The Runesmith: Dwarf Wizards Rock

[BRC]

So I was flipping through Races of Stone, and I ran across somthing I loved. The Runesmith, a full casting PRC that requires Heavy Armor Proficiency, but lets the caster prepare all his spells as "Runes", removing the need for somatic components.

Essentially, a dwarf wizard in full plate.

Now, I know that Wizards don't need to be wearing 500 pounds of steel to stop themselves getting hit, and the class either requires the character to lose a caster level (By dipping into Fighter or something else with Heavy Armor Proficiency) or use 3 feats, and "THOU SHALL NOT LOSE CASTER LEVELS", ect ect, but personally I'd say it's worth it.

So, the class is awesome, but I have a question and a notice

1) The Capstone ability, Permanent Rune, you give up a spell slot permanently, and in exchange get a spell of one level lower as an SLA 2 times a day.
Now, here's the odd part
If the spell takes an expensive material component, you must provide resources equal to 20x the cost of that component (Stands to reason). If it takes an expensive focus, you provide the focus, if it takes XP, you provide XP.

Wait, what?
So you pay the XP cost once, and in exchange get the spell XP free 2 times a day forever? Mind you, because you have to give up a spell slot one higher, you can't use this for Wish or anything, but you could do it with Limited Wish. So you pay 300 Xp once and give up a spell slot, and in exchange get XP-free Limited Wish 2 times a day, not a bad deal all things considered.


And now, something else, the Example Runesmith. Bazrid Harkenth, who seems to have taken Heavy Armor proficiency without taking the prerequisite. Now, knowing WoTC's track record with double checking this would be excusable, except that the Heavy Armor Proficiency requirement is explicitly stated to be a balancing factor, which I assume they take to mean alot more than "You need to spend a feat which is icrucial to the class anyway".

[Iku Rex]

1) The Capstone ability, Permanent Rune, you give up a spell slot permanently, and in exchange get a spell of one level lower as an SLA 2 times a day.
Now, here's the odd part
If the spell takes an expensive material component, you must provide resources equal to 20x the cost of that component (Stands to reason). If it takes an expensive focus, you provide the focus, if it takes XP, you provide XP.

Wait, what?.

It's poorly worded, but I think the intent is that you pay the xp cost every time you use the sla.

And now, something else, the Example Runesmith. Bazrid Harkenth, who seems to have taken Heavy Armor proficiency without taking the prerequisite. Now, knowing WoTC's track record with double checking this would be excusable, except that the Heavy Armor Proficiency requirement is explicitly stated to be a balancing factor, which I assume they take to mean alot more than "You need to spend a feat which is icrucial to the class anyway".

Not sure what you're getting at here. The armor proficiency requirement means taking three non-caster-y feats, or a level in a non-caster class. This balances the quite powerful ability to cast in full plate without ASF.

[BRC]

It's poorly worded, but I think the intent is that you pay the xp cost every time you use the sla.
Not sure what you're getting at here. The armor proficiency requirement means taking three non-caster-y feats, or a level in a non-caster class. This balances the quite powerful ability to cast in full plate without ASF.

I know. My point was that the example runesmith given skips Light and Medium armor proficiency, going straight to Heavy, thereby negating a good deal of the balancing factor.
Or, to put it another way, WoTC messed up in a pretty significant way.

[sofawall]

Or, to put it another way, WoTC messed up in a pretty significant way.

Are you surprised? It is an example NPC.

[Iku Rex]

I know. My point was that the example runesmith given skips Light and Medium armor proficiency, going straight to Heavy, thereby negating a good deal of the balancing factor.

You need to keep in mind that the example character probably wasn't made by the same person who made the PrC. It's just another WotC mistake. Business as usual.

[BRC]

Are you surprised? It is an example NPC.

This just seems more significant than most.

Also, the SRD says this about SLA's

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

Since the class feature description dosn't mention requiring the XP cost every time it's used, it seems pretty clear that, once made into an SLA, a spell no longer has an XP cost.

[starwoof]

I discovered this class yesterday and I've been thinking really hard on it (weird timing). The way I read the capstone says I pay the xp component once. Then I have 2 limited wishes a day (or what have you) for the rest of my life.

[BRC]

I discovered this class yesterday and I've been thinking really hard on it (weird timing). The way I read the capstone says I pay the xp component once. Then I have 2 limited wishes a day (or what have you) for the rest of my life.

Yeah, the "Paying the XP cost" thing seems to be pretty clearly in the paragraph about inscribing the spell, and the SLA rules are very definite about SLA's not using up XP. I don't see a way to read it that dosn't lead to 2 XP-free Limited Wishes every day.
A DM could of course say that you can't dodge XP costs with this class feature, but that would be houseruling (and justified houseruling at that).

[Kurald Galain]

The armor proficiency requirement means taking three non-caster-y feats, or a level in a non-caster class. This balances the quite powerful ability to cast in full plate without ASF.

Off the top of my head, could you do a level in Duskblade for that? It means you might also qualify for True Magus.

[Iku Rex]

Since the class feature description dosn't mention requiring the XP cost every time it's used,...

Sure it does. "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

In other words, every time you use the SLA, you must spend xp "as if you had cast the spell normally".

Again, it's bady worded, but this interpreation is more reasonable.

[BRC]

Sure it does. "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

In other words, every time you use the SLA, you must spend xp "as if you had cast the spell normally".

Again, it's bady worded, but this interpreation is more reasonable.

That's clearly in the paragraph about Inscribing the Spell. If that was what was meant, they would have put it in the next paragraph, about after the spell was inscribed.

[Optimystik]

The problem I have with the "only once" interpretation here is the difference in wording. The Material Component and Focus Component wordings use "expend" but the XP component wording says "spend as cast normally." This seems to imply that the XP cost is paid differently than the other two; the logical conclusion being that it must be paid more than once.

In other words, if they meant it to be a one-shot cost like it is with the other two components, they would have used "expend."

Compare also the Archmage's SLA ability, which still requires XP with each activation (for spells that require XP) even though it is an SLA.

[Iku Rex]

That's clearly in the paragraph about Inscribing the Spell. If that was what was meant, they would have put it in the next paragraph, about after the spell was inscribed.

Circular. If it refers to using the SLA then it's not "the paragraph about inscribing the spell".

[BRC]

Circular. If it refers to using the SLA then it's not "the paragraph about inscribing the spell".

It dosn't.
Here are the lines in question

To inscribe a permanent rune, a runesmith must permanently sacrifice an arcane spell slot of one level higher than the spell to be inscribed as a permanent rune, and spend 24 hours inscribing the rune. If the spell has a costly material component, he must expend resources equal to 20 times the gp cost of the material component. If it has a costly focus, he must expend resources equal to the cost of the focus. If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally.
Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day.

The first part is clearly about what it takes to inscribe the rune itself. The second paragraph is about after the rune is inscribed. The XP cost is mentioned in the first paragraph.

[HamHam]

That seems to clearly say you spend the XP once. On the other hand, that is terribly broken.

[Iku Rex]

It dosn't.
Here are the lines in question

The first part is clearly about what it takes to inscribe the rune itself. The second paragraph is about after the rune is inscribed. The XP cost is mentioned in the first paragraph.

You really don't want to play the "it's clearly" game when you're advocating a clearly unbalanced interpretation.

The last sentence refers to the xp cost of using the SLA. Therefore, the paragraph is clearly not only about inscribing the rune. See what I did there?

[BRC]

You really don't want to play the "it's clearly" game when you're advocating a clearly unbalanced interpretation.

The last sentence refers to the xp cost of using the SLA. Therefore, the paragraph is clearly not only about inscribing the rune. See what I did there?

I didn't say my interpretation was balanced. I was saying it was whats in the book. If I was DMing, I'd houserule it so you would pay the XP cost every time you used the SLA, if I was a player and the DM said "You need to pay the spells XP cost every time", I wouldn't complain. But I would call it a highly justified Houserule, not an interpretation of RAW.

[crazedloon]

well I think the important portion of the rule is the last portion

"Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day."

the fact that you activate the rune much like you would an item is relevant because you are not casting the spell or using a spell-like ability. Much any magic item you do not use your exp when activating this rune.

[Iku Rex]

I didn't say my interpretation was balanced. I was saying it was whats in the book.

Yes, but your interpretation of "what's in the book" does not merely depend on the literal wording. It depends on your subjective opinion on the context. Once you play that card, common sense and game balance becomes an issue.

[BRC]

Yes, but your interpretation of "what's in the book" does not merely depend on the literal wording. It depends on your subjective opinion on the context. Once you play that card, common sense and game balance becomes an issue.

Doesn't the same apply to your interpretation?

As far as I can tell (I am probably wrong feel free to correct me), these are our respective arguments

Me: They only mention paying XP costs in a paragraph devoted to inscribing the rune, therefore, by RAW, you only pay the cost once.
You: Since only paying the XP cost once is incredibly broken, that line obviously refers to using the SLA, not inscribing the rune.

[Draxar]

Yes, but your interpretation of "what's in the book" does not merely depend on the literal wording. It depends on your subjective opinion on the context. Once you play that card, common sense and game balance becomes an issue.

No. XP every time could me RAI, but it's certainly not RAW. "What's in the book" is the RAW

Rules are rules, and there's no context in the book to that particular rule that suggests that that text should not be interpreted according to the normal rules of D&D

Here is the text about the inscribing of the rune:

To inscribe a permanent rune, a runesmith must permanently sacrifice an arcane spell slot of one level higher than the spell to be inscribed as a permanent rune, and spend 24 hours inscribing the rune. If the spell has a costly material component, he must expend resources equal to 20 times the gp cost of the material component. If it has a costly focus, he must expend resources equal to the cost of the focus. If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally.

All of that is clearly about the inscribing, and only the inscribing.

Once he has inscribed a spell as a permanent rune, a runesmith can activate the chosen spell as a spell-like ability (using his arcane caster level as the caster level) twice per day.

This is the second part, as it's talking about 'once you've inscribed', and you activate it as a spell like ability, which don't cost XP or GP.

No-one is arguing the fact that this can be broken (though there are rather easier ways to break the same thing). But you seem to be arguing that the rules, in fact, state that it's XP every time.

They don't.

[quicker_comment]

Honestly, the text seems entirely clear to me. At least unless you're arguing that the runesmith should also pay 20 times the material component cost, and the cost of the focus, each time they activate the SLA.

Saying that the three sentences should refer to two entirely different contexts does not seem like a valid reading. Context is a part of the language, you can't just ignore it.

[Leon]

Its a good one - I don't worry about lost CL too much so a level or 2 of another class is easy (Fighter if you worry about Multiclass issues, cleric if not)

Yeah its another WotC error at checking the details for the feats

[Iku Rex]

As far as I can tell (I am probably wrong feel free to correct me), these are our respective arguments

Me: They only mention paying XP costs in a paragraph devoted to inscribing the rune, therefore, by RAW, you only pay the cost once.

And this, as I pointed out earlier, is circular reasoning. If the last sentence in the paragraph does not refer to inscribing the rune then the paragraph clearly isn't "devoted to inscribing the rune".

You: Since only paying the XP cost once is incredibly broken, that line obviously refers to using the SLA, not inscribing the rune.

No. My argument is that the rules are badly worded. Unclear. We are forced to make a judgement call as to the intent of the rules.

My judgement call is mainly based on how not having to spend XP on certain spells would be obviously broken and inconsistent with similar class abilities (archmage).

Your judgement call is based on your subjective opinion on what the paragraph is about.

[Optimystik]

Honestly, the text seems entirely clear to me. At least unless you're arguing that the runesmith should also pay 20 times the material component cost, and the cost of the focus, each time they activate the SLA.

Saying that the three sentences should refer to two entirely different contexts does not seem like a valid reading. Context is a part of the language, you can't just ignore it.

But the reverse is also true - language is a part of context, and using different language implies different treatment. Why would they change the verb for the XP payment if they wanted it treated the same way as the other payments?

And RAI suggests turning spells into SLAs should not circumvent XP costs, with Archmage as a guide.

[BRC]

And this, as I pointed out earlier, is circular reasoning. If the last sentence in the paragraph does not refer to inscribing the rune then the paragraph clearly isn't "devoted to inscribing the rune".
No. My argument is that rules are badly worded. Unclear. We are forced to make a judgement call as to the intent of the rules.

My judgement call is mainly based on how not having to spend XP on certain spells would be obviously broken and inconsistent with similar class abilities (archmage).

Your judgement call is based on your subjective opinion on what the paragraph is about.

No, the RAW is clear, however, it's not good. We both agree on what the rules SHOULD be, it should be archmage-style SLA's, where the caster pays XP costs every time.
The difference is that I start with what is written, say "It should be This". You are starting with what it should be, and assuming that's what it is. Since the RAW dosn't say that, you are saying "RAW is unclear, we must use our judgement".
Think Occams Razor, which is more likely, that they, without any warning, switch from talking about inscribing the rune to talking about using the rune in the same paragraph, then make another paragraph about using the rune without mentioning XP costs when they could have used much clearer language (like they did with the Archmage). OR that they, when writing the class, messed up, as they have been wont to do quite often.

Edit: Your logic is equally circular. " that sentence is not about inscribing runes, therefore the Paragraph is not about inscribing runes, therefore the sentence can be about using the rune instead of inscribing it, therefore the Paragraph is not about inscribing runes..."
Every other sentence in that paragraph is clearly about inscribing runes. The 24 hour period, providing the focus and 20 times the material components. And they have another paragraph about using the rune.

[Iku Rex]

No, the RAW is clear, ...

No, it's not.

Here's the rule in question again: "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

This is the Rule as Written. And strictly as written, separated from the context of the rest of the rules (which apparently it must be, or we get into subjective intent), it says nothing about when the xp must be spent - every time when using the SLA or once when inscribing the rune. It's not clear.

Think Occams Razor, which is more likely, that they, without any warning, switch from talking about inscribing the rune to talking about using the rune in the same paragraph, then make another paragraph about using the rune without mentioning XP costs when they could have used much clearer language (like they did with the Archmage). OR that they, when writing the class, messed up, as they have been wont to do quite often.

Think Occams Razor. Which is more likely?

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description. Or that a WotC game designer or editor messes up the wording/sentence order a little, making the rules unclear?

[Dixieboy]

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description.

This is not as unlikely as you think.

[jiriku]

Think Occams Razor. Which is more likely?

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description. Or that a WotC game designer or editor messes up the wording/sentence order a little, making the rules unclear?

Actually, both of those things are likely behaviors among WotC game designers.

/smartass

[BRC]

No, it's not.

Here's the rule in question again: "If the spell has an XP cost, he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally."

This is the Rule as Written. And strictly as written, separated from the context of the rest of the rules (which apparently it must be, or we get into subjective intent), it says nothing about when the xp must be spent - every time when using the SLA or once when inscribing the rune. It's not clear.

But Context IS relevant, especially considering that rule isn't complete on it's own. It says "he must spend XP as if he had cast the spell normally", saying he is not casting the spell normally. From there, we must look to the Context to see when the spell is being cast normally.
If somebody says "The night before a test, I like to study with some friends. I also try to get to bed an hour earlier than normal". You can't take "I also try to get to bed an hour earlier than normal" on it's own and call it unclear. It's only unclear because you separated it from it's clarifying context.

Think Occams Razor. Which is more likely?

That a WotC game designer intentionally, after consideration, includes an obviously broken rule, inconsistent with other, similar rules and even inconsistent with similar rules (for material components) in the ability description. Or that a WotC game designer or editor messes up the wording/sentence order a little, making the rules unclear?

. Polymorph Any Object. Chain-Gating Solars. Planar Shepard. Druids. Epic Spellcasting. Divine Metamagic+Nightsticks. Candle of Invocation.

Edit: And even if, as you said, the editor messed it up and put the sentence in the wrong place, that's still RAW.



EditII: Here is what you are doing. Take the rule for the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability

Skill Mastery

The rogue becomes so certain in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions.

Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. A rogue may gain this special ability multiple times, selecting additional skills for it to apply to each time.

You are taking this sentence

When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.

and saying "It doesn't specify which skills, therefore it's unclear".