|
Do magi benefit from rings of wizardry if they have ‘left those spell slots behind?’ Like a level 7 magus will have level three and four spellslots, but the ring of wizardry says that if you are an arcane caster (they are) then they increase their level 1 spellslots (zero) by two (to a total of 2)
But I am unaware of any errata or if there is a bit of text buried somewhere that I missed. Anyone know if this interaction works?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in the rules I have ever seen indicate that you cannot benefit from the increase slots as long as you have an arcane spellcasting class feature. The ring should work fine for a Magus of any level.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is not a definitive answer for this yet as far as I know.
The "-" printed on the Spell Slots is exactly the same for those Slots they have not yet reached high enough level to first attain as they are for the Slots that they lose as they advance in level.
If you're asking for the purpose of PFS you are better off asking in the appropriate forum, but for your own game you're going to have to work it out with your GM as there isn't, again as far as I've seen, any clarification on if this should or should not work if they lack any Slots of a given level.
I'm not running a game myself at the moment but if I had a Magus ask about it I'd probably just permit it despite the formatting issue being present, after all, Magus isn't intended to be locked out of using lower Level Spells from a Staff from what I can tell and that itself relies on pretty much the exact same Slot interpretation described by the "-" on the appropriate table.
|
|
There is not a definitive answer for this yet as far as I know.
The "-" printed on the Spell Slots is exactly the same for those Slots they have not yet reached high enough level to first attain as they are for the Slots that they lose as they advance in level.
If you're asking for the purpose of PFS you are better off asking in the appropriate forum, but for your own game you're going to have to work it out with your GM as there isn't, again as far as I've seen, any clarification on if this should or should not work if they lack any Slots of a given level.
I'm not running a game myself at the moment but if I had a Magus ask about it I'd probably just permit it despite the formatting issue being present, after all, Magus isn't intended to be locked out of using lower Level Spells from a Staff from what I can tell and that itself relies on pretty much the exact same Slot interpretation described by the "-" on the appropriate table.
Actually I am the GM in a game of abomination vaults and I was thinking of giving that to PC magus and wanted to see if there was a definitive word on it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish, but no, not as far as I've seen, this issue regarding how to interpret it for the RoW was one that was discussed during the Playtest era but sadly the wording/formatting that caused the ambiguity was never updated and no FAQ seems to have been issued on the topic
I'd allow it because, again, if one takes the approach that "-" for formerly usable Spell Slots then it would have knock-on effects for the Staff which is a pretty big part of the Magus playbook by design and no further wording was added to permit lower-level Slot usage from those which suggests the devs either never noticed the issue or thought it was obvious enough.
I tend to be a pretty strict absolutist when it comes to interpreting RAW but this is one such situation where I don't think it makes any sense to be super literal about it given how absolutely horrible Magus (esp Staff Magus) would be otherwise. Of course, I might be wrong and I may have actually missed clarification if it was issued at some point but, IMO, it's almost certainly fair to allow it to work together.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we ready for another discussion about the word 'additional' or the difference between zero and nothing ?
I allow it to work. As an item it seem not much more valuable than and equivalent wand of 3rd level spell. I don't see a balance issue. After a certain level the real cost of these spells is the number of actions they take to cast.
The main thing is you have to have the spell casting feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally allow it. My argument for doing so is:
1. RAW it appears to work
2. It wouldn't feel like you're an in-world wizard/fighter hybrid if you couldn't use rings of wizardry
3. Magus isn't OP, and their burst is really only max level slots
4. It's consistent with the flavor behind wave casting, that it's not losing low level slots, it's leaving them behind to focus on the top tier slots because you don't have the time/energy/mana/headspace to do the whole shebang. Rings of Wizardry are about supplying the extra mojo required.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For clarity's sake:
"This ring is made from the purest platinum and is covered in esoteric arcane symbols. It does nothing unless you have a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition. While wearing the ring of wizardry, you gain a +1 item bonus to Arcana checks and have two additional 1st-level arcane spell slots each day. You prepare spells in these slots or cast from them spontaneously, just as you normally cast your spells."
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Doesn't even make sense to consult the spells per day table, so the whole "-" question seems artificial.
Are we ready for another discussion about the word 'additional' or the difference between zero and nothing ?
Well Gortle, "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of debate about the meaning of the words 'additional' or the difference between zero and nothing, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
I'd also allow it, for the same reason as staves.
Unrelated the the conclusion, I'm curious what the reason for staves is that is the same for the ring?
I read them as functioning very differently (one lets you cast specific spells from the staff and the other gives you spell slots), so I'm honestly curious.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also allow it, for the same reason as staves.Unrelated the the conclusion, I'm curious what the reason for staves is that is the same for the ring?
I read them as functioning very differently (one lets you cast specific spells from the staff and the other gives you spell slots), so I'm honestly curious.
The argument "against" staves for magi is that staves require you to be able to cast those spells at the exact level of the staff, to use them from the staff. But the magus loses most of those spell slots. If you consider for example the Staff of Divination, it's a level 6 item, with spells of level 1, 2 and 3. Since a level 6 magus doesn't have level 1 spell slots anymore, he'd be unable to use those spells from the staff. When he becomes level 7, he'd also be unable to use the level 2 spells. (Unless they happened to be exactly in the Studious set perhaps.) This is pretty constantly the case with staves: the level of spells in a staff trails your highest level spells a bit, and all staves have spells from level 1 and up.
But magi are clearly meant to be able to use staves, there's a whole Hybrid Study around it. And not a whisper about them not being able to use them fully.
Therefore, by the concept of reductio ad absurdem, if the conclusion obviously isn't right, something must be wrong with the logic derivation or with the original assumptions going into the derivation.
The wording for staves is also from the CRB, which was written three years before Secrets of Magic, and wave casting as a design concept wasn't invented yet. So it's not like the CRB language was specifically intended to mess up magi.
I think rather, the CRB language shouldn't be understand as "you must be able to cast this spell at this exact level" but as "at at LEAST this level".
And taking that to the Ring of Wizardry, it would then ask for you to be able to cast spells of at LEAST that level. Which at the appropriate item level, you can do just fine.