PDA

View Full Version : spontanious casters



Whyte_Widow
2010-04-05, 12:54 PM
i need a reference to where it states that Sorcs are spontaneous casters. GM says i cant take rapid metamagic cuz sorcs dont spontaneously cast spells.

2xMachina
2010-04-05, 01:01 PM
... Your DM is a noob.



Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast.

Definition of Spontaneous.

Kylarra
2010-04-05, 01:02 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm

Volthawk
2010-04-05, 01:04 PM
So how does your sorcerer cast, if not spontaneously?

ericgrau
2010-04-05, 01:14 PM
Fitting enough, it's in the Player's Handbook chapter on magic, in the metamagic section.

DementedFellow
2010-04-05, 01:16 PM
How did he think Sorcerers cast their spells?

Frosty
2010-04-05, 01:18 PM
On behalf of certain other threads, we should not assume that this nublet DM is a "he" since it could very well be a "she." :smalltongue:

Volthawk
2010-04-05, 01:19 PM
On behalf of certain other threads, we should not assume that this nublet DM is a "he" since it could very well be a "she." :smalltongue:

Hehe, yeah. Wouldn't want to be sexist now, would we?:smallbiggrin:

Sliver
2010-04-05, 01:21 PM
Well, while non of those above call out them as being spontaneous with the exact use of the word...

Here is the most explicit thing I can find in the PHB..


Special: This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.

DementedFellow
2010-04-05, 01:29 PM
On behalf of certain other threads, we should not assume that this nublet DM is a "he" since it could very well be a "she." :smalltongue:

Wouldn't it be more sexist to assume the DM is a she since s/he doesn't even grasp the very concept of a basic class?

Frosty
2010-04-05, 01:36 PM
Wouldn't it be more sexist to assume the DM is a she since s/he doesn't even grasp the very concept of a basic class?
We do not assume the DM is one specific gender or another. We merely state the possibility that this DM is something other than male. We do not state or suggest any in any form that the DM is definitely female.

Sliver
2010-04-05, 01:46 PM
Bananas! Now, this train has gone off tracks quickly... Maybe this unknown DM will need further evidence, so lets keep this thread from being locked for a little while longer? :smalltongue:

AbyssKnight
2010-04-05, 02:11 PM
PHB pg. 53 Sorcerer class, Background section "Their first spells are incomplete, spontaneous, uncontrolled, and sometimes dangerous."

PHB pg. 98 Quicken Spell feat "This feat cannot be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously)."

I am also very confused as to how your DM doesn't think sorcerers cast spontaneously. They are pretty much the poster child of what spontanous casting IS.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-05, 02:20 PM
We do not assume the DM is one specific gender or another. We merely state the possibility that this DM is something other than male. We do not state or suggest any in any form that the DM is definitely female.
On a tangentially related issue, I consider all languanges that lack a proper gender-neutral pronoun are foolish, and note that "he" is easier to type because it's one letter shorter than the counterpart.

Yuki Akuma
2010-04-05, 02:35 PM
"He" is the accepted gender-neutral pronoun in English when referring to a person. Unless you think it's more polite to say "it".

And...

Yeah your DM has no idea what he's doing. Sorcerers are the very definition of spontaneous spellcasters.

Optimystik
2010-04-05, 02:40 PM
Well, while non of those above call out them as being spontaneous with the exact use of the word...

Here is the most explicit thing I can find in the PHB..

UA to the rescue again. (Did I mention how much I love that book?)

"Characters who cast all their spells spontaneously—such as bards and sorcerers—don’t have to prepare spells." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm)

Studoku
2010-04-05, 03:42 PM
Don't convince your DM that sorceres are spontaneous casters. Just use the metamagic as normal.

Since you're not a spontaneous caster (according to your DM), you don't need rapid spell to cast metamagic as a standard action.

Abd al-Azrad
2010-04-05, 04:31 PM
And now we have resolved this issue, punish your DM. I give you...

Solo's Stupendously Superior Sorcerer Stratagems (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2180.0). Study these well.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 09:17 AM
i was told that none of these references are proof that sorcerers are spontaneous casters. i need more definitive proof.

under the spontaneous caster section in the PHB it says its only druids and clerics...

for the sorc description in the classes section its a "descriptive word" not implying that sorcs spontaneously cast.

any other definitive proof?

BRC
2010-04-06, 09:22 AM
i was told that none of these references are proof that sorcerers are spontaneous casters. i need more definitive proof.

under the spontaneous caster section in the PHB it says its only druids and clerics...

for the sorc description in the classes section its a "descriptive word" not implying that sorcs spontaneously cast.

any other definitive proof?
How does this sound


Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast.

I mean I really don't see how else you could interpret the class. The description under Spellcasting seems pretty clear.

Saph
2010-04-06, 09:29 AM
You could try pointing out that the "Normal" section of the Rapid Metamagic feat is identical to the description of how sorcerers and bards use metamagic in the PHB.

But really, this is just your DM being silly. Sorcerers are practically the definition of spontaneous casters. When 3.5 rulebooks say "spontaneous caster" and want to give an example, they say "like a sorcerer".

deuxhero
2010-04-06, 09:29 AM
If this is a test to see if you know the system (Likely not) remember the penalties for wearing armor you don't have the proficiency are under the armor proficiency feats.

2xMachina
2010-04-06, 09:29 AM
Also, do note that ONLY Spontaneous casters need 1 full round to apply metamagic.

Not spontaneous? You metamagic with no time addition. Thus, no Rapid Metamagic needed.

So, ask your DM. Want to let you take the feat, or give it to you for free?

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-06, 09:33 AM
As was mentioned already, if the sorcerer doesn't cast spells spontaneously then he doesn't have to have Rapid Metamagic because only spontaneous spellcasters have extended casting times for metamagics.

You should just make a psion; you won't have that problem.

Of course, it sounds like your DM doesn't know the rules well enough to be DMing. Maybe you should consider finding someone else to DM, or pulling him (or her) here to talk to us directly?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 09:44 AM
Also, do note that ONLY Spontaneous casters need 1 full round to apply metamagic.

Not spontaneous? You metamagic with no time addition. Thus, no Rapid Metamagic needed.

So, ask your DM. Want to let you take the feat, or give it to you for free?

hes at the table now w me and says that sorcerers fall somewhere in the middle of spontaneous and prepared. and to apply metamagic it will always cast one full action (or more). i need a statement from some 3.5 book that says "sorcerers are spontaneous casters"

he also says that bards are not spontaneous casters...

otherwise i cannot take rapid metamagic.

Partysan
2010-04-06, 09:49 AM
Wait, since when were Clerics ever spontaneous casters?? They need to prepare spells in the morning (praying etc.), don't they?

And please ask your DM, if he thinks they fall into middle ground, what part of their casting provides the prepared casting's part of the mixture.

Mongoose87
2010-04-06, 09:52 AM
Ask him what, exactly, sorcerers prepare?

The fact that this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm) variant exists proves that clerics and druids aren't spontaneous casters.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 09:54 AM
Ask him what, exactly, sorcerers prepare?

he says sorcerers dont prepare spells. that they fall somewhere in the middle

Mongoose87
2010-04-06, 09:54 AM
he says sorcerers dont prepare spells. that they fall [I]somewhere in the middle[I]

If they're in between prepared and spontaneous, they must prepare some things and do some spontaneously. What do they prepare?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 09:58 AM
only druids summon spells are spontaneous. and evil inflicts are spontaneous. also, good cures are spontaneous. that is it.

Partysan
2010-04-06, 09:58 AM
Exactly my question.

Actually I can't understand why your DM cares so much for sorcs not being spontaneous... It's hardly unbalanced, they tend to be weaker than wizards or clerics (which are both prepared). And if bards and sorcerers aren't spontaneous then there weren't any spontaneous casters in the PHB.

EDIT: my goodness, it's really hard for me not to swear... If only these special spells are spontaneous but the classes using them are otherwise preparing all their spells, then THEY should fall into middle ground!

Volthawk
2010-04-06, 09:59 AM
What about out-of-core spontaneous casters, like the Dread Necromancer. How do they cast?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 09:59 AM
i just need reference. that's it. anyone can help would be great. we have all books at the table. just need definitive proof.

kamikasei
2010-04-06, 10:00 AM
i was told that none of these references are proof that sorcerers are spontaneous casters. i need more definitive proof.

Any idea what he'd accept as proof?

What does he think a spontaneous caster would look like?


Wait, since when were Clerics ever spontaneous casters?? They need to prepare spells in the morning (praying etc.), don't they?

It's "cleric and druid spells cast spontaneously", e.g. cure/inflict or summon nature's ally spells.

balistafreak
2010-04-06, 10:01 AM
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN.

There's no middle ground; this is a digital situation, black or white, zero or one, yes or no.

Sorcerers cast spontaneously. They are THE poster-child for spontaneous casting, and always have been. (At least since 3.0, at any rate.)

Any basic grasp of English should tell you that doing something without preparing for it is spontaneous, by its dictionary definiton. If that's not enough, there's the half-dozen other direct SRD quotes.

And really, if he thinks that his understanding is clear (you can be 100% sure and still be wrong, after all :smalltongue:) I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish. If you aren't casting spontaneously, then you're casting prepared, by virtue of the binary nature of prepared/spontaneous casters. And therefore don't need Rapid Metamagic in the first place.

Although how you cast spells prepared when you clearly haven't is beyond me.

Really, my befuddlement and incredulity have never been higher.

ericgrau
2010-04-06, 10:01 AM
i need a statement from some 3.5 book that says "sorcerers are spontaneous casters"
Again, it's in the Player's Handbook, chapter on magic, section on metamagic. Not only does it go over the increased casting time and so forth, it says that this applies to spontaneous casters such as sorcerers and bards. IIRC it has the specific wording you want.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 10:02 AM
Again, it's in the Player's Handbook, chapter on magic, section on metamagic. Not only does it go over the increased casting time and so forth, it says that this applies to spontaneous casters such as sorcerers and bards. IIRC it has the specific wording you want.


this source wasnt good enough for him.

BRC
2010-04-06, 10:03 AM
this source wasnt good enough for him.
Okay, get your DM to tell you EXACTLY how he thinks Sorcerers work.

Radar
2010-04-06, 10:04 AM
only druids summon spells are spontaneous. and evil inflicts are spontaneous. also, good cures are spontaneous. that is it.
And in none of this situations Rapid Metamagic would apply. For whom was the feat designed then?

Mongoose87
2010-04-06, 10:05 AM
The problem here is that though this


Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast.

means sorcerers cast spontaneously, your DM doesn't know this



spon·ta·ne·ous...
...
–adjective
1.
coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned...

Unplanned is the key portion.

Sliver
2010-04-06, 10:05 AM
Complete arcane, Mage of the arcane order:


Although nonwizards can benefit somewhat from what the Order has to offer, its emphasis on wizardry deters most applicants. In fact, the Order boasts almost no sorcerers, bards, or other characters with signifi cant talent as spontaneous casters.

Spellcasting Level (p72, same book):


sorcerers and other spontaneous arcane casters intuit what they need to know as their spellcasting experience grows.

Imbue Familiar with spell ability P112:


Spontaneous spellcasters, such as sorcerers, can imbue a familiar with any spells they know how to cast.

More needed stuff?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 10:07 AM
In in none of this situations Rapid Metamagic would apply. For whom was the feat designed then?

explain that... cuz he is saying that the feat was designed as an "oh Sh*t" feat for a spontaneous maximized heal.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-06, 10:09 AM
Dump your character and play something else, because this is getting stupid silly.

And by silly I mean stupid.

unre9istered
2010-04-06, 10:09 AM
If your DM's going to require a specific statement that the sorcerer (who's every spell is spontaneously cast) is a spontaneous caster you're probably screwed. Ask if you can take the Metamagic Specialist ACF from the PHB II and spend the feat on Obtain Familiar from Complete Arcane. You trade unlimited metamagic use (you can use Metamagic Specialist 3+int mode/day) for the ability to prestige class without weakening your familiar. If your DM won't allow that then they just don't want you to have this ability for some reason and are being a jerk about it.

Mongoose87
2010-04-06, 10:09 AM
explain that... cuz he is saying that the feat was designed as an "oh Sh*t" feat for a spontaneous maximized heal.

Heal can't be cast spontaneously, nor maximized.

2xMachina
2010-04-06, 10:13 AM
Dump your character DM and play something somewhere else, because this is getting stupid silly.

And by silly I mean stupid.

Fixed

(FOR THE WHITE SPACE!)

ericgrau
2010-04-06, 10:13 AM
this source wasnt good enough for him.
<flips open PHB> Oh nut-bunnies it's not there. Try this:
" Spontaneous spellcasters such as sorcerers and bards..." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm#spellRecall)

Or google "site:www.wizards.com spontaneous sorcerer". From only page 1 of the results:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061010a&page=3
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050113a
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010209b1
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20070216a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20031102a

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 10:13 AM
Heal can't be cast spontaneously, nor maximized.

cure sorry**

unre9istered
2010-04-06, 10:14 AM
Lots of prestige classes specifically for Sorcerer require spontaneous casting as a prerequisite. Apparently no one can become an Ultimate Magus as there are no classes that Spontaneously cast 1st level arcane spells by his definition.

Eclipse
2010-04-06, 10:16 AM
Here's the problem I think. Originally, people drew a distinction between unprepared casting (sorcerer and bard) and spontaneous casting (cleric and druid). However, there's a problem with holding this line of thought. As other posters have said, even the PHB later contradicts this with some feat descriptions, and as other rulebooks were released, spontaneous clearly referred to sorcerer as the primary example of spontaneous spellcasting. So, if you were playing core only, your GM could make an argument for his side, however weak it may be, but outside of core, it's positively silly to say sorcerers don't cast spontaneously.

That said, is there a reason your GM doesn't want you to take rapid metamagic? To me, it sounds like he wants an excuse to tell you no, but doesn't want to be up front about it. Does he somehow think it's too powerful? Doesn't like the flavor of it? Something else he doesn't like? Or does he just stick to the rules no matter what, and think he has a rules nugget no one else understands?

If he doesn't like the feat, discuss why with him. It might be that he feels allowing spontaneous metamagic is too powerful (it is way better than prepared metamagic, but it helps sorcerers make the most of their spells). Are there no tier 1 classes involved? That is, no wizard, druid, cleric, archivist, or artificer? If so, maybe he wants to keep sorcerer power in line with everyone else. If there are tier 1 classes, he has no excuse to be limiting your sorcerer's power by restricting this feat that I can see though.

If he thinks he has a rules nugget, refer him to this thread so he can read that he doesn't. Of course, from what you said, he doesn't think we've provided sufficient evidence, so I doubt that will change his mind anymore. Still worth a shot.

In the end though, he is the GM and he does have the final call. If he won't let you take it, make sure he knows what constitutes a full-round action for casting a metamagic spell. It is the same as making a full attack, you just lose your move action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullRoundCastaSpell). You do not have to cast until your next turn comes up like a spell with a 1 round casting time. If he doesn't know that, or insists on changing that too, consider playing a wizard if you must go arcane, or a cleric so you get your powers straight from character advancement, no scroll purchase necessary.

Yora
2010-04-06, 10:19 AM
Wouldn't it be more sexist to assume the DM is a she since s/he doesn't even grasp the very concept of a basic class?
So you're saying men can be made fun off, because they are not equal to women? :smallmad:

Sliver
2010-04-06, 10:21 AM
So, how about the above posted few gems and easy to find proofs? Not good?


Complete arcane, Mage of the arcane order:


Although nonwizards can benefit somewhat from what the Order has to offer, its emphasis on wizardry deters most applicants. In fact, the Order boasts almost no sorcerers, bards, or other characters with signifi cant talent as spontaneous casters.

Spellcasting Level (p72, same book):


sorcerers and other spontaneous arcane casters intuit what they need to know as their spellcasting experience grows.

Imbue Familiar with spell ability P112:


Spontaneous spellcasters, such as sorcerers, can imbue a familiar with any spells they know how to cast.

More needed stuff?

ericgrau
2010-04-06, 10:22 AM
Stuff
Yeah, maybe he just doesn't like the feat. There's no reason to make such a convoluted argument against the feat if so. He should just say "no'. And at least that'd give you a straight answer rather than wasting your time on the crazy type of discussion.

Caliphbubba
2010-04-06, 10:23 AM
ya'll are getting trolled. that is the only reasonable explination.

Sliver
2010-04-06, 10:24 AM
NO! I refuse that! This thread is too awesome to not be true!

Radar
2010-04-06, 10:25 AM
explain that... cuz he is saying that the feat was designed as an "oh Sh*t" feat for a spontaneous maximized heal.
AFAIK you can't metamagic those cures or summons. At least, that was the straight interpretation of the SRD.

Volthawk
2010-04-06, 10:25 AM
NO! I refuse that! This thread is too awesome to not be true!

Seconded. It's fun to think of such silliness.

Douglas
2010-04-06, 10:29 AM
AFAIK you can't metamagic those cures or summons. At least, that was the straight interpretation of the SRD.
You can, there's even a specific section on it in the general description of metamagic feats.

Anyway, reference:
This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickenSpell)...

Also Sliver's post and this:

<flips open PHB> Oh nut-bunnies it's not there. Try this:
" Spontaneous spellcasters such as sorcerers and bards..." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm#spellRecall)

Or google "site:www.wizards.com spontaneous sorcerer". From only page 1 of the results:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061010a&page=3
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050113a
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010209b1
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20070216a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20031102a

And also every PrC ever written that requires spontaneous arcane casting ability as a prerequisite, as if the Sorcerer class doesn't qualify then neither does anything else (except a small handful of feats in obscure splats that may not have even existed when the PrC was written) and those PrCs are utterly pointless.

Chaelos
2010-04-06, 10:30 AM
If anything's "somewhere in the middle," it's clerics and druids. They prepare their spells, but can spontaneously convert them. If a sorcerer isn't purely spontaneous, nothing is.

Your DM is being silly, likely because s/he probably thinks Sorcerers are much more powerful than they actually are. If you can't make him/her see reason, either 1) quit, 2) make a new character, 3) send him/her over here to read the lulz had in this thread, or 4) suck it up and deal.

warmachine
2010-04-06, 10:37 AM
I suggest a completely different course of action: walk away from the game. A DM is entitled to change rules for the benefit of the game and need not understand the rules in minute detail but this level of misunderstanding will create a bad game. You risk doing or saying something that is reasonable within campaign settings and style and doesn't stomp on other player's toes but have it reversed because the DM thinks you're abusing the rules. You risk a hopeless TPK because he misinterprets an enemy power very badly, leaving you unable to even put up a satisfying fight. You risk failing at encounters, whether combat, trap or social, because the DM expected you to use powers that you know you don't have.

By RAW, Monks aren't proficient in unarmed combat but the RAI is blatantly obvious and only a sadist or clueless twit would enforce RAW. Knowing sorcerers are spontaneous casters is clearly RAW, let alone clearly RAI. The DM is beyond sadist or clueless twit and into something that's no fun at all.

Warclam
2010-04-06, 10:41 AM
Sliver's finds clinch it. That single line from imbue familiar with spell ability:



Spontaneous spellcasters, such as sorcerers


says that sorcerers are spontaneous spellcasters. There it is.

If your DM still says it's not good enough, then said DM is just plain not willing to listen. You are not getting that feat, even though you do qualify. (In that case, I agree with warmachine that your DM is a sadist or clueless twit).

Regarding the possibility of a troll: yeah, maybe, but I really find it best not to underestimate the sheer stupidity of people.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-06, 11:10 AM
Well, I guess you could always take the feat anyway, and if called on it, accuse the DM of singling you out for maltreatment.

It won't work, and you'll likely get into a fight, but it's something.

Really, you ought to just walk out; if the DM is going to be so arbitrary just to mess with you, he's not a good DM and you'll end up just getting screwed over again and again.

I've been there, and it's not fun.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-06, 11:12 AM
Well, I guess you could always take the feat anyway, and if called on it, accuse the DM of singling you out for maltreatment.

It won't work, and you'll likely get into a fight, but it's something.

Really, you ought to just walk out; if the DM is going to be so arbitrary just to mess with you, he's not a good DM and you'll end up just getting screwed over again and again.

I've been there, and it's not fun.

What's more, he's afraid of a spontaneously cast Maximized Cure spell. From a Sorcerer.










That's head desk material.

Sliver
2010-04-06, 11:13 AM
What's more, he's afraid of a spontaneously cast Maximized Cure spell. From a Sorcerer.

Err.. Really? I was reading it as the only use he would allow from the feat.. (the maximize anyway.. Extended could be for a druid..) because only clerics and druids have "spontaneous casting" as a feature..

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-06, 11:17 AM
Err.. Really? I was reading it as the only use he would allow from the feat.. (the maximize anyway.. Extended could be for a druid..) because only clerics and druids have "spontaneous casting" as a feature..

Then we read differently.


explain that... cuz he is saying that the feat was designed as an "oh Sh*t" feat for a spontaneous maximized heal.

Volthawk
2010-04-06, 11:17 AM
Then we read differently.

Yeah, and he's saying sorcerers can't take the feat.

Sliver
2010-04-06, 11:18 AM
Yes, as in, that is what it is ment to do... For a surprise strong healing when really needed, not for sorcerers to wreck havoc in his preciously balanced game.

Ravingdork
2010-04-06, 11:22 AM
he...says that...to apply metamagic it will always cast one full action (or more).

Make sure your GM knows the difference between 1 round casting and full round action casting. They sound alike, but are terribly different.

The former applies to spells such as summon monster, which come into effect just before you start your NEXT turn. The latter applies to metamagic spells, which generally come into effect immediately after you complete your full round action (on the same turn, not the next).

Also, your GM is wrong about the sorcerer. The sorcerer is all the way a spontaneous caster, as is the bard. Prepared casters include the cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and wizard.

If there is an "in between" then it is the cleric and druid, since they can prepare spells, but then drop their prepared spells to spontaneously cast cure/inflict or summon nature's ally, respectively.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-06, 11:22 AM
Wow, the DM is reminding me of the Version guy who couldn't tell difference between 0.01 dollars and 0.01 cents.

I mean, it seems self explainatory.

Kylarra
2010-04-06, 11:38 AM
To be fair, if taken from a strictly by the book RAWtarded pov, the only hard definition of spontaneous casting in the PHB is in regards to clerics and druids converting spells.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-06, 11:49 AM
You are right, ther Glossary refers to Cleric/Druid casting of their type of spells as spontaneous (cure/inflict or summoning, respectively).

It doesn't mention Sorcerors in that text.

warmachine
2010-04-06, 11:51 AM
this source [PHB, chapter on magic, section on metamagic] wasnt good enough for him.
Walk. If he's not prepared to accept that as a definitive source, he's either deliberately obstructing you or he's barely literate combined with a strange idea about reference book structure. Either way, his games will be bad. Walk.

Icarus
2010-04-06, 11:57 AM
I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but you must set your DM on fire. Then, while he burns, explain how your spontaneous actions are equivalent to what the sorcerer would spontaneously do to his enemies.

Sliver
2010-04-06, 11:58 AM
Bah! Kobold is the new solution for everything! Kobolds can use fire, kobolds can be on fire, kobolds can be fire!

Set him on kobold.

balistafreak
2010-04-06, 12:02 PM
There is only one solution to this problem.

You're a Sorcerer. Take ranks in Craft (alchemy).

Make some Trollbane.

Throw it at your DM and stab him to death.

Hopefully, he won't back to life. The Trollbane was just to make sure.

Seriously, I really want to know how long this guys been even trying to play D&D. Claiming that sorcerers don't cast spontaneously because its not openly stated is possibly even worse than claiming monks aren't proficent with their fists. (Namely, because sorcerers get nerfed more. A monk can still use monk weapons... okay, I'll stop explaining the bad analogy.)

Vizzerdrix
2010-04-06, 03:33 PM
I demand a definition from the DM of what this "something in between" IS. and it best be backed up by two solid examples in core, or I break out my thumb screws.:smallannoyed:

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-06, 03:44 PM
I demand you show your DM this thread, and tell him to respond to this himself. Sorcs don't prepare any spells, but since clerics can spontaneously cast cure (and only cure) he thinks that clerics can take it and sorcs can't? Like, WTF? How long have you been playing with him?

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-06, 03:48 PM
I'm wondering why the initial poster dropped out of this conversation, personally.

In any case - how old is this DM? 6? 7? otherwise, there is absolutely no excuse for his/her behavior.

Zherog
2010-04-06, 04:08 PM
I'm wondering why the initial poster dropped out of this conversation, personally.

Work? School? Spontaneous combustion? There's lots of valid reasons.

TheYoungKing
2010-04-06, 04:12 PM
My guess is the OP was that DM.

Sort of the internet equivalent of "I have a friend who...." when asking for advice.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 04:22 PM
I demand you show your DM this thread, and tell him to respond to this himself. Sorcs don't prepare any spells, but since clerics can spontaneously cast cure (and only cure) he thinks that clerics can take it and sorcs can't? Like, WTF? How long have you been playing with him?

im here. we were just in session for a different game and he is a player at the table. i have been playing with this group for close to 7 years. however, only about 3 years ago we started 3.5. we were playing hackmaster prior at that table.

he is an architect IRL. and does a great job GMing. i have been known to be more of a "power player" in past campaigns and really gave him a run for the money on one of my hackmaster players.

i understand his intentions are to balance the party and to not have a character that is too powerful. and i dont blame him for that because we all wish to have fun. story is great.... been in this campaign for roughly a year now.

we are close to lvl 15. and i am a sorc6/rog3/arcane trickster 3/unseen seer 2

im just trying to find something thats cut and dry.

i showed him the imbue familiar spell and he is starting to get the picture i do believe. :smallcool:

Rixx
2010-04-06, 04:22 PM
I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, but you must set your DM on fire. Then, while he burns, explain how your spontaneous actions are equivalent to what the sorcerer would spontaneously do to his enemies.

Won't work. Anyone who takes this advice has prepared to set their DM on fire, since they read this plan and decided to enact it in the future.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-06, 04:28 PM
You are right, ther Glossary refers to Cleric/Druid casting of their type of spells as spontaneous (cure/inflict or summoning, respectively).

It doesn't mention Sorcerors in that text.

this is his argument as well.

:smallwink:

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-06, 04:57 PM
this is his argument as well.

:smallwink:

But what about common sense? The five other sources listed here? What is his rationale for balance reasons? Do you plan to abuse Arcane Fusion or something? So much is being avoided in you're posts, I'm beginning to think that guy was right about you trolling us.

ericgrau
2010-04-06, 05:05 PM
There's no reason to be mad at the DM because of bad logic. And it is understandable when looking at the Player's Handbook alone... just about everywhere except the quicken spell feat text doesn't explain it. Talk about hard to find. You'll get farther with a clear and polite explanation. Bring the references mentioned here (especially quicken spell since it's in the Player's Handbook and directly relates to the issue), but don't shove them down his throat. And remember if he doesn't like the feat he may disallow it regardless. Or if it's just a misunderstanding then you'll have a better chance of clearing it up if you're nice about it instead of a ****.

El Dorado
2010-04-06, 05:55 PM
pg 139 of the Rules Compendium talks about Spontaneous Casting

"Some characters can cast spells, but they don't need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast their spells using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous casters."

It also talks about other spontaneous casting (cleric cures and druid summons).

I love this supplement.

Volthawk
2010-04-06, 05:56 PM
pg 139 of the Rules Compendium talks about Spontaneous Casting

"Some characters can cast spells, but they don't need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast their spells using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous casters."

It also talks about other spontaneous casting (cleric cures and druid summons).

I love this supplement.

And we have a winner...

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-06, 06:19 PM
This thread is sad and amazing at the same time.



"Some characters can cast spells, but they don't need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast their spells using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous casters."
That's just incidental terminology! If this were the definition of spontaneous casters, "spontaneous casters" would be in quotes!

Now let's argue over what exactly "dead" means in game terms. :smalltongue:

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-06, 06:31 PM
This thread is sad and amazing at the same time.


That's just incidental terminology! If this were the definition of spontaneous casters, "spontaneous casters" would be in quotes!

Now let's argue over what exactly "dead" means in game terms. :smalltongue:

I think it all depends on how you view the soul leaving the body and religion in general. Some might think it's dying, plain and simple, but others might view the soul as the moral and decision making part of the body. When you're character falls below -10 HP they become an NPC. Atheists might say that the soul has no practical effect on you, especially seeing on how it's not ever mentioned in any other place in the book. Warforged, outsiders, and other constructs add more complexity into the situation. If an outsider has no soul, would it be able to keep on fighting indefinitely provided it could not fall unconscious or be otherwise crippled?

warmachine
2010-04-06, 06:35 PM
If the DM is good then there is no problem as long as he delegates rules interpretations to another player. Not understanding that sorcerers qualify for Rapid Metamagic means he's nowhere near as literate as he thinks he is. Tell him he must always consult the rules lawyer of the group for rules adjudication.

FMArthur
2010-04-06, 08:43 PM
Even if he doesn't believe you, this thread, and his own books that a Sorceror is a spontaneous caster, tell him he can't have it both ways. The metamagic section of the PHB explicitly calls out spontaneous spellcasters for increasing the casting time of metamagicked spells, and no others. If he says a sorceror is not a spontaneous caster, your problem is solved without a feat. Show him the metamagic section of the PHB. He cannot give you the increased metamagic-casting time unless he acknowledges that you are a spontaneous caster.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-07, 02:19 AM
this has been an interesting thread. ill admit it got my panties in a pinch when i was told this. but i had started this thread to find hard proof.... granted most of the things showed to me here are proof enough for me and my character... i cannot go against my DMs master plan. his rules > all other rules.

i have been tempted to show my DM this thread... and i may in time. but, i think we can all agree that there is an interesting debate on this subject.

my sorc is about to pick up her freshly made circlet of rapid casting. with three charges this may allow my DM to put a control on her quickened spells.

i also think its funny that this is about equal to the monk's unarmed proficiency. i took the time to look that up... and try to find an answer... and there is no clear statement ... it was just assumed. kinda like a sorc that spontaneously casts spells :smallamused:

Math_Mage
2010-04-07, 02:47 AM
this has been an interesting thread. ill admit it got my panties in a pinch when i was told this. but i had started this thread to find hard proof.... granted most of the things showed to me here are proof enough for me and my character... i cannot go against my DMs master plan. his rules > all other rules.

i have been tempted to show my DM this thread... and i may in time. but, i think we can all agree that there is an interesting debate on this subject.

my sorc is about to pick up her freshly made circlet of rapid casting. with three charges this may allow my DM to put a control on her quickened spells.

i also think its funny that this is about equal to the monk's unarmed proficiency. i took the time to look that up... and try to find an answer... and there is no clear statement ... it was just assumed. kinda like a sorc that spontaneously casts spells :smallamused:

Except that there is no "interesting debate". It is not just assumed that a sorcerer is a spontaneous caster. Rather, that is clearly stated throughout the rulebooks. By contrast, it is never stated that the monk is proficient with his fists--it's just that every sane DM plays it that way because it's RAI.

And why does your sorcerer need a 'circlet of rapid casting' if he is not a spontaneous caster? If he is not a spontaneous caster, the increased casting time for metamagic does not apply. If your DM wants to houserule things for balance, he needs to say so. This roundabout finicky pretense of maintaining RAW needs to stop. Heck, even if the increased casting times somehow apply to the supposedly non-spontaneous sorcerer, you'd still be better off taking the Metamagic Specialist ACF and Obtain Familiar.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-07, 03:44 AM
I think it all depends on how you view the soul leaving the body and religion in general. Some might think it's dying, plain and simple, but others might view the soul as the moral and decision making part of the body. When you're character falls below -10 HP they become an NPC. Atheists might say that the soul has no practical effect on you, especially seeing on how it's not ever mentioned in any other place in the book.

Hey, now, there's trap the soul as well.


That said

The Pros and Cons of a Sorcerer (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050113a)
-snip-
Sorcerer Assets
-snip-
* Spontaneous Spellcasting: A sorcerer doesn't have a spellbook; instead, he chooses a personal repertoire of spells that he can cast anytime. He does have a daily limit on the number of spells of each level he can cast, but he can freely cast any spell he knows until he reaches that limit. So he doesn't have to guess ahead of time which spells to prepare -- if he needs to cast a particular spell several times in the same day, he can do so.

Delta
2010-04-07, 03:59 AM
i think we can all agree that there is an interesting debate on this subject.

Er, actually, we can't.

As Math Mage said, there is not debate. On by now 4 pages, there hasn't been a single person in this thread who doesn't believe that Sorcerers are spontaneous casters, there have actually been tons of quotes to prove it, arguably some could be a little bit more precise in their wording, but without anyone arguing AGAINST sorcerers being spontaneous casters, or any quote implying the contrary, there is absolutely no debate.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-07, 09:21 AM
Except that there is no "interesting debate". It is not just assumed that a sorcerer is a spontaneous caster. Rather, that is clearly stated throughout the rulebooks. By contrast, it is never stated that the monk is proficient with his fists--it's just that every sane DM plays it that way because it's RAI.

And why does your sorcerer need a 'circlet of rapid casting' if he is not a spontaneous caster? If he is not a spontaneous caster, the increased casting time for metamagic does not apply. If your DM wants to houserule things for balance, he needs to say so. This roundabout finicky pretense of maintaining RAW needs to stop. Heck, even if the increased casting times somehow apply to the supposedly non-spontaneous sorcerer, you'd still be better off taking the Metamagic Specialist ACF and Obtain Familiar.

because a sorcerer is "somewhere in between" and according to my GM, a sorcerer is neither spontaneous nor prepared. making a circlet of rapid casting the only viable option to gain a quickened spell.

i brought up the Metamagic Specialist and am not allowed to take that either because i have had a familiar for 14 levels already... and we cannot re adjudicate that many levels.

and it is in fact an interesting debate because of how the PHB has defined spontaneous casting. by somehow omitting sorcs from the glossary definition of spontaneous casters, this has confused not only my DM but other players at my table as well.

in my eyes the only clear wording is from the imbue familiar spell. which i opened the book and handed it to my GM... and got a "hmm, interesting." but no confirmation that he would go along with it.

Delta
2010-04-07, 09:32 AM
because a sorcerer is "somewhere in between" and according to my GM, a sorcerer is neither spontaneous nor prepared.

Yes, well, then your GM is wrong, it is as simple as that, and everyone here agrees on that. To have a "debate", there would need to be at least someone arguing for the other side, which didn't happen here (your GM isn't arguing, not even through you, he has just stated his opinion without giving any arguments to support it)


"Some characters can cast spells, but they don't need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast their spells using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous casters."

This quote doesn't leave the slightest doubt, so unless your GM can actually give an argument to the opposite, well, as I said, there is no debate, much less an "interesting" one.

kamikasei
2010-04-07, 09:35 AM
because a sorcerer is "somewhere in between" and according to my GM, a sorcerer is neither spontaneous nor prepared.

I am curious as to what two extremes the sorcerer's meant to be in between. If prepared means wizard and spontaneous means cleric, how is a sorcerer meant to be in between the two given that clerics prepare their spells but can cast some without preparation, while sorcerers do all their casting without preparation?

Douglas
2010-04-07, 09:36 AM
Have you brought up the Rules Compendium quote yet?

Jokes
2010-04-07, 09:46 AM
Well, there's also Versatile Spellcaster from Races of the Dragon which requires spontaneous spellcasting and specifically uses a sorcerer in it's example.


If he is not a spontaneous caster, the increased casting time for metamagic does not apply.

Why do people keep saying that? It is specifically mentioned in the metamagic section that sorcerers and bards take longer to cast metamagic spells. It's just not under the "spontaneous casting" section.

TheYoungKing
2010-04-07, 09:50 AM
i have been tempted to show my DM this thread... and i may in time. but, i think we can all agree that there is an interesting debate on this subject.


..... And I think I called it.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-07, 09:52 AM
Even if he doesn't believe you, this thread, and his own books that a Sorceror is a spontaneous caster, tell him he can't have it both ways. The metamagic section of the PHB explicitly calls out spontaneous spellcasters for increasing the casting time of metamagicked spells, and no others. If he says a sorceror is not a spontaneous caster, your problem is solved without a feat. Show him the metamagic section of the PHB. He cannot give you the increased metamagic-casting time unless he acknowledges that you are a spontaneous caster.

if we went by the metamagic section only in the phb. it states that sorcerers and bards will always have to use a full round to cast any metamagic spells. and it also does not mention that a sorcerer is in fact a spontaneous caster.

in the metamagic section in the PHB it only talks about a cleric spontaneously casting a cure spell.

Volthawk
2010-04-07, 09:54 AM
Well, there's only a few classes I think you could say is more spontaneous than the sorcerer, classes like the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, etc. as they don't even pick spells known.

I still think it's a stupid way of looking at it though.

Sliver
2010-04-07, 09:55 AM
It's hard to get a consensus around the internet... There ought to be someone who argues against any point... When one is reached, you better believe it's true!

satorian
2010-04-07, 10:02 AM
If your DM is making this bizarre decision that is apropos of nothing but poor indexing in the PHB, i.e. nothing at all, maybe he thinks sorcerers are overpowered. I suggest you acquiesce to that belief and then play a batman wizard. Maybe then he'll decide that wizards are "in-between" too.

Lets' be clear. Nobody on this thread agrees with your DM, or even understands why he believes what he believes, or understands why you think his strange opinion is reasonable.

kamikasei
2010-04-07, 10:09 AM
Rapid Metamagic is from Complete Mage. I suspect, though I'd have to check later as I'm AFB at the moment, that sorcerers are explicitly called out as spontaneous casters there (it's the one that has the "different types of arcanists" section, right? Or is that Complete Arcane?). That aside though, point him at the Ultimate Magus PrC.

Its qualification requires the ability to spontaneously cast arcane spells and it progresses an spontaneous arcane casting class. While he might say other, non-core classes like Warmage or Beguiler (if they explicitly say they're spontaneous) are the classes it was designed for and mean it's not a completely useless waste of levels, the class description repeatedly says it's meant for sorcerer/wizards. Since he seems to be arguing intent rather than just making a "heh, what a stupid editing oversight" observation, this may carry some weight.

SSGoW
2010-04-07, 10:52 AM
WOW is your DM just messing with you? I really tried to read this all but couldn't....

Just make a new character! This is not worth the trouble at all... And to make things sinple make a Warmage, they get free sudden metamagics and are a decent gish.

If your DM has a problem with that then play a rogue or a fighter... Your DM sounds really really troublesome

edit:

Oh yeah, i second the idea of playing batman wizard, or better yet...

If he thinks sorcerers are overpowered....

Bard + lyrical spell + extra music (for every feat)

or

Bard + 2 metamagics (preferably the one that reduces the casting time from a full round to a standard action for one of them) + metamagic song (i think thats what its called)

looks those up on crystal keep they can be very fun :D (i got the chance to try them in a one-shot :D)

Zherog
2010-04-07, 11:02 AM
Have you brought up the Rules Compendium quote yet?

I was also curious about that. The quote from the RC seems awfully cut and dry, with no real wiggle room.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-07, 11:28 AM
if we went by the metamagic section only in the phb. it states that sorcerers and bards will always have to use a full round to cast any metamagic spells. and it also does not mention that a sorcerer is in fact a spontaneous caster.
I've seen people argue that a druid's animal companion can wear metal armor because the book only says that druids can't wear metal armor. Well, people didn't argue that -- one person argued that point.

As Sliver says, if not even one asinine short-sighted rules-lawyer forum troll tries to argue that sorcs are anything but real honest-to-goodness spontaneous casters...













...either Hel has frozen over, or your DM is just WRONG. I say show him this thread.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-07, 11:39 AM
I've seen people argue that a druid's animal companion can wear metal armor because the book only says that druids can't wear metal armor. Well, people didn't argue that -- one person argued that point.

As Sliver says, if not even one asinine short-sighted rules-lawyer forum troll tries to argue that sorcs are anything but real honest-to-goodness spontaneous casters...













...either Hel has frozen over, or your DM is just WRONG. I say show him this thread.

Wait, why shouldn't companions be able to wear metal armor? The reason for druids not using metal is rather unclear. They don't have a problem with other party members using it.

Mystic Muse
2010-04-07, 12:11 PM
Have your DM explain what he means by in between. It's significantly harder to argue against a point if you're not sure what the point is.

However, yes, Sorcerors are Spontaneous casters. Some bad editing doesn't change that. If your DM is going to argue that Sorceror's aren't spontaneous spellcasters, despite them being the poster boy, and the way they use spells pretty much being the definition of Spontaneous, then Monks aren't proficient with their fists either.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-07, 12:27 PM
I've seen people argue that a druid's animal companion can wear metal armor because the book only says that druids can't wear metal armor. Well, people didn't argue that -- one person argued that point.


But Animal Companion can wear metal: metal armor only interefers wth spellcasting. I don't think Animal companions regularly cast spells. It could be just me though.

SSGoW
2010-04-07, 12:29 PM
armor doesn't effect divine spell casting though.... It effects druids cause it is unnatural or something like that *shrug*

Arcane spell failure not divine spell failure

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-07, 12:38 PM
armor doesn't effect divine spell casting though.... It effects druids cause it is unnatural or something like that *shrug*

Arcane spell failure not divine spell failure

Note how he specifically said metal armor.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-07, 01:00 PM
armor doesn't effect divine spell casting though.... It effects druids cause it is unnatural or something like that *shrug*

Arcane spell failure not divine spell failure

I'm talking Druid spell failure. Metal armor = 100% failure to cast spells for 24 hours after taking it off.

2xMachina
2010-04-07, 01:11 PM
I'm talking Druid spell failure. Metal armor = 100% failure to cast spells for 24 hours after taking it off.

So don't take it off.

/nitpick

:P

John Campbell
2010-04-07, 01:42 PM
I've seen people argue that a druid's animal companion can wear metal armor because the book only says that druids can't wear metal armor. Well, people didn't argue that -- one person argued that point.
Uh... druids' animal companions can wear metal armor. Even if the armor restrictions applied to animal companions - which it doesn't anywhere say or imply that they do - their wearing metal armor would mean only that the animal companion would be "unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter". Which animal companions can't do and don't have anyway.

Note that the ranger's animal companion "functions like the druid ability of the same name", and the half ranger levels even stack with druid levels for animal companion purposes. Do you think a ranger's animal companion is also forbidden from wearing metal armor? Even though rangers aren't?

Delta
2010-04-07, 01:56 PM
I was also curious about that. The quote from the RC seems awfully cut and dry, with no real wiggle room.

Which might be exactly the reason why the OP completely ignored it and still claimed that there was some "interesting debate" going on here... but maybe I'm just too suspicious.

Shadowbane
2010-04-07, 02:07 PM
I don't understand the purpose of this. Everyone gave the evidence, so, uh, why did the OP ignore it all?

Sliver
2010-04-07, 02:08 PM
To keep the interesting debate alive!

satorian
2010-04-07, 02:12 PM
I don't think the DM exists. This is all made up. Also, let's debate how fighters are primarily arcane casters, since in the index there is nothing saying they aren't not divine casters. I'm sure it will be a fascinating discussion.

Optimystik
2010-04-07, 02:12 PM
ya'll are getting trolled. that is the only reasonable explination.

Gonna go with this.

Sliver
2010-04-07, 02:14 PM
I don't think the DM exists. This is all made up. Also, let's debate how fighters are primarily arcane casters, since in the index there is nothing saying they aren't not divine casters. I'm sure it will be a fascinating discussion.

In all fairness, it was an interesting catch. The PHB actually lacks the basic fact and allows for such a RAWtarded discussion/troll to exist in the first place.

Fighter is a gnome subrace.

Optimystik
2010-04-07, 02:16 PM
In all fairness, it was an interesting catch.

In the same way that a train wreck is "interesting," anyway.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-07, 02:18 PM
Well, I mean, if you aren't in the train at the time it might be a memorable sight.

Sliver
2010-04-07, 02:18 PM
They are interesting. (if you are in the train at the time and you survive, it's more memorable then watching it)

Well, sure, 'monks aren't proficient with their fists' had more basis than this entire "debate" but still.. There is nothing to say that can defend the existence of this thread.

Shpadoinkle
2010-04-07, 02:22 PM
i was told that none of these references are proof that sorcerers are spontaneous casters. i need more definitive proof.

...

No offense, but your DM is a total moron.

Volthawk
2010-04-07, 02:22 PM
...

No offense, but your DM is a total moron.

If the DM exists...

Math_Mage
2010-04-07, 02:25 PM
because a sorcerer is "somewhere in between" and according to my GM, a sorcerer is neither spontaneous nor prepared. making a circlet of rapid casting the only viable option to gain a quickened spell.

His logic is broken. Any non-spontaneous caster can take Quicken spell, because no non-spontaneous caster is subject to increased casting time on metamagic spells. EVEN IF his crazy interpretation of the rules were correct, his application of them would STILL be wrong.


i brought up the Metamagic Specialist and am not allowed to take that either because i have had a familiar for 14 levels already... and we cannot re adjudicate that many levels.

Which is why you shuffle your feats around for Obtain Familiar. Nothing changes except the familiar gets stronger (assuming you've been prestige classing). At the very least, this homebrew Circlet should have 3+Int uses/day, to match the ACF.

Not that this matters, because it doesn't get your DM out of the logic trap he's put himself in: either a sorcerer is a spontaneous caster and can't take Quicken Spell without rapid metamagic of some form, but can take Rapid Metamagic the feat; or a sorcerer is not a spontaneous caster (whatever 'in-between' thing the DM says he is), and thus casts metamagic normally and doesn't need rapid metamagic feats to take Quicken Spell.


and it is in fact an interesting debate because of how the PHB has defined spontaneous casting. by somehow omitting sorcs from the glossary definition of spontaneous casters, this has confused not only my DM but other players at my table as well.

That entry defines 'spontaneous casting', the specific special ability listed in the Druid and Cleric class descriptions. It does not define the term itself (and yes, I know how stupid this is, the PHB isn't exactly well-written), nor does it define what a spontaneous caster is. Your DM can't use this glossary entry to support his argument. In any case, such a definition is entirely contradicted by the rest of the book...the rest of the books.


in my eyes the only clear wording is from the imbue familiar spell. which i opened the book and handed it to my GM... and got a "hmm, interesting." but no confirmation that he would go along with it.

First of all, I find it a little odd that you're in contact with your GM enough to go over these suggestions with him in person, but not enough to show him this thread.

Second, that's hardly the only place with clear wording, for a GM with reading comprehension.

PHB, p. 98 (spoiler'd for length):

This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously
(including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast
spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously
cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round
action.
Quite clearly defines sorcerer casting as spontaneous. By the way, it also pauses to make note of the special case where a cleric or druid may cast spontaneously, because in the normal case, they are not spontaneous casters--they are prepared casters. But then, you've seen this quotation before.

PHB, p. 169:

A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types:
arcane (cat by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by
clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some
spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known,
while others have access to a wide variety of options. Most spellcasters
prepare their spells in advance—whether from a spellbook
or through devout prayers and meditation—while some cast spells
spontaneously without preparation. Despite these different ways
that characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to
casting them, the spells are very much alike.
That defines wizards, clerics, and druids as 'preparing their spells in advance' (since they prepare their spells from spellbooks, prayer, and meditation), and sorcerers and bards as 'casting spells spontaneously without preparation' (since that's what they do).

Leaving core for a moment, let's visit Unearthed Arcana, page 155, under the description for the alternate Spell Points magic system:

Characters who cast all their spells spontaneously—such as bards and sorcerers—don’t have to prepare spells.
Can't get plainer than that, can I? How about Complete Mage, the same book Rapid Metamagic comes from? You apparently have access to this book, make use of it. Page 23:

Sorcerers make ideal spies, since they not only have complete access to the most powerful divination spells, but can also spontaneously cast them as needed.
Page 37:

The definition of "available to cast" depends on whether the character prepares spells or casts spontaneously from a list of spells known.

A spellcaster who prepares spells each day (such as a wizard) must have an appropriate spell prepared and not yet cast that day. If the character has more than one appropriate spell prepared and uncast, she gains the benefit only from the highest-level spell; she can't gain multiple benefits, or stack benefits, by preparing more than one appropriate spell.

A spellcaster who does not need to prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher. If the character has more than one appropriate spell known, he gains the benefit only from the highest-level spell for which he has an unused spell slot of that level or higher.
Look at the ultimate magus prestige class, page 77. The prerequisites listed are ability to prepare and cast 2nd-level spells from a spellbook, and ability to spontaneously cast 1st-level spells. So what does the book recommend? That a character looking to enter this prestige class should take levels in wizard and sorcerer!
Scrolling down to page 80:

Another variant might be one that melds two spontaneous casting arcane characters, such as a sorcerer and a warmage, allowing the two to blend their spell lists in a manner similar to the benefit of the expanded spell knowledge class feature.
Again, there is no 'interesting debate' here. There is only a spontaneous caster--the sorcerer--and the DM's inability to see that the sorcerer is a spontaneous caster.

-Summer Glau (http://www.xkcd.com/406/)

PS. Since you are, in all probability, a troll, thanks for giving me the opportunity to whale on you.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-07, 03:02 PM
Wait, why shouldn't companions be able to wear metal armor? The reason for druids not using metal is rather unclear. They don't have a problem with other party members using it.
I can't believe I'm having this discussion again; I thought the problem was just that WotC munchkin. Serves me right for bringing it up. Anyway, here's the rub:

RAW: Druids can't wear metal armor because it violates their tree-hugger principles too much. The restriction isn't mentioned under animal companion rules for the same reason that blaster spells suck: the designers assumed that we would all play the game as they did, and so it simply never occurred to them that a player might want their druid's pet to wear armor. Or at least, it never occurred to them that a player might try to rules-lawyer their way around the druid's armor restriction for their pet.

RAI: Druid pets can't wear metal armor because of common sense. The druid is largely responsible for the pet in much the same way that a parent is responsible for a child. A druid's pet running around freely with metal armor would be like a parent saying "I feel that murder is wrong, so I refuse to do it. But son, you're not me, so I'm ordering you to commit murder." Any sane DM would penalize a druid for dressing his pet in metal armor, just as if the druid had dressed himself in metal armor. (Assuming RAW, that means loss of spells. But a blanket "Screw this armor restriction!" for both the druid and the pet is cool too.)

Starbuck_II
2010-04-07, 03:10 PM
RAI: Druid pets can't wear metal armor because of common sense. The druid is largely responsible for the pet in much the same way that a parent is responsible for a child. A druid's pet running around freely with metal armor would be like a parent saying "I feel that murder is wrong, so I refuse to do it. But son, you're not me, so I'm ordering you to commit murder." Any sane DM would penalize a druid for dressing his pet in metal armor, just as if the druid had dressed himself in metal armor. (Assuming RAW, that means loss of spells. But a blanket "Screw this armor restriction!" for both the druid and the pet is cool too.)

That doesn't even fly if you taped a bad eagle to it.

The animal has not taken the oath: punishing it for your oath is a bad parent.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-07, 03:20 PM
I can't believe I'm having this discussion again; I thought the problem was just that WotC munchkin. Serves me right for bringing it up. Anyway, here's the rub:

RAW: Druids can't wear metal armor because it violates their tree-hugger principles too much. The restriction isn't mentioned under animal companion rules for the same reason that blaster spells suck: the designers assumed that we would all play the game as they did, and so it simply never occurred to them that a player might want their druid's pet to wear armor. Or at least, it never occurred to them that a player might try to rules-lawyer their way around the druid's armor restriction for their pet.

RAI: Druid pets can't wear metal armor because of common sense. The druid is largely responsible for the pet in much the same way that a parent is responsible for a child. A druid's pet running around freely with metal armor would be like a parent saying "I feel that murder is wrong, so I refuse to do it. But son, you're not me, so I'm ordering you to commit murder." Any sane DM would penalize a druid for dressing his pet in metal armor, just as if the druid had dressed himself in metal armor. (Assuming RAW, that means loss of spells. But a blanket "Screw this armor restriction!" for both the druid and the pet is cool too.)

Where are you getting this from? The PHB only mentions metal in relation to druids twice:



Druids avoid carrying much worked metal with them because it
interferes with the pure and primal nature that they attempt to
embody.
(bolded by me)


A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield
is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like
class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

It has nothing to with a druidic code or believing that metal is somehow evil, it just interferes with their casting. If you think that druids shouldn't use metal because it's 'not natural', then they shouldn't be able to use any magic items either, 'cos they're a heck of a lot more unnatural than metal.

You are viewing RAI as "Rules as I interpret them" and forcing your opinions on others. I see nothing in the PHB that says anything other than the fact that metal somehow prevents druid casting. It's never even explained.

Flickerdart
2010-04-07, 03:24 PM
RAI: Druid pets can't wear metal armor because of common sense. The druid is largely responsible for the pet in much the same way that a parent is responsible for a child. A druid's pet running around freely with metal armor would be like a parent saying "I feel that murder is wrong, so I refuse to do it. But son, you're not me, so I'm ordering you to commit murder." Any sane DM would penalize a druid for dressing his pet in metal armor, just as if the druid had dressed himself in metal armor. (Assuming RAW, that means loss of spells. But a blanket "Screw this armor restriction!" for both the druid and the pet is cool too.)
Ok, the Animal Companion loses all his Druidic spells and Druid class abilities. What's that, you say? The Animal Companion cannot cast Druid spells, because he is not a Druid? And that it has no class abilities for the same reason? And it is taking these non-penalties because of the clause in the Armour proficiency listing for a class that it didn't take? Of course the only logical step would be to give these penalties to its master...for some reason. You are free to house rule it this way, but it would just be that, a house rule.

Superglucose
2010-04-07, 03:31 PM
i need a reference to where it states that Sorcs are spontaneous casters. GM says i cant take rapid metamagic cuz sorcs dont spontaneously cast spells.
Sounds like you need a new GM to me...

Vizzerdrix
2010-04-07, 03:32 PM
what ever. Dragonhide fullplate for fido too.

kamikasei
2010-04-07, 03:43 PM
Unfortunately the sections in Complete Arcane and Complete Mage that I thought might straight up say "wizards are prepared casters and sorcerers are spontaneous" don't do so. Fortunately, Math Mage has provided more quotes than I would have been bothered to hunt down showing that the designers considered this self-evident.

Druids: there's no penalty for giving your AC metal barding. There's no penalty for hanging out with an iron golem or living in a house made entirely of mithral. The penalty is for one specific thing: wearing or using metal armor or shields. The other things are just probably out of character for the average druid. (RAI, it doesn't seem likely the designers expected you to give your AC even leather barding.)

Asheram
2010-04-07, 03:43 PM
"Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast. " SRD On sorcerers

"coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause." Spontaneous, on Dictionary.com

Page 139 from the Rules Compendium state that the definition of a sorcerer (above) is a spontaneous spellcaster. (As stated earlier)

Also, on page 139, there is a sidebar stating that the developers play sorcerers as spontaneous spellcasters.

(Btw. Are you allowed to quote the books, since they're not officially sold any longer?)

Delta
2010-04-07, 03:55 PM
-Summer Glau (http://www.xkcd.com/406/)

Words fail me to express the amount of win in this post :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 03:57 PM
(Btw. Are you allowed to quote the books, since they're not officially sold any longer?)

I figure you're allowed to quote books- just not to post big sections of them.

Superglucose
2010-04-07, 03:57 PM
Unfortunately it falls flat on its face for saying "Thanks for giving me the opportunity to whale (http://ecoles.cstrois-lacs.qc.ca/endl/anglais/images/whale.jpg) on you :smalltongue:

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-07, 05:12 PM
Well it's good to know that I can still get people in a huff with nothing more than common sense. I guess that's the price of having more common sense than most.

Let's not derail this thread further with this incoming flame fest. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8244760#post8244760)


Ok, the Animal Companion loses all his Druidic spells and Druid class abilities. What's that, you say? The Animal Companion cannot cast Druid spells, because he is not a Druid? And that it has no class abilities for the same reason? And it is taking these non-penalties because of the clause in the Armour proficiency listing for a class that it didn't take? Of course the only logical step would be to give these penalties to its master...for some reason. You are free to house rule it this way, but it would just be that, a house rule.
You're not even close. Reread my post.

Flickerdart
2010-04-07, 05:15 PM
Well it's good to know that I can still get people in a huff with nothing more than common sense. I guess that's the price of having more common sense than most.

Let's not derail this thread further with this incoming flame fest. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8244760#post8244760)


You're not even close. Reread my post.
I did read your post. You are slapping down the owner for what its pet is doing while the pet is not prohibited form doing it. Your suggestion is silly to the extreme.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-07, 06:17 PM
Unfortunately it falls flat on its face for saying "Thanks for giving me the opportunity to whale (http://ecoles.cstrois-lacs.qc.ca/endl/anglais/images/whale.jpg) on you :smalltongue:Sugar, dolphins aren't whales.

They're fish.* Everyone knows that.





*This is a complete and total lie.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-07, 06:19 PM
Nah, the only true small whales are Narwals which are Jedis of the sea.

Dolphins and porpoises are Jedis who lost their horn. :smallbiggrin:

Math_Mage
2010-04-07, 06:45 PM
Unfortunately it falls flat on its face for saying "Thanks for giving me the opportunity to whale (http://ecoles.cstrois-lacs.qc.ca/endl/anglais/images/whale.jpg) on you :smalltongue:

I am whaling on him. If I had a blue whale and was within 100 feet of him, I would be hitting him with the whale. However, Internet scorn will have to be an acceptable substitute.

Superglucose
2010-04-07, 06:51 PM
Sugar, dolphins aren't whales.
Bollocks to your taxonomy! I preach at the layman I say! THE LAYMAN!

BRC
2010-04-07, 06:51 PM
RAI: Druid pets can't wear metal armor because of common sense. The druid is largely responsible for the pet in much the same way that a parent is responsible for a child. A druid's pet running around freely with metal armor would be like a parent saying "I feel that murder is wrong, so I refuse to do it. But son, you're not me, so I'm ordering you to commit murder." Any sane DM would penalize a druid for dressing his pet in metal armor, just as if the druid had dressed himself in metal armor. (Assuming RAW, that means loss of spells. But a blanket "Screw this armor restriction!" for both the druid and the pet is cool too.)
By this same logic, a Druid shouldn't work with anybody who wears metal armor. Because that would be like somebody going up to their friend and saying "Oh, you're a murderer? Well, I think murder is wrong, but it's your choice". You know, the same way Paladin's can't knowingly associate with evil people. (but Paladins are a whole 'nother story).

No, I think it's pretty clear that druid's don't wear metal armor not for any moral reason, but because it interferes with the magic they wield.

Superglucose
2010-04-07, 06:54 PM
Which is exactly why their animals can't wear it! Because if their animals wear armor, the animals can no longer cast Druid spells.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise: if your animal companion wears metal armor, it loses its druidic powers until 24 hours it takes the armor off.

Shadowbane
2010-04-07, 06:58 PM
-Summer Glau (http://www.xkcd.com/406/)

PS. Since you are, in all probability, a troll, thanks for giving me the opportunity to whale on you.

This post, right here?

Huge amounts of win! Applaud! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc)

kamikasei
2010-04-08, 02:21 AM
Well it's good to know that I can still get people in a huff with nothing more than common sense. I guess that's the price of having more common sense than most.

That's a rather rude way to dismiss others' arguments.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-08, 02:23 PM
i am no troll and i am not making any of this up. i had started this thread to find a definitive answer. and now i have it. to be angered by my seeking the truth was obviously never my intention.

as you can imagine the bad taste the ruling put in my mouth... i was only coming here to seek answers. :smallwink:

i have been reading this conversation without responding because there is no reason to respond until i get further information from my GM. game is sunday.

:smallcool:

Douglas
2010-04-08, 02:46 PM
i have been reading this conversation without responding because there is no reason to respond until i get further information from my GM. game is sunday.
Got your Rules Compendium quote handy with page reference? That's certainly the most definitive one we've found for you.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-08, 05:56 PM
Got your Rules Compendium quote handy with page reference? That's certainly the most definitive one we've found for you.

thats the big one. yeah. cant deny that source. :smallamused: just hope that once this comes to light that its not just a "nope"

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-08, 05:57 PM
thats the big one. yeah. cant deny that source. :smallamused: just hope that once this comes to light that its not just a "nope"

If he says no, please, I beg of you, show him this thread.
(actually I think you should show him regardless, but still)

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-08, 06:01 PM
Use this reference as well.

The Pros and Cons of a Sorcerer (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050113a)
-snip-
Sorcerer Assets
-snip-
* Spontaneous Spellcasting: A sorcerer doesn't have a spellbook; instead, he chooses a personal repertoire of spells that he can cast anytime. He does have a daily limit on the number of spells of each level he can cast, but he can freely cast any spell he knows until he reaches that limit. So he doesn't have to guess ahead of time which spells to prepare -- if he needs to cast a particular spell several times in the same day, he can do so.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-08, 06:05 PM
If he says no, please, I beg of you, show him this thread.
(actually I think you should show him regardless, but still)

he has been a very good friend of mine for roughly 10 years. while i have said nothing derogatory about him in this thread... i not so sure the other peoples comments are going to make him feel good. hes not a regular forum wh*re like the rest of us... while we are completely desensitized to the low blows that these type of forums generate.

basically i dont want to hurt his feelings by rubbing his nose it it. hopefully it will be a seamless small V for my little sorc.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-08, 06:11 PM
he has been a very good friend of mine for roughly 10 years. while i have said nothing derogatory about him in this thread... i not so sure the other peoples comments are going to make him feel good. hes not a regular forum wh*re like the rest of us... while we are completely desensitized to the low blows that these type of forums generate.

basically i dont want to hurt his feelings by rubbing his nose it it. hopefully it will be a seamless small V for my little sorc.

Ha, ha, hahaha! Oh my, you are hilarious. Low blows that Giant in the Playground generates? This forum is one of the the tamest and most civil I have ever been on.

I understand that though. He sounds like the type that always thinks that he is right though, so a little humility wouldn't hurt :smallwink:. Any other strange rulings by any chance? Or is this an isolated incident?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-08, 08:13 PM
not too many other strange rulings. and yes i agree these forums are MUCH more tame than most others i have been involved with. (mainly past PVP MMO threads that just get downright illegal!)

i think it was the glossary insert for spontaneous casters that really swayed his thought. its shifty not to include sorcs.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-08, 08:32 PM
he has been a very good friend of mine for roughly 10 years. while i have said nothing derogatory about him in this thread... i not so sure the other peoples comments are going to make him feel good. hes not a regular forum wh*re like the rest of us... while we are completely desensitized to the low blows that these type of forums generate.

basically i dont want to hurt his feelings by rubbing his nose it it. hopefully it will be a seamless small V for my little sorc.
Well there's an easy solution to that: report all the derogatory posts to the mods, wait till they get scrubbed and then show your DM. Oh wait, he'd only have like three posts to read......

So instead, start a new thread on the same topic and all of us will simply post "YES, sorcs are spontaneous casters." And then show that thread to your DM.

:smallbiggrin:

Evard
2010-04-08, 09:42 PM
he has been a very good friend of mine for roughly 10 years. while i have said nothing derogatory about him in this thread... i not so sure the other peoples comments are going to make him feel good. hes not a regular forum wh*re like the rest of us... while we are completely desensitized to the low blows that these type of forums generate.

basically i dont want to hurt his feelings by rubbing his nose it it. hopefully it will be a seamless small V for my little sorc.

Why are you bothering with this thread anymore then? You're afraid to show this to your friend because you're afraid your friend's feelings will be hurt (which is a horrible reason not to tell someone something in almost every case) what point will this thread have unless you show it to your DM

If you really have a problem with this still... Just play 4e

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-08, 09:53 PM
Why are you bothering with this thread anymore then? You're afraid to show this to your friend because you're afraid your friend's feelings will be hurt (which is a horrible reason not to tell someone something in almost every case) what point will this thread have unless you show it to your DM

If you really have a problem with this still... Just play 4e

:smallconfused: That solves nothing at all. Just introduces more rules for the DM to misinterpret because of bad writing.

Evard
2010-04-08, 10:24 PM
If he messes up 4e then there is no hope for him... You almost have to TRY to mess with the basic rules of that edition....

And it solves everything. Its easier to understand and easier to play and about 100 times easier to DM for. Just make sure he reads the DMG and each book he will allow in game play front to back (give him a quiz on it?).

4e gets rid of the spontaneous vs prepared spell (vs half and half spell casting? serious what in the world?) casting problem completely :smalltongue: lol

Ashiel
2010-04-08, 10:33 PM
If he messes up 4e then there is no hope for him... You almost have to TRY to mess with the basic rules of that edition....

And it solves everything. Its easier to understand and easier to play and about 100 times easier to DM for. Just make sure he reads the DMG and each book he will allow in game play front to back (give him a quiz on it?).

4e gets rid of the spontaneous vs prepared spell (vs half and half spell casting? serious what in the world?) casting problem completely :smalltongue: lol

If he's giving the OP problems about Sorcerers being spontaneous casters in 3E, I swear to you that a core 4E multi-class (ranger) will never enter into any ranger paragon paths; especially since you have to ignore the RAW to make it work correctly.

Just sayin'. :smallwink:

Abd al-Azrad
2010-04-08, 10:39 PM
If he messes up 4e then there is no hope for him... You almost have to TRY to mess with the basic rules of that edition....

One could argue that it is a noteworthy effort to dismiss the idea that Sorcerers are spontaneous casters, given that they bloody define the ability. Their spell slots do absolutely nothing, unless they spontaneously convert them into a spell from a small, pre-prepared list. The fact that they get to choose the list of spells they can spontaneously convert their slots into does not change the mechanism by which they cast spells.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-08, 10:57 PM
If he messes up 4e then there is no hope for him... You almost have to TRY to mess with the basic rules of that edition....

And it solves everything. Its easier to understand and easier to play and about 100 times easier to DM for. Just make sure he reads the DMG and each book he will allow in game play front to back (give him a quiz on it?).

4e gets rid of the spontaneous vs prepared spell (vs half and half spell casting? serious what in the world?) casting problem completely :smalltongue: lol

The issue is not system complexity, or prepare and spontaneous casters, it is a problem with a DM strictly following the RAW of badly written stuff. That is system universal. Designers make mistakes.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-09, 02:24 AM
The issue is not system complexity, or prepare and spontaneous casters, it is a problem with a DM strictly following the RAW of badly written stuff. That is system universal. Designers make mistakes.

1234567890

Mystic Muse
2010-04-09, 03:24 AM
1234567890

If you're trying to make the point I think you are then I agree.

zero being after nine has bothered me for years.:smalltongue:

Barbarian MD
2010-04-09, 08:21 AM
I have a question.

In reading your DM's understanding of SPONTANEOUS casting, I wonder if he doesn't have it confused with QUICKEN SPELL, or a Cleric's version of SPONTANEOUS casting, which actually just CONVERTS prepared spells.

Spontaneous: doesn't prepare spells in advance.

Cleric: prepares in advance, but can spontaneously convert a prepared spell to a healing spell.

Quicken (metamagic): cast as an immediate action.

Talk to him about the difference between these three things, if you think it would help.

Douglas
2010-04-09, 08:58 AM
I have a question.

In reading your DM's understanding of SPONTANEOUS casting, I wonder if he doesn't have it confused with QUICKEN SPELL, or a Cleric's version of SPONTANEOUS casting, which actually just CONVERTS prepared spells.

Spontaneous: doesn't prepare spells in advance.

Cleric: prepares in advance, but can spontaneously convert a prepared spell to a healing spell.

Quicken (metamagic): cast as an immediate action.

Talk to him about the difference between these three things, if you think it would help.
The issue appears to be that the DM saw the word "spontaneous" in the name of the Cleric and Druid abilities to convert to Cure and SNA spells, noted the lack of that word in the description of Sorcerer casting, and assumed that "spontaneous" had a particular specific game mechanics meaning in D&D and that Sorcerers don't qualify because their class description doesn't explicitly use that specific term.

Also, Quicken makes casting take a swift action, not an immediate action. No using it to cast out of turn.

Yora
2010-04-09, 09:36 AM
One could argue that it is a noteworthy effort to dismiss the idea that Sorcerers are spontaneous casters, given that they bloody define the ability. Their spell slots do absolutely nothing, unless they spontaneously convert them into a spell from a small, pre-prepared list. The fact that they get to choose the list of spells they can spontaneously convert their slots into does not change the mechanism by which they cast spells.
The point is, that the word spontaneous doesn't appear anywhere.

Caphi
2010-04-09, 10:55 AM
The point is, that the word spontaneous doesn't appear anywhere.

Anywhere except just about any time something references modifies "spontaneous arcane casting" and makes specific reference to sorcerors, occasionally mentioning bards if it can be bothered. This entire thread is now bristling with such examples dug up by various users.

nyarlathotep
2010-04-09, 11:12 AM
You could always show him example sorcerers in the Races of the Dragon that have rapid metamagic.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-09, 11:13 AM
Anywhere except just about any time something references modifies "spontaneous arcane casting" and makes specific reference to sorcerors, occasionally mentioning bards if it can be bothered. This entire thread is now bristling with such examples dug up by various users.


there is only two that are cut and dry... all of the others outside of the WotC sorcerer description and the blurb from the editor in the Rules Compendium are written poorly. especially all of the contradicting things in the PHB and its glossary explanation doesnt even mention sorcerers. which is the original reason for the confusion.

warmachine
2010-04-09, 01:16 PM
There is a difference between a pedantic and legalistic interpretation of RAW, which can be confusing, and RAI, which in this case, is blatantly obvious. The dead state is described in the PHB, making it a game term and, thus, overriding the English language meaning but it does not preclude the character executing actions. Nonetheless, it's blatantly obvious that a dead character cannot act. Similarly, it's blatantly obvious that a Sorcerer is a spontaneous spellcaster.

Even then, the feat states "ability to spontaneously cast spells", which is not a game term and does not state "is a spontaneous caster", which is. Even if a Sorcerer is not a spontaneous spellcaster, the feat prerequisite describes in English language terms, not game terms, and therefore must be judged by English language terms. A Fighter with a feat to cast any orison without preparation once a month still has the ability to spontaneously cast spells (just slowly) and qualifies even if the game term spontaneous spellcaster does not apply.

That is, not only is the DM's RAW interpretation incorrect, he can't even judge rule intentions and, on top of that, he can't even read rules properly in the first place.

Fortunately, rules interpretation is not an essential ability for a DM himself. Tell the DM he must hand over rules interpretation to the rules lawyer of the group and concentrate on the story and characters.

Murphy80
2010-04-09, 09:34 PM
The glossary definition is apples and oranges.

"Spontaneous Casting: The special ability of a cleric to drop a
prepared spell (but not a domain spell) to gain a cure or inflict spell of
the same level or lower, or of a druid to drop a prepared spell to gain
a summon nature’s ally spell of the same level or lower. Since the
substitution of spells occurs on the spur of the moment, clerics need
not prepare their cure or inflict spells in advance, nor do druids need
to prepare their summon nature’s ally spells in advance.
square: A square on the battle grid. A square is 1 inch on"

Spontaneous Casting is the name of the druid and cleric class ability and has nothing whatsoever to do with Sorcerers. It is not talking about which classes use spontaneous spellcasting.

Asheram
2010-04-10, 03:09 AM
The glossary definition is apples and oranges.

"Spontaneous Casting: The special ability of a cleric to drop a
prepared spell (but not a domain spell) to gain a cure or inflict spell of
the same level or lower, or of a druid to drop a prepared spell to gain
a summon nature’s ally spell of the same level or lower. Since the
substitution of spells occurs on the spur of the moment, clerics need
not prepare their cure or inflict spells in advance, nor do druids need
to prepare their summon nature’s ally spells in advance.
square: A square on the battle grid. A square is 1 inch on"

Spontaneous Casting is the name of the druid and cleric class ability and has nothing whatsoever to do with Sorcerers. It is not talking about which classes use spontaneous spellcasting.

From the Wizard 3.5 archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20050113a)

Spontaneous Spellcasting: A sorcerer doesn't have a spellbook; instead, he chooses a personal repertoire of spells that he can cast anytime. He does have a daily limit on the number of spells of each level he can cast, but he can freely cast any spell he knows until he reaches that limit. So he doesn't have to guess ahead of time which spells to prepare -- if he needs to cast a particular spell several times in the same day, he can do so.

Murphy80
2010-04-10, 04:57 AM
Asheram I am referring to this;

there is only two that are cut and dry... all of the others outside of the WotC sorcerer description and the blurb from the editor in the Rules Compendium are written poorly. especially all of the contradicting things in the PHB and its glossary explanation doesnt even mention sorcerers. which is the original reason for the confusion.

Of course Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. But the OP and her DM are being confused by the glossary in the PHB. I am just pointing out that the reason Sorcerers aren't mentioned in it is because it is referring to a specific class ability and not a form of spellcasting.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 09:42 AM
Asheram I am referring to this;


Of course Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. But the OP and her DM are being confused by the glossary in the PHB. I am just pointing out that the reason Sorcerers aren't mentioned in it is because it is referring to a specific class ability and not a form of spellcasting.

however, the logic of putting that blurb in the glossary and NOT including anything about sorcs is absurd. in fact there is no cut and dry evidence in the PHB at all about sorcerers being spontaneous. its all open for interpretation. everything, no matter how assumed, should be in black and white. and in this case the core book, unfortunately, is not. WotC fail.

Sliver
2010-04-10, 09:46 AM
however, the logic of putting that blurb in the glossary and NOT including anything about sorcs is absurd. in fact there is no cut and dry evidence in the PHB at all about sorcerers being spontaneous. its all open for interpretation. everything, no matter how assumed, should be in black and white. and in this case the core book, unfortunately, is not. WotC fail.

And yet, unlike the monk's lack of unarmed proficiency that was brought up before, this was never brought up before this thread. No one had ever thought that the feat that was basically designed for sorcerers won't apply to sorcerers because they don't... Convert prepared spells to a specific set of spells?

kamikasei
2010-04-10, 09:47 AM
Yes, there does seem to have been an editing screwup where they didn't specifically call sorcerers out as spontaneous in the core books.

That said, I'm not sure they refer to spontaneous casting otherwise in core, either, in any way that matters. If you look at sources outside of core where they use "spontaneous caster" in a way that is intended to refer to sorcerers, you'll also find many, many statements of the form "spontaneous caster (like a sorcerer)", sorcerers listed as examples to which the relevant class or feature applies, etc. So pointing out that core doesn't say "sorcerers are spontaneous casters" doesn't really support a claim that Rapid Metamagic doesn't apply to them.

Barbarian MD
2010-04-10, 09:58 AM
whyte, the link in post 176 is solid gold, and it's directly from WotC's website.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-10, 10:00 AM
Yes, there does seem to have been an editing screwup where they didn't specifically call sorcerers out as spontaneous in the core books.

That said, I'm not sure they refer to spontaneous casting otherwise in core, either, in any way that matters. If you look at sources outside of core where they use "spontaneous caster" in a way that is intended to refer to sorcerers, you'll also find many, many statements of the form "spontaneous caster (like a sorcerer)", sorcerers listed as examples to which the relevant class or feature applies, etc. So pointing out that core doesn't say "sorcerers are spontaneous casters" doesn't really support a claim that Rapid Metamagic doesn't apply to them.

precisely my argument. i basically told my gm that if he doesnt want me to take the feat. give me a reason and i will go by it. "its your game!" i told him.

Math_Mage
2010-04-11, 12:35 AM
there is only two that are cut and dry... all of the others outside of the WotC sorcerer description and the blurb from the editor in the Rules Compendium are written poorly. especially all of the contradicting things in the PHB and its glossary explanation doesnt even mention sorcerers. which is the original reason for the confusion.

Not to put too fine a point on it--the contradictions don't exist, the glossary explanation is irrelevant, and 90% of the references that have been provided (including the special description for Quicken Spell from the PHB) are clear and unambiguous. I dread the moment your DM starts dealing with grappling rules. No one is denying that the books are poorly written, but this specific issue is not debatable, even if you stick to core (which makes no sense, since Rapid Metamagic isn't core). Yes, your DM can rule that sorcerers can't take Rapid Metamagic, but he can't pretend that such a rule is RAW or RAI.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 11:01 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it--the contradictions don't exist, the glossary explanation is irrelevant, and 90% of the references that have been provided (including the special description for Quicken Spell from the PHB) are clear and unambiguous. I dread the moment your DM starts dealing with grappling rules. No one is denying that the books are poorly written, but this specific issue is not debatable, even if you stick to core (which makes no sense, since Rapid Metamagic isn't core). Yes, your DM can rule that sorcerers can't take Rapid Metamagic, but he can't pretend that such a rule is RAW or RAI.

im beginning to see a trend with you my friend. :smallamused:

Shadowbane
2010-04-11, 11:29 AM
im beginning to see a trend with you my friend. :smallamused:

Yes, well, he is right.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-11, 11:55 AM
im beginning to see a trend with you my friend. :smallamused:

The trend that is always right? :smallwink:

warmachine
2010-04-11, 12:18 PM
I disagree with Math_Mage in that there is a contradiction. The PHB glossary describes spontaneous casting and omits the spellcasting of sorcerers and bards. This still means the DM is an idiot. A glossary is normally a definitive answer but one piece of evidence does not override all other pieces. It is merely has weight compared to opposing evidence when measuring the balance of evidence. In this case, it is opposed by all other evidence and lots of it. One glossary entry does not outweigh numerous entries in the main text: it is clearly a mistake. The evidence in favour does not even state that sorcerers aren't spontaneous casters, it is inferred by omission. It is not so much a contradiction, more forgetfulness by the author and editors.

Even if we accept that Sorcerers are not spontaneous casters, he's still wrong about related rulings for reasons described previously. He is not mistaken, he is an idiot. Or he might be a jerk who refuses to admit he's wrong.

Yuki Akuma
2010-04-11, 12:42 PM
im beginning to see a trend with you my friend. :smallamused:

The trend that he always disagrees with anything your DM says and is always unambiguously right?

absolmorph
2010-04-11, 01:37 PM
I disagree with Math_Mage in that there is a contradiction. The PHB glossary describes spontaneous casting and omits the spellcasting of sorcerers and bards. This still means the DM is an idiot. A glossary is normally a definitive answer but one piece of evidence does not override all other pieces. It is merely has weight compared to opposing evidence when measuring the balance of evidence. In this case, it is opposed by all other evidence and lots of it. One glossary entry does not outweigh numerous entries in the main text: it is clearly a mistake. The evidence in favour does not even state that sorcerers aren't spontaneous casters, it is inferred by omission. It is not so much a contradiction, more forgetfulness by the author and editors.

Even if we accept that Sorcerers are not spontaneous casters, he's still wrong about related rulings for reasons described previously. He is not mistaken, he is an idiot. Or he might be a jerk who refuses to admit he's wrong.
The glossary definition is for the cleric and druid class ability.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, no contradiction.

warmachine
2010-04-11, 03:13 PM
The glossary definition is for the cleric and druid class ability.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Thus, no contradiction.
Reading comprehension fail. As a glossary is supposed to be a definitive statement and, in this case, does not state its set of classes is incomplete, which is commonly achieved with the phrase "for example" or "includes", this infers that Cleric and Druid classes are the only members of the set that employ spontaneous casting. This is the source of the DM's mistake. That the inference is clearly incorrect does not alter that the entry makes the inference.

Also, when describing an incomplete set, it is best to use examples that are as dissimilar as possible to avoid implying that the common properties of similar members are the definition of the set. In this case, the similar mechanics of Cleric and Druid spontaneous casting reinforces the incorrect inference.

To avoid this inference, the glossary entry could by "spontaneous casting: the ability to choose any allowed spell on the spur of the moment. This includes the Cleric ability to drop a prepared spell to gain a cure or inflict spell of the same level or lower, or the Druid ability to drop a prepared spell to gain a summon nature's ally spell of the same level or lower." It is the word "includes" that states the set is incomplete. Better yet, the entry could describe the lack of prepared spells by a Sorcerer.

That the DM understands inference in one case does not excuse that he ignores clear statements in others, showing that he's an idiot.

EDIT: I withdraw the accusation that absolmorph can't read properly. It is likely that he's American and, thus, uses American English, which is a different language.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 04:41 PM
update: after todays game. i was allowed to take rapid metamagic only with the terms that i give up my familiar to servitude in the mage academy. so i in turn took the alternative class feature for sorcs... but, also had to take the feat as well. whatever it takes i suppose. /shrug

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-11, 04:47 PM
update: after todays game. i was allowed to take rapid metamagic only with the terms that i give up my familiar to servitude in the mage academy. so i in turn took the alternative class feature for sorcs... but, also had to take the feat as well. whatever it takes i suppose. /shrug

:smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

Did he at least say why?!?!?

JoshuaZ
2010-04-11, 04:52 PM
update: after todays game. i was allowed to take rapid metamagic only with the terms that i give up my familiar to servitude in the mage academy. so i in turn took the alternative class feature for sorcs... but, also had to take the feat as well. whatever it takes i suppose. /shrug

Um, what? That makes zero sense. Did he give an explanation?

absolmorph
2010-04-11, 05:00 PM
Reading comprehension fail. As a glossary is supposed to be a definitive statement and, in this case, does not state its set of classes is incomplete, which is commonly achieved with the phrase "for example" or "includes", this infers that Cleric and Druid classes are the only members of the set that employ spontaneous casting. This is the source of the DM's mistake. That the inference is clearly incorrect does not alter that the entry makes the inference.


Ahem.


Spontaneous Casting: The special ability of a cleric to drop a
prepared spell (but not a domain spell) to gain a cure or inflict spell of
the same level or lower, or of a druid to drop a prepared spell to gain
a summon nature’s ally spell of the same level or lower. Since the
substitution of spells occurs on the spur of the moment, clerics need
not prepare their cure or inflict spells in advance, nor do druids need
to prepare their summon nature’s ally spells in advance.

Notice how it says "ability".
You were saying?



Also, when describing an incomplete set, it is best to use examples that are as dissimilar as possible to avoid implying that the common properties of similar members are the definition of the set. In this case, the similar mechanics of Cleric and Druid spontaneous casting reinforces the incorrect inference.

To avoid this inference, the glossary entry could by "spontaneous casting: the ability to choose any allowed spell on the spur of the moment. This includes the Cleric ability to drop a prepared spell to gain a cure or inflict spell of the same level or lower, or the Druid ability to drop a prepared spell to gain a summon nature's ally spell of the same level or lower." It is the word "includes" that states the set is incomplete. Better yet, the entry could describe the lack of prepared spells by a Sorcerer.

That the DM understands inference in one case does not excuse that he ignores clear statements in others, showing that he's an idiot.

EDIT: I withdraw the accusation that absolmorph can't read properly. It is likely that he's American and, thus, uses American English, which is a different language.
Really, this is all irrelevant, since I explained my point above. And it's previously published material that isn't gonna get changed.
Although, yes, I'm American.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 05:02 PM
his words were. "in order to take that feat... or train in that particular type of magic. you will have to give your familiar up. this is your option."

its his table and his rules. i get my feat... at a cost no doubt. but, i get it. /shrug

i guess ill take it. but, he better be prepared when i get my 16th level quicken feat.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-11, 05:19 PM
his words were. "in order to take that feat... or train in that particular type of magic. you will have to give your familiar up. this is your option."

its his table and his rules. i get my feat... at a cost no doubt. but, i get it. /shrug

i guess ill take it. but, he better be prepared when i get my 16th level quicken feat.

Did you show him the RC quote? The WotC website article? This ENTIRE thread?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 05:25 PM
Did you show him the RC quote? The WotC website article? This ENTIRE thread?

yes. all was shown. except the thread. i dont wanna be a whiny PC. just not my style. ill take his rules as given to me.

meanwhile at the table. we have an exalted, vow of poverty monk, AND a cleric of hades/ sacred exorcist with his positive energy bombs for turning. (so no control on these obvs OP classes. but, the sorc gets nerfed to hell and back!) :smallcool:

i get stuck with the sorc6/rog3/unseen seer 2/arcane trickster3

i had tried to take hunter's eye from the PHB2 for my unseen seer div spell. but, was told that it applies to melee only.

kamikasei
2010-04-11, 05:28 PM
Did he offer any reasoning at all?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 05:29 PM
Did he offer any reasoning at all?

none. but, he has at least abandoned the idea of sorcs not being spontaneous.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-11, 05:34 PM
we have an exalted, vow of poverty monkJust thank the gods you're not that guy. You'd be REALLY screwed, then.

Amphetryon
2010-04-11, 05:34 PM
yes. all was shown. except the thread. i dont wanna be a whiny PC. just not my style. ill take his rules as given to me.

meanwhile at the table. we have an exalted, vow of poverty monk, AND a cleric of hades/ sacred exorcist with his positive energy bombs for turning. (so no control on these obvs OP classes. but, the sorc gets nerfed to hell and back!) :smallcool:

i get stuck with the sorc6/rog3/unseen seer 2/arcane trickster3

i had tried to take hunter's eye from the PHB2 for my unseen seer div spell. but, was told that it applies to melee only.

Quibble: VoP Monk is not overpowered, by most every measure I know of. They don't hit as well as they would with $, and they're stuck hoping to hitch a ride from someone with an actual means of flight by about level 8, give or take. Positive energy turning bombs are potentially problematic, unless the player is only using them to actually turn undead, instead of using them to fuel DMM.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 05:39 PM
Quibble: VoP Monk is not overpowered, by most every measure I know of. They don't hit as well as they would with $, and they're stuck hoping to hitch a ride from someone with an actual means of flight by about level 8, give or take. Positive energy turning bombs are potentially problematic, unless the player is only using them to actually turn undead, instead of using them to fuel DMM.

yes its true. but im the only arcane caster in the group. and im the one being limited.

side note... any other suggestions for a sneak attack ray build spell outside of sorc/wiz spells to take for my second level of unseen seer?

kamikasei
2010-04-11, 05:41 PM
none. but, he has at least abandoned the idea of sorcs not being spontaneous.

Oh, so he's conceding the point but pegging the feat as high-powered?

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 05:42 PM
Oh, so he's conceding the point but pegging the feat as high-powered?

seems to be the case. i think its an attempt at balance still. sucks, but i guess i get it.

Kish
2010-04-11, 05:44 PM
I was thinking, "I think he doesn't like you," until you mentioned being the only arcane caster there.

The goofiness about sorcerers not being spontaneous casters was still maddening.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-11, 05:55 PM
yes its true. but im the only arcane caster in the group. and im the one being limited.

side note... any other suggestions for a sneak attack ray build spell outside of sorc/wiz spells to take for my second level of unseen seer?Well, if you give yourself the [psionic] subtype you can take the Psionic Shot feat to add +2d6 damage to any ranged attack you make (whether it does damage otherwise or not) so you can sneak attack even with things that don't normally let you (such as antimagic ray, for instance).

Also, either take a reserve feat or Shape Soulmeld: Dissolving Spittle so you can sneak attack without using up your spells. Also, telekinesis is great, since you can sneak attack up to 15 targets. Split Ray and (possibly) Chain Spell are good for this as well, since they let you target more than one creature. Combine for more fun. Chained launch bolts is an excellent use of a cantrip from the Spell Compendium.

Sneak attack with single-target ranged touch-attack spells such as ray of enfeeblement, ray of stupidity, and possibly enervation as well. It's nice to deal an extra 5d6 points of Strength damage, after all.

Also, you may want to learn yourself polymorph, and check out the roper from the monster Manual. 6 attacks, each doing 2d8 + Sneak Attack Str damage per round? Very nice.

Also also, if you have any spare feats, consider taking the Assume Supernatural Ability: Pixie (greater invisibility) feat, so that when you polymorph into a pixie you can get greater invisibility at will. Nice to sneak attack things every round, especially if you also have the Darkstalker feat.

Also also also, psionics is a bit more multiclass-friendly. Have you considered making an ardent or psion build for this?

Claudius Maximus
2010-04-11, 06:00 PM
Sneak Attack adds negative energy damage to ability damaging effects, rather than adding extra ability damage.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-11, 06:02 PM
Sneak Attack adds negative energy damage to ability damaging effects, rather than adding extra ability damage.Damage is damage no matter how small whether it's ability damage or hp-damage.

Do you have a source, perchance?

Anonymouswizard
2010-04-11, 06:09 PM
Damage is damage no matter how small whether it's ability damage or hp-damage.

Do you have a source, perchance?

It should be in complete arcane pg. 86, the sentence that starts with "the exception is spells that deal..." in the second paragraph in the sneak attacks section.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 06:09 PM
being that we plan on going epic with the campaign... i want to be able to build my toon to be able to deal with this when it comes. i have the feats i want and have plans for future feats... however i just need a decent Div spell i can take for outside of the wiz/sorc spell list.

edit: psionics are not allowed.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-11, 06:35 PM
It should be in complete arcane pg. 86, the sentence that starts with "the exception is spells that deal..." in the second paragraph in the sneak attacks section.So it is.

I have never seen that passage before.

However, you can critical with those, dealing extra ability damage and negative levels; it's broken to allow it, but you'd think sneak attack would do something similar.

Oh well. They caught a really nasty trick and patched it up, so I guess it's all good.

Good catch.


edit: psionics are not allowed.Unfortunate. Psionics is awesome.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-11, 06:46 PM
Unfortunate. Psionics is awesome.

aye you are correct.

TheYoungKing
2010-04-11, 07:08 PM
And then he'd insist that psions prepare their spells.....

liquid150
2010-04-12, 08:43 AM
I know I'm fairly new here, but I'd like to award this thread with a prestigious honor.

This DM has been awarded the Epic Fail of the Week award. Stay tuned for further awards.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/epic-failure.jpg

satorian
2010-04-12, 09:44 AM
I think you are paying too high a price.

1) be a straight sorcerer, only prestige classing at 6th, and perhaps again when that one is done.
2) lose a maximum of 1 caster level.
3) use your precious few feats elsewhere (prophecy's shaper feat is good, if eberron is allowed).
4) use metamagic rods for metamagic, not your feats, which are too few.
5) consider being dragon blooded so you can use dragonblood only spells from RotD.

Consider awesome PrCs, such as IotSFV, or quirky ones like Dracolexi, and prove him he's barking up the wrong "overpowered" tree.

Or you could go the other direction and be a blaster with no metamagic, show him how useless you are, die tragically, and hope he lets you do something better for your next character.

Kish
2010-04-12, 12:26 PM
4) use metamagic rods for metamagic, not your feats, which are too few.

Access to magical items is always at the DM's discretion. You want to bet on this DM giving him metamagic rods, or letting him craft them? I sure wouldn't.

Superglucose
2010-04-12, 12:35 PM
It's a GM that's concerned about a monk. An intentionally nerfed monk who's using Vow of Poverty.

I for one am not surprised at the attempt to nerf rapid metamagic.

Sliver
2010-04-12, 12:39 PM
I didn't get the impression that the DM is worried about the monk... Only 1 place mentioned OP and monks...


meanwhile at the table. we have an exalted, vow of poverty monk, AND a cleric of hades/ sacred exorcist with his positive energy bombs for turning. (so no control on these obvs OP classes. but, the sorc gets nerfed to hell and back!) :smallcool:

So Whyte_Widow referred to the monk and cleric as obviously overpowered...

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-12, 12:57 PM
I didn't get the impression that the DM is worried about the monk... Only 1 place mentioned OP and monks...



So Whyte_Widow referred to the monk and cleric as obviously overpowered...

i was refurring to this as examples of classes at the table that he is not limiting in any way, shape, or form. but, the caster gets the short straw. :smallamused:

Sliver
2010-04-12, 12:58 PM
The arcane caster, you wanted to say... :smallwink:

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-12, 01:10 PM
The arcane caster, you wanted to say... :smallwink:

chocked full of win.

absolmorph
2010-04-12, 01:11 PM
The arcane caster, you wanted to say... :smallwink:
Yup, but not the DMM-ripe cleric :smallwink:

RelentlessImp
2010-04-12, 01:11 PM
The arcane caster, you wanted to say... :smallwink:

It's not as if divine magic is REAL magic... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html)

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-04-12, 01:20 PM
It seems it doesn't really matter anymore, but aren't Sorcerers (and other "spontaneous" casters) called impromptu casters? Maybe that's where your DM was having his trouble, though it seems to be really only a matter of semantics. (It also makes the glossary entry for "spontaneous" make more sense.)

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-12, 01:27 PM
It seems it doesn't really matter anymore, but aren't Sorcerers (and other "spontaneous" casters) called impromptu casters? Maybe that's where your DM was having his trouble, though it seems to be really only a matter of semantics. (It also makes the glossary entry for "spontaneous" make more sense.)

Not exactly sure what you're getting at... Impromptu is just a synonym for spontaneous.

(and I can't recall any book calling them impromptu either)

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-12, 01:33 PM
im not positive of what you are getting @ either. i think i have a masters on the subject at this point... and all this time i have spent delving through books trying to find definitive answers.... :smallbiggrin:

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-04-12, 01:38 PM
Not exactly sure what you're getting at... Impromptu is just a synonym for spontaneous.

(and I can't recall any book calling them impromptu either)

Like I said, probably just a matter of semantics. I'm AFB right now so I can't give any page numbers or anything but there are lots of feats and/or PrC entry requirements that use the phrase "Able to cast Impromptu Arcane spells" or some such and generally refer to sorcerers as their example, IIRC. (Arcane Preparation (CArc p73) has that as a prerequisite in the index on Crystalkeep, but like I said, I'm AFB, so I can't check the wording in the book. I wasn't trying to say the person was right or anything, just that the obvious confusion may lie in the wording rather than the meaning. I'm pretty sure that in 3.5 "impromptu" and "spontaneous" are pretty much interchangeable, because earlier books say the latter and later books say the former. I think. I don't really remember...)

EDIT: Come to think of it, "impromptu" may have started being used to try to keep people form some silly shenanigans, like using feats designed with Sorcerers and other impromptu casters in mind with Clerics and Druids arguing that they qualify because of their spontaneous casting ability.

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-12, 01:45 PM
a little off topic here... but is there a thread or a list of acronyms that are commonly used in these threads? ive found myself baffled by some people's posts because i cannot for the life of me grasp the acronym being used.

Volthawk
2010-04-12, 01:46 PM
a little off topic here... but is there a thread or a list of acronyms that are commonly used in these threads? ive found myself baffled by some people's posts because i cannot for the life of me grasp the acronym being used.

Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512)

Whyte_Widow
2010-04-12, 01:50 PM
Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18512)

quick trigger finger. thanks.

Volthawk
2010-04-12, 01:51 PM
quick trigger finger. thanks.

Just so you know, the sticky in this section has a link to that.

Douglas
2010-04-12, 02:06 PM
Like I said, probably just a matter of semantics. I'm AFB right now so I can't give any page numbers or anything but there are lots of feats and/or PrC entry requirements that use the phrase "Able to cast Impromptu Arcane spells" or some such and generally refer to sorcerers as their example, IIRC. (Arcane Preparation (CArc p73) has that as a prerequisite in the index on Crystalkeep, but like I said, I'm AFB, so I can't check the wording in the book. I wasn't trying to say the person was right or anything, just that the obvious confusion may lie in the wording rather than the meaning. I'm pretty sure that in 3.5 "impromptu" and "spontaneous" are pretty much interchangeable, because earlier books say the latter and later books say the former. I think. I don't really remember...)

EDIT: Come to think of it, "impromptu" may have started being used to try to keep people form some silly shenanigans, like using feats designed with Sorcerers and other impromptu casters in mind with Clerics and Druids arguing that they qualify because of their spontaneous casting ability.
Er, are you using foreign language (i.e. non-English) translations of the rulebooks? Because I am quite certain that "spontaneous" is the term used for Sorcerer-like casting throughout ALL of 3.5, from beginning to end, without exception. "Impromptu" simply does not appear.

Asheram
2010-04-12, 02:13 PM
I think we just have a case of "Scaerdy cat GM"
A GM that've read all the optimisation threads and overthinks his players decisions.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-04-12, 02:19 PM
Er, are you using foreign language (i.e. non-English) translations of the rulebooks? Because I am quite certain that "spontaneous" is the term used for Sorcerer-like casting throughout ALL of 3.5, from beginning to end, without exception. "Impromptu" simply does not appear.

No, I'm not. And again, I'm AFB (away from books) so I can't check the actual wording in the books, but if you check the Index of Feats (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf) and search "impromptu" you'll find many feats that say "Able to cast Impromptu Arcane spells" under the prerequisite column. And though I can't check the actual books at the moment, I don't see why they would use a random synonym. Someone earlier had quoted the glossary entry for "spontaneous" and made reference to the fact that it doesn't mention Sorcerers. The use of the term "impromptu spellcaster" would explain that, in that it would then mean that "impromptu spellcasters" are Sorcerers, Bards, Dread Necromancers, etc, etc, and "spontaneous spellcasters" would be Clerics, Druids, and others who can spontaneously transform a prepared spell into a different spell. I only mentioned it as a way to try to understand why someone would think that a Sorcerer wasn't a spontaneous caster (which is the term I usually use too; Impromptu just doesn't roll of the tongue as smoothly.)

EDIT: Well, I have to go to my Linguistics class now, but afterword I'll dig up my books and see if Crystalkeep did just pick a random synonym for some reason, because now I'm genuinely curious to see if I'm just going crazy...

Kylarra
2010-04-12, 02:27 PM
A number of them are from dragon which I can't check, but the ones from CArc, most assuredly do not say "impromptu".

kamikasei
2010-04-12, 02:29 PM
No, I'm not. And again, I'm AFB (away from books) so I can't check the actual wording in the books, but if you check the Index of Feats (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf) and search "impromptu" you'll find many feats that say "Able to cast Impromptu Arcane spells" under the prerequisite column.

It looks like all but two of them are from Dragon Magazine, though (and almost all of those from the same issue or few). "Spontaneous" is used in that context much, much more often.

nyarlathotep
2010-04-12, 03:39 PM
That and the only characters who have rapid metamagic are example sorcerers in Races of the Dragon. In addition under quicken spell when it talks about spontaneous casters being unable to use quicken properly it specifically cites sorcerer.

Math_Mage
2010-04-12, 03:57 PM
No, I'm not. And again, I'm AFB (away from books) so I can't check the actual wording in the books, but if you check the Index of Feats (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf) and search "impromptu" you'll find many feats that say "Able to cast Impromptu Arcane spells" under the prerequisite column. And though I can't check the actual books at the moment, I don't see why they would use a random synonym. Someone earlier had quoted the glossary entry for "spontaneous" and made reference to the fact that it doesn't mention Sorcerers. The use of the term "impromptu spellcaster" would explain that, in that it would then mean that "impromptu spellcasters" are Sorcerers, Bards, Dread Necromancers, etc, etc, and "spontaneous spellcasters" would be Clerics, Druids, and others who can spontaneously transform a prepared spell into a different spell. I only mentioned it as a way to try to understand why someone would think that a Sorcerer wasn't a spontaneous caster (which is the term I usually use too; Impromptu just doesn't roll of the tongue as smoothly.)

EDIT: Well, I have to go to my Linguistics class now, but afterword I'll dig up my books and see if Crystalkeep did just pick a random synonym for some reason, because now I'm genuinely curious to see if I'm just going crazy...

About 90% of the references are from Dragon Mag, which I don't care to look up. A couple of references are made to Complete Arcane--the Extra Slot and Arcane Preparation feats--and in both cases the term 'impromptu' is not used in the book itself. However, the term 'spontaneous' isn't used either--in the case of Extra Slot, Crystal Keep appears to have been making things up, and in the case of Arcane Preparation, the actual prerequisite is 'able to cast arcane spells without preparation'.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-04-12, 04:04 PM
About 90% of the references are from Dragon Mag, which I don't care to look up. A couple of references are made to Complete Arcane--the Extra Slot and Arcane Preparation feats--and in both cases the term 'impromptu' is not used in the book itself. However, the term 'spontaneous' isn't used either--in the case of Extra Slot, Crystal Keep appears to have been making things up, and in the case of Arcane Preparation, the actual prerequisite is 'able to cast arcane spells without preparation'.

I was finally able to look it up and I was going to edit my previous post, but plenty of people beat me to it. I guess I must have read impromptu in dragon and made the distinction myself. Personally I like it, assuming you make it retroactive and use common sense, but obviously I was misremembering having seen it as often as I thought I had. Sorry about that.

EDIT: Actually, upon further investigation it seems more likely it was a phrase/habit I picked up from the indexes themselves, not that anyone really cares... I'm just mildly OCD and wasting a couple of minutes looking stuff up and typing things no one really cares about is a lot easier than trying to resist the urge to do so and loosing sleep for days.