Adept vs monk: the final nail in the coffin

[Solo]

Mother Cyst doesn't actually have any alignment restrictions, nor do Adepts have Cleric like restrictions about alignment casting, so a good or neutral Adept can do everything mentioned here if they want (they'd just have to use their undead entirely for good, only dominate evil people in service to good, etc).

Good clerics can give people cancer. Durkon managed to give Elan a colon tumor, and Pelor the BURNING HATE causes skin cancer all the time.

[Tshern]

The feat specifically says they're added to your class list, right? So it actually isn't even contradicting the fact that they're already listed on the cleric/wizard class lists... They're on the wiz/clr/sorc class lists even without the feat, but those classes can't cast them without the feat. They're not on anyone else's lists without the feat. However, anyone who takes the feat adds them to their class spell list, and can cast them. There is no contradiction anywhere. It's a bit strange, but not contradictory.

Good Adepts have access to all the Sanctified spells, which adds quite a lot. 

I thought non-evil casters could cast those? I'm pretty sure the book specifically says that non-evil clerics can spontaneously cast Sanctified spells, as strange as that might sound...

Aye, but at least Luminous armor has to be cast on a good creature because of the target entry, which says 'One good creature'. Those without the stipulation work just fine.

Also, good Adepts could easily dominate evil people to change their ways. At least temporarily dominate...

[awaken DM golem]

Ways to Expand a Spell List (III) by ChristopherGroves
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2777.0
Not updated for a while.

What did we get there, like almost all 8s across the Divine / Arcana / Psi divides ?!
9s get over by trickery or Epic.

[Solo]

I have not kept up: is "Giamoco" ok with Monk leadership?

[awaken DM golem]

Heh.
I don't mean to be a total hoser (take off 'eh)
but ... there was a build a few pages back,
that if it had Leadership, it could handle CR 1 fliers.

[Mixster]

I don't know why it bothers to list them as sorcerer/wizard and cleric spells, since the norm is you can't cast them at all, and the feat lets you cast them if you're a caster of any sort.

You could even take it as a warlock, but you wouldn't actually gain any benefit from it. That's odd.

Quite clearly because WotC wanted StP Erudites to be able to cast the spells for 4 extra PP without having the feat.

Clearly.

[X-Codes]

I don't know why it bothers to list them as sorcerer/wizard and cleric spells, since the norm is you can't cast them at all, and the feat lets you cast them if you're a caster of any sort.

You could even take it as a warlock, but you wouldn't actually gain any benefit from it. That's odd.

Quite clearly because WotC wanted StP Erudites to be able to cast the spells for 4 extra PP without having the feat.

Clearly.

Clearly.  Even though they weren't even published, yet. 

I think the spells were created first, and then the feat was added as a stealth buff to... well... every other spellcaster.

[JaronK]

I suspect that the feat and spells were created together, but then they thought "well, we have to put SOMETHING in this line about who can cast it..." so they threw in the most common casters that they thought would be using it.

JaronK

[Lycanthromancer]

Well, I imagine the Who Can Cast It line does make SOME sense, since it works nicely with items.

[snakeman830]

Well, I imagine the Who Can Cast It line does make SOME sense, since it works nicely with items.

It does have significant impact on other aspects of the game, but not who can actually cast the spells, since the required focus for all ten spells is provided by the same feat that adds them to your list.  The tags mean that Wizards can emulate Necrotic Empowerment with Wish (assuming they didn't ban Necromancy) and Clerics can emulate it with Miracle, for example.  It means any Wiz/Sorc/Cleric not barred from casting those spells (such as Good aligned Cleric or specialist that banned Necromancy) can use scrolls, wands, and staffs without needing UMD.

[Midnight_v]

Would the Decicive Strike Acf double the damage from Psionic Fist/weapon etc? What about Stances you might be in?
A 2 level dip for that might be worth while for certain situations.

[Mixster]

Would the Decicive Strike Acf double the damage from Psionic Fist/weapon etc? What about Stances you might be in?
A 2 level dip for that might be worth while for certain situations.

If it's unarmed or a special monk weapon.

If you can get some ability damage on your weapon, like a Butterfly Sword with Wraithstrike covered in Black Lotus Poison, it is decent.

But I've never understood the fuss about it, IMO it's worse than an extra attack as it takes away your ability to full attack. Can be used for an AoO build though.

[Sir Giacomo]

Good Adepts have access to all the Sanctified spells, which adds quite a lot.  Mother Cyst doesn't actually have any alignment restrictions, nor do Adepts have Cleric like restrictions about alignment casting, so a good or neutral Adept can do everything mentioned here if they want (they'd just have to use their undead entirely for good, only dominate evil people in service to good, etc).  And before you say it's impossible to have a good aligned caster using undead, I recommend you read the Bone Knight PrC, which is designed primarily for Lawful Good necromantic types (it's a Cleric or Paladin PrC).

JaronK

Good RAW point, maybe even RAI. Still...the cyst spells and animate dead have the evil descriptor, while sanctified and corrupt spells are described as good and evil respectively. So, a DM may rule using them pushes the character into the direction of good and evil. The adept is not the same as a prestige class specifically designed to fill the roleplaying gap of "using evil or good ends".
But OK, let's assume for this argument that all adepts have all these spells available, irrespective of their alignment.

- Giacomo

[Halinn]

Good Adepts have access to all the Sanctified spells, which adds quite a lot.  Mother Cyst doesn't actually have any alignment restrictions, nor do Adepts have Cleric like restrictions about alignment casting, so a good or neutral Adept can do everything mentioned here if they want (they'd just have to use their undead entirely for good, only dominate evil people in service to good, etc).  And before you say it's impossible to have a good aligned caster using undead, I recommend you read the Bone Knight PrC, which is designed primarily for Lawful Good necromantic types (it's a Cleric or Paladin PrC).

JaronK

Good RAW point, maybe even RAI. Still...the cyst spells and animate dead have the evil descriptor, while sanctified and corrupt spells are described as good and evil respectively. So, a DM may rule using them pushes the character into the direction of good and evil. The adept is not the same as a prestige class specifically designed to fill the roleplaying gap of "using evil or good ends".
But OK, let's assume for this argument that all adepts have all these spells available, irrespective of their alignment.

- Giacomo

Arbitrary DM fortunately does not make the ruling of what is, by RAW, legal. And given that RAI is at worst unclear on the issue, for this 'challenge' there doesn't seem to be a fault with using them.

And while that prestige class was mentioned, it was in the context of showing that there is precedent for using 'evil' spells while remaining good.

[oslecamo]

And while that prestige class was mentioned, it was in the context of showing that there is precedent for using 'evil' spells while remaining good.

Except it doesn't. The class just lets you use a custom, weaker, animating effect that doesn't have the [Evil] tag (which animate dead has). Meanwhile Fiendish Codex is pretty clear that yes casting [Evil] spells will make you evil, and no, casting [Good] spells doesn't counteract it in any way.

[Solo]

Would it have been better to bring up the Malconvoker?

[Shiki]

This only works for Conjuration spells though.

[oslecamo]

This only works for Conjuration spells though.

Indeed. And that's the point of entering a prestige class. Geting special out of the norm abilities.

[Lo77o]

This only works for Conjuration spells though.

Indeed. And that's the point of entering a prestige class. Geting special out of the norm abilities.

I think the reason he mentioned the malconvoker was to show an archtype where you use evil to fight evil as a good character. I am rather sure you can play like that even without having a PrC with the right fluff, so long as you stay away from restricted spells and follow RAW ofc.

[JaronK]

Except it doesn't. The class just lets you use a custom, weaker, animating effect that doesn't have the [Evil] tag (which animate dead has). Meanwhile Fiendish Codex is pretty clear that yes casting [Evil] spells will make you evil, and no, casting [Good] spells doesn't counteract it in any way.

The point I was making was that using undead for good while being good is perfectly valid.  The Bone Knight shows that.

The other point being, nothing in RAW says it's impossible for a Good Adept to cast [Evil] spells.  He's not a Cleric.  That's a Cleric restriction.

JaronK