Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can a slann with focused rumination, benefti from it if using a bound spell item?

Yes, because he is casting a spell and the only restriction i could find is you dont add your wizard level to it.

Makes sense to me.

^^ This!

I don't think he can as the bound spell is "cast" by the item and not by the wizard. This is stated on pg 37 of the rule book. That is why even non wizards can use bound items. Focused Rumination says it is added when the Slann casts a spell.

I don't see anywhere it says the item is the one casting it. Furthermore, on pg. 37, in the example, it says, "when the Noble attempts to cast the spell" - indicating the Noble is indeed casting it.

Killjoy00 wrote:I don't see anywhere it says the item is the one casting it. Furthermore, on pg. 37, in the example, it says, "when the Noble attempts to cast the spell" - indicating the Noble is indeed casting it.

...and of course they should have written it as "when the spell is cast by the item that the Noble is holding".)

They don't write the rulebooks with the idea in mind that a RAW crowd will be parsing sentences trying to find hidden treasure. The item casts the spell, you cannot add your wizard level, don't need to be a wizard to use it, and the miscast affects the item, not the person holding it. I would not allow the slann to add dice to attempt to use a bound item.

Wow, I can't believe this hasn't been addressed by the FAQ? I did not even consider whether or not you would add wizard level, etc. from using a bound item...

I agree it seems a little odd, but there is other language supporting it too:

"A bound spell is cast just like an ordinary spell
using dice from the power pool (the model
may do so even if it is not a Wizard)."

Note the model, not the item, etc.

"On the other hand,
failing to cast a bound spell does not break a
wizard's concentration"

Note the wizard's failure, not the item, again.


And RiTides, it specifically says you don't add any casting modifiers such as wizard level. Although I was myself a little wary of the idea at first, I think we have to be open to the idea that this is what they intended. RaI it makes sense that a person is indeed casting it. The item doesn't have a will of its own. And focused rumination is an "attuned" mind - attuned to the use of magical items as well.

Hmmm...... RaI I'm not sure I buy it at all! But RaW, I don't know...

Will definitely have a think on it and am glad for this thread bringing it up, at least

The item doesn't have a will of its own.

Really? Why? Huge examples in stories where the items have a will of their own. Hell, Stormbringer kicks a Slanns ass easy and uses the frog to cast It's spells.)

And focused rumination is an "attuned" mind - attuned to the use of magical items as well.

Anytime you start logically explaining how magic works, you've slid into the twilight zone.) Who's to say a bound spell isn't simply pointing a stick and saying 'Shazam'. The Lizardman codex even has an example of one in it's fluff. Implying that some 'Old One Magic' is actually technology.

Failing to cast a bound spell not breaking a wizards concentration, IMHO, is a point in the direction of it being the item casting the spell, not the wizard/user/model. The item doesn't affect the wizard, or even care if he is one.

It could go either way. I'll be ruling at our tournaments that it doesn't work on bound items.

If it was the item casting the spell instead of the wizard, they wouldn't have to point out that it doesn't concentration. _Obviously_ if it were the item actually casting it, then it wouldn't break conc.

Look, I just put the RaI out there. I think the RaW is quite clear and even if it is a change from 7th, I feel the reticence is just from how you feel the rules should be. There's nothing saying that the bound item casts the spell. There is a strong example (even if you wish it were worded differently) that indicates the model is casting the spell.

Look, I just put the RaI out there.

Nope, because you can't know RaI.

I think the RaW is quite clear and even if it is a change from 7th, I feel the reticence is just from how you feel the rules should be.

And your opinion is somehow not how you think the rule should be. You're funny.) Of course you think the rules are quite clear, but that doesn't change anyone elses mind.

Play it how you wan't, I'll be interpreting it differently.

The last sentence in the first paragraph under bound spells on Page 37 says:

"Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

Seems like it is saying the cast is from the item not the character - the character just activates it.

Later it says that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I put a potential RaI explanation out there.

I agree no one can know RaI. That's why a pretty clear RaW issue should not be taken aback by RaI explanations.

I've given clear reasons and quotations on why the rules shold work this way.

You are the funny one. Your best comeback was "and of course they should have written it" a different way. But they didn't. Maybe you would have written it differently.

The rule is actually (relatively) clear here, no one is trying to gain an advantage (I don't play LM and if I did, I don't think I'd ever take a bound item on my slann b/c cupped hands is much, much better - extra dice or no).

The rule is clear; you can add an extra dice to the casting with FR

You can play it otherwise, but it is a houserule to do so.

mikhaila wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:I don't see anywhere it says the item is the one casting it. Furthermore, on pg. 37, in the example, it says, "when the Noble attempts to cast the spell" - indicating the Noble is indeed casting it.

...and of course they should have written it as "when the spell is cast by the item that the Noble is holding".)

They don't write the rulebooks with the idea in mind that a RAW crowd will be parsing sentences trying to find hidden treasure. The item casts the spell, you cannot add your wizard level, don't need to be a wizard to use it, and the miscast affects the item, not the person holding it. I would not allow the slann to add dice to attempt to use a bound item.

My least favorite phase: The Semantics Phase

(Oh, and my solution to the issue is ... ban focused rumination )

- Salvage

Duke_Corwin wrote:The last sentence in the first paragraph under bound spells on Page 37 says:

"Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

Seems like it is saying the cast is from the item not the character - the character just activates it.

Later it says that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have.

I didn't see anyone respond to this... is that what page 37 says? The line certainly makes it sound like the item is the one casting the spell...

I don't see any evil geniuses at work on either side of this issue although it certainly is open to abuse if rumination or the like does apply... however, RaW I think you need a bit more to go on to say that it does add to the bound item (if Duke_Corwin's post above is correct per page 37... which I need to go home and check ), rather than proof that it doesn't.

RiTides wrote:I didn't see anyone respond to this... is that what page 37 says?

Indeed it does.

There are more instances which say the user casts the bound spell than the item casts the spell.

CLassic writing.

Page 37, in the section on bound spells, under 'Casting Bound Spells'

"Note that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have (for Wizard level, magic items, and so forth). On the other hand, failing to cast a bound spell does not break a wizards concentration, as using an item that contains a bound spell normally would not require anything more complex than uttering a single word of activation"

I think people can read that and decide for themselves how they want to play it, but seems fairly clear, RAW or RAI.

I read that as strong evidence in favor of the user casting the spell.

If they wanted the item to cast the spell, it would be easy to say "the item casts the spell" and obviously, you wouldn't add caster value and obviously, you wouldn't break concentration.

Only if the model is casting the spell do you have to add rules that DO apply to other spells that model would cast!!

I anxiously await the legal mumbo jumbo that will now come out to try and explain how adding a dice to the casting value is not a modifier.

It isnt a casting modifier as you are changing the number of dice rolled.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There are more instances which say the user casts the bound spell than the item casts the spell.

But surely that isn't justification for choosing one over the other? It's a conflict that has to be resolved.

Killjoy00 wrote:If they wanted the item to cast the spell, it would be easy to say "the item casts the spell"...

But what about the quote above from page 37? It specifically says "Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

SO, this is an instance of a specific rule overriding a general rule. Generally, a wizard can cast spells. Specifically, this is a bound spell. On page 37, it says that the item casts the spell. This overrides the general "he's a wizard" rule, and you just cast the spell from the item as you would if it was on any model.

Just my $0.02 and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the clear evidence that you guys are seeing for it being RAW an open and shut case for adding dice from a wizard ability. At best, there's a conflict (see the quote from page 37 above... can somebody please respond to this ) and so it is not clear, because there are sentences supporting both stances.

To me, that means it comes down to which rule is more specific (and so overrides) and I think it's the one on page 37 saying the item casts the spell.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It isnt a casting modifier as you are changing the number of dice rolled.

And how are you coming by that explanation? Is the term 'casting modifier' defined anywhere in the book?

Normally under "modifiers" which explain addition or subtraction of a number from a dice total. So +1 to cast is a modifier. Luckily this would be the English definition as well...

RITides - did you read the second sentence of my post? Nowhere did I say it was "open and shut" just that they state the USER casts the bound spell more than they say the item does. In a balance of probabilities this suggests the former is true. You are simply taking the latter as true based on a single instance, which HAS to be flimsier....

The English definition would be anything that changes something. Adding another die when casting something would be, by an English definition, a 'casting modifier'.

Page 7, modifying dice rolls, disagrees with you. First two lines define how you modify a dice roll, which is by adding or subtracting a number from the D6. It then talks about how to work out other dice rolls.

The bound item doesn't mention modifying the casting die roll but rather

any casting modifiers

IE any modifier to casting.