|
| 22 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love this new archetype because it lets the fighter fly on its own power, however... it doesnt as per raw.
The archetype lets you replace armor training for alchemist descoveries, one of which can be wings (in fact its suggested in the text).
However the Wings discovery lets you fly
"for a number of minutes per day equal to his[alchemist] caster level."
As the mutation warrior has no caster level this ability wouldnt work, its level only qualify him for discovery requirements as alchemist levels.
Since its one of the suggested discoveries i SUSPECT it's intended to "use
fighter level for all alchemist abilities". It would make no sense to suggest an ability which would not be functional at all.
If you would like a clarification pls hit the faq button
I don't think a clarification is needed since the intent is clear. It would be nice for RAW to match RAI however
|
|
I don't think a clarification is needed since the intent is clear. It would be nice for RAW to match RAI however
Then intent is not clear, some could argue this discovery is for multiclass fighter/alchemist(which would meake the suggestion entry very silly) some could argue that it works the way I proposed . In any case, any word on the faq would be apreciated
I don't think a clarification is needed since the intent is clear. It would be nice for RAW to match RAI howeverThen intent is not clear, some could argue this discovery is for multiclass fighter/alchemist(which would meake the suggestion entry very silly) some could argue that it works the way I proposed . In any case, any word on the faq would be apreciated
I will FAQ it, but some people here will argue anyway. "As if does not equal is", or something similar will be said.
When I say a clarification is not needed I don't mean everyone understands. I am saying most of us understand it.
Well isn't an alchemists caster level equal to his class level normally? So lv12 effective alchemist has lv12 effective alchemist caster level for his abilities?
|
|
I know, im 99% sure about what the intent was, however sometimes the design team make rulings which have amazed me and some times they go against the authors original intended purpose (Titan Mauler). Its important to have clear raw as some of us die and live by it, in my home games of course i will treat fighter level as "meta-alchemist caster level".
|
|
Well isn't an alchemists caster level equal to his class level normally? So lv12 effective alchemist has lv12 effective alchemist caster level for his abilities?
Normally yes but the fighter archetype is no alchemist and has no caster level, because it cannnot cast spells, its level is treated as alchemist for requirements only. You can qualify for wings discovery but they wouldnt be functional, they would have a duration of 0.
Well also, last I heard an Alchemist doesn't have a caster level either. It just treats it's levels as caster level for things that rely on caster level. Like it's extracts, and this discovery. So as far as I see, you have just as much of a right to alchemist caster level as an alchemist would.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well also, last I heard an Alchemist doesn't have a caster level either. It just treats it's levels as caster level for things that rely on caster level. Like it's extracts, and this discovery. So as far as I see, you have just as much of a right to alchemist caster level as an alchemist would.
It does have a meta caster level thought
"The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level"
A similar text should be present on Mutation Warrior but it isnt
But we're counting as an Alchemist are we not? So that gives us a meta caster level too then. Since we're using it just as he is. They don't always duplicate text when they point you to the base that already says it.
|
|
But we're counting as an Alchemist are we not? So that gives us a meta caster level too then. Since we're using it just as he is. They don't always duplicate text when they point you to the base that already says it.
It counts only for prereqs, many evolutions ask for "Alchemist X" levels. As wings have "Alchemist level 6" for prereqs the fighter can qualify but it cant use it due to not having caster level nor meta caster level. If it had caster level then it would, strangely, be able to take "Item Creation Feats". You can asume of course however thats not how it works as of now
|
|
Presumption 1: the rules are intended to function.
This should be your very first, go-to presumption in analyzing any rules elements.
Presumption 2: RAW can be explicit or implied.
Sometimes, something can be written in an implicit manner or an explicit manner. It's always best to look for an explicit rule but, should an explicit rule not be found, but lacking it violates presumption 1, look for implicit meaning in the rules. These are the "unwritten" rules; they're "written", per say, but not in an explicit manner so a person looking for explicit and only explicit rules may completely overlook them.
Presumption 3: Only when explicit or implicit rules are contradictory should it be presumed that the rules are in error.
Should there be absolutely no reconciling the rules (ie. Prone Shooter), then you may presume that there was an error in writing; this naturally requires an errata to correct the error.
We have an implicit rule via Presumption 2 that you can use your Fighter level as your effective Alchemist caster level in order to make these rules elements function. Ergo, that is the most logical conclusion to take barring new information. Should new information be brought to light that triggers Presumption 3 (new information yields an irreconcilable contradiction), then we have a situation much like the Half-Breed FAQs which would need to be addressed by either fixing the error in writing or fixing the error in the new information. So feel free to use the Fighter level as effective Alchemist caster level for the purpose of adjudicating Alchemist discoveries that utilize Alchemist caster level as it is the most logical conclusion to use. Should new information come to light (ie. they errata it to be effective Alchemist caster level = Fighter Level - X), use that instead when it is made available. Should they try to clarify it by saying the Fighter has no effective Alchemist level, that effectively means that the suggestion to use the Wings discovery is the error and implicit RAW...
It wouldnt be an error per se but it would be a nonsense sugestion, having said that you are defining RAI, which is logical interpretation of the rules. However as far as RAW goes, it prevents this discovery of working unless you multiclass as Alchemist. This is the current state of things, however raw and rai have obvious disparities...
|
|
But we're counting as an Alchemist are we not? So that gives us a meta caster level too then. Since we're using it just as he is. They don't always duplicate text when they point you to the base that already says it.It counts only for prereqs, many evolutions ask for "Alchemist X" levels. As wings have "Alchemist level 6" for prereqs the fighter can qualify but it cant use it due to not having caster level nor meta caster level. If it had caster level then it would, strangely, be able to take "Item Creation Feats". You can asume of course however thats not how it works as of nowAlthough Alchemists don't count as casters for item creation feats
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qdk
Funny, i didnt know about that, however that doesnt change the point of the question
|
|
It wouldnt be an error per se but it would be a nonsense sugestion, having said that you are defining RAI, which is logical interpretation of the rules. However as far as RAW goes, it prevents this discovery of working unless you multiclass as Alchemist. This is the current state of things, however raw and rai have obvious disparities...It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do. Written is what it actually allows you to do. Explicit means it says it straight out. Implicit means you need to parse what is written and read between the lines. No reading of the rules should ever, ever result in them being non-functional. If a reading results in a rules element being non-functional, there are only two possibilities; 1) it was written wrong, or 2) you're reading it wrong. Or, as SKR said, "You're not stupid. So don't read the rules as if you were stupid." The RAW carries with it the distinct implication you use your Fighter level as a virtual Alchemist level for the purpose of the Discoveries. It doesn't need to state it outright for this to be the case because the alternative renders the ability broken. Argumentum ad absurdium; if accepting the premise as true results in an impossible or absurd situation, it can be logically deduced that the premise is not true.
If on a multiple choice question there are two correct answers then the answer is not clear, in this case the answers can be two.
-Wings should not have been suggested
-The archetype has a caster level/metacaster level
None of this is written, raw is rules as written. Your interpretation of the Raw is an interpretation, and it can be wrong. A Cow is a cow. Asumption is possible, not a necesary condition. Thats why a clarification is needeed
What exactly does the language imparting discoveries say?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly does the language imparting discoveries say?
ElementalXX if it bothers you so much to have the fighter fly, feel free to not use it. Feel free to pick it up and have no minutes for it. Just be sure to apply the same rule to the Alchemist, which also has no caster level. He just gets to treat his level as caster level for brew potions and extracts.
Hey I just had an idea, Maybe this discovery is only useful when you multi-class into something with a caster level :P OH OH or maybe if you have a SLA so your character level is it's caster level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
Special Abilities
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
It looks like the default rule is that caster level = class level.
|
|
ElementalXX if it bothers you so much to have the fighter fly, feel free to not use it. Feel free to pick it up and have no minutes for it. Just be sure to apply the same rule to the Alchemist, which also has no caster level. He just gets to treat his level as caster level for brew potions and extracts.
Hey I just had an idea, Maybe this discovery is only useful when you multi-class into something with a caster level :P OH OH or maybe if you have a SLA so your character level is it's caster level.
It doesnt bother me, in fact i love that the fighters get some love finally,im just stating how things work as per raw, which is at the most strange and/or fishy. In any case this thread is to ask for a clrification, not to antagonize ourselves.
Btw. the SLA would be, i guess, a really good choice in case the archetype is clarified as having no caster/metacaster level
|
|
If on a multiple choice question there are two correct answers then the answer is not clear, in this case the answers can be two.Multiple choice questions often have more than one answer that is correct, but only one will be fully correct. Others may be correct, but only in part and in an insignificant manner. The answer that gets you points is the one that fully answers the question; you don't get partial credit for the technically correct, albeit incomplete, option(s). The ability explicitly lets you select the Wings discovery; so any reading that results in Wings being non-functional for a single-classed Mutation Fighter is inherently incorrect. It may be a possibly valid reading by a narrow reading of RAW, but since it doesn't result in a functional use of the class ability it is not correct. Period. You must logically default to the option provided by implicit understanding; that you use your Fighter level in determining your effective Alchemist level for the purpose of using the ability. Since such an option exists and does not contradict any other rules elements, take it.
First, error in writing is a posibility, it wouldnt be the first time.
Second i defend your take, thats gonna be my houserule on my homegames, but is not raw, im aware of it. What is written is written, what is not written is not. Your logic would make nothing on PFS, please stop saying an interpretation is raw, if yout interpretation is raw, then it has to be written somewhere, quote it, if you failt to do that then it-is-not-written.
Your logic is one i like, but is not impartial and many times not what its used.
You should read the "Sohei" threads to see what i mean
|
|
Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
It looks like the default rule is that caster level = class level.
Special Abilities
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
THANKS! This is the first solid piece of information which indicates the archetype may have some kind of caster level. As far as rules go this could be used as raw backup for clarification. Much apreciated
|
If your possibility about how something works requires rules that you cannot quote, then you are not dealing with raw.
You can certainly make an argument about it being rai, but don't misrepresent yourself about it.
Your argument about all writing being a matter of interpretation is a non-argument. These are the rules forums. raw and rai have clearly understood meanings here.
You're arguing rai, what was intended to happen by the rules. This is great, but accurate raw readings are also necessary to adjust and correct future printings of the book, so that what is written matches together clearly and understandably with what is intended.
It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do.
Intent is pretty much the definition of a rai argument. If a strict reading of an ability means that it's impossible to use, that doesn't mean the reading is wrong. It probably means the devs need to go through and fix the ability so that it DOES work.
And arguments about how it's SUPPOSED to work are fine. But, by definition, they fall into rai.
If your possibility about how something works requires rules that you cannot quote, then you are not dealing with raw.
You can certainly make an argument about it being rai, but don't misrepresent yourself about it.
Your argument about all writing being a matter of interpretation is a non-argument. These are the rules forums. raw and rai have clearly understood meanings here.
You're arguing rai, what was intended to happen by the rules. This is great, but accurate raw readings are also necessary to adjust and correct future printings of the book, so that what is written matches together clearly and understandably with what is intended.
It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do.Intent is pretty much the definition of a rai argument. If a strict reading of an ability means that it's impossible to use, that doesn't mean the reading is wrong. It probably means the devs need to go through and fix the ability so that it DOES work.
And arguments about how it's SUPPOSED to work are fine. But, by definition, they fall into rai.
Can you quote the line in the rules that states that the Disintegrate spell causes death? No. It states that the target, if reduced to 0 HP or fewer, is "reduced to a fine dust". It doesn't state that they are dead, ergo they are still alive. By your interpretation, that is. What about Blindness?
Disintegrate doesn't care if they are alive or dead. It only cares if it's reduced to 0 HP or not. NOW the character is the one who cares if he's dead or not so he checks his status and oh, he's dead. He doesn't exist any more. The spell does nothing more then what it says. The character does what it needs to do by the written rules. Yes RAW needs meaning, but it doesn't have to make sense or work, Just look at mounted combat to know that rules and working don't always go together.
|
|
If your possibility about how something works requires rules that you cannot quote, then you are not dealing with raw.
You can certainly make an argument about it being rai, but don't misrepresent yourself about it.
Your argument about all writing being a matter of interpretation is a non-argument. These are the rules forums. raw and rai have clearly understood meanings here.
You're arguing rai, what was intended to happen by the rules. This is great, but accurate raw readings are also necessary to adjust and correct future printings of the book, so that what is written matches together clearly and understandably with what is intended.
It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do.Intent is pretty much the definition of a rai argument. If a strict reading of an ability means that it's impossible to use, that doesn't mean the reading is wrong. It probably means the devs need to go through and fix the ability so that it DOES work.
And arguments about how it's SUPPOSED to work are fine. But, by definition, they fall into rai.
Can you quote the line in the rules that states that the Disintegrate spell causes death? No. It states that the target, if reduced to 0 HP or fewer, is "reduced to a fine dust". It doesn't state that they are dead, ergo they are still alive. By your interpretation, that is. What about Blindness?
...English is a very fluid language.
In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you
Yours are poor examples blinded is a condition, very well difined on the sdr, if you are qutoing blindness spell, it afflicts the target with the blinded condition
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
About desintegrate, the spell it doesnt kill you, it destroys your body.
You are beign adamant and really silly in saying you only use raw, interpretation and rai and is perfectly acceptable, i dont understand why you say "BUT IM USING RAW BELIEVE ME" nobody is gonna do it, sorry