arcane swordsage, God? or just reeeeeeealy good?

[tepes]

so I was going about my day lurking through the boards when a spontaneous bout of Devine(or Demonic) inspiration hit me. would an arcane swordsages "spells" (by the strictest reading of RAW possibly EVER)... be extraordinary abilities?

WAIT WAIT WAIT... wait, stay with me here, the entry for maneuvers says
Maneuvers: You begin your career with knowledge of six martial maneuvers. The disciplines available to you are Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon, and Tiger Claw.

Once you know a maneuver, you must ready it before you can use it (see Maneuvers Readied, below). A maneuver usable by swordsages is considered an extraordinary ability unless otherwise noted in its description. Your maneuvers are not affected by spell resistance, and you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you initiate one.

You learn additional maneuvers at higher levels, as shown on Table: The Swordsage. You must meet a maneuver's prerequisite to learn it. See Blade Magic to determine the highest-level maneuvers you can learn.

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered swordsage level after that (6th, 8th, 10th, and so on), you can choose to learn a new maneuver in place of one you already know. In effect, you lose the old maneuver in exchange for the new one. You can choose a new maneuver of any level you like, as long as you observe your restriction on the highest-level maneuvers you know; you need not replace the old maneuver with a maneuver of the same level. For example, upon reaching 10th level, you could trade in a single 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd- or 4th-level maneuver for a maneuver of 5th level or lower, as long as you meet the prerequisite of the new maneuver. You can swap only a single maneuver at any given level.(Emphasis mine)

and on the section for the adaptation it says
" If you prefer, you could instead emphasize the magical talents of the swordsage by giving the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level. In general, spells from the schools of abjuration, evocation, and transmutation are most appropriate for a swordsage of this type, especially spells with a range of personal or touch. The arcane spell is "cast" as if it were a martial maneuver. In this case, you should remove the class's light armor proficiency and reduce the swordsage's Hit Die to d6."
so hear me out, no (to my knowledge) spell description in the game has a self contained clause saying anything like 'this is not a EX ability'... so would this(utter insanity) be the case, or even if there is solid ground on the reasoning that most spell descriptions overtly if not outright mention the word "magic" or "magical" that you could argue that they would be SLA's instead that would still be STUPID overpowered

Anyway thanks for tolerating my lunatic ramblings. :smallbiggrin:

[Saintheart]

Worth noting that some monsters have Spells (Ex) as a specific special ability.

And on that one, the SRD tells us:


Sometimes a creature can cast arcane or divine spells just as a member of a spellcasting class can (and can activate magic items accordingly). Such creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules that characters are, except as follows.

A spellcasting creature that lacks hands or arms can provide any somatic component a spell might require by moving its body. Such a creature also does need material components for its spells. The creature can cast the spell by either touching the required component (but not if the component is in another creature’s possession) or having the required component on its person. Sometimes spellcasting creatures utilize the Eschew Materials feat to avoid fussing with noncostly components.

A spellcasting creature is not actually a member of a class unless its entry says so, and it does not gain any class abilities. A creature with access to cleric spells must prepare them in the normal manner and receives domain spells if noted, but it does not receive domain granted powers unless it has at least one level in the cleric class.


Which I read as basically saying "It doesn't matter that it has an (Ex) after the word 'spells', this is still just spellcasting except for one or two practical problems listed below." Same thing here; even if the maneuvers are deemed (Ex) abilities, they still follow the same normal rules that all spellcasting characters do, including unavailability in a magic field where it's a spell.

[Crake]

You're trying to apply existing rules to a completely unstatted adaptation. It's not even a good application of the rules, becuase there are literally entire maneuver disciplines that are Su, so trying to argue "its cast as a maneuver, so they'd be Ex" barely even works, because whether a maneuver is Ex or Su is defined on a per maneuver basis, so your DM would get to define if it's Ex or Su when adapting it. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a DM that would rule them as Ex though.

[Beni-Kujaku]

The power of arcane swordsage really depends on how you're interpreting the single sentence where it's described.
At worst (spells are cast as spells, just in place of your maneuvers, can only choose personal and touch abjuration, transmutation and evocation wizard or bard spells), it's much worse than a sorcerer.
At best (spells are considered maneuvers in all regards, are (Ex) and do not require either material nor XP, are all cast as standard actions, can be put on martial scripts, the ASwordsage can choose any spell that can exist as arcane (which is all of them, thanks to Wyrm Wizard, including high-power, low-level spells like Telflammar Shadowlord's and Trapsmith's spell lists), new spells can be chosen with Martial Study), it's most definitely tier 0, and the best class in the game.

Where it stands depends on what your DM allows, and they will most probably tend towards the first interpretation rather than the last.

[Crake]

The power of arcane swordsage really depends on how you're interpreting the single sentence where it's described.
At worst (spells are cast as spells, just in place of your maneuvers, can only choose personal and touch abjuration, transmutation and evocation wizard or bard spells), it's much worse than a sorcerer.
At best (spells are considered maneuvers in all regards, are (Ex) and do not require either material nor XP, are all cast as standard actions, can be put on martial scripts, the ASwordsage can choose any spell that can exist as arcane (which is all of them, thanks to Wyrm Wizard, including high-power, low-level spells like Telflammar Shadowlord's and Trapsmith's spell lists), new spells can be chosen with Martial Study), it's most definitely tier 0, and the best class in the game.

Where it stands depends on what your DM allows, and they will most probably tend towards the first interpretation rather than the last.

I feel like neither end of those extremes really fits the whole image of an arcane swordsage, and personally, if I was a DM, I would vet each spell chosen on a case by case basis on whether or not it fit the fantasy, and probably make adjustments as I go. For example, I would make a spell like forcecage cost no material component, but in exchange I would probably drop it's duration down to concentration (and require a concentration check if the user is damaged, despite it being a supernatural ability), so it becomes sorta like a "i spend my whole turn to guarnatteed shut this area down" kind of ability, which i think can be very thematically appropriate if you fluff it as sort of binding a creature, or creating a magical ward.

Basically, I would retune each ability to fit the fact that it's going to be spammable, and that it won't have component costs.

[Promethean]

Doesn't tome of battle contradict itself in a later paragraph stating maneuvers are either EX or SU rather than just EX?

Regardless, arcane Maneuvers being EX doesn't change much, but It might actually be a nerf compared to making them SU abilities.

The Good:

Arcane Maneuvers would scale off 10 + 1/2 HD + CON as is default to EX abilities like poison. This means investing in health also increases your spell power.

The Bad

Arcane maneuvers by strict RAW would still have all the same requirements and material costs as their normal counterparts(for the same reason Psionics have costs at all).
Arcane Maneuvers would have Less ways to modify them. Being cast as abilities rather than spells make them ineligible for advancement or modification by arcane classes, feats, magic items or spell effects that alter spells(the one exception being feats that add to the Arcane Swordsages spell list because of how the variant is worded). SU abilities at least have a couple feats or classes that can improve things, but EX abilities have Nothing.
Swordsages would still have a Tiny spell list, which makes it difficult for them to tangle with the shear variety of problem-solving abilities Tier 1 classes have even with their ability to reliably Nova any fight.


Honestly Arcane Swordsage is overhyped. It's powerful, but in the way a decently optimized Sorcerer build is powerful. The class is Tier 2 at best with few options to optimize and only looks OP because it can spam some of the stronger spells. Any Tier 1 class could reliably kick an Arcane Swordsages teeth in with a middling amount of optimization.

[H_H_F_F]

Check out the new class I designed, it smoothly gets over this hurdle!


It's like a fighter, except it gets spells instead of bonus feats, where the spell level is half the fighter level".

Thought about this class?

Yeah. This is what arcane swordsage is. It's not an alternate class, it's an idea. There's no mechanics there. Trying to parse the specific rule interactions is a doomed endeavor, because there are no rules there.

[Troacctid]

I really don't think it matters whether the spells count as Ex or Sp or whatever. As long as they use the swordsage's refresh mechanic, having even basic transmutation effects effectively at will is just busted.

[Crake]

This is what arcane swordsage is. It's not an alternate class, it's an idea. There's no mechanics there. Trying to parse the specific rule interactions is a doomed endeavor, because there are no rules there.

Yeah, this is basically what I was trying to say.


Arcane Maneuvers would scale off 10 + 1/2 HD + CON as is default to EX abilities like poison. This means investing in health also increases your spell power.

This would be ignoring the standard DC conventions for maneuvers. Maneuvers scale at 10+maneuver level+ discipline's key ability score, regardless of if they're Ex or Su. Arcane maneuvers would likewise be 10+spell level+ whatever ability score your DM determines for that maneuver, probably wisdom, since that's what most "spell-ish" maneuvers that the swordsage has are tied to.

[Promethean]

This would be ignoring the standard DC conventions for maneuvers. Maneuvers scale at 10+maneuver level+ discipline's key ability score, regardless of if they're Ex or Su. Arcane maneuvers would likewise be 10+spell level+ whatever ability score your DM determines for that maneuver, probably wisdom, since that's what most "spell-ish" maneuvers that the swordsage has are tied to.

Maneuvers are weird in that disciplines have their own ability scores. This means that the "spell" discipline lacks a stated raw for DC.

By default this means arcane maneuvers revert to EX or SU standard DC(10 +1/2 HD + [CON OR CHA]). Using the same DC calc as other maneuvers is definitely RAI, but it would still be a houserule to fill in missing RAW.

[Troacctid]

Maneuvers are weird in that disciplines have their own ability scores. This means that the "spell" discipline lacks a stated raw for DC.

By default this means arcane maneuvers revert to EX or SU standard DC(10 +1/2 HD + [CON OR CHA]). Using the same DC calc as other maneuvers is definitely RAI, but it would still be a houserule to fill in missing RAW.
Arcane swordsage also doesn't list any class skills. So by RAW all skills would be cross-class.

(That's what you sound like.)

[loky1109]

By default this means arcane maneuvers revert to EX or SU standard DC(10 +1/2 HD + [CON OR CHA]). Using the same DC calc as other maneuvers is definitely RAI, but it would still be a houserule to fill in missing RAW.

Any solution about that question would be a houserule.

[Promethean]

Arcane swordsage also doesn't list any class skills. So by RAW all skills would be cross-class.

(That's what you sound like.)

The skills for swordsage would remain unchanged for its arcane variant as they're explicitely not changed for the adaptation rules.


Any solution about that question would be a houserule.

Technically, but I still hold that SU/Ex defaults would be closest to RAW even if it's clearly not RAI.

[Crake]

Using the same DC calc as other maneuvers is definitely RAI, but it would still be a houserule to fill in missing RAW.

Using the term RAI firstly implies that there are actually rules for this, which there arent. Its not “rules as interpreted”, its “these are the rules I would make if I was adapting this as a DM, because there are no rules on this”. The whole adaptation is unplayable without houserules, you understand that, right? Its not fleshed out enough to be playable, its literally just a starting point for a DM to make their own adaptation, so theres literally no reason to try and argue RAW for rules that literally dont exist.

[Promethean]

Using the term RAI firstly implies that there are actually rules for this, which there arent. Its not “rules as interpreted”, its “these are the rules I would make if I was adapting this as a DM, because there are no rules on this”. The whole adaptation is unplayable without houserules, you understand that, right? Its not fleshed out enough to be playable, its literally just a starting point for a DM to make their own adaptation, so theres literally no reason to try and argue RAW for rules that literally dont exist.

Enough RAW exists in surrounding material to make this untrue. All the RAW may not be spelled out in the adaptation section, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The only truly necessary houserule would be whether AS arcane maneuvers cast as SU or EX(to determine if CON or CHA is the default DC mod and what feats/classes/effects can modify them). Everything else is spelled out in the rest of the book, core rules, or psionic rules.

[Crake]

Enough RAW exists in surrounding material to make this untrue. All the RAW may not be spelled out in the adaptation section, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The only truly necessary houserule would be whether AS arcane maneuvers cast as SU or EX(to determine if CON or CHA is the default DC mod and what feats/classes/effects can modify them). Everything else is spelled out in the rest of the book, core rules, or psionic rules.

Thats like saying you can play swordsage with just a printout of the class’ pages from ToB and not the rest of the book “because everything else is spelt out” in other books. If you truly think that, and arent just saying it to be contrarian or argumentative, then I don’t think we can find any common ground in this discussion, as our core fundamental assumptions about this game are just so different. I dont think you’ll find too many people who agree with your baseline assumptions about how these rules would function.

[Promethean]

Thats like saying you can play swordsage with just a printout of the class’ pages from ToB and not the rest of the book “because everything else is spelt out” in other books. If you truly think that, and arent just saying it to be contrarian or argumentative, then I don’t think we can find any common ground in this discussion, as our core fundamental assumptions about this game are just so different. I dont think you’ll find too many people who agree with your baseline assumptions about how these rules would function.

That isn't anything close to what I'm arguing whatsoever.

Trying to play swordsage without the rest of the RAW in tome of battle would be like trying to play D&D without the core rules. That isn't similar to may argument in any way.

Especially considering that Arcane Swordsage is spelled out in the same way any ACF is. It's a collection of modifiers for a base class. The only thing AS is missing is rules for DC calculation.

[Crake]

Especially considering that Arcane Swordsage is spelled out in the same way any ACF is.

Except it isnt. Its laid out as a series of loose suggestions, not hard rules for a swapout.

[Promethean]

Except it isnt. Its laid out as a series of loose suggestions, not hard rules for a swapout.

True, let me rephrase: It's laid out with as much information we need to edit a base class in a similar fashion to an ACF. We don't need an entire class spelled out for that one feature for the same reason it would be pointless to do that for an ACF.

The rules for Arcane Swordsage aren't as incomplete as they're made out to be. We have enough to go off of that the only missing hard RAW is whether Arcane Maneuvers count as EX or SU for the sake of DC calcs

[Crake]

True, let me rephrase: It's laid out with as much information we need to edit a base class in a similar fashion to an ACF. We don't need an entire class spelled out for that one feature for the same reason it would be pointless to do that for an ACF.

The rules for Arcane Swordsage aren't as incomplete as they're made out to be. We have enough to go off of that the only missing hard RAW is whether Arcane Maneuvers count as EX or SU for the sake of DC calcs

People see the rules as incomplete because they arent actually rules to begin with, they’re suggestions, with wording like “could” and “in general”. The very fact that its called an “adaptation” instead of a variant like every other acf, says it all: the DM will need to adapt the class to fit what they want to get out of it.

[H_H_F_F]

If you prefer, you could instead emphasize the magical talents of the swordsage by giving the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level. In general, spells from the schools of abjuration, evocation, and transmutation are most appropriate for a swordsage of this type, especially spells with a range of personal or touch. The arcane spell is “cast” as if it were a martial maneuver. In this case, you should remove the class’s light armor proficiency and reduce the swordsage’s Hit Die to d6.

What is the spell list of the arcane swordsage? Any arcane spell? Any arcane spell of the mentioned school? Any wiz/sorc spell of the mentioned schools? Any wiz/sorc touch/personal spell of the mentioned school?

No, the answer is clear from the wording - the arcane swordsage doesn't have access to all spells. The arcane swordsage only has access to spells from the arcane swordsage spell list, and that is whatever you decide it is when you build the acf - the book gives you recommendations of the sort of spells that would be fitting for such a spell list.

That's the reason for "most appropriate" and "especially". Those are utterly meaningless phrases, unless you get that these are just homebrew suggestions. Claiming that these are concrete rulings is ludicrous. What the hell does "especially" mean, rules-wise?

Claiming that the entirety of the class description is "fluff", and that a lack of rules means that RAW the arcane swordsage can learn any arcane spell is even more ludicrous. Nothing in the game is written like that, there's nowhere to draw such an assumption from. If CAd had a 1-4 casting prc that casts arcane spells and they forgot to make a spell list, you wouldn't say it can cast any spell, you'd say the class was lacking info.

This isn't written like rules. If's written like an adaptation suggestion, which 3.5 has a ton of. Animal Lord suggests you could add a ratlord or a squiord, and suggests you'd "use the examples below as templates when creating a new animal lord". Just like with arcane swordsage, you have everything you need - except the details. What is the feat requirement of a ratlord, what do their aspect/totem do? That's what you're meant to fill up. Just like the arcane swordsage spell list, and refresh mechanics, and rulings for adding spells outside their list, and rules for casting times longer than one round, and whether or not they have to take spells instead of maneuvers every time or they just can, and, you know the actual rules.

Whether you have an easy or hard time, whether the decisions are obvious or not, whether you have a clear base for that homebrew or not - that's irrelevant. The adaptation notes for daggerspell shaper suggest you add a neutral alignment requirement. That's as simple as can be, no questions asked. But it's not a freaking ACF, is it? It's an adaptation suggestion for the DM.

Champion of Corellon requires "very little adaptation" to swap a god/race combo. Is "very little" a rule? The blade bravo offers allowing halflings, and "perhaps" small or smaller fey. Is "perhaps" meaningful, rules-wise? I'd argue that not less so than "most appropriate", "in general", or "especially".


TL;DR: saying that making an arcane swordsage is easy and requires very little work is an argument I'd disagree with, but I get the case for it. Saying it's an ACF that has RAW is nonesense.

[loky1109]

Technically, but I still hold that SU/Ex defaults would be closest to RAW even if it's clearly not RAI.
Closest to RAW, but not being RAW isn't RAW. Doesn't matter how close it is.

An no, I don't think this "Su/Ex defaults" idea is the closest.

[Promethean]

What is the spell list of the arcane swordsage? Any arcane spell? Any arcane spell of the mentioned school? Any wiz/sorc spell of the mentioned schools? Any wiz/sorc touch/personal spell of the mentioned school?

No, the answer is clear from the wording - the arcane swordsage doesn't have access to all spells. The arcane swordsage only has access to spells from the arcane swordsage spell list, and that is whatever you decide it is when you build the acf - the book gives you recommendations of the sort of spells that would be fitting for such a spell list.

I disagree. This:


If you prefer, you could instead emphasize the magical talents of the swordsage by giving the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level. In general, spells from the schools of abjuration, evocation, and transmutation are most appropriate for a swordsage of this type, especially spells with a range of personal or touch. The arcane spell is “cast” as if it were a martial maneuver. In this case, you should remove the class’s light armor proficiency and reduce the swordsage’s Hit Die to d6.

Could be just as easily read as meaning that the swordsage has access to all arcane spells and the following spell suggestions are simply that, suggestions for character building if the player wants to follow a specific theme.

The line starts with "if you prefer", but that is only leaves the DM deciding whether they want to use the class at all. The bolded parts would be the hard RAW of the altered class, while the sentence that starts with "In general" would be the fluff.

This interpretation of raw leaves less questions unanswered and can lean on existing RAW to fill in the blanks rather than have the DM needing to invent everything from whole cloth.



That's the reason for "most appropriate" and "especially". Those are utterly meaningless phrases, unless you get that these are just homebrew suggestions. Claiming that these are concrete rulings is ludicrous. What the hell does "especially" mean, rules-wise?

I'm not. The only vaguely worded sentence is the one that starts with "in general", which isn't necessary for the class to word anyway. The only other vague wording is where the paragraph leaves it up to the DM whether they want to use the class at all.



Claiming that the entirety of the class description is "fluff", and that a lack of rules means that RAW the arcane swordsage can learn any arcane spell is even more ludicrous. Nothing in the game is written like that, there's nowhere to draw such an assumption from. If CAd had a 1-4 casting prc that casts arcane spells and they forgot to make a spell list, you wouldn't say it can cast any spell, you'd say the class was lacking info.

Are you sure? Because that's definitely how classes like archivist, StP erudite, and a host of other classes used in optimization for early spell acquirement work.



TL;DR: saying that making an arcane swordsage is easy and requires very little work is an argument I'd disagree with, but I get the case for it. Saying it's an ACF that has RAW is nonesense.

I'm not. My last comment before this is literally me saying that it isn't an ACF and rewording my point because calling it an ACF would be wrong.

[Crake]

I disagree. This:



Could be just as easily read as meaning that the swordsage has access to all arcane spells and the following spell suggestions are simply that, suggestions for character building if the player wants to follow a specific theme.

The line starts with "if you prefer", but that is only leaves the DM deciding whether they want to use the class at all. The bolded parts would be the hard RAW of the altered class, while the sentence that starts with "In general" would be the fluff.

This interpretation of raw leaves less questions unanswered and can lean on existing RAW to fill in the blanks rather than have the DM needing to invent everything from whole cloth.



I'm not. The only vaguely worded sentence is the one that starts with "in general", which isn't necessary for the class to word anyway. The only other vague wording is where the paragraph leaves it up to the DM whether they want to use the class at all.



Are you sure? Because that's definitely how classes like archivist, StP erudite, and a host of other classes used in optimization for early spell acquirement work.



I'm not. My last comment before this is literally me saying that it isn't an ACF and rewording my point because calling it an ACF would be wrong.

If we can't even find a baseline commonality on how even the most basic standard rules are to be interpreted, then I don't really see the point in carrying on this discussion. Your means of interpreting the rules is just too foreign if you can come to these conclusions.

[Promethean]

Closest to RAW, but not being RAW isn't RAW. Doesn't matter how close it is.

An no, I don't think this "Su/Ex defaults" idea is the closest.

What do you mean? SU/EX Defaulting to 10 + 1/2 HD + CHA/CON is hard RAW.

3.5 runs on logic chains of specific trumping general. The entirety of the maneuver system uses the EX/SU rules with added modification, if the modification(the "exception") is missing, the core takes over.

Most of D&D's supplements would fall apart if this wasn't true.


If we can't even find a baseline commonality on how even the most basic standard rules are to be interpreted, then I don't really see the point in carrying on this discussion. Your means of interpreting the rules is just too foreign if you can come to these conclusions.

This is pretty standard logic working in legal, so IDK what to tell you. D&D 3.5 has NOTHING on american tax and safety "standards" regulations.

[H_H_F_F]

I disagree. This:



Could be just as easily read as meaning that the swordsage has access to all arcane spells and the following spell suggestions are simply that, suggestions for character building if the player wants to follow a specific theme.

The line starts with "if you prefer", but that is only leaves the DM deciding whether they want to use the class at all. The bolded parts would be the hard RAW of the altered class, while the sentence that starts with "In general" would be the fluff. The whole thing is addressed at the DM. Seems like a very forced reading to claim that it switches to player advice mid-paragraph, and comes back to hardcore rules seamlessly. Maybe that'd make some sense if I agreed with this:


Are you sure? Because that's definitely how classes like archivist, StP erudite, and a host of other classes used in optimization for early spell acquirement work.

Honestly, that's a baffling paragraph to me.


An archivist casts divine spells, drawn primarily from the cleric spell list although he can eventually uncover, learn, and prepare noncleric divine spells spells. Unlike clerics, archivists prepare spells from a prayerbook, a collection of copied divine spells. To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, an archivist must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against an archivist's spell is 10 + the spell level + the archivist's Int modifier.

Like other spellcasters, an archivist can cast only a certain number of spells of each level per day. His base daily allotment is given in Table 5—1: The Archivist. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1—1 on page 8 of the Player's Handbook). He must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and then spending 1 hour studying his prayerbook. The archivist decides which spells to prepare while studying.

Unlike a cleric, an archivist does not receive his daily spell complement from whatever deity or cosmic force he worships. Rather, he must seek out and collect new spells much as a wizard does, but from such esoteric sources as holy tablets, ancient steles, or other magical scriptures. He cannot prepare any spell not recorded in his prayerbook except for read magic, which archivists can prepare from memory.

An archivist begins play with a prayerbook containing all 0-level cleric spells plus three 1st-level cleric spells of the player's choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the archivist has, the prayerbook has an additional 1st-level cleric spell. At each new class level, the archivist gains two new cleric spells for his prayerbook; these can be of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on hisnew archivist level). At any time, an archivist can also add spells found on scrolls containing divine spells to his prayerbook, but he must make any rolls and spend the time required (see Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook on page 178 of the Player's Handbook). The archivist can learn and thus prepare nonclerical divine spells in this fashion but the two free spells he gains for advancing in class level must be selected from the cleric spell list.

These are the paragraphs detailing how archivist works. I've bolded the part that leads us to know that they can add any divine spell to their prayerbook. You know, the part that says they can do that. Are you seriously saying that the clear rules language used here is equivalent to "the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level"?

If you're honestly reading that sentence under the "adaptation" clause as more akin to the archivist than to... Well, any other adaptation clause in the game, then I honestly don't know that we can see eye to eye on this.

One last inquiry:


What do you mean? SU/EX Defaulting to 10 + 1/2 HD + CHA/CON is hard RAW.

Is this from rules compendium? Because in the SRD, SU says "usually cha", and EX has... nothing. There are a few specific cases of general EX categories working that way - poison, for example - but nothing even approaching "HARD RAW" as far as I can tell.

[Kalkra]

I'm not gonna get into the weeds of how this all works, because ultimately ToB just didn't give all the necessary rules, but I will mention that Time Stop is a Transmutation spell, and an Arcane Swordsage could have it up non-stop. That's just insane.

Also, if you want to start getting cheesy (which is easy when you don't have all the rules), Arcane Swordsage says that whenever you would get a maneuver, you can take a spell as a maneuver instead. Heroics is a Transmutation spell that you can use to give yourself Martial Study, meaning by what passes for RAW in this case once you get Heroics at level 3 you can get any spell or maneuver you qualify for as a standard action (although only one at a time, at most three with Mirror Move). That gives you more utility than a Wizard.

Even ignoring all of that, the fact that you can replenish all your slots as a full-round action is ludicrous. You can basically have any buff that lasts minutes/level or longer up all the time.

[Promethean]

The whole thing is addressed at the DM. Seems like a very forced reading to claim that it switches to player advice mid-paragraph, and comes back to hardcore rules seamlessly. Maybe that'd make some sense if I agreed with this:



Honestly, that's a baffling paragraph to me.



These are the paragraphs detailing how archivist works. I've bolded the part that leads us to know that they can add any divine spell to their prayerbook. You know, the part that says they can do that. Are you seriously saying that the clear rules language used here is equivalent to "the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level"?

If you're honestly reading that sentence under the "adaptation" clause as more akin to the archivist than to... Well, any other adaptation clause in the game, then I honestly don't know that we can see eye to eye on this.

I'm wrong about archivist, but that doesn't mean my argument is wrong.

Here's how an STP erudite works:


Convert Spell to Power

Your training has included basic magical theory as well as the usual psionic training.

Replaces: You lose your 1st-level bonus feat.

Benefit: You add Spellcraft to your class skill list, which allows you to attempt to convert an arcane spell into a power you can add to your repertoire. You treat the spell as a discipline power for the basis of learning it, and you must first succeed on a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level) and then a Psicraft check as per the normal rules of learning a discipline power (see page 154 of Complete Psionic).

Each spell costs a certain number of power points to manifest. The higher the level of the spell, the more power points it costs. The table below describes each spell's cost.

Note: If this system intrigues you, you can see a spell point variant system starting on page 153 of Unearthed Arcana.

Like swordsages adaptation section, stp erudite doesn't specify a spell list, so the DM has to create a spell list for erudite to take from right? Only that doesn't make sense in context.

Unlike Arcane Swordsage, STP erudite is also an officially publish ACF. A finished product to act as a player option. It isn't there for the DM to invent in any form other than invoking rule zero for a specific table.

This means there 100% is a precedent for interpreting "arcane spells" to mean ALL arcane spells.

However if this isn't enough let's look at the artificer class:


Item Creation (Ex): An artificer can create a magic item even if he does not have access to the spells that are prerequisites for the item. The artificer must make a successful Use Magic Device check (DC 20 + caster level) to emulate each spell normally required to create the item. Thus, to make a lst-level wand of magic missile, an artificer would need a Use Magic Device check result of 21 or higher. To create a bottle of air (caster level 7th), he would need a check result of 27 or higher to emulate the water breathing prerequisite.

The artificer must make a successful check for each prerequisite for each item he makes. If he fails a check, he can try again each day until the item is complete (see Creating Magic Items). If he comes to the end of the crafting time and he has still not successfully emulated one of the powers, he can make one final check - his last-ditch effort, even if he has already made a check that day. If that check also fails, then the creation process fails and the time, money, and XP expended to craft the item are lost.

For purposes of meeting item prerequisites, an artificer's effective caster level equals his artificer level +2. If the item duplicates a spell effect, however, it uses the artificer's actual level as its caster level. Costs are always determined using the item's minimum caster level or the artificer's actual level (if it is higher). Thus, a 3rd-level artificer can make a scroll of fireball, since the minimum caster level for fireball is 5th. He pays the normal cost for making such a scroll with a caster level of 5th: 5 × 3 × 12.5 = 187 gp and 5 sp, plus 15 XP. But the scroll's actual caster level is only 3rd, and it produces a weak fireball that deals only 3d6 points of damage.


An artificer can also make Use Magic Device checks to emulate nonspell requirements, including alignment and race, using the normal DCs for the skill. He cannot emulate skill or feat requirements, however, including item creation feat prerequisites. He must meet the caster level prerequisite, including the minimum level to cast a spell he stores in a potion, wand, or scroll.

An artificer's infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items. For example, an artificer must still employ the Use Magic Device skill to emulate the light spell to create a wand of light, even though light appears on his infusion list.

Magic items created by an artificer are considered neither arcane nor divine.


The artificer doesn't specify what list they get spells from OR put in clear text that they can take from all lists. So where do artificers get their spells?

What about warlocks imbue item?



Imbue Item (Su): A warlock of 12th level or higher can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required to make an item (although he must know the appropriate item creation feat). He can substitute a Use Magic Device check (DC 15 + spell level for arcane spells or 25 + spell level for divine spells) in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast.

If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell. If it fails, he cannot complete the item. He does not expend the XP or gp costs for making the item; his progress is simply arrested. He cannot retry this Use Magic Device check for that spell until he gains a new level.

The warlock doesn't specify what spell list they take from and DC only specifies arcane or divine, not a specific spell list.



One last inquiry:



Is this from rules compendium? Because in the SRD, SU says "usually cha", and EX has... nothing. There are a few specific cases of general EX categories working that way - poison, for example - but nothing even approaching "HARD RAW" as far as I can tell.

Rereading, rules compendium and.. yeah.

Huh, I guess I'm wrong about SU/EX defaulting to a specific DC. Oof.