Sword of the Arcane Order

[Ruethgar]

I took a look at Sword of the Arcane Order and it doesn't let you actually cast Wizard spells. All over every form people claim it does, but it never says that anywhere in the feat. Is there some text that I am missing? Because to me it looks like a nice theurge feat for Pally/Ranger/Wizard with an emphasis on Wizard. The allows you to prepare Wizard spells, but not cast them. The Paladin and Ranger Spellcasting class features both call out being able to cast Paladin and Ranger spells only. The only ways I know of to cast Wizard spells are with the Wizard Spellcasting class feature from levels of Wizard, or from the Magical Training feat(which is limited it to 3 cantrips per day).

Ex: A Mystic Ranger 4/Wizard 1(without bonus spells, specializations or other options) could prepare and cast up to 3 first level and 6 zero level Wizard spells plus 1 second level if they managed to scribe one in their spellbook despite having insufficient Wizard level to normally cast a 2nd level spell. However without that Wizard level, you could prepare Wizard spells from a borrowed spellbook, but not cast. There may be some options that I am unaware of that would need to burn arcane spells that might make this somewhat more useful, but I highly doubt they would be worth it.

[Flickerdart]

This is hardly the only dysfunction with the Sword of the Arcane Order feat.

[Ruethgar]

Do you think it is actually a dysfunction though? There is a precedence for theurgic style feats, it may have been the intent, after all, expanding a class' spell list to encompass the most powerful in the game(even if on a low caster) seems like a bit much for a feat. But making their spell slots compatible(similar to Alternate Source Spell) would be much more reasonable in terms of power.

[Flickerdart]

If the designers intended something as unintuitive as "you can prepare spells in these slots but not cast those spells from them" they would have spelled it out, considering that such a mechanic appears nowhere else in the entire game.

[Darrin]

I'm frequently an advocate to following the RAW, but in this particular case, I think the arrow is leaning ever-so-slightly over towards a "common sense" reading. I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the designers intended to let a PC prepare wizard spells but not be able to cast them unless you have some hard evidence that they really wanted to waste all that text on something nobody could use.

A lot of the material in Forgotten Realms falls into the category of, "Hey, here's a really cool idea, let's work out the details later." (Yes, I'm looking at you, Battle Jump.)

[Coidzor]

I took a look at Sword of the Arcane Order and it doesn't let you actually cast Wizard spells. All over every form people claim it does, but it never says that anywhere in the feat. Is there some text that I am missing? Because to me it looks like a nice theurge feat for Pally/Ranger/Wizard with an emphasis on Wizard. The allows you to prepare Wizard spells, but not cast them. The Paladin and Ranger Spellcasting class features both call out being able to cast Paladin and Ranger spells only. The only ways I know of to cast Wizard spells are with the Wizard Spellcasting class feature from levels of Wizard, or from the Magical Training feat(which is limited it to 3 cantrips per day).

Ex: A Mystic Ranger 4/Wizard 1(without bonus spells, specializations or other options) could prepare and cast up to 3 first level and 6 zero level Wizard spells plus 1 second level if they managed to scribe one in their spellbook despite having insufficient Wizard level to normally cast a 2nd level spell. However without that Wizard level, you could prepare Wizard spells from a borrowed spellbook, but not cast. There may be some options that I am unaware of that would need to burn arcane spells that might make this somewhat more useful, but I highly doubt they would be worth it.

Honestly, I can't tell if you like playing with RAW to the point that it's its own dysfunction or if you're trying to be snarky here.

[Ruethgar]

I prefer playing RAW if it can be helped, which in this case it can. You just end up with a lower op Gish.

If we take the more powerful and more common ruling of granting the ability to also cast Wizard spells, then Theurgic Mount just became a whole lot more powerful, giving a paladin 20 a Special Mount of a level 40.

[Necroticplague]

If we take the more powerful and more common ruling of granting the ability to also cast Wizard spells, then Theurgic Mount just became a whole lot more powerful, giving a paladin 20 a Special Mount of a level 40.

This is wrong on several levels:
1.The paladin mount table stops at level 20, so this would have no effect, even if it was true. (it isn't, see next few points).
2. Even under the commonly excepted version that lets you cast those spells with your slots, that doesn't make paladin or ranger arcane spellcasters. All spells a paladin or ranger cast are divine spells. Even if they prepare a wizard spell, since it's a ranger spell slot, it's still divine.
3. Theurgic Mount lets you stack your paladin and arcane spellcasting classes together. Even if you could cast arcane spells from your paladin slots (you can't, see above), that doesn't change that Paladin is, itself, not an arcane spellcasting class.
4.Theurgic Mount lets you stack your paladin and arcane spellcasting classes together. Even if Paladin is an arcane spellcasting class (it isn't, see above), then it wouldn't do anything for a pure classed paladin, because it's paladin levels are already added in.

[Darrin]

I prefer playing RAW if it can be helped, which in this case it can.

The best I can do would be, the feat contains the text:

"the save DC of the spell is equal to 10 + your Int modifier (as if you were a wizard)."

Since you cannot have a save DC unless you successfully cast the spell, then by RAW Sword of the Arcane Order allows you to cast the prepared wizard spells.

[Coidzor]

I prefer playing RAW if it can be helped, which in this case it can. You just end up with a lower op Gish.

If we take the more powerful and more common ruling of granting the ability to also cast Wizard spells, then Theurgic Mount just became a whole lot more powerful, giving a paladin 20 a Special Mount of a level 40.

If you're worried about supermounts, single class paladins are not the concern. Especially with tricks that don't work unless you arbitrarily declare that they do, same as you take perverse delight in declaring SotAO to be a broken feat(in an especially bizarre way instead of the usual too powerful or poorly written way) and gleefully run with it.

[Ruethgar]

This is wrong on several levels:
1.The paladin mount table stops at level 20, so this would have no effect, even if it was true. (it isn't, see next few points).
2. Even under the commonly excepted version that lets you cast those spells with your slots, that doesn't make paladin or ranger arcane spellcasters. All spells a paladin or ranger cast are divine spells. Even if they prepare a wizard spell, since it's a ranger spell slot, it's still divine.
3. Theurgic Mount lets you stack your paladin and arcane spellcasting classes together. Even if you could cast arcane spells from your paladin slots (you can't, see above), that doesn't change that Paladin is, itself, not an arcane spellcasting class.
4.Theurgic Mount lets you stack your paladin and arcane spellcasting classes together. Even if Paladin is an arcane spellcasting class (it isn't, see above), then it wouldn't do anything for a pure classed paladin, because it's paladin levels are already added in.
1. Paladin Special mounts have epic progression, so yes they can advance beyond 20.

2. This assumes that the feat is letting you cast the Wizard spells as a Paladin/Ranger, essentially just expanding the class list. But because it does not specify a casting mechanic, that assumption cannot be verified. What is a known quantity however, is that Wizard spells are Arcane and the feat does not alter this like some other spell list expansions do.

3. The definition of an arcane spellcasting class should be pretty straightforward. A class able to cast arcane spells. But this topic has been heavily debated on weather options taken later can alter a class to be an arcane or divine spellcasting class(most notably Alternate Source Spell) or if only the base class counts toward this end. But I have never seen a definite answer, just strongly held opinions on either side. Because there is a lack of text altering the Wizard spells from Arcane as well as a lack of text allowing, and specifying how, Pally/Rngr might cast those spells, we can't even begin to enter into this discussion until that is definitively resolved.

4. I see no text disallowing double dipping if multiple qualifications are met by the same class. That seems a reasonable house rule though, and would certainly make bloodlines far less favorable.

I do realize that their are far greater Übermount builds than a lvl 20 Pally, it was just a quick example.

The inclusion of a save DC that is different from what either a Wizard or a Ranger gets doesn't seem like very solid grounds for suggesting that the feat allows you to cast the spell, just that the Wizard spells prepared in Ranger and Paladin slots are weaker than normal. So a Wizard/Ranger with +5 Int casting a Scorching Ray from a ranger slot would have a DC of 15, while from a Wizard slot would have a DC of 17.

[Willie the Duck]

This assumes that the feat is letting you cast the Wizard spells as a Paladin/Ranger, essentially just expanding the class list. But because it does not specify a casting mechanic, that assumption cannot be verified. What is a known quantity however, is that Wizard spells are Arcane and the feat does not alter this like some other spell list expansions do.

If your only point is that that the feat does not inarguably do any specific thing because it doesn't sufficiently delineate what it does do, then you are inarguably correct. Since WotC id not putting out errata or clarifications for two discontinued editions ago, no assumptions can be verified, those that you are promoting or those that you are contesting.



3. The definition of an arcane spellcasting class should be pretty straightforward. A class able to cast arcane spells. But this topic has been heavily debated on weather options taken later can alter a class to be an arcane or divine spellcasting class(most notably Alternate Source Spell) or if only the base class counts toward this end. But I have never seen a definite answer, just strongly held opinions on either side. Because there is a lack of text altering the Wizard spells from Arcane as well as a lack of text allowing, and specifying how, Pally/Rngr might cast those spells, we can't even begin to enter into this discussion until that is definitively resolved.

Which will not happen. Therefore, one can either declare the feat unusable because it's true qualities can not be determined, or use one's powers of deduction and argument (with your group or DM) to suss out what you think the intended function of the feat is.



I see no text disallowing double dipping if multiple qualifications are met by the same class. That seems a reasonable house rule though, and would certainly make bloodlines far less favorable.

I see no text allowing it either. State a case that it is so, and your peers will evaluate it. You are the one who posited a position. The burden is on you.


The inclusion of a save DC that is different from what either a Wizard or a Ranger gets doesn't seem like very solid grounds for suggesting that the feat allows you to cast the spell, just that the Wizard spells prepared in Ranger and Paladin slots are weaker than normal. So a Wizard/Ranger with +5 Int casting a Scorching Ray from a ranger slot would have a DC of 15, while from a Wizard slot would have a DC of 17.

I'm confused, weren't you just arguing that they couldn't cast these spells from their ranger or paladin slots?

[Ruethgar]

If your only point is that that the feat does not inarguably do any specific thing because it doesn't sufficiently delineate what it does do, then you are inarguably correct. Since WotC id not putting out errata or clarifications for two discontinued editions ago, no assumptions can be verified, those that you are promoting or those that you are contesting.

Which will not happen. Therefore, one can either declare the feat unusable because it's true qualities can not be determined, or use one's powers of deduction and argument (with your group or DM) to suss out what you think the intended function of the feat is.

I see no text allowing it either. State a case that it is so, and your peers will evaluate it. You are the one who posited a position. The burden is on you.

I'm confused, weren't you just arguing that they couldn't cast these spells from their ranger or paladin slots?

The feat most certainly does something, it essentially expands your Wizard spell slots to include your Paladin and Ranger spell slots, however at a reduced save DC. What it doesn't do is grant the ability to cast Wizard spells, even though you can prepare them. However, a single level of the Wizard class would let you cast Wizard spells because of the Wizard Spellcasting class feature.

The text for Theurgic Mount is a simple set of IF functions with no additional qualifiers.

(IF:class level=paladin; add class level to special mount; no change)
AND
(IF:class level=arcane spellcaster; add class level to special mount; no change)

If a level qualifies for both then it gets added twice. It does not in this case, because SotAO doesn't allow a Paladin to cast Wizard spells.

My example was merely assuming the common interpretation that SotAO allows Paladins and Rangers to cast Wizard spells with the least deviation from RAW(that is that Wizard spells are Arcane).

[Coidzor]

My example was merely assuming the common interpretation that SotAO allows Paladins and Rangers to cast Wizard spells with the least deviation from RAW(that is that Wizard spells are Arcane).

As long as you understand that you're the one creating/borrowing trouble for yourself.