It was one post in a thread, it's not in the FAQ, you can probably wait a while for the issue to settle out.
But sure, what you have is a good start of the implications Paizo might want to look at before confirming that ruling.
Rycaut's also referring to SKR's separate posts saying that SLAs default to arcane type and thus can qualify for Arcane Strike, which the FAQ alone doesn't lead to (or the Mystic Theurge thing).
HERE is the link.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is, weird.
I would not run mad on an off-hand comment though.
Having a Spell-like ability count as either Arcane, or Divine, is a huge can of worms.
Edit: Okay, that was more than one post.
I am not sure how to take that.
It's like finding out your girlfriend is a dude.
This one is odd - I feel like leaving spell like abilities separate from spells was a better call, but maybe I'm just resistant to change... Definitely making them either Arcane or Divine is a silly move - they should be neither, as their source is not a spell, but rather an ability that is similar to a spell, but is not so - Spell-LIKE ability, not spell.
If they are spell-like, it makes sense they can be affected, and affects thing, "like" spells. I'm a little iffy about the circumstances under which a SLA counts as an "arcane" spell.
It's always been right in the RAW that they functioned as spells and were cast like spells (with the spell casting time) and so on, it's the qualifying as arcane or divine thing that is problematic and dubious, IMHO. I also didn't see the 'SLAs effective Caster Level gives you a Caster Level for general purposes' thing coming, IMHO that is also dubious.
Yeah, I don't really think Arcane Strike is particularly overpowered, but having some races get signifigantly early access to Mystic Theurge is kind of a big deal. Although that could be fixed via FAQ/Errata to the PrC so it specifies 2nd level spell slots from the arcane/divine classes.
Given the recent FAQ clarifications about Spell Like Abilitys qualifying for feats like Arcane Strike that require "ability to cast arcane spells" (i.e. a Rogue with Minor Magic now qualifies) I'm curious what the full list of races, traits or abilities like the Rogue Talent Minor Magic would now qualify a character for the Arcane Strike feat without that character having class levels in an Arcane caster class (i.e. non-Sorcerer, Bard, Magus, Witch or Wizard)
Off the top of my head here is a start to the list:
Playable races
Gnomes (racial spell like abilities include many arcane spells)
Tieflings / Aasimars (at least some of the racial heritages - others might be arguably only casting Divine spell like abilities)
Elemental races w/spell like abilities
Elves have a few alternate racial traits from the ARG that give them SLAs.
The whole SLA granting a caster level thing was true for almost the entirety of 3.5, and was explicitly covered with the introduction of the Warlock in Complete Arcane, so no big change there.
Actually counting as spellcasting ability though, much less spells of a particular type, seems new.
I was in favor of them counting as spells for things like Dimensional Agility.
I also think trying to label them all as arcane or divine is a big headache and should be avoided at this point. IF they'd been doing so since the start, I'd be in favor of it, but to do so now is just...a huge waste of effort for little to no gain.
Note the FAQ is in regards to an example of a specific named spell/spell like ability. I think it may be a stretch to to go beyond that.
Note the FAQ is in regards to an example of a specific named spell/spell like ability. I think it may be a stretch to to go beyond that.
I think you're getting it backwards. The question was asked in a general sense; it didn't mention any specific abilities. The example was given as a sample of what the FAQ meant, not as a restriction.
As to divine\arcane, I don't know that they need to label them as such. If the spell is on the list for arcane casters only, then the SLA is arcane; if it's on for divine casters only, it's divine; if it's on both, then it would be up to the GM.
Finally, in regards to the Mystic Theurge, the easiest 'fix' would be to up the prerequisite ranks in the required Knowledges to 6.
Finally, in regards to the Mystic Theurge, the easiest 'fix' would be to up the prerequisite ranks in the required Knowledges to 6.That would not prevent Wizard5/Cleric1 Mytic Theurges.
What I was suggesting was to keep the minimum character level for your first level in Mystic Theurge as 7th. The suggestion was to keep the minimum level requirement in place; other 'fixes' would require some major revamping of the FAQ ruling, or more 'invasive' changes to the PrC.
|
What I was suggesting was to keep the minimum character level for your first level in Mystic Theurge as 7th. The suggestion was to keep the minimum level requirement in place; other 'fixes' would require some major revamping of the FAQ ruling, or more 'invasive' changes to the PrC.Finally, in regards to the Mystic Theurge, the easiest 'fix' would be to up the prerequisite ranks in the required Knowledges to 6.That would not prevent Wizard5/Cleric1 Mytic Theurges.
You make it sound as if a major revamping of that FAQ ruling would be a bad thing.
I haven't really looked into the potential Mystic Theurge implications, but it isn't like that PrC is considered a powerhouse by most folks. The FAQ ruling could certainly make racial SLAs more interesting.
If they rule that SLAs are always arcane unless otherwise indicated maybe that would be because SLAs tend to come from the power of the creature with the SLA itself rather than from the grace of a deity or power of an ideology.
Mystic Theurge is far from the only PrC that would be affected by this. Pretty much any spellcasting PrC requires the ability to cast spells of a certain level (which includes those that aren't primarily spellcasting PrCs, but have some form of spellcasting ability).
Add drow(common) to the list. And all the genasi races.
I always hated the "cast X level spells" requirement for dis-enfranchising the slower to acquire higher spell level spont. casters anyway...
I think rather than turning the SLAs count as spells thing into the issue with qualifying, paizo should make some clarification that "casts X level spells" means what we know it's supposed to mean. That you have spell slots per day of Xth level that you prepare or spontaneously cast off of a spell list. As opposed to being a race with Mage Armor and Identify as SLA's being considered to "cast 1st level spells."
Just casting spells of a given level has always been way too vaguely worded, both in PF and 3E.
Or, alternately, 'caster level X'.
Or, alternately, 'caster level X'.
Unfortunately, CL can be manipulated with bonuses from many different sources. (Some being conditional, like "+1 Cl on fire spells" or whatever). I'd love to just get rid of all of them because... f*** casters, seriously... but they do exist.
EDIT: I guess you could require "Caster level X and X HD" to combat that. It'd make a multiclassed guy like Fighter 1 / Wizard 4 possibly able to "cheat" the system w/ a +1 CL effect to get into a PrC that was trying to screen for 5th level casters. But said dude is weaker than a level 5 wizard anyway, so...*shrug*.
Probably the biggest issue for people (not for me, though) would be "dude, that gives early entry to the 6-level and 4-level casters like bards!" (4-level w/ traits to make up for the -3 CL penalty) I don't think that's something to care about, because +1 CL progression on a slower progression is still worse than +1 CL progression on someone who's actually making it to 9th level spells, but I'm sure others would freak the hell out.
It is relevant, because we have this post from Sean stating that SLAs do indeed qualify for Arcane Strike's prerequisites. This is not a houserule. This is RAW and clarified in the FAQ.
Does this mean that a Rogue with Minor Magic does qualify for Arcane Strike then?
Sean K ReynoldsZanThrax, yes (we almost included that as an example in the FAQ answer).
Did you miss this new FAQ a few days ago?
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/06/13
|
|
I realize that Sean said arcane strike works with SLAs and that SLAs are by default arcane, but that FAQ entry on its own doesn't imply that. The FAQ on its own makes an incredibly intuitive ruling, essentially that a spell-like ability that duplicates spell X satisfies "ability to cast X" prerequisites. The reason that's so clean and intuitive is that those prerequisites don't specify that the effect needs to be a "spell." The FAQ ruling that spell-like abilities provide a caster level for prerequisites is similarly elegant because SLAs do in fact provide a caster level. What neither of those FAQs actually say, however, is that SLAs count as spells for the purposes of prerequisites. Sean said it in so many words when he okayed arcane strike based on SLAs, but that ruling is sooooo much less intuitive than the others and opens up a huge can of unintended worms. I'm guessing it hasn't made the FAQ yet because they're reconsidering it.
|
That thread had nothing to do with the specific topic here. It's generally not a good idea to take specific answers and automatically assume they translate to general principles. Having an SLA doesn't make you a wizard or sorcerer light. It just makes you someone with an extra bit of magic.
The quoted section is the entire point of this thread. It is explicitly stated that a character can meet the Arcane Strike prerequisite with an SLA. We just need clarification on which SLAs are arcane.
If a Daylight SLA counts as "being able to cast a 3rd level Arcane spell," then I can qualify for Eldritch Knight at level two with an Aasimar Magus. Not saying that's right or wrong, just interesting.
I like this alot(sic).
I feel that it could really help both rogues and monks in terms of combat capabilities. Spend your swift action for +5 to hit and damage.
+5 to damage and weapons count as magic. You don't get a +5 to hit with Arcane Strike.
|
|
The quoted section is the entire point of this thread. It is explicitly stated that a character can meet the Arcane Strike prerequisite with an SLA. We just need clarification on which SLAs are arcane.
SKR said in the same thread how to determine which SLAs are arcane (namely that they all are unless specified otherwise). What sense does it make to accept his word that SLAs can qualify someone for arcane strike, but then ignore him when he nearly immediately tells you that SLAs are arcane by default?
|
|
If a Daylight SLA counts as "being able to cast a 3rd level Arcane spell," then I can qualify for Eldritch Knight at level two with an Aasimar Magus. Not saying that's right or wrong, just interesting.
This begs the question, though: if your base class is magus, what possible reason could you have for choosing to go eldritch knight instead? You want to trade awesome class abilities for full BAB and the loss of a caster level? This just seems like an awfully weak trade.
If a Daylight SLA counts as "being able to cast a 3rd level Arcane spell," then I can qualify for Eldritch Knight at level two with an Aasimar Magus. Not saying that's right or wrong, just interesting.This begs the question, though: if your base class is magus, what possible reason could you have for choosing to go eldritch knight instead? You want to trade awesome class abilities for full BAB and the loss of a caster level? This just seems like an awfully weak trade.
That's not the point. Suddenly you can qualify for a prestige class at level two. That's never been possible before this ruling. I could do it with an Aasimar Aristocrat and qualify at level two and not gain any benefit from the spellcasting advancement.
Prestige classes that were formerly only available at level five or higher are now within reach at level two. What does that mean for the game? What other unintended consequences are opened up by this ruling? Is this something you'll ask your DM for? If you're a DM, would you allow it? Why or why not? Is there going to be further clarification once this starts showing up in PFS? Or are we all off base and SKR is going to tell us all that we're extrapolating something from the ruling that we shouldn't?Edit: this came across harshly, which I didn't intend. Removed some extraneous questions.
|
|
SKR was pretty explicit. Personally I like the changes that made the FAQ, but not the changes that didn't and I'm going to proceed as though the comments he made about arcane strike and SLAs aren't true until there's further word from him or Jason. I don't think entering mystic theurge at level 5 or eldritch knight at level 2 breaks anything, as they're both fairly terrible prestige classes, BUT the designers have long said that their intent was for prestige classes not to be enterable before level 6, so I don't see this ruling sticking. I would love for the prerequisite for arcane strike to be altered so that other classes could use it without this terribly unintuitive ruling, as it's an eminently fair feat and I love mystical characters, but the current ruling feels wrong, and I think it was made without full consideration of its consequences.