what?
why is this even a discussion
why is it so longobviously magus can cast low level spell
how is this ever a question
Pedantic rules reading and debate.
And it is better to do it here among strangers than while sitting at a session with your friends.
Are you meaning the YouTube video that we were talking about earlier?
Or the 4th printing clarifications on the FAQ page?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...note to self, be more specific especially when the conversation has moved on...
No, I meant the Ring of Wizardry working for Magus bit.
That has yet to be clarified via errata. Most of what is being connected to RoW working for a Magus stems from errata allowing them full use of staves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how is this ever a question
Some people like arguing for the sake of it.
I mean there have been things that have been errata'd and clarified to work a specific way and people would still argue that that's not how you should run it.
So no surprise people want to make hay out of whatever scrap of ambiguity they can find over other stuff too.
I mean there have been things that have been errata'd and clarified to work a specific way and people would still argue that that's not how you should run it.
So no surprise people want to make hay out of whatever scrap of ambiguity they can find over other stuff too.
Nice. Two Horse references in one post.
That has yet to be clarified via errata. Most of what is being connected to RoW working for a Magus stems from errata allowing them full use of staves....note to self, be more specific especially when the conversation has moved on...
No, I meant the Ring of Wizardry working for Magus bit.
Because Staves and Rings of Wizardry are exactly the same item, and have the exact same rules, that means it's a 1:1 comparison for it to work? Yeah, no, I'm still not buying it to work that way, especially in PFS.
Rings of Wizardry don't have Charges to expend, Staves do. Staves require only that the spell is on your tradition list to cast from it, and that you are of an appropriate level spellcaster, and costs Charges to do so, which is determined by the highest level spell slot you can cast from. All this clarification/errata does is specify that if you can cast spells of a higher level, it doesn't mean you can't utilize lower level spells from a Staff if you have some sort of restriction that prevents you from having lower level spell slots (such as from Bounded Spellcasting). This does mean, however, you cannot use the alternative activation for Staves for spell slot levels you don't possess, which is to expend 1 spell slot of the given level plus 1 charge from the staff to essentially "transmute" that spell in that slot to the spell from the staff instead when you cast it, which is usually an effort to save on Staff charges.
It isn't treated as a Spell Slot for any purposes (meaning effects like Quicken Spell and Dangerous Sorcery would not apply), which is what the Ring gives you instead, which means you follow the rules set forth by your Spellcasting and Spell Slot tables, which includes the capacity of being able to cast spells of that level with your Slots. And if you are a class that has a Spell Slot restriction built into it, you still have to follow those same restrictions. Meaning, for example, once you acquire Studious Spells, you can only prepare those given spells in those extra slots, no matter how many extra slots you get.
>Because Staves and Rings of Wizardry are exactly the same item, and have the exact same rules, that means it's a 1:1 comparison for it to work?
You're right. They don't work the same way
Staves have this line: "are able to cast spells of the appropriate level"
Ring of Wizardry does not
Ring of Wizardry doesn't need that line because it's not as broad in usage as a Staff, and is limited to what you can do with your spell slots, and isn't a separate mechanic entirely. Just as well, "appropriate level" was somewhat ambiguous, with the clarification now pointing out that "appropriate level" doesn't have to be exact (that is, you don't have to be able to cast 1st level spells to cast 1st level spells from the staff if you can cast 2nd level of higher spells), merely being able to cast spells of a higher level than what the Staff can cast is enough to be of an "appropriate level."
However, this clarification changes nothing, which means spell slots you no longer possess or have the capacity to cast from pre-Studious Spells feature means you don't gain slots for those levels. Even post-Studious Spells feature, those spell slots still follow the limitations set by the feature that gives you access to cast from those slots again.
Summoners get shafted even more if they were Arcane-based, since it doesn't work for them at all.
Summoners get shafted even more if they were Arcane-based, since it doesn't work for them at all.
And somehow you don't think that your interpretation triggers the Ambiguous Rules rule. Fascinating.
I see three possible interpretations for how to run the Ring of Wizardry for Summoners.
1) It can only give you spell slots of levels that you already have spell slots of.
2) It can give you spell slots of its listed spell levels no matter if those spell levels are above or below what you have spell slots of.
3) It can give you spell slots of its listed spell levels if you have spell slots of that level or higher.
Only one of these options isn't either too good or too bad to be true.
And I only see one of those situations to be untenable. The one that screws over two classes for no good reason. In the case of #2, in a home game it's up to the GM if they want to give uncommon items as loot or grant access to them in the form of purchases or recipes. And then the player can discuss whether they'll be able to even learn spells of that level (if it's higher than they can usually cast) or if they're restricted to heightening spells they already know.
Just because it isn't generally financially viable doesn't mean that the rules exploit shouldn't be called out as such.
It is a bit of a trap option for the GM. There is already some precedent for it in the form of the entire party pooling their money together to buy their Fighter better weapon fundamental runes earlier than normal. Giving the Summoner or other spellcasters the ability to get and use a Ring of Wizardry for spell levels that they can't cast yet would be similar to that.
I don't see anything in the Learn a Spell rules that prevents learning spells of higher level than you have spell slots for. And I don't think it should. If you want to spend the time and money and manage to pass the skill check, I'd let you know the spell. I also don't see anything in Spell Heightening or Signature Spells rules that prevent a caster from using spell slots higher than their standard spell slot allocation.
Oh, and the Ring of Wizardry itself may not be available in PFS, but the Endless Grimoire looks like it is. And has pretty much the same rules and rule problems.
By access I don't mean price. Uncommon means the GM can just say "nope"
That really isn't the main point that I am talking about though. It still becomes a trap for an inexperienced GM dealing with an experienced munchkin.
that line is present in Endless Grimoire
"and are capable of preparing spells of the appropriate level"
That is a good point.
Though it also makes it more questionable if a high level Magus can use a low level Grimoire though.
Nice. Two Horse references in one post.
Horses? Where?
Seems I got work to do.
Nice. Two Horse references in one post.Horses? Where?
Seems I got work to do.
LOL.
Let me know if you can't figure them out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoners get shafted even more if they were Arcane-based, since it doesn't work for them at all.And somehow you don't think that your interpretation triggers the Ambiguous Rules rule. Fascinating.
I see three possible interpretations for how to run the Ring of Wizardry for Summoners.
1) It can only give you spell slots of levels that you already have spell slots of.
2) It can give you spell slots of its listed spell levels no matter if those spell levels are above or below what you have spell slots of.
3) It can give you spell slots of its listed spell levels if you have spell slots of that level or higher.Only one of these options isn't either too good or too bad to be true.
I wouldn't find it falling under Ambiguous Rules because it's not unclear what happens, and that you are left to an interpretation that is quite clear what happens.
Here's what the Ring says:
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.
If you take off the ring for any reason, you lose the additional spell slots. You can’t gain spell slots from more than one ring of wizardry per day, nor can a single ring of wizardry grant spell slots more than once per day.
If you can cast arcane spells in a variety of different ways (such as if you are a draconic bloodline sorcerer with the wizard multiclass archetype), you can divide the spell slots as you wish among your various sources of arcane spells.
Okay, so the only requirement for this item to function is that you are an Arcane-based spellcaster. Simple enough, right? It then says you gain 2 additional spell slots each day. Okay, no problem. But then it says that you prepare the spells in those slots just as you do with the rest of your spells. This means it follows the rules of Bounded Spellcasting if you are applying these spell slots to that source of Arcane spellcasting, because there's no reason for the Ring to all-of-a-sudden decide that you can change the rules for preparing your spells. Now, what does the Arcane Spellcasting feature say for Magi?
You study spells so you can combine them with your attacks or solve problems that strength of arms alone can't handle. You can cast arcane spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when casting spells. Because you're a magus, you can draw replacement sigils with the tip of your weapon or your free hand for spells requiring material components, replacing them with somatic components instead of needing a material component pouch.
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.
Now, here is where we have a problem. The class feature defines "spell slots" as "the number of spells you can prepare," and then goes on to state that you have no more than two spell slots of your highest and second highest level spells. Sure, we can argue that this is a default, and that the Ring provides an exception to this listed rule, but the table also shows that for spells that you are too low level to cast from (4th level spells), has the same symbol for the lower level spells once you acquire 3rd level spells (or higher), which means that, if I'm not able to cast 4th level spells as a 5th level Magus anymore than I can cast 1st level spells as a 5th level Magus, that you do not possess the ability to cast spells of those levels anymore than you possess the ability to cast spells higher level than you.
And the only thing that has a specific which trumps the general rules shown for this Bounded Spellcasting is the Studious Spells class feature (and is clarified in the table to work), which means the Ring otherwise does nothing for you unless they adjust spells you otherwise could normally cast. Well, I guess it might allow you to spend 1 Charge to transform your spell slot into a staff stored in the spell, but unless you're getting 2nd level or higher spell slots, this seems superfluous in benefit. There is no other benefit for these slots when you lose them until you acquire the Studious Spells feature, and when you do acquire those slots back, they still suffer the same restrictions listed in the feature which is then consequently adjusted by Studious Spells, because again, the Ring says you prepare the spell slots for your spellcasting class like you would as if they were your own. They aren't free, general purpose spell slots that you can do whatever you want with them, they follow the same rules of your spellcasting feature, whatever that might be.
Otherwise, it functions no differently for a Sorcerer compared to a Wizard; that is, a Wizard gains these slots and must prepare spells in them for them to be cast, whereas a Sorcerer can just use those spell slots for whatever spells they have known and doesn't have to designate them for anything like a Wizard does. Why would a Magus, who has different spellcasting rules than either of these two classes, not have to follow the same restrictions set forth by that class, and the Ring outright says that you treat it as if they were any of your other spells?
We can complain that the former is a feelsbad thing that should be clarified/errata'd to work with the Magus, and that the median falls under TGTBT, but the former isn't ambiguous whatsoever (which means it can't fall under Ambiguous Rules), and the median is so contrived that it more often than not simply falls under Reducto ad Absurdum. Honestly, there was no difference between Interpretation 1 and Interpretation 3 pre-Bounded Spellcasting, and these were issues spelled out for these classes well before they hit the final print. The only thing Bounded Spellcasting did was make it possible for Interpretation 1 to take place independently of Interpretation 3.
And I only see one of those situations to be untenable. The one that screws over two classes for no good reason. In the case of #2, in a home game it's up to the GM if they want to give uncommon items as loot or grant access to them in the form of purchases or recipes. And then the player can discuss whether they'll be able to even learn spells of that level (if it's higher than they can usually cast) or if they're restricted to heightening spells they already know. All perfectly good GM calls
Bringing up PFS is a moot point. The ring isn't even available in PFS unless it has recently appeared as loot in an adventure somewhere I'm unaware of. The Avid Collector - Core Rulebook boon doesn't grant it
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, there's two ways to look at this. The first is that if this item is that good, people are going to be gunning for it to the point that it's De Facto (i.e. part of the "Big Six" as defined in PF1) for these classes. And that's bad design; when playing a Magus or Summoner, while this is a good thing to have, I think it's silly that I would feel compelled to go for this item just because I feel like my class is crutched. It's now become a forced item to have to keep parity with everyone, which is honestly not really a good design. (It also doesn't help that it falls off pretty quickly.) Whereas if you gave it to a Wizard or Sorcerer, they had a few more spell slots to doink around with for minor versatility things, and while it was nice, it wasn't a case of "I absolutely need to acquire this item."
The second boils down to class niches. Bounded spellcasters were intentionally created to have far less spell power (and infinitely less lower level spell power) than true spellcasters, mostly because they gained benefits in other ways (such as Spellstrike and full Martial proficiency for Magi, and the Martial-based Eidolon for Summoners). If this item was allowed to work for these classes, it greatly increases their versatility in a way that makes them pretty close to having full spellcaster capacity. Yes, they can activate wands and staves and scrolls the same as any other spellcaster, but their innate spell power is significantly weaker to compensate for their other benefits. An item that shifts this value in their favor is such a larger increase for them compared to a true spellcaster.
Fair enough on the PFS thing. Even if it did exist, who knows how they'd run it, because it feels like a completely different game compared to a home table, so how accurate that would be is anyone's guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, you prepare the spell slot like you would any other. So you have a first level spell slot and prepare a first level spell in it.
Honestly pretty easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then it says that you prepare the spells in those slots just as you do with the rest of your spells. This means it follows the rules of Bounded Spellcasting if you are applying these spell slots to that source of Arcane spellcasting, because there's no reason for the Ring to all-of-a-sudden decide that you can change the rules for preparing your spells.
Remember that spells are different than spell slots.
You prepare spells in the spell slots that you have. So if you have a 2nd level spell in your spellbook and two 4th level spell slots and two 5th level spell slots, then you can use spell heightening to put that 2nd level spell into one of your spell slots.
And if you have a Ring of Wizardry that gives you an extra 2nd level spell slot, then you can prepare a 2nd level spell into that spell slot the same as you do with the rest of your spells. Why does it matter that you had zero 2nd level spell slots without the ring? That doesn't change how your spells are prepared.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then it says that you prepare the spells in those slots just as you do with the rest of your spells. This means it follows the rules of Bounded Spellcasting if you are applying these spell slots to that source of Arcane spellcasting, because there's no reason for the Ring to all-of-a-sudden decide that you can change the rules for preparing your spells.Remember that spells are different than spell slots.
You prepare spells in the spell slots that you have. So if you have a 2nd level spell in your spellbook and two 4th level spell slots and two 5th level spell slots, then you can use spell heightening to put that 2nd level spell into one of your spell slots.
And if you have a Ring of Wizardry that gives you an extra 2nd level spell slot, then you can prepare a 2nd level spell into that spell slot the same as you do with the rest of your spells. Why does it matter that you had zero 2nd level spell slots without the ring? That doesn't change how your spells are prepared.
Because you don't have 0 2nd level spell slot without the ring, you have '-' 2nd level spell slots. 0 is not the same as '-'. Nothing in the rules say that it is, even if you want to argue that they are effectively the same thing. Other rules elements differentiate 0 from '-', so saying that it makes sense to treat it as 0 in this case goes against previously established precedent, meaning you need specifics to trump the general rule here. However, I doubt you're going to find anything relevant.
And before you ask "What's the difference?" The difference is that being ascribed a value, even if it's 0, means that you can actually benefit from things that adjust that value. Things without a value can't benefit unless you are given something that changes it to a value (such as the Studious Spells class feature outright stating you have a limited spell selection of the given level). And no, the Ring does not count as something that changes it to a value, because it doesn't otherwise permit them to cast such a spell with their spell slots to begin with. Studious Spells would, and if you have a Ring that adds Spell slots of the given level, guess what? Those bonus spell slots are treated the same as if they were likewise gained from Studious Spells, because nothing in the Ring says you change how you prepare spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, you prepare the spell slot like you would any other. So you have a first level spell slot and prepare a first level spell in it.
Honestly pretty easy.
But you don't. You have an item that gives 1st level spell slots, but you lost the ability to cast them by 5th level due to the mechanics of Bounded Spellcasting, and the Ring doesn't say you can change the way you prepare spells separate from your Bounded Spellcasting. Or rather, you can, so long as the Arcane Spellcasting is from a separate source (such as a multiclass dedication, which is the example the Ring gives).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, bounded spellcasting takes away your first level spell slots.
And then you have an item that gives you another one. Very handy for a magus.
The ring doesn't require that you can cast spells of "the appropriate level" to begin with like Staves or the Endless Grimoire does. It just adds them.
It gives "additional" slots: this is where it becomes questionable, IMO, as you generally have to have something before you gain something "additional"# and wave casting completely loses slots "-" instead of having a number of slots you could add or subtract from even if it was "0".
#Every instance of "additional" I've found follows that pattern: Additional Lore requires a lore first, Additional Recollection/Additional Knowledge requires you Recall something first, Additional Shadow Magic requires Shadow Magic, Additional Circus Trick requires a Trick first, ect.
*shrug* I generally refuse to play a wave caster without also taking a casting archetype, so it's not affecting me either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be nice if the designers clarified this. It's pretty clearly not a balance issue and makes a ring of wizardry magus and summoner ambiguous, while it works perfectly for multiclass casters. That doesn't make much sense from a balance or working as intended perspective. Should be super easy to clarify too.
Right, bounded spellcasting takes away your first level spell slots.
And then you have an item that gives you another one. Very handy for a magus.
If it "took them away," in the sense that you have no more spell slots for them, they'd be valued at 0. They're not valued at 0. Therefore, you can't add to something that isn't valued. '-' is not a value. Therefore, adding any value to '-' does not change that it is still equal to '-'.
At best, you can argue mathematically that '-' + 1 is equal to '-'+1, but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.
Just because it's effectively the same thing does not mean they are actually the same thing.
Darksol's whole argument, which he keeps repeating as if repetition lends weight, hinges on "just as you normally cast your spells." Except he's ignoring the context of that line and resorting to walls of text full of quotes and imaginary rules to support his stance. A stance with no precedent nor supporting text anywhere in the books. Simply a lot of stretched interpretations about that one bit and how bounded spellcasting works
The full line is, "You prepare spells in these slots or cast from them spontaneously, just as you normally cast your spells."
In context, it's abundantly clear that it's simply specifying that you prepare spells if you're a prepared caster, or cast them spontaneously if you're a spontaneous caster, just as you normally cast your spells. No switching of spellcasting types (prepared vs spontaneous) for those slots unless, as it later says, you actually do cast spells in multiple ways in which case you can choose how to split your bonus slots between sources. "Bounded" is not mentioned, not just because it didn't exist in the first printing, but also because it's an irrelevant non-sequitur. Magus is a prepared caster in the context of the line
The whole "but you don't have spell slots of that level so you can't add more" argument stubbornly ignores what I and others have pointed out. The ring doesn't require that you can cast spells of "the appropriate level" to begin with like Staves or the Endless Grimoire does. It just adds them. It's that simple. It says you get them, so you get them. LIKE MAGIC... or the rules as they're actually written, not the rules as tortured to fit a narrative. The ring's wording has not changed since the 1st printing. Staves, however, got a clarification to allow their use by Magus because it did have that requirement and I'd wager the Endless Grimoire will too, once they get around to another errata for SoM
I won't be back unless someone can astonish me with an original point or some actual precedent or supporting text for...
Ignoring context would mean that I would just treat '-' as 0 because I so absolutely, desperately, want this item to work with this class. That is ignoring context for the sake of "This class is so disabled that this has become a mandatory item for me to make it functional." Just as well, we have more ways to treat spells now, between the hybrid "prepare what I want, cast what I need," and Bounded Spellcasting adjusting how you can spontaneously cast or prepare spells. Are we suggesting the ring wouldn't care about these restrictions, because these restrictions are indeed how we would normally cast our spells? If I can't prepare 1st level spell slots because I lack the ability to do so, then granting slots doesn't change this restriction. It would be no different if it was a 4th level spell slot; if I can't prepare 4th level spells because my class level is too low, then I can't prepare 1st level spells because my class level is too high to do so. This is the purpose of Bounded Spellcasting.
Again, just because you acquire slots doesn't mean you can utilize them. It doesn't matter if you can heighten them, or if you actually have a spellbook to prepare such slots; '-' is not a value, and adding or subtracting anything to it means we do not know for sure what that value is. Odds are, it was used to signify that you do not possess the ability to cast spells of this level anymore. Otherwise, why not just use a '0' to indicate that, well, if things would grant you those slots, you could still add a value to them? Heck, it also would have solved the Staff argument by itself, since just because you don't have a slot doesn't mean you can't cast spells of that level, which is really the biggest reason why they had to clarify the Staff usage in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See - this is why the official clarifications from the 4th printing regarding Magus and casting from staves becomes relevant.
Why does it matter that you had zero 2nd level spell slots without the ring? That doesn't change how your spells are prepared.Because you don't have 0 2nd level spell slot without the ring, you have '-' 2nd level spell slots. 0 is not the same as '-'. Nothing in the rules say that it is, even if you want to argue that they are effectively the same thing.
That is the same and only argument that prevents a 5th level Magus from using a base Staff of Fire that only has 1st level Burning Hands. The argument is based on the Staff rules:
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.
And people interpret that to mean that because the 5th level Magus has '-' 1st level spell slots, that they cannot use the staff. Because '-' spell slots is different than '0' spell slots.
It is kind of a fiddly and questionable ruling, but it seems to be valid.
the 4th printing clarifications.
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.
So the official and published clarification on this ruling is that interpreting the '-' on the lower level Magus and Summoner spell slots as '0' is the valid and correct interpretation. Because otherwise a 5th level Magus couldn't cast a 1st level spell from a staff.
Basically the clarification is that you still have access to a spell level and can still cast spells of that level and still use spell slots from items of that level even if you don't have any spell slots given to you from the class.
At best, you can argue mathematically that '-' + 1 is equal to '-'+1, but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.
Good thing we aren't arguing math then. We are arguing game rules - which are written in text, not math.
See - this is why the official clarifications from the 4th printing regarding Magus and casting from staves becomes relevant.
Why does it matter that you had zero 2nd level spell slots without the ring? That doesn't change how your spells are prepared.Because you don't have 0 2nd level spell slot without the ring, you have '-' 2nd level spell slots. 0 is not the same as '-'. Nothing in the rules say that it is, even if you want to argue that they are effectively the same thing.That is the same and only argument that prevents a 5th level Magus from using a base Staff of Fire that only has 1st level Burning Hands. The argument is based on the Staff rules:
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.And people interpret that to mean that because the 5th level Magus has '-' 1st level spell slots, that they cannot use the staff. Because '-' spell slots is different than '0' spell slots.
It is kind of a fiddly and questionable ruling, but it seems to be valid.
the 4th printing clarifications.
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.
So the official and published clarification on this ruling is that interpreting the '-' on the lower level Magus and Summoner spell slots as '0' is the valid and correct interpretation. Because otherwise a 5th level Magus couldn't cast a 1st level spell from a staff.
Basically the clarification is that you still have access to a spell...
Incorrect. The clarification is exactly as it says: A spellcaster who has 2nd and 3rd level slots, but not 1st level slots, can still cast 1st level spells from a staff. That's the key factor here: This only works for Staves. It does not work for other rules elements. It doesn't matter for Wands or Scrolls, because they don't have the "appropriate level" clause. A Staff, on the other hand, does. And so do Spell Slots.
All the clarification means is that being able to cast spells of a higher level, but not of the exact level, still means you are able to cast spells of an "appropriate level" for utilizing spells from Staves. That's it. Nothing else. I'll also point out that if such a Magus were to have spell slots from Studious Spells, and had a Staff with a relevant spell level, they could actually expend one of those slots and 1 Charge from the staff to "transmute" the Studious Spell slot into a spell from the Staff. They otherwise can't do this based on the rules for Bounded Spellcasting unless it was one of their 4 highest or 2nd highest available spell slots.
Extrapolating the clarification for anything other than what it's meant to clarify is conjecture for the sake of wanting it to work out. And the worst part is, if they actually did change the '-' to 0, it would have solved this debate entirely, because the issue is no longer "They can't cast spells of this level," it is "They have no spell slots for this level." One of these things prevents the ability to cast spells of that level. The other does not.
In my opinion, one of these fixes is far easier to justify text space/change for, and doesn't require people to go on the internet to read up on it for a clarification on how just one type of item works. This fixes all relevant items while still solving the apparent issue. Which leads me to believe that the reason they didn't do this is because they didn't want these classes to get free blanket spell slots to use whatever with.
but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.It's odd that you keep making this assertion, because in accounting '-' is 0.
This isn't accounting, though. This is a game with rules. The rules of the game assert that 0 is a value, and that '-' is not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I'm willing to argue against game devs that post things on random unofficial places like YouTube videos or even rules discussion threads.
But when they publish game rule text or clarifications in official places, I go with what is obviously intended. And the intent of the clarification is to let the Bounded Spellcasters continue using their low level spell levels if they can get a spell slot to use them with from an item.
English is hard. And writing in English in a way that cannot possibly be misinterpreted is even harder.
The intent is clear. The argument against allowing Magus to use a Ring of Wizardry is shaky to begin with and even worse after the clarifications.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules of the game assert that 0 is a value, and that '-' is not.
You have a citation for that?
Look, I'm willing to argue against game devs that post things on random unofficial places like YouTube videos or even rules discussion threads.
But when they publish game rule text or clarifications in official places, I go with what is obviously intended. And the intent of the clarification is to let the Bounded Spellcasters continue using their low level spell levels if they can get a spell slot to use them with from an item.
English is hard. And writing in English in a way that cannot possibly be misinterpreted is even harder.
The intent is clear. The argument against allowing Magus to use a Ring of Wizardry is shaky to begin with and even worse after the clarifications.
Sure, the intent is clear, but you're blatantly ignoring what it actually applies to in order to get what you want. Here's what the clarification says:
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.
So, obviously, the clarification applies to casting spells, specifically, from a Staff. Right? Well, the Ring is not a Staff. Therefore, the clarification does not apply to the Ring, because again, the Ring. Is. Not. A. Staff. It's a Ring. These are two separate entities with two separate rules systems governing them. Assuming they should just 'work' because it shouldn't be tough to interchange them is the same as assuming '-' is equal to 0. A potentially valid assumption, but there are ramifications behind it that are dubious in intent.
If the clarification was a broad stroke to include items, sure! It'd totally work! But it doesn't. It talks about Staves, and only Staves. Not Rings, not Wands, etc. So extrapolating the clarification beyond what it's discussing is conjecture at best and falsehoods at worst.
You know what else would have worked? Changing all the '-' to 0. In fact, it would have solved the Staff issue while also solving this issue and any other future issues regarding whether these classes can cast spells of those levels. People wouldn't question it, all they would know is you no longer possess the relevant slots. Not having slots is no different than a spellcaster having already expended them in the first place; there is no question of whether it can be cast, the question is whether they have the slot for them, and the answer is clear: No. No they don't. If they had the slot, could they cast them? Absolutely. But that would require it to be possible for there to be a slot in there to begin with, and '-' eliminates that as a possibility.
By the way, citations are for proving something that is, and not for proving something that isn't (unless you are trying to prove that it is something else, which falls back to proving something that is, and thereby eliminating something that isn't as a possibility). You're trying to say that '-' is 0. Therefore, burden of proof is on you. If you can prove that '-' is 0, then you'd win, and I'd concede. Until that happens, or until the errata to turn it into 0 is done, this doesn't work for obvious, unambiguous reasons, even if you disagree with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, bounded spellcasting takes away your first level spell slots.
And then you have an item that gives you another one. Very handy for a magus.
If it "took them away," in the sense that you have no more spell slots for them, they'd be valued at 0. They're not valued at 0. Therefore, you can't add to something that isn't valued. '-' is not a value. Therefore, adding any value to '-' does not change that it is still equal to '-'.
At best, you can argue mathematically that '-' + 1 is equal to '-'+1, but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.
Just because it's effectively the same thing does not mean they are actually the same thing.
Right, you don't have level 1 spell slots, then you take an item that gives you a level 1 spell slot. That's what the ring does.
Therefore, burden of proof is on you.
Do you just get to unilaterally declare this? I mean... you're the one who seems so fixated on trying to stop Magi from using the Ring, that puts at least a little emphasis on you to support your position, doesn't it?
People who want to use the ring will just keep using it per the rules of the game in the meantime.
This isn't accounting, though. This is a game with rules. The rules of the game assert that 0 is a value, and that '-' is not.but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.It's odd that you keep making this assertion, because in accounting '-' is 0.
Maybe in 1st Edition, but insofar as I'm aware, no such rule exists in 2nd Edition.
Please, feel free to correct me.
Right, bounded spellcasting takes away your first level spell slots.
And then you have an item that gives you another one. Very handy for a magus.
If it "took them away," in the sense that you have no more spell slots for them, they'd be valued at 0. They're not valued at 0. Therefore, you can't add to something that isn't valued. '-' is not a value. Therefore, adding any value to '-' does not change that it is still equal to '-'.
At best, you can argue mathematically that '-' + 1 is equal to '-'+1, but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.
Just because it's effectively the same thing does not mean they are actually the same thing.
Right, you don't have level 1 spell slots, then you take an item that gives you a level 1 spell slot. That's what the ring does.
Therefore, burden of proof is on you.Do you just get to unilaterally declare this? I mean... you're the one who seems so fixated on trying to stop Magi from using the Ring, that puts at least a little emphasis on you to support your position, doesn't it?
People who want to use the ring will just keep using it per the rules of the game in the meantime.
But you can only benefit from gaining 1st level spell slots if you are capable of receiving them in the first place. A value of 0 makes this clear to be done, because like you said, it gives you a 1st level spell slot, changing that value from 0 to 1. A non-value like '-' does not, therefore it's questionable at-best and outright impossible at-worst to adjust it to a value of 1, because it's difficult to say if there is supposed to be a value there at all.
I do, because it's the basics of debate. Just as well, I'm actually fixated on parsing things for what they're meant to be parsed for. Treating the Ring as a Staff, and applying rulings for Staves for the Ring is an absurd argument when they are not at all the same thing in any circumstance.
Also:
People who want to use the ring will just keep using it per houserules in the meantime.
FTFY.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to treat the ring as a staff, you just need to do what the ring says it does.
This isn't accounting, though. This is a game with rules. The rules of the game assert that 0 is a value, and that '-' is not.but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.It's odd that you keep making this assertion, because in accounting '-' is 0.Maybe in 1st Edition, but insofar as I'm aware, no such rule exists in 2nd Edition.
Please, feel free to correct me.
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.
That's such an obvious False Equivalence it's pathetic lol. Completely different contextThis isn't accounting, though. This is a game with rules. The rules of the game assert that 0 is a value, and that '-' is not.but you still don't know what value '-' represents when you try to solve for it, hence why you can't just assume it equals 0, because it could very well not mean 0.It's odd that you keep making this assertion, because in accounting '-' is 0.Maybe in 1st Edition, but insofar as I'm aware, no such rule exists in 2nd Edition.
Please, feel free to correct me.
While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload, the GM determines whether they must be performed together as an activity, or you can spend some of those actions during one turn and the rest during your next turn.
An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.
Not sure how it being a different context really matters. They wanted a book reference for 0 and '-' being listed as different entities, I provided one. If you don't like it, then that's, like, your opinion, man.
But you can only benefit from gaining 1st level spell slots if you are capable of receiving them in the first place.
CITATION NEEDED.
The ring only says: It does nothing unless you have a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition.
No mention of actually needed spell slots of the same level.
And to the point on the reload table, the one place where - and 0 actually mean different things they added 3 paragraphs to explain what they mean. This actually reinforces the standard english reading of them being the same.
You know what else would have worked? Changing the magus text from "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."
"To you cannot have more than two magus spell slots ...
The Ring does not circumvent your ability to cast spells of that otherwise inaccessible level just because of that generic clause. Because again, being able to cast spells at a level higher than you can normally cast is obviously not intended, and Staff rules, that let you do so for Staves with lower level spells, (because they have Charges, not Spell Slots,) don't apply to the Ring.
Let's just put the Ring and the Staff aside for a moment here, and ask ourselves: Can a 5th level Magus cast a 1st level Spell? No. No they can't. Yes, they have a Spellbook that has a 1st level Spell in it. Yes, they can use that spell for preparation into their available slots. But they can't prepare it as a 1st level Spell, they don't have a slot for it. So it means they can't actually cast a 1st level Spell, because it heightens to 2nd (or 3rd) level, and they otherwise don't have the capacity to cast 1st level Spells. I find it highly unintended for them to immediately gain access to a spell level they don't have (or lost) access to before, because this is a deliberate limitation set forth by Bounded Spellcasting. Adding a Staff or a Ring shouldn't change that. It doesn't change it for any other class, why should it change for Bounded Spellcasters?
I mean, they had to explain that because having '-' be undefined would create questions as to what precisely that means outside of "it doesn't have a value". Fundamentally, it means it's a weapon that doesn't reload (because it doesn't have a value, which is what is required to be able to reload it). But if it doesn't reload (i.e. have a value), then how does it work as a ranged weapon? You really only need the one paragraph for that explanation, the other one I referenced is only to designate that it's a binary outcome of "it has a value/it doesn't have a value". Just as well, it's the reason why the Daikyu had to be errata'd (because you don't throw a projectile weapon), and it's the reason why I feel the Shurikens need to be errata'd, because having a Reload value on something that isn't supposed to be valued (because it has to be thrown to Strike with, and isn't otherwise a projectile weapon) makes no sense.