|
Normally, a magus would lose his spellcasting capabilities while using Transformation. This would also prevent the use of Spell Combat. Wand Wielder however allows the use of wands in Spell Combat which can even be activated by non-spellcasters through the Use Magic Device skill.
So, would a magus under Transformation be able to use Spell Combat by activating wands through Use Magic Device?
|
You become a fighting machine—stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat. Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items.
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
Noe, you can't.
|
|
Noe, you can't.
You become a fighting machine—stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat. Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items.
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
With UMD, you can activate wands even if the spells are not on your class list.
Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items.How about this part, which i already posted?
If you can't, you can't. And i see transformation as something similar to a rage...you just want to pound something to oblivion with weapons.
The problem is that that's the first part of the description, which is usually fluff. This follows the usual form of a spell - one or two sentences of fluff, then more explaining what that fluff actually means.
"You become a fighting machine - stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat." -> You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus to AC, a +5 competence bonus on Fortitude saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons. Your base attack bonus equals your character level (which may give you multiple attacks).
"Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items." -> You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
Seen this way, you lose all innate ability to cast spells, to the extent that you can't even activate items as if you knew those spells. This has nothing to do with UMD, however, because that's specifically for activating items when you don't have the spells. Keep in mind that the spell is written as if a wizard or sorcerer is casting it - it assumes you have spells to lose in the first place.
What's the intent? Unless a developer posts about it, we can only guess at RAI. RAW, it can go either way, depending on how you interpret the first two sentences (which is almost always what this kind of debate boils down to).
don't think it quite works the same now Since the introduction of spell like ablities. if a sorcerer used transformation. then wanted to grow claws to attack with natural weapons it wouldn't work. I agree its eaiser to just say no magic at all. rather than go back and figure out what works and what doesn't.Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items.
It's actually very clear:
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
That's it. Spell like abilities (which have been around since 3.0) are fine. Supernatural abilities are fine. Extraordinary abilities are fine. All skills are fine (unlike rage). Even magic items which produce spell effects (boots of haste, spell-storing items, etc) are fine. You only lose your spells and the ability to use magic items as if you had those spells.
Use Magic Device allows you to 'cheat' items to use spell completion items as if they were on your spell list, then this spell says you can't use spells even if they are on your list. So no I'd say you can not use it, even if you are only pretending to be a wizard.
I think i would allow it, the magus has gone through a lot of trouble to do that.
Use Magic Device allows you to 'cheat' items to use spell completion items as if they were on your spell list, then this spell says you can't use spells even if they are on your list. So no I'd say you can not use it, even if you are only pretending to be a wizard.
That's not what it says. It says "As if they were no longer on your list". It's a small difference, but an important one. In one, you still have spells, but are effectively blocked from using them. In the other, you effectively don't have spells. In both of those scenarios, you can't cast spells, but in the former UMDing to pretend to have a spell on your list still wouldn't work (because you add it to the list you're blocked from using) and in the latter you can (because you're adding it to an empty list).
. . .by activating wands through Use Magic Device?
This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list.
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
Assuming the only way you can't use spell activation/completion magic items is because the spells are no longer on your list, this would work.
However, that isn't made entirely clear. Given the fact that we're talking about 3.5 material, the PF designers probably didn't think about the feat when they designed the class ability. So I'd say that RAW it is probably allowed, but RAI it's probably not allowed.
RAI + common sense > RAW with no common sense.
. . .by activating wands through Use Magic Device?This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list.You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.Assuming the only way you can't use spell activation/completion magic items is because the spells are no longer on your list, this would work.
However, that isn't made entirely clear. Given the fact that we're talking about 3.5 material, the PF designers probably didn't think about the feat when they designed the class ability. So I'd say that RAW it is probably allowed, but RAI it's probably not allowed.
RAI + common sense > RAW with no common sense.
And this is why arguing RAI is fruitless - you see the intent as "You are magically stripped of the ability to do these things" while I see it as "You are magically transformed into a warrior, and can only do what a warrior can."
And this is why arguing RAI is fruitless - you see the intent as "You are magically stripped of the ability to do these things" while I see it as "You are magically transformed into a warrior, and can only do what a warrior can."
The problem is poor writing. It would have been good writing to simply stop with:
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items.
That would have been a simple solution. But because they implied that the *reason* you can't use spell activation/completion items is because the spells aren't on your list, that opens the door for UMD to work. Sometimes less is more q:
And if there was a rule in the book that said you had to use common sense with the rules, RAW + no common sense would be illegal (:
So long story short, it seems quite legal and honestly its nice to see the spell being used by something other than a familiar or a rogue via UMD.
Eh, I think the original intent of the spell was to do what was said at the beginning of the spell:
Your mind-set changes so that you relish combat and you can’t cast spells, even from magic items.
It's a loophole. And I'm pretty sure it's unintentional. The spell is unchanged from 3.5 -- and in core 3.5, it was quite difficult to get a significant UMD score. It was possible to do it, but it was so unlikely it probably didn't get much testing scrutiny.
And this is why arguing RAI is fruitless - you see the intent as "You are magically stripped of the ability to do these things" while I see it as "You are magically transformed into a warrior, and can only do what a warrior can."The problem is poor writing. It would have been good writing to simply stop with:
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items.That would have been a simple solution. But because they implied that the *reason* you can't use spell activation/completion items is because the spells aren't on your list, that opens the door for UMD to work. Sometimes less is more q:
And if there was a rule in the book that said you had to use common sense with the rules, RAW + no common sense would be illegal (:
I disagree with your common sense, which is why there isn't such a rule. :p
I think it's clear (and I could be wrong) that the intent is not to block you from UMD. Otherwise, it would say "This spell functions as rage with the following changes..." or just say "you cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration." (quoted from rage)
Keep in mind, it is a transmutation spell, not an enchantment. It turns you into a warrior, but your mind is still yours (there's no mechanics to back the "you relish combat" text - it could just be a surge of adrenaline or testosterone).
I disagree with your common sense, which is why there isn't such a rule. :p
1) You can't do A.
Your mind-set changes so that you relish combat and you can’t cast spells, even from magic items.
2) You can't do A because of reason B.
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell trigger or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
3) C negates reason B.
Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list.
You can do A because of reason C. But 1) still holds unless the spell contradicts itself. You can't do A. 1) and 2) aren't linked. Reason B has nothing to do with 1).
Like I said, it's just bad writing.
You can do A because of reason C. But 1) still holds unless the spell contradicts itself. You can't do A. 1) and 2) aren't linked. Reason B has nothing to do with 1).
Like I said, it's just bad writing.
I'm going to quote something I said earlier:
The problem is that that's the first part of the description, which is usually fluff. This follows the usual form of a spell - one or two sentences of fluff, then more explaining what that fluff actually means."You become a fighting machine - stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat." -> You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus to AC, a +5 competence bonus on Fortitude saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons. Your base attack bonus equals your character level (which may give you multiple attacks).
"Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items." -> You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
...
RAW, it can go either way, depending on how you interpret the first two sentences (which is almost always what this kind of debate boils down to).
I choose to see it as flavor text, and thus it says X then later says what it means by X. You read it as rules text, and thus it is repetitive. Both are valid, but I see "common sense" saying that they don't put repetitive text in the book.
I choose to see it as flavor text, and thus it says X then later says what it means by X. You read it as rules text, and thus it is repetitive. Both are valid, but I see "common sense" saying that they don't put repetitive text in the book.
Common sense says rule text is rule text. . . there is no fluff section to spells.