Ring of Wizardry + Bounded Spellcasting


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Gortle wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The magus does not have first level spell slots, then they equip an item that gives them spell slots, so they do, and then they use those spell slots normally, because why wouldn't they?

If I substitute the word "magus" with the word "fighter" or "barbarian," I think you'll finally understand the issue with this statement being made and expecting it to just work as you say it should, because in this case, it's identical. Neither of those classes can cast 1st level spells. Neither can a high-enough level Magus without Studious Spells. It's no different for a Summoner, and it's no different for a Ranger or Champion or any other non-spell-based character. If you don't have the ability to cast that level of spell, you can't benefit from it. Full stop. And this is a limitation put forth by Bounded Spellcasting, not from the Magus class in particular.

Again, without Studious Spells (and without following the restrictions set by that feature), high enough level Magi can't cast 1st level spells any more than a Fighter or Barbarian can. Suggesting it does means you're reading something outside of what the rules are telling us, which tells us that it's written poorly and needs to be changed to reflect what it's supposedly intended to do.

Just as well, casting from a staff or wand is different from casting from your own spell slots, because they have their own limitations and mechanics. A Magus can cast a 1st level spell from a Wand because the spell is on their tradition's list. Same for a Staff, provided it has the requisite number of charges. A Magus still can't cast a 1st level spell from their slots once they reach high enough level unless it's from Studious Spells, though. Funny how that works and is intended by the mechanics of Bounded Spellcasting.

Ok Some interesting points. Consider three different items: a Staff, a Wand, and a Ring of Wizardry.

1) What happens with a non spell casting class like Fighter, who takes the feat...

The issue is that I don't think there's anything restricting you "knowing" or having in your spellbook higher level spells than you can cast.

So, using your examples, a 2nd level fighter with wizard dedication CAN cast 4th level spells with the appropriate ring and spellbook in hand.

Even outside this, any noncasting class can actually now get 4th and 3rd level spells with just the dedication.


I got to actually reading the rules on that and completely lost sight of the problem.
Magus rules don't say 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', you just don't have lower level spell slots by default.
They don't say 'you can't cast lower level spells at all', again, you just don't have lower level spell slots.
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Now, the ring: "It does nothing unless you have a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition." Check, you have that.
"While wearing the ring of wizardry, you <...> have two additional 1st-level arcane spell slots each day." Ok, just do what is written because that's how magic items and rules work. You now have those slots. Can you cast from them?
Yes, you can: "You prepare spells in these slots <...> just as you normally cast your spells." Normally you could have no slots of these levels, but the ring gives them to you, nothing prevents you from preparing spells there, as I mentioned above.
So, everything just works. What is the problem here?
Ah, yes, '-' in the table don't overwrite the actual text of the rules. And, well, don't even mean much to me here.

Magus spellcasting rules for reference wrote:

At 1st level, you can prepare one 1st-level spell and five cantrips each morning from the spells in your spellbook (see below). Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. The number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots.

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 2–2: Magus Spells per Day. Because you split your focus between physical training and magical scholarship, you have no more than two spell slots of your highest level and, if you can cast 2nd-level spells or higher, two spell slots of 1 level lower than your highest spell level.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The '-' symbol works both ways, saying it doesn't is far more consistent than saying it does if it's of a lower level, which it also doesn't say either.

You and the Metric System keep making this assertion, but haven't provided a rules reference to support this claim.


graystone wrote:
Lucerious wrote:

I too like my spell slots. :)

Other items would include that grimoire, which has been mentioned by others
I don't see the grimoire as an issue as the higher level ones increase the additional slot [2 levels per increase] you get so you can keep it in range of your slots: it's only an issue if you plan to use an under-leveled item.

Uh... Check the item level again.

At Magus level 6, the level 6 Endless Grimoire gives you a 1st level spell slot: of which you have '-'.

At Magus level 10, the level 10 Endless Grimoire gives you a 3rd level spell slot: of which you have '-*'.

At Magus level 14, the level 14 Endless Grimoire gives you a 5th level spell slot: of which you have '-'.

At Magus level 18, the level 18 Endless Grimoire gives you a 7th level spell slot: of which you have '-'.

So in order to use an Endless Grimoire, a Magus has to somehow acquire a rather over-leveled item.

Errenor wrote:

I got to actually reading the rules on that and completely lost sight of the problem.

Magus rules don't say 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', you just don't have lower level spell slots by default.
They don't say 'you can't cast lower level spells at all', again, you just don't have lower level spell slots.
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Now, the ring: "It does nothing unless you have a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition." Check, you have that.
"While wearing the ring of wizardry, you <...> have two additional 1st-level arcane spell slots each day." Ok, just do what is written because that's how magic items and rules work. You now have those slots. Can you cast from them?
Yes, you can: "You prepare spells in these slots <...> just as you normally cast your spells." Normally you could have no slots of these levels, but the ring gives them to you, nothing prevents you from preparing spells there, as I mentioned above.
So, everything just works. What is the problem here?
Ah, yes, '-' in the table don't overwrite the actual text of the rules. And, well, don't even mean much to me here.

Speaking of acquiring over-leveled items, this ruling would mean that a level 1 Magus with a Type III ring could be Spellstriking with level 3 spells.

In order for the game to work in the way it was likely intended to, there has to be some distinction between the spell slots above half your level rounded up that you don't have access to at all, and the spell slots below half your level rounded up that you don't happen to have any actual slots of. And nothing in the game rules does that.


Errenor wrote:

I got to actually reading the rules on that and completely lost sight of the problem.

Magus rules don't say 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', you just don't have lower level spell slots by default.
They don't say 'you can't cast lower level spells at all', again, you just don't have lower level spell slots.
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.

The restriction is not in knowing or learning but in the casting slots. When you cast you MUST use heighten your spell to the level of the slot you are going to expend. So a level 10 Magus can't cast a level 1 spell in a level 5 spell slot. But can cast that spell heightened to level 5 in that slot.

This stops them technically from being able to use low level spells in staves - as staves have the casting restriction.
The ring of wizardy works fine. As it gives you slots. Its only possible problem are those people who don't like additional slots adding to none. But AFAICT the ring works even if you never had any slots there.


breithauptclan wrote:
Errenor wrote:
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Speaking of acquiring over-leveled items, this ruling would mean that a level 1 Magus with a Type III ring could be Spellstriking with level 3 spells.

No, for this especially there's a 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots'. And the ring does give spell slots.

Gortle wrote:
This stops them technically from being able to use low level spells in staves - as staves have the casting restriction.

Staves have the restriction of 'able to cast spells of the appropriate level' (without even 'from spell slots' addition, but that wouldn't turn on the restriction either). As I (and the rules) said above, there's no 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', no 'you can't cast lower level spells at all' and no 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' restrictions in the rules. So nothing prevents staves from working either. At all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucerious wrote:
graystone wrote:


Lucerious wrote:
All a staff needs to work is someone capable of casting spells, have the spells the staff uses on their spell list, and have spell slots to charge the staff.
Incorrect: you have to be "able to cast spells of the appropriate level".

I stand corrected as that is a line in the rules that I have overlooked due to it never coming up in play.

Eh, I throw up my hands on this one. I get the issue (I have stated so in an earlier post), but the perspective that bonded casting prohibits so many magic items seems a very pessimistic if not punitive approach to play. Maybe I am wrong about that too, but I sure know I would never play a bonded caster if my GM was this restrictive with the application of the rules.

To be fair, this was a potential issue that was pointed out in the playtest (either myself or somebody else brought this issue up), and all the Devs did was also throw their hands up on it, because they either didn't see the problem, or didn't find it as a priority to mention specifics for. After all, this issue feels pretty stringent, even though I would suspect a Magus would want this type of item for more adventuring day longevity, since it's really only encompassed by a single item. Staves work so long as you have charges, since it only requires that you can cast the spell, and it's on your list (spell level doesn't matter in this case). Wands are practically the same.

But when you're talking about spell slots you no longer have access to? That's a whole other issue entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The '-' symbol works both ways, saying it doesn't is far more consistent than saying it does if it's of a lower level, which it also doesn't say either.
You and the Metric System keep making this assertion, but haven't provided a rules reference to support this claim.

You're really saying I need to make a rules reference to explain why a 1st level Magus with a beefed Ring of Wizardry can't cast 3rd level spells? How about obvious intended game function?

All I'm saying is that it works both ways in regards to Bounded Casting. You can't cast 1st level spells anymore by 5th level, in the same way you can't cast 3rd level spells at 1st level. Yes, you can put in a 1st level spell into a 2nd or 3rd level slot, but it becomes heightened and ceases to be a 1st level spell by that point. This is an intended feature of the system. Trying to use an item to break this intended feature is wrong by RAW.

And yes, Magus can wear Ring of Wizardry, and even apply its benefits. But if they don't have those spell levels (or have a restricted version of those spell levels), those benefits simply do nothing (or have to follow the same restrictions).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

1) What happens with a non spell casting class like Fighter, who takes the feat Wizard Dedication?

2) The same character with the Basic Wizard Spellcasting feat
3) What about a bounded caster Magus or a Summoner of the arcane tradition?

A Wand just requires it must be on your spell list. That is true even if you can't yet cast spells of that level. So the Magus, Summoner, Wizard Dedication can use a Wand regardless of any level.

A Staff requires if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level. The Wizard Dedication can't cast spells of that level (only has cantrips) so they can't use any staff. With the Basic Wizard Spell Casting feat they would get some ability here.

The Magus and the Summoner classes are worded in a way that they must heighten spells when they cast. So they could be in the odd situation of having a Staff of Divination but not being able to cast True Strike. As they can't cast a 1st level spell. But they could cast See Invisibility for example if they still had that slot. From what I can tell the majority of GMs ignore this restriction believing it to be unintended (myself included). But for the RAW purists I do concede this is a real problem.

The Ring of Wizardry just gives you additional slots that you can use normally. It doesn't give you any extra spells known.

So the Wizard Dedication wouldn't be able to use the ring normally until they take Basic Wizard Spellcasting feat to get some spells known. But you can imagine they might gain a slot above that which they would normally have via a better ring. AFAICT they can use that slot.

The Magus and the Summoner can use the slots from the Ring of Wizardry. I don't see there is any rule that actually says "-" means no spells in a way that would override the additional spell slots from the ring. I can't see that anywhere.

A Fighter with the Wizard dedication gains a Spellcasting class feature of an Arcane tradition, so they can use all 3 items, with the staff being capped on their maximum casting level, and the Ring of Wizardry only applying to spell slots they possess from their spellcasting feature(s).

A Magus with the Wizard dedication would get the Spellcasting class feature of an Arcane tradition, and the Magus rules state they can supplement the Wizard slots and spellbook spells with their own Magus slots and spellbook spells. This means they don't need to have two separate spellbooks, but their respective slots are still different from each other, and follow their own given limitations, so the Wizard slots aren't restricted by Studious Spells, and so on. This also means that, if a Magus with Wizard dedication benefits from a Ring of Wizardry, it can apply to either spell slot set as the wearer chooses (as specified in its entry), but this doesn't mean they should gain access to spell slots they don't possess. This is true if a higher level Magus with only Basic Spellcasting from their Wizard dedication is trying to cheese higher level spell slots from their dedication (especially in an attempt to avoid limitations set forth by the Studious Spellcasting feature), just as it's true for a Magus trying to get spell slots for a level they can no longer cast from.

That being said, you already stated the intention of the Ring: It gives you extra spell slots you would already normally have. High enough level Magi don't normally have lower level spell slots, which means you're asking the Ring to do more than what it should normally do, which I feel breaks intention. It's the same argument for 1st level Magi/Wizards/Whatever getting 3rd level spell slots: They don't normally get 3rd level spell slots, so why should the ring grant them?


Errenor wrote:

I got to actually reading the rules on that and completely lost sight of the problem.

Magus rules don't say 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', you just don't have lower level spell slots by default.
They don't say 'you can't cast lower level spells at all', again, you just don't have lower level spell slots.
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Now, the ring: "It does nothing unless you have a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition." Check, you have that.
"While wearing the ring of wizardry, you <...> have two additional 1st-level arcane spell slots each day." Ok, just do what is written because that's how magic items and rules work. You now have those slots. Can you cast from them?
Yes, you can: "You prepare spells in these slots <...> just as you normally cast your spells." Normally you could have no slots of these levels, but the ring gives them to you, nothing prevents you from preparing spells there, as I mentioned above.
So, everything just works. What is the problem here?
Ah, yes, '-' in the table don't overwrite the actual text of the rules. And, well, don't even mean much to me here.

Magus spellcasting rules for reference wrote:

At 1st level, you can prepare one 1st-level spell and five cantrips each morning from the spells in your spellbook (see below). Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. The number of spells you can prepare is called your spell slots.

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 2–2: Magus Spells per Day. Because you split your focus between physical training and magical scholarship, you have no more than two spell slots of your highest level and, if you can cast 2nd-level spells or higher, two spell slots of 1 level lower than your highest spell level.

Pretty sure that limitation I bolded counts as something that prevents you from preparing spells there, since the ring gives you more than the spell slots of your highest and 1 level lower than your highest level, and the table reflects this obvious intention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Errenor wrote:
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Speaking of acquiring over-leveled items, this ruling would mean that a level 1 Magus with a Type III ring could be Spellstriking with level 3 spells.
No, for this especially there's a 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots'. And the ring does give spell slots.

Do you have a rules quote for that?

Because all I have seen is the reference in Spellcasting to the table - which gives both a maximum spell level and a minimum spell level for Magus. Unless you can find some distinction between '-' and '-'.

Also, if the Type III ring does give 2nd and 3rd level spell slots to a level 1 Magus, how do you handle a Magus that has both a Type III ring and a Staff of Divination? Do they just get to prepare the staff with 1 charge for free and 3 more charges from sacrificing that level 3 spell slot from the ring that they can't otherwise cast anything from? That would let them cast True Strike from the staff 4 times per day.

Liberty's Edge

breithauptclan wrote:
Errenor wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Errenor wrote:
There's not very precisely worded restriction on the 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots' (again, by default) with the reference to the table and no mention of any 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' at all.
Speaking of acquiring over-leveled items, this ruling would mean that a level 1 Magus with a Type III ring could be Spellstriking with level 3 spells.
No, for this especially there's a 'highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots'. And the ring does give spell slots.

Do you have a rules quote for that?

Because all I have seen is the reference in Spellcasting to the table - which gives both a maximum spell level and a minimum spell level for Magus. Unless you can find some distinction between '-' and '-'.

Also, if the Type III ring does give 2nd and 3rd level spell slots to a level 1 Magus, how do you handle a Magus that has both a Type III ring and a Staff of Divination? Do they just get to prepare the staff with 1 charge for free and 3 more charges from sacrificing that level 3 spell slot from the ring that they can't otherwise cast anything from? That would let them cast True Strike from the staff 4 times per day.

The question should rightly be asked about a level 1 Wizard with such a Ring and Staff actually.

It has nothing to do per se with bounded casting.


The Raven Black wrote:

The question should rightly be asked about a level 1 Wizard with such a Ring and Staff actually.

It has nothing to do per se with bounded casting.

A trap option that is trapping the GM is not less of a trap option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
intention of the Ring

You are arguing intention not rules. That is not necessary. Ring of Wizardry grants you additional slots. There is absolutely no restriction on having any slots of those levels to begin with. Either because you are a Magus of too high level, or because you are a multiclass caster who just hasn't got the appropriate feat yet, or because the GM gave you the item far too many levels early. All cases are the same by the rules.

Sovereign Court

I'd weigh the intentions in the magus class design more heavily than those for the ring. The ring is from the CRB and when that was being written, they hadn't thought of the wave casting system for the magus yet.

To me, magus limits on spell slots is more specific than the generic use of the ring of wizardry for classic full casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I'd weigh the intentions in the magus class design more heavily than those for the ring. The ring is from the CRB and when that was being written, they hadn't thought of the wave casting system for the magus yet.

For the ring, the issue was present in the core with the wizard dedication: you can count as having the spellcasting ability for arcane and have no spell slots just with core.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The '-' symbol works both ways, saying it doesn't is far more consistent than saying it does if it's of a lower level, which it also doesn't say either.
You and the Metric System keep making this assertion, but haven't provided a rules reference to support this claim.

You're really saying I need to make a rules reference to explain why a 1st level Magus with a beefed Ring of Wizardry can't cast 3rd level spells? How about obvious intended game function?

What I am saying is that the '-' isn't specified as not being able to acquire these from any other source like it did in PF1, only that you don't get these be default.

This text is missing, and yet you are asserting that it "obviously" means that they cannot get spell slots from any source, with no rule to back it up.

Whining about a level 12 item on a first level character giving a mostly useless third level spell slot is ingeniousness at best. Any 12th level item on a first level character is game breaking.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're choosing to selectively read the rules and interpret statements, text, and tables that have the exact same characters and wording in different ways in order to achieve the result you want - BEEG NO NO around the Rules forum.

RAW this is broken, indisputably. RAI, all we have is the word of one Dev (which to me is enough for actual use at the table), but RAI arguments hold absolutely ZERO weight to me as that stuff is completely subjective and under the threat of personal interpretation which is a poison-pill to constructive discussion and IMO has no place in this sub-forum. If you want to discuss how you feel it "should work" rather than "what does it SAY" then the Advice forums is right next door.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there any time “0” is used instead of “-“ on a spell slot chart? I don’t believe there is. Unless there is, it seems to me with more thought on the subject that the “-“ marker doesn’t necessarily mean anything different than “0”.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Woot. The clarifications on the 4th edition printing clears at least part of this up.

Regarding casting from staves:

Quote:

Page 592 (Clarification): How can I use a staff if I have high-level slots but not lower ones?

Classes like the magus and summoner lose their lower-level slots as they go up in level, but can still cast lower-level spells from staves. In other words, a spellcaster who has 2nd- and 3rd-level slots but not 1st-level slots can still cast a 1st-level spell from a staff. (A magus who prepares a staff still has to sacrifice a spell slot they actually have if they want to add extra charges, though.)


Errenor wrote:


Gortle wrote:
This stops them technically from being able to use low level spells in staves - as staves have the casting restriction.
Staves have the restriction of 'able to cast spells of the appropriate level' (without even 'from spell slots' addition, but that wouldn't turn on the restriction either). As I (and the rules) said above, there's no 'you can't prepare spells of lower level at all', no 'you can't cast lower level spells at all' and no 'absolute lowest level of spells you can cast' restrictions in the rules. So nothing prevents staves from working either. At all.

That restriction exists.

It is implicit in the casting rules for each class when you prepare a spell that you elevate it the spell level to the level of the slot you are using.

So if you don't have a lower level slot, you can't cast a lower level spell. There is just no mechanism to do that. Your only mechanism for casting forces you to heighten your spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Phrasing is worded in such a way that it doesn't address the concerns people have over the ring of wizardry/endless grimoire though.

Do they mean that Magi can use staves properly because having 5th level spells de-facto means you have first, second, third, and fourth level spells? Or does it mean that bounded casting is a specific exception to the normal casting rules? Something else entirely?

At least the people insisting they can't cast spells from a staff can stop now.


breithauptclan wrote:

Woot. The clarifications on the 4th edition printing clears at least part of this up.

Regarding casting from staves:

Quote:

Page 592 (Clarification): How can I use a staff if I have high-level slots but not lower ones?

Classes like the magus and summoner lose their lower-level slots as they go up in level, but can still cast lower-level spells from staves. In other words, a spellcaster who has 2nd- and 3rd-level slots but not 1st-level slots can still cast a 1st-level spell from a staff. (A magus who prepares a staff still has to sacrifice a spell slot they actually have if they want to add extra charges, though.)

Cool.

When did the 4th errata come out? I must have missed the announcement.

Liberty's Edge

Gortle wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Woot. The clarifications on the 4th edition printing clears at least part of this up.

Regarding casting from staves:

Quote:

Page 592 (Clarification): How can I use a staff if I have high-level slots but not lower ones?

Classes like the magus and summoner lose their lower-level slots as they go up in level, but can still cast lower-level spells from staves. In other words, a spellcaster who has 2nd- and 3rd-level slots but not 1st-level slots can still cast a 1st-level spell from a staff. (A magus who prepares a staff still has to sacrifice a spell slot they actually have if they want to add extra charges, though.)

Cool.

When did the 4th errata come out? I must have missed the announcement.

It just dropped like 45 minutes ago, check that FAQ page or latest blog if you want more context as they are changing how/when Errata is being issued.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Phrasing is worded in such a way that it doesn't address the concerns people have over the ring of wizardry/endless grimoire though.

Perhaps not. But it does make such arguments against those items look even more silly.

Grand Lodge

Themetricsystem wrote:

You're choosing to selectively read the rules and interpret statements, text, and tables that have the exact same characters and wording in different ways in order to achieve the result you want - BEEG NO NO around the Rules forum.

RAW this is broken, indisputably. RAI, all we have is the word of one Dev (which to me is enough for actual use at the table), but RAI arguments hold absolutely ZERO weight to me as that stuff is completely subjective and under the threat of personal interpretation which is a poison-pill to constructive discussion and IMO has no place in this sub-forum. If you want to discuss how you feel it "should work" rather than "what does it SAY" then the Advice forums is right next door.

This is just offensive, and will get no further debate from me.


Lucerious wrote:
Is there any time “0” is used instead of “-“ on a spell slot chart? I don’t believe there is. Unless there is, it seems to me with more thought on the subject that the “-“ marker doesn’t necessarily mean anything different than “0”.

There is no mention of 0 on a spell chart because 0 doesn't make much sense unless you're trying to denote that they might gain spell slots from other sources, but don't otherwise have any initially, or that they can cast spells of that level, but don't have any slots for it.

Just as well, if they wanted to put in a 0, they would have. But they didn't. And they put a '-' in for spells on both sides of the spectrum, spells you can't cast due to being too low of character level, and spells you can't cast due to being too high of character level. To argue that it's not one and the same is more absurd than saying that it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lucerious wrote:
Is there any time “0” is used instead of “-“ on a spell slot chart? I don’t believe there is. Unless there is, it seems to me with more thought on the subject that the “-“ marker doesn’t necessarily mean anything different than “0”.

There is no mention of 0 on a spell chart because 0 doesn't make much sense unless you're trying to denote that they might gain spell slots from other sources, but don't otherwise have any initially, or that they can cast spells of that level, but don't have any slots for it.

Just as well, if they wanted to put in a 0, they would have. But they didn't. And they put a '-' in for spells on both sides of the spectrum, spells you can't cast due to being too low of character level, and spells you can't cast due to being too high of character level. To argue that it's not one and the same is more absurd than saying that it is.

I’m sorry, but what you wrote is a lot of presumption without any facts to back it. Since we just learned via the new errata that the “-“ has no effect for casting lower level spells from a staff, your presumption is further unsupported by the rules. Maybe they didn’t put a 0 because the thought of what that meant was not in their minds. Per another poster, even Mark Seifter said the Ring of Wizardry works just fine for a Magus. It seems most evidence points towards “-“ meaning no slots and not nonexistent slots.


Lucerious wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lucerious wrote:
Is there any time “0” is used instead of “-“ on a spell slot chart? I don’t believe there is. Unless there is, it seems to me with more thought on the subject that the “-“ marker doesn’t necessarily mean anything different than “0”.

There is no mention of 0 on a spell chart because 0 doesn't make much sense unless you're trying to denote that they might gain spell slots from other sources, but don't otherwise have any initially, or that they can cast spells of that level, but don't have any slots for it.

Just as well, if they wanted to put in a 0, they would have. But they didn't. And they put a '-' in for spells on both sides of the spectrum, spells you can't cast due to being too low of character level, and spells you can't cast due to being too high of character level. To argue that it's not one and the same is more absurd than saying that it is.

I’m sorry, but what you wrote is a lot of presumption without any facts to back it. Since we just learned via the new errata that the “-“ has no effect for casting lower level spells from a staff, your presumption is further unsupported by the rules. Maybe they didn’t put a 0 because the thought of what that meant was not in their minds. Per another poster, even Mark Seifter said the Ring of Wizardry works just fine for a Magus. It seems most evidence points towards “-“ meaning no slots and not nonexistent slots.

Ah, yes, because casting from a staff is the same as casting from your own spell slots, right? Except it's not. You can't use Quicken Spell on a spell from a Staff, and Dangerous Sorcery doesn't work with spells from a Staff. And Ring of Wizardry doesn't give you more charges or uses from a Staff. So they're different. Which means, different rules govern them. At best, I'd treat the errata as a clarification for staff function for Bounded Spellcasting, which is actually how I would have ruled it in the first place: They can cast spells of a higher level than the staff, so they should be able to utilize spells of all levels stored in the staff provided they have the charges remaining to do so, because not being able to utilize spells of a lower level when you can cast a higher level spell makes no sense.

Again, developer intent is not RAW. In all other instances of the '-' entry, the assumption is "They can't cast spells of this level," because the rules go out of their way to explain it as such in regards to the spellcasting entries in given classes. Expecting players to magically assume that they should be able to retroactively change how it works for Bounded Spellcasting is both a broad leap in already stated logic (because as everyone likes pointing out, Bounded Spellcasting rules don't really tell us that), and doesn't match what the RAW already is, which is that '-' in the table means you can't cast those spells (yet). It's how it's shown for every other spellcaster type in the game. If Bounded Spellcasting is meant to be treated differently, then they should have done something differently for it. You know, like a '0.' Which makes more sense to denote that they can still cast spells of the level, they just don't possess slots for it. Whatever, editing process just flung their hands up and said "Who gives a damn?"

Honestly, them going out of their way to put in a '-*' and put a cliffnote in the table explaining what it means and what it conveys means there is already an assumed line of thinking with '-', and they had to actually expand upon it with the Studious Spells feature. Otherwise, why bother? Studious Spells already provides a specific that trumps the general table, so needing to exposit that on the table makes no sense.


breithauptclan wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Phrasing is worded in such a way that it doesn't address the concerns people have over the ring of wizardry/endless grimoire though.
Perhaps not. But it does make such arguments against those items look even more silly.

IMO, it makes them LESS, as it needed errata for it to be clear/explicit. It wasn't a thing 5 hours ago after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument against the staff working used nearly the same reasoning as the argument against the ring or grimoire working. That the low level slots are completely inaccessible.

With the clarification saying that the staff works because you can still access those lower level spell slots, the argument against the ring and grimoire gets much weaker too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

The argument against the staff working used nearly the same reasoning as the argument against the ring or grimoire working. That the low level slots are completely inaccessible.

With the clarification saying that the staff works because you can still access those lower level spell slots, the argument against the ring and grimoire gets much weaker too.

My comment was about pre-errata arguments and you seem to be clarifying your post was about post-errata comments. Post-errata, I'd still argue the chart is misleading with a '-' for those slots and think a '0' fits better.

Sovereign Court

If magi are still supposed to be able to scavenge up lower level spell slots, then changing those entries in the table to 0 is much clearer. If that was the intent then yeah, the current table is misleading.

The staff errata is very much just staff errata and doesn't say anything about anything else.

Liberty's Edge

Agreed, 0 is SOOO much more clear for all intents and purposes as it's a numerical value versus a Unicode character that is incompatible with additive bonuses or deductive penalties.

EXTREMELY easy fix and it wouldn't take any reformatting or additional text to clarify anything in the reprint version of the book at all, no need for a sidebar or anything like that.


breithauptclan wrote:

The argument against the staff working used nearly the same reasoning as the argument against the ring or grimoire working. That the low level slots are completely inaccessible.

With the clarification saying that the staff works because you can still access those lower level spell slots, the argument against the ring and grimoire gets much weaker too.

I disagree, because the clarification makes no sense. At no point can you "still access those lower level spell slots." It's a false explanation that's not backed by anything in the rules. The heightening rules completely debunk this concept. And you actually don't have access to them until the Studious Spells feature anyway, which is what I have been saying all along, and just as well, Studious Spells puts limitations on what you can memorize in those slots, meaning any other "bonus spell slots" would still have to follow those limitations.

At best, the clarification should have been that the requirements need to be that you can cast spells of that given spell level or higher. And really, that's always been the assumed requirement to begin with, which is why the argument applying to the staff didn't make sense to me anyway, since staves already still function regardless.

Again, Staves function with Charges. The Ring and Grimoire work with Slots. These are not equivalent. Treating the situations as if they are simplifies things in a way not intended by the rules, since other abilities and effects go out of their way to specify slots (even from your own class) versus spells you simply cast regardless of their source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I disagree, because the clarification makes no sense. At no point can you "still access those lower level spell slots." It's a false explanation that's not backed by anything in the rules.

Are you misunderstanding me? Or the clarification in the FAQ?

If it is me, then perhaps I could be more clear. A Magus definitely doesn't have any of the lower level spell slots that have been aged out of. But they do still have the ability to use those spell levels from items and such.

The rules explanation for that is doing so is the only explanation available for how staves could work for a level 6 Magus to cast a 1st level spell from a staff - which the game creators have said does in fact work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I disagree, because the clarification makes no sense. At no point can you "still access those lower level spell slots." It's a false explanation that's not backed by anything in the rules.

Are you misunderstanding me? Or the clarification in the FAQ?

If it is me, then perhaps I could be more clear. A Magus definitely doesn't have any of the lower level spell slots that have been aged out of. But they do still have the ability to use those spell levels from items and such.

The rules explanation for that is doing so is the only explanation available for how staves could work for a level 6 Magus to cast a 1st level spell from a staff - which the game creators have said does in fact work.

You said:

breithauptclan wrote:
...the clarification saying that the staff works because you can still access those lower level spell slots...

Which doesn't make sense, as the clarification outright denies that ever being the case:

Staff Clarification wrote:
Classes like the magus and summoner lose their lower-level slots as they go up in level, but can still cast lower-level spells from staves. In other words, a spellcaster who has 2nd- and 3rd-level slots but not 1st-level slots can still cast a 1st-level spell from a staff. (A magus who prepares a staff still has to sacrifice a spell slot they actually have if they want to add extra charges, though.)

It's clear right there that, as you gain levels as a Bounded Spellcaster, you lose your lower level spell slots.

Even so, there isn't actually a reason provided for this clarification. All they essentially state is "Yes, you can still cast lower level spells from staves." There is no reference to anything in the book about this ruling, or even a gleaning of intention. All we're told is "Yes, it works."


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You said:

breithauptclan wrote:
...the clarification saying that the staff works because you can still access those lower level spell slots...
Which doesn't make sense, as the clarification outright denies that ever being the case:

OK. Hoping my second attempt at explaining my thinking worked better than that then.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Even so, there isn't actually a reason provided for this clarification. All they essentially state is "Yes, you can still cast lower level spells from staves." There is no reference to anything in the book about this ruling, or even a gleaning of intention. All we're told is "Yes, it works."

Perhaps. But that is also how most of us felt before the errata/clarification pass anyway - we just couldn't outright prove it.


breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You said:

breithauptclan wrote:
...the clarification saying that the staff works because you can still access those lower level spell slots...
Which doesn't make sense, as the clarification outright denies that ever being the case:

OK. Hoping my second attempt at explaining my thinking worked better than that then.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Even so, there isn't actually a reason provided for this clarification. All they essentially state is "Yes, you can still cast lower level spells from staves." There is no reference to anything in the book about this ruling, or even a gleaning of intention. All we're told is "Yes, it works."
Perhaps. But that is also how most of us felt before the errata/clarification pass anyway - we just couldn't outright prove it.

The rules for operating staves is pretty simple, though:

Staves wrote:
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, there are 3 requirements to cast a given spell on a staff

-The spell is on your spell list
-You can cast spells of the appropriate level
-Have the requisite number of charges to channel the spell

The first and third ones are pretty self-explanatory, but the second one is a gray area simply because there's nothing in the rules that constitutes "appropriate" besides you being able to actually cast spells of that level. Hence the confusion.

Granted, I would have assumed that, no different than a Wizard who can cast higher level spells than ones that are on the staff, a Magus who can cast higher level spells than ones that are on the staff would still constitute as being to cast spells of an "appropriate" level. My point ultimately being, is that the clarification refers to that middle bullet point, and only that middle bullet point: Extrapolating it to any other feature, such as spell slots available to a character, or their ability to gain or lose spell slots based on their equipment, is not an equivalency to make.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
a Magus who can cast higher level spells than ones that are on the staff would still constitute as being to cast spells of an "appropriate" level.

And a ring that gives additional spell slots of an appropriate level also gives those spell slots to the Magus. And the Magus can use those spell slots normally because they can use spell slots of a higher level.


breithauptclan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
a Magus who can cast higher level spells than ones that are on the staff would still constitute as being to cast spells of an "appropriate" level.
And a ring that gives additional spell slots of an appropriate level also gives those spell slots to the Magus. And the Magus can use those spell slots normally because they can use spell slots of a higher level.

That's a stated requirement of using a staff. Once again, this is not an equivalency to make.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But why is it not equivalent? You have stated that it isn't, but haven't really given any reasoning for why not.

Yeah, there might still be a bit of wiggle room to argue against the Ring of Wizardry, but it is much less than it was previously.

If the ruling works for staves, why shouldn't it work for the ring and grimoire too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
... If the ruling works for staves, why shouldn't it work for the ring and grimoire too?

... and a Familiar's Spell Battery ability.


breithauptclan wrote:

But why is it not equivalent? You have stated that it isn't, but haven't really given any reasoning for why not.

Yeah, there might still be a bit of wiggle room to argue against the Ring of Wizardry, but it is much less than it was previously.

If the ruling works for staves, why shouldn't it work for the ring and grimoire too?

Staves use Charges, not Spell Slots. The Ring and Grimoire work directly with Spell Slots. Not Charges. Using Charges on a Staff is not the same as having Spell Slots to cast from. You can't use Dangerous Sorcery on spells from a Staff. You can't use Quicken Spell on a Wand. They are not Spell Slots from your spellcasting class feature.

The ruling refers to an item with Charges, not an item that gives or alters Spell Slots. Charges are not Spell Slots. This is why it's not an equivalency to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see a requirement that you have 1st level spell slots on the ring. It says if you have the arcane tradition, you get two additional slots of the level the ring gives. Doesn't matter if you can only cast 10th level spells of the arcane tradition, you get two extra 1st level slots you can fill.

It would be worse for a summoner if they didn't have any spells you could cast with those two first level slots of the five spells they know. They would just be useless slots. Works better for a magus since they can pull 1st level spells from the spellbook to fill those slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure you can just have basic spellcasting for Wizard, learn a spell you find, and use a higher level Ring of Wizardry to cast spells higher than you can cast from your own slots. Not sure why it ever wouldn't have worked down.


Guntermench wrote:
Pretty sure you can just have basic spellcasting for Wizard, learn a spell you find, and use a higher level Ring of Wizardry to cast spells higher than you can cast from your own slots. Not sure why it ever wouldn't have worked down.

*shrugs*

*gives up*

Sure, why not? A level 4 Fighter with Wizard Dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting can already cast level 10 scrolls...


breithauptclan wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Pretty sure you can just have basic spellcasting for Wizard, learn a spell you find, and use a higher level Ring of Wizardry to cast spells higher than you can cast from your own slots. Not sure why it ever wouldn't have worked down.

*shrugs*

*gives up*

Sure, why not? A level 4 Fighter with Wizard Dedication and Basic Wizard Spellcasting can already cast level 10 scrolls...

I was thinking more a level 12 or higher Fighter that never took Expert Spellcaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Pretty sure you can just have basic spellcasting for Wizard, learn a spell you find, and use a higher level Ring of Wizardry to cast spells higher than you can cast from your own slots. Not sure why it ever wouldn't have worked down.

The way it is written, you can. Not how I would run it, but as written yes, a person with arcane tradition and Basic Spellcasting could use a higher level ring of wizardry.

There is no requirement stated you need to have the slots first unless that rule is somewhere else.

If a level 1 wizard or sorcerer finds a level 4 ring of wizardry, as it is written they can prepare them. Not sure they can cast them, but they could prepare them.

That is where the rule gets more confusing because they obviously didn't think about rings of wizardry with Bounded Casting very well and update the rule.

A sorcerer with arcane tradition can get a ring of wizardry level 4 and have those slots wearing it, but he has nothing to cast.

Just as a summoner with the ring would gain the slots, but might not have a 1st level spell in his repertoire he could use it with.

That's why at my table, I'll let the Magus prepare 1st level spells in the slots and cast first level spells where as the Summoner won't be able to do it unless he has a spell that can be cast in a 1st level slot.

I'll do it this way until I receive some kind of official errata.

Just as if a wizard does get a higher level ring of wizardry or a basic spellcaster, I'll let them prepare the spells but they can't cast them since they can't cast that level of spell. So it will be a moot point if they gain them or not.

Other than that, I'll let them be used as written. If you have arcane casting tradition, you get the slots. Whether you can use those slots, well that's a different discussion will have to be decided table to table.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

what?
why is this even a discussion
why is it so long

obviously magus can cast low level spell
how is this ever a question

51 to 100 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Ring of Wizardry + Bounded Spellcasting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.