Pathfinder 1E Can a multi-class cleric/wizard lose a wizard spell in order to "Spontaneously" cast cure?

[Umbran]

Really you had to go there. Just because 3E/Pathfinder are not as finely balanced as other editions does not mean that it it is a good idea to just say anything goes.

By RAW, the game is extremely unbalanced in favour of casters (particularly single-class or PrC-using wizards and clerics), certainly post-6 or 10, and indeed some would consider it "unplayable", RAW (I would disagree, but it's not exactly un-heard-of as an opinion - it's the main reason the E6 and E10 rules exist, which were once very popular).

Not mod-voice, 'cause I want to keep this more friendly, if that's okay.

RE, I think you missed the point - this thread isn't about the overall balance of games, or what is playable or unplayable. It is about the much more focused issue of whether a cleric/wizard can do this thing, in RAW, and maybe what would tend to happen if you allowed it.

"You went there" looka to be more about the broad critique of the 3e/PF rules branch, which was not really warranted by the topic, and could be considered edition warring if things in the discussion go sour.

So, really, let's not go there, hm?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not mod-voice, 'cause I want to keep this more friendly, if that's okay.

RE, I think you missed the point - this thread isn't about the overall balance of games, or what is playable or unplayable. It is about the much more focused issue of whether a cleric/wizard can do this thing, in RAW, and maybe what would tend to happen if you allowed it.

"You went there" looka to be more about the broad critique of the 3e/PF rules branch, which was not really warranted by the topic, and could be considered edition warring if things in the discussion go sour.

So, really, let's not go there, hm?

Fair enough, I had I thought that if one is going to get discuss about how something potentially destroys the "balance" of the game, which seems to be the reason people are suggesting it shouldn't be allowed (as the rules are definitely somewhat vague on this), it should be given some context, but I take your point.

I guess even without that context the idea that letting PCs burn powerful, battle-winning Wizard spells (and even low-level Wizard spells are that) for far less powerful Cleric healing spells which are largely just about repairing post-combat damage is pretty risible. Balance is just not a good reason to ban this.

 

[billd91]

Balance is just not a good reason to ban this.

Depends on what kind of balance you're talking about.

 

[Mon]

The class ability text only applies in so far as telling you whether the character has an ability.

Source?

The section on multi-classing clearly states that the class abilities are based on the number of levels in the class in question and don't say anywhere that it's just for whether or not a class has an ability.

 

[Mon]

Balance is just not a good reason to ban this.

It's not a matter of banning it; it's a matter of including it.

It is not part of the game by RAW, RAI, or convention. The designers themselves have said so on the paizo message boards for RAI. The PRD covers it for RAW.

Including it would be a house rule. Possibly a good balanced house rule, but a house rule none the less.

 

[Elf Witch]

Not mod-voice, 'cause I want to keep this more friendly, if that's okay.

RE, I think you missed the point - this thread isn't about the overall balance of games, or what is playable or unplayable. It is about the much more focused issue of whether a cleric/wizard can do this thing, in RAW, and maybe what would tend to happen if you allowed it.

"You went there" looka to be more about the broad critique of the 3e/PF rules branch, which was not really warranted by the topic, and could be considered edition warring if things in the discussion go sour.

So, really, let's not go there, hm?

I am sorry it was not my intent to edition war. I will admit I do get frustrated with the whole 3E/Pathfinder not being balanced so why do you care if something unbalances the game. As someone who plays and DMs this edition I will say that you have to be careful with what you houserule because it is easy to tip the balance in away that has negative consequences and can make the game unfun to play.

The RAW is clear on this that you cannot by the RAW change out any spells other then the ones you get for your cleric class.

I have already stated that it really depends on what else is going on in the game of whether or not house ruling this would be an issue in the game. My worries would come into play if the PCs have access to a lot of magic items that give them more spells and what their healing capabilities are.

 

[tomBitonti]

Source?
The section on multi-classing clearly states that the class abilities are based on the number of levels in the class in question and don't say anywhere that it's just for whether or not a class has an ability.

The main D20 SRD statement is:

Class Features

A multiclass character gets all the class features of all his or her classes

A Wizard 19 / Cleric 1 has Spontaneous Casting.

Then:

The cleric can "lose" any prepared spell that is not a domain spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with "cure" in its name).

The question then is interpreting any prepared spell.

I'm not finding a substantial difference in the Pathfinder SRD; the main one being the restriction on not allowing Orisons to be converted.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Tovec]

The main D20 SRD statement is:



A Wizard 19 / Cleric 1 has Spontaneous Casting.

No one is debating if a Cleric 1 has spontaneous casting. The debate is obviously in whether the Cleric can use spontaneous casting to cast spells out of his class.

You should also then include the SRD reference:

Spells
The character gains spells from all of his or her spellcasting classes and keeps a separate spell list for each class. If a spell’s effect is based on the class level of the caster, the player must keep track of which class’s spell list the character is casting the spell from.

This seems to say that regardless of how many spells per day they get they have to keep separate lists.* The cleric description would get silly if it constantly had to keep referring to spells per day as "Cleric" spells per day and if every other class had to do the same. It seems by RAW and RAI (as far as I can tell) that it is not legal regardless what the specific wording of "spontaneous casting" says. It can indeed be argued from a balance perspective as well as a general should be or even a alternate phrasing but it doesn't seem like this is the original intent at all - just a quirky effect given the lack of definition, there are all kinds of these effects and indeed Rules Lawyers will always try to exploit them - but the for the average player/DM I don't think they can or should allow this exploitation.... unless argued from the balance perspective aka as a strong and recognized houserule and nothing more.**


* Even a multiclass sorcerer-wizard has to keep separate lists and count which spell they are casting is coming from what source. Even if such a character has a spell in their spellbook and can prepare that spell it doesn't allow them to cast it spontaneously as a sorcerer would. I don't see why a swap for spontaneous casting cleric would work any differently.
** I actually have few problems with such an argument, but it isn't rules legal as far as I can see. I like this kind of thinking and would probably allow some form of it in my games it came up.

 

[Mon]

A Wizard 19 / Cleric 1 has Spontaneous Casting.

Indeed.

Again, I ask for the source? The one that supports your claim that it only counts for determining whether
or not you get the ability (on/off) and is not otherwise based on the level in the class. Which directly contracts the part where the PRD says it is based on your level in the class.

Or, better still, where it says that class abilities that are based on your level in the class are also based on our level in other classes (wizard, in this case) when it's not explicitly called out (e.g. PRCs that progress spell casting).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Mass Heal, on the other hand, could be worth casting.

I have no horse in this race (I don't play 3.X anymore, but I did for years), but I don't think that Heal counts as a Cure spell, does it? I never let the Cleric of Pelor use it that way in my long-running 3.5 game, and I'm kinda curious if I was screwing up for years.