Alternative Source Spell

[weckar]

I had some questions regarding the feat Alternative Source Spell from Dragon #325.

1. Can it be used with spontaneous casters?

2. Does it allow a Cleric 1 / Wizard X to cast any of his Wizard spells without chance of failure in armor?

3. Does it qualify above character for entry into Divine Magic PrCs with the Wizard caster levels/spell slots? (And, by extension, the other way around?)

4. Would the Practiced Spellcaster feat completely nullify the drawback of the feat?

[Feint's End]

I had some questions regarding the feat Alternative Source Spell from Dragon #325.

1. Can it be used with spontaneous casters?

2. Does it allow a Cleric 1 / Wizard X to cast any of his Wizard spells without chance of failure in armor?

3. Does it qualify above character for entry into Divine Magic PrCs with the Wizard caster levels/spell slots? (And, by extension, the other way around?)

4. Would the Practiced Spellcaster feat completely nullify the drawback of the feat?

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

4. Yes by RAW albeit it is a bit cheesy

Edit:
@1: there is a feat for spontaneous casters which lets you prepare metamagically modified spells. This would qualify you for southern magician but you could only change those modified spells to divine spells (since they are the only prepared ones).

[atemu1234]

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

4. Yes by RAW albeit it is a bit cheesy

Edit:
@1: there is a feat for spontaneous casters which lets you prepare metamagically modified spells. This would qualify you for southern magician but you could only change those modified spells to divine spells (since they are the only prepared ones).

I disagree on #2. Yes, it could arguably allow you to cast without ARCANE spell failure chance. Since the spell is divine, doesn't ASF no longer apply?

[Feint's End]

I disagree on #2. Yes, it could arguably allow you to cast without ARCANE spell failure chance. Since the spell is divine, doesn't ASF no longer apply?

RAW no.

There is no general rule on spell failure. In all cases it is part of the class description and even if you afterwards change the type of magic that fact won't change.

[weckar]

Hmmm, oddly, #2 was the one I had least doubts on. What other reason could you have to cast an arcane spell as divine?

To be fair, the class description also specifically says "A wizard casts arcane spells", but that is specifically changed...

A point of contention to be brought up is this: I agree the Wizard's proficiencies say " Armor of any type interferes with a wizard’s movements, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail." But this is a fluff addition if anything, as it says in no way what the odds of failure are or how failure works. Those would be covered by ASF, not?

[Xuldarinar]

I would say rule of thumb is this regarding 2

Arcane spells have the drawback of Arcane spell failure. There are three of mitigation factors to this: Percent reduction (reduce ASF chance by x%), ability to cast arcane spells in x armor without ASF, and spells lacking in somatic components (by means of still spell or they inherently lack it). Unless a class specifies a reduction, you have to deal with it.

Divine spells generally have the drawback that the caster cannot cast spells of an alignment opposed to their own or their source's.




So, lets say you cast a wizard spell as divine, I would say you ignore ASF, but your alignment (and your deity's alignment if you have one) are taken into account when trying to cast it. Also keep in mind that there are cases in which something is resistant or even immune to divine spells but are not to arcane spells. I know of no cases that single out arcane spells for resistance or immunity, though I wouldn't be shocked to learn of them.

[Necroticplague]

Actually, different parts of the book give different answers to that. Under 'Arcane Spells and Armor'


Armor restricts the complicated gestures that a wizards or sorcerer must make while casting any spell that has a somatic component (most do). The armor and shield descriptions list the arcane spell failure chance for different armors and shields.
Talks about Sorceror and Wizard casting, but nothing about arcane spells in specific. Lets move a little bit more, to 'Arcane Spell Failure' under 'Armor'


Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component. Arcane spellcasters face the possibility of arcane spell failure if they’re wearing armor. Bards can wear light armor without incurring any arcane spell failure chance for their bard spells.
O.k., now it's broadened a little bit, mentioning arcane spells in specific to start. But Wait! the next line mentions arcane spellcasters, so an arcane spellcaster casting a divine spell would still fall under these rules, and thus have ACF. Huh, this is confusing and a bit contradictory. Lets see if the next section under 'Armor' clears things up.


A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
O.k, that clears things up, its the casting of an arcane spell that triggers having to roll to see if it fails.


So when you combine all this:An arcane spellcaster casting a divine spell while wearing armor does get interfered with, as per the first two quotes, but does not have to make an arcane spell failure roll, as per the last quote.

So what we get is a hole in the rules, and a realization that if dnd was a computer program, it probably wouldn't compile. Safest bet is 'ask the dm'.

[Feint's End]

The weird thing is that arcane and divine magic are bith never actually defined in more than they being cast by arcane and divine casters. So if a wizard casts divine spells then what exactly is he?

I'd probably ask my dm for a ruling but I went with my gut feel and said no.

Btw the reason you want them counting as divine is shenanigans of course.

[weckar]

Oh, absolutely shenanigans, but why else would the feat even exist if not for shenanigans?

[Feint's End]

Oh, absolutely shenanigans, but why else would the feat even exist if not for shenanigans?

Oh I wouldn't underestimate the amount of employees who thought people would take this feat for flavour.

But as to come back to question number 2: basically when a wizard casts a divine spell he is a divine caster and when he casts an arcane one then he is an arcane caster. So by RAW he probably should be able to cast in armor when preparing spells as divine spells (since when casting them he is a divine caster as established earlier).

[.Zero]

The coolest thing i can think of that involves ASS (lol) is that it allowes a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge to write down from his mind the entire cleric list on his blessed book. What this mean is that the feat allowes a character to get rid of cleric's alignment limitations. I think.

Let's see if this works. First off, you are a good cleric and as one you cannot cast (and i underline *cast*) [Evil] spells. Nothing prevents you from preparing these spells, but sure it will be a waste for you. With the feat, you prepare Infernal Transformation as an arcane spell. The spell preparation thing does not require any material support and happens only in the caster's mind. So, you now have an arcane Infernal Transformation prepared in your mind. If you would cast the spell now, it still expends a divine slot, and by the fact that the feat says that the actual source of the spell doesn't change at all, i think you are still limited by that [Evil]/[Good] spell crap.

Things get to change a lot when you realize that a wizard is allowed to write in his book any arcane spell he has prepared in his mind, so if you write that arcane Infernal Transformation in your spellbook, you truly changed the spell's source, because from now on, ASS is no more involved when you cast that spell.

And now, have fun casting every [Evil] spell you like. But this trick removes the fun of screaming: i cast it with my ASS!

[Xuldarinar]

The coolest thing i can think of that involves ASS (lol) is that it allowes a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge to write down from his mind the entire cleric list on his blessed book. What this mean is that the feat allowes a character to get rid of cleric's alignment limitations. I think.

Let's see if this works. First off, you are a good cleric and as one you cannot cast (and i underline *cast*) [Evil] spells. Nothing prevents you from preparing these spells, but sure it will be a waste for you. With the feat, you prepare Infernal Transformation as an arcane spell. The spell preparation thing does not require any material support and happens only in the caster's mind. So, you now have an arcane Infernal Transformation prepared in your mind. If you would cast the spell now, it still expends a divine slot, and by the fact that the feat says that the actual source of the spell doesn't change at all, i think you are still limited by that [Evil]/[Good] spell crap.

Things get to change a lot when you realize that a wizard is allowed to write in his book any arcane spell he has prepared in his mind, so if you write that arcane Infernal Transformation in your spellbook, you truly changed the spell's source, because from now on, ASS is no more involved when you cast that spell.

And now, have fun casting every [Evil] spell you like. But this trick removes the fun of screaming: i cast it with my ASS!

Keep in mind, your deity just might take a dim view of one of their clerics casting spells vile in nature. A cleric who does this as a loop hole just might find their cleric abilities revoked.

[DarkSonic1337]

Should probably go Wizard/Archivist/Mystic Theurge instead. Then you can scribe all of your wizard spells as divine scrolls and copy them into your prayer book (and vice versa for any divine spells you pick up that also happen to be on the Wizard list).

[Curmudgeon]

Should probably go Wizard/Archivist/Mystic Theurge instead. Then you can scribe all of your wizard spells as divine scrolls ...
How is that supposed to happen? Wizard spells are arcane spells. An Archivist can only learn divine spells. Having both arcane and divine spellcasting capabilities confers no ability to change the type of a spell from arcane to divine.

[Xuldarinar]

How is that supposed to happen? Wizard spells are arcane spells. An Archivist can only learn divine spells. Having both arcane and divine spellcasting capabilities confers no ability to change the type of a spell from arcane to divine.

Alternate source spell, the topic at hand, works well with it. Of course, at that point why not just StP Erudite?

[Necroticplague]

How is that supposed to happen? Wizard spells are arcane spells. An Archivist can only learn divine spells. Having both arcane and divine spellcasting capabilities confers no ability to change the type of a spell from arcane to divine.

Well, this thread is about a feat that does change from arcane to divine......

And if you want to be pedantic, crafting rules do allow for it (though it would require crafting a scroll, not just writing it down in a book). The type of item produced is the same as the spellcaster. So a divine caster creates divine scrolls, an arcane one creates arcane scrolls, an artificer produces scrolls that are neither arcane or divine 9since they don't cast spells), and an arcane and divine caster produces scrolls that are arcane and divine.

[Chronos]

Do note that, while you can write any old arcane spell into your wizard spellbook, that doesn't mean that you can cast it as a wizard. Wizards can only cast wizard spells.

[atemu1234]

How is that supposed to happen? Wizard spells are arcane spells. An Archivist can only learn divine spells. Having both arcane and divine spellcasting capabilities confers no ability to change the type of a spell from arcane to divine.

Alternative Spell Source does, though. From therein, it is entirely possible for an Archivist to scribe them.

[DarkSonic1337]

Do note that, while you can write any old arcane spell into your wizard spellbook, that doesn't mean that you can cast it as a wizard. Wizards can only cast wizard spells.

I did mention that the archivist spells would only be transferable if they were on the Wizard list.

Btw I did not know that they could write ANY arcane spell into their book. Does this lead to any shenanigans?

[Chronos]

Btw I did not know that they could write ANY arcane spell into their book. Does this lead to any shenanigans?
None that I'm aware of. This appears to be one of the few cases where the developers put the rules together properly (albeit they then hid those rules away in obscure places).

[.Zero]

Do note that, while you can write any old arcane spell into your wizard spellbook, that doesn't mean that you can cast it as a wizard. Wizards can only cast wizard spells.

How can you say that? Can you quote a line that states this?

Everything i can find that supports what you say is this


Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells (the sametype of spells available to sorcerers and bards), which are drawn from the wizard spell list

But if this is true, then this leads to a dysfunction when involving researched spells, or even when adding spells to your list. This is because when you research a spell, emulating an existing spell or making a custom one, that spell is not on "the wizard spell list", thus you could not cast it. But you are supposed to do so. And when you add a spell to your list, then you are casting from *your* "wizard spell list", which is just not the same as "the wizard spell list".

I know this are extremely RAW pedantic issues, and i don't like them so much. Given that, if a wizard is expected to cast a custom researched spell, and he is, and if a wizard is supposed to cast a non-wizard spell added to his list somehow (extra spell for example), and he is, then a wizard, by extension is capable of casting any arcane spell as long as that spell is recorded in his spellbook.


To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level

Aside from everything, all you need to cast an arcane spell is an adequate Int and cl.

Anyway, if my trick doesn't work, a good cleric/wiz/theurge with ASS, could just write every cleric [Evil] spell that is also on the wiz list.

And more, if wizard is really not allowed to cast an arcane version of a cleric-only spell, then you could do that easily as a Chameleon.

[Curmudgeon]

How can you say that? Can you quote a line that states this?
It's right in the class description.
Spells

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. If you don't want this built-in limitation, you need to use a different class.

[.Zero]

It seems you didn't read a large part of my post. If a wizard could cast only spells from wizard/sorcerer list, then casting a researched spell is either a dysfunction or is a way to implicitly add a spell to your list. And if it is so, then an arcane version of a cleric-only spell is castable by a wizard.

[Curmudgeon]

And if it is so, then an arcane version of a cleric-only spell is castable by a wizard.
Yes, if the DM agrees to the Wizard researching such a spell, then they're agreeing to add it to that Wizard's spell list (with appropriate adjustments with regard to level, components, and whatnot). That doesn't add it to any other Wizard's spell list, of course.

[weckar]

Wouldn't the feat under discussion be a case of specific trumps general, though?

[.Zero]

Wouldn't the feat under discussion be a case of specific trumps general, though?

Yes, i think that's the case. If it's not, then we incur in several dysfunctions, as i said before.

Wizard casting a researched custom spell: dysfunction.
(Here I'm not arguing that a DM allows a wizard to research a spell at all, but it's important to note that the game supports by rules the idea that a wizard could cast those spells which are not just on the wiz/sorc list, but aren't on any list.)

Wizard casting a spell that's originally not on the wiz/sorc list: dysfunction.
(And that's true even for clerics, that cast divine cleric-only spells. So what if a cleric goes Hathran and adds Planar Binding to his list? Is he not capable of casting it because it's not on the printed "cleric spell list"? And what about Anyspell, that lets a cleric cast arcane spells as *arcane* spells?)

Also, if wizard is capable of casting arcane spells that exclusively appear to the printed wizard spell list, then ASS is dysfunctional in every way, because it wouldn't function at all, and the feat was printed with the clear intention of letting wizards cast divine spells and clerics arcane spells. Granted, that intention is extremely abusable, but that's another story.

We could accept all of these dysfunctions, or "a wizard cast arcane spells which are drawn from the wizard spell list" just means that a wizard chooses his spell from that list and can cast them, but it doesn't prevent him to cast other arcane spells, as long as he is able to prepare them and write them down. 'Cause that's really the point.
Also i can't see any "only" or "exclusively" in that phrase, so it's not really a limitation.

[Chronos]

No, it means that a wizard can only cast wizard spells, just like it looks like. If a wizard is multiclassed into some other casting class, she can also cast spells from that class, as a member of that class, but her wizard casting still only lets her cast wizard spells.

A wizard can cast Magic Missile as an arcane spell from wizard slots. A cleric can cast Cure Light Wounds as a divine spell from cleric slots. A wizard/cleric can cast Magic Missile as an arcane spell from wizard slots and Cure Light Wounds as a divine spell from cleric slots. A wizard/cleric with alternate source spell can cast Magic Missile as an arcane spell from wizard slots, or Magic Missile as a divine spell from wizard slots, or Cure Light Wounds as a divine spell from cleric slots, or Cure Light Wounds as an arcane spell from cleric slots.

What's the dysfunction, here?