Author Topic: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion  (Read 31088 times)

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2013, 08:11:14 PM »
:) ... this WBL is an interesting idea rabbit hole to follow,
and it's own thread might be good, to not clutter SorO's.
Indeed.

So take it else where.

Offline Spiraldrive

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2013, 08:43:31 PM »
I think Artificers actually have 3/4 bab.  I always understood poor bab to be 1/2.  Do you use poor differently in this case? 

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2013, 08:57:25 PM »
I think Artificers actually have 3/4 bab.  I always understood poor bab to be 1/2.  Do you use poor differently in this case?
Oh no, poor is 1/2, 3/4 is...

You know, I think I know why it says poor.

Edit: Corrected to average. Also removed the red coloring on it.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 09:14:18 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2013, 10:12:03 AM »
Some typos in your last post, and also you're missing the wonderful sickstone bullseye lantern.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline strider24seven

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2013, 01:33:01 AM »
I'll humor that post, simply because I thought I covered things when I spoke of the Spell Storing Infusion before.

Since he acts as if his CL is 2 higher than his Artificer level, he gains "access" to spells that the Wizard can't even cast yet. ... Is this enough to make the Artificer more powerful than the Bard?  Probably not, but it's definitely enough to be better than the Ranger or Spellthief.
It's +2 to your Artificer Level for prerequisites, but if it duplicates a Spell Effect it uses your Caster Level. There two aspects to note there. The first is like Spell Storing it's based on your Artificer and not Caster Level. For example an Artificer 5 / Caster_Progressing_PrC 6 has a Crafting CL of 7, four levels lower than it should be and six levels lower than what you are attempting to bring to attention. For a Class dedicated to crafting items, being utterly unable to craft useful items is rather hampering isn't it? For that to remain on the table of discussion you can only speak of pure classed Artificers which means none of the higher than normal PrC abilities. Secondedly;
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
You cannot use it to craft Wands, or Scrolls, or Potions, because you are incapable of casting the Spell as that +2 Bonus doesn't even apply in this area to begin with. And if you take duplicating a Spell Effect to include things like +4 Enhancement to Str is the same as Bull's Strength it gets even worse since it removes 90% of the possible items. So no, this ability isn't even remotely as good as you proclaim it is. It does the job of being a penalty better than it does at being a bonus.

And another point you need to consider. And how does the it measure? I mean I can't agree towards the concept that anything in T4 is stronger than the Spelltheif. Without direct DM limitations a well established ST can have a bag of subdued/helpless creatures providing him with a pool of infinite SLAs, up to 9th level Spells, and god knows what Supernatural Abilities (manipulate form?). The upper end of an ST is amazingly high, it's just the problem the ST has to deal with however is that next category does in fact have 9th level Spells and they can make full usage of Assume Supernatural Ability. In short they sing anything you can do I can do better endlessly at the ST. Just like the Artificer, whom has to contend with no less than three Versatile Spellcaster powered casters running an entire Spell Level ahead of normal. And they are not penalized for PrCing nor do they need 24 hours of preparation after the Spell is needed. The gap between the two categories is not to be taken lightly even if you think one Class is better than a couple it sits next to. I mean hell, even the Paladin casts Spells well above his CL/Spell_Progression thanks to DMM.

I think that the bolded text speaks volumes.
Your ignorance of how the Artificer works is astounding - let's try a more realistic, less seizure-inducing example - rather than an Artificer who deliberately hamstrings himself by trying to advance class features that are not ultimately important to his function:
Artificer 15, who can make scrolls or staves (or custom magic items if the DM permits) of 9th level spells - from ANY list (possibly including the Artifact spells from Secrets of Xen'drik), a full 2 levels before other full casters (i.e. pretty much everyone) have access to them.  And he can even cast them using Use Magic Device.  I believe that having access to Shapechange, which can be Persisted using Metamagic Spell Trigger, a full 2 levels before even a Wizard can cast it just might qualify it as at least a moderately powerful class.  Yes, a Wizard can UMD a scroll of Shapechange as well - but he cannot make it himself.  This is a good concept for you to learn - self reliance.   

And if you believe that 15th level is an unrealistically high level, let us try wands of Polymorph as early as 6th level, or scrolls as early as 5th. 

And if you believe that they are just throwing money at the problem, you would be correct - and they do it far better than any other class in existence.  WBL-mancy is often the strongest form of magic, after all.  Let us not forget that consumables are counted separately from your permanent equipment (check your local DMG) for the purposes of WBL.

And let us not forget, of course, that not every DM tailors his items specifically for the PC's, nor does every adventuring party have access to the D&D equivalent of Walmart;  it is not always possible to get the specific gear you want... sometimes you have to make do with the next best thing.  The Artificer, on the other hand, can simply conjure into existence (for the right price), any item for which he has the caster level (read:  earlier than everyone else) and the feat requirements for, and can tailor the equipment to suit the player's needs, rather than trying to find the next best thing at Ye Olde Dragon's Hoarde. 

As everyone else seems to have touched upon the Spell-Storing Infusion, I will not do so further.

I will add the proviso that at low levels, an Artificer is pretty much screwed if the DM puts a time crunch on the campaign;  no time to craft = pretty much no class features.  A mid-to-high level Artificer can get around this restriction with a Dedicated Wright and Exceptional Artisan.  Stick that homunculus in a Portable Hole or Bag of Holding and let him get to work for you. 

And as a proviso to the proviso, at low levels, the Artificer has the Weapon Augmentation Infusion to add Bane vs whatever he is fighting, provided he has some foreknowledge - which he doesn't need if he has Rapid Infusion.  This can be used to carry him to the point where he can get his magical easy-bake oven online. 

TL;DR
Downplaying abilities which you have obviously never seen in a real game (or at least, not by intelligent human beings - a goldfish or spider monkey is not an effective pilot for the party's artificer) is a sure path to displaying your ignorance (intentional or not), which is probably not a good thing to post in an "Enlightenment Series."  Unless it is intended ironically, of course. 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 01:36:23 AM by strider24seven »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #45 on: November 12, 2013, 10:27:21 AM »
Some typos in your last post, and also you're missing the wonderful sickstone bullseye lantern.
I got the Sickstone added, with a nice reminder the one you google isn't the one people use.

The typos are grammar related so I don't have any fancy underlines.

Your ignorance of how the Artificer works is astounding
Hi Welcome to the forums.

I'm SorO, an arrogant kind of guy who loves logic and reason. I see rules through a programming lens and over the years I've given up on the English language beyond it's practical and entertaining use, as The Bard so richer receives acknowledgements for.

I'm not sure who you are, but I know you're new, I know you didn't read the last couple of posts, and I know your lead off example was a 15th level Artificer can craft any Spell but I won't hold it against you. This is indeed useful and powerful, but when categorizing Classes you sort by comparing. Like Magic has a wide spread of resource available to increase your CL which means the Warlock does the same three levels sooner than your example. If this trait were such colossally valued then we would have to make cases the Warlock is stronger than the Cleric, Wizard, and Druid. Which I cannot foresee ever coming to pass. You should familiarize your self on why those Classes are so powerful at some point. We have several Handbooks and guides related to such.

And speaking of Handbooks I believe we have one on Persisting Spells. I'm not sure if it got transferred over from the BG forums through. But it's a wonderful resource. Like did you know the 4th level Paladin can Persist any Sorcerer/Wizard/Paladin Spell for free? The Bard can burn his Music for such as well. A little less than half way through the game the biggest Persisters come into play, the Incantatrix and Spelldancer. Both apply it for free, as a Spellcasting PrC Classes like the Hexblade, Duskblade and Spellthief can attempt to enter them but Classes like the Fighter, Monk or Artificer cannot used them at all. But good news, Extend Spell has no Spellcasting requirements, via a 6,000 gold item any Class is capable of apply Persist Spell to a Wand. This includes pure mundanes like the Knight and Barbarian and even ignorable Classes like the Warrior or Commoner.

A little tip of advice, stay away from fallacies. They are pretty easy to slip into but some are pretty easy to catch your self before you start. Like treading down the road that a certain amount of consumables is meant to be ignored does not solely exist for a single Class. A Fighter is almost expected to consume Potions of Flight, a Rogue to consume Wands of Gravestrike, a Sorcerer with Scrolls of various Infusions, or even a Spell Domain Cleric's library. Any argument of a single Class benefiting from it opens way to rebuttals of the same exact sort. It's a useless way to spend your time and it proves nothing but your willingness to yell at someone, because you are foolish enough to think that will somehow change their mind.

In short, I hope you enjoy your time here. Lots of resources to be found here and we have decent community with an almost degree of professionalism willing to help out by any means they can, and they tailor them selves to exactly what you need, no matter how silly your DM's rules are.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2013, 08:15:04 PM »
(minor tangent)

This pic wotc labeled:  Omnislash ... although technically it's 4e.


Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2013, 12:40:14 PM »
I thought it was a DotA reference.
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2013, 03:51:28 PM »
Final Fantasy really, but 4th ripped off video games.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2014, 07:08:43 PM »
Calm down Soro, I agree with you.
Hehe. Sometimes its funny that we all get the same 'you know nothing!' response even when we agree with Soro ;)

Artificers are t1 because they are broken, not because they are awesome. In games where DMs will say "I can't let you have x ability because you could do y to break the campaign" artificers kinda blow.
You act like you don't know me or something. I mean seriously. That's not even remotely close.

WBL is part of the rule set and if you acknowledge it like you should or handle 3rd Edition like the DMG told you, Crafting (no matter the bonuses) is useless and ignorable. And the sad truth is all pro-Artificer comments are based on them. So I pose this to you. Why are you and everyone else reversing things and pretending WBL is the house rule? Well, the answer is staring at you in the face. The Artificer blows skunks for pocket change.
Wtfbbq? Please slow down for a simpleton like me. When have I ever said WBL is a house rule? I love WBL. Like... a lot. So much it makes CN theiving rogues cry. It makes the DM's job easy. Rolling for treasure and fencing things sloooooows down play. It might be a default behavior, but it should be tossed out the window for 90% of fun-and-fast campaigns where people actually play characters they like with the kind of gear they want to buy and don't lose 50% of the wealth they earn.

I mean, I'm kinda close. You did mention that they have the most broken 1st level spell evarrr. You can loop it for infinite spells on a non-vigilant DM. All in the ECS. That's brokenzors if I've ever seen it. And so I'll repeat myself. If your DM cuts out the few broken things and allows magic-marts, artificers are just a poorly built bard with an item familiar and metamagic grip (which also should never see the light of day).

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2014, 11:50:11 PM »
Calm down Soro, I agree with you.
Hehe. Sometimes its funny that we all get the same 'you know nothing!' response even when we agree with Soro ;)
And my response to that was the DMG beat him to it. The following paragraph was response to FlC's comment: "thus except during character creation "ignoring WBL" as you progress in the campaign is not a houserule at all, but the normal way of doing things." I just didn't have the quote box for it and apparently as a result you missed it.

On the rest, idk it's entirely possible I misread what you meant. Arties are broken unless the DM tries to balance things is pretty synonymous with Arties are broken unless the DMs nerf stuff, and correctly following the rules isn't a "nerf". And speaking of misreading, I mentioned a 1st level Artificer Spell capable of an infinite loop? This I'd love to hear, but please don't subject me to Metamagic Item[Twin Spell] Spell Storing Item[Spell Storing Item] comments or the like.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 11:56:15 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2014, 01:04:48 AM »
thank you for these threads. (sorry, i posted in the handbook before i realized it, feel free to delete that post if possible. )

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2014, 03:22:32 AM »
You should probably at least quote the text of the adaptation section that make you believe certain things about the ASS's maneuvers/spells.

Quote from: ToB 20
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 from this we can glean a few things. 
  • They don't get maneuvers.  Instead, they get arcane spells of the same level that the maneuver would be. 
  • They don't necessarily have to choose from any list in particular, as long as the spell in question is available in arcane form.
  • Abjuration, Evocation, or Transmutation would be the best schools for an ASS to choose spells from, but there could be exceptions.
  • Spells with a Personal or Touch range should be emphasized, but, again, there could be exceptions.
  • You don't actually cast spells.  You initiate them, as if they were a maneuver.  What this means for CL, Spell Resistance, or caster PrCs is entirely unclear.

It's important to note that Stances are not maneuvers (ToB pg 43), but count as maneuvers for the purposes of fulfilling prerequisites for higher-level maneuvers or qualifying for prestige classes or feats.  Since the ASS only explicitly gives up maneuvers, he keeps his Stance progression (though he'll probably have a hard time meeting prerequisites for higher-level stances).  Since we're already deep in houserule territory to even consider playing an ASS, it would not be unreasonable to say ASSes don't get stances at all, or to allow an ASS to cast long-duration personal spells as if they were stances. 

This next part is definitely going to be controversial, but it's worth thinking about.  The second-to-last sentence says "The arcane spell is “cast” as if it were a martial maneuver."  Personally, I believe that means that you don't actually cast spells, the author just used that as an analogy - that's why he put the word 'cast' in quotes.  Instead, you initiate spells, as if they were maneuvers.  What that means is, you don't inherit the rules for casting spells, but rather the rules for initiating maneuvers.  Your spells must be readied before they can be used, once used they are expended and cannot be re-used until recovered, they count as Ex abilities unless they're overtly magical (which they of course are), you don't have Arcane Spell Failure, and so on. 
This raises the important question of CL vs IL, and that can't be easily answered.  If you're not using the rules for casting spells, then you shouldn't use CL.  But IL specifies that it equals your level in the class that provides access to martial maneuvers, which ASS does not (instead it provides access to spells, which are initiated as if they were maneuvers).  By that logic, your IL for spells would be half your ASS levels.  That's dumb and obviously not intended.  I'd recommend going with the intent behind the IL scaling rules (spelled out in the first paragraph under Initiator Level on ToB 39).  Maneuvers are intended to scale poorly since you can use them over and over, and that's why you get half IL for non-maneuver using classes.  But, since you're picking spells instead of maneuvers, they scale at the same rate as spells.  Based on that, you have two options for dealing with ASSes.  Either treat their IL for spells as their full class level but don't count other classes as half, or rework their spells so that they don't scale as well.  If you go with the latter option, take a look at psionics or the spell-point variant. 

Next, you have to consider how to deal with ASSes and PrCs.  Since they're not casters, they probably shouldn't qualify for caster PrCs, except maybe ones that require "ability to cast Spell X". 

Finally, we have the question of which primary "casting" stat to use.  The book gives absolutely no advice, and you could make an argument for any of the 3 mental stats, or even all of them at once.  If you don't nerf their spells by un-scaling them, I'd suggest having each school use a different primary stat, much like different martial disciplines use different stats.  I'd probably go with Abjuration using Int, Transmutation using Wis, and Evocation using Cha.  If you did un-scale their spells, that's probably overkill and you should just pick one. 
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 03:26:41 AM by linklord231 »
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2014, 12:17:24 PM »
thank you for these threads. (sorry, i posted in the handbook before i realized it, feel free to delete that post if possible. )
I'll see what a mod can do later, and thanks.

You should probably at least quote the text of the adaptation section that make you believe certain things about the ASS's maneuvers/spells.
Yeah, I wrote it all at work. Off memory and googling the SRD. Some stuff is bound to be skimmed over (I forgot ability scores on saturday).

First type up of Stances covered your IL would be less than 1 when you are to learn your first stance. The creates a rules contradiction and an impossibly to follow through as is. I removed it Sunday as part of the editing in favor of simply stating ASS gives up (all) Maneuvers (stances count as maneuvers for qualifications/requirements) I'll include it later so it's better understood why I went this way instead of that way.

Likewise, I want you to read the following:
1. as a martial maneuver
2. as if they are martial maneuvers
3. as if it were a martial maneuver
One of those is the correct entry and one of the remaining two is how you are reading that section.
(click to show/hide)

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2014, 12:59:07 PM »
Huh, I never knew there was such a big grammatical difference between "as if they were" and "as if they are".
According go a couple sources I found, you use present tense when the comparison you're making is most likely true, and past tense when the comparison is most likely untrue, or we don't know if it's true or not. For example, "he's looking at me as if I were crazy" implies that I'm not crazy, but "he's looking at me as if I'm crazy" implies that I'm actually crazy, and it shows.

The use of "were" in the text would therefore imply that your spells are still spells, and the only way they change is the method of casting. What that means is something that I'll wait to suss out until I'm not posting from my phone.
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2014, 02:38:28 PM »
You seem to be missing one of the most imba OP points of ASS (and at-will spells in general)

It's not only the ASS that gets perma buffs.

It's the rest of the party that gets acess to those buffs as well. The entire party walks around polymorphed+whatever other buffs you have 24/7 and the force multiplier is absurd.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2014, 07:52:58 PM »
The use of "were" in the text would therefore imply that your spells are still spells, and the only way they change is the method of casting.
:)

It's the rest of the party that gets acess to those buffs as well. The entire party walks around polymorphed+whatever other buffs you have 24/7 and the force multiplier is absurd.
#1 self buffs, #2 is party buffs, #3 is out of combat, #4 is action breaking. I plan to give example spells in each, namely Polymorph, ?, ?, Timestop.

I guess Polymorph falls into #2, but honestly looking for a different example. Something powerful, better than once a minute playing tag with everyone for Haste, something that'd draw a 'no' from someone just hearing about it. I'm open to Spell suggestions.

Offline vaz

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2014, 04:06:12 AM »
How does the ASS blend with PrC's. Because Spellguard of Silverymoon 4 gives you Personal range spells as touch with Magic of the Land, at the cost of 1 Caster Level. As such, ANY self buff becomes party buff. With a CL of 19, such spells last for 3 minutes, so you might need to expend a feat on extend, but no need to waste one on Persist, although using Incantatrix

A spell I've always liked is Aspect of the Platinum Dragon; 110 Temporary Hit Points, and Polymorph goodness. Eladrin Form is also pretty cool for such. 150ft Perfect Incorporeal Maneuverability.

While not explicitly spelled out, as a Necromancy spell, a Greater Consumptive Field could be hilarious for some purposes. Especially if used as parts of the different schools, it could represent Shadow Hand.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2014, 02:02:56 PM »
How does the ASS blend with PrC's.
As normal for the most part. They meet CL, Spellcaster level, and Cast X Spell requirements just fine.

A few heads up on that part through.
An ASS does not have Spell Slots, Runestaffs are worthless to them.
An ASS is not a Martial Adapt and uses non-Adapt rules with PrCs/Feats, thereby no internal progression of Known.
Magical Items grant the use, not Known, of a Maneuver, again no Maneuver-to-Spell alteration.

Effects that would increase the number of Spells Known, may be subject to annoying debates on here.
Side A: An ASS has the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level which is interpreted to mean an ASS does not have a list of Spells Known, but a list of Maneuvers Known filled with Spells.
Side B: Is based on reasoning that adding Known has always broken the limits of the Class. For example a 10th level Sorcerer only knows three 5th level Spells but if said Sorcerer dips into Sand-Shaper he would know far more than three 5th level Spells.
Personally, I am in favor of A since it sticks as close as it can to the rules rather than observations of how other Classes work and that is what will make it into the article.

You can expand a Class's List of Spells without directly expanding their Spells Known. Rainbow Servant, Prestige Bard, and Silver Pyromancer are high ranking examples of such. So even if you think A sounds like I'm being too strict it by no reals means limits all that wacky Spell abuse you might be looking for. And in combat, nothing is ever going to change the ASS being capped at a maximum 13 possible Ready Spells either. You can expect one such Class Example to make usage of said PrCs when, if ever, I catch up to things this week.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 02:10:31 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2014, 03:01:16 PM »
an ASS does not have a list of Spells Known, but a list of Maneuvers Known filled with Spells.

This kind of smacks of trying to have it both ways, when you later say that an ASS can't benefit from feats like Adaptive Style or Extra Readied Maneuver because they don't have any maneuvers.  If what you say above is true, then things that alter the list of Maneuvers Known(/Readied) would therefore also alter the list of Spells Known. 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.