Paizo, the errata to Runelord’s arcane bond and personal rune is a bad decision and should be reverted.

[ElementalofCuteness]

In that case of the above just boost the sins by re-adding the double charges because there is no way to do that without re-writing the Anathemas to be less restrictive. Wraith is great because it is DPR heavy which can be useful for winning fights. When you remove defensive abilities you make it harder for Wizards to win the fight as more of their allies fall.

[Blave]

The ability to heighten spells from the staff (by paying an according number of charges, of course) would go a long way towards making some of the sins better. Lust for example has so many incapacitaion spells that it's rarely feasible to use your charges for anything but a top rank spell, seriously reducing the flexibility the staff otherwise provides.

[moosher12]

Blave wrote:

The ability to heighten spells from the staff (by paying an according number of charges, of course) would go a long way towards making some of the sins better. Lust for example has so many incapacitaion spells that it's rarely feasible to use your charges for anything but a top rank spell, seriously reducing the flexibility the staff otherwise provides.

Runelord wrote:

The weapon functions as a staff only you can prepare and contains the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)

The entry says it contains all sin spells up to the highest rank of spell you can cast, it does not specify that individual spells remain at the lowest level. The way staves work is they have to be enchanted with spells at specific levels. Unless it's an oversight, it already looks like a runelord can freely heighten sin spells from their staff, within charge limitations.

[NorrKnekten]

moosher12 wrote:

Blave wrote:

The ability to heighten spells from the staff (by paying an according number of charges, of course) would go a long way towards making some of the sins better. Lust for example has so many incapacitaion spells that it's rarely feasible to use your charges for anything but a top rank spell, seriously reducing the flexibility the staff otherwise provides.

Runelord wrote:

The weapon functions as a staff only you can prepare and contains the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)

The entry says it contains all sin spells up to the highest rank of spell you can cast, it does not specify that individual spells remain at the lowest level. The way staves work is they have to be enchanted with spells at specific levels. Unless it's an oversight, it already looks like a runelord can freely heighten sin spells from their staff, within charge limitations.

Though the fact that it functions as a staff kinda shows thats probably not the case. The text to me looks like it clarifies that a Wrath runelord with only rank 2 spells wouldn't have fireball in their staff despite fireball appearing on the their sin curriculum.

Personally I don't think Lust is a big problem problem due to some really good evergreen spells in the lower ranks. But that staff is going to be limited to confusion, command and stupefy at higher levels, They can prepare the lower rank incap spells in their higher ranked school slots (or just swap a slot with such a spell) So the staff casting any of its spells sounds more like Quality of Life than anything else.

[moosher12]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Though the fact that it functions as a staff kinda shows thats probably not the case. The text to me looks like it clarifies that a Wrath runelord with only rank 2 spells wouldn't have fireball in their staff despite fireball appearing on the their sin curriculum.

GM Core pg. 278 wrote:

You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have the spell on your list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate rank or higher, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell's rank.

Whether or not the staff has fireball when you cannot cast fireball yourself does not matter as only you can use the staff. If you cast Rank 2 spells, you cannot yet cast fireball. If you cast Rank 3 spells, you can cast a 3rd-rank fireball, and if you cast Rank 4 spells, you can cast a 3rd- or 4th-rank fireball.

If the intent is not to be able to heighten them, it needs a clause that "these spells cannot be heightened" It could be an oversight, but for the purposes of learning spells for spontaneous casters, as well as installing spells in staves, differently heightened versions of the same spell are considered different spells. So the interpretation that all spells would be included would include heightened versions separately would be the RaW reading. The intended rules is another matter, and it could very well be an oversight, but by RaW free heightening would hold.

[Squiggit]

I think my favorite thing about this thread is that after years of discourse surrounding wizards generally being that Wizards need to utilize a variety of spells and that options are their strength seeing some of those same people turn around and insist that losing options doesn't change their power level at all and the anathema is essentially just a ribbon feature.

[NorrKnekten]

moosher12 wrote:

NorrKnekten wrote:

Though the fact that it functions as a staff kinda shows thats probably not the case. The text to me looks like it clarifies that a Wrath runelord with only rank 2 spells wouldn't have fireball in their staff despite fireball appearing on the their sin curriculum.

GM Core pg. 278 wrote:

You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have the spell on your list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate rank or higher, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell's rank.

Whether or not the staff has fireball when you cannot cast fireball yourself does not matter as only you can use the staff. If you cast Rank 2 spells, you cannot yet cast fireball. If you cast Rank 3 spells, you can cast a 3rd-rank fireball, and if you cast Rank 4 spells, you can cast a 3rd- or 4th-rank fireball.

If the intent is not to be able to heighten them, it needs a clause that "these spells cannot be heightened" It could be an oversight, but for the purposes of learning spells for spontaneous casters, as well as installing spells in staves, differently heightened versions of the same spell are considered different spells. So the interpretation that all spells would be included would include heightened versions separately would be the RaW reading. The intended rules is another matter, and it could very well be an oversight, but by RaW free heightening would hold.

No I checked and the raw gives no hint of being able to heighten, rather plainly you can cast the spells at the rank it appears in within the staff's list and no other ranks.

GM Core pg. 278 2.0 Staves wrote:

The spells that can be cast from a staff are listed in bullet points organized by rank.

Staff Activation wrote:

Activate Cast a Spell; Effect You expend a number of charges from the staff to cast a spell from its list.

Secrets of Magic pg. 166 2.0 Personal Staves wrote:

You can place the same spell into the staff at multiple levels to provide heightened versions, though doing so uses up one of your picks for that spell level.

Secrets of Magic pg. 166 2.0 Personal Staves wrote:

Note that some of these spells are duplicates of lower-level spells, which can be a great way to fill in levels if new spells don't appeal to you. It's usually best to choose a spell for one of these slots that has an extra benefit when heightened (such as plant form giving you better statistics), but even if you don't find a spell with such a benefit, it's worth filling every open slot

Staff of Fire wrote:

*Cantrip ignition

*1st breathe fire
*2nd breathe fire, floating flame
*3rd floating flame, fireball
*4th fire shield, fireball, wall of fire
*5th fireball, wall of fire

So no, RAW Staff heightening does not hold.

RAW staff heightening with runelord? Questionable since we dont know for sure if we are meant to copy the sin part of the curricilum verbatim as the staff's list or not.

[moosher12]

If a staff adds all sin spells, it adds all spells at each individual level.

It contains "the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)" It does not contain "the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips; the ranked spells are at their lowest rank)"

Both Fireball (3rd), Fireball (4th), up to Fireball (Nth) are all seperate sin spells available for this purpose.

Your example of the staff of fire proves the point. Staves contain spells at separate levels, treating them as separate spells, in the example you showed, for Breathe Fire across two ranks, and fireball across 3 three. If the spells stayed at lowest level, the staff of fire would not have heightened versions of the spells.

It's not heightening one spell from its lowest rank, it's the staff having all available ranks of the spell installed. Which is, effectively, heightening.

Though I would not complain if an errata reduced this to only the lowest-rank versions of spells. But while it says "spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell" including the seperately heightened versions of spells is not a wrong interpretation without developer input or errata.

[NorrKnekten]

That is an interesting take but I don't think the runelord RAW holds any support for this. My reading is that it contains your Sin 'curricilum' as its staff-list, Up to the rank you can cast so no level 3 runelords with fireballs which would be the case if it added all spells from the sin. Which is a farshot from "every spell at every possible rank"

Anything else is imo, a much to liberal reading that borders on to good to be true. Essentially 2 signature spells per rank for as long as the charges last, At that point... screw the extra school slot, im tossing that into the staff each day every day.

[Unicore]

But “the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)” would have to include heightened versions of the spells because the heightened version of those spells are still sin spells up to the highest rank of spell you could cast. Some spells specifically do pretty different things at high tented ranks and it would be very bad (too bad to be true, imo) if you just could never have those in your staff. It seems like a pretty intended boon of the archetype to me.

[ElementalofCuteness]

I agree with that. If it didn't work that way then it be super confusing...I would liek to think you could heighten sin spells personally from your stuff.

[Bluemagetim]

I'm thinking it works the way NorrKnekten is saying.
"The weapon functions as a staff with charges equal to
the highest rank of spells you can cast and contains the
sin spells from your sin up to that rank (including your
cantrips)."

Contains sin spells from your sin up to that rank sounds like we look at the list for sin and add in those spells to the staff as its written up to the highest rank we can cast.
With that read Wrath for example would give exactly what is written here at the ranks they say when they are at or under out highest rank.
Sin Spells cantrips: frostbite, ignition; 1st: force barrage,
thunderstrike; 2nd: blistering invective PC2*, floating flame;
3rd: fireball, lightning bolt; 4th: ice storm PC2, wall of fire;
5th: howling blizzard, wall of ice; 6th: blinding fury PC2*,
disintegrate; 7th: eclipse burst, fiery body; 8th: earthquake;
9th: falling stars

[kedrann]

I have been following this discussion and this is my 2 cents on it, as I am currently playing an 11th level Gluttony Runelord (retrained a wizard into it and we're starting Spore Wars). Please note that the following is just my opinion and personal interpretation. I'm posting it as I have now played a Runelord for a few sessions and it may contribute to the discussion.

Overall, I consider that the archetype is worth it and it fully scratches my specialist wizard itch. I consider that the bonuses already mentioned by others are worth the anathema and I actually like a lot that it was done this way rather than with a straight removal from the spell list like in the earlier edition, as it opens for more RP opportunities where you could decide to willingly violate your anathema to save the day.

I fully agree that the anathema requires interpretation and can make things complicated if you cannot agree with your GM on something more precise. I can see it becoming a real problem for PFS games but for a home game, it's not an issue.

The errata regarding the charges was a hit, but it comes with a bonus. With the charges accumulation, buying a staff was pretty much mandatory. With only the added spells and potential added staff passive abilities, it shifts to 'nice to have', which is a boon for a wizard who often needs the GP to fill his spellbook.

Regarding the last point if the personal rune contains the heightened version of the spells, my interpretation is the following: in my opinion, in PF2e, spells function following a similar logic as alchemical items.

For example, an Elixir of Life has different versions of different levels that are separate items but share the same basic formula, with the rules clearly explaining that knowing the base formula is enough to prepare any version if you have the level for it.

If you apply that logic to spells, you learn the spell's formula when you acquire the spell and then you can cast it using different, separate versions, depending depending on your level and class mechanics. A wizard prepares a 3rd or 4th rank fireball in the same way an alchemist decides to make a Lesser or Moderate Elixir of Life (even if he will usually prepare the highest-level version of an elixir, the rules does not prevent him from preparing a lower version if desired). The spontaneous spellcasters' need to memorize spells of various ranks separately also points in the direction of spells of different ranks being separate objects, with the signature spell mechanic allowing for some more flexibility.

Following this logic, I think that the Runelord's personal rune contains all heightened versions of the sin spells, because they are separate objects in the same way the various versions of an alchemical elixir is.

Regarding this comparison of spells and alchemical items, I personally know that I had difficulties to lose some habits from earlier editions where a spell was a single object with variables depending on the caster's level rather than a collection of objects with a shared formula. Maybe some other people have the same difficulties.

As mentioned, I know this is only my opinion and interpretation (and therefore anecdotal) but I hope it will be useful to this discussion.

[NorrKnekten]

Unicore wrote:

But “the sin spells from your sin up to the highest rank of spell you can cast (including your cantrips)” would have to include heightened versions of the spells because the heightened version of those spells are still sin spells up to the highest rank of spell you could cast.

By the way it is written, no it does not have to. Your sin-spells is a list of spells, with new spells at each rank.

If you want to include a paragraph that states it only contains the part of the list which you can cast,no heightened levels, and still keep the 2 spells per rank then yeah. "up to the highest rank you can cast". is the correct phrase to use. That already sets it appart from a normal staff as you gain the ability to use it for higher ranks than staves otherwise allow as opposed to the two ranks lower clause that staff designs follow.

Behavior that includes each spell in the higher ranks it can be used at would need to clarify they do this or the default is going to be normal staff behavior. You know... how animist does it.

its not enoughy to simply state

Apparition Spellcasting wrote:

As you increase in level, you gain further apparition spell slots, and your apparitions grant you higher-rank apparition spells

They needed to clarify it breaks conventional repertoire by stating in the class's section regarding heighten spells, By quite clearly stating that all apparition spells are signature spells. But there is no such thing here for the personal rune. It is still ambigious due to not having an explicit method of how we apply the list from the sin onto the staff. but theres nothing that that breaks the typical staff convention either so.

[NorrKnekten]

moosher12 wrote:

So that raises the question. The runelord dedication says that when you refocus, you can also exchange one spell you have prepared for a sin spell of the same rank. If a sin spell is only treated as its base rank, does that mean a wrath runelord is not allowed to swap a rank 4 spell slot with a rank 4 fireball? After all fireball is a rank 3 sin spell, and there is no rank 4 fireball sin spell.

Spells are treated as their base rank when considered in the wizards spellbook yes.

But that feature is alot more cut and dry in that yes they can, Not only because the wizards heightening spells entry says they can but also because now we don't operate under the context that the spell repository is 'locked' to specific ranks as is standard for both staves and spontanious casters.

Wizard/Heightening Spells wrote:

When you get spell slots of 2nd rank and higher, you can fill those slots with stronger versions of lower-rank spells. This increases the spell's rank, heightening it to match the spell slot.

So when you swap and its asking for a 4th rank spell to fill the slot with, then a wizard(Any prepared caster really) explicitly has the ability to use lower rank spells.

[moosher12]

Yeah, I was still researching that point and found it incomplete so I'd deleted it, but to complete the point, I need to fill out that it says Curriculum spells or sin spells, which makes the lists seperated. If it was calling for curriculum spells, it'd follow normal wizard rules, but the wordage curriculum or sin spells means they are seperate lists. Only the term curriculum works alongside normal wizard rules, as only the term curriculum is called upon. Leaving sin spells in a seperate compartment.

But if a sin spell is still considered a sin spell when heightened to prepare, that means a sin spell is still considered a sin spell when heightened to be installed in a staff. And therefore remains defined as a sin spell up to the highest rank of spell you can cast

Either way, this does need paizo clarification of intent. We can go in circles of this all day. The issue here is we have two groups that interpret this rule in different ways. And that is a problem with the text itself.

[Bluemagetim]

One interpretation though is that the sin spells you get to add to your staff through the oersonal rune/bonded weapon feature are the ones listed.
So rank 3 fireball for wrath and not any other rank fireball because those ranks are not listed as sin spells.
Noting here the difference between how a sin spell interacts when learned and added to a spell book as not the same as a sin spell being added to the staff through a runelords class feature.

[NorrKnekten]

You are going to have to explain that first point Moosher, Because Sin-Spells are Curriculum spells...or rather they are a subset of your curriculum. Would be weird if Wrath couldn't prepare fireball inside their extra School Slot.

They are even defined underneath the rules for the Runelords Arcane School. No reason to believe they are at all separate lists for other purposes than to define the part that comes from your sin and not the base curriculum.

School of Thassilonian Rune Magic wrote:

This curriculum, taught at a few select academies in New Thassilon, can be learned only by wizards with the runelord class archetype. You have begun to study one of the seven runes of sin, granting you great power but at the cost of anathematic magic. All runelords gain the below curriculum and school spells. In addition, you must choose one of the seven sins to specialize in. You add your sin’s spells and initial school spells to your curriculum.

Its probably added context or even more author confusion, considering they mention 'curriculum or sin spells' or Your curriculum spells(including spells from your sin) at other places too where they arguably shouldnt be having different mechanics. But also only mention Curriculum spells in other places later on like that of the sin reservoir and the sin counterspell.

While rod of rule again mentions "curriculum or sin spells"

Bluemagnetism wrote:

Noting here the difference between how a sin spell interacts when learned and added to a spell book as not the same as a sin spell being added to the staff through a runelords class feature

You are going to have to forgive me if I missunderstood what you are saying as im having trouble parsing that, But you are correct, Though I would argue that it is the same, When you learn a spell and put it into your spellbook it is always at its base rank. A wizard doesn't know Rank 3-9 fireball like a sorcerer would need to without making it signature. The wizard knows rank 3 fireball only but can prepare it in a higher slot to make it a rank 4.

But yeah, I agree, The sin spells being part of the curriculum also lists their ranks.

Runelord as a whole has really turned out to be a mindbender that feels .. off and rushed with so many unclear behaviors.

[moosher12]

NorrKnekten wrote:

You are going to have to explain that first point Moosher, Because Sin-Spells are Curriculum spells...or rather they are a subset of your curriculum. Would be weird if Wrath couldn't prepare fireball inside their extra School Slot.

They are even defined underneath the rules for the Runelords Arcane School. No reason to believe they are at all separate lists for other purposes than to define the part that comes from your sin and not the base curriculum.

Yes, the semantics are weird. I spent a lot of last night trying to parse the specifics. To further the point.

For the purpose of spell preparation, we do have the clause that sin spells are considered curriculum spells. Which means you would be able to prepare the fireball in a 4th-rank 4th spell slot.

But for the ability to swap spells, it targets curriculum or sin spells, which is what begins to make things weird. The clause that sin spells are curriculum spells should make it to where you would not need to declare "curriculum spells or sin spells." and this flags it as two things. One is either that sin spells are seperate to some degree, or the other is that the inclusion of the mention of sin spells is extraneous and can be removed in that case.

As you said, runelord ended up a mindbender and feels a bit rushed. For example, my honest thought is I do agree, Paizo probably should reduce the staff to the lowest form as a clarification, the issue is my sentiment on what paizo should do is seperate from my interpretation of the rules as written, as it leans toward enabling all heightened spells. But knowing Paizo's patterns of mechanics, rules as intended would assume something more tame. But if a player takes that interpretation to a GM, I would not call it a bad interpretation. And it will read the way it does to a lot of people. For example, we have 4 people leaning toward staves heightening, and 2 people for staves not heightening. GMs can reign it in, of course, but there will be a lot of interactions with GMs and players having a similar debate on how much to give the runelord, which is problematic. Because you very well could be right that that is Paizo's intent, but regardless, errata should be made, because patterns like this means GMs will see a lot of players with this interpretation, and some GMs will have this interpretation, and this will just become another factor of table variance for the wizard.

[NorrKnekten]

Yeah, I can agree on that. Though this staff heightening or not has been a thing on other forums for months now. We disagree on what the RAW says.. For Curriculum or Sin spells... remember that paizo has a thing where they will very much put in clarifying text to show context. And often in places where it can occasionally be misconstruded as being a separate and specific mechanic instead normal rules.

This has been an ongoing thing for years even to the point they baked it into the conventions with

Quote:

If a rule doesn’t specify otherwise, default to the general rules presented in this chapter. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the normal rules even if effects don’t specifically say to.

and

Quote:

Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.

After nearly 7 years of this system i've been burned to many times to know that things typically need to be directly mentioned in the text, as inferences outside general rules are far to often wrong

[Perpdepog]

Just wanted to drop the remastered Zealot Staff here, in case it shifts anybody's opinions on the question of whether or not heightened versions of sin spells are included in a Runelord's staff because it expressly does the thing some folks were claiming the Runelord's staff does.

This item, at minimum, shows that there is precedent for that kind of ability in the game now, so there is that. Conversely, this item is level 17, and, outside of magic-centric deities like Nethys, is only giving the wielder three omni-heightenable spells as opposed to the much larger number of sin spells a Runelord would have access to.
There's also the fact that this ability is explicit, for what it's worth.

I'm not trying to respark this debate, I just thought that this item would be helpful for anyone coming across this thread and wanting to make up their minds for themselves on where they stand.

[Teridax]

I think what made this errata so contentious is that a lot of people saw in the new Runelord a fix for the Wizard, and put all of their eggs into that basket. While I don't necessarily think the errata was wholly justified (I thought the class archetype's staff-based flexibility made the Runelord play really smoothly and suitably powerful for an arcane caster that traded off a fair bit of versatility), I also don't think it would have led to a very healthy state of affairs for the best Wizard playstyle to be a rare class archetype that shines by essentially being the opposite of the base Wizard in many ways. Let's let the Runelord be strong maybe, but let's also not put all our hopes and dreams on that one class archetype being the solution to all of the class's problems, and then be surprised when it gets equalized with the base class. If the base Wizard were made stronger, perhaps that would allow the Runelord to have their errata partially or fully reverted as well.