Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

3,060 posts (3,088 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,060 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Dustin Ashe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So, you have to grapple and then maintain every round. The opponent has a CMD of 5 and you get a +5 to maintain, so just don't roll a 1. Flight counts as a movement speed so no problems there, just limited to half speed.
I suppose if I did roll a 1, the PC would just plummet?

Yeah, that's how I'd rule it.


CRB wrote:

Grapple: As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple , grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.

And
CRB wrote:
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.

So, you have to grapple and then maintain every round. The opponent has a CMD of 5 and you get a +5 to maintain, so just don't roll a 1. Flight counts as a movement speed so no problems there, just limited to half speed.


Scythia wrote:

One thing did occur to me, that even among those of us who would be willing to use this in game, makes it a not great ability for a fighter. This is the ability to cast arcane spells, and fighter is almost always wearing armour. Armour has an arcane spell failure chance.

So maybe better for a wild magic rogue?

It depends on if the ability functions as an (su) or if the (su) grants you the ability to cast a spell. I happen to think it is the first one; so no somatic components to give ASF. Now, if it is the latter option then ASF would apply as normal, but you would also require 2 actions to cast, one to activate the (su) and another to cast the spell.


FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
I guess so, just trying to find the rules. What mythic tier? >.<

The minimum mythic tier that you feel comfortable that you could win.

Ninja'd by 47 seconds.


kikidmonkey wrote:
i didnt limit it, i did say "or something" but those other things DO require a UMD, which will be restrictive based on the level of the martial.

One of the big points in the mythic fighter vs wizard thread is that people seem to think fighters would never take UMD (or at least don't concider it to be a typical thing.) when magic is real you learn to use it. Fighters have the opportunity to put their feats to work for them.

Skill focus/magical aptitude/class skill trait/14 CHA/1 rank will give a 55% to activate a wand at first level. Add in a +5 item, headband, and 9 more ranks will go upto a +31 at 10th level. That is a 75% chance to activate a CL17 scroll.


kikidmonkey wrote:
i mean, i suppose he could drink a potion, or something, but if you are in a position that you need to cast TIME STOP, just to get a short breather, you are probably screwed.

Why limit it to a potion? He could use a scroll/wand/staff


Yuugasa wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Im confused. Either you do think the language in eschew materials grants spell casting, in which case you likely agree the arcane surge does; or you don't believe eschew materials grants spell casting, but that has no direct bearing on this conversation.

If you do think EM has bearing on this conversation then perhaps you could explicitly and specifically draw your comparisons. Saying that I "ignore" the entire rest of the ability is a lie though. You should read the OP again. Then give your specific examples of how you...

The comparison is the you can cast any spell bits.

The ability arcane surge is written like many abilities are; It starts with a general statement then adds qualifiers to show you specifically how it works.

Both Eschew Materials and Arcane Surge are badly written and in many ways Eschew Materials is even more permissive, this is the first sentence of the ability: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component.

It never qualifies that statement or walks it back in any way, reading what it literally says you can cast any non expensive spell, flat out.

Still, to do so you have to ignore the context and frame work of pretty much the entire rest of the game.

Arcane Surge is less permissive with qualifiers on how it works, the way it is written though you can ignore those qualifiers if you think it is not an either/or situation, but you are essentially ignoring the framework of the game again.

I don't actually think these abilities are that much of a problem, it's pretty easy to figure out how they are suppose to work(well for me anyway, maybe others really are confused, I can only speak for myself.)

In the end to me this is nothing more than a funny exploit and I was just poking fun at the concept, not looking to argue it seriously, apologies for any confusion, I completely acknowledge that your reading of the rules is right, in a literal sense.

Cheers!


Suthuri wrote:

Has any mentioned or considered that if your caster level were 0, the great majority of your spells would be completely harmless or useless?

This would be because, most spells either have level based duration or level based damage. Your summon monster spells would have a duration of zero rounds. Does this mean they don't appear or do they vanish the same second they appear? You could cast fire ball, but with 1d6 damage / level, it would do 0 damage every time. Might look impressive, but it would do nothing! There might be some spells with a base damage and duration, but that would be all you could cast. Your abilities would be very limited, so I'd be inclined to say that a commoner archmage would not be the mos powerful caster, but rather the most laughably harmless caster in the world.

That does raise the question though, what happens when an archmage with 0 caster levels summons a monster? Do we see it, or is the archmage just wiggling fingers and waving hands with the delusion of power?

Is this an underlying logical absurdity that answers the question? A 0-level caster is just, ultimately, not a spell-caster at all.

See: wish, time stop, power word X, mages disjunction, et cetera.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I would think the difference is one of grammar. Is the ability to cast any spell not the end of a sentence in arcane surge where eschew materials would be an obvious sentence fragment?

Oddly enough they both grant the ability to cast different kinds of any spell.

In the mythic ability it is any arcane spell. In the feat it is any spell with a material component of 1 gp or less.

One possible work around is that the feat says you must still provide all other material components for the spell. Would the slot, the somatic, or the verbal component be considered material? Or is this feat using material component as a special rule classification and not the English version of the word?

Somatic, verbal, and material are each discrete components of a spell, and slot is not a component at all.


Yuugasa wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

Well, since we are apparently allowed to not only ignore the whole ability but anything more than a fragment of the first sentence; using the eschew materials example:

Eschew Materials

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

I get this for free as a 1st level sorcerer, suck my balls reality, wishes for everyone! True resurrection for free if you die! Let's go adventuring friends!

Edit: and I'll have you note, it specifically says "You can cast any spell." Not "You can cast any one spell." That means I can cast 100 different spells a round! I'll hit the BBEG with every attack spell there is, every round! Take that!!!!

That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.
I don't think it grants a spell casting variant, any more than Arcane Surge does. I agree that it literally says what it says but think that you have to make an effort at ignoring the context(or you really don't understand the context) to make it work that way.

Im confused. Either you do think the language in eschew materials grants spell casting, in which case you likely agree the arcane surge does; or you don't believe eschew materials grants spell casting, but that has no direct bearing on this conversation.

If you do think EM has bearing on this conversation then perhaps you could explicitly and specifically draw your comparisons. Saying that I "ignore" the entire rest of the ability is a lie though. You should read the OP again. Then give your specific examples of how you think the situations are similar and then draw us to your conclusion of why you think those similarities result in a different reading.


Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Perhaps, but someone else asserting that this X is the same as Y does not obligate me to disprove Y, even if I believe X
True, but a look at eschew materials may lead to an understand of how PF rule language is meant to be read that is different from how English is meant to be read.

Agree, I will start with [posit #1] options without sp/su/ex don't grant abilities unless they describe the mechanism of that ability.


Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.

Actually it is a very relevant discussion.

Why would that feat not let you cast certain spells and this ability would let you cast certain spells?

For the purpose of this discussion I am willing to accept that eschew materials also provides the ability to cast spells.

Now, if people want to go about having that conversation then it's fine with me, but it isn't part of this conversation.

That is a valid way to look at it.

Still. A like ability or feat is relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps, but someone else asserting that this X is the same as Y does not obligate me to disprove Y, even if I believe X.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

@master_marshmallow

I'm not going to re-hash the entire thread with you. When you ask a question that has not been answered (or make an assertion that has not already been debunked), I will respond.

You haven't answered anything, only made snarky remarks and one liners about how I'm wrong without explaining.

What is your caster level? What is your primary casting stat? What are your DCs?

What happens if you get dispelled or counterspelled? These questions need to be answered in the text for the rules to support the conclusion.

Again, misquoting the rules doesn't give you the power to cast spells. The ability only lets you bypass the requirement to expend a spell slot or prepared spell.

CRB wrote:
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.


Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.

Actually it is a very relevant discussion.

Why would that feat not let you cast certain spells and this ability would let you cast certain spells?

For the purpose of this discussion I am willing to accept that eschew materials also provides the ability to cast spells.

Now, if people want to go about having that conversation then it's fine with me, but it isn't part of this conversation.


Yuugasa wrote:

Well, since we are apparently allowed to not only ignore the whole ability but anything more than a fragment of the first sentence; using the eschew materials example:

Eschew Materials

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

I get this for free as a 1st level sorcerer, suck my balls reality, wishes for everyone! True resurrection for free if you die! Let's go adventuring friends!

Edit: and I'll have you note, it specifically says "You can cast any spell." Not "You can cast any one spell." That means I can cast 100 different spells a round! I'll hit the BBEG with every attack spell there is, every round! Take that!!!!

That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
It's not just the action, but the mechanism.
Why that distinction? Are you saying that if there were no costs in mythic power, this ability would not grant spell casting?

No distinction; arcane surge's provisions make it easier to adjudicate so I am choosing to focus on it first. If you think that eschew materials grants spellcasting then I dont nessicarily disagree on the surface, but I think you should explore the idea more and present your arguments in a detailed manner.

In other words, eschew materials wasn't my argument, and I'm not going to make someone else's argument for them.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

The main reason I saw was that the feat in question gave no action by which to cast the spell.

This mythic ability does.

Why is that required but caster level isn't? Shouldn't it just default to the action the spell states?

It's not just the action, but the mechanism. Ie; mythic power points that have a daily renewable allotment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Huh, two responses with opposite conclusions, that's interesting.
The wonderful curse of the English language is that you can read the same words in different ways. It's doubly irritating when dealing with game rules.

Never did meet an English prof or teacher that held that opinion.

There always seemed to be ONE correct answer.

That's unfortunate. When I got my B.A.in English Literature that certainly wasn't the case. Now that I'm studying for my PharmD/MPH that hasn't changed. Lanuage is an abstraction and as such cannot be perfectly accurate. Sometimes two reasonable people will read something and reach different conclusions. Then they can persuade each other about who is correct.


It doesn't infer that, it clarifys that you don't require it.

Also, before you accuse me of not seeing the entire ability again, go read the OP.


Doomn wrote:
prd/magic wrote:

PRD Home / Magic

A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options.

Most spellcasters prepare spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through prayers—while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation. Despite these different ways characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to casting them, the spells are very much alike.

Casting Spells

Whether a spell is arcane or divine, and whether a character prepares spells in advance or chooses them on the spot, casting a spell works the same way.

Specific trumps general.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a completely excellent and good thing to do. If you decide to take the time to read my posts on the first two pages you'll see just how much we agree.


burtschoder wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
burtschoder wrote:

Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.

Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireball

Player: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 rounds

Player i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombie

as for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant

as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve

So what am i missing?

All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.

so why couldn't you rule that they don't know the verbal components? i guess i would rule that they have the power to shape magic at their fingertips.... but they have to be able to correctly form the right words in the language of magic which they would not know.

i am reasoning that i have a great knowledge of 20th century literature and could give a rousing discourse on it ..... but if i had to give it in Latin i would be useless

As an (su) ability there are no verbal components. If you were going to force a check (which has no basis) then spellcraft of DC 15+spell level is the worst you could push.


Sevus wrote:

Possibly.

If so, what about spells that were released after the GameMastery Guide?

EDIT: Sorry, this was supposed to be a quote.

[snark]See darkthorne's quote above[/snark]

In all actuality the list makes it clear that spells are "arcane" all the time. We can look at the list as published in the GMG and reverse engineer the methodology with fair results. Likely it uses a priority the same as the FAQ for determining whether an SLA is divine or arcane; and that's what I would use in my home game. But even with extreme conservatism of reading one MUST accept that all the spells on the list in the GMG are arcane, all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
burtschoder wrote:

Maybe i missed something here .... i didn't read all the replies. my two cents.

Player: Ah ha i want to cast a fireball
ME (as dm) : ok spend your surge ..... you cast a 0d6 fireball

Player: i want to summon a balor
Me: ok you summon a balor, it pops in for 0 rounds

Player i want a wish! make it mimic resurrection!
ME: you have no knowledge of the minutiae of resurrection or the material components for it .... make a spell craft dc45 or you get a zombie

as for the traits that add to your spell caster level .... since you have nothing to add to i would say they are irrelevant

as for having spell like abilities .... those don't meet the qualification to be an actual caster. it just means you got a couple tricks up your sleeve

So what am i missing?

All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.


Sevus wrote:

Sorry for the edits as you're posting. I'm a programmer, so I tend to miss bugs in my logic until after they're posted. (:

A spell becomes arcane for a sorcerer when it is learned.

In short, my logic is this.

A spell becomes arcane or divine when the character becomes capable of casting it as an arcane or divine spell. A specific instance of a spell becomes arcane or divine as it is cast.

I think Scythia found the printed rule that trumps your examination.


Scythia wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

However a citation of book and page number provides an explicit, textual statement. An inference does not - any textual reference is generally implicit (unless a citation is also provided).

The book and page number provides the explicitness.

GameMastery Guide p. 125-130 contains lists, by level, explicitly labeled as "Arcane Spells".

Good find! Thanks for clearing that up.


Sevus wrote:
It is a divine spell for Hector, since he prepared it as a divine spell.

Ok, when does a spell become arcane for a sorcerer? When he learns it or when he casts it?


Sevus wrote:

I was perhaps imprecise.

Miracle is not a divine spell.
Miracle prepared as a 9th-level cleric spell is a divine spell.
Miracle on a spellcaster's spells known list as a 9th-level oracle spell is a divine spell.
A scroll of miracle created by a cleric or oracle is a divine scroll.

Does that clear things up?

So, is miracle as prepared by hector the vicar a divine spell just for him or does the act of his preparation make it a divine spell for everyone?


Sevus wrote:

I'll take a swing at it. An arcane spell is a spell cast by an arcane spellcasting class. Fireball is not an arcane spell. A fireball spell cast by a wizard, sorcerer, magus, or bloodrager is. A fireball spell cast by a cleric with the Fire domain, however, is a divine spell. Similarly, resurrection is not a divine spell. A resurrection spell cast by a cleric is a divine spell, but a resurrection spell cast by a witch is arcane.

Thus, to answer the scroll question, there is no such thing as "a scroll of an arcane spell." Instead, it would be "an arcane scroll of a spell", since the spell itself is not inherently arcane or divine (or psychic, when that becomes a thing).

Using this definition leads to either of two possibilities; (1) arcane surge doesn't work at all for any class because "arcane spell" isn't a thing until it is cast so it isn't selectable as a choice before casting, or (2) a wizard 1/ cleric 19 could use arcane surge to cast "miracle" she has prepared in a cleric slot because she is an arcane caster and she could cast miracle.

If you are willing to accept the consequences then that is fine. I think that you would find that most people aren't willing to accept those consequences and so they wouldn't accept your definition.


Darkthorne68 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So how do we determine that scrolls are arcane or divine? (Because sometimes even the module doesn't tell us.)
Ultimate Equipment pages 372 through 378 CLEARLY lists Arcane scrolls and 378 through 386 lists Divine scrolls .

How did wizards use scrolls before UE?


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

They definitely both require reading.

However a citation of book and page number provides an explicit, textual statement. An inference does not - any textual reference is generally implicit (unless a citation is also provided).

The book and page number provides the explicitness.

Oh, is it still about that. I already apologized for my mistaken assumption that you would understand that when I said scrolls I meant the section of the rules covering scrolls. What more do you want.
Nothing really (that's what "never mind" meant, above) I'm just answering your questions.

Steve, I think you'll find that RAW-lawyers are far more reasonable in rules debates than you imagine. We take the game as a whole to contextualize specific statements.

"arcane spell," for example, isn't defined any where with the requisite clarity to allow wizards to activate scrolls. But, we know that wizards do activate scrolls. So how do we determine that scrolls are arcane or divine? (Because sometimes even the module doesn't tell us.) We look to see if the spell appears on an Arcane caster's spell list. If it does, then the scroll can count as arcane because we know the spell is arcane.

That is the definition of arcane spells we are working with. It isn't a book:chapter:verse discussion all the time, but actually a very nuanced discussion.

HOWEVER; when rules text is available it will always trump inference (which is good, because inference errs on the conservative side anyway.) So when we see something like, "You can cast any arcane spell," then that statement is both explicit and specific so it trumps all other considerations. Then we go about understanding what that means and how the game would have us adjudicate that. Just because part of the sentence isn't well defined, like "arcane spells," doesn't open the statement up to additional scrutiny; UNLESS you are prepared to break a major game subsystem to deny it (scrolls.)

Assuming you are not willing to break a major subsystem of the game is also part of "reading RAW." Ie, if we accept X in this case then we must accept X in all cases. Therefore in case Z, ability Q works differently than previously thought.

Reading RAW is more about applying strict consistency of interpretation and demanding clear language use than it is finding exploits. It's just that the exploits get all of the attention (usually negative) from those folks who don't read the rules like we do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

What I mean is, taking the strict interpretation of "any arcane spell" which is being advocated - if you're gagged and get told "you can't cast a spell with a verbal component as per this general rule on spellcasting", you can reply: "my specific rule is a self contained rule that tells me everything I need to know about casting spells. It trumps the general rule, so I can cast ANY arcane spell." (This seemed to be what BigDTBone was arguing before, in ignoring the 'choose a spell' section).

Again, I'm accepting the premise and suggesting it leads to absurdity - not advocating an interpretation.

"Any arcane spell" is still argued from within the context of the ability as a whole. It does not ignore the rest of the wording, where that wording applies.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting adding a metamagic feat, merely pointing out that my self contained magic system makes no mention of components and says I can cast ANY arcane spell - therefore win. :)

I think BigDTBone will walk that claim back. One could rather argue that specifying which of the any spells you can cast constitutes choosing one. And therefore my previous objection doesn't apply.

I don't know, it's a fine line; but I think I fall on the side of, "it's a (su) ability so verbal, somatic, and material components (even expensive ones) aren't required." I should add, I think the ability actually does work this way for wizards/sorcerers/whatever's that use it too.

Supernatural spellcasting would relieve the need for almost all other adjudications.


voska66 wrote:
This doesn't work as you have to have spells known or prepared. Just because you don't have spells known or prepared doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

That's not what's written.


master_marshmallow wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.

It also tells you how to do it based on what kind of caster you are, but you're ignoring that for your own convenience.

Never mind that the FAQ on the matter came out after Mythic Adventures.
You don't have a spell list as a fighter.
The FAQ specifically calls out abilities that would add to your spell list, and says that they cannot.
Ignoring the FAQ that directly disproves you does not mean you are following RAW, it means you are clearly trying to bend the rules based on a loose interpretation of one sentence taken out of context.
There are only two types of spell casters present in the current game

Source cite please.


master_marshmallow wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.

It also tells you how to do it based on what kind of caster you are, but you're ignoring that for your own convenience.

Never mind that the FAQ on the matter came out after Mythic Adventures.
You don't have a spell list as a fighter.
The FAQ specifically calls out abilities that would add to your spell list, and says that they cannot.
Ignoring the FAQ that directly disproves you does not mean you are following RAW, it means you are clearly trying to bend the rules based on a loose interpretation of one sentence taken out of context.

Most certainly the fighter can cast any arcane spells on his spell list, should he have one. However the rule that comes from the FAQ stating that he cannot expand his spell list unless the ability specially says he can, then he has access to no spells to cast.

In short, if casting spells is action y that requires spell list x, then the fighter needs only satisfy spell list x since archmage satisfies action y.

Non algebraically, you want to drink (cast a spell) but you need a glass (the ability to cast spells) and something to drink (a spell list). Archmage gives you a glass for free, to be certain, but the FAQ prevents you from having anything to drink out of it.

The perfect moment of blind rage when you just realized that you were argueing with yourself. Priceless.


master_marshmallow wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.
It also tells you how to do it based on what kind of caster you are

It absolutely does not. It has restrictions if you happen to be a particular kind of caster.


master_marshmallow wrote:

And the whole, expanding your spell list debacle created by Eldritch Heritage and Paragon Surge.

That ruling alone prevents this from working. As the fighter has no spell list, he cannot cast any arcane spell.
Certainly, he can use his ability to cast any of his own arcane spells, but his class does not offer them.

This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Right, because the feat doesn't say 'you must have a tail' in the prereqs, huh?

You got it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What the hell is Tail Terror?

It's a Kobold feat that lets you make natural Attacks with your tail. People were claiming that you could take racial heritage: Kobold as a human and then tail terror to get a natural attack.

It was a lengthy and heated debate. FAQ eventually said no.


Steve Geddes wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
The idea that "[You can]draw a weapon within easy reach [of you] as a move action," is equivalent to "you can cast any arcane spell," is somewhat disingenuous.
It may be naive, but it isnt disingenuous. I dont do this very often and dont spend much time looking around for the perfect example.

Fair enough

Quote:
But the point was essentially "Don't bring up silly RAW examples in theory debates" right?

Yeah, pretty much.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words, as that is what this discussion was presumably originally about, and not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

So anyway, am I to take this to mean you do not care to continue. If so I am perfectly willing to drop things.

It may not be fruitful or interesting to you (I'm going to keep posting until it's not fruitful or interesting to me and wont take offense if you decline to respond).

However, to expand on my position somewhat. When you say:

Quote:
When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words......not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

I think this is a false dichotomy of sorts. In my view there is no, unique "meaning of the words" since "any arcane spell" could be limited in some fashion (To illustrate: does this, specific rule grant one the ability to cast an arcane spell with a vocal component when gagged? Can you cast a spell if you dont meet any of the other requirements? If you think "any spell" is unrestricted then it should, shouldnt it? Specific trumps general and all that.)

It seems to me that interpreting rules sometimes involves determining which meaning of some word or phrase should apply - "any spell at all", "any spell which you meet all the other pre-requisites for" (ie have the material components, can see the target, etcetera) or "any spell you can already cast". One way to do this is to try and discern what the designer intended, however that's not the only way (I prefer to take the meaning which my table will enjoy the most, even if I know it's against RAI).

To provide another illustration of my position. It seems to me that someone following BigDTBone's approach could point to the move action of "drawing a weapon" and argue that:

"All it says is that the weapon has to be within easy reach. It doesnt specify that it has to be within easy reach of the person taking the action though, so I'd...

The idea that "[You can]draw a weapon within easy reach [of you] as a move action," is equivalent to "you can cast any arcane spell," is somewhat disingenuous. Your example is clear in that it follows the conventions of the English lanuage where all qualifiers are given an implicit qualifier of their own tagged to the noun. So we know the qualifier "within reach" applies to [of you].

The example in arcane surge IS EVEN MORE CLEAR, in that it explicitly and specifically says, "you can do X."


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.

My position is actually that the context makes it very clear what it means but that semantic arguments tend to be made in the absence of context (or with selectively quoted context).

However, I'm still interested in BigDTBone's rebuttal. I'm not really arguing the OP - at my table, you need to be a spellcaster to be an archmage, so that's all that's relevant to me.

I dont think that BigDTBone really believes the OP is how things should work though, so resolving the specifics doesnt seem important, to me.

As far as the rules lawyering goes; this ability is giving a new kind of casting. It isn't prepared (prepared spells), it isnt spontaneous (spell slots), but unique (mythic power points). All the rules needed to adjudicate the system are provided in the ability. Casting time -swift action, resource to manage -mythic power, spells allowed -any arcane.

All of these rules are more specific than the (general) "cast a spell" action rules, so those rules are trumped by the text in this ability.

As for my personal belief on whether this should be a thing? It probably has a use to someone somewhere. Depending on the group and the game; maybe it would even have a use at my table. Probably not though.


Some things to keep in mind:

1) the requisite CL to cast a particular level of spell is provided by the individual class' spells class feature. No minimum caster level is inherently required to cast any spell. This provides the mechanism.

2) The minimum caster level requirement in the magic section (general rules) is a subordinate clause to a sentence describing a particular rule. Ie, voluntarily lowering your CL. Since no one has argued that voluntarily lowering your CL is required by this ability I think we can all agree that the quote flying around actually has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion and is, in fact, a red herring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:

Obama is pushing several very progressive ideas now that he has zero power to pass anything. He knows that not a single one of these ideas (that are all very popular with the voting block of the Democrats) will pass.

He is doing his part to get out the vote for 2016.

It's not just getting out the vote, it's dictating the discussion. GOP has been doing this for years, glad to see the DEMs catch on.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
That is precisely the problem, though. "You can cast any one arcane spell" is in one sentence. All the meanings we are supposed to infer are locked behind a couple of gates that start with, "If." Of course we are supposed to read the whole thing together. But the whole thing together does not restrict characters who are neither prepared nor spontaneous casters.

On its own, the phrase, "You can cast any one arcane spell," does not grant anyone the ability to cast spells. To resolve an action using the "Casting a Spell" rules in the Core, you must have a defined caster level available in case you are required to make an unexpected concentration check. The phrase in question does not, on its own, define a caster level. To rule that the phrase in question allows non-casters to cast spells, you have to invent an unwritten house rule that provides the information you must have available when resolving any "cast a spell" action. You literally cannot make that ruling without also inventing a house rule.

In the same way, the hypothetical rule, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," does not, on its own, grant any character the ability to deal sneak attack damage. Sure, it says, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage," but to resolve a sneak attack using the Core definition of the sneak attack ability, you must have a defined amount of sneak attack damage available in case your attack hits. The phrase from the hypothetical rule does not, on its own, define your amount of sneak attack damage. If you rule that the phrase grants sneak attack damage to characters without sneak attack, your ruling requires you to invent an unwritten house rule defining the amount of that damage. You literally cannot make this ruling without also inventing a house rule.

If your interpretation of a written rule requires you to invent an unwritten house rule in order to resolve whatever it is your ruling allows, you are no longer...

Your hypothetical rule doesn't provide the mechanism by which one could determine the amount of sneak attack damage. If it said, "Your attack deals 4d6 sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," then there would be no doubt that you are granted the SA ability as described by that feature. It's awkward, doesn't progress like SA does in any other place, doesn't work like SA in any other place, but it is clear as day that you get it.

Similarly, the arcane surge ability doesn't say "you can cast a spell," it specifies the bounds of spell access by saying "you can cast ANY ARCANE spell." Not only that, but it provides a mechanism for it; "As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot."

As it stands, you have to house rule CL of that ability anyway because even if you are a prepared or spontaneous caster the ability specifically and explicitly isn't using your standard casting ability.

All of the issues with casting stat and CL actually exist for anyone who takes this ability at all, so those arguments against the ability don't hold water; because it's nothing special against my proposed use.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Well, it WILL devalue the college education. What it won't do is devalue it entirely.

The value of education in a society isn't a zero-sum equation.


Fergurg wrote:
Hudax wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless.

Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.

Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile!

If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking.

This is because you do not understand what it is to read philosophy and literature.


Aberzombie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


We've been patient long enough, we get to look outside the state for a decent team to watch.

Bah! I laugh at your so-called patience. I'm a Saints fan. We are made of equal parts patience, beer, and Cajun food. Twenty years before the team ever made the playoffs. Forty-two years before a Super Bowl win.

Shovels in the boudin.

What, are you saying that beer helps the hurt?


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.

Meh, my game plan on this is long. Now that the idea is out there I can use it as a counter argument. So, if you are annoyed by this you should steer clear of martial-caster disparity threads from now on.

I said you were annoyed. This is about the 3rd time you have misread something I put in this thread. What I should do is what I am doing now, and if annoyance is a reason to avoid martial-caster disparity threads then you should avoid them, since you are the one making passive-aggressive topics.

edit: The people that do this won't care about your counter arguments because they are likely just trying to "win" the argument. They will likely misrepresent anything you say.

I didn't read you are annoyed. I determined you are annoyed by your statements.

Also, you are the one who was splitting the hair of "Rules as intended," being different from "using the rules in the way intended by the developers." Excuse the hell out of me if I am having issues following your actual point.

Also, you are the one who quoted a dependant clause of a non-related rule and claimed it was a global rule. Your credibility in deciding what is a "misrepresentation" has been depleted in this thread.


Devil's Advocate wrote:

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:
Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Interestingly enough, the reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't provide a mechanism for casting spells. Arcane surge does provide a mechanism.

1 to 50 of 3,060 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.