Ring of Wizardry + Bounded Spellcasting


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Hi,

If you are a bounded spellcaster such as a Magus who no longer has level 1 slots but has higher slots, can you use a Ring of Wizardry to regain level 1 slots?

It seems ambiguous. The number of level 1 slots is listed as "-", not 0, implying that the slots are unavailable. At the same time, the Ring of Wizardry states only that you must have "a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition", not that you must already have slots at the level indicated.

Is there clarification on this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hyphz wrote:

Is there clarification on this?

Not that I am aware of.

If this is for a PFS character you could probably ask in the PFS forums. Otherwise work it out with your GM.

Personally I think that changing it back to '-' was a mistake and it should be '0' for the spell slots lower than your maximum levels. So things like Staves and the Ring of Wizardry should work fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This came up in another thread a while back. The consensus was that the Ring of Wizardry (any version) works the same for any arcane caster bonded or otherwise.


breithauptclan wrote:
Personally I think that changing it back to '-' was a mistake and it should be '0' for the spell slots lower than your maximum levels.

This is the sticking point for me as they've made a precedent that '-' is different than '0' with Reload. As such, it's an issue with staves [they need you to be "able to cast spells of the appropriate level'] and things like the Ring of Wizardry as the table literally removes those slots from the bounded spellcaster.

Lucerious wrote:
This came up in another thread a while back. The consensus was that the Ring of Wizardry (any version) works the same for any arcane caster bonded or otherwise.

I think there is a consensus on RAI but RAW is more contentious. Myself, how I think it is meant to work doesn't match how it's written: something like what breithauptclan suggested would go a long way to fixing it IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I think there is a consensus on RAI but RAW is more contentious.

But isn't RAI the new RAW?

Paizo have basically told us to play the game so it works. So you have your answer.

This is my biggest problem with the game. Paizo doesn't fix a lot of obviously broken stuff. Some of it is really core to the system.


It was actually that Hero Lab technical support claimed that the - meant that level 1 slots could never be gained.

Liberty's Edge

This is an outstanding ambiguity, that much is for sure. I expect there to be clarification issued the next time Secrets of Magic gets reprinted though given how impactful different interpretations are with regard to how it changes things.

Generally though, I tend to agree that the - printed for lower level slots that a Magus or Summoner "leveled out of" are indeed indicative of the fact that by RAW and RAI (and since there is nothing to suggest otherwise anywhere else) means you flat out lost the ability to have those leveled slots, after all, it is the exact same character that is used to denote that slots you haven't advanced in level enough to gain.

Speaking for myself only, I don't see any real balance reason why they shouldn't simply change those "aged out" slot allotments to 0 instead of - with Errata like breithauptclan suggested but only time and potential changes to it will ever really tell.


I’m pretty sure that RAW is a no due to the “-“ marker. However, I do not believe that RAI is a no. Nothing I can see about allowing the ring to work for bounded casters seems overpowered in any way. I know both classes have the ability to cast spells that are not their normal bounded 4, but nothing changes with the “-“ slot marker.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.

I think the problem is with how the Ring of Wizardry has the description of giving “additional…spell slots a day.” The word additional could mean in addition to something that already exists. The “-“ marker vs “0” marker leads to the idea that there are no existing slots as opposed to no slots or empty slots.

But as I mentioned earlier in a post, I don’t believe that to be the intent. It does make for a discussion, though.


Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.

It's relevant because - means you don't get any form of casting at that level, and most spells require that you can cast spells of that level to actually, you know, cast them.

So, if I were a Magus that gained a basic Ring of Wizardry, but I can't cast 1st level spells, the Ring of Wizardry does nothing for me to be able to cast 1st level spells, because I can't cast them anymore.


Lucerious wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.

I think the problem is with how the Ring of Wizardry has the description of giving “additional…spell slots a day.” The word additional could mean in addition to something that already exists. The “-“ marker vs “0” marker leads to the idea that there are no existing slots as opposed to no slots or empty slots.

But as I mentioned earlier in a post, I don’t believe that to be the intent. It does make for a discussion, though.

Pretty much this: for example, you couldn't deal additional damage when you don't make an attack that already dealt damage either. If you allowed the lower level to get extra slots, the player could also claim ones higher than they can cast as they have the exact same allowed number of slots, '-': so a multiclass wizard with just the dedication could claim the extra slots from the ring. Now a group may not have an issue with that but I think th game at large does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.

It's relevant because - means you don't get any form of casting at that level, and most spells require that you can cast spells of that level to actually, you know, cast them.

So, if I were a Magus that gained a basic Ring of Wizardry, but I can't cast 1st level spells, the Ring of Wizardry does nothing for me to be able to cast 1st level spells, because I can't cast them anymore.

This relies on a lot of assumptions about how mechanics work that don't actually exist in the text of the item or the magus class.

Yeah, you don't have any first level spell slots, but then the Ring of Wizardry gives you some.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A dev (Mark Seifter IIRC) said at the time that the Ring was supposed to work for Magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. There is a disconnect between how the game probably should work, and what the rules actually say.

If a character level 1 Wizard gets handed a Ring of Wizardry (Type III), do they actually get an additional 2nd level spell slot and two additional 3rd level spell slots?

No, because the table for their spell slots at level 2 and 3 reads '-'. They don't have any spell slots of that level.

So why should a character level 6 Magus who gets handed a Ring of Wizardry (Type I) get two additional level 1 spell slots when their table also reads '-' for their spell slots at that point?

It is difficult and kind-of silly to argue that this is intended, but is also hard to argue that this isn't exactly what is written by RAW - much like the Counteract level of a Clay Golem's Cursed Wounds or making a Strength-based Strike against an Incorporeal ghost creature.


There does not appear to be a requirement that you have 1st level slots, just that you are an arcane caster capable of casting arcane spells. So it will give you two additional slots. I'd allow it to work by my reading of the rules.


Studious Spells is an ability that comes online at 7th level for a Magus. The indicator for the slots they get is “-*” as opposed to just “-“. Yet, they get slots regardless even with the hyphen. This is partly why I don’t believe the RAI is that the Ring of Wizardry is not usable as written for a Magus. The bonus slots are for specific spells, but are still slots available to use.


Lucerious wrote:
Studious Spells is an ability that comes online at 7th level for a Magus. The indicator for the slots they get is “-*” as opposed to just “-“. Yet, they get slots regardless even with the hyphen. This is partly why I don’t believe the RAI is that the Ring of Wizardry is not usable as written for a Magus. The bonus slots are for specific spells, but are still slots available to use.

What you posted is good evidence for why it doesn't work: it's added slots aren't listed the same as those not available [“-*” vs “-“] and are noted as such as they are called "special". It gives explicit additional slots in a specific rule to override the general rules of that a plain "-" means.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
There does not appear to be a requirement that you have 1st level slots, just that you are an arcane caster capable of casting arcane spells. So it will give you two additional slots. I'd allow it to work by my reading of the rules.

While I wouldn't argue if a DM rules this way, myself I'd argue [in a rules debate like this] that you can't get additional things when you don't have the base thing: just natural language, that we keep hearing the rules are meant to be written in, would require a slot to get an extra one. For instance, I can't get extra serving of food if I didn't get any food before: I'd just get food, not extra food.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Lucerious wrote:
Studious Spells is an ability that comes online at 7th level for a Magus. The indicator for the slots they get is “-*” as opposed to just “-“. Yet, they get slots regardless even with the hyphen. This is partly why I don’t believe the RAI is that the Ring of Wizardry is not usable as written for a Magus. The bonus slots are for specific spells, but are still slots available to use.

What you posted is good evidence for why it doesn't work: it's added slots aren't listed the same as those not available [“-*” vs “-“] and are noted as such as they are called "special". It gives explicit additional slots in a specific rule to override the general rules of that a plain "-" means.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
There does not appear to be a requirement that you have 1st level slots, just that you are an arcane caster capable of casting arcane spells. So it will give you two additional slots. I'd allow it to work by my reading of the rules.
While I wouldn't argue if a DM rules this way, myself I'd argue [in a rules debate like this] that you can't get additional things when you don't have the base thing: just natural language, that we keep hearing the rules are meant to be written in, would require a slot to get an extra one. For instance, I can't get extra serving of food if I didn't get any food before: I'd just get food, not extra food.

I’m reminded of the Disney cartoon Alice in Wonderland when Alice is asked if she would like more tea. She hadn’t yet had any and asked how she could have more when she has had none. The March Hare and Mad Hatter told her she could always have more, she just can never have less.


graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
There does not appear to be a requirement that you have 1st level slots, just that you are an arcane caster capable of casting arcane spells. So it will give you two additional slots. I'd allow it to work by my reading of the rules.
While I wouldn't argue if a DM rules this way, myself I'd argue [in a rules debate like this] that you can't get additional things when you don't have the base thing:

If I were to be pedantic about it, I would then argue that the level 1 Wizard would get level 2 and 3 spell slots from the Type III ring then.


Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.

It's relevant because - means you don't get any form of casting at that level, and most spells require that you can cast spells of that level to actually, you know, cast them.

So, if I were a Magus that gained a basic Ring of Wizardry, but I can't cast 1st level spells, the Ring of Wizardry does nothing for me to be able to cast 1st level spells, because I can't cast them anymore.

This relies on a lot of assumptions about how mechanics work that don't actually exist in the text of the item or the magus class.

Yeah, you don't have any first level spell slots, but then the Ring of Wizardry gives you some.

Well, let's review the Magus class again:

Arcane Spellcasting wrote:
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.

So this tells us that we have no more than 2 spell slots of our highest level, and 2 spell slots of 1 level lower than our highest level. Anything more than that? We don't have. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. And for the same logic that a Magus can't benefit from a Ring of Wizardry Type IV granting 4th level spell slots (because they don't have 4th level spell slots), we can extrapolate that to also apply that the Magus can't benefit from a Ring of Wizardry Type I granting 1st level spell slots. Just because it breaks a power gap doesn't give it more credence to disobey rules.

At best, I would argue that the Ring of Wizardry only works with lower level spell slots when you acquire the Studious Spells class feature, and you therefore actually have lower level spell slots to cast from (even though they are limited).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with breithauptclan.

Not granting those spells slots is more problematic than granting them. The magus doesn't include any restrictions on getting bonus spell slots from magic items and the ring only says you must an arcane caster.

More problematic in my mind is that the ring would cease to function when the magus leveled up, and this makes no sense to me at all.


breithauptclan wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
There does not appear to be a requirement that you have 1st level slots, just that you are an arcane caster capable of casting arcane spells. So it will give you two additional slots. I'd allow it to work by my reading of the rules.
While I wouldn't argue if a DM rules this way, myself I'd argue [in a rules debate like this] that you can't get additional things when you don't have the base thing:
If I were to be pedantic about it, I would then argue that the level 1 Wizard would get level 2 and 3 spell slots from the Type III ring then.

*shrug* I'd then point out that the ring gives "additional" slots and as that's a synonym for extra, so we circle back to where we started.

Additionally, if you side with getting slots above your slot levels this means that arcane dedication feats are all you need to get them: you could get two 4th-level spell slots and one 3rd-level spell slot with a ring and a dedication feat jumping over 1st and 2nd level spells. Then you'd also have a situation where PC with a arcane dedication puts on the ring, gets the slots but can't cast anything out of them as they have no lower level spells to heighten...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And for the same logic...

I mean that's the problem. This whole thing is predicated on a logical inference, but one that does not have a basis within the text of the class or the item. There is no prerequisite that you have a spell slot of a certain level in order to activate the ring. There is no prohibition on Magi gaining extra spell slots. There is no mechanic that exists that otherwise prevents the Ring from doing exactly what it says when given to a Magus in particular.

Additionally, we know from developer commentary that the ring and staves do, in fact, both work with the Magus. Now obviously developer commentary can lead to issues in the face of clear RAW dysfunction, but that doesn't exist here either. There is no RAW that runs afoul of this interaction.

So we know what the rule is, and we know that nothing within either feature otherwise contradicts what the rule is or precludes them from working normally. Yes, you've established that the Magus by default does not have those spell slots but... so what? Who cares? That's what the ring is for.


Squiggit wrote:
Additionally, we know from developer commentary that the ring and staves do, in fact, both work with the Magus.

While it's nice to have the commentary, it's be nicer if the actual rules make it explicit as the wording of staves, IE 'appropriate level', makes it a dubious read to have them work with Magus's lost slots.

'
Squiggit wrote:
You're making a logical inference, but one that does not have a basis within the text of the class or the item.

This doesn't really make sense as a large part of the game relies on making logical inference and judgement calls as it leans into natural language over precise rules language at times. You can't get extra damage without your strike damage and you can't get extra reagents without have reagents first so it'd be quite odd to get extra slots without existing slots.

Squiggit wrote:

It makes this whole logical exercise seem... ???

Pointless, really. And completely divorced from anything to do with RAI or RAW.

Well, it does lead to a nonsensical result when a person with an arcane dedication puts on the ring and then has no spells to cast with it's slots... Then you could expend the slot that doesn't have a spell in it into a staff to get charges. This makes it so they could only use slots to power things like the staff.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucerious wrote:
I’m reminded of the Disney cartoon Alice in Wonderland when Alice is asked if she would like more tea. She hadn’t yet had any and asked how she could have more when she has had none. The March Hare and Mad Hatter told her she could always have more, she just can never have less.

Returning to roots (hopefully, if the quote was correct):

Someone said wrote:

'Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

'I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, 'so I can't take more.'
'You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: 'it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'

Is it a bad sign when you are inclined to agree with the Mad Hatter?


breithauptclan wrote:


If I were to be pedantic about it, I would then argue that the level 1 Wizard would get level 2 and 3 spell slots from the Type III ring then.

They would, but they can’t have any of those spells in their book, so it’s largely moot.


hyphz wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:


If I were to be pedantic about it, I would then argue that the level 1 Wizard would get level 2 and 3 spell slots from the Type III ring then.

They would, but they can’t have any of those spells in their book, so it’s largely moot.

I see nothing in the Wizard Spellbook rules or Learn a Spell that puts a spell level limit on what spells can be put into a Wizard's spellbook.

I think you are referring to the Wizard Spellcasting rule:

Quote:
As you increase in level as a wizard, your number of spell slots and the highest level of spells you can cast from spell slots increase, shown in Table 3–19: Wizard Spells per Day.

But that references the table in question. If we are treating '-' as being something that can be added to with a Ring of Wizardry, then I know of nothing preventing a level 1 Wizard with a Ring of Wizardry (Type III) from preparing and casting level 2 and 3 spells.

There might be some rule preventing casting of a spell higher than half character level rounded up, considering that maximum spell level is how Cantrip heightening is defined. I think Focus spells also calculate a maximum spell level. But I am not seeing anything about that for spell slots. If you somehow get a spell slot of a higher level than is listed on the table, then I don't see anything preventing you from using it normally.

But even if there is something preventing using the Ring's higher spell slots from being used to cast spells, they can still be used for powering other things - such as the Staff's morning preparation ability that graystone mentioned.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Additionally, we know from developer commentary that the ring and staves do, in fact, both work with the Magus.
While it's nice to have the commentary, it's be nicer if the actual rules make it explicit as the wording of staves, IE 'appropriate level', makes it a dubious read to have them work with Magus's lost slots.

I agree the language around Staves is a bit more awkward, and I do wish that the developers had put a little bit more into articulating how wave casting's odd mechanics interact with other spellcasting assumptions.

There appears to be an implied idea that having X level spells qualifies you for anything X or lower, but that's not actually spelled out anywhere.

The ring however doesn't use the same language as Staves.

Quote:
This doesn't really make sense as a large part of the game relies on making logical inference and judgement calls as it leans into natural language over precise rules language at times.

To some extent, but those assumptions are still supposed to be grounded in existing rules, which is my problem with this whole assertion about the ring. It contradicts RAI but has no concrete basis in RAW, it's based on an unstated assumption regarding first level spell slots.

I do think this whole issue could have been sidestepped if there had been a paragraph or even just a sentence somewhere describing how wave casting interacts with existing casting mechanics, though.

Sovereign Court

I think it's pretty obvious magi are supposed to be able to use staves, considering there's a hybrid study specializing in them as well as a fear to make them better for the others.

But I'd be interested in seeing the actual Mark Seifter quote about the ring. Because it does seem like a really focused design choice that the wave casters have drastically limited slots. Makes me unsure if you were really supposed to trump that easily with items (this one, but also the Endless Grimoire which is common).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You're not "trumping" anything though, you're using a normal magic item in a normal way to gain its expected benefit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And for the same logic...

I mean that's the problem. This whole thing is predicated on a logical inference, but one that does not have a basis within the text of the class or the item. There is no prerequisite that you have a spell slot of a certain level in order to activate the ring. There is no prohibition on Magi gaining extra spell slots. There is no mechanic that exists that otherwise prevents the Ring from doing exactly what it says when given to a Magus in particular.

Additionally, we know from developer commentary that the ring and staves do, in fact, both work with the Magus. Now obviously developer commentary can lead to issues in the face of clear RAW dysfunction, but that doesn't exist here either. There is no RAW that runs afoul of this interaction.

So we know what the rule is, and we know that nothing within either feature otherwise contradicts what the rule is or precludes them from working normally. Yes, you've established that the Magus by default does not have those spell slots but... so what? Who cares? That's what the ring is for.

I disagree that it has no basis because that is entirely the premise of Bounded Spellcasting. You only have two levels of spell slots available to cast from at any given point in time. Earning extra spell slots of a level you can't cast from doesn't mean that you can all-of-a-sudden cast from those levels again. The table is marked as '-*', with the specifics of Studious Spells stating it provides spell slots of the given level when the character is of an appropriate level. Does Ring of Wizardry provide a specific benefit to gain spell slots? No. Assuming it does or should isn't how parsing rules works. It has to provide a specific that trumps the existing general rule. General rules can't trump general rules. This also disallows cheese on the other side of the spectrum, letting 1st level Wizards having Fireball spell slots to cast from.

As much as I like developer commentary for an insight on intent in regards to ambiguous rules, that doesn't excuse bad rules writing where it should be obvious that Magi can't cast 1st level spells once they reach 5th level without possessing the Studious Spells feature, meaning earning a bonus slot for a level you can't cast from still means you can't cast from it. If it somehow means something else, then as you state, the rules don't mention this, so it's far more of an assumption that it means something else than it means that you can't cast those spells anymore.

The ring isn't meant to allow you to circumvent intentional limitations, such as Bounded Spellcasting, put on a class. Until you get the Studious Spells feature to once again grant you spell slots of a given level (which are limited in use as per the Studious Spells feature), it does nothing because you can't cast spells of that level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You're editorializing too much. "Circumvents limitations", "cheese", "bad writing", being specifically barred from certain things, these are all phrases and ideas you're injecting into the rules based on assumptions and preconceptions you're making about them.

But it's simpler than that. You take the magic item and just apply its effects normally. The magus does not have first level spell slots, then they equip an item that gives them spell slots, so they do, and then they use those spell slots normally, because why wouldn't they? That's what the item does and there is no specific mechanic barring it from functioning.

This whole position starts from an assumption that Magi are specifically barred from doing something... but we already know that a Magus is, in fact, designed to be able to use Staves, there are literally multiple feats surrounding their use, and apparently intended to be able to use the Ring as well. So given that this assumption blatantly contradicts other rules sources and the design of the game, and reminding ourselves again that it is an assumption, not explicit rules, then it can be safely discarded as incorrect.

It's no more "circumventing" some fundamental expectation of the game than Hand of the Mage giving a spellcaster an extra cantrip is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has to be fixed via Errata, full stop. "-" means you do not have, cannot use, and cannot benefit from Bonuses to said numbered Slot silo.

Developer comments are good to help guide a table making a ruling and I don't think pretty much any reasonable person would look at the situation here and disallow it but that doesn't change the fact that this wasn't a well-thought-out consequence of Bounded Spellcasting "decaying" Slots and how it would interact with other junk. By RAW "-" means what it means and all it would have taken was either a tiny sidebar explaining how the interaction of those lost Slots works with magic items such as Staves and the RoW or to swap out "-" for "0" because if it DID change to 0 then that would still be a valid number to add additional Bonus Spell Slots to but as is that reads as null.

I do wonder though, is there any official PFS ruling on this becuase the RoW really is one of the ONLY borderline "mandatory" magic items for Arcane Spellcasters in the same way that the Striking and Potency Runes are for Martials because of just how impactful and GOOD the benefit actually is (Even most level 20 Class Feats pale in comparison to the value it provides).


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

PFS hasn't had to deal with it yet -- its an uncommon item that they haven't granted access to via any path yet. Probably intentionally waiting until the developers address it before they open that can of worms for the campaign. So I wouldn't expect to see a PFS ruling to look into until its errata'd


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
NielsenE wrote:
PFS hasn't had to deal with it yet -- its an uncommon item that they haven't granted access to via any path yet. Probably intentionally waiting until the developers address it before they open that can of worms for the campaign. So I wouldn't expect to see a PFS ruling to look into until its errata'd

Staff items and the Endless Grimoire are both PFS legal though.


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

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

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

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

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


If I substitute the word "magus" with the word "fighter" or "barbarian," I think you'll finally understand the issue with this statement being made and expecting it to just work as you say it should, because in this case, it's identical.

This is a straw man argument. The Ring of Wizardry states only that you must have "a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition".

The ring specifically excludes non-casters from being able to use it. It doesn't contain any language about bounded casters, and the "-" in the column doesn't say cannot gain additional spells of that level.


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


If I substitute the word "magus" with the word "fighter" or "barbarian," I think you'll finally understand the issue with this statement being made and expecting it to just work as you say it should, because in this case, it's identical.

This is a straw man argument. The Ring of Wizardry states only that you must have "a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition".

The ring specifically excludes non-casters from being able to use it. It doesn't contain any language about bounded casters, and the "-" in the column doesn't say cannot gain additional spells of that level.

And you just put forth a strawman argument yourself.

I am saying that it can't benefit from it because it doesn't have access to the spell levels it grants. Magi can't cast 1st level spells by 5th level. Its effects would apply to the Magus, yes. But those effects would do nothing due to their spellcasting mechanics because it's adjusting something that's just not present. Argue that point and not any other one, because "a spellcasting class feature with the arcane tradition" has absolutely nothing to do with why I say it doesn't work, and has no bearing on my interpretation.

Ring of Wizardry was designed before Bounded Spellcasting even became something written down to be tested, edited, and published. Suggesting it should have additional language to support it, or that it shouldn't require any to function with it due to how different it treats spellcasting is absurd. Furthermore, this implies that 1st level Magi can cast 3rd level Fireballs with a beefed up Ring of Wizardry, which I can assure you everyone and their grandma will come in and call BS on that. The '-' symbol works both ways, saying it doesn't is far more consistent than saying it does if it's of a lower level, which it also doesn't say either.


Squiggit wrote:
Staff items and the Endless Grimoire are both PFS legal though.

The Grimoire does have an additional restriction on it though.

Quote:
If you use the grimoire during your daily preparations and are capable of preparing spells of the appropriate level,

A character level 6 Magus could definitely not use a basic item level 6 Endless Grimoire - they cannot prepare any 1st level spells.

The staff is still definitely questionable.


breithauptclan wrote:

The staff is still definitely questionable.

How? That is the one thing in all of this that isn’t questionable. They have a Hybrid Study as well as feats specific to staves. Nothing about using a staff is at all up to debate as best as I can tell. All a staff needs to work is someone capable of casting spells, have the spells the staff uses on their spell list, and have spell slots to charge the staff.


Lucerious wrote:
How? That is the one thing in all of this that isn’t questionable. They have a Hybrid Study as well as feats specific to staves. Nothing about using a staff is at all up to debate as best as I can tell.

Having those and them making them work correctly do not necessarily go hand in hand and isn't a RAW argument for anything: it's something supporting RAI though.

Lucerious wrote:
All a staff needs to work is someone capable of casting spells, have the spells the staff uses on their spell list, and have spell slots to charge the staff.

Incorrect: you have to be "able to cast spells of the appropriate level". So if you can't cast 1st level spells, you can't use the staff to cast that level of spells: it doesn't matter if the slots you don't have are above or below what you CAN cast with, say a PC with a wizard dedication feat vs a 5th level magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


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

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

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


Lucerious wrote:
the perspective that bonded casting prohibits so many magic items seems a very pessimistic if not punitive approach to play. Maybe I am wrong about that too, but I sure know I would never play a bonded caster if my GM was this restrictive with the application of the rules.

Yes. I would definitely agree with that.


breithauptclan wrote:
Lucerious wrote:
the perspective that bonded casting prohibits so many magic items seems a very pessimistic if not punitive approach to play. Maybe I am wrong about that too, but I sure know I would never play a bonded caster if my GM was this restrictive with the application of the rules.
Yes. I would definitely agree with that.

I'll disagree with "so many magic items": this affects staves, the ring and? I'm not coming up with anything else offhand.

As to playing a bounded caster, for me it wouldn't matter as I only play them if I'm planning on multiclassing into a normal casting class so I'd generally have the slots no matter the ruling. I REALLY don't like losing slots... It feels wrong and leads to thinks like this. :P


graystone wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Lucerious wrote:
the perspective that bonded casting prohibits so many magic items seems a very pessimistic if not punitive approach to play. Maybe I am wrong about that too, but I sure know I would never play a bonded caster if my GM was this restrictive with the application of the rules.
Yes. I would definitely agree with that.
I'll disagree with "so many magic items": this affects staves, the ring and? I'm not coming up with anything else offhand...

Not a magic item, but...

Magus have class feat access to familiars and familiars can have the Spell Battery Master ability.


Lucerious wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I don't see why the - is relevant tbh.

The ring requires you to be an arcane caster, which the Magus is, and then gives you extra spell slots. That the magus doesn't have those slots without the ring doesn't really matter.

I think the problem is with how the Ring of Wizardry has the description of giving “additional…spell slots a day.” The word additional could mean in addition to something that already exists. The “-“ marker vs “0” marker leads to the idea that there are no existing slots as opposed to no slots or empty slots.

But as I mentioned earlier in a post, I don’t believe that to be the intent. It does make for a discussion, though.

Natural language doesn't make that sort of technical distinction between zero and non existent.


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

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

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

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

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

1) What happens with a non spell casting class like Fighter, who takes the feat Wizard Dedication?
2) The same character with the Basic Wizard Spellcasting feat
3) What about a bounded caster Magus or a Summoner of the arcane tradition?

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

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

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

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

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

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


graystone wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Lucerious wrote:
the perspective that bonded casting prohibits so many magic items seems a very pessimistic if not punitive approach to play. Maybe I am wrong about that too, but I sure know I would never play a bonded caster if my GM was this restrictive with the application of the rules.
Yes. I would definitely agree with that.

I'll disagree with "so many magic items": this affects staves, the ring and? I'm not coming up with anything else offhand.

As to playing a bounded caster, for me it wouldn't matter as I only play them if I'm planning on multiclassing into a normal casting class so I'd generally have the slots no matter the ruling. I REALLY don't like losing slots... It feels wrong and leads to thinks like this. :P

I too like my spell slots. :)

Other items would include that grimoire, which has been mentioned by others, as well as seeing staves as more than a single item given the variety and the ability to customize via creating one’s own (will say I think the custom version is far too costly for viability but it still counts).
No matter how one interprets “many” in this case, it still feels rather deflating to lose out on classic arcane caster items. I have a hard time believing this was the intent and not a mistake in the design. If the restriction is intended…well I know two classes I won’t ever play. /shrug


Lucerious wrote:

I too like my spell slots. :)

Other items would include that grimoire, which has been mentioned by others

I don't see the grimoire as an issue as the higher level ones increase the additional slot [2 levels per increase] you get so you can keep it in range of your slots: it's only an issue if you plan to use an under-leveled item.

Lucerious wrote:
as well as seeing staves as more than a single item given the variety and the ability to customize via creating one’s own (will say I think the custom version is far too costly for viability but it still counts).

It's multiple items for sure, BUT there isn't a lot of difference between them other than the specific spells in them [and maybe a bonus to a check] so mechanically they might as well be a single one. It's like counting wands/scrolls equaling the number of spells that exist as individual items: while technically true, they are just containers for spells that work exactly the same.

Lucerious wrote:
No matter how one interprets “many” in this case, it still feels rather deflating to lose out on classic arcane caster items.

It could but then again, they may never notice. They can still use the cantrip and if they use both hands and use fuse staff, the spells can only be used in a spellstrike which means a lot of staves don't do anything unless you use Expansive Spellstrike too [and even then a lot of spells don't work]. I mean, what does my Starlit Span miss with a staff of divination/abjuration for instance? I can't use any spell in a spellstrike and I can't hold it and a bow.

Lucerious wrote:
I have a hard time believing this was the intent and not a mistake in the design. If the restriction is intended…well I know two classes I won’t ever play. /shrug

I wouldn't think it's intended BUT it's something that was brought up in the playtest and it stayed as it was so who knows.

1 to 50 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Ring of Wizardry + Bounded Spellcasting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.