The "SLAs Count as Spells" Ruling & The Advanced Class Guide (ACG)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Reading through this thread, I see enough discussion about the "SLA counting as spells for the purposes of feat and prestige class prerequisites" ruling that I am concerned for it's growing implications.
Note that I am expressing my own opinion here as a way to open discussion. Feel free to agree or disagree with me.

Concerns:
Divine Protection (see below for a copy of the feat's text) is a REALLY great feat - Oracles are going to LOVE it. But should a Bard be able to access it with a 1 level cleric dip because they chose a domain that happens to grant the right SLA...? What about a Swashbuckler who happens to choose the right race - should he qualify for Divine Protection at 5th character level?

Having a few niche ways to get early access to certain feats and prestige classes subtly pushes players towards those few niche builds. Every Mystic Theurge is an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Magus wields a scimitar, every Swashbuckler will want to be an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Bard takes a 1 level dip into Wood Mystery Oracle... While many people will argue that the Mystic Theurge needed a bumb (which I won't disagree with), I think that this is the wrong way to accomplish that goal, which creates more wonkiness (and problems) than it solved. (If Paizo wanted to bump the Mysthic Theurge, they could have created a feat for the Advanced Class Guide that requires casting 4/4 divine and arcane spells which gives a +2 caster level bump - or something similar.)

Tricks like using your SLA to qualify for feats and prestige classes increase the optimization gap between casual players and those of us who are more advanced. Counting your SLA as a spell in order to qualify for feats on your Swashbuckler is not something that your average purchaser of the new ACG is going to know to do. Those of us who spend a reasonable amount of time on the forums, however, can do exactly that. It has been my experience that optimization is not (in itself) a negative thing. The issue comes when five people sit down at a table to play and one or two advanced (forum going) players build characters which significantly outperform the casual players. (Zen archer monk versus standard monk, vivisectionist alchemist versus standard rogue, CAGM barbarian versus sword & board fighter, etc.) This is, of course, not to say that this happens every time - many of us on the forums know when to go wild with optimization and when to tone it down a few notches. But it also happens at tables from time to time (it's happened at tables I was at) and unless the DM or players are Johnny on the spot with addressing it, negative feelings can develop and the game can come crashing down in time... Regardless, with niche rulings (like the SLA one) and a growing amount of material dependent on spell casting (like some in the ACG), the optimization gap grows.

It is also worth noting that PFS organized play has taken the Aasimar & Tiefling off the list of approved races prior to the release of the ACG. I heard speculation that this was due to the growing presence of Aasimars & Tieflings, in part due to the SLA ruling.

Closing Pandora's Box
The more material that gets released, the more ways there will be to use the SLA ruling for early access to feats and prestige classes. I personally feel this is a negative thing (for the above reasons) and would like to see the SLA ruling reconsidered. Paizo said a while back that if it became problematic, they would reconsider it. I have always felt it was problematic, so I am biased, but I feel that with the release of new material, now is the best time to open a discussion regarding the implications of this ruling.

Please try to keep any criticism constructive - whether it's of Paizo's developers, other posters, or the originator of this thread (me). We're all humans behind the screen who enjoy and invest into the Pathfinder game in varying degrees.

Full Disclosure:
I houseruled that SLAs only count as their specific spell, not spells in general. That said, I have strong feelings on this ruling and thus want to open a discussion to see if others agree.

Supporting Text
FAQ Ruling - Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat? Yes.

Divine Protection
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains, or mystery class feature.
Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.


Swashbukcler, like any non divine class, needs more than an SLA. They need to dip cleric, oracle, druid or warpriest as well. Not that that improves things much. This feat is ridiculous and it doesn't surprise me that it is one of the few things from the book which has not been allowed in PFS.


I wonder if there's a way to get blessings or domains via a feat chain or something. Domains are probably the most likely, since they've been around longer.


Just one thing.

The advanced class guide was pretty much told by the devs to us that it was more of a book for advanced player use.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MechE_ wrote:
Having a few niche ways to get early access to certain feats and prestige classes subtly pushes players towards those few niche builds. Every Mystic Theurge is an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Magus wields a scimitar, every Swashbuckler will want to be an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Bard takes a 1 level dip into Wood Mystery Oracle..

Messageboard theorycrafting isn't representative of actual play styles. The fact of the matter is that having judged a lot of PFS players, I don't run into as many carbon copies of the Win Build of the Month that you might think. My Magus doesn't wield a scimitar, and my Bard is straight single class. and I've yet to see ANYONE play even one level of Wood Mystery Oracle.

In short, don't take the boards as typical.

In short part two. If you GM your own campaign, you are the final decider of your game rules, not Paizo.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MechE_ wrote:
But should a Bard be able to access it with a 1 level cleric dip because they chose a domain that happens to grant the right SLA...?

Why not? A dip is a big deal for a bard; they already have a slow spell progression, and some of their most important abilities (like Inspire Courage, or even the action cost of starting any performance at all) are level-based. They're not exactly overflowing with feats, either. So if they want to spend all that for a boost to saves, I say they've paid their dues.

Quote:
What about a Swashbuckler who happens to choose the right race - should he qualify for Divine Protection at 5th character level?

Should, yes, but unfortunately doesn't. He still needs a domain class feature, so he'd also have to dip. Though given his base saves and his role, I'd call even a cleric dip a valid possibility.

And for the record, bumping the power of PrC's was not the goal of the FAQ, so the whole "If they wanted to bump PrC's, they should have done X" thing is invalid. They were trying to bring SLAs more in line with spells mechanically, and it was going to have the side effect of bumping PrC's, and since they needed some love they decided it was a bonus rather than an obstacle.

As for "the optimization gap", nothing that a newbie could do suddenly got worse because there's a better option out there now. The newbie's character is going to be just as strong/weak as it already would have been. So you really have no point here, either.

Dark Archive

I would say that it really does not matter because they still need to multi-class with a divine class to get this at 5th level, unless there is a way to get domains, blessings, or mysteries with out multi-classing.


The table dynamics at no table I've been at work that way, Scavion. A particular book is either an option or its not. Joe, Maggie, and Patrick don't get to use different books than Adam, Paul, or Harriette.

I don't understand that reasoning for 'advanced' books, anyway. I can see why they would be used as verbiage in the title, they in no way require advanced knowledge of the game system. You could essentially cut and paste a base class from the APG to the Classes chapter in the CRB and be fine. The racial options work much the same for the core races. So, in practice, all that is there is more text and options that, to the vast majority, don't predicate themselves on features in the CRB or in other texts as they do try to be more or less stand alone resources.


Buri wrote:
The table dynamics at no table I've been at work that way, Scavion. A particular book is either an option or its not. Joe, Maggie, and Patrick don't get to use different books than Adam, Paul, or Harriette.

Im not trying to say anything but that the devs said there would be a number of more advanced nuances in the ACG. A beginner is less likely to be making use of them as effectively. Whether they actually attempt to had nothing to do with the message I was trying to convey.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not?

The Oracle and Cleric have access to it by default.

Having less powerful classes be able to access it isn't a big deal after that.


If there was an actual problem I might agree with you, but of every example you listed the only one with potential balance issues is probably the straight oracle with the feat. Dipping for the feat is pretty costly for the bard and swashbuckler, MT has lots of issues even with early entry, and scimitar magii aren't particularly more dangerous than their counterparts (possibly even worse).

Really the most compelling argument you've put forward is that MT needs some work, not that the sky is falling because a few classes can jump through some crazy hoops to her Cha to saves.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Oh, and for the record, I have yet to see someone actually play an early-entry SLA build.

Sovereign Court

I'm playing one, not in PFS though. Wood school wizard/Sun Wukong cleric tiefling.


Jiggy wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I have yet to see someone actually play an early-entry SLA build.

I've got one at the moment (Sohei monk / Empyreal sorcerer / Eldritch Knight). Not a PFS game, though.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I kinda dig the Empyreal Sohei Knight build. I've got this soft spot for basically a surfer dude in white linen beach pants and sandals who does just fine next to some hulking barbarians.


Jiggy wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I have yet to see someone actually play an early-entry SLA build.

I have an aasimar bloatmage. He will be taking on the Paths we Choose later this week.


swoosh wrote:
Really the most compelling argument you've put forward is that MT needs some work, not that the sky is falling because a few classes can jump through some crazy hoops to her Cha to saves.

I don't think "take a level of cleric" counts as a crazy hoop for most people, especially given the payoff.


andreww wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Really the most compelling argument you've put forward is that MT needs some work, not that the sky is falling because a few classes can jump through some crazy hoops to her Cha to saves.
I don't think "take a level of cleric" counts as a crazy hoop for most people, especially given the payoff.

Well and you need to pick certain options with you do.

Doesn't really do anything to change my point though that the most powerful option is the baseline one, so complaining about the swashbuckler (who should have gotten this baseline) picking it up with a bunch of effort is... silly.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like that it enables certain builds. Being able to get into Eldritch Knight at 3 makes it actually worth playing. I enjoy building characters, and this makes more characters viable, not fewer.

I also believe that if you had a game where some people are playing characters that are significantly better built than others, then that's a whole table issue- it seems almost routine to blame the people putting in the effort, but the people who aren't making the effort to build effective characters and still complaining have little ground to stand on with me.

This is even more relevant in the PFS, where you go into a game knowing no one and expecting them to be able to carry their own weight. At least in home games you can help other players make decent characters.


LazarX wrote:


Messageboard theorycrafting isn't representative of actual play styles. The fact of the matter is that having judged a lot of PFS players, I don't run into as many carbon copies of the Win Build of the Month that you might think. My Magus doesn't wield a scimitar, and my Bard is straight single class. and I've yet to see ANYONE play even one level of Wood Mystery Oracle.

In short, don't take the boards as typical.

Very true. Scimitars are popular, tho.

What's the deal with Wood Mystery Oracle?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You complain about bards level dipping into cleric to get Divine Protection? Are you going to protest that same bard dipping two levels to get Divine Grace + Lay On Hands without giving up the point of BAB?

*I do believe the feat is overpowered. Using the exact same metric, I also believe Superstition is overpowered and should be banned from PFS for the exact same reason.


I was already dipping a divine class with my Aasimar swashbuckler (Warpriest of Shizuru gives me EWP and Weapon Focus) so I could Slashing Grace with a katana at 3rd level. I was planning on getting Divine Protection, but really, it's no big deal. The benefits of the dip (2 bonus feats, no UMDs on cure wands, bypassing Alignment DR) seem to be more than worth a slight pause in progression and loss of a couple skill ranks.


DrDeth wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Messageboard theorycrafting isn't representative of actual play styles. The fact of the matter is that having judged a lot of PFS players, I don't run into as many carbon copies of the Win Build of the Month that you might think. My Magus doesn't wield a scimitar, and my Bard is straight single class. and I've yet to see ANYONE play even one level of Wood Mystery Oracle.

In short, don't take the boards as typical.

Very true. Scimitars are popular, tho.

What's the deal with Wood Mystery Oracle?

yeah... wood is not that strong..

unless he was talking about the abuse of a level 20 nature oracle (abusing awaken animal and their capstone) but that is level 20... so that really does not count for much...

Or the abusable Lunar Oracle (either having an animal companion from hell or combining with Pally for teh lulz).


I think he meant nature oracle so you get Cha to AC (then take divine protection for cha to saves... and hell, noble scion for cha to initiative).

Why that's specifically broken for a bard though and not the oracle itself leaves me scratching my head.


MechE_ wrote:
Having a few niche ways to get early access to certain feats and prestige classes subtly pushes players towards those few niche builds. Every Mystic Theurge is an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Magus wields a scimitar, every Swashbuckler will want to be an Aasimar/Tiefling, every Bard takes a 1 level dip into Wood Mystery Oracle...

This is quite an exaggeration. Mystery Theurge can be easily entered at level 5 without any racial SLAs, only a one level difference. Magus wielding scimitars is pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but this largely lies with the difficulty of getting straight dex to damage outside of dervish dance. There's whole threads on that elsewhere, though. There's no real benefit to being an aasimar or tiefling swashbuckler because you need the mystery/domain prereq and you can get a divine SLA with the same level you dip for that class feature. And wood mystery isn't even the best choice because you get very little else with your level, unless there's a really great curse out there that I'm missing. I get that this is for emphasis, but I don't think builds at the table are as constrained as you think.

MechE_ wrote:
Tricks like using your SLA to qualify for feats and prestige classes increase the optimization gap between casual players and those of us who are more advanced. Counting your SLA as a spell in order to qualify for feats on your Swashbuckler is not something that your average purchaser of the new ACG is going to know to do. Those of us who spend a reasonable amount of time on the forums, however, can do exactly that. It has been my experience that optimization is not (in itself) a negative thing. The issue comes when five people sit down at a table to play and one or two advanced (forum going) players build characters which significantly outperform the casual players. (Zen archer monk versus standard monk, vivisectionist alchemist versus standard rogue, CAGM barbarian versus sword & board fighter, etc.) This is, of course, not to say that this happens every time - many of us on the forums know when to go wild with optimization and when to tone it down a few notches. But it also happens at tables from time to time (it's happened at tables I was at) and unless the DM or players are Johnny on the spot with addressing it, negative feelings can develop and the game can come crashing down in time... Regardless, with niche rulings (like the SLA one) and a growing amount of material dependent on spell casting (like some in the ACG), the optimization gap grows.

This is a fundamental problem of the group, not of the SLA ruling. I understand your argument that it increases complexity, but that's no different than simply being aware of the wide variety of sourcebooks you have access to, rather than rolling a fighter for the first time and picking feats because they sound cool. Experienced optimizers in a group of less experienced players have a high chance of causing this effect no matter what, because they're simply more familiar with the system and better at building characters. This isn't a problem you fix by limited options- it's one you fix by having a GM who actively monitors characters and has either the experienced players tone it down or helps the new players- or both!

K177Y C47 wrote:


yeah... wood is not that strong..

unless he was talking about the abuse of a level 20 nature oracle (abusing awaken animal and their capstone) but that is level 20... so that really does not count for much...

Or the abusable Lunar Oracle (either having an animal companion from hell or combining with Pally for teh lulz).

Wood is referred to because one of its revelations gives a 2nd level divine SLA at level 1. However it's by far the inferior choice to dipping a level of cleric with the trickery domain, in my opinion.

Overly, the SLA ruling increases the number of options and diversity in the game, which is absolutely a good thing. Crying wolf about this feat is a bit silly, because what can now be achieved with a 1 level dip and a feat could already be achieved with a 2 level dip. The most powerful classes that would be hurt by dipping for this feat, like oracles, have access to this feat anyways!


First of all, that is the wrong relevant text. This right :here is the more appropriate FAQ.

Secondly, there are plenty of other ways to optimize, which do not involve that one exploit at all. Frankly, you might be better off just dipping monk if you are that worried about your saves (heck, you would get a ton of bonus feats while doing it; crane riposte is still not a completely terrible idea for a swashbuckler, even if crane wing has been clipped). If I am worried about my saves on a martial character, I am more likely to grab dual minded half elf for the +2 will and then go for the 'boring' save increasing feats from core than anything else. There are simple, in the books ways of optimizing that you can just point at for newbs and GMs.

Trying to reach the stars with a niche build based off of one FAQ is a good way to get that banned at your table. I only usually look at that one FAQ to grab arcane strike, which is a modest but decent boost to attacks. Trying to convince them that you need the best saves at the table is not going to fly most of the time.

And, as always, I must say- WE ARE A TERRIBLE DATA SAMPLE. Often, the only people who come to these forums (or at least these parts) are those that enjoy high level theorycrafting, rules lawyering, and munchkining. Not to say we are bad people, but we are simply too much of a concentration of these groups to actually represent any kind of statistics. And lets be honest- even if you do not use the examples from these boards, you can be over optimized with or without such rulings.

Plus, sometimes, those 'overused' things are not even that good. I always rail against how people are obsessed with dervish dance even when 1 weapon/1 handed is a terrible style for anyone other than the magus and its spell combat (and now swashbucklers too; they would want fencing grace though, since that allows bucklers for sword and board). And some of these 'perfect builds' seem darn well near unplayable when they need to wait for 5 or more levels just to even turn on (dervish dance magus....for example. They can't take power attack until then, and they don't have very many spells early on; some dip heavy stuff can have similar pains though)


Arguably, the Trickery Domain doesn't give a second level divine spell. It gives (sort of) mirror image as an SLA and SLAs are treated as sorcerer/wizard spells if they're on that list.


thejeff wrote:
Arguably, the Trickery Domain doesn't give a second level divine spell. It gives (sort of) mirror image as an SLA and SLAs are treated as sorcerer/wizard spells if they're on that list.

SLA's which are granted by a class are treated as being of a type based on the class so all Cleric SLA's are divine.


I believe the problem is with the power level of this feat, not with SLAs.


thejeff wrote:
Arguably, the Trickery Domain doesn't give a second level divine spell. It gives (sort of) mirror image as an SLA and SLAs are treated as sorcerer/wizard spells if they're on that list.

I agree it's a bit wonky, but the devs seem to have approved it. SKR weighed in on it here


Jiggy wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I have yet to see someone actually play an early-entry SLA build.

I have 2 in PFS and 1 player in my home game is playing one.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I believe the problem is with the power level of this feat, not with SLAs.

Indeed. I've noticed a trend lately of people who were opposed to the SLA FAQ going around attributing other things to it.

First, it was predictive: "Everyone will be breaking the game with early entry!" But then they didn't.

Then, after a couple of years of open-access aasimar/tieflings in PFS, they got restricted again, and I've seen more than one pundit decree that surely it must have been because of that SLA ruling (and not because of stats so flexible that you can support tons of builds with free darkvision and immunity to Verb Person spells thrown in for free).

And now, an overpowered feat gets released that is substantially less broken for SLA-users than for straight-takers, and somehow that points to a problem with the SLA FAQ as well.

I wonder what will get blamed on it next? I have yet to see anything bad happen that's actually related to that FAQ, but its original opponents seem to be seeing connections everywhere they look.


I'm somewhat against the SLA ruling AND the new feat.

I was a little excited that other classes have access to Divine Grace but limiting it to casters turned me off fast. Regardless of early entry SLA its a huge boon for a feat and shows favoritism to casters who have few save problems.

I'm against SLA counting as spells for prerequisites due to flavor. I see SLA as sort of a part of a creature's 'magical biology' and I feel like it cheapens the flavor and the point of the spell requirement.

Now that that genie is out of the bottle, I think that we either need more traits or feats that grant SLA, both arcane and divine. I think it solves the function and flavor problems. Function, by giving means for characters to access things without having to be a step behind on their class features. Flavor by not needing to screw up your original character concept to gain an ability too good to pass up, and representing the overwhelmingly magical nature of most everything you interact with by adding yourself to that mix if you want to, even if by comparison you're mundane.


Stark_ wrote:
Wood is referred to because one of its revelations gives a 2nd level divine SLA at level 1.

which one?


DrDeth wrote:
Stark_ wrote:
Wood is referred to because one of its revelations gives a 2nd level divine SLA at level 1.
which one?

Bend the grain, probably. It "functions as either wood shape or warp wood"

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
Stark_ wrote:
Wood is referred to because one of its revelations gives a 2nd level divine SLA at level 1.
which one?
Wood wrote:
Bend the Grain (Sp): Once per day as a standard action, you can shape or warp wooden objects. This functions as either wood shape or warp wood. At 11th level, you can use this ability to push wood away from you, as repel wood. At 7th level, and again at 14th level, you can use this ability an additional time per day.


MechE_ wrote:


Concerns:
Divine Protection (see below for a copy of the feat's text) is a REALLY great feat - Oracles are going to LOVE it. But should a Bard be able to access it with a 1 level cleric dip because they chose a domain that happens to grant the right SLA...? What about a Swashbuckler who happens to choose the right race - should he qualify for Divine Protection at 5th character level?

NO, they should not for the reason that the feat should not exist.I think in the playtaste a a DEV told us that cha to all saves was too much for swashbuclkers, not sure how giving it to oracles is not too much.


Secret Wizard wrote:
I believe the problem is with the power level of this feat, not with SLAs.

Yeah this is the part that's confusing me. We have this amazingly strong +cha to all saves feat (RIP paladin) and... we're coming to the conclusion that being able to dip cleric and pick it up is the problem but a straight oracle getting Cha to AC, CMD, Initiative and Saves isn't?

Nicos wrote:

NO, they should not for the reason that the feat should not exist.I think in the playtaste a a DEV told us that cha to all saves was too much for swashbuclkers, not sure how giving it to oracles is not too much.

That also gets me. Cha to saves is too much for a Swashbuckler (a class that'll struggle to deal with Save or Lose) but handing it over with basically no strings attached to two of the strongest classes in the game makes sense?


swoosh wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I believe the problem is with the power level of this feat, not with SLAs.
Yeah this is the part that's confusing me. We have this amazingly strong +cha to all saves feat (RIP paladin) and... we're coming to the conclusion that being able to dip cleric and pick it up is the problem but a straight oracle getting Cha to AC, CMD, Initiative and Saves isn't?

I don't think anyone has said this because it is blatantly obvious the feat is bonkers for Oracles and may well make Clerics actually care about charisma.


andreww wrote:


I don't think anyone has said this because it is blatantly obvious the feat is bonkers for Oracles and may well make Clerics actually care about charisma.

The OP is more or less "This is a great feat for Oracles, but isn't it a bad idea to let Swashbucklers and Bards pick it up with a single level dip?". At least from how I read it.


much ado about nothing, no one is not going to not be a paladin because of this feat. most full BAB classes are not going to dip for this feat.

the only classes this feat really helps are oracles and clerics. i honestly don't see what is so powerful. these classes already had excellent saves. are people going to play more oracles or clercis as a result? does this feat makes those classes way more powerful?

honestly if this feat is broken, the power attack is the most broken feat in the game. powwer attack actually makes full bab classes exponentially more powerful. this feat does not do this for either clerics and oracles, and in fact an oracle has to give a feat that wouldnt normally probably go to the extra mystery feat. im just not seeing what all the hysteria is about.


There are quite a few Paladin Archetypes that give up Divine Grace. A Paladin can get a Domain fairly trivially, then pick this up.

Also, this is *not* much ado about nothing, this is one of the defining features of a class being handed out as a Feat, specifically to Divine spellcasters at little to no cost whatsoever, meanwhile, we're told that it would be 'too powerful' to give Swashbucklers Charisma to saves.

You know, unless they take a dip into a 'real' class, and realize their destiny as a spellcaster.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

There are quite a few Paladin Archetypes that give up Divine Grace. A Paladin can get a Domain fairly trivially, then pick this up.

Also, this is *not* much ado about nothing, this is one of the defining features of a class being handed out as a Feat, specifically to Divine spellcasters at little to no cost whatsoever, meanwhile, we're told that it would be 'too powerful' to give Swashbucklers Charisma to saves.

You know, unless they take a dip into a 'real' class, and realize their destiny as a spellcaster.

I'm not sure i would call it class defining, it a nice benefit for being a paladin, but i would think lay on hands and smiting evil as being more class defining features of paladins.

i can see why it would be powerful if swashbucklers could get it easily, but the only classes that can get it easily are oracles and clerics, and paladins. and with the exception of the paladins, it doesnt make much difference, and with oracles there is a significant opportunity cost (oracle mysteries are really good, and most use thier feats to get more).

you havent' stated why this is so broken, it deosnt make oracles and clerics that much better, they have to sacrafice a feat, which is super valuble because of other feats those two classes could have choosen instead, and i don't see the big deal if it allows some paladins to get divine grace back at a cost, because while it is easy for paladins to get domains, it's not cheap.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

yes, the oracle, a full caster have to spend a feat to have a +4 to +10+ to all saves, what an incredibly sacrifice.


Jiggy wrote:
Oh, and for the record, I have yet to see someone actually play an early-entry SLA build.

Got an aasimar mystic Theurge in my serpent skull group.


hmmm 1 feat for +4 (or higher, which will scale up pretty nicely) on all saves. Oh wait, theres a feat called iron will that gives a +2 on one save, isn't that a thing? Players actually even take that for the small +2 it provides, cause will saves are that important.


andreww wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Really the most compelling argument you've put forward is that MT needs some work, not that the sky is falling because a few classes can jump through some crazy hoops to her Cha to saves.
I don't think "take a level of cleric" counts as a crazy hoop for most people, especially given the payoff.

Taking a level of cleric would murder a sizable percentage of my character concepts. Honestly, my inner munchkin would love to dip inquisitor with my goblin gunslinger, but that is just never going to happen barring a completely left-field change in personality.


I must echo the voices here that the feat is at fault. It is no less a power boost for the classes that would get this without SLAs than for anyone else. Oracles in particular are an example where this gets nasty. More so than any other class I would posit. Being charisma dependent (and potentially, only charisma dependent) and not needing to dip (and slow down their main class features).

Cuts for brevity

Quote:
Having a few niche ways to get early access to certain feats and prestige classes subtly pushes players towards those few niche builds. Every Mystic Theurge is an Aasimar/Tiefling...

So,, taking this paragraph, you:

a) Decide that a nudge means all builds will follow these given trends.
b) Open with an argument long discussed elsewhere.
From that, I really fail to believe your big issue in this thread is with the SLA ruling with respect to the ACG compared to the SLA ruling in general. In lieu of that, I find this thread disingenuous. Especially since point a) smacks of a slippery slope and a hasty generalization. Not that makes them wrong, by formal logic, but I have yet to meet empirical or anecdotal evidence that the SLA ruling has made a significant difference.

Quote:
Tricks like using your SLA to qualify for feats and prestige classes increase the optimization gap between casual players and those of us who are more advanced. Counting your SLA...

I can't say it hasn't affected the gap at all but I must say that the problem of an optimization gap has been omnipresent with respect to player knowledge since the core rulebook. To present the use of several sourcebooks possibly giving a table a wild mix in capability and not make consideration for a well-played wizard vs a poorly built fighter ignores this. Indeed, it makes it sound like optimization gaps only came about because of niche rulings. That is patently not the case.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
yes, the oracle, a full caster have to spend a feat to have a +4 to +10+ to all saves, what an incredibly sacrifice.

I might as well go ahead and say it out loud, since it seems nobody has the gall to: Paizo doesn't care about balance. It's that simple. It seems downputting and negative, but I don't mean it that way; it's the facts, and thems the breaks. It's evidenced by their statements of saying that the Fighter and Rogue are the best at what they do in regards to combat and skill, respectively, even though many sorts of theorycrafting and playtesting with other classes say quite the opposite. And that's just on the Martial side.

Needless to say, I'm glad a Martial character has to take 2 levels of a single specific "shoehorning" Martial class to get a feature that a full-progression Divine Spellcaster has to only invest 5 ranks into a Knowledge check (that every Divine Spellcaster should have maximized anyway) and spend a feat for.

You'd think Fighters would get some of their own class-specific feats that are that strong and cool, since they're supposed to be the king of feats...but no. All they get for "cool" class-specific feats is the ability to reduce DR/- by 5 by 16th level (in other words, nullify their capstone, before they even get access to it). And that takes a lot of Feat investment to do.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The "SLAs Count as Spells" Ruling & The Advanced Class Guide (ACG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.