delericho
Legend
Nope. A "cure" spell is one with the word "cure" in the name.
Pathfinder 1E Can a multi-class cleric/wizard lose a wizard spell in order to "Spontaneously" cast cure?
- Thread starter The Black Ranger
- Start date
Nope. A "cure" spell is one with the word "cure" in the name.
tomBitonti
Hero
Sorry, my bad re: Heal and Mass Heal. I'm confusing "Cure" with "Conjuration (Healing)". The top spell seems to be Cure Critical Wounds, Mass, at 8'th level. Ok, but only really worth casting at a high level if there are enough targets for it.
Re: Multiclassing and Spell Casting, this text from the SRD applies:
But, that says nothing about what prepared spells are available for Spontaneous Casting. It does mean that if a Wiz19/Clr1 cast Cure Critical Wounds, the caster level would be 1, as a direct application of the "If a spell's effect is based on the class level of the caster" text.
What is needed is text which helps to interpret the "any prepared spell" text. Reduced, the text is equivalent to: A Cleric may spontaneously cast any of their prepared spell's as a Cure Spell. Or perhaps: A Cleric may spontaneously cast any of the spells which they prepared as a Cleric as a Cure Spell. Whether "as a Cleric" is implied is the question.
Thx!
TomB
Re: Multiclassing and Spell Casting, this text from the SRD applies:
But, that says nothing about what prepared spells are available for Spontaneous Casting. It does mean that if a Wiz19/Clr1 cast Cure Critical Wounds, the caster level would be 1, as a direct application of the "If a spell's effect is based on the class level of the caster" text.
What is needed is text which helps to interpret the "any prepared spell" text. Reduced, the text is equivalent to: A Cleric may spontaneously cast any of their prepared spell's as a Cure Spell. Or perhaps: A Cleric may spontaneously cast any of the spells which they prepared as a Cleric as a Cure Spell. Whether "as a Cleric" is implied is the question.
Thx!
TomB
delericho
Legend
Indeed. And, tbh, I see no problem whatsoever with adding heal, harm, and the mass versions of the two to the list. They're pretty clearly part of the same progression, just omitted by the detailed wording of the ability.
Per the strict wording of the power, this does seem to be correct. But...
If you're getting into interpretation, then this is probably as good as it gets. After all, you'd be hard pressed to find someone better placed to comment on Rules as Intended than SKR, both for 3e and Pathfinder!
(And it's also worth pointing out something else he notes there: the strict rules text indicates any prepared spell - it doesn't actually require that it be a spell the Cleric himself has prepared! So, in theory the Cleric could convert one of his buddy's prepared spells into a cure spell of the same level. But, of course, good luck in getting a DM to agree to that one!
)tomBitonti
Hero
Indeed. And, tbh, I see no problem whatsoever with adding heal, harm, and the mass versions of the two to the list. They're pretty clearly part of the same progression, just omitted by the detailed wording of the ability.
Per the strict wording of the power, this does seem to be correct. But...
If you're getting into interpretation, then this is probably as good as it gets. After all, you'd be hard pressed to find someone better placed to comment on Rules as Intended than SKR, both for 3e and Pathfinder!
(And it's also worth pointing out something else he notes there: the strict rules text indicates any prepared spell - it doesn't actually require that it be a spell the Cleric himself has prepared! So, in theory the Cleric could convert one of his buddy's prepared spells into a cure spell of the same level. But, of course, good luck in getting a DM to agree to that one!
Reynolds is being a bit of a doofus there. In balance, one word added to the SRD text would clarify the rule:
I have no problem with adding their to the text. That does seem to be the intent, and is non-controversial as an intended interpretation.
One one hand, the designer can fess up and say that the rules text is ambiguous, and should be read as proposed, or they can chide the questioner, and push aside a common response to ambiguities, which is to ask, rather than to assume. Not all teams have certain understandings between their members! Teams encounter new problems for which they have yet to come to consensus, or, may work apart on certain subjects, or may simply have new members.
Then, the designer statement would be: Yeah, we goofed there, and used weak language. We meant that only the cleric's prepared spells should be convertible. We can see how you could make that interpretation, and you'll need to work out at your table which interpretation to use. Although, the "any" interpretation does seem to be more unusual.
So much simpler, and non-confrontational ("don't be an idiot" is what he gets to in his statement.)
Thx!
TomB
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I don't think it's really in question unless you're really trying to push the rules lawyering. How explicit do the rules really need to be? Isn't that question about spontaneous casting ultimately covered by the statement "The character gains spells from all of his or her spellcasting classes and keeps a separate spell list for each class"? [emphasis mine] Doesn't that imply that the spellcasting from one class is separate from the others?
I just don't think there's any reason to believe that the spellcasters' classes have interoperable spellcasting on that level.
There are cases where it is a legitimate question - the reader has English as a second language, for example. But, do we figure that he's getting more of those, or more of the case where the questioner is either trying to weasel something out of weak wording, or trying to "gotcha" the writers over the language?
I think in his position, an occasional expression of frustration should be expected. He's a game designer. Public relations is a secondary skill set for him, and he's not perfect at it.
Most of us are not perfect, so maybe we should forgive the slip, hm?
tomBitonti
Hero
If we look at, say, Thaumaturgist:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/thaumaturgist.htm
Clearly, these abilities apply to any spell cast by the Thaumaturgist. Admittedly, prestige classes which add spellcasting levels can be viewed as overlapping with the base class.
Would a Thaumaturgist's Extended Summoning apply to a casting of Summon nature's ally V obtained from a Greater Mark of Handling? (Not sure if the conditions apply, since the Mark provides a spell-like ability. On the other hand, except for specific exceptions, " In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell".)
Thx!
TomB
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/thaumaturgist.htm
Clearly, these abilities apply to any spell cast by the Thaumaturgist. Admittedly, prestige classes which add spellcasting levels can be viewed as overlapping with the base class.
Would a Thaumaturgist's Extended Summoning apply to a casting of Summon nature's ally V obtained from a Greater Mark of Handling? (Not sure if the conditions apply, since the Mark provides a spell-like ability. On the other hand, except for specific exceptions, " In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell".)
Thx!
TomB
delericho
Legend
Perhaps. But I think he's pretty clear about the intention of a Cleric/Wizard using wizard spells for spontameous casting.
Beyond that, though, I guess it's for the individual DM. If your DM has no problem with it (or, if you're the DM, then if you have no problem with it), then fair enough.
Similar Threads
