Runescarred Berserker: The Shenaniganery?

[Fax Celestis]

Scribe Runescar: At 1st level, a runescarred berserker learns how to carve a runescar into her own skin. A runescar is a means of storing a spell, much like a scroll. The berserker knows only a limited number of spells with which to imbue runescars, selected from the runescarred berserker spell list below. To learn a runescar spell, the berserker must have a Wisdom score of at least 10 + the spell level. A runescar berserker can only cast spells by crafting them as runescars; she has no other spellcasting capability and cannot use spell completion or spell trigger magic items based on spells from this list.

Scribing a runescar takes half an hour per runescar. The character may set the caster level of the runescar at anywhere from the minimum class level necessary for her to know the rune up to her own runescarred berserker class level. She may scribe a runescar only on her own body. The act of scribing a runescar is painful and deals 1d6 points of damage per runescar at the end of the scribing time. (The berserker is free to heal this damage by any normal means afterwards-the runescar remains until activated.) Runescars are dormant until activated and cannot be dispelled(although they can be suppressed).

Runescars are considered divine spells, although a berserker does not actively prepare or cast them. The save DC, if necessary, is 10 + spell level + the berserker's Wisdom score. To activate a runescar, the character must take a standard action and touch the rune. All runescar spells target only the runescarred berserker or an item in her possession, even if the spell scribed could normally be bestowed on another subject.

After activation, the runescar's magic is discharged, and the rune fades to nothing but a faint outline. Typically, a berserker's skin is crisscrossed with dozens of old, discharged runescars.

Does a runescarred berserker qualify for divine casting PrCs?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Does a runescarred berserker qualify for divine casting PrCs?

I think not, since most prg. classes says :able to cast divine spells or similar, and that paragraph quoted clearly says they don't cast. By my understanding of the class, they craft spells.

[T.G. Oskar]

Most PrCs require the ability to "cast Xth level spells", so no, probably not.

They DO count as divine spells, though, so...notice how the Warlock could craft a scroll through Imbue Item from the Runescarred Berserker spell list, then let an Archivist learn it on its prayerbook. That allows the Runescarred Berserker's spell list appear on the Archivist's prayerbook, including the bargain spells the PrC gets.

That's one reason why the Test of Spite banned the Runescarred Berserker from the list of spells that an Archivist could have access to. If only because it makes the Archivist even MORE powerful.

[Psyren]

"Does not cast them" would nix most PrCs.

But the ones that merely depend on a caster level should be fine, e.g. Acolyte of the Skin (CArc)

[Dusk Eclipse]

Are there really enough classes that require CL and not Must cast X spell?

Because the only one I remember working like that is the Mindbender (which ask for a particular spell AND CL), and it is also arcane.

[Tanuki Tales]

"Does not cast them" would nix most PrCs.

But the ones that merely depend on a caster level should be fine, e.g. Acolyte of the Skin (CArc)

Actually, it says "Does not actively prepare or cast them".

And it does describe them like they're target: self only spells and it does specifically call them "Runescarred Berserker spells". So since it mentions them as being Divine spells I could see the argument of them allowing access to Divine casting PrCs.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Actually, it says "Does not actively prepare or cast them".

And it does describe them like they're only target: self spells and it does specifically call them "Runescarred Berserker spells". So since it mentions them as being Divine spells I could see the argument of them allowing access to Divine casting PrCs.

Well, yeah any reasonable DM would let them count as spells for other prg class; but (apparently) by RAW Runescarred Berserkers can't qualify for those classes with their rune-scars.

[Psyren]

Actually, it says "Does not actively prepare or cast them".

Emphasis mine - yes, that's exactly what I said :smallconfused:

So any PrC with "cast" in the requirements would be invalid for a RB. But they still have a caster level, even if they aren't actually... casting.

[Tanuki Tales]

Actually, it says "Does not actively prepare or cast them".



Emphasis mine Psyren. What the opposite of "actively" casting a spell is, I do not know, but it doesn't say the class "doesn't" cast spells, just that they don't "actively" cast them. That still implies that they cast them in some means or fashion.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Personally I think that is splitting hairs; as preparing and casting are game construct with a rules definition which is a little bit different from the "normal" world definition.

The class says it doesn't cast spell, so they by RAW can't qualify for classes which require casting.

[Tanuki Tales]

Personally I think that is splitting hairs; as preparing and casting are game construct with a rules definition which is a little bit different from the "normal" world definition.

The class says it doesn't cast spell, so they by RAW can't qualify for classes which require casting.

It's not splitting hairs when the class chooses to use a weird and vague wording instead of just flat saying "they do not prepare or cast them". Which it doesn't. It uses "does not actively prepare or cast them" which still implies they prepare and cast them in some other fashion.

The class is specifically making a distinction from the normal concept of "casting" and is a case of specific trumps general.

So by RAW they're casting a Divine spell in some fashion and thus qualify for classes that require casting.

[Psyren]

The only way I know of to passively cast a spell is with Contingency, which they don't get. But I'm not interested in getting into a drag-out debate with you over foolishness anyway.

[Tanuki Tales]

The only way I know of to passively cast a spell is with Contingency, which they don't get. But I'm not interested in getting into a drag-out debate with you over foolishness anyway.

Because you're trying to argue that the poor word choice as the ability is written isn't the RAW ruling because you think that it's foolishness and doesn't make sense by your opinion?

So your argument is that it doesn't say that by RAW because your RAI says so?

Edit: And the fact that you do acknowledge there being casting that isn't "active" sets precedence for this case of specific trumps general. It doesn't matter if a Runescarred Berserker doesn't get Contingency, just the fact that there is precedence for "non-active" or "passive" casting.

[Psyren]

Because you're trying to argue that the poor word choice as the ability is written isn't the RAW ruling because you think that it's foolishness and doesn't make sense by your opinion?

I'm used to rampant hair-splitting on these boards but honestly it's late and I'm not going to get into it.

[Silfir]

It appears by the wording that the runescars are "activated", whatever that implies.

However, the first paragraph says the runescar berserker "can only cast spells by crafting them as runescars", which most definitely implies they can cast spells; the spell is cast as it is etched onto the body, but merely "activated" or "discharged" later. This might be what is meant by "does not actively prepare or cast spells" as in, "not as a divine spellcaster would": He does "prepare" the spell, as in create the conditions by which it can be used, but not in the way a divine spellcaster would. He does "cast" it, but not resulting in a direct effect (as a prepared spell would when it is "cast"), but resulting in the spell being stored in the runescar in the first place. Going by this description, the "prepare" step is the casting and the "cast" step is the activating of the rune.

More likely, the text wasn't written with the kind of scrutiny we are applying to it. I especially think the "actively prepare or cast" part is terribly cryptic; but ignoring the "actively" also means the text contradicts itself, since it does say runescar berserkers do cast spells. But if it is supposed to mean something, what exactly is it?

[Tanuki Tales]

I'm used to rampant hair-splitting on these boards but honestly it's late and I'm not going to get into it.

It's only hair splitting because you're arguing it's not the Rules as Written because you don't interpret them as meaning that or that is not what the writers intended for them to mean. Which isn't RAW at all and thus defeats your side of this debate until you can give further evidence otherwise. But since you did acknowledge the existence of not "actively" casting a spell through Contingency it would just appear like you'd be flip flopping until you retracted the statement or clarified how Contingency is still "actively" casting or preparing a spell.

And even then you're only removing precedence to back what the ability says exactly and not actually proving that the RAW prevents the class from taking PrCs that only require being able to cast Divine spells of X level.

But I do agree that it is very late.

@Silfir: Which is why this is a RAW discussion. Of course it is silly and makes no sense and wasn't supposed to be put to this level of scrutiny. But we're still putting it under that scrutiny, the ability still calls the scars "spells" and it still mentions the Berserker as preparing and casting them in some fashion.

Ergo, by RAW, it can qualify for any PrC that requires being able to cast Divine Spells of X level just as a Cleric could.

[NecroRick]

It's not splitting hairs when the class chooses to use a weird and vague wording...


Weird and vague wording should be your first warning sign not to read too much into it.



instead of just flat saying "they do not prepare or cast them". Which it doesn't. It uses "does not actively prepare or cast them" which still implies they prepare and cast them in some other fashion.


No, it doesn't. If I say "my car does not run on water" that does not imply that it runs on plutonium.

You are effectively inserting a subordinate clause about the spells being cast in (some mysterious, unspecified) passive manner.

Whereas the counter-argument is that the spells are not cast _at all_.

In your case, your interpretation begs the question of what this passive manner of casting actually is. Whereas their interpretation is a more natural reading of the text (ie doesn't require additional clauses to make it work, unlike your interpretation)



The class is specifically making a distinction from the normal concept of "casting"


No.



and is a case of specific trumps general.


Yes. Specific does trump general. Unfortunately, the specific that you want to do the trumping doesn't actually exist anywhere, it is only in your head.

Absence of commission is not permission.



So by RAW they're casting a Divine spell in some fashion and thus qualify for classes that require casting.

If you want to quote RAW, you have to base it off what _is_ written, not what isn't not written.

[Psyren]

Necro, I fully agree, but get out while you can. This is not worth a 50-page thread.

[Silfir]

It also says in the first paragraph "she has no other spellcasting ability", meaning that she has it, but in a very specific way.

EDIT: @ Bendraesar: Nothing in the text says the spells are "prepared"! If I read this correctly, the "casting" part replaces what would ordinarily be preparation. I guess since they can cast spells without preparing them beforehand, runescar berserkers are a type of spontaneous spellcaster?

[Tanuki Tales]

Weird and vague wording should be your first warning sign not to read too much into it.

Except we're debating RAW. You ignore such warning signs when debating RAW.




No, it doesn't. If I say "my car does not run on water" that does not imply that it runs on plutonium.

Yes, it does. It even mentions the Berserker as casting them higher up in the ability description.


You are effectively inserting a subordinate clause about the spells being cast in (some mysterious, unspecified) passive manner.

No, I'm not. But the ability is by saying the Berserker is casting the spell into the scar and then goes on to say that it casts by crafting and then by saying it "does not actively prepare or cast them". None of that is me making me anything up, that's the ability written as it is.


Whereas the counter-argument is that the spells are not cast _at all_.

Except the counter-argument is completely ignoring the fact the ability describes that they are Divine Spells, are Runescarred Berserker spells and that they are being cast.


In your case, your interpretation begs the question of what this passive manner of casting actually is. Whereas their interpretation is a more natural reading of the text (ie doesn't require additional clauses to make it work, unlike your interpretation)


Not my fault, I didn't write the ability and only reading it as its written. And as Psyren acknowledge, Contingency is non-actively casting a spell.



No.

Uh, yeah. Go re-read the ability again, it specifically states how its casting that's different from normal casting.




Yes. Specific does trump general. Unfortunately, the specific that you want to do the trumping doesn't actually exist anywhere, it is only in your head.

Nope, spelled right there in the ability and no need to be rude.


Absence of commission is not permission.

Don't think you used that sentence right. :smallconfused:




If you want to quote RAW, you have to base it off what _is_ written, not what isn't not written.

Except it's exactly what is written.




@Silfir: That's what I was assuming. Still makes it spellcasting.

[Silfir]

@ Bendraesar: Well yes, of course! If you read my posts by the letter, you will realize I have done nothing but agree with you up to now. :) Runescar berserkers "can [...] cast spells by crafting them as runescars" and "runescars are considered divine spells", so I think it would be safe to make the jump to "Runescar berserkers can cast divine spells" even though that is not precisely what is written.

I acknowledge there was no absolute need to correct you on the "prepare" front, but once I'm in "dissect written text mode", it's hard to stop.

[Tanuki Tales]

@ Bendraesar: Well yes, of course! If you read my posts by the letter, you will realize I have done nothing but agree with you up to now. :) Runescar berserkers "can [...] cast spells by crafting them as runescars" and "runescars are considered divine spells", so I think it would be safe to make the jump to "Runescar berserkers can cast divine spells" even though that is not precisely what is written.

I acknowledge there was no absolute need to correct you on the "prepare" front, but once I'm in "dissect written text mode", it's hard to stop.

It's fine; it's 2 am anyways for me so chances are I'd make mistakes somewhere.

The only thing I don't agree with you is that it does specifically say that. You don't need to really make a jump because the ability clearly states the class has spellcasting, uses this spellcasting in an abnormal manner, has spells and that they are Divine spells.

Thus, it can cast Divine spells and qualify for PrCs that require such. The only problem is if a PrC requires a Divine Spell that isn't on the RB's spell list.


Edit: And before anyone nips at me because I had originally used "vague wording" as one of my supporting pillars; I entered this debate only having read the line "does not actively prepare or cast them". It wasn't until Silfir joined in that I read the entire ability and noticed that it mentioned spellcasting being done by the Runescarred Berserker twice earlier in the ability. So now that I'm fully abreast of the ability, I'm debating from the stand point that the RAW clearly says this class casts Divine Spells, just in a manner different from normal casting (which it also says).

Edit Edit: And with this, I'm toddling off for the night. But I shall be back.

[Silfir]

The comparison with Contingency might be rather apt: The text for Contingency in the SRD does say that Contingency and its companion spell "are cast at the same time".

It also writes "In all cases, the contingency immediately brings into effect the companion spell, the latter being “cast” instantaneously when the prescribed circumstances occur". Note that in the latter case it puts "cast" in quotation marks: It is not actually cast at that moment, but brought into effect.

This is similar to the Runescarred Berserker's casting: By scribing the spell into his skin as a runescar, he casts the spell, then brings it into effect by touching the rune in a standard action - roughly at least as if it had been cast with a Contingency similar to "when I touch it". Of course the action that brings the spell into effect, in this case, is "active" - but it is not "actively casting".

So, if Contingency is an example of "not actively" casting a spell, the Runescarred Berserker's should be too.

[Darrin]

It appears by the wording that the runescars are "activated", whatever that implies.


The whole purpose of the quirky wording and the etching/activation mechanic is to get around the "cannot cast spells" restriction while in a Barbarian's rage. The intent is fairly clear: the designer wanted a raging berserker who was still able to activate some kind of spell-like abilities while in a rage. Etching the spells into "runescars" that are then activated later is how the designer got around that restriction.



However, the first paragraph says the runescar berserker "can only cast spells by crafting them as runescars", which most definitely implies they can cast spells; the spell is cast as it is etched onto the body, but merely "activated" or "discharged" later.


I think RAW is pretty clear here. The spell is "cast" when it is inscribed, outside of combat when the RB is not raging. So I find the "contingency" example quite compelling. It's not quite the same as a spell-trigger or spell-completion (neither of which would be allowed while raging), but more like a potion or psionic tattoo. It also sounds very similar to a spell-storing or Glyph Seal-like item: the spell is cast ahead of time, and given a specific triggering condition to activate it later. Given the text uses the "C" word, I'm more than adequately persuaded that they do indeed cast spells and can thus get into PrCs that require casting rather than just a caster level.

[Wings of Peace]

I think RAW is pretty clear here. The spell is "cast" when it is inscribed, outside of combat when the RB is not raging. So I find the "contingency" example quite compelling. It's not quite the same as a spell-trigger or spell-completion (neither of which would be allowed while raging), but more like a potion or psionic tattoo. It also sounds very similar to a spell-storing or Glyph Seal-like item: the spell is cast ahead of time, and given a specific triggering condition to activate it later. Given the text uses the "C" word, I'm more than adequately persuaded that they do indeed cast spells and can thus get into PrCs that require casting rather than just a caster level.

I'm in agreement with this interpretation. The wording clearly indicates that the process of scribing the runescar is (some manner of) casting it.

[Pechvarry]

It's only hair splitting because you're arguing it's not the Rules as Written because you don't interpret them as meaning that or that is not what the writers intended for them to mean. Which isn't RAW at all and thus defeats...


Because you're trying to argue that the poor word choice as the ability is written isn't the RAW ruling because you think that it's foolishness and doesn't make sense by your opinion?

You're baiting him. He's refusing to argue this point, and instead of being respectful and acknowledging his right to stay out of it, you're attacking the decision and trying to use it as a fallacious means of proving him wrong.

[Tanuki Tales]

You're baiting him. He's refusing to argue this point, and instead of being respectful and acknowledging his right to stay out of it, you're attacking the decision and trying to use it as a fallacious means of proving him wrong.

As opposed to him belittling me and off the cuff trying to drop the entire discussion of the thread as being ended and he being in the right simply because he made the mistake of undermining his entire platform by not only providing a strong counter example to his own platform but by falling back on using his own interpretations of the rules and RAI as the reason that something doesn't say what it means by RAW?

And I'd say the fact that he told Necro to leave in thread and that discussing this thread was a waste of time instead of doing so through a PM was baiting, not me simply pointing out the fallacies in his argument.


Edit: Though I feel we should drop this entire line of discussion because it's honestly non-conductive to the thread and is basically spamming at a point. So I'm dropping it here and won't reply on it further regardless if others choose to not follow suit.