneficial on this. I am often surprised by what Pathfinder has deliberately changed, and occasionally disappointed by unclear wording (ability score increases, for example). Still enjoy the product...just...
... (because I suspect the above rule is new).
It's not; it's been around since 3E.
That said, the general interpretation that has stated is correct; you do not gain access to bonus spells of a given level until you gain the ability to cast that level of spell.
No. Same reason you can't normally use a higher level spell slot to gain more lower levels spells, no matter how much you like fireball, you can't have more.I'm afraid this is a pre-Pathfinder rule. You can have more fireball.
A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.Now, with regards to the bonus slots, I'm likely to go with ENHenry/HaraldKlak. That said, I'd like to see developer input on what they intended (because I suspect the above rule is new). Certainly a little precision of language here would go a long way...
One could almost RAW (e.g. from the cleric class) "receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1-3)" - ok, so I get the bonus slots. Then look at Table 1-3 "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level" - ok, so I can't cast high level spells. Then look at the rule I quoted above - ok, so I can fill those slots with lower level spells that I can cast. Or go the way HaraldKlak is worried about, with metamagic feats. Though, "in abundance" is a a bit strong for "at most four/day." At first level you'd only have one or two metamagic feats, and likely only one or two slots that could accomplish each feat (even with a 20 in the ability score).
I GUARANTEE this is not how most people play, and it would shock me if... frankly... anyone does this, especially if they came from 3.5. That said, perhaps a little editing would be beneficial on this. I am often surprised by what Pathfinder has deliberately changed, and occasionally disappointed by unclear wording (ability score increases, for example). Still enjoy the product...just...
I am your friendly neighborhood rules lawyer and rather than go through this thread again when it clearly says you can't access slot until you are of the correct level I will find the post where a developer came in and ended it, or at least tried, but the posters still wanted to be debate it. Stand by. I will be back in a few minutes.
I actually found two threads he answered in, both by Sean Reynolds
And I quote--->"You don't get bonus spell slots for a spell level until your class level is high enough to grant you the non-bonus spell slots for that spell level."
Link 2 has the following quote.
Seriously, folks:1) The Abilities and Spellcasters section on page 16 says, "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."
2) The wizard section on Spells on page 78 says, "A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Wizard." Other spellcasting classes have a similar entry.
So even if your Int is 44 (giving you bonus spells of level 1 through 9), you can't use those bonus spell slots until your class level is such that your class table grants you access to the appropriate level of spells.
Think of Table 1-3 as having a + in front of all those numerical values, so the 16-17 row's bonus spells per day columns read as follows:
0 —, 1st +1, 2nd +1, 3rd +1, 4th —, 5th —, 6th —, 7th —, 8th —, 9th —
If the listing in your class table is a number, you can add the value from Table 1-3 to that to see how many total spells of that level you can cast per day. If the listing is NOT a number (i.e., it's a dash), you can't add the value from Table 1-3 because you can't add numbers to dashes.
It's two rules in the book that work together, and it's clear unless you're deliberately trying to read it in a way that gives you something you shouldn't get.
... (because I suspect the above rule is new).It's not; it's been around since 3E.
That said, the general interpretation that has stated is correct; you do not gain access to bonus spells of a given level until you gain the ability to cast that level of spell.
This is correct. That was never the rule.
Abilities And Spellcasters
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.
Spell Slots
The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level.
PS:Nothing has changed.
It's two rules in the book that work together, and it's clear unless you're deliberately trying to read it in a way that gives you something you shouldn't get.
Quoted for emphasis.
Ok, two thoughts.
1)
It's two rules in the book that work together, and it's clear unless you're deliberately trying to read it in a way that gives you something you shouldn't get.
This is just namecalling, not argument.
2) The problem is this sentence
In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.[my emphasis]
This sentence is grammatically confused if the intent was "In order to gain each bonus spell slot, a spellcaster must also be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of the given spell level." I submit that sentence would solve this problem. Also, "Each bonus spell slot cannot be used until the spellcaster is high enough class level to be granted at least 0 spells a day of the corresponding spell level, as distinct from '-' spells a day."
Instead, though, this sentence doesn't really have a predicate. It is unclear what is modified by the bolded portion of the sentence in the quote block. It is dangerously possible, and grammatically possible, to read this as "In order to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level in addition to having a high ability score." See the difference? That's not "in order to gain these spell slots." It's "in order to cast spells of a given spell level." Put that together with "A spellcaster ALWAYS has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. [emphasis added]", and you've got "two rules in the book that work together."
And you get there without trying to get anything or get an advantage for yourself - you get there trying to understand a poorly worded sentence (admittedly, the concept is a mouthful). Heck, I got there, and I rarely play spellcasters and so don't have a dog in the fight. I'm happy to see the developer straighten out what was unclear, but I'm unhappy to see it done with such poor grace.
I don't see it as name calling. If someone is brand new to the game, or at least to casters I can almost understand, but other than that I don't understand how that got messed up.
Even if someone can't figure a rule out looking at an adventure module can often clear things up.
It has always been clear to me that the bonus slots are in addition to the regular slots so you have to get the regular slots first.
As an example I can't really give my kids a raise to their allowance before they have an allowance.
If someone is brand new to the game, or at least to casters I can almost understand, but other than that I don't understand how that got messed up.
Both excellent reasons that don't accuse a player of selfishly interpreting the rules. I.e., these are exceptional alternatives to the phrasing used in the post you quoted.
I, personally, believe that the goal is writing the rules at a level appropriate to someone new to the game. If it's implicit, or "well, it was never that way in 3.5", it's not a good rule for a CRB.
If you're interested in knowing how it can get messed up, consider this sentence like that picture of an old woman/beautiful young lady. You can look at it two ways, and it can be REALLY hard to change your mind and see the other picture. Here's a breakdown of the two types of sentence:
1) "In addition to A, you must be B."
2) "In addition to A, you must be B to do C."
In type 1, you assume the purpose (the reason for the "must") came from outside the sentence - so you read the earlier sentence about bonus spells. The type 2 sentence stands alone (the purpose is C).
The sentence in the source is supposed to be the first kind (purpose coming from the previous sentence). Unfortunately, "B" is "be high enough level to cast spells of _____". That makes it look like the second type. Try swapping the word "elven" in for "high enough level", and you'll read the sentence the way these people are reading it. It's pretty reasonable to get stuck on this reading and assume "ok, I can't cast spells of that level until I get up that high." But the book doesn't explicitly say they don't get the spell slots. So reading the later rule about filling high-level slots with low level spells, and especially in combination with the fact that high-level casters with low ability scores (people who have B but not A) CAN use that ability... where do you wind up? It actually makes a lot of sense and arrives at a consistent feel.
It doesn't help anything that the heading above the sentence is "spellcasters and abilities" instead of "ability scores and bonus spells".
Note: I do not endorse this reading. I consider it wrong, and certainly not RAI, especially with the post you quoted. Yet, I could see someone legitimately arguing it as RAW - not from selfishness, but from the misunderstanding above.
I, personally, believe that the goal is writing the rules at a level appropriate to someone new to the game. If it's implicit, or "well, it was never that way in 3.5", it's not a good rule for a CRB.
I agree with this, and unfortunately the CRB+Bestiary does mess this up in a few places (for instance, there's no way of knowing what a burrow speed means unless you have access to 3.5).
However. When I was brand new to 3.5, which used mainly the same text to describe bonus spell slots, I never assumed that I'd get the bonus spell slots for higher level spells until I could actually cast those spells. So, in this particular case I feel that the book does its job well enough. Although as always, a rule could be made clearer.
I agree with this, and unfortunately the CRB+Bestiary does mess this up in a few places (for instance, there's no way of knowing what a burrow speed means unless you have access to 3.5).
Agreed. The book could really use a good line-edit by an editor who is also a gamer. This is lower-priority than about five other problems I can think of offhand, but is a good example.
However. When I was brand new to 3.5, which used mainly the same text to describe bonus spell slots, I never assumed that I'd get the bonus spell slots for higher level spells until I could actually cast those spells. So, in this particular case I feel that the book does its job well enough. Although as always, a rule could be made clearer.
In 3.5, or 3.0, you would have been silly to assume it. Here's the text from my 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs, with relevant sections italicized.
The ability that spells relate to depends on what type of spellcaster you are: (examples). In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of sufficient level in order to gain a bonus spell of a given level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.). For instance, the wizard Mialee has a 15 Intelligence, so she's smart enough to get one bonus 1st-level spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get the 2nd-level bonus spell until she is 3rd level, the minimum level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells).
(Exact text of Pathfinder book, plus a sentence about where to find details). For instance, the wizard Mialee has a 15 Intelligence, so she's smart enough to get one bonus 1st-level spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get the bonus 2nd-level spell until she is a 3rd-level wizard, since that's the minimum level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)
I would argue there is absolutely no way to read either of those paragraphs and come away with the OPs question. However, Pathfinder silently changed several things - like INT being now retroactive - silently because they simply deleted a lot of text -like all the text about ability score increases. Also, Pathfinder characters are strictly more powerful than 3.5 characters. So, I suppose, even an experienced 3.5 player could make the OPs mistake. That sentence is the only one in the book that implies the difference, and it's poorly written; "it's never been that way" is a poor argument - Clerics never had channel energy.