| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see. That is better.Pretty sure the Thesis doesn't work that way for Spell Substitution, but you are technically correct that it does not explicitly state only wizard spells. Not sure what PFS does, but I would not allow that kind of strange reading at my table. So this would not work at my table unless Paizo explicitly states it is allowed.
Thank you.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
'Strange reading'? Do you mean, how it is written? Goodness forbid the wizard, the toted 'castiest caster', 'supposed to be the greatest spellcaster' be able to do interesting things with spells of any tradition. It's not like that wouldn't have a cost. You have to have a spell in your spellbook in order to substitute it in.
When they allow this ability, they explicitly state it. Otherwise the Sorcerer and Bard could do the same because it doesn't explicitly say they can't with their spellbook feature. I do not expect Paizo to have to spell every possible reading out for players that push the envelope on rules.
I don't care if players do it in their house games as that is always the following of Rule 0. I employ a lot of house rules in my games to make things better. You would love the wizard in my house games if you like the one you have now.
I use 5E casting for the wizard and give them the Spell Substitution Arcane Thesis for free. Makes them definitely the most versatile caster in the game as they can change spells in 10 minutes and cast whichever one they need heightened as needed. Makes the wizard feel a great deal better than it does out of the core RB. All casters feel better with 5E casting and since they all have it is balanced.
PF2 is such a balanced game and has so many limiters in place, even with all casters having spontaneous casting I can still pull monsters out of the book and run them as is without a problem. It's one of the big reasons I enjoy PF2. You can pull out a few balance blocks from the PF2 house and not cause the house to fall or change the balance point much at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it's important to note in all this. That deriven house rules casters in pf2e to work as 5e casting. Unless that has changed recently
Having a druid being able to cast whatever it wants with it's slots would definitely devalue things such as, a wizard.
I feel it's important to note in all this. That deriven house rules casters in pf2e to work as 5e casting. Unless that has changed recently
Having a druid being able to cast whatever it wants with it's slots would definitely devalue things such as, a wizard.
I don't really see how allowing prepared caster to use flexible spellcasting devalue other prepared casters. If anything, it would devalue spontaneous casters, since flexible spellcasting is pretty much "spontaneous but better". Letting the druid cast like a 5e druid don't devalue the wizard, because wizard get to do it too, it devalue primal sorcerers instead.
Do note that as much as I think that some things are wrong in 2e casting, I don't think that vancian casting itself was an error, and I don't think that generalising flexible casting is a solution. It's just that your argument seems weird here.
I feel it's important to note in all this. That deriven house rules casters in pf2e to work as 5e casting. Unless that has changed recently
Having a druid being able to cast whatever it wants with it's slots would definitely devalue things such as, a wizard.
I don't really see how allowing prepared caster to use flexible spellcasting devalue other prepared casters. If anything, it would devalue spontaneous casters, since flexible spellcasting is pretty much "spontaneous but better". Letting the druid cast like a 5e druid don't devalue the wizard, because wizard get to do it too, it devalue primal sorcerers instead.
Do note that as much as I think that some things are wrong in 2e casting, I don't think that vancian casting itself was an error, and I don't think that generalising flexible casting is a solution. It's just that your argument seems weird here.
If they're losing the slots from flexible prep than sure, if they aren't then thats very much in the druids favor since flexible is a greater portion of its spell slots by percentage and the Wizard mostly gets features that increase resource efficiency by playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it's important to note in all this. That deriven house rules casters in pf2e to work as 5e casting. Unless that has changed recently
Having a druid being able to cast whatever it wants with it's slots would definitely devalue things such as, a wizard.
I don't really see how allowing prepared caster to use flexible spellcasting devalue other prepared casters. If anything, it would devalue spontaneous casters, since flexible spellcasting is pretty much "spontaneous but better". Letting the druid cast like a 5e druid don't devalue the wizard, because wizard get to do it too, it devalue primal sorcerers instead.
Do note that as much as I think that some things are wrong in 2e casting, I don't think that vancian casting itself was an error, and I don't think that generalising flexible casting is a solution. It's just that your argument seems weird here.
Because wizards strength is in the number of casts they can do a day
One of the strongest thesis is considered substitution to change it spells
With 5e casting yes they get more casts still, but that benefit is muted by the fact that with 5e style casting you can always use the right spell and don't have to worry about preparation.
So a wizard with 4 casts of their highest slot? Maybe 5
Vs a druid that has better armor, shield block, better focus spells, etc. And don't have to worry about what they have prepared anymore in their 3 top level slots
If they're losing the slots from flexible prep than sure, if they aren't then thats very much in the druids favor since flexible is a greater portion of its spell slots by percentage and the Wizard mostly gets features that increase resource efficiency by playstyle.I feel it's important to note in all this. That deriven house rules casters in pf2e to work as 5e casting. Unless that has changed recently
Having a druid being able to cast whatever it wants with it's slots would definitely devalue things such as, a wizard.
I don't really see how allowing prepared caster to use flexible spellcasting devalue other prepared casters. If anything, it would devalue spontaneous casters, since flexible spellcasting is pretty much "spontaneous but better". Letting the druid cast like a 5e druid don't devalue the wizard, because wizard get to do it too, it devalue primal sorcerers instead.
Do note that as much as I think that some things are wrong in 2e casting, I don't think that vancian casting itself was an error, and I don't think that generalising flexible casting is a solution. It's just that your argument seems weird here.
I'd appreciate him coming in to correct me on this but my understanding is this is not the case. Everyone just gets 5e style casting for free
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there may have been confusion. I was not saying that you could reprepare a divine spell in an arcane slot. I was saying that because cleric dedication spell slots qualify as prepared slots, you could reprepare a level 2 Restoration into a slot that previously had a level 2 Heal. So long as Restoration is in your spellbook.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Casters are perfectly fine after we house-rule them. Therefore your complaints against them are invalid”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Casters are perfectly fine after we house-rule them. Therefore your complaints against them are invalid”.
The worst part is that it's true. I have a table where I use Spell Points instead of Spell Slots and it's working great. So well that I probably may keep this for next tables.
“Casters are perfectly fine after we house-rule them. Therefore your complaints against them are invalid”.The worst part is that it's true. I have a table where I use Spell Points instead of Spell Slots and it's working great. So well that I probably may keep this for next tables.
My regular group doesn’t tend to like optional rules so I have never gotten to test it. The only time we played ABP (which I prefer) is when I ran. I do like the idea of alternative systems to spell slots and would like to try them out over a few levels to see if they fit for my wants better.
I feel it's important to note in all this. That deriven house rules casters in pf2e to work as 5e casting. Unless that has changed recently
Having a druid being able to cast whatever it wants with it's slots would definitely devalue things such as, a wizard.
The wizard has spontaneous casting as well and gets Spell Substitution Arcane thesis for free. So nothing is devalued.
My basis for disliking the wizard is based on core rulebooks.
The wizard alterations I made make the wizard play much, much better and is truly the best utility caster in the game able to switch spells in 10 minutes and heighten as needed.
Actually, in each of the abilities of the other classes it specifically references a "book of arcane spells" and "book of occult spells" for the Sorcerer and Bard respectively. Whereas the wizard just references a spellbook.
And none of the other Multiclass Archetypes have the Spellbook feature including the cleric or sorcerer, so they can't use Spellbooks according to the rules.
You actually need to have the Spellbook feature to use a spellbook or put spells in a spellbook.
Which is why the Occult and Sorcerer versions specifically state all the spells in their repertoire go in their spellbook because normally they do not employ them.
So if you can put non-wizard spells in a spellbook for classes that don't employ spellbooks, then I can argue that anyone using a Spellbook if they can get it into the spellbook can use them because it does not explicitly state that you can't put a spell in a spellbook for a class that doesn't use the Spellbook feature.
So if you can somehow spin it that a Cleric can use a Wizard Spellbook they have somehow scribed heal or some cleric spell in, then I can do the same for any ability that doesn't explicitly state I cannot, right?
“Casters are perfectly fine after we house-rule them. Therefore your complaints against them are invalid”.
Once again you are saying "casters." Some casters are perfectly fine if not top of the tiers for power. Some are not.
I tested casters prior to making my house rule changes:
Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, and Cleric all fine.
Druid, Bard, and Sorcerer great build options and lots of flexibility in roles and capabilities. Cleric is pretty boring, but effective.
Wizard and Witch are not fun, too limited, and don't have fun feat options or really do anything better than anyone else. All this "I can cast the most" wizard talk doesn't work out that way in play. Prepared casting makes it so once you use up the spell and maybe a use of universalist bond and your twiddling your thumbs unless you took Spell Substitution. And the wizard's sitting there asking for 10 minutes to change out a single spell, while everyone else is "We don't need to wait. I guess we will just wait to make you seem more useful."
That's why I went with 5E casting and gave the wizard Spell Substitution for free. Solves the wizard issues and makes them clearly the most flexible caster, so they have a good role in a group.
We still tend to make other casters, but that is mostly because a lot of my players prefer playing martials (always have every edition) and it's no fun to have one healer and one arcane caster in PF2. It's more fun to have a couple of casters that can heal and do other stuff. That's not a role the wizard does well. It's more of a personal preference thing. It's why I think the Occult and Primal list are better than the Arcane and Divine list. Occult and Primal make for more flexible casters if you're playing a five man group that usually has 3 martials and 2 casters. That's our usual group make up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Spellbook is not a specific class feature. Nowhere in the Sorcerer Arcane Evolution feat does it specifically grant the spellbook feature. Nor in Esoteric Polymath.
It is an item.
Price 1 gp
Hands 1; Bulk L
A spellbook holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells, a necessity for wizards (who typically get one for free) and a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spells. Each spellbook can hold up to 100 spells. The Price listed is for a blank spellbook.
Nowhere in there is exclusive language applying to only arcane spells or just to wizards.
Almost every other spellcasting class doesn't use spellbooks because their class/spellcasting doesn't interact with a spellbook. This doesn't mean that they can't use a spellbook, just that they gain nothing from doing so.
If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
Yet again, no exclusive language.
There doesn't seem to be anything preventing a cleric from scribing a divine spell into a spellbook. They have no reason to do so, but nothing preventing.
There could be an argument that a spellbook can only contain one tradition of spells, I guess. But, just because a spell is in a spellbook doesn't change its tradition. It doesn't automatically mean a wizard could prepare it just because it is in a spellbook.
And as a lesser argument, why not? Does this somehow break some aspect of the game I haven't realized?
...
Spellbook is not a specific class feature. Nowhere in the Sorcerer Arcane Evolution feat does it specifically grant the spellbook feature. Nor in Esoteric Polymath.
It is an item.
Price 1 gp
Hands 1; Bulk L
A spellbook holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells, a necessity for wizards (who typically get one for free) and a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spells. Each spellbook can hold up to 100 spells. The Price listed is for a blank spellbook.Nowhere in there is exclusive language applying to only arcane spells or just to wizards.
Almost every other spellcasting class doesn't use spellbooks because their class/spellcasting doesn't interact with a spellbook. This doesn't mean that they can't use a spellbook, just that they gain nothing from doing so.
If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.Yet again, no exclusive language.
There doesn't seem to be anything preventing a cleric from scribing a divine spell into a spellbook. They have no reason to do so, but nothing preventing.
There could be an argument that a spellbook can only contain one tradition of spells, I guess. But, just because a spell is in a spellbook doesn't change its tradition. It doesn't automatically mean a wizard could prepare it just because it is in a spellbook.
And as a lesser argument, why not? Does this somehow break some aspect of the game I haven't realized?
Once again, you are going by omission. If something doesn't say you can't, then you can. That is the logic you are using. I'm using the same logic.
Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook. Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook. Same with sorcerers and bards. They don't use them, don't need them, and only get to take advantage of them with specific feats.
Now you're attempting to argue that because something doesn't say you can't, you can. Even when the cleric, sorcerer, and bard archetype all say nothing about needing a spellbook for spells or even using one.
It doesn't break an aspect of the game, but to put it flatly is you're flat out wrong. If this becomes a problem at other tables, Paizo will make it clear that the spellbook features of a wizard from its Arcane Thesis only work for their spells or maybe for classes clearly using a spellbook feature for preparing spells.
Only the wizard uses the Spellbook feature for preparing spells. Cleric and Druid do not. Witch uses a familiar.
Wizard Spellbook:
Every arcane spell has a written version, usually recorded in a spellbook. You start with a spellbook worth 10 sp or less, which you receive for free and must study to prepare your spells each day. The spellbook contains your choice of 10 arcane cantrips and five 1st-level arcane spells. You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list or from other arcane spells you gain access to. Your spellbook's form and name are up to you. It might be a musty, leather-bound tome or an assortment of thin metal disks connected to a brass ring; its name might be esoteric, like The Crimson Libram, or something more academic, like A Field Study in Practical Transmutation.
Each time you gain a level, you add two more arcane spells to your spellbook, of any level for which you have spell slots. You can also use the Arcana skill to add other spells that you find in your adventures (See Learn a Spell).
Nowhere does it say the Spellbook applies to anything but arcane spells in the wizard class features. You only get to add more arcane spells to your book when you level up. Nothing about being able to add Divine or Occult or any other type of spell to your spellbook.
Your argument is taking the Arcane Thesis out of the context of the class it is made for where the Spellbook feature is clearly spelled out within that class description, then attempt to apply it in a fashion that is not within the context of the rules at all for a variety of reasons.
One of the biggest ones being that Clerics, Sorcerers, bards, and every other class except the Arcane using Magus and Wizard don't use spellbooks for preparing or using their spells.
Those feats that do allow the Sorcerer and Bard to use spellbooks have very specific rules for their use. Neither of which requires them to use their spellbooks to use their daily spells.
Only the wizard and the magus have a spellbook feature specifically for Arcane Spells.
It's your house and your house rules apply. I've literally never heard of anyone else reading the Spellbook feature of the wizard the way you read it.
|
|
Spellbook is not a feature. It is an item that some classes or feats interact with.
List of "Class Features" a wizard gets at level 1:
"Ancestry and background, initial proficiencies, arcane spellcasting, arcane school, arcane bond, arcane thesis"
Did you notice spellbook in there?
Check out Arcane Evolution.
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
Check out Esoteric Polymath
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
It is not a feature.
"Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook."
Correct, because they have no reason to.
"Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook."
Correct.
"Same with sorcerers and bards."
Correct.
"They don't use them, don't need them, and only get to take advantage of them with specific feats."
Exactly, they only get to take advantage of the item with specific feats. Otherwise, spellbooks are useless to them
As for the quoted spellbook text, it explains how wizards can interact with spellbooks. Still no exclusionary language.
I understand that this is an unorthodox interaction. Unorthodox or not, there does not seem to be any exclusionary language that prevents the interaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Deriven this time.
I understand that a cleric/druid can write a spell in a scroll and use it to cast. But cleric/druid don't use a spellbook to prepare so change a cleric/druid archetype spell slot using an ability made to change prepared spells from a spellbook feels wrong once they don't prepare spell in this way. I know that no one said nothing about this but is obviously also don't work with bard/sorcerer's spellbook because they are spontaneous casters and the ablility is to change prepared spell so it's simply don't make sense to them.
So the only one who really benefit from this is magus archetype where the spells are prepared from a spellbook.
Yet still an interesting observation. It may also work with other spellbook based spellcasting like Halcyon Spells from Magaambyan Archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Druids and Clerics do need to learn uncommon spells and it is not unreasonable for them to write those spells down in spell books and have that be a way to teach these spells. If you read the description of a spellbook it even says other traditions might keep spell books just for this purpose.
Don't remember me this. This always makes me pain remembering that Paizo made clerics and druids to "know" all their spells like they are received/inspired by deities/nature but due gameplay reasons they restricted uncommon/rare but allows the to "learn" it from Learn a Spell like they are wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Druids and Clerics do need to learn uncommon spells and it is not unreasonable for them to write those spells down in spell books and have that be a way to teach these spells. If you read the description of a spellbook it even says other traditions might keep spell books just for this purpose.
Because they can doesn't meant they have to.
Does that mean you allow the wizard Arcane Thesis Spell Substitution to be use with other classes as Leo allows it?
I don't allow this. The rules don't support it. It is purely a house rule, not applicable in any other game unless they adopt it as a house rule.
It explains how a wizard interacts with their Spellbook. Clerics, druids, and other classes don't require spellbooks. They cannot use them for spell substitution because spellbooks are not used for spell preparation for those classes.
Even if you learn a spell out of a spellbook, you no longer need the spellbook to prepare it after you learn it and thus do not use spellbooks for preparation.
If a class doesn't use a spellbook for preparation, then they cannot change a spell using a spellbook with Spell Substitution. The wizard and the magus use spellbooks for prepared spell slots and thus Spell Substitution works the wizard and arguably for the Magus who also uses a spellbook for spell preparation.
Classes that don't employ a spellbook for spell preparation cannot use Spell Substitution to change spells throughout the day because they cannot unprepare a spell and don't prepare spells using spellbooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellbook is not a feature. It is an item that some classes or feats interact with.
List of "Class Features" a wizard gets at level 1:
"Ancestry and background, initial proficiencies, arcane spellcasting, arcane school, arcane bond, arcane thesis"
Did you notice spellbook in there?
Check out Arcane Evolution.
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
Check out Esoteric Polymath
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
It is not a feature.
"Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook."
Correct, because they have no reason to."Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook."
Correct."Same with sorcerers and bards."
Correct."They don't use them, don't need them, and only get to take advantage of them with specific feats."
Exactly, they only get to take advantage of the item with specific feats. Otherwise, spellbooks are useless to themAs for the quoted spellbook text, it explains how wizards can interact with spellbooks. Still no exclusionary language.
I understand that this is an unorthodox interaction. Unorthodox or not, there does not seem to be any exclusionary language that prevents the interaction.
It explains how wizard prepare spells using spellbooks. The wizard cannot prepare spells without a spellbook like the cleric and druid can. Thus it is a class feature. Take a wizard's spellbook and he's screwed.
It explains how clerics and druids and other prepared casters prepare spells and they don't use spellbooks. Nowhere does it say they can unprepare a spell and use a spellbook to change a slot. Spellbooks are completely irrelevant to every prepared caster except Wizards and Magus.
If someone doesn't use a spellbook to prepare a spell, they cannot choose to use them because Spell Subsitution says that you can change a spell using a spelbook. Only the wizard prepares spells that way as is clearly spelled out in the Spellcasting abilities. Thus only a wizard and arguable a Magus can use Spell Substitution to exchange spells with a spellbook.
When you explain how something works, you don't need to include what doesn't work because what doesn't work is everything not included in the explanation of how the process does work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience has been a bit different.
We run RAW outside of recall knowledge.
And in my experience the wizard seems to hold it's own or even outpace save for...
Bard for group buffs (can't really compete with inspire)
Cleric for healing (font, and arcane really ain't it)
Psychic for Cantrip damage
Cleric and druid are also a bit more robust given armor, shield block, and d8 hit dice.
Out of all this, none of it seemed to replace what a wizard offers.
But I tend to live my life in the details, people get excited over hammers turning things into nails. While I get giddy over things like custom trait pools in weapons from inventor, the many ways to manipulate DaS. And how I can benefit from a familiar uniquely with a wizard illusionist and make enemies reroll their disbelieve checks vs my deception with a +3 bonus from it.
Regardless,I thought this was martial vs caster topic.
On that topic, as I said, we run close to RAW as possible, minus recall knowledge (we do run abp and free archetype though). From what I've seen, the witch and druid, not only good there own but are typically the reason the group doesn't die. Especially the witch , the druid mainly just throws fireballs and laments when he can't.
So despite the weakest caster according to most polls, she has been without a doubt the most integral member to the groups survival
Has nothing to do with the familiar either, just the spell slots and how she uses them
It's to the point where the rest of the group dog piles whatever attacks her.
They are post ten now.
We have played every edition of DND and pf1e. I asked him his thoughts
1: how did you feel at level 1?
Answer: great, cantrips are amazing damage for a ranged attack at this level.
2: when did you start feeling really powerful?
Answer: levels 7-8. I felt good before this but truly felt powerful by this time.
3: how do you feel now at level ten?
Answer: great. I can more easily use my low level slots for impact or utility and feel like the caster has really opened up
His teammates are things like dual weapon warrior Ruffian rogue, and a champion and the druid.
He was extremely excited for shadow signet which he just got.
The druid however, reacts as you'd expect. He hates high reflex save creatures, and has next to no spell variety,I hardly see him ever use lower level slots. Seems his highest and second highest slots are just fireball. By some miracle I haven't thrown any fire immune enemies at him. He in fact soloed a white dragon recently. Something he was quite proud of. But his opinion is more middling. Because he thinks fireball should solve everything
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"There is no problem that cannot be solved by the suitable application of high explosives." :-)
This is a solid argument.
Classes that don't employ a spellbook for spell preparation cannot use Spell Substitution to change spells throughout the day because they cannot unprepare a spell and don't prepare spells using spellbooks.
You're one of the few folks I've seen concede a point in a debate. I commend you.
Hopefully you play in a home game where you can tweak things for the wizard some to your enjoyment as you have done. I always encourage folks to make the game the way they enjoy so long as it is agreeable to all involved and doesn't make the DM's life miserable.
|
|
This is a solid argument.
Classes that don't employ a spellbook for spell preparation cannot use Spell Substitution to change spells throughout the day because they cannot unprepare a spell and don't prepare spells using spellbooks.
You're one of the few folks I've seen concede a point in a debate. I commend you.
Hopefully you play in a home game where you can tweak things for the wizard some to your enjoyment as you have done. I always encourage folks to make the game the way they enjoy so long as it is agreeable to all involved and doesn't make the DM's life miserable.
*shrug*
You brought up a point I had not thought of, the method of preparation. Spell Substitution utilizes spellbook based preparation. As such, if a class does not use spellbook based preparation, it is a lot harder of a case to make.Just because I want it to work doesn't mean that it does. I'm more than happy to utilize loopholes to do interesting things. But I won't take it beyond RAW. I play society, if it's not RAW, it's not useful.
Does Society allow this type of Spell Substitution use? I don't know their rules. I mostly play with the same group in home games and they are usually good with my changes since I DM a lot.
I mean, I have never had a caster try anything with spellbooks that are not wizards, but the rules themselves are very open-ended around spellbooks. From the item description, there is no reason why any caster cannot keep a spell book and write spells of any magical tradition they want in them. Anyone who could learn the spell could use that spell book as a source. Witches in particularly might value finding spell books with different tradition spells in them to teach their familiars and thus there would certainly be a market for spell books of other traditions than arcane. Items also often do not seem bound by the rules of tradition. It is fairly common for staves to have spells from different traditions in them and for many casters to be able to use some or most of the spells in a staff, but not all. There is no reason at all that a MC character wouldn't want to keep all of their learned spells in one spellbook rather than multiple different sources of spells.
Narratively, in world, these boundaries between magic types are fairly loose. A character in robes casting a fireball could be any one of many different classes from different magical traditions. I don't think in world a spell book = arcane wizard spell book.
As a GM, spellbooks are good way to give players access to lots of new spells, not just wizards or witches. Sudden Bolt is an oft talked about example of an uncommon spell on both the primal and arcane list. If you have an enemy caster casting it, having that character have a copy of that spell in a book that taught them how to cast it makes perfect sense, and creates more flavor and plot hooks than just giving the players access to the spell.
Now I do think that narratively, there could be issues with wizards transforming magical power given to them by the gods into more wizard spells, but applying the tricks of what they know about magic to the spells in their multi-class dedication seems about the same as letting dangerous sorcery apply to any spell the character can cast. I would absolutely let a wizard use their spell blending or spell substitution thesis on spell slots that come from the same source as each other. Staves already can include spells of different traditions so I see no problem in letting the staff nexus wizard have non arcane spells on their staff and charging it with any spell slots they have available to them.
Finding written spells of other traditions given the current paradigm of how spell lists work is fine by me. Seems to me since Bards and Sorcerers can both have spellbooks with spells from other traditions via feats, spellbooks with alternate spells are a definitely possibility.
Not sure how PFS would rule a sorcerer of the Arcane Tradition with a spellbook obtaining the heal spell which becomes part of their arcane tradition and thus an arcane version of the heal spell. That would be an interesting rule discussion I imagine.
It would be a very short discussion, and it ends in "no". Nothing about those feats allows you to learn spells of other traditions.Finding written spells of other traditions given the current paradigm of how spell lists work is fine by me. Seems to me since Bards and Sorcerers can both have spellbooks with spells from other traditions via feats, spellbooks with alternate spells are a definitely possibility.
Not sure how PFS would rule a sorcerer of the Arcane Tradition with a spellbook obtaining the heal spell which becomes part of their arcane tradition and thus an arcane version of the heal spell. That would be an interesting rule discussion I imagine.
Let's theorycraft it some:
Cross-blooded evolution: You can have one spell in your spell repertoire from a tradition other than the one that matches your bloodline. You cast that spell as a spell from your bloodline’s tradition.
So if you are an Arcane Tradition sorcerer. You take heal from the Divine list and cast it as an Arcane spell. Then you pick up Arcane Evolution which allows you to have a spellbook with all your spells listed in the Spellbook including your cross-blooded spell since it is now cast as part of your tradition.
So would that allow you to create an Arcane version of a cross-blooded spell that ends up in a spellbook as an Arcane Spell?
I'm sure PFS would say no, but it would be interesting to see how they interpret cast it as part of your tradition and all spells in your repertoire end up in your spellbook.
It would be a very short discussion, and it ends in "no". Nothing about those feats allows you to learn spells of other traditions.Finding written spells of other traditions given the current paradigm of how spell lists work is fine by me. Seems to me since Bards and Sorcerers can both have spellbooks with spells from other traditions via feats, spellbooks with alternate spells are a definitely possibility.
Not sure how PFS would rule a sorcerer of the Arcane Tradition with a spellbook obtaining the heal spell which becomes part of their arcane tradition and thus an arcane version of the heal spell. That would be an interesting rule discussion I imagine.
Learn a Spell Enables you to learn spells of your tradition. Any of the 4 traditions with the appropriate skill.
Wizards spellbooks only has rules to add arcane spells to them, but nothing restricts the preparation of whatever spell is in your book.The basic spell casting archetype feats gives you the ability to cast in other traditions. This pretty clearly enables you to have multiple traditions, and counts as the class feature.
Cross-Blooded Evolution adds any spell to your repertoire. It doesn't change the tradition of the spell just enables you to cast it as your tradition.
Arcane Evolution Adds every spell in your repertoire into your book. Ongoing you can only then add arcane spells but the initial add is not restricted by tradition.
There does not seem to be a lock that stops this by RAW.
The potential conflict is that learn a spell allows If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
Whereas Wizard says Each time you gain a level, you add two more arcane spells to your spellbook, of any level for which you have spell slots. You can also use the Arcana skill to add other spells that you find in your adventures (See Learn a Spell).
But it is clear that nothing stops Wizards from using the rules for Learn a Spell as opposed to the rules in their class, to add non arcane spells to their book. To do this they must have the ability to cast spells from another tradition, and use the appropriate skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellbook is not a feature. It is an item that some classes or feats interact with.
List of "Class Features" a wizard gets at level 1:
"Ancestry and background, initial proficiencies, arcane spellcasting, arcane school, arcane bond, arcane thesis"
Did you notice spellbook in there?
Check out Arcane Evolution.
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
Check out Esoteric Polymath
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
It is not a feature.
"Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook."
Correct, because they have no reason to."Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook."
Correct."Same with sorcerers and bards."
Correct."They don't use them, don't need them, and only get to take advantage of them with specific feats."
Exactly, they only get to take advantage of the item with specific feats. Otherwise, spellbooks are useless to themAs for the quoted spellbook text, it explains how wizards can interact with spellbooks. Still no exclusionary language.
I understand that this is an unorthodox interaction. Unorthodox or not, there does not seem to be any exclusionary language that prevents the interaction.
It explains how wizard prepare spells using spellbooks. The wizard cannot prepare spells without a spellbook like the cleric and druid can. Thus it is a class feature. Take a wizard's spellbook and he's screwed.
It explains how clerics and druids and other prepared casters prepare spells and they don't use spellbooks. Nowhere does it say they can unprepare a spell and use a spellbook to change a slot. Spellbooks are completely irrelevant to every prepared caster except Wizards and Magus.
If someone doesn't use a spellbook to prepare a spell, they cannot choose to use them because Spell Subsitution says that you can change a spell using a spelbook. Only the wizard...
This is missing information
(1) A Spell book is an item that is A spellbook holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells, a necessity for wizards (who typically get one for free) and a useful luxury for other spellcasters looking to learn additional spellsTo my mind that enables spellbooks for any caster. They just have to buy one.
(2) the requirement for writing a spell into a spellbook is the ability to cast the tradition and being trained in the appropriate skill.
(3) Clerics says for preparing spells At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and five cantrips each morning from the common spells on the divine spell list or from other divine spells to which you gain access
Now this doesn't say spell book under cleric preparation. But Learn a Spell specifically is the process by which you gain access. So it seems to me that this is what clerics are supposed to do. Write their uncommon divine spells into a spell book so they can maintain access to them. I mean uncommon divine spells are already on the divine list, so just adding them to your list again does nothing, so the cleric needs the spellbook to use uncommon divine spells.
So yes by the rules clerics can use spell books fully.
What have I got wrong?
Yes Druids have the same wording about gain access. Just primal spells not divine.
I might wait a while and see if anyone has a real rules based objection to what I said though. I haven't really been concerned about the rules situation with spell books before. I just assumed it all worked, and had not tried these sort of shenanigans before.
...Spellbook is not a feature. It is an item that some classes or feats interact with.
List of "Class Features" a wizard gets at level 1:
"Ancestry and background, initial proficiencies, arcane spellcasting, arcane school, arcane bond, arcane thesis"
Did you notice spellbook in there?
Check out Arcane Evolution.
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
Check out Esoteric Polymath
Anywhere in there granting "the spellbook feature"?
It is not a feature.
"Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook."
Correct, because they have no reason to."Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook."
Correct."Same with sorcerers and bards."
Correct."They don't use them, don't need them, and only get to take advantage of them with specific feats."
Exactly, they only get to take advantage of the item with specific feats. Otherwise, spellbooks are useless to themAs for the quoted spellbook text, it explains how wizards can interact with spellbooks. Still no exclusionary language.
I understand that this is an unorthodox interaction. Unorthodox or not, there does not seem to be any exclusionary language that prevents the interaction.
It explains how wizard prepare spells using spellbooks. The wizard cannot prepare spells without a spellbook like the cleric and druid can. Thus it is a class feature. Take a wizard's spellbook and he's screwed.
It explains how clerics and druids and other prepared casters prepare spells and they don't use spellbooks. Nowhere does it say they can unprepare a spell and use a spellbook to change a slot. Spellbooks are completely irrelevant to every prepared caster except Wizards and Magus.
If someone doesn't use a spellbook to prepare a spell, they cannot choose to use them because Spell Subsitution says that you can change a spell
Nowhere does it say they need a spellbook to prepare a spell. Once the cleric or druid learn the spell, they never have to look at that spellbook again. Nowhere does it say they have to look at the spellbook to prepare it ever again. So I would not say that means they can "fully" use a spellbook.
I wouldn't say they can fully use a spellbook. They can have one. They can scribe spells into it. They can learn spells from it. Once that is done, they don't need a spellbook for preparation and cannot to my knowledge unprepare a spell once they have taken it during the morning.
I kind of miss this from PF1. I recall being able to leave open spell slots in PF1 and prepare them throughout the day as needed. I wonder why they did not leave that in this edition.
Once again, you are going by omission. If something doesn't say you can't, then you can. That is the logic you are using. I'm using the same logic.
This logic is wrongly applied here. The rules on spell books and learn a spell enable spell books for everyone with the spellcasting class feature and the right skill.
There are restrictions in wizard. But the restrictions only apply where they apply. Lack of restrictions is not omission, restrictions are by their nature an addition.Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook. Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook....
It is indirect. They clearly provide for clerics to prepare spells that are not on their list. Learn a Spell puts a spell into your spell book that gives you access. This is the way for clerics to gain access to rare and uncommon divine spells. Technically this is what the GM could do when granting access to rare and uncommon spells. But the access rules don't really put any restrictions here, if the GM has given access, then you can prepare it. Using spellbooks makes sense as it provides a mechanism to enable the GM to allow access for some characters and npcs, and not others.
Nowhere does it say they need a spellbook to prepare a spell.
Yes because they can use another method which is it just being one of common spells on the divine spell list.
So it is not always needed. But that is clearly non exclusionary language.Once the cleric or druid learn the spell, they never have to look at that spellbook again. Nowhere does it say they have to look at the spellbook to prepare it ever again. So I would not say that means they can "fully" use a spellbook.
I wouldn't say they can fully use a spellbook. They can have one. They can scribe spells into it. They can learn spells from it. Once that is done, they don't need a spellbook for preparation and cannot to my knowledge unprepare a spell once they have taken it during the morning.
Here you are just mistaken - it is clearly in the rules Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. As soon as you prepare any spells again, all your spells need to be prepared again.
|
|
Any spellcaster can write spells into a spellbook via Learn A Spell. How they interact with the spellbook after that is class dependent. Wizards and Magus' are the only ones that prepare their spells from a spellbook. Therefore what is in a spellbook is only really relevant to wizards and magus' (and the others that get fiddly feats).
As for crossblooded and other such feats, I think the important text is that you cast the other tradition spell as your tradition. Which means that in the spellbook it is still its original tradition.
That's how it reads to me.
Any spellcaster can write spells into a spellbook via Learn A Spell. How they interact with the spellbook after that is class dependent. Wizards and Magus' are the only ones that prepare their spells from a spellbook. Therefore what is in a spellbook is only really relevant to wizards and magus'.
As for crossblooded and other such feats, I think the important text is that you cast the other tradition spell as your tradition. Which means that in the spellbook it is still its original tradition.
That's how it reads to me.
I get this point. But this is what the words gain access in Learn a Spell do, because access is enabled it allows preparation in cleric and druid. Yes the words are there to do that. This is what enables spellbook use.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'use' in 'spellbook use' may be doing too much heavy lifting. A spellbook is an item. There are different ways a spellbook can be interacted with.
1) Putting spells into the spellbook.
2) Preparing spells from the spellbook.
Any spellcaster can do 1. Few spellcasters do 2.
As for Gain Access, it doesn't really have relevance to a spellbook except in the cases of spellcasters that do 2. For example, a cleric or druid using LaS on an uncommon spell...
If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
...do not have to interact with a spellbook at all. And, even if they do, it changes nothing for them because they do not do 2.
As was said previously, how a spellcaster prepares spells is relevant in this discussion. Just because a cleric has a spellbook full of divine spells does not mean that they prepare spells from said spellbook.
The 'use' in 'spellbook use' may be doing too much heavy lifting. A spellbook is an item. There are different ways a spellbook can be interacted with.
1) Putting spells into the spellbook.
2) Preparing spells from the spellbook.
Any spellcaster can do 1. Few spellcasters do 2.
It is the spell casting class feature which enables preparing spells at all. Which you get from your class or multiclass archetype.
The spell book item enables preparing them from a book. It holds the written knowledge necessary to learn and prepare various spells
That is enough.
The phrase access is used in writing into a spell book and separately in the class spell preparation feature.
That is a good tie in.
There is no gap there unless you create one by reading something else in.
As for Gain Access, it doesn't really have relevance to a spellbook except in the cases of spellcasters that do 2. For example, a cleric or druid using LaS on an uncommon spell...
If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells....do not have to interact with a spellbook at all. And, even if they do, it changes nothing for them because they do not do 2.
As I said previously, how a spellcaster prepares spells is relevant in this discussion. Just because a cleric has a spellbook full of divine spells does not mean that they prepare spells from said spellbook.
What you have missed is that the uncommon divine spells are already on THE divine spell list. So adding to your list again does nothing for spell preparation, as its already there.
Second that
If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook;
if you prepare spells from a list, it's added to your list;
if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.
Is a set of three things that happen if you qualify for them. They are not exclusive in any way. All of them happen if they are relevant. Consider a magus multiclassed into cleric, and multiclassed into bard, with the basic spellcasting feats as well. All of these could happen at once for an uncommon multi-tradition spell.
Yes its not going to make sense to do so as each spell casting feature is restricted to a particular tradition. But getting it into your spell book is not.
Once again, you are going by omission. If something doesn't say you can't, then you can. That is the logic you are using. I'm using the same logic.This logic is wrongly applied here. The rules on spell books and learn a spell enable spell books for everyone with the spellcasting class feature and the right skill.
There are restrictions in wizard. But the restrictions only apply where they apply. Lack of restrictions is not omission, restrictions are by their nature an addition.Fact is clerics don't use a spellbook. Nowhere in their class description does it say they use a spellbook....It is indirect. They clearly provide for clerics to prepare spells that are not on their list. Learn a Spell puts a spell into your spell book that gives you access. This is the way for clerics to gain access to rare and uncommon divine spells. Technically this is what the GM could do when granting access to rare and uncommon spells. But the access rules don't really put any restrictions here, if the GM has given access, then you can prepare it. Using spellbooks makes sense as it provides a mechanism to enable the GM to allow access for some characters and npcs, and not others.
As a cleric, I never have to use a spellbook, scroll, or anything else ever again once I learn the spell. That is clear in the rules.
I never have to use a spellbook to prepare a spell. If I do not have to do something, it means I cannot decide it is required or apply a different feat to preparing spells when I feel like it.
I don't get to pick my method of preparation. It is not optional. It's clearly spelled out in the rules for each class or any feats modifying them.
Nowhere does it say they need a spellbook to prepare a spell.Yes because they can use another method which is it just being one of common spells on the divine spell list.
So it is not always needed. But that is clearly non exclusionary language.Here you are just mistaken - it is clearly in the rules Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. As soon as you prepare any spells again, all your spells need to be prepared again.Once the cleric or druid learn the spell, they never have to look at that spellbook again. Nowhere does it say they have to look at the spellbook to prepare it ever again. So I would not say that means they can "fully" use a spellbook.
I wouldn't say they can fully use a spellbook. They can have one. They can scribe spells into it. They can learn spells from it. Once that is done, they don't need a spellbook for preparation and cannot to my knowledge unprepare a spell once they have taken it during the morning.
Nowhere in there does it say you must use a spellbook to prepare them again. So not sure what you're getting at. You are not saying anything with this to refute to what I wrote.
I don't need a spellbook as a cleric or druid. You cannot prove I need one. I don't use a spellbook to prepare spells and you cannot decide that I do just as I don't get to randomly decide that I do.
I get this point. But this is what the words gain access in Learn a Spell do, because access is enabled it allows preparation in cleric and druid. Yes the words are there to do that. This is what enables spellbook use.Any spellcaster can write spells into a spellbook via Learn A Spell. How they interact with the spellbook after that is class dependent. Wizards and Magus' are the only ones that prepare their spells from a spellbook. Therefore what is in a spellbook is only really relevant to wizards and magus'.
As for crossblooded and other such feats, I think the important text is that you cast the other tradition spell as your tradition. Which means that in the spellbook it is still its original tradition.
That's how it reads to me.
No, you are wrong. Not sure why you're making this argument. It's a false argument.
Classes don't get to choose their method of spell preparation. Not sure why you think they do.
Gain Access has nothing to do with method of preparation. Nothing at all.