Pathfinder 1E Can Paladins/Rangers use scrolls at levels 1-3

[Arrowhawk]

The question is whether a Paladin/Ranger can use scrolls at levels 1-3.

I've done a fair amount of research and the vast majority of the naysayers cite this logic:

Paladin/Ranger has no caster level until 4th and you need a caster level to make a caster level check. Ergo, you can't use scrolls.

However, that logic is wanting. Nowhere is a "caster level" required to cast a scroll. Such a statement is never made anywhere in the PFSSRD nor is it made in D&D 3.5. To wit, a level 1 Paladin satisfies all the requirements listed to cast a scroll. They are as follows:

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score.

Here's what it says about caster level.

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps).

The authors of these rules clearly knew that a level 1 Paladin satisfies all of these requirements. So if the intent was to exclude them, why not require that a scroll user have a caster level of at least 1? Alternatively, they could have specifically excluded Paladins/Rangers or anyone who can't cast spells....but they didn't. The requirement is that the spell is on a person's spell list, the requirement is not that a person must be able to cast spells.

Now, I realize this is going to garner a lot of rote responses that "no caster level" =/= as caster level of 0. Well, there's a Rules of the Game archive for 3.5 which seems to disagree with that. I'll link it here.

The tricky part of reading this is that based on context, in the Spell Completion section, the author says "Spell Trigger" when he means "Spell Completion." This may not be immediately obvious, but if you look at the context of the paragraph, it becomes so. The key thing to note is that the "effective level" of someone who does not have a caster level is 0.

This will no doubt feel fundamentally wrong to many. Everywhere I've looked this up, people just repeat the same thing over and over even when the person asking the question has pointed out that nowhere is a caster level required.

I've never seen level 1-3 Paladins consider using scrolls. But when I actually read the scroll requirements, it became exceedingly obvious that the way the rules are written, they seem to intentionally allow Paladins and Rangers to meet the stated requirements.

My question is whether there is an official FAQ from Paizo or PFS that discusses this, or is this specific question even answered in a D&D FAQ (I might visit the 3.5 boards on this matter).

 

[JDragon]

Well a few thoughts...

My gut reaction is the same as what you mentioned regarding not yet having a caster level.

Looking at what you posted, you make a good point about the ability to cast higher level spells than your current caster level would allow.

I have not seen and highly doubt that an official FAQ has been done for this for 3.x or PFRPG.

Overall it strikes me as a house rule, that is going to come down to the DM's call.

Your evidence is enough that I would consider it for a Paladin or Ranger in one of my games if suggested. The only thing being I would still require the caster level check, which would end up being a d20+0 vs the caster level of the spell +1.

JD

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I think we just ran Rangers and Paladins as having a negative caster level (eg, Pal1 has caster level of -3). This just becomes a penalty on the caster-level check to cast the scroll spell; thus penalty naturally decreases as the PC Levels, and completely vanishes when the character becomes a "real" spell-caster.

This makes these guys ok for back-up scroll casting in a pinch, without making them fully competent like actual casters. We practically never used this, though, so I can't recall any obvious problems with it.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Well a few thoughts...

My gut reaction is the same as what you mentioned regarding not yet having a caster level.

This was my original thought as well. It is, by far, the most popular paradigm. I have to give you credit for having this mindset and being open-minded enough to reevaluate your position based on another person's critical examination. Most people make up their mind about something and become emotionally wedded to that position and then ignore any facts that contradict it.

Looking at what you posted, you make a good point about the ability to cast higher level spells than your current caster level would allow.

I think the key is in understanding that "caster level" is not part of the explicit requirement to use scrolls, nor is the ability to cast spells. Once someone accepts that, it all seems obvious that the rule was written in away that seems to intentionally allow a Paladin to use a scroll at 1st level.

I have not seen and highly doubt that an official FAQ has been done for this for 3.x or PFRPG.

I was surprised this had not been explicitly answered by any web available D&D FAQ. You'd have thought this exact clarification might have had come up.

Your evidence is enough that I would consider it for a Paladin or Ranger in one of my games if suggested.

That's encouraging. I've seen others agree when I asked this question on other forums. If you read the Rules of the Game archive, Skip Williams makes it pretty clear the effective level should be zero as opposed to forbidding the use of scrolls. Now granted, Skip is WotC and not controlling for Paizo, but it shows you what the author's intent was when they created the scroll use rules.

The only thing being I would still require the caster level check, which would end up being a d20+0 vs the caster level of the spell +1.

Yes, I completely agree that this is required.

Having said all this, it's still possible that they WotC really did mean to preclude such use and they just wrote it wrong, but that seems unlikely.

 

[Tovec]

As far as I know, our groups have always allowed paladins and rangers to cast spells from scrolls before they got spells.

This is the only rationale I can offer.

Let's assume you are playing a paladin 3/wizard 1. With a roll, you can cast 9th level arcane spells (assuming you have an int 19). But you can't cast 1st level divine scrolls without a spell-slot?

I can't offer a firm ruling either way but honestly it just seems fair that as long as you meet the requirements and the spell shows up on the paladin list (whether you have that spell or not or can even cast spells) then you are fine.

 

[Starfox]

In my mind it all boils down to how to interpret the following line from Paladin - Pathfinder_OGC

Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells which are drawn from the paladin spell list. A paladin must choose and prepare her spells in advance. [...]Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.

I think the most common reading of this is that before level 4, the paladin is simply not a spellcasting class - it does not have a class spell list, and thus no spells are on its class list. To me, it is the reading that makes the most sense. But this is really just a ruling; the rule does not say that a paladin at level 1 lacks a spell list, though they do lack a spellcaster level - it is clearly not zero or even level -3.

From a balance perspective - ruling by merit rather than letter of the rule - I don't think paladins and rangers are weak, and giving them the ability to use wands of cure light wounds at level 1 would make them stronger. On the other hand, a party whose best user of such a wand is a paladin might be in trouble anyway, so why not allow it.

Final verdict: undecided but inclined to disagree with the OP. I'd definitely not expect to use or allow this in an official Pathfinder Society game.

 

[Arrowhawk]

In my mind it all boils down to how to interpret the following line from Paladin - Pathfinder_OGC

I think it really hinges on how Spell Completion treats people without the ability to cast spells. The PF OGC talks about a "caster" in the Spell Completion section and they talk about a "user" in the Spell Trigger.

A compelling argument is that a 3rd level Paladin is not yet a "caster." More compelling is Skip Williams said that the effective caster level for spell completion for classes who can't yet cast spells is 0. <shrug>

I think the most common reading of this is that before level 4, the paladin is simply not a spellcasting class - it does not have a class spell list, and thus no spells are on its class list.

Actually, the Spell Trigger rules contradict this. The rules for Spell Trigger explicitly allows paladins to use wands at level 1, providing that the spell is on their spell list.

here's what it says:

Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)

Note the spell list requirement still applies and controls whether you can use the wand, ergo a Paladin has a spell list at level 1.

the rule does not say that a paladin at level 1 lacks a spell list, though they do lack a spellcaster level - it is clearly not zero or even level -3.

Exactly. This is why it's perplexing to me that so many people are convinced this is the case.

From a balance perspective - ruling by merit rather than letter of the rule - I don't think paladins and rangers are weak, and giving them the ability to use wands of cure light wounds at level 1 would make them stronger. On the other hand, a party whose best user of such a wand is a paladin might be in trouble anyway, so why not allow it.

Whether it's balanced or not, I think Rangers and Paladins could use some move versatility in low levels. One of the purposes of the class is to offer utility over raw power and this enhances that.

Final verdict: undecided but inclined to disagree with the OP. I'd definitely not expect to use or allow this in an official Pathfinder Society game.

I posed the question in a FAQ and Jason ???? a Lead Developer went with the "no caster levels does not mean 0" approach. I don't know if he saw Skips explicit statement on the subject, but being that he's Paizo, he many not care. I notice some of the posters of the boards got outraged that I would even mention Skip Williams. As if we all are going to pretend PF has nothing to do with 3.5 when it comes to understanding the rules that were taken verbatim from 3.5.

Once again <shrug>.

 

[Starfox]

Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)

Without looking this up, this seems to be a very strong case in your favor - if you can use spell trigger items it seems a bit too prickly to not allow spell completion items.

 

[Kinak]

Link to the post.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Starfox]

Link to the post

.

This strongly seems to favor not allowing any spell-related activity; spell trigger or spell completion items included. Pretty much back to square zero.