Archivists and Spell Mastery? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Archivists and Spell Mastery? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aleolus
02-18-08, 12:23 PM Here's a question for you all. Would you allow an Archivist to qualify for the Spell Mastery feat, even if he doesn't have levels of Wizard? For those of you who don't know, here's the Spell Mastery feat:

Spell Mastery
You are so intimately familiar with certain spells that you don't need a spellbook to prepare them anymore.
Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal: Without this feat, you must use your spellbook to prepare all your spells, except for Read Magic
bfiggins
02-18-08, 01:01 PM I'd allow it. My GM and I tend to allow our group's Archivist to have anything the seems related to spell study and casting through knowledge, rather than faith, such as creating a Divine Thesis feat to match the Arcane Thesis feat.
LSMFT
02-19-08, 03:23 PM I would probably be more inclined to allow a homebrewed, divine version of the same feat. Almost the same wording; same function, but with a different name and working only for his divine casting.
Jackmojo
02-21-08, 06:57 AM I'd allow it, I can't see anything horrible about it.

As bfiggins observes allowing them access to most wizard concepts is fine.

I'd even go so far as to allow them access to appropraite Wizard oriented PrC.

I would probably be more inclined to allow a homebrewed, divine version of the same feat. Almost the same wording; same function, but with a different name and working only for his divine casting.

Just out of curiosity how does this differ from just adding a line to the previous feat of Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st, Archivist level 1st? Is it just to force a multi class Wizard Archivist to take both?

Jack
Cartigan
02-21-08, 08:01 AM I'd say that any feat that works between the spellbook and the Wizard should apply to the Archivist as well - the Archivist is the divine Wizard (with a more lenient learning rules).

I would probably be more inclined to allow a homebrewed, divine version of the same feat. Almost the same wording; same function, but with a different name and working only for his divine casting.
Why? It's non-specific to casting type, it just works with a spellbook.

I'd allow it. My GM and I tend to allow our group's Archivist to have anything the seems related to spell study and casting through knowledge, rather than faith, such as creating a Divine Thesis feat to match the Arcane Thesis feat.
That is a completely different thing entirely. Arcane Thesis is a feat for arcane casters. It is not a Wizard spellbook related feat.
LSMFT
02-21-08, 12:16 PM Why? It's non-specific to casting type, it just works with a spellbook.Aye, but the archivist does not have a spellbook. He has a prayerbook. Though they function in almost exactly the same way, they are not the same.

Just out of curiosity how does this differ from just adding a line to the previous feat of Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st, Archivist level 1st? Because the one would function only for his divine spells.

Is it just to force a multi class Wizard Archivist to take both?It would have that effect, but it isn't the reason.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am inclined to be wary of the possibility of unforeseen consequences. I mean, what things are out there with Spell Mastery as a prereq? Do I want archivists to qualify for them as well? I'm not saying there are many of them or that any of them are bad to allow for an archivist. I just don't know.

The way I see it, making a concession to a player and allowing him to take this feat is fine, but if I do that, that's all I am approving. If I give the archivist Spell Mastery, it might be extended to imply approval of something beyond my original, limited, intent.

I would probably be willing to allow my homebrewed version to replace the original of meeting prereqs if it does come up, but I want the decision to be firmly in my hands if and when that comes and not have any risk of implied approval because I have the prereq.
Tedronai
02-21-08, 12:28 PM Aye, but the archivist does not have a spellbook. He has a prayerbook. Though they function in almost exactly the same way, they are not the same.

Because the one would function only for his divine spells.

It would have that effect, but it isn't the reason.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am inclined to be wary of the possibility of unforeseen consequences. I mean, what things are out there with Arcane Mastery as a prereq? Do I want archivists to qualify for them as well? I'm not saying there are many of them or that any of them are bad to allow for an archivist. I just don't know.

The way I see it, making a concession to a player and allowing him to take this feat is fine, but if I do that, that's all I am approving. If I give the archivist Arcane Mastery, it might be extended to imply approval of something beyond my original, limited, intent.

I would probably be willing to allow my homebrewed version to replace the original of meeting prereqs if it does come up, but I want the decision to be firmly in my hands if and when that comes and not have any risk of implied approval because I have the prereq.

I'd say that's an entirely reasonable approach to take, and frankly, one I would hope would be assumed (but know that some people would abuse the situation if it wasn't spelled out clearly). It's basically only a safety valve against unexpected abuse, and doesn't really change anything substantial about how the feat would work. I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable.
Cartigan
02-21-08, 12:49 PM Aye, but the archivist does not have a spellbook. He has a prayerbook. Though they function in almost exactly the same way, they are not the same.
The only difference is one stores arcane spells and the other stores divine spells. Feats like Spell Mastery say nothing about the type of magic, it just works with a book that stores spells - arcane or divine. There is zero reason to make a new feat that does the same bloody thing.

Because the one would function only for his divine spells.
Why? Like I said, the feat doesn't specify arcane or divine.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am inclined to be wary of the possibility of unforeseen consequences. I mean, what things are out there with Arcane Mastery as a prereq?
Arcane Mastery? I'm positive we were talking about Spell Mastery. Not the same thing.

However, what I can find with Spell Mastery as a pre-req:
Familiar Spell: Requires you to be able to get a familiar. Can't do that as an Archivist.
Signature Spell: Only works with arcane spells. Archivist is still a divine caster, so no there. (not that it would break anything if it was generic, it just let's you spontaneously channel magical energy into a spell from Spell Mastery)

All I could find from the Crystal Keep feat index (which is of course not exhaustive but the easiest to search).

Do I want archivists to qualify for them as well? I'm not saying there are many of them or that any of them are bad to allow for an archivist. I just don't know.
Why not? If the feat isn't specific to divine or arcane magic, what's the problem?

The way I see it, making a concession to a player and allowing him to take this feat is fine, but if I do that, that's all I am approving. If I give the archivist Arcane Mastery, it might be extended to imply approval of something beyond my original, limited, intent.
This is the second time you brought up Arcane Mastery. Why are we talking about Arcane Mastery? In fact, who started talking about Arcane Mastery?
LSMFT
02-21-08, 01:33 PM Arcane Mastery? I'm positive we were talking about Spell Mastery. Not the same thing.Correct. My mistake.

The only difference is one stores arcane spells and the other stores divine spells. Feats like Spell Mastery say nothing about the type of magic, it just works with a book that stores spells - arcane or divine. There is zero reason to make a new feat that does the same bloody thing.And, of course, the name. They are different, even if they function the same. I don't think it should be assumed that everything that works for spellbooks functions the exact same way for prayerbooks.

There aren't too many things that I wouldn't allow on an individual basis. But I wouldn't allow the blanket assumption that they are the same, so everything pertaining to spellbooks is the same for a prayerbook.

Why? Like I said, the feat doesn't specify arcane or divine. The Spell Mastery feat specifically mentions spellbooks though. There are no divine spellbooks.

All I could find from the Crystal Keep feat index (which is of course not exhaustive but the easiest to search).That's just my point. I don't know them all either. Nothing I do know of would be "broken" when allowed to the archivist, I'd think. But I know that I don't know everything.

I mean, I would rather a character took "Prayer Mastery" and then came and asked if that could qualify him for Signature Spell, or Some Feat I’ve Never Heard of With Spell Mastery as a prereq, and say "yes" than have him assume that it worked because he “has the prereq.”

Why not? If the feat isn't specific to divine or arcane magic, what's the problem?The feat is specific to arcane magic as written. It is only available to wizards. In addition, since it specifically refers to spellbooks, it think it is a pretty strong argument that the benefits apply only to spells in one's spellbook, and those are all arcane.

I am not saying that I don't want archivists to qualify for certain things. Just that I want to retain the ability to make additional house rules to that effect when it is appropriate.

The OP asked for opinions. Mine isn't a popular one, and I didn't expect it to be. If he doesn't have the same concerns I do, he's free to disregard my advice.

This is the second time you brought up Arcane Mastery. Why are we talking about Arcane Mastery? In fact, who started talking about Arcane Mastery?No. Sorry. Like I said, I meant Spell Mastery. I just slipped and wrote the name of a similarly titled feat. I am going to edit my previous post so as to not confuse anyone else.
bfiggins
02-21-08, 01:52 PM That is a completely different thing entirely. Arcane Thesis is a feat for arcane casters. It is not a Wizard spellbook related feat.

It is a study-related feat; in the use of 'thesis' to mean either 'a new idea to be experimented on' or 'a student's culminating work.'

::shrug:: It worked for us, your mileage may vary.
Cartigan
02-21-08, 02:43 PM And, of course, the name. They are different, even if they function the same. I don't think it should be assumed that everything that works for spellbooks functions the exact same way for prayerbooks.
Why not? All the mechanics are exactly the same.

But I wouldn't allow the blanket assumption that they are the same, so everything pertaining to spellbooks is the same for a prayerbook.
Well then I would appreciate it if your produced a difference other than "one is divine and one is arcane."

The Spell Mastery feat specifically mentions spellbooks though. There are no divine spellbooks.
But there are prayerbooks which are mechanically identical.

I mean, I would rather a character took "Prayer Mastery" and then came and asked if that could qualify him for Signature Spell, or Some Feat I’ve Never Heard of With Spell Mastery as a prereq, and say "yes" than have him assume that it worked because he “has the prereq.”
That is overwhelmingly silly.

The feat is specific to arcane magic as written. It is only available to wizards. In addition, since it specifically refers to spellbooks, it think it is a pretty strong argument that the benefits apply only to spells in one's spellbook, and those are all arcane.
It's a PHB feat, it's only going to mention PHB classes. That's a pretty strong argument for alot of things. Are we going to say other classes can't use PHB feats because those classes arn't mentioned in the feat description?
Cartigan
02-21-08, 02:45 PM It is a study-related feat; in the use of 'thesis' to mean either 'a new idea to be experimented on' or 'a student's culminating work.'
The feat is specifically directed at arcane spells. Extending it to divine casters potentially leads to brokenness. Actually, reading the feat it again, applying it to divine casters is just screaming "please use me with divine metamagic!" Are we going to extend all divine magic specific feats to arcane casters?
LSMFT
02-21-08, 03:45 PM Why not? All the mechanics are exactly the same....

Well then I would appreciate it if your produced a difference other than "one is divine and one is arcane."Because it has a different name. It is a different thing, even if it happens to work the same way. This is not without precedent.

I understand your point completely. They work the same so they are the same. I just disagree. I'm pretty sure you understand my point too. You just disagree.

The fact that they function the same will most likely lead me to treat them the same, but I choose to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis.
I do not think that we need to continue with this. It is my opinion that, since they are different, I, as a DM, should retain discretion when considering if something particular to spellbooks should also apply to prayerbooks. You don’t - fine. We’ve both made our opinions clear enough I think. There is nothing to be gained by the two of us repeating the same things (they work the same so the are the same! they are named different so they aren't!) over and over again.

It's a PHB feat, it's only going to mention PHB classes. That's a pretty strong argument for alot of things. They could have called them spellbooks instead of prayerbooks. They didn't. That's a pretty strong argument that they are not automatically assumed to be spellbooks. Are we going to say other classes can't use PHB feats because those classes arn't mentioned in the feat description? For feats that are restricted to specific classes, yes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aleolus 02-18-08, 12:23 PM	Here's a question for you all. Would you allow an Archivist to qualify for the Spell Mastery feat, even if he doesn't have levels of Wizard? For those of you who don't know, here's the Spell Mastery feat: Spell Mastery You are so intimately familiar with certain spells that you don't need a spellbook to prepare them anymore. Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook. Normal: Without this feat, you must use your spellbook to prepare all your spells, except for Read Magic
bfiggins 02-18-08, 01:01 PM	I'd allow it. My GM and I tend to allow our group's Archivist to have anything the seems related to spell study and casting through knowledge, rather than faith, such as creating a Divine Thesis feat to match the Arcane Thesis feat.
LSMFT 02-19-08, 03:23 PM	I would probably be more inclined to allow a homebrewed, divine version of the same feat. Almost the same wording; same function, but with a different name and working only for his divine casting.
Jackmojo 02-21-08, 06:57 AM	I'd allow it, I can't see anything horrible about it. As bfiggins observes allowing them access to most wizard concepts is fine. I'd even go so far as to allow them access to appropraite Wizard oriented PrC. I would probably be more inclined to allow a homebrewed, divine version of the same feat. Almost the same wording; same function, but with a different name and working only for his divine casting. Just out of curiosity how does this differ from just adding a line to the previous feat of Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st, Archivist level 1st? Is it just to force a multi class Wizard Archivist to take both? Jack
Cartigan 02-21-08, 08:01 AM	I'd say that any feat that works between the spellbook and the Wizard should apply to the Archivist as well - the Archivist is the divine Wizard (with a more lenient learning rules). I would probably be more inclined to allow a homebrewed, divine version of the same feat. Almost the same wording; same function, but with a different name and working only for his divine casting. Why? It's non-specific to casting type, it just works with a spellbook. I'd allow it. My GM and I tend to allow our group's Archivist to have anything the seems related to spell study and casting through knowledge, rather than faith, such as creating a Divine Thesis feat to match the Arcane Thesis feat. That is a completely different thing entirely. Arcane Thesis is a feat for arcane casters. It is not a Wizard spellbook related feat.
LSMFT 02-21-08, 12:16 PM	Why? It's non-specific to casting type, it just works with a spellbook.Aye, but the archivist does not have a spellbook. He has a prayerbook. Though they function in almost exactly the same way, they are not the same. Just out of curiosity how does this differ from just adding a line to the previous feat of Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st, Archivist level 1st? Because the one would function only for his divine spells. Is it just to force a multi class Wizard Archivist to take both?It would have that effect, but it isn't the reason. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am inclined to be wary of the possibility of unforeseen consequences. I mean, what things are out there with Spell Mastery as a prereq? Do I want archivists to qualify for them as well? I'm not saying there are many of them or that any of them are bad to allow for an archivist. I just don't know. The way I see it, making a concession to a player and allowing him to take this feat is fine, but if I do that, that's all I am approving. If I give the archivist Spell Mastery, it might be extended to imply approval of something beyond my original, limited, intent. I would probably be willing to allow my homebrewed version to replace the original of meeting prereqs if it does come up, but I want the decision to be firmly in my hands if and when that comes and not have any risk of implied approval because I have the prereq.
Tedronai 02-21-08, 12:28 PM	Aye, but the archivist does not have a spellbook. He has a prayerbook. Though they function in almost exactly the same way, they are not the same. Because the one would function only for his divine spells. It would have that effect, but it isn't the reason. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am inclined to be wary of the possibility of unforeseen consequences. I mean, what things are out there with Arcane Mastery as a prereq? Do I want archivists to qualify for them as well? I'm not saying there are many of them or that any of them are bad to allow for an archivist. I just don't know. The way I see it, making a concession to a player and allowing him to take this feat is fine, but if I do that, that's all I am approving. If I give the archivist Arcane Mastery, it might be extended to imply approval of something beyond my original, limited, intent. I would probably be willing to allow my homebrewed version to replace the original of meeting prereqs if it does come up, but I want the decision to be firmly in my hands if and when that comes and not have any risk of implied approval because I have the prereq. I'd say that's an entirely reasonable approach to take, and frankly, one I would hope would be assumed (but know that some people would abuse the situation if it wasn't spelled out clearly). It's basically only a safety valve against unexpected abuse, and doesn't really change anything substantial about how the feat would work. I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable.
Cartigan 02-21-08, 12:49 PM	Aye, but the archivist does not have a spellbook. He has a prayerbook. Though they function in almost exactly the same way, they are not the same. The only difference is one stores arcane spells and the other stores divine spells. Feats like Spell Mastery say nothing about the type of magic, it just works with a book that stores spells - arcane or divine. There is zero reason to make a new feat that does the same bloody thing. Because the one would function only for his divine spells. Why? Like I said, the feat doesn't specify arcane or divine. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am inclined to be wary of the possibility of unforeseen consequences. I mean, what things are out there with Arcane Mastery as a prereq? Arcane Mastery? I'm positive we were talking about Spell Mastery. Not the same thing. However, what I can find with Spell Mastery as a pre-req: Familiar Spell: Requires you to be able to get a familiar. Can't do that as an Archivist. Signature Spell: Only works with arcane spells. Archivist is still a divine caster, so no there. (not that it would break anything if it was generic, it just let's you spontaneously channel magical energy into a spell from Spell Mastery) All I could find from the Crystal Keep feat index (which is of course not exhaustive but the easiest to search). Do I want archivists to qualify for them as well? I'm not saying there are many of them or that any of them are bad to allow for an archivist. I just don't know. Why not? If the feat isn't specific to divine or arcane magic, what's the problem? The way I see it, making a concession to a player and allowing him to take this feat is fine, but if I do that, that's all I am approving. If I give the archivist Arcane Mastery, it might be extended to imply approval of something beyond my original, limited, intent. This is the second time you brought up Arcane Mastery. Why are we talking about Arcane Mastery? In fact, who started talking about Arcane Mastery?
LSMFT 02-21-08, 01:33 PM	Arcane Mastery? I'm positive we were talking about Spell Mastery. Not the same thing.Correct. My mistake. The only difference is one stores arcane spells and the other stores divine spells. Feats like Spell Mastery say nothing about the type of magic, it just works with a book that stores spells - arcane or divine. There is zero reason to make a new feat that does the same bloody thing.And, of course, the name. They are different, even if they function the same. I don't think it should be assumed that everything that works for spellbooks functions the exact same way for prayerbooks. There aren't too many things that I wouldn't allow on an individual basis. But I wouldn't allow the blanket assumption that they are the same, so everything pertaining to spellbooks is the same for a prayerbook. Why? Like I said, the feat doesn't specify arcane or divine. The Spell Mastery feat specifically mentions spellbooks though. There are no divine spellbooks. All I could find from the Crystal Keep feat index (which is of course not exhaustive but the easiest to search).That's just my point. I don't know them all either. Nothing I do know of would be "broken" when allowed to the archivist, I'd think. But I know that I don't know everything. I mean, I would rather a character took "Prayer Mastery" and then came and asked if that could qualify him for Signature Spell, or Some Feat I’ve Never Heard of With Spell Mastery as a prereq, and say "yes" than have him assume that it worked because he “has the prereq.” Why not? If the feat isn't specific to divine or arcane magic, what's the problem?The feat is specific to arcane magic as written. It is only available to wizards. In addition, since it specifically refers to spellbooks, it think it is a pretty strong argument that the benefits apply only to spells in one's spellbook, and those are all arcane. I am not saying that I don't want archivists to qualify for certain things. Just that I want to retain the ability to make additional house rules to that effect when it is appropriate. The OP asked for opinions. Mine isn't a popular one, and I didn't expect it to be. If he doesn't have the same concerns I do, he's free to disregard my advice. This is the second time you brought up Arcane Mastery. Why are we talking about Arcane Mastery? In fact, who started talking about Arcane Mastery?No. Sorry. Like I said, I meant Spell Mastery. I just slipped and wrote the name of a similarly titled feat. I am going to edit my previous post so as to not confuse anyone else.
bfiggins 02-21-08, 01:52 PM	That is a completely different thing entirely. Arcane Thesis is a feat for arcane casters. It is not a Wizard spellbook related feat. It is a study-related feat; in the use of 'thesis' to mean either 'a new idea to be experimented on' or 'a student's culminating work.' ::shrug:: It worked for us, your mileage may vary.
Cartigan 02-21-08, 02:43 PM	And, of course, the name. They are different, even if they function the same. I don't think it should be assumed that everything that works for spellbooks functions the exact same way for prayerbooks. Why not? All the mechanics are exactly the same. But I wouldn't allow the blanket assumption that they are the same, so everything pertaining to spellbooks is the same for a prayerbook. Well then I would appreciate it if your produced a difference other than "one is divine and one is arcane." The Spell Mastery feat specifically mentions spellbooks though. There are no divine spellbooks. But there are prayerbooks which are mechanically identical. I mean, I would rather a character took "Prayer Mastery" and then came and asked if that could qualify him for Signature Spell, or Some Feat I’ve Never Heard of With Spell Mastery as a prereq, and say "yes" than have him assume that it worked because he “has the prereq.” That is overwhelmingly silly. The feat is specific to arcane magic as written. It is only available to wizards. In addition, since it specifically refers to spellbooks, it think it is a pretty strong argument that the benefits apply only to spells in one's spellbook, and those are all arcane. It's a PHB feat, it's only going to mention PHB classes. That's a pretty strong argument for alot of things. Are we going to say other classes can't use PHB feats because those classes arn't mentioned in the feat description?
Cartigan 02-21-08, 02:45 PM	It is a study-related feat; in the use of 'thesis' to mean either 'a new idea to be experimented on' or 'a student's culminating work.' The feat is specifically directed at arcane spells. Extending it to divine casters potentially leads to brokenness. Actually, reading the feat it again, applying it to divine casters is just screaming "please use me with divine metamagic!" Are we going to extend all divine magic specific feats to arcane casters?
LSMFT 02-21-08, 03:45 PM	Why not? All the mechanics are exactly the same.... Well then I would appreciate it if your produced a difference other than "one is divine and one is arcane."Because it has a different name. It is a different thing, even if it happens to work the same way. This is not without precedent. I understand your point completely. They work the same so they are the same. I just disagree. I'm pretty sure you understand my point too. You just disagree. The fact that they function the same will most likely lead me to treat them the same, but I choose to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that we need to continue with this. It is my opinion that, since they are different, I, as a DM, should retain discretion when considering if something particular to spellbooks should also apply to prayerbooks. You don’t - fine. We’ve both made our opinions clear enough I think. There is nothing to be gained by the two of us repeating the same things (they work the same so the are the same! they are named different so they aren't!) over and over again. It's a PHB feat, it's only going to mention PHB classes. That's a pretty strong argument for alot of things. They could have called them spellbooks instead of prayerbooks. They didn't. That's a pretty strong argument that they are not automatically assumed to be spellbooks. Are we going to say other classes can't use PHB feats because those classes arn't mentioned in the feat description? For feats that are restricted to specific classes, yes.