Sacred Cow.
Man, it gets people heated.
Delicious with the right seasoning, though.
I'm not a fan of your snark.
I often feel the same way about Sean's comments, but I tend to chalk it up to the limitations of the medium. I know that sometimes things I mean things in a playful way that just come across as douche-tastic on the board.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, this is just weird. I don't think low-level Eldritch Knights are going to be break the game, but I'm kind of annoyed at how the sense of "able to cast 3rd level spells" has been stretched beyond what can be readily intuited from the text. It seems as if the rules have changed in order to favor SKR's favored interpretation of Arcane Strike, rather than errata'ing Arcane Strike.
Anyway, I consider aasimar and tiefling to be exotic racial choices, so it's annoying to me that their utility for MT and EK have just been so vastly upgraded.
I see the benefits. It's just a sad day for human Eldritch Knights, and for straightforward readings of the rules.
@PDR: And? If the RAW of MT/EK was unviable, it should have been Errata'd to lower the pre-reqs for everybody, just as Paladin Smite was Errata'd because it was not considered a viable function re: game balance. If Arcane Strike specifically was desired to work with SLAs as pre-reqs, it should have been Errata'd to do so (->"cast an arcane spell").
Of course, people who have no problem with choosing races just because some obscure rules combo let them do a certain thing with a class that is better than other races have no problem. But that isn't the entire player base. It feels off for race to suddenly be so important, and not even for direct abilities of the race, but simply obscure interactions that bypass the intent of the rules. (if MT/EK were written with the intent for SLAs to qualify, it would have been known before now and would have been used before now) Even in 3.5 where SLAs were approved to use for magic crafting, that wasn't the case.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, this is just weird. I don't think low-level Eldritch Knights are going to be break the game, but I'm kind of annoyed at how the sense of "able to cast 3rd level spells" has been stretched beyond what can be readily intuited from the text. It seems as if the rules have changed in order to favor SKR's favored interpretation of Arcane Strike, rather than errata'ing Arcane Strike.
It's not just my interpretation of Arcane Strike, it's the design team's interpretation of Arcane Strike.
And making rulings about how the rules of the game are supposed to work is exactly the responsibility of the design team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, feel free to pass along my comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@PDR: I honestly don't think you've updated your understanding of the levels MT and EK work well at, post SLA-change.
Levels 15-20 sounds about right for the PREVIOUS functionality...
Of course your earliest levels in one caster class were totally fine, and the first dip level was fine as well.
You can now reach the EK CAPSTONE at character level 12, and the MT CAPSTONE at level 13.
And you only need to lose 1 level of casting in EK, or 1 level/2 levels for each part of MT.
So if it previously took so many more levels to make up for many more casting levels lost,
now there is so little ground to make up: literally just a 1 level hiccup in the primary class,
which just puts prepared on par with spontaneous in terms of spell level access,
meanwhile they gain the frontloaded channel/domain/school/bloodline/revelation bonuses, making it viable right out of the block.
They're largely not going to out-do a single class caster on an action for action basis,
but the whole point of the vancian system is that spell slots are significantly limited,
while MTs with only -1/-2 spell progression loss will keep on putting out top level spells long past when a single class caster can.
MT and EK were released in the Core Rulebook, which was the established context for it's abilities and balance.
None of the core races there can leverage the SLA ruling for early entry.
Even races like Tiefling and Aasimar have limited leverage just going by their vanilla stats,
Aasimar can leverage it's 3rd level SLA for EK only, and Tiefling's 2nd level SLA for MT only,
otherwise Aasimar needs Alt Racial Traits to exchange it's SLA if it wants a 2nd level one for early entry to MT.
No core classes help early entry, only Ultimate Magic's Fate Inquisition grants a 2nd level divine SLA useful for MT.
In the core book, only Gnomes and Minor Magic Rogues get any use out of the ruling, qualifying for Arcane Strike.
So it seems baffling that PrCs that should supposedly be balanced and viable for their context,
to NOT apply any of the benefit of this significant change re: their pre-reqs to CRB characters,
but only to characters build with expansion races and optional class abilities.
It feels silly that spell-like abilities count for requirements saying "ability to cast spells", but the alchemist's extracts do not.
The ability to craft items that function as spells in a can does not mean you are infused with magical energy like having a real SLA means.
Fighters can also craft items that replicate spells with the Master Craftsman Feat, that doesn't make them count as casting spells either.
The ability to craft items that function as spells in a can does not mean you are infused with magical energy like having a real SLA means.
Fighters can also craft items that replicate spells with the Master Craftsman Feat, that doesn't make them count as casting spells either.
The text of the alchemist specifically says "When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura."
magic =/= spell.
supernatural abilities are also magic, but do not count as spellcasting for any purpose.
all of the alchemist class abilities are (su).
plenty of characters and creatures have (su) or 'magical' qualities without spellcasting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a little goalpost move, Quandary. Two posts up you were arguing that alchemists aren't infused with magical energy, Cyrad showed that they were, and now there's a new argument with no acknowledgement that the old target was met.
Yes, it's clear alchemists don't cast spells. That's why they never met any prereqs in the past. But if you look at extracts, I don't see how anyone can say it's not a magical ability very much like casting spells.
I wrote: "...does not mean you are infused with magical energy like having a real SLA means. "
Just like referring to "a criminal record like a convicted murder has" does not imply that having any criminal record means you are a convicted murderer... A reference to 'magical energy like having [an] SLA' JUST MAYBE is a reference to a SPECIFICAL quality of magical energy SPECIFIC to SLA'S, NOT a claim that ANY OLD magical aura would suffice for the same purpose... Or you can believe that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Perhaps Cyrad was confused or distracted by my phrasing, but it doesn't really matter what I wrote in my last post one way or another, that doesn't change the ultimate reference here, the goalposts are set by the rules, not me: SLAs function as spells. Anything that isn't a spell or SLA cannot expect to be treated as such. I don't think it helps Cyrad or anybody else to believe that the rules suggest otherwise.
I wrote: "...does not mean you are infused with magical energy like having a real SLA means. "
Just like referring to "a criminal record like a convicted murder has" does not imply that having any criminal record means you are a convicted murderer. Perhaps Cyrad was confused or distracted by my phrasing, but it doesn't really matter what I wrote in my last post one way or another, that doesn't change the ultimate reference here, the goalposts are set by the rules, not me: SLAs function as spells. Anything that isn't a spell or SLA cannot expect to be treated as such.
Well if you meant to say that Extracts aren't spells or SLAs, that's a position I doubt anyone would have argued with.
Argument by definition, and all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, this is just weird. I don't think low-level Eldritch Knights are going to be break the game, but I'm kind of annoyed at how the sense of "able to cast 3rd level spells" has been stretched beyond what can be readily intuited from the text. It seems as if the rules have changed in order to favor SKR's favored interpretation of Arcane Strike, rather than errata'ing Arcane Strike.It's not just my interpretation of Arcane Strike, it's the design team's interpretation of Arcane Strike.
And making rulings about how the rules of the game are supposed to work is exactly the responsibility of the design team.
I like the ruling. You've just made the rogue Talents Minor Magic more useful and thus made a lot of rogue players happy ;-)
I think you and the rest design team have made an awesome job at building up an excellent FAQ. Three years ago many of us were still disappointed in the lack of FAQ, but since the fall of 2010 you/the team have really got it going. I think you all have done an excellent job.
I can honestly say that, to me, there are only a handful of questions that I’d like to be addressed in the future, and then I’m pretty much satisfied.
The FAQ as it stands now is amazing. You should all feel proud of your excellent work. Give the rest of the design team my warmest greetings.
It feels weird that apparently, an alchemist using an extract of Ant Haul, infusing the extract with his magical power and consuming it to get an effect identitcal to the spell Ant Haul, with duration based on the alchemist level as if spellcaster levels, is less spell-like/"like a spell" than a cleric with the death domain using Bleeding Touch, an ability that isn't even similar to any spell in existence.
I get the ruling and understand the consequences, but it seems kinda weird.
I think it comes down to floating, mystical glyphs, as seen in Wayne Reynolds' art.
Spellcraft allows identifying spells and SLAs even when the spells are stilled/silent/eschewed, as long as you can see the caster...
...i.e. you are seeing the mystical glyphs.
You can't do that with Supernatural abilities, including Alchemists' Extracts, so there doesn't seem to be mystical glyphs there.
Apparently the mystical glyphs also correspond to the type of magical energy needed for Arcane Strike, or Casting PrCs.
Glyphs or not, Supernatural abilities aren't Arcane or Divine spellcasting so couldn't possibly work with Arcane Strike.
(the mystical glyphs is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but it is funny that it makes sense of the spellcraft rules, as far as I know Wayne Reynolds may have even made some art using the mystical glyphs to depict (Su) using characters, but the lack of arcane/divine typing is probably the more concrete difference, excluding it from things requiring one of those specifically, and requirements of spells in general can be seen as requiring arcane OR divine which (Su) is not.)
Thank you to Shane, RJGrady, and Bugleyman for neatly posting replies that sum up my feelings on the matter. Sean is one of my favorite people in the world, and I very much respect the whole design team, but I simply can't get behind this in any way. It's not about power (much), it's about fairness. To me, the ruling is... well, actually, IMHO it's racist.
But here's hoping "Simply Ludicrous" doesn't become the next "Get off my lawn!" :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you to Shane, RJGrady, and Bugleyman for neatly posting replies that sum up my feelings on the matter. Sean is one of my favorite people in the world, and I very much respect the whole design team, but I simply can't get behind this in any way. It's not about power (much), it's about fairness. To me, the ruling is... well, actually, IMHO it's racist.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you to Shane, RJGrady, and Bugleyman for neatly posting replies that sum up my feelings on the matter. Sean is one of my favorite people in the world, and I very much respect the whole design team, but I simply can't get behind this in any way. It's not about power (much), it's about fairness. To me, the ruling is... well, actually, IMHO it's racist.
But here's hoping "Simply Ludicrous" doesn't become the next "Get off my lawn!" :)
well if any of the fictional races are offended please feel free to direct them to the board where they can express their feelings.
Thank you to Shane, RJGrady, and Bugleyman for neatly posting replies that sum up my feelings on the matter. Sean is one of my favorite people in the world, and I very much respect the whole design team, but I simply can't get behind this in any way. It's not about power (much), it's about fairness. To me, the ruling is... well, actually, IMHO it's racist.I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Favoring or disfavoring characters depending on their race?
Favoring or disfavoring characters depending on their race?Thank you to Shane, RJGrady, and Bugleyman for neatly posting replies that sum up my feelings on the matter. Sean is one of my favorite people in the world, and I very much respect the whole design team, but I simply can't get behind this in any way. It's not about power (much), it's about fairness. To me, the ruling is... well, actually, IMHO it's racist.I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Racism is the belief that, while you are all one species, there are separate races within the species, and that certain races are superior to others.
But to call it even specieism... it's a freakin' game. If anything, it would be 'specieism", and one of the core design themes has always been that certain species (races in the game - inaccurate in this case) are superior to others for certain classes\roles. :P
Well, there can be issues of racism within games too of course, and have been so in D&D system's past. There are some issues of racism in pathfinder too (and probably threads about that one could search for), just like in almost every cultural expression. I don't like the expression "it's just a game" - it's often used to excuse horrible behaviour (though not in this case). See F.A.T.A.L. for example.
When certain in-game races take on traits typical of racist stereotypes in real life, that's an issue of racism (having a "race"/species that is a stereotype of travelling people, often stereotyping them as thieves etc which is a common racist stereotype). Just having different species with different powers though, is not an issue of racism. Even if some races are stronger than ours in the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Racism" does not mean "some races can qualify for some prestige classes more easily than others."
Seriously, get some perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the ruling is... well, actually, IMHO it's racist.
Well, I thought it was funny, at least.
Removed some posts heading pretty far off-topic.
all these threads make me want to simply remove the specific level of spells required to gains levels in these prestiges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Racist: Anyone who disagrees with me.
That is what it has come to mean hasn't it?
No, it hasn't. And given recent events, let's not take what was obviously an ill-conceived joke (that deservedly fell flat) any further, eh?
I see the benefits. It's just a sad day for human Eldritch Knights, and for straightforward readings of the rules.Not if they take Wizard (Scryer). That gives them an SLA that
functions as a clairaudience/clairovoyance spell
- which is 3rd level arcane.
The discussion has focused on races and racial SLA's, but it applies to any SLA, including those granted by Class.
As it happens, the scryer ability is not too shabby. It wouldn't necessarily have been my first choice, especially not for EK, but if I want that fast-track EK I would consider it.
The design team does not consider a prerequisite or requirement of "ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells" to literally mean "ability to cast at least two or more 1st-level arcane spells."
Being able to cast one spell of that type and level meets the prerequisite or requirement (if the prerequisite or requirement was intended to mean "two or more," it would say that, or use language like "at least two").
Then why is wording for Mystic Theurge Different from Arcane trickster about spells available?
Are you kidding me right now?
