|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Yeah, that's how I'd rule it.
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.
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.
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.
See: wish, time stop, power word X, mages disjunction, et cetera.
Somatic, verbal, and material are each discrete components of a spell, and slot is not a component at all.
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.
Agree, I will start with [posit #1] options without sp/su/ex don't grant abilities unless they describe the mechanism of that ability.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
It's not just the action, but the mechanism. Ie; mythic power points that have a daily renewable allotment.
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.
Specific trumps general.
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.
[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.
All the other uses of wish, time stop, power words, basically all the spells with no save and no CL scaling component.
I think Scythia found the printed rule that trumps your examination.
Good find! Thanks for clearing that 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?
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.
Steve Geddes wrote:
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.
Steve Geddes wrote:
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.
Source cite please.
The perfect moment of blind rage when you just realized that you were argueing with yourself. Priceless.
It absolutely does not. It has restrictions if you happen to be a particular kind of caster.
This ability doesn't require a spell list. The ability specifically allows the casting of "any arcane" spell.
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:
But the point was essentially "Don't bring up silly RAW examples in theory debates" right?
Yeah, pretty much.
Steve Geddes 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. 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:
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.
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:
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.
This is because you do not understand what it is to read philosophy and literature.
Shovels in the boudin.
What, are you saying that beer helps the hurt?
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:
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.