Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Technicality? Opinions on legality of build


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

Liberty's Edge **

Dwarven Rogue Arcane Trickster

Arcane Trickster requirement
Spells: Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane
spell of 2nd level or higher.

If you have a level 10 rogue, by then you can choose Minor Magic to give the ability to cast Mage Hand
and
Major Magic to unlock the Advanced Talent Dispelling Attack which inflicts Dispel Magic, a 3rd level Arcane Spell.

"Dispelling Attack* (Su): Opponents that are dealt sneak
attack damage by a rogue with this ability are affected by a
targeted dispel magic, targeting the lowest-level spell effect
active on the target. The caster level for this ability is equal
to the rogue’s level. A rogue must have the major magic
rogue talent before choosing dispelling attack."

It does not say that the spell is "Cast" but refers to the rogue as a caster. Would having these talents technically fulfill the requirements for an Arcane Trickster?

Liberty's Edge **

Looks like the answer is no.

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?
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, 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. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".

posted February 2015 | back to top


I guess technically this would work, but it would be rather bad, having no spellcasting progression to advance, and no directive about what to do if you don't have a spellcasting progression to advance.

Edit: Never mind, no it doesn't -- had the SLA FAQ nerf backwards for a moment.

****

Im_Aquaman wrote:
It does not say that the spell is "Cast" but refers to the rogue as a caster. Would having these talents technically fulfill the requirements for an Arcane Trickster?
Im_Aquaman wrote:
Looks like the answer is no.

You are correct. The answer is "No.". Being able to make a sneak attack that affects the victim as a targeted dispel magic is not the same as being able to cast dispel magic. Also, Dispelling Attack isn't a spell-like ability; it's a supernatural ability. Not a spell, not a spell-like ability and the ability to make this attack is not the ability to cast the spell, so it doesn't fulfill the PrC's requirement.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha aka UndeadMitch

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have Arcane Anthology player companion, you can make an Eldritch Scoundrel rogue that will get you into Arcane Trickster pretty quickly. If you have the Dirty Tactics Toolbox player companion, you can take Accomplished Sneak Attacker, which gets you in even quicker. I've got a build I'm working on that is going to end up as an Eldritch Scoundrel 4 / Arcane Trickster X. It doesn't qualify for Unchained Rogues, which is not a huge deal as far as I'm concerned.


The problem with going Eldritch Scoundrel into Arcane Trickster is that Arcane Trickster was designed for 9/9 casters, but you will be entering with and progressing 6/9 spellcasting while degrading to d6, 1/2 BAB.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha aka UndeadMitch

And your point is? It's a fun build, and it makes the OP's apparent desire to go pure rogue into Arcane Trickster work.


^It will work that way, it just isn't as good (by a significant margin) as doing a 9/9 caster-based Arcane Trickster build.

***

I know my PFS Trickster was the rog 1 (+accomplished sneak attacker feat) wiz3 entry...
Unchained for the free weapon finesse and improved sneak attack.

Heavily considered going snakebite brawler 1 instead of un.rog for bab and other stuff, figured the weapon finesse and sneak attack concealed targets was worth the 1 bab.

Now he's up to 7, just got his improved familiar and wand of tiny hut so he's ready to rock and roll!

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha aka UndeadMitch

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh.

A) A typical Arcane Trickster would be taking a hit to spell level anyways, to make the sneak attack req.

B) Optimization isn't really required for PFS play. With the exception of a few outliers, most scenarios aren't especially lethal.

C) I'm good with my choice. There's always something better. There's always a build that will do what your build does, only better. It may be suboptimal to you, but whatever. I'm not trying to win Pathfinder here.

***

5 people marked this as a favorite.
"Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I'm not trying to win Pathfinder here.

I will welcome whatever end humanity receives with open arms, even unto the heat death of the universe, if it means an end to people saying this phrase and variations thereof.

A player may optimize for a variety of reasons, whether out of a desire to improve oneself, a desire to be a credit to his or her team, or just to survive combat so as to play their guy longer and that player may choose to optimize to any given degree. I would be utterly floored if it were ever in the interest of "winning" Pathfinder. To suggest that it is the reason a player optimizes is insulting in the extreme, as it belittles the time and effort spent in so doing.

Insisting someone is trying to win Pathfinder is akin to making a personal attack, which I really wish people would have figured out by now. It doesn't strengthen your position, it just reads as a weak attempt at painting your target jn a negative light.

So please stop doing that.

Shadow Lodge ****

Just dip a level of unchained rogue 1, wizard x, and take the extra sneak attack feat. free weapon finesse and some other goodies.

***

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Just dip a level of unchained rogue 1, wizard x, and take the extra sneak attack feat. free weapon finesse and some other goodies.

And Wayang if it's not on your radar/fits your concept. Great race for a trickster what with perfect racial mods, small size (and commensurate boosts to everything you care about), and access to some really nifty racial tricks if you have Blood of Shadows. I, for one, greatly enjoy boosting four important touch attacks by 3 per day with the shadow speaker (and wayang soothsayer feat)

The tricky bit is figuring out what to do archetype wise, since you're only getting one to three levels in your base classes before prestiging.

****

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I went with Exploiter Wizard so I could Dimensional Slide. I also took more Wizard than required for the extra distance and a couple other goodies.

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha aka UndeadMitch

Ryzoken wrote:
"Mitch Mutrux wrote:
I'm not trying to win Pathfinder here.

Insisting someone is trying to win Pathfinder is akin to making a personal attack, which I really wish people would have figured out by now. It doesn't strengthen your position, it just reads as a weak attempt at painting your target jn a negative light.

So please stop doing that.

Wasn't saying he was. Just that I wasn't. Really wish people would stop applying a comment that I applied to myself to other people. Please stop doing that.

You can optimize without trying to win Pathfinder, just like everyone trying to win Pathfinder isn't optimized. But when somebody dismisses a proposed build because something else can do it better, and their counterargument is basically, "yeah, but this does it better" then they make a case for trying to win Pathfinder. You may not like the phrase, bjt their are peopl that treat our shared hobby as a solo game that they have to win on their own.

Shadow Lodge ****

Mitch Mutrux wrote:
But when somebody dismisses a proposed build because something else can do it better, and their counterargument is basically, "yeah, but this does it better" then they make a case for trying to win Pathfinder.

No, they are pointing out that something else will do the same thing but better, mostly because people tend to have a better time when their character doesn't struggle to achieve their core functionality

Silver Crusade **** Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha aka UndeadMitch

Yeah, I'm really not interested in a pointless internet argument. He's going to play his way, and that's okay. Nothing wrong with that. Either build does what it sets out to do well enough. To each their own.

Liberty's Edge **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you everyone for your help. I ended up making a Wayang Unchained Rogue Shadow Walker (Blood of Shadows)

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / Technicality? Opinions on legality of build All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.