Incense of Meditation

[Scion]

Scion, let's take your fireman/policeman analogy even further. The fireman comes up to you and says, "I'm a fireman, I put fires out, I drive around in a big truck, and I slide down poles. Whenever I can I help people."

Sure, all that can apply to a policeman as well, but those are buzz words normally associated with fireman, so I wouldn't dream of saying that he's a policeman as well.

But he is a policeman as well. Just because you wouldnt dream that it is true that he could be both is not important.

He qualifies as both, they are both his job. If you are looking for a policeman he works, if you are looking for a fireman he also works. Either way it works.

A divine spellcaster when praying and meditating by an incense can prepare all his spells as if with the Maximise Spell feat.

Ok, so I have a level of cleric and several levels of mage. I pray and meditate next to some incense and then start preparing my spells. My arcane spells are my spells, I am a divine caster, all of my spells are maximized. Strangely enough my arcane spells are my spells and I am a divine caster.


There is absolutely no reason to assume that my spells are not my spells.

 

[Pinotage]

But that is unimportant. It doesnt matter if one class uses an activity to do something 'sometimes', anyone can do it.

If you catch someone who is sitting there naked with holy symbols all around, incense burning, meditating, and praying do you automatically assume that they are a divine caster? If you do, is it warrented? Anyone can do those activities if they want to.

For what it's worth, I completely understand what you're saying. I just don't agree

I think the above is important. We're looking at a game mechanical description of a magical item. For that, game mechanical terms are very important in helping us evaluate what an item does or can do. If the game terms 'prayer', 'meditate' and 'divine' describe an item, yes, you can assume that it can include arcane spells, but since they're game terms associated only with divine spells, I'd argue that they are the key words describing the item's function. Hence in this case, describing the item with a strong bias towards only working for divine spells only.

I think we understand each other, I hope you understand my points, but we don't seem to agree. My opinion is that the game terms in the game mechanical description are 'divine spell preparation' loaded, and hence my interpretation of that is that it applies to divine spells only. I'm not a big fan of literal readings of things in the core rulebook, as my debate on interpretation vs literal reading has indicated. I can see your points, however.

Pinotage

 

[azhrei_fje]

If you wish to read that aoo's may be triggered from the same person multiple times in a single round by simply running around them in their threat area you may also do that.

But it isnt what the rules say.

Actually, the rules about AoO's are not so clearly defined. They say something like, "Only 1 AoO per triggering condition", but they aren't very specific. For example, it triggers an AoO to leave a threatened square (in most situations). So if I run circles around someone, do I trigger multiple AoO's? I'm leaving multiple squares, aren't I? Now the DM makes a "reasonableness" ruling and says, "it means 'per move action'", so there's only one AoO. But that's not RAW.

It isnt movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or anything fairly demanind of physical or mental tasks necissarily either.

Hmm. I might be able to argue that it is skill use. A skill usable only by divine spellcasters. A sort of "class ability", so to speak.

The item says to meditate for 8 hours and then you get to prepare all of your spells with maximise. If they wanted it to be divine only it would've been 'divine spells only'.

That's naive. There are plenty of places in the rules where they said one thing and meant something else. What do you think the FAQ is for?? Most of the FAQ entries clarify existing rules (although as Patryn would point out, some actually contradict the RAW!). Clarification wouldn't be necessary if they had been written 100% correct the first time.

So I would say that because they can't be assumed to be 100% correct, this particular magic item is an example of an incorrect description: they meant to say, "divine spells only".

This does allow a divine spellcaster with the Magic or Spell domains to prepare maximized arcane spells, but that's because those domains provide a divine spellcaster with access to arcane spells through their deity, not through any action of their own (like memorization).

IMC, the incense only applies to divine spells. And while I can't see that it really matters, I would rule that the magic item activation period is 8 hours, followed by the preparation itself, which is 1 hour. The key quote being that the incense "allows" the spells to be prepared maximized, not that it actually replaces the spell preparation time. Given what the item does, taking an additional hour is hardly much of a penalty, IMHO.

 

[Scion]

Actually, the rules about AoO's are not so clearly defined. They say something like, "Only 1 AoO per triggering condition", but they aren't very specific. For example, it triggers an AoO to leave a threatened square (in most situations). So if I run circles around someone, do I trigger multiple AoO's? I'm leaving multiple squares, aren't I? Now the DM makes a "reasonableness" ruling and says, "it means 'per move action'", so there's only one AoO. But that's not RAW.

Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent

Hmm. I might be able to argue that it is skill use. A skill usable only by divine spellcasters. A sort of "class ability", so to speak.

You might, but then you have to prove it. You can argue whatever you like, but without proof it is meaningless.

That's naive.

It is naive to ask them to say what they mean?

If they had meant something other than what they said, and there is no proof of this so far, then it should go into errata. Without that, who knows?

There are plenty of places in the rules where they said one thing and meant something else. What do you think the FAQ is for??

Apparently it is for making things more confusing or contradicting itself or the raw. It is rarely useful in my experience and often causes extra problems.

But, just because there is an FAQ is not evidence for anything. If they said in the FAQ that this item was meant for divine spells only then they would have to list it as errata. Without that and it is just someones opinion about how they think it should work.

So I would say that because they can't be assumed to be 100% correct, this particular magic item is an example of an incorrect description: they meant to say, "divine spells only".

Feel free to use it that way in your game. What they 'meant' to say we have no idea.

Many things were changed from the earlier version, how do we know this isnt one of them?

Maybe this item is intended to work well for multiclassers. After all, they have added many things to the game to make multiclassing a better option.


You are of course entitled to your opinion of what you think they meant to say or meant to do or meant not to do or meant not to say, but we are discussing the raw here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But if this chap comes up to me and says 'I'm a fireman', why would you assume that he's a policeman as well?

You're still back-to-front with your examples.

If I ask this person "Are you a fireman?", would you consider him to be lying if he said "Yes"?

Could he enter a contest that was only open to firemen?

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

Although I haven't had time to go through all the previous posts, but (based on RAW) anyone with a divine spellcaster level (or just UMD) would be able to use the "Incense of Meditation" (or bead of karma, other prayer beads, divine wands, etc.).

I mean, there's a whole skill devoted to using magic items that you're not really supposed to be able to use. Given that (with sufficient UMD training) anyone can use any magic item, if certain magic items only assist certain type of spells, they should say that (rather than relying on only non-mixed class divine spellcasters using it).

Incense of Meditation doesn't say that it affects only divine spells (just as a bead of Karma doesn't say that it only raises ones divine CL), so a mystic theurge's arcane spells should be maximized.

However, it does say that only prepared spells are maximized (so spontaneous spells would not be affected).

Similar example: a mystic theurge (or Cleric w/UMD) could get the:
"+2 enh. bonus on CL checks made to overcome SR" granted by the robe of the archmagi, even to divine spells. This isn't much different from say, a Rogue using UMD to use the special abilities of a holy avenger.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Pinotage,

Can a gnome cleric 10 use the incense? They cast certain 0 level spells in an arcane manner. According to your 'literal' reading, I'm afraid we now have to ban the little fellas from this particular item.

 

[Pinotage]

Pinotage,

Can a gnome cleric 10 use the incense? They cast certain 0 level spells in an arcane manner. According to your 'literal' reading, I'm afraid we now have to ban the little fellas from this particular item.

Yes, he can. In game, absolutely. I think you're looking at my two arguments are one rather than two separate points.

The first, as I've stated many times, is that as written I agree with Scion and others that the RAW states _all_ spells, arcane or divine, are affected, and that a divine spellcaster is defined as somebody who casts divine spells, including Theurges and other casters. I don't agree that was the RAW states is the correct interpretation, as I believe the 'divine' bias of the item is enough indication that it should only apply to divine spells.

My second must not be confused with the first. I wasn't talking gaming or game mechanics, I was talking language. A language reading of divine IMO means nothing other than divine, much like a red flower means nothing more than red. I think all the analogies confused the issue somewhat and I wasn't always clear. With this I was pointing out that if you separated game and language, you couldn't argue that divine meant anything else. I'm sure there are some who disagree, but I don't want to rehash old points.

I'm not a big fan of discarding intent completely in favor of RAW. My second point was indicating that if you were going to use RAW, you needed a language approach, not a game mechanics approach.

Hope that makes sense.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

You're still back-to-front with your examples.

If I ask this person "Are you a fireman?", would you consider him to be lying if he said "Yes"?

Could he enter a contest that was only open to firemen?

-Hyp.

I hope my earlier post clarifies my position on this. From a game point of view I agree with the above. From a language point of view, where no interpretation is involved, no. If he says he's a fireman, he's a fireman. If a fireman and a policeman says his a fireman, he's lying. He's both. Which is not the same as being just one.

Look at it from the perspective of absolute truth. If a fireman and policeman says he's a fireman, he's lying, because that's not the whole truth. If a fireman says he's a fireman, he's speaking absolute truth. If you want to read language literally, you have to think in absolutes. There are no gray areas. Hence why I think RAW is often a bad thing.

Pinotage

 

[Ovinomancer]

The problem with your absolute approach is that language is a tool used and developed by human beings (at least as far as we know!), and human beings do not, as a overwhelming majority, think in absolutes. No language that I am aware of is set in totally absolute terms. There is connotation and denotation. When you read a sentence, you must take both into account. The English language is horribly imprecise in its general usage, and the same sentence can have two entirely different meanings depending solely on the inflection applied to the words. This has happened in the rules many times. It will continue to happen.

I have conceded that the intent behind this item is that it is meant for divine casters and divine spells only. However, the rule itself reads differently. It speaks of all (both connotation and denotation mean to include all things, not just some) and divine caster (a subset that can include things that are also other things as per the common usage of the English language). So a literal reading indicates that only someone who can cast divine spells may use the device, but it would affect spells of any type that he prepares during its use.

Both Scion (as I understand) and myself agree with you on the intent of the item. The arguement here is that the rule itself indicates otherwise, and that could cause problems in your games if you are not aware of the issue. How you read it and how your players read it may not be the same. They may not have the ability or desire to interpret the intent the same way you do. If you are not aware of the problem beforehand, it could cause difficulties when your mystic theurge player thinks he's getting a nice boost and you take half of it away.