Can Spellthiefs qualify for feats/prestige classes via steal spell?

[Anthrowhale]

Reading through:

After stealing a spell, a spellthief can cast the spell himself on a subsequent turn. Treat the spell as if it were cast by the original owner of the spell for the purpose of determining caster level, save DC, and so forth. A spellthief can cast this spell even if he doesn't have the minimum ability score normally required to cast a spell of that level. The spellthief must supply the same components (including verbal, somatic, material, XP, and any focus) required for the stolen spell.
So the spellthief (a) cast the spell and (b) must provide components, but otherwise the spell is as if from the source. Based on (a) I was imagining the answer was 'yes'. On the other hand, it seems at least one person disagrees.

So, in your opinion can a Spellthief 1 qualify for Alternate Source Spell? Spellthief 4 qualify for Geomancer? A Spellthief 6 qualify for Hexer? Or a Spellthief 10 for Argent Savant? And why/why not?

[Paragon]

So the spellthief (a) cast the spell and (b) must provide components, but otherwise the spell is as if from the source. Based on (a) I was imagining the answer was 'yes'. On the other hand, it seems at least one person disagrees.

So, in your opinion can a Spellthief 1 qualify for Alternate Source Spell? Spellthief 4 qualify for Geomancer? A Spellthief 6 qualify for Hexer? Or a Spellthief 10 for Argent Savant? And why/why not?

From Fax Celesti's Spellthief guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?44299-Jack-Of-All-Trades-Fax-Celestis-Guide-to-Spellthieves) :

I'm waiting to hear back from WotC to see if being able to cast a stolen spell of a particular level qualifies you for feats and prestige classes with a requirement of "Able to cast spells of X level."
I guess he is still waiting :D

In my games I allow it because even though you need specific external conditions for it to work, it's your own ability. What's more, external ways to qualify for stuff have precedent with the item letting count as if having feats (Mobility armor for instance).
If you fear this ruling might unbalance anything, Steal Spell has the progression of a Sorcerer with less spells per day, less spells known and from limited schools. I think we're good.

[Troacctid]

It depends on whether you think a spellcasting level requirement means a. you have to be able to produce a spell effect of that level, regardless of how you do it, or b. you have to actually have the Spellcasting ability and a high enough level in the class that grants it to be able to cast spells of that level (as given in the spells per day table for your class).

B is obviously the RAI reading, and it's also RAW according to CAr's rules for spell level prereqs and the PHB's rules for when you are able to cast spells of a given level. A is the "But it doesn't specifically say that I can't do it!" reading, which is not how D&D is supposed to work; either the rules say you can do it, or you can't do it (without permission from the DM).

In this case it actually does say in the Spellthief's spellcasting ability and class table that you aren't able to cast 1st-level spells until level 4, which I think makes this an especially weak case, and that's on top of the whole "using a temporary ability as a prerequisite" issue, which normally comes up with, like, you know, casting heroics on yourself 30 seconds before gaining enough xp to level up, but it also applies here, and it's widely looked down on as a cheesy exploit at best. Not to mention the fact that according to CM, a spell is only considered to be available for a spellthief to cast if she knows the spell and has at least one spell slot of the spell's level or higher. But in general, once you decide to take A as your reading of RAW, then it follows that owning a candle of invocation qualifies you as being able to cast 9th-level spells, and at that point all spell level prereqs get invalidated in your campaign very quickly.

Also, it would be very stupid if stolen spells, which are still tied to their owner and can't even be held in the spellthief's mind, let you qualify for spell level prerequisites when SLAs, which are supposed to be exactly like spells except for a small handful of differences, don't.

[Anthrowhale]

I guess he is still waiting :D

Yeah, ending a game is one way of avoiding question :-)


If you fear this ruling might unbalance anything, Steal Spell has the progression of a Sorcerer with less spells per day, less spells known and from limited schools. I think we're good.
Yeah, I don't see much potential for abuse. This came up for me, since I was looking into a Warlock/Unseen Seer with this offering one-level-more-elegant entrance than alternatives.


It depends on whether you think a spellcasting level requirement means a. you have to be able to produce a spell effect of that level, regardless of how you do it, or b. you have to actually have the Spellcasting ability and a high enough level in the class that grants it to be able to cast spells of that level (as given in the spells per day table for your class).

B is obviously the RAI reading, and it's also RAW according to CAr's rules for spell level prereqs and the PHB's rules for when you are able to cast spells of a given level.

I believe you are referring to:

...requirements for feats and prestige classes based on specific level of spells cast cannot be met by spell-like abilities or invocations...
which does not apply to the Spellthief since (a) it's a supernatural power and (b) it's enabling casting rather than creating effects directly.



A is the "But it doesn't specifically say that I can't do it!" reading,

That is not the argument. The quote given in the OP specifically says that a spellthief can do it(=cast spells).



In this case it actually does say in the Spellthief's spellcasting ability and class table that you aren't able to cast 1st-level spells until level 4,

The theory that a spell progression starting at level 4 negates an ability given at level 1 seems like a problematic interpretation to me. When I read rules, I try to understand them in a way so that they all make sense locally. In this particular case, I believe what the authors intended was for the Steal Spell and Spells class features to operate independently except in that a stolen spell can power something from Spells.


which I think makes this an especially weak case, and that's on top of the whole "using a temporary ability as a prerequisite" issue, which normally comes up with, like, you know, casting heroics on yourself 30 seconds before gaining enough xp to level up, but it also applies here, and it's widely looked down on as a cheesy exploit at best.

The timespan doesn't seem relevant here, since a spellcaster need not cast a 3rd level spell at the moment of levelup in order to qualify for Incantatrix.



Not to mention the fact that according to CM, a spell is only considered to be available for a spellthief to cast if she knows the spell and has at least one spell slot of the spell's level or higher.

What are you referring to here?



But in general, once you decide to take A as your reading of RAW, then it follows that owning a candle of invocation qualifies you as being able to cast 9th-level spells, and at that point all spell level prereqs get invalidated in your campaign very quickly.

The Candle of Invocation is indeed problematic (and widely known as such). The good news is that it looks like the only spellcasting classes requiring the ability to cast 9th level spells are Elven High Mage and Athasian Dragon, both of which have other epic requirements.



Also, it would be very stupid if stolen spells, which are still tied to their owner and can't even be held in the spellthief's mind, let you qualify for spell level prerequisites when SLAs, which are supposed to be exactly like spells except for a small handful of differences, don't.
This seems like an interpretation to me. For example, it could be the case that the supernatural ability to steal spells provides a 1-hour capability to hold the spell in the spellthief's mind.

[Troacctid]

That's just a lot of words that boil down to "I prefer option A."

It's not even consistent. Are you basing it on whether you are literally able to do the thing or not? If so, you should lose the prereq when you are currently unable to do the thing. If not, then you're conceding that the ability to cast spells is something more inherent to the character than the literal ability to cast that spell right now.

And the logical conclusion of it all is "I have Scribe Scroll and UMD, therefore I am able to cast arcane and divine spells of any level."

[Anthrowhale]

That's just a lot of words that boil down to "I prefer option A."
You have a particular framing here which I don't agree with. In particular, I don't believe it's about the ability to produce a certain effect. My preferred framing is option C:
Does the spellthief's ability to cast stolen spells apply to prereqs for feats and prestige classes? This differs from A, because it's not about the effect produced---instead it's about the ability to produce effects (and in particular the ability to cast spells).

Just to emphasize, let me quote things very directly.

After stealing a spell, a spellthief can cast the spell himself...
And, if we look at Unseen Seer which started me thinking about this it says:

Spellcasting: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells...
Again, we are asking, "can a spellthief cast a spell?" not "can a spellthief produce a certain effect? or scale of effect?"



It's not even consistent. Are you basing it on whether you are literally able to do the thing or not? If so, you should lose the prereq when you are currently unable to do the thing.

Apologies, I can't follow this. What are you referring to?



And the logical conclusion of it all is "I have Scribe Scroll and UMD, therefore I am able to cast arcane and divine spells of any level."
Ah, there's a real argument. UMD says:

If you are casting a spell from a scroll..
And of course when using scribe scroll you don't have to produce the spell itself. Thus, "you" can scribe a scroll of a spell that you can't otherwise cast and "you" can cast that spell.

If we look at scroll use (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellCompletion) however, it adds some detail:
...All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)... Given this, it sounds like you aren't doing all the casting when you use a scroll---just the last bits of it.

Thinking about it, there are several variations of what "Ability to cast 1st level spells" could mean.

Able to cast spells with no external support (i.e. Sorcerer, Bard, Eidetic Wizard).
Able to cast spells with possessed external support (Wizard, Wu-Jen).
Able to cast spells with deific external support (Cleric, Druid, Ur-Priest).
Able to cast spells with nondeific external support (Sha'ir).
Able to cast spells with support by other creatures (Spellthief).
Able to finish casting spells with a spell completion item (any character with UMD or scroll on list).

I expect most people would say "no" for the last item and "yes" for the Sha'ir and above. A Spellthief's ability to cast a stolen spell shares the source-dependence on caster level that a scroll does, but is also a complete casting (full time, all components) as per 1-4. It differs from the Ur-Priest's ability in that you steal from other creatures rather than gods, but it seems there is nothing inherently bad about counting stolen power in fulfilling prereqs.

So, I'm at "no" for 6 (since it's just finishing casting rather than doing all the casting) and asking in the OP whether people think that 5 is more like 6 or 1-4.

[Troacctid]

Casting a stolen spell is also just finishing the casting that someone else prepared. From the sentence right before your quote:

The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on).
The part the scroll skips is preparation, which spellthieves also skip.

Anyway, if you're going to use lore text to explain away why scrolls shouldn't count, then you should also have to account for the lore text that talks about what spellcasting level requirements represent. Live by the lore, die by the lore.

[Anthrowhale]

Casting a stolen spell is also just finishing the casting that someone else prepared. From the sentence right before your quote:

The part the scroll skips is preparation, which spellthieves also skip.
The 'preparation only' view of scrolls seems counterindicated in two ways:

a) My understanding is that scrolls take a standard action to activate regardless of spell casting time, and that they also subsume material components. Both of these are elements of spell casting not preparation.
b) There are many other classes which do not prepare spells like Sha'ir, Spirit Shaman, etc... Do you want to forbid them also from qualifying for casting prestige class requirements?

The parallel between Sha'ir 1 and Spellthief 1 seems particularly apt. A Spellthief "steals" a spell which they can then cast at any time in the next hour. A Sha'ir's Gen "retrieves" a spell from a genie on an elemental plane which can then be cast at any time in the next hour. What's the important distinction here? A few possibilities:

The ability is called "Spells" rather than "Steal Spell". (... but the name of the ability is not a part of the prereqs.)
The Sha'ir gives an explanation of mechanism
Once retrieved, a spell remains set in the sha'ir's memory, like a wizard's prepared spell... while Steal Spell does not. (...but Steal Spells could use the same mechanism---it's never explained.)
The Sha'ir uses their own caster level and save DC rather than the genie's. Is this it?
Something else?



Anyway, if you're going to use lore text to explain away why scrolls shouldn't count, then you should also have to account for the lore text that talks about what spellcasting level requirements represent. Live by the lore, die by the lore.
Are you thinking of the text in Complete Arcane quoted above? (Or something else?) For the former at least, if the unexplained mechanism of Steal Spells operated like the explained mechanism of Sha'ir retrieval, would that satisfy your lore concerns?

[daremetoidareyo]

When you cast that spell, you lose the prereq and thus lose feats and prestige class features (depending on interpretation).

[Anthrowhale]

When you cast that spell, you lose the prereq and thus lose feats and prestige class features (depending on interpretation).

The consistent belief is that a wizard that casts all their spells for the day no longer qualifies as well. While I can respect the view, I believe few play with that interpretation. Do you?

[Troacctid]

The consistent belief is that a wizard that casts all their spells for the day no longer qualifies as well. While I can respect the view, I believe few play with that interpretation. Do you?
The RAW reason why wizards don't stop qualifying when they run out of spells is because spellcasting level requirements are based on your spellcasting capacity as determined by your class's spell table (see the PHB). This is a reading that tends to produce intuitive and internally consistent rulings. One of the consequences of it, though, is that Steal Spell definitely does not work, because it isn't included in the key metric that matters: spell slots.

But from a totally different angle: most people probably agree that a prerequisite you gain from a temporary effect is lost when that effect ends. So the more relevant comparison might be, can a wizard who knows polymorph qualify for the Multivoice feat (which requires two or more heads) by virtue of the ability to transform into a hydra, and then use the feat while in human form? I think most DMs would either say that you can't take the feat at all, or that you can take the feat, but it will only function while you're in an appropriate form.

[Anthrowhale]

The RAW reason why wizards don't stop qualifying when they run out of spells is because spellcasting level requirements are based on your spellcasting capacity as determined by your class's spell table (see the PHB).
This would be more convincing to me if you could point to something specific. Without that, "I say it's so according to the PHB." seems like an appeal to false authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_false_authority) . Can you cite an actual rule for your claim? That we should ignore:

...a spellthief can cast the spell...
for a requirement of:

Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells
seems like an extraordinary assertion which should require something stronger than an unsupported claim.



But from a totally different angle: most people probably agree that a prerequisite you gain from a temporary effect is lost when that effect ends. So the more relevant comparison might be, can a wizard who knows polymorph qualify for the Multivoice feat (which requires two or more heads) by virtue of the ability to transform into a hydra, and then use the feat while in human form? I think most DMs would either say that you can't take the feat at all, or that you can take the feat, but it will only function while you're in an appropriate form.
I'd agree with your ruling, but it's not clear to me that the situation is analogous.

Let's consider Sha'ir 1 again, since the mechanics are so similar, and I expect you answer the other way there (correct me if I'm wrong). If the Sha'ir wakes up in the morning after 8 hours of rest, are they disqualified for feats/prestige classes requiring level 1 spellcasting ability? They certainly can't cast spells at that moment. What about a wizard who has expended all spells for the day?

[Paragon]

I like the case you're making Anthro and I never pushed it this far but the "what about the Sha'ir then?" Argument is my new go-to ^^

Otoh I get what Troaccid is saying (I think); the whole game has one way that is intuively understood to show when you do or do not have a spellcasting ability and that is the table that goes with the class. A table that the spellthief has as well albeit at a slower progression.
A trickster spellthief would qualify without any question if you're looking for a easy sell for your DM.

But after reading all of this I think there is grounds to have steal spell qualify as a spellcasting ability and would be open to have the benefits of the PrC as long as you have an arcane spell in memory (and lose it when it's gone) before you're of sufficient level to benefit from your innate spellcasting

Thanks for the debate, it's been instructive

[Thurbane]

I guess in a game where you can qualify for feats/PrCs using Imbue with Spell Ability, or a Ring of Spell Storing, then sure, this should work?

[Anthrowhale]

Thanks for the debate, it's been instructive
Happy to help.

I guess in a game where you can qualify for feats/PrCs using Imbue with Spell Ability, or a Ring of Spell Storing, then sure, this should work?
I agree. Putting these into the slipperly slope, you get something like this:


Able to cast spells with no external support (i.e. Sorcerer, Bard, Eidetic Wizard).
Able to cast spells with possessed external support (Wizard, Wu-Jen).
Able to cast spells with deific external support (Cleric, Druid, Ur-Priest).
Able to cast spells with nondeific external support (Sha'ir).
Able to cast spells with support by other creatures. Components required, effect according to source. (Spellthief).
Able to cast spells with Imbue with Spell Ability. Components required, effect according to cleric.
Able to cast spells with a ring of spell storing. V required, other components suppressed. Full casting time. Effect minimal.
Able to cast spells with a scroll (via UMD for example). V,S required, other components suppressed. Standard action casting time. Effect according to scriber. Spell completion text clarifies that this is finishing casting.

And then there's the Candle of Invocation, which I don't know how to place.

Reading through, it seems that Imbue with Spell Ability is very close to Steal Spells, with the only real difference being the scope of allowed spells and the fact that it's provided by the cleric rather than stolen by the spellthief.