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.
Amusingly, what that citation proves is that '-' is a value. A value that is different than '0', but it is a value that is used in the game rules. And it is a value that needs to be defined in the rules.
For thrown weapons the meaning of that value is explicitly defined.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the rules for what '-' is defined as is not explicitly defined for spell slots. But it is not hard to determine what it means from the context of the rules regarding Bounded Spellcasting slots and the clarifications that have been given.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree. The clarification says absolutely NOTHING about what - means and it simply relates to Staves and how they're using, nothing more, nothing less.
Ring of Wizardry does not work with Magus or Arcane Sorcerer if they don't have Slots, full stop and I'd even argue that allowing it is reckless as it essentially makes the Arcane Summoner unquestionably the -BEST- version of Summoner and it isn't even CLOSE. Similarly, allowing/interpreting it in a permissive manner functionally makes keeping the RoW as your best highest level magic item if access is granted by the GM the #1 priority in every case meaning on top of having to maintain Weapon Runes any optimized Magus (and Arcane Summoner via Handwraps) they need to always fish with the remaining 40% of their wealth by level budget for another item that essentially increases their spell slots per day by 75% which is just MASSIVE to the point of absurdity in terms of functional benefits that any one item can/should ever provide to ANY player character.
In short, saying that you think the FAQ being discussed relates to this at all is, IMO, a VERY bad take and probably one done in bad faith as FAQs are issued to clear up and dispel interpretation, and if you're bending over backward like this to interpret what ELSE the FAQ means that tells me you're going against the whole point of a FAQ in that the statements mean exactly what the mean and nothing more.
Blatantly ignoring the ad hominem.
And I'm pretty sure that second paragraph is actually your reason for not liking the clarification and ruling regarding the Ring of Wizardry - not anything about the meaning of '-'.
And while it is a reasonable assessment, that is also why the Ring of Wizardry is uncommon and the Endless Grimoire is not - because the Ring of Wizardry is specific to the one tradition.
Hard disagree. The clarification says absolutely NOTHING about what - means and it simply relates to Staves and how they're using, nothing more, nothing less.
So what was the argument and reasoning for not allowing Magus to use a staff prior to the clarification?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the arguments against magi being able to use the ring very silly. I'd also like to point out that disallowing their use is also silly from a story perspective (a magus is literally a wizard who only bothers to prepare top end spells each day so they have more time to fit in pushups), and unnecessary from a balance perspective (there is nothing overpowered about magi using the ring whatsoever).
Even if you think you can torture the raw into disallowing them, there's no good reason to do so. Probably better to let this one go, honestly.
-snip-
I mean, you're not going to find a citation for common sense. Feel free to let me know when you find one, though, the Core Rulebook does do a lot of basic repetitiveness for rules (and sometimes ends up contradicting itself as a result).
And there is zero rules support for the claim that '-' is just short-hand for 0, so it's really just a difference of opinion at this point. Although to be fair, PF1 actually did this for 4/9 spellcasting spell slots if the idea was that they could cast spells of that level, but didn't normally possess slots of that level (but got bonus slots based on their spellcasting abilities), so I'm of the opinion that if Paizo genuinely wanted Magi to be able to "regain" 1st level spell slots, they had every opportunity to input that option as a value of 0 to make it unambiguous for them to gain spell slots, because again, they have done exactly this in the previous edition in regards to bonus spells being relevant. Yes, that was PF1 rules, which aren't supposed to be particularly relevant, and Bonus spells are far less common and likely in this edition, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't exist (this is a Core Rulebook item after all, so it's not like they didn't know they were releasing an item that could do this later down the line), and it's not like they haven't looked at things that would affect a Magus as it would equally affect a Wizard (since they reference Wizard dedications and Spellbooks in the Magus class entry), so the idea that they couldn't have come to that conclusion for their Bounded Spellcasting rules and make better safeguards for its intended function, even after having done a playtest for it, is more absurd than treating '-' for how it's always been.
How is a table with references to '-', resulting in not having slots, and having asterisks stating that you gain spell slots there via the Studious Spells class feature, not constitute RAW? Because '-' isn't definitive enough? I guess maybe they should have taken notes from the Reload rules, maybe? Perhaps, but every other instance of '-' being shown in regards to spellcasting tables is when you lack the ability to cast spells of that given level. Bounded Spellcasting is the only other instance where '-' is being used differently, to denote losing spell slots of the given level, so if there was to be an instance for this to be clarified to operate differently, this would be the time. Unfortunately, it doesn't. So I'm left with what's been shown every other time it's been in the table.
Look, I'm not going to say that Bounded Spellcasting wasn't a dumb idea that wasn't really properly tested, because I'm of the opinion that it is exactly that. Problem is, that's what Paizo published, and it seemed both rushed and somewhat botched. Look at the amount of people complaining about Bow Magus being OP, and Spellstrike triggering reactions, the fact that this is now somehow a major tipping point when it should have been one in the playtest and consequently brought up to be properly fixed (and instead issue lazy clarifications because they somehow can't errata spell table entries) is precisely why these arguments exist.
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.
Amusingly, what that citation proves is that '-' is a value. A value that is different than '0', but it is a value that is used in the game rules. And it is a value that needs to be defined in the rules.
For thrown weapons the meaning of that value is explicitly defined.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the rules for what '-' is defined as is not explicitly defined for spell slots. But it is not hard to determine what it means from the context of the rules regarding Bounded Spellcasting slots and the clarifications that have been given.
But it's not a value for reloading, though, because the first paragraph specifies that the entry indicates a numerical value for reloading such an item, valued in Interact Actions. Instead, we don't get that for '-'; it's a conditional value for a separate mechanic, but that doesn't mean it's its own unique reload value. '-' was clarified for non-reloadable ranged weapons, such as thrown weapons, which are another type of ranged weapon that don't require reloading, but still need an Interact action to be drawn to Strike with. If they had a value of 1, for example, it would mean they'd have to spend 1 Interact Action between every Strike, which isn't intended, even if both values are effectively the same, one of which is really a conditional one, the other a constant one. Just as well, they aren't also otherwise projectile weapons. Hence why '-' made sense for thrown weapons (and not projectile weapons like the Daikyu, which is why it had to be errata'd to function), and why, since thrown weapons weren't clear on how they work, they had to be explained in its own paragraph. Really, the whole point of that was to correlate that '-' essentially meant "n/a", or non-applicable. And it makes sense that way if we consider the context that '-' was originally used in spellcasting tables.
Difficult? Not particularly. It'd be no different than if you knew the value of a given variable already. Consistent? Goodness, no, because Bounded Spellcasting introduced it being used in a wholly different way. Because in the tables, '-' was always used for spells at a level higher than you could cast. So, the odds of a Wizard (or other Arcane spellcaster) acquiring a spell slot of a level higher than they could cast was both practically unheard of (due to the game's expected scaling) and also was initially probably argued against due to it being more power than what was intended for characters of those given levels, likewise using '-' as the reasoning behind it "not working". It was never used for spells at a lower level for any given spellcaster until Bounded Spellcasting came up, so it never stood to reason to treat it any differently because we weren't given any new information as to what it's supposed to mean.
So what was the argument and reasoning for not allowing Magus to use a staff prior to the clarification?
The argument was in regards to what counted as an "appropriate level" of spellcasting to use spells from a Staff. Some argued that "appropriate level" meant "exact level," i.e. 1st level spells required having the ability to cast 1st level spells from your slots, which a Magus didn't have if they were high enough level, and others argued that "appropriate level" meant "of the listed level or higher," which is pretty self-explanatory. The clarification was that the latter argument is the correct one, and that's fine: Activating a Magic Item is not the same as Casting a Spell from Spell Slots, and "appropriate level" is tenuous enough of a term that the latter interpretation is neither insulting nor incorrect. It's not like being able to cast Meteor Swarm doesn't mean you can't cast Command, for example, since one spell is infinitely more powerful than the other, and therefore it seems more than "appropriate" to be able to cast a spell far weaker from a separate magical source.
But again, this is in regards to Charges from a Staff, not Spells from your own Spell Slots. Said Magus wouldn't be able to prepare and cast 1st level spells with spell slots when 5th level or higher anymore than a Fighter with only a Wizard Dedication feat can.
|
"...are able to cast spells of the appropriate level..."
I will note "the appropriate level". This means it refers to a specific level, not a range of levels. Also in the context it is talking about each specific spell on a stave and the three requirements to cast each of them from the stave.
The wording is simple and clear for bounded spellcasting especially given the - on the table of bounded spellcasting.
So, prior to the errata, a bounded spellcaster had limited interaction with staves.
I have zero issues with magus' benefitting from a ring if wizardry. That said, I just don't think it is RAW. And the RAI seems a little too hazy.
I mean, you're not going to find a citation for common sense.
For me, common sense is that the item works equally for all casters who meet the criteria listed. If the - was built to have additional restrictions, those restrictions need to be spelled out, not assumed, like they did in 1E. If you feel it has problematic implications, then you can invoke the ambiguous rules clause.
For me it isn't ambiguous at all it clearly works as RAW and RAI. The ring say it works for any arcane spellcaster will slots and grants extra slots. Without a more specific rule restricting their use, it works evenly for all spellcasters: wizards, arcane sorcerers, arcane witches, magi, summoner, and their multi-class counterparts.
Except not all spellcasters function the same as they have after Bounded Spellcasting hitting the print. Spellcasters haven't ever had escalating spell slots to the point that they consequently lose spell slots of the previous level to compensate, so it was never a potential issue until this point because you never had a case where you would have slots and then consequently lose them, and using the same symbol for slots too high of level for you to cast (which was the only use for it in a spell slot table at the time) is either lazy shorthand, or has mechanical implications far beyond "You just don't have spell slots of this level," such as "You don't possess the ability to cast spells of this level," which is what the symbol has been used for in every other spell slot table prior. And guess what? I'd rather err on the side of "Paizo isn't being lazy about things, there's a reason they used the same symbol here," because the other interpretation feels too permissive.
Nobody argued a Ring of Wizardry granting spell slots higher level than you would give you those slots simply because it breaks expected power curve, and consequently meant it was never going to happen anyway, so that's why it wasn't brought up as an issue until now, because we now have a situation where it's not doing that. All I'm saying is, "It's not overpowered to allow, so it's totally fine for it to work" is not a rules-based reason for something to work, especially when Bounded Spellcasting is meant to expressly limit what spell slots you have available to you.
As for '-' needing to be spelled out, it wasn't spelled out in 1E either, but they at least acknowledged that Bonus Spells were possible (and were part of a basic mechanic in the game), and chose that opportunity to utilize the value of 0 instead of assuming '-' is shorthand for 0, especially for 4/9 spellcasting, which is where it's most prevalent. Point here is that Paizo was able to account for levels where you might get bonus spells, but don't otherwise have inherent spellcasting slots for themselves, so it's not like they weren't able to easily convey the intent of "They can cast spells of this level, they just don't possess the slots to do so." They just...didn't do that here.
Yeah, if a player has the "cast a spell" ability, then as a GM I would give them the additional spells for a ring of wizardry regardless of whether they could normally cast those spells or not. As a GM, I could even see giving a grossly overpowered ring of wizardry to the PCs for a specific adventure (perhaps loaned by a NPC) to be able to do some specifically fun thing that exceeded the expected narrative level. Normally that can be done easily enough with scrolls, but if it was going to be a continuing thing that took a couple of days, I could see it being a good adventure device.
Yeah, if a player has the "cast a spell" ability, then as a GM I would give them the additional spells for a ring of wizardry regardless of whether they could normally cast those spells or not. As a GM, I could even see giving a grossly overpowered ring of wizardry to the PCs for a specific adventure (perhaps loaned by a NPC) to be able to do some specifically fun thing that exceeded the expected narrative level. Normally that can be done easily enough with scrolls, but if it was going to be a continuing thing that took a couple of days, I could see it being a good adventure device.
Too bad the Multiclass Spellcasting rules disagree with that, because then this would mean that Innate Spells would work with the Ring, and they're not meant to, because having an Innate Spell is not the same as having a spellcasting class feature. The Multiclass Spellcasting rules state that you must have the Basic Spellcasting feat in order to count as having a spellcasting class feature, which means simply taking Wizard Dedication, which gives cantrips, would not be enough.
This isn't true. Multiclass casters existing in the first printing, and they chose not to restrict above spell level items either.
Nobody argued a Ring of Wizardry granting spell slots higher level than you would give you those slots simply because it breaks expected power curve, and consequently meant it was never going to happen anyway, so that's why it wasn't brought up as...
Except it wouldn't work that way with how the MCD spellcasting functions, since it gives you escalating spell slots as you gain class levels, so the odds of this giving you spell slots beyond what levels you can cast is practically impossible by most every game's standards. Also, it doesn't remove spell slots unlike the MCD rules for Bounded Spellcasting.
Take Basic Spellcasting as an example, which gives you up to 3rd level spells by level 8 (or level 10 for Bounded). Unless you're running a Type IV Ring of Wizardry, which is a 14th level item (and therefore way higher level than when you would reach the spell level cap for that feat, you could reasonably take Expert Spellcasting at this level or even at 12th if you really wanted the higher level spells anyway), there's no reasonably conceivable means for a situation like this to occur if you are even, say, 10th or 12th level. It's quite contrived for this situation to arise, which means that nobody was going to sit there and argue for a situation that was never going to come up in actual play. That's why there was no threads on the matter, that's why people didn't care so much about the rules. You also never ran into a situation where you lost spell slot access like with Bounded Spellcasting, so again, short of games that go well outside the expected power curve/scope of the game, this wasn't coming up as a potential issue to worry about.
This isn't true. Multiclass casters existing in the first printing, and they chose not to restrict above spell level items either.
Nobody argued a Ring of Wizardry granting spell slots higher level than you would give you those slots simply because it breaks expected power curve, and consequently meant it was never going to happen anyway, so that's why it wasn't brought up as...
Except it wouldn't work that way with how the MCD spellcasting functions, since it gives you escalating spell slots as you gain class levels, so the odds of this giving you spell slots beyond what levels you can cast is practically impossible by most every game's standards. Also, it doesn't remove spell slots unlike the MCD rules for Bounded Spellcasting.
Take Basic Spellcasting as an example, which gives you up to 3rd level spells by level 8 (or level 10 for Bounded). Unless you're running a Type IV Ring of Wizardry, which is a 14th level item (and therefore way higher level than when you would reach the spell level cap for that feat, you could reasonably take Expert Spellcasting at this level or even at 12th if you really wanted the higher level spells anyway), there's no reasonably conceivable means for a situation like this to occur if you are even, say, 10th or 12th level. It's quite contrived for this situation to arise, which means that nobody was going to sit there and argue for a situation that was never going to come up in actual play. That's why there was no threads on the matter, that's why people didn't care so much about the rules. You also never ran into a situation where you lost spell slot access like with Bounded Spellcasting, so again, short of games that go well outside the expected power curve/scope of the game, this wasn't coming up as a potential issue to worry about.
Darksol, you are making a lot of assumptions here that are not stated anywhere in the rules text. MCD gives you the cast a spell activity. The ring of wizardry gives you spell slots of a specific level. It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that. Just like how scrolls can be cast by anyone that has the cast a spell activity, there is no reason to treat the ring any differently. You would still have to learn spells to be able to cast them at that level, which could be difficult with a higher DC, but wizards can always heighten spells they already know, as could a magus.
A - Magus buys two wands: Common, 60gp ea (120 total), grants two first level spell slots / day. Granted they are fixed spells but they also only cost half as much, and can be overcharged to use twice/day. Using them requires "cast a spell".Verdict - no problem.
B - Magus buys Ring of Wizardry: Uncommon, 360gp, grants two first level spell slots / day. Flexible, but also have to know or learn the spell, costs three times as much, no overcharge, requires investment. Using it requires "cast a spell".
Verdict - epic disaster, clearly not RAW, throw toys out of pram.
(re-math for higher levels of wand/ring as needed)
Am I doing this right?
Wands don't give spell slots. They wouldn't be altered by abilities and effects that require spell slots, such as Dangerous Sorcery or Quicken Spell, because again, they're not spell slots. They're once/day magic items that require the Cast a Spell activity to utilize, and that the spell is on your tradition's list. That's it. That's why a Magus can use a Wand of a 1st level spell, even if they don't have spell slots for it.
Actually, it could conceivably happen. A level 14 fighter that has taken only wizard dedication and basic wizard spellcasting puts on a ring of wizardry IV. Do they get the two level 4 slots?
That is as corner-case as it gets. And honestly, I would invoke the factor that, without the Expert Spellcasting feature, you lack the ability to cast 4th level or higher spells, so having access to slots you can't cast from does nothing.
You can't cast spells from a Staff that are 4th level or higher without that feature, as you are unable to fulfill the "appropriate level" clause, so expecting yourself to magically "gain slots" of a level you can't cast without a feat, and therefore magically let you use the Staff's spells, again, without a feat, is a level of shenanigans that the Ring simply doesn't account for.
You'd have more luck using Trick Magic Item to activate the Staff over this, because the level of cheese being used here falls well under TGTBT.
|
|
The fact is, I don't think we are going to amiciably come to an agreement until we can get a SoM Errata push later this year that definitively clarifies what "-" means or if they update it in the Spell Slot allotment table to read as 0 instead for "decayed" Slots or whatever we call them.
The staff ruling does not in any way stand as a proof of intent here.
|
The staff ruling does not in any way stand as a proof of intent here.
The question that was asked here is, prior to the staff clarification, what was the rationale one would use to deny staff spells to a magus?
If the rationale is the same, and the rules clarification was a clarification and not a change, then it would equally apply those all cases of the rationale equally.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that RAI they should be able to use the ring too but I can't see any RAW argument for them to be able to.
I mean the RAW argument is just... the item lists one specific restriction on who can use the item and the Magus fulfills that requirement so the item does what it says it does.
The arguments against it working generally all rely on assumptions about what certain rules mean or what mechanics represent, assumptions that aren't actually spelled out anywhere but are instead inferred or guesstimated as being correct. That's the problem, though, it's at best guessing and at worst literally off topic, because a lot of the concerns over symbology don't actually matter here.
So when you cut away the assumptions and guesswork... you have a magic item, you equip and invest in the item, and then ... it... just does what it does. There doesn't really need to be anything else to it.
Actually, it could conceivably happen. A level 14 fighter that has taken only wizard dedication and basic wizard spellcasting puts on a ring of wizardry IV. Do they get the two level 4 slots?That is as corner-case as it gets. And honestly, I would invoke the factor that, without the Expert Spellcasting feature, you lack the ability to cast 4th level or higher spells, so having access to slots you can't cast from does nothing.
You can't cast spells from a Staff that are 4th level or higher without that feature, as you are unable to fulfill the "appropriate level" clause, so expecting yourself to magically "gain slots" of a level you can't cast without a feat, and therefore magically let you use the Staff's spells, again, without a feat, is a level of shenanigans that the Ring simply doesn't account for.
You'd have more luck using Trick Magic Item to activate the Staff over this, because the level of cheese being used here falls well under TGTBT.
>magically
lol
Almost like it's a MAGIC ring of WIZARDRY. That is its WHOLE THING
c'mon. Let's get some support for your claims. Rules, precedence, anything except you really don't like it? No?You're gonna argue TGTBT? Sure. At that point it's a 14th level UNCOMMON (typically more powerful than common) magic item, which gives two spell slots that are three spell levels lower than 14th level wizards have access to. That's as many 4th level spell slots as a 7th level wizard has. The 14th level ring gives its wearer the power of a wizard HALF its level and that's at its most powerful, most generous rate. The 12th level ring gives a 5th level wizard's power, the 10th level ring gives its wearer a 3rd level wizard's power, and the 7th level ring gives the power of a 1st level wizard. That's not "phenomenal cosmic power" by a long stretch, and certainly not TGTBT for an item that's entirely at the discretion of the GM to award or grant access
Huh, I didn't realize I made an ironic pun. Pun not intended, then.
Either way, I find the Ring of Wizardry giving you access to a whole level of spells you otherwise wouldn't have access to an unintended function of the Ring. It can give you spell slots, yes, expanding your current repertoire and what you otherwise would have access to. But giving you access to a whole new (or old, in the Magus' case) level of spell you otherwise didn't have access to before? That's a much harder sell. Especially when regarding the point of Spellcasting Dedications with their Basic/Expert/Master Spellcasting feats serving as checkpoints to the higher level spell slots means that, well, you gotta spend the feats on it. Don't want to spend the feats? Then you don't get the higher level spell slots. Simple as that. Using magic items to cheese an existing system in place with blatant limitations set forth is precisely why it shouldn't work, and arguing that it does because "there's nothing that says it shouldn't" is the same argument for people saying Wizards getting Master in Unarmed Attacks wasn't an issue. And yet Paizo nerf-batted that into oblivion, because apparently Wizards having Master in Unarmed Attacks wasn't intended, despite it being underpowered and probably niche at-best.
I argued TGTBT because it's a matter of relative power, not a matter of raw power. Never said the Ring is going to make full spellcasters obsolete, all I said is that it's not designed to give you access to spell levels you otherwise shouldn't have access to. Acting like I think it's going to invalidate spellcasters or something and using that as a means to discredit my argument is a strawman.
Wands don't give spell slots. They wouldn't be altered by abilities and effects that require spell slots, such as Dangerous Sorcery or Quicken Spell, because again, they're not spell slots. They're once/day magic items that require the Cast a Spell activity to utilize, and that the spell is on your tradition's list. That's it. That's why a Magus can use a Wand of a 1st level spell, even if they don't have spell slots for it.A Spell Slot is effectively a once a day magic item; that's the point (a more flexible one, granted).
A few other nits:
1) a Magus does not have access to Dangerous sorcery or quickened casting
2) If a Magus *did* have access to quickened casting, they absolutely could use that with a wand. Quickened casting only requires that the spell cast be two levels lower than your highest spell slot... it does not require that the spell be cast *from* a spell slot (Dangerous Sorcery does though).
Read Quicken Spell from the Wizard class again:
If your next action is to cast a cantrip or a spell that is at least 2 levels lower than the highest level spell slot you have, reduce the number of actions to cast it by 1 (minimum 1 action).
Special This can only be used on a cantrip or spell from the class matching the one you gained this feat from.
A Wand is not "a cantrip or spell from the class matching the one you gained this feat from," so you can't use the feat on Wands or Staves. Just as well, there's no way to prove that a cantrip or spell from a Wand or Staff came "from the class matching the one you gained this feat from," and rules generally don't make exceptions for this kind of thing, since Staves and Wands are usually set up based on spell traditions, and not by classes. So the idea that you can prove that for these items is absurd.
Regardless of that fact, the point is there is a distinction between spell slots and once/day spell effects, and disrespecting or ignoring those distinctions means certain effects would otherwise work with them, but they don't because [reasons]. Paizo finds it overpowered for somebody to be able to use Quicken Spell on spells from other classes (via MCD), or on spell-activating items, hence the restriction(s). Is it overpowered? Probably not, in a lot of cases. But Paizo put the restriction in the feat, so acting like it shouldn't be there because it's not overpowered to allow it means you might as well pitch the entire CRB out the window.
Next, people are going to argue the Ring of Wizardry gives you extra uses from Staves and Wands because those are just temporary spell slots in an item or some other ridiculous garbage.
Actually, it could conceivably happen. A level 14 fighter that has taken only wizard dedication and basic wizard spellcasting puts on a ring of wizardry IV. Do they get the two level 4 slots?That is as corner-case as it gets. And honestly, I would invoke the factor that, without the Expert Spellcasting feature, you lack the ability to cast 4th level or higher spells, so having access to slots you can't cast from does nothing.
You can't cast spells from a Staff that are 4th level or higher without that feature, as you are unable to fulfill the "appropriate level" clause, so expecting yourself to magically "gain slots" of a level you can't cast without a feat, and therefore magically let you use the Staff's spells, again, without a feat, is a level of shenanigans that the Ring simply doesn't account for.
You'd have more luck using Trick Magic Item to activate the Staff over this, because the level of cheese being used here falls well under TGTBT.
Why does the buck stop at the ring of wizardry in the staff+ring example, instead of at letting the staff interact with the ring? It seems like if that's the only balance reason the ring of wizardry shouldn't work that way, and the base interaction is fine balance-wise, then you could just prevent the staff and ring from interacting with each other in that way.
Even further, if you're allowing a staff to work that way, effectively reading the intent of "able to cast spells of the appropriate level" as "able to cast spells of the appropriate level through any means" instead of "able to cast spells of the appropriate level through slots gained from class feats/features," couldn't you cast spells of any level from a staff merely by being able to cast spells of any level from a scroll or wand?
Staves use Charges. Rings use Spell Slots. Charges aren't Spell Slots. Effects that apply to Spell Slots don't apply to Charges. Therefore, it's an Apples to Oranges comparison to assume the Staff ruling applies to the Ring. Balance has little to nothing to do with it.
I'm not actually "allowing" the staff to work that way at all, it's technically always worked that way. The thing is, the clarification for "able to cast spells of the appropriate level" is more accurately supposed to be read as "able to cast spells of the listed spell level or higher," and I can accept this as being a clarification on what "appropriate level" precisely refers to, because it's consistent with the idea that a Magus at 5th level is indeed able to cast spells of a higher level than the 1st level spell shown in the Staff because they are still able to cast 2nd or 3rd level spells, and so still otherwise meets requirements.
Don't get me wrong, I find it's an inelegant solution, but it's still a functional one when actually scrutinized properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that RAI they should be able to use the ring too but I can't see any RAW argument for them to be able to.I mean the RAW argument is just... the item lists one specific restriction on who can use the item and the Magus fulfills that requirement so the item does what it says it does.
The arguments against it working generally all rely on assumptions about what certain rules mean or what mechanics represent, assumptions that aren't actually spelled out anywhere but are instead inferred or guesstimated as being correct. That's the problem, though, it's at best guessing and at worst literally off topic, because a lot of the concerns over symbology don't actually matter here.
So when you cut away the assumptions and guesswork... you have a magic item, you equip and invest in the item, and then ... it... just does what it does. There doesn't really need to be anything else to it.
This is how I see it as well.
The item works for a Magus and an Arcane summoner by RAW because the item works exactly as it says it works: if you are an arcane caster, you get two more slots of the given level. Nothing prevents a Magus or Summoner from casting from additional slots provided by some other means be it a wand or staff or scroll, so the slots from the ring work as well.
But some others are adding in rules that are not clarified like the Magus and Summoner cannot cast lower level spell slots for any reason apparently.
This seems to me ludicrous as a magus or summoner can cast a Magic Missile in one of their slots indicating they do indeed recall how to cast and use lower level spells even if their slots are of a certain power level. They did not lose the ability to cast lower level spells if for some reason that capability comes to them via magic item.
I'm not sure why some are pressing so hard to deny this ability adding rules text that doesn't seem to exist that provides any perfectly clear exemption from being able to cast lower level spells.
So I don't quite get why some are so dug in on an ability that isn't clear and yet is clearly not imbalanced in anyway if a DM allows it.
|
|
I don't think people really understand or appreciate how huge a 75% bonus to the number of an INTENTIONALLY extremely limited number of Spell Slots they gain every day actually is... and again, ruling this permissively in any game that a GM allows the RoW to be used/bought/made in means that Construct and Dragon type Summoners are just completely and without question simply superior Spellcasters compared to those from every other Tradition.
I think the biggest piece of potential evidence in this as others noted too is the prospect of the RoW on Archetyped Characters who, under a permissive reading, at higher levels and two Feats worth of investment would have Cantrips and Level 1 Spell Slots added from Feats and THEN Level 2-4 Spell Slots as well added by the RoW without any further Feat investment or advancement in said Archetype, a benefit that GREATLY outweighs the two whole Class Feats invested into the Archetype all for some fiddly coins, which just flat out feels completely wrong for so many reasons that I won't even bother digging into spelling them out (heh.)
I don't think people really understand or appreciate how huge a 75% bonus to the number of an INTENTIONALLY extremely limited number of Spell Slots they gain every day actually is... and again, ruling this permissively in any game that a GM allows the RoW to be used/bought/made in means that Construct and Dragon type Summoners are just completely and without question simply superior Spellcasters compared to those from every other Tradition.
That figure is disingenuous and misleading. They still can't reach the number of slots that traditional casters doing the same thing can, so the status quo is maintained. It's not broken at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people really understand or appreciate how huge a 75% bonus to the number of an INTENTIONALLY extremely limited number of Spell Slots they gain every day actually is... and again, ruling this permissively in any game that a GM allows the RoW to be used/bought/made in means that Construct and Dragon type Summoners are just completely and without question simply superior Spellcasters compared to those from every other Tradition.
I think the biggest piece of potential evidence in this as others noted too is the prospect of the RoW on Archetyped Characters who, under a permissive reading, at higher levels and two Feats worth of investment would have Cantrips and Level 1 Spell Slots added from Feats and THEN Level 2-4 Spell Slots as well added by the RoW without any further Feat investment or advancement in said Archetype, a benefit that GREATLY outweighs the two whole Class Feats invested into the Archetype all for some fiddly coins, which just flat out feels completely wrong for so many reasons that I won't even bother digging into spelling them out (heh.)
Using a number that sounds incredible is very misleading.
The ring of wizardry has an innate limiter in that you can only use one. So it's two extra slots of 1st to 4th level depending on the ring. I do not as a person that DMs a ton see that as causing any major imbalance with the magus or summoner.
I think the scroll ability of the Magus far more powerful than a ring of wizardry. Striker's Scroll is far more powerful in my opinion than a ring of wizardry and will lead to a lot more spell power in a day than the ring which is highly limited and still requires the use of actions outside of a spell strike.
|
|
Disingenuous, hmmm.. around here that really is the throw-it-around term that apparently nobody has any idea what it actually means. I'm being plenty candid, sincere, and most certainly not pretending that folks don't know what they're talking about at all, I just don't think they DO.
I know some folk don't appreciate my perspective or maybe my way of writing, and that's fine, but please stop insisting that I'm being deceitful or disrespectful, that's not the case and insinuating that I contribute to conversations here in order to fulfill some sick desire to be patronizing is really crossing a line. Please, either consider your words before lobbing accusations or better yet discuss the topic without falling into the trap of dogpiling and being rude to someone who has an opinion you don't share.
|
|
That's the thing, I'm not arguing at all from any point of balance whatsoever, others might be, but I'm not so please, understand that.
The main thrust of my position all centers around the "-" at the heart of all this, the very same thing that caused problems with Staves which, for WHATEVER blasted reason, they chose to sidestep and instead issue a very narrow ruling that quite simply remarked, essentially, that "yeah, the wording on the Staff rules permit this" and avoiding the landmine problem that's sitting at the foundations of that issue as well as this one.
It's like a hotfix for a specific use case that is impacted by a bug while leaving that bug itself entirely intact and open to interaction with other features. My guess as to why that would be that they're waiting for the SoM Errata drop later on this year so they can fully update all of the relevant text and perhaps, if appropriate, the whole Spell Slot progression table by replacing lost Slot entries of "-" with "0" and a small note indicating they can still gain Bonus Slots from Feats, Magic Items, Boons, and other things dependent on GM discretion. That'd suture this up really quickly and fix the problem. My issue was really never that "OMG IT'S SO BROKEN PLZ FIX" but rather that the RAW doesn't make any distinction between "-" for Slots you don't have yet, Slots you lost, Slots you can NEVER use or gain numerical Bonuses to, etc. Hopefully, some tweaks are included in the next wave, that's mainly all I want, the ambiguity and whatnot is far more irksome to me than whatever power balance consequences would come from interpreting it ain a permissive way.
|
Maybe they used "-" instead of "0" because it uses less ink, and is therefore cheaper to print?
Seriously guys, yall try too hard to stop people from having fun. I ran an AP that gave a free Ring of Wizardry and the Wizard rarely used those extra slots. It's not game breaking at all. It's Uncommon for a reason, and that's so the GM can decide if they want it in the game or not.
Wands don't give spell slots....etc...
Regardless of that fact, the point is there is a distinction between spell slots and once/day spell effects, and...
I admire your passion, but I am not convinced.
1) A straight reading of RAW allows Magus to use a Ring of Wizardry
2) A reasonable look at equivalent options (like wands) suggest a RoW is not overpowered, it is at best parity, and probably underpowered at the price
3) No opinion on whether a caster could use a RoW to gain slots *higher* than they can normally cast - but that would require a granting an item well above player level, which is under GM control, so doesn't really matter
A wand isn't an equivalent option for a number of reasons. Just off the top of my head:
1. Wands aren't invested compared to any other magic item.
2. Wands don't count against any limit of spells you can cast in a day. Have 10 wands? You can cast that spell 10 times.
3. Wands don't interact with feats that work specifically with spell slots.
4. Wands can be overcharged to work a second time in a day at a risk, a mechanic that isn't shared with spell slots.
5. Wands take a hand, whereas a spell slot doesn't (unless it has a Focus or Material component, but not a particularly common or guaranteed equivalency compared to a Wand).
6. Wands can take existing spells and give them unique effects. Can I have a Manifold Missile spell slot? No.
7. Wand spell levels cap at 9th and don't include Cantrips, so no Wands of Electric Arc (kind of meh), or Wish (which is garbage in this edition anyway).
That's about half a dozen or so crucial differences between Wands and Spell Slots. Feel free to tell me that a Ring of Wizardry is just a handless Wand with multiple charges all you want, but that is even more absurd than people telling me that the Ring gives you spell slots you don't otherwise possess simply because spell level access means nothing, when the game does plenty of things to ensure you're actively balanced around spell levels. If spell levels didn't matter, why not just give 1st level players a Wand of Meteor Swarm? It's only at DC 17 anyway, so it's not like the bad guys won't roll a Natural 20 or Save for Half or be Immune anyway.
As for the last part, people have put forth a possible way for that to happen in the way of Fighters taking Wizard MCD and Basic Spellcasting, so the idea that it can't happen is a lie. It's as much under GM control as it is for players who can craft or have access to the item already, or for when an AP gives such an item as a reward or treasure. The former can only be delayed for so long (at most until Craft Anything becomes available), and the latter may require loot substitution, which sounds like the GM pulling punches or doing dirty moves.
Maybe they used "-" instead of "0" because it uses less ink, and is therefore cheaper to print?
Seriously guys, yall try too hard to stop people from having fun. I ran an AP that gave a free Ring of Wizardry and the Wizard rarely used those extra slots. It's not game breaking at all. It's Uncommon for a reason, and that's so the GM can decide if they want it in the game or not.
At this point, it's safe to say that guessing what '-' stands for is pure conjecture on all sides. It could be short-hand for 0 slots. It could be to indicate they lose access to that spell level. It could be for page spacing reasons. Nobody knows but Paizo, and so far, Paizo isn't answering jack. So all we're left with is assumptions and what little is presented in the book as comparison.
"Stopping people from having fun" is a strawman. If anything, I don't want people trying to get this item and then have it not work the way they think it's intended to work at their home table (or when PFS decides to give it as a treasure reward), because it actually works in a different way. Ergo, the safest option for these people is to err on the side of caution, such as "Getting access to a whole new spell level that I have/haven't had before."
The Ring was created prior to Bounded Spellcasting becoming an existing mechanic, and even in its playtest, spell-based items were a concern in how it interacted with this mechanic, and it wasn't really addressed in the final print. In fact, I'm pretty sure the clarification for Staves was the first (and only) time we got developer commentary on it for such items. Problem is, that's a Staff clarification, not a Magus clarification. People treating it as a general Magus clarification are missing the entire point behind it.
I don't think people really understand or appreciate how huge a 75% bonus to the number of an INTENTIONALLY extremely limited number of Spell Slots they gain every day actually is... and again, ruling this permissively in any game that a GM allows the RoW to be used/bought/made in means that Construct and Dragon type Summoners are just completely and without question simply superior Spellcasters compared to those from every other Tradition.
I think the biggest piece of potential evidence in this as others noted too is the prospect of the RoW on Archetyped Characters who, under a permissive reading, at higher levels and two Feats worth of investment would have Cantrips and Level 1 Spell Slots added from Feats and THEN Level 2-4 Spell Slots as well added by the RoW without any further Feat investment or advancement in said Archetype, a benefit that GREATLY outweighs the two whole Class Feats invested into the Archetype all for some fiddly coins, which just flat out feels completely wrong for so many reasons that I won't even bother digging into spelling them out (heh.)
Using a number that sounds incredible is very misleading.
The ring of wizardry has an innate limiter in that you can only use one. So it's two extra slots of 1st to 4th level depending on the ring. I do not as a person that DMs a ton see that as causing any major imbalance with the magus or summoner.
I think the scroll ability of the Magus far more powerful than a ring of wizardry. Striker's Scroll is far more powerful in my opinion than a ring of wizardry and will lead to a lot more spell power in a day than the ring which is highly limited and still requires the use of actions outside of a spell strike.
Only the Type I ring gives 2 slots. The others give 3 slots, 2 of the current Type in level, and an additional slot of one lower than the current Type in level. As for it being a 75% increase, I can agree that it's not wholly accurate, since this doesn't factor in a Magus' Studious Spells feature, but it does give them 3 more slots compared to the 6 they usually have (4 from their top 2 levels, 2 from Studious Spells), and the Ring gives 2 additional slots of the same level as Studious Spells, plus one at a level below. So we can safely say that it's about mathematically a 50% increase in raw available slots, and an over 100% increase in effective available Studious Spells slots. If that's not significant, then Studious Spells can simply be dropped as a feature and the class would play exactly the same, but something tells me that they actually implemented this feature as a compromise for it being a Bounded Spellcaster.
I interpret that "it's not OP statement" as "Let's give the Magus 3 True Strikes with their Spellstriking without having them expend slots from their Studious Spells feature, it won't warp encounters at all!" Superbidi did the math on this stuff quite extensively, and it's littered all over the forums everywhere. I can just reference that as proof that the above statement is on the contrary. And that's just a basic comparison for what the Ring can give the character.
Striker's Scroll lets a Magus utilize Scrolls for Spellstriking. It's good to get higher level effects on your attacks, which gives better burst, but Striker's Scroll requires utilizing consumables to do, which means it has an active gold cost (either by purchasing/crafting, or by expending found treasure instead of selling) each time it's utilized. Which makes sense, but it is an important factor in its overall effectiveness. One neat interaction would be with a Wizard in the party with Scroll Savant, who can craft up to 4 scrolls for free as part of daily preparations, since that basically gives you 4 free daily consumables (of varying strength) to utilize with the feat, but that seems unlikely to occur.
By comparison, the Ring is a one-time purchase that gives you its effects immediately upon investment each day. Yes, it caps at 4th level spells, but it's not like the Magus' major limitation is that he can only cast 6th level spells (this isn't PF1), it's that he has only a handful of high level spells and only a couple low level spells. Giving him more staying power with lower level spells (which still have significant utility) is a major boost to adventuring day longevity and effectiveness. More True Strikes means they can handle harder encounters quicker, or can fit more encounters in a given adventuring day.
To put this in perspective, this is like saying a Scroll of Mage Armor (8th) is more powerful than simply having +2 Greater Resilient Explorer's Cloths because I can use the scroll and not have to spend gold on the armor. Which is true. But it also costs 1,300 gold each time you want to benefit from it. Meanwhile, that +2 Greater Resilient Explorer's Cloths is lasting between each day's worth of encounters. Which one was the better buy for its cost? The choice is clear to me.
Only the Type I ring gives 2 slots. The others give 3 slots, 2 of the current Type in level, and an additional slot of one lower than the current Type in level. As for it being a 75% increase, I can agree that it's not wholly accurate, since this...I don't think people really understand or appreciate how huge a 75% bonus to the number of an INTENTIONALLY extremely limited number of Spell Slots they gain every day actually is... and again, ruling this permissively in any game that a GM allows the RoW to be used/bought/made in means that Construct and Dragon type Summoners are just completely and without question simply superior Spellcasters compared to those from every other Tradition.
I think the biggest piece of potential evidence in this as others noted too is the prospect of the RoW on Archetyped Characters who, under a permissive reading, at higher levels and two Feats worth of investment would have Cantrips and Level 1 Spell Slots added from Feats and THEN Level 2-4 Spell Slots as well added by the RoW without any further Feat investment or advancement in said Archetype, a benefit that GREATLY outweighs the two whole Class Feats invested into the Archetype all for some fiddly coins, which just flat out feels completely wrong for so many reasons that I won't even bother digging into spelling them out (heh.)
Using a number that sounds incredible is very misleading.
The ring of wizardry has an innate limiter in that you can only use one. So it's two extra slots of 1st to 4th level depending on the ring. I do not as a person that DMs a ton see that as causing any major imbalance with the magus or summoner.
I think the scroll ability of the Magus far more powerful than a ring of wizardry. Striker's Scroll is far more powerful in my opinion than a ring of wizardry and will lead to a lot more spell power in a day than the ring which is highly limited and still requires the use of actions outside of a spell strike.
It's 1st to 4th level spells. They can't be heightened or adjusted.
You can start buying lower level scrolls cheap and still do better damage than a cantrip with Striker's Scroll. So it becomes more and more powerful as you level. A 6th level scroll is 300 gold. You can make 4 of them with crafting or buy a few. You now have a few extra disintegrates or heightened hydraulic push or something similar per adventure. And you can use any random scrolls you pick up. The cost for scrolls becomes trivial for lower level scrolls and you can keep attaching them one time per battle for many additional casts.
Striker's Scroll is more powerful and versatile for using spellstrike than a ring of wizardry. You don't need to use a max level spell to have better options than your cantrips.
There is no balance issue letting a Magus or Summoner use a ring of wizardry.
It's 1st to 4th level spells. They can't be heightened or adjusted.
You can start buying lower level scrolls cheap and still do better damage than a cantrip with Striker's Scroll. So it becomes more and more powerful as you level. A 6th level scroll is 300 gold. You can make 4 of them with crafting or buy a few. You now have a few extra disintegrates or heightened hydraulic push or something similar per adventure. And you can use any random scrolls you pick up. The cost for scrolls becomes trivial for lower level scrolls and you can keep attaching them one time per battle for many additional casts.
Striker's Scroll is more powerful and versatile for using spellstrike than a ring of wizardry. You don't need to use a max level spell to have better options than your cantrips.
There is no balance issue letting a Magus or Summoner use a ring of wizardry.
A Wizard could use those slots with Spell Blending to get an additional 6th level slot, for example, which could be used to fuel an additional 8th level spell slot. Another Heightened Slow per day isn't a bad use of a lower level item, or half of another 8th level spell slot, like Maze. Even so, Magus gets 2nd to 4th level spells via Studious Spells feature, and they're limited to 2 slots from that feature, meaning doubling those slots is a pretty significant boost in power from that perspective.
For the record, Disintegrate is a bad damaging spell due to requiring both an attack roll and the most highly-valued save (which means it's not allowed by default for Spellstrike, and suffers from reduced DC scaling), and is more of a utility spell than anything. Also, Hydraulic Push loses a lot of its scaling on a critical hit; only 3D6 bonus damage on a critical is pretty bad in the higher levels. You're also locked to the scroll you have attached, so if you're unable to make use of it due to extenuating circumstances, it's kind of pointless. Whereas if I have a Ring, the only choice I have to make is which prepared spell do I burn, which is an in-combat choice, and not something I need to either predict or guess. Using it for damaging spell sources of much lower level while requiring some sort of estimated guesswork to its effectiveness seems kind of 'meh' when cantrips scale pretty decently, have spontaneous application benefits, and don't cost a single copper piece.
Define "balance issue." If you define balance issue as "This will break the game," that is probably not going to happen if allowed. If you define balance issue as "The game didn't intend for this combination to happen or work out this way," then I'd disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's 1st to 4th level spells. They can't be heightened or adjusted.
You can start buying lower level scrolls cheap and still do better damage than a cantrip with Striker's Scroll. So it becomes more and more powerful as you level. A 6th level scroll is 300 gold. You can make 4 of them with crafting or buy a few. You now have a few extra disintegrates or heightened hydraulic push or something similar per adventure. And you can use any random scrolls you pick up. The cost for scrolls becomes trivial for lower level scrolls and you can keep attaching them one time per battle for many additional casts.
Striker's Scroll is more powerful and versatile for using spellstrike than a ring of wizardry. You don't need to use a max level spell to have better options than your cantrips.
There is no balance issue letting a Magus or Summoner use a ring of wizardry.
A Wizard could use those slots with Spell Blending to get an additional 6th level slot, for example, which could be used to fuel an additional 8th level spell slot. Another Heightened Slow per day isn't a bad use of a lower level item, or half of another 8th level spell slot, like Maze. Even so, Magus gets 2nd to 4th level spells via Studious Spells feature, and they're limited to 2 slots from that feature, meaning doubling those slots is a pretty significant boost in power from that perspective.
For the record, Disintegrate is a bad damaging spell due to requiring both an attack roll and the most highly-valued save (which means it's not allowed by default for Spellstrike, and suffers from reduced DC scaling), and is more of a utility spell than anything. Also, Hydraulic Push loses a lot of its scaling on a critical hit; only 3D6 bonus damage on a critical is pretty bad in the higher levels. You're also locked to the scroll you have attached, so if you're unable to make use of it due to extenuating circumstances, it's kind of pointless. Whereas if I have a Ring, the only choice I have to make is which prepared spell...
Until the designers release some errata, we won't know what they think.
I know I think they didn't think about how a ring of wizardry works with Bounded Casting and will rewrite it so that the ring works for Magus and arcane Summoners. But until they do, I guess we're left to arguing over rules that aren't explicitly defined with no idea of the intent by the designers.