A question on Southern Spellcasters [Archive] - Wizards Community

A question on Southern Spellcasters [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Valoren
07-06-04, 04:38 AM Can the Southern Spellcaster feat, found in Races of Faerun, help circumvent PrC requirements like "must be able to cast divine spells" for arcane casters, and vice versa?

Any help, suggestions or official rulings would be appreciated.
A Man In Black
07-06-04, 05:31 AM Welcome to the minefield. There's a lot of debate about that subject, and the general CO forum consensus, last I heard, was "no."

There's a lot of dissention about this subject, however. There was a long-running thread on the subject; maybe someone will link it.
Funny Slaughter
07-06-04, 08:12 AM it was officially resolved: no

and its a rules-question and thus OT here

gs
Funny
Valoren
07-06-04, 09:19 AM Is it still OT in character optimization if that rule is the basis for a mystic theurge build shaving off 2 lvls of cleric and hence gaining higher level spells earlier? I merely didn't want to do through the tedious practice of typing out the entire build and then referencing in my question to it.

I would have thought that in this, of all boards, the implication towards character optimization would be blatant. My apologies if it wasn't so. Mind linking me to the official resolution, or explaining further?
PhoenixInferno
07-06-04, 01:33 PM Its written in the feat description, with my emphasis - "The actual source of the spell's power doesn't change, and neither does its means of preparation. You are merely weaving the strands of magic together in an unconventional way that makes the spell behave somewhat differently" (found here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rp/20040630a) ).
Valoren
07-06-04, 10:28 PM Thank you PheonixInferno :)

I have a feeling that my player will just say "But the PrC's requirement says nothing about the source or method of preparation, just the type of spell you must be able to cast." But I suppose as DM I can just use the line you provided, and smack him upside the head with a "the absence of it being spelt out does not change the spirit and intent of the requirement" :angel:
Pauper
07-07-04, 12:08 AM Originally posted by Valoren
But I suppose as DM I can just use the line you provided, and smack him upside the head with a "the absence of it being spelt out does not change the spirit and intent of the requirement" :angel:

Actually, you can smack him upside the head with a "a spell being cast as a divine spell doesn't make it a divine spell being cast, and MT requires you to be able to cast divine spells."

There's a similar discussion over whether anyspell and greater anyspell allow you to satisfy the 'cast arcane spells' requirement of some PrCs - as with Southern Magician, an argument can be made both ways, but the best balance decision is, IMO, that they don't.

--
Pauper
PhoenixInferno
07-07-04, 01:34 AM I seem to recall hearing that Sean K Reynolds - one of the lead designers for the FRCS - said that Anyspell/Greater Anyspell would allow you to qualify for arcane spellcasting, the reason being that it actually lets you cast an arcane spell. Not just a spell that's on both class lists, but an actual arcane spell. I think its a pretty ridiculous way to get into an arcane spellcasting class though. A better way to get some arcane spells is to take Magical Training from PGtF, which lets you cast some cantrips - which is enough to get you into the "all-powerful" Dweomerkeeper (from the Complete Divine web enhancement).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Valoren 07-06-04, 04:38 AM	Can the Southern Spellcaster feat, found in Races of Faerun, help circumvent PrC requirements like "must be able to cast divine spells" for arcane casters, and vice versa? Any help, suggestions or official rulings would be appreciated.
A Man In Black 07-06-04, 05:31 AM	Welcome to the minefield. There's a lot of debate about that subject, and the general CO forum consensus, last I heard, was "no." There's a lot of dissention about this subject, however. There was a long-running thread on the subject; maybe someone will link it.
Funny Slaughter 07-06-04, 08:12 AM	it was officially resolved: no and its a rules-question and thus OT here gs Funny
Valoren 07-06-04, 09:19 AM	Is it still OT in character optimization if that rule is the basis for a mystic theurge build shaving off 2 lvls of cleric and hence gaining higher level spells earlier? I merely didn't want to do through the tedious practice of typing out the entire build and then referencing in my question to it. I would have thought that in this, of all boards, the implication towards character optimization would be blatant. My apologies if it wasn't so. Mind linking me to the official resolution, or explaining further?
PhoenixInferno 07-06-04, 01:33 PM	Its written in the feat description, with my emphasis - "The actual source of the spell's power doesn't change, and neither does its means of preparation. You are merely weaving the strands of magic together in an unconventional way that makes the spell behave somewhat differently" (found here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rp/20040630a) ).
Valoren 07-06-04, 10:28 PM	Thank you PheonixInferno :) I have a feeling that my player will just say "But the PrC's requirement says nothing about the source or method of preparation, just the type of spell you must be able to cast." But I suppose as DM I can just use the line you provided, and smack him upside the head with a "the absence of it being spelt out does not change the spirit and intent of the requirement" :angel:
Pauper 07-07-04, 12:08 AM	Originally posted by Valoren But I suppose as DM I can just use the line you provided, and smack him upside the head with a "the absence of it being spelt out does not change the spirit and intent of the requirement" :angel: Actually, you can smack him upside the head with a "a spell being cast as a divine spell doesn't make it a divine spell being cast, and MT requires you to be able to cast divine spells." There's a similar discussion over whether anyspell and greater anyspell allow you to satisfy the 'cast arcane spells' requirement of some PrCs - as with Southern Magician, an argument can be made both ways, but the best balance decision is, IMO, that they don't. -- Pauper
PhoenixInferno 07-07-04, 01:34 AM	I seem to recall hearing that Sean K Reynolds - one of the lead designers for the FRCS - said that Anyspell/Greater Anyspell would allow you to qualify for arcane spellcasting, the reason being that it actually lets you cast an arcane spell. Not just a spell that's on both class lists, but an actual arcane spell. I think its a pretty ridiculous way to get into an arcane spellcasting class though. A better way to get some arcane spells is to take Magical Training from PGtF, which lets you cast some cantrips - which is enough to get you into the "all-powerful" Dweomerkeeper (from the Complete Divine web enhancement).