Crimeo's page

Kip ups are in the game as either class abilities or feats..

Something being a feat does not negate the ability to do it with a skill roll or untrained attribute roll as well. Feats simply allow you to do things with guaranteed success instead of having to roll them. There is no reason you can't power attack with a GM determined appropriate strength check DC and no feat, same for kip ups (except acrobatics or dexterity check)

Truthfully, do the generally non-evil vampires in the "Twilight" series make you more or less scared of vampires? Does the possibility that the ghost in your uncle's house might be friendly like Casper make that adventure more or less exciting when you venture in to meet it?

Why do adventures need to be "scary?"

I think the goal should be usually "interesting" not "scary."

Although on top of scares not being the ideal end goal, knowing things generally also makes them less scary ANYWAY. The unknown is the scariest, that's why horror directors don't show you their monsters, etc.

So having a diverse, organic, realistic environment of gray philosophies and morals and motivations is the best of both worlds. It not only makes the game more engaging as an end unto itself, but also fuels fear regardless by fueling the unknown.

Vampires all the same = fighting them is all the same, predictable, thus easily defended against or beaten for an intelligent and prepared person. Yawn. Vampires like humans, all unpredictably diverse and unique and catty and political etc., but now also fasthealing, 30 foot jumping and a thirst for blood = scariest thing of all to me.

As DM I would say "we are not in combat. Before you even get to talk about readying an action, let's talk about what's happening in the room. You start to raise your bow. The Demon continues talking but is watching you. If you want to keep bringing up your bow, we'll roll for initiative because he may act."

So now you're ruling quite differently than what you did before in the dungeon, even though kicking down a door is actually WAY more warning than raising a bow IMO.

Not having any idea what to expect until off the cuff rulings in the moment makes it almost impossible to do plan interesting or advanced tactics in advance or become a well oiled SWAT team. Maybe your characters are very cinematic and don't care, great, but plenty at other tables do. This kind of stuff would lead to utter mutiny at mine, because it guts the whole part of the game they (and I) enjoy: tactical chess (not just combat but social and puzzles and everything).

Both are totally valid ways to play, BUT I would say that the rules-oriented method is much harder to design than "whatever feels right at the time", so if Paizo is going to pick something to publish that they've tested rigorously, it still seems to make much more sense to me to have it be the rigid version. Because house ruling "Ignore those rules we're doing it cinematically" is super easy to decide and say in 5 seconds. Whereas "Ignore the lack of rules, here's something I was forced to painstakingly design for hours to be technically smooth because Paizo didn't give me anything to work with" is not.

I'm assuming we're talking about game design here, but it could be that some people reading the thread are simply wanting clarity because they're not familiar with RPGs.

Yes absolutely pathfinder definitely does not have any rules like this. I'm purely responding to the claim that they "couldn't possibly" or whatever. And/or whether it would be a good thing or not.

Which is probably indeed too far off topic for this forum anyway, we may want to continue in GD or something if still interested.

Whiiiiich is obviated by the fact it is QUICKENED

If it's not obviated by a normal spell even of immediate speed (like a scroll of feather fall still being standard action), then why would it be any different for a spell made into swift by metamagic?

There is a clear rule printed: "Scrolls are standard actioin length or the length of the spell [which in this case for a quickened spell is swift], whichever is longer"

Standard is longer than swift, so it takes standard.

Nope, it's a swift action. The extra speed is taken care of by the extra cost.

They're standard actions to activate by default, and I see no mention of the extra cost implying any reduction in activation time. In fact, several types of items specifically reinforce this, such as scrolls:

Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer)

Wouldn't a quickened true strike scroll for instance still take a standard action to use though...? Not super helpful.

For custom wondrous items, maybe, but I can't seem to find any mention of swift (or any other action type) as a parameter. Does that mean it's not possible to do custom, or that it's no extra cost?

Yes if you buy a staff, one of the advantages of staves is that they use your own caster level for DCs if yours is higher than the staff. But at minimum CL 8, that's not till mid level.

If you're a diviner, enchanter or a blaster or use a lot of save-including control spells like grease or whatever, you need a high INT score for saves.

If you're mostly a summoner, transmuter, or an illusionist though, you generally only need 10+[the highest spell level you can cast] just to be able to cast your spells, the end. Because your saves are usually unimportant (yes illusions have saves but you should pretty much always be strategically relying on cleverness to cause lack of interaction, not the save, since interaction is the far far more potent line of defense)

there is no way (neither failing nor succeeding the initial saving throw) to suffer from this condition.

But there is (trolls for example), and you know that.

You shouldn't ask questions you know are not truly stated. I'm not disagreeing that a FAQ would help, I'm just saying don't word it in a way that does not accurately represent your knowledge.

It would be better to mention that directly, something like "Is this written as intended? It seems to only ever apply to trolls and one or two other things, and that seems too narrow to have been intended. Please let us know if this was a typo for something else". It also gives them a convenient head start on thinking through the problem, versus forcing them to re-do all of our brainstorming from scratch.

Technically their job is selling books. If some below-critical-threshold lack of clarity doesn't stop more than like three people buying books, and would take a hundred hours to do, then it may potentially be a poor business choice.

@AW

Still, I doubt many GMs would rule that alter self makes you immune to PAO. It's clearly not intended.

Why bother with minutes long, slot burning spells that you need to anticipate ahead with, when for just 4k gold you can get bracer's of falcon aim that ALWAYS have you under a polymorph effect thus apparently making you immune to all others? Buy now while supplies last!

Charging is a special full-round action

And this statement is never contradicted. They are ALWAYS full round actions. You can't ready full round actions. Thus, you can't ready a charge. Straightforward as that.

The thing about doing a short charge doesn't change anything. That's still also a full round action. It just so happens that your "full round" only includes a standard action in it. But you're still taking a full round action when you charge in that scenario.

Lol @ guy complaining about needing to make optimal choices choosing to roll up a FIGHTER.

Yeah that's also "same source" too was the issue. But I think this seems to be what I was looking for, going off your keywords:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

So reduce person changes a bunch of those specifically listed things, but modify memory does not modify "attributes" so it should stack. Cool.

It doesn't tell you what the sparkling is "due to." So you are open to any interpretation of what it is due to SO LONG AS your end result allows for anything and everything it explicitly tells you happens to happen. One of those things it explicitly tells you is that it DOES sparkle. Thus, it MUST sparkle, unless and until you are told it doesn't by some other explicit written rule. So all backstories must account for sparkling to be happening, unless told otherwise.

"Due to reflecting ambient light" <-- Does that result in it sparkling at the end of the day, in any and all situations where no other explicit rule says it doesn't? No. Thus, this is an invalid story option by RAW. You would be violating a written rule (it sparkles) unnecessarily and not by any requirement of any other written rule. Thus, that breaks RAW.

"It both makes reflective glitter AND generates some light for it to reflect" <-- Does this result in it sparkling when no other rules say it doesn't? Yes. Thus, this is a valid story option by RAW. It allows for all relevant written rules to proceed as written.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. There are likely many other story options that are valid or invalid out there one could choose from. All of them that are valid must result in it sparkling, though, in any and all situations where there are no rules saying it doesn't. Darkness doesn't stop it from sparkling by any of the spell's text. So all valid story options must allow for glitterdust to sparkle still, so long as the only other special condition is a darkness spell. Any story options that don't result in it sparkling, even though nothing written said it doesn't, are invalid/houserule options.

He's got you there. Owlbears are, indisputably, the ideals of bears.

Bear is to Owlbear in the same way that Java is to Javascript.

Javascript is a deranged genetic hybrid of java and scripts? Logic checks out!

The cost of scribing scrolls are for materials though, correct? Summon monster I calls for a small bag and a candle, both of which are inexpensive. If I want to scribe that why is the cost still 250gp and 2hrs or 1,000gp and an entire day?

It's for "really expensive special inks and vellum" but in reality it's paying for game balance.

If scrolls were free, every 5th level wizard would take a month long sabbatical then roll into combat with literally a hundred fireball spells on hand. Etc.

By the way if you want a 0th level combat spell, take the trait "two world magic" and add acid splash to your list.

It's not that I don't see what you are talking about. It's that both are grammatically feasible, yet one yields a pants-on-head ridiculous conclusion, and the other yields a perfectly reasonable expected conclusion.

So why on earth would anybody go with the pants-on-head resulting one, given the choice?

Majority doesn't really matter.

Yes it does because of text like:

Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral.

And darkleaf also says must be primarily hide/leather, etc. Majority determines what things you can substitute.

Wouldn't a mithral tipped spear still bypass DR/silver though?

Not seemingly by RAW, no. It's not meaningfully affected at all unless it's primarily made out of metal. Unless your GM interprets a spear to be "primarily made out of metal", or you're talking about a big metal spear (not sure if the existence of that would be strictly RAW, even though it's obviously possible to construct realistically)

If you are in normal combat rounds, you have already passed the point where a surprise round is possible.

The readying of an action itself can BE your standard you choose during a surprise round, by a reading of the rules where you can choose to begin combat whenever you like (which is within the scope of RAW, but not strictly specified. See above where the text telling you when initiative is rolled is just "when combat begins" without any real direction). This would be the circumstances under which readying and surprise can stack. If you're of the opinion that you can't initiate combat with a ready voluntarily, then they wouldn't be able to stack.

I think it allows for interpretation either way by GMs (note that neither = "readying outside of combat"). But I think the way that happens to correspond with basic common sense human psychology is definitely the better one, RAI-wise and immersion-wise.

That said, the alternative bag of rats strategy is undeniably RAW anyway. So no matter what you rule about readying as the start of combat or only after something else, it ends up being a bit of a moot point, because using bag of rats instead is still a viable rules-legal way to ready before you kick down a door regardless by RAW.

The only time it wouldn't be practically viable to ready prior to kicking down a door one way or the other is with a house rule banning bag of rats, at the very least.

Which should also rule out prevention of it in places like PFS, if they are to go by RAW.

While keeping in mind that NPCs can't ready actions outside of combat, and neither can players, modules tend to give specific tactics for foes.

You don't have to play modules by RAW, and GMs can come up with their own totally custom NPCs by RAW, so tactics written by Paizo don't really restrict anything in a general sense.

Surprising someone means you had foreknowledge or were prepared for the encounter.

Surprise round has a specific definition in the book that is not what you just wrote. You get a surprise round if you are "aware of your opponents" but they are not aware of you. That's it. That's surprise rounds.

That has nothing to do with the separate concept of focusing your broad attention onto one narrow thing in order to be able to react more quickly to it. (readied actions) Which can be literally anything, even during combat, I could ready an action to hop on one leg if a tomato flies across the room. What does that have to do with awareness of enemies? Hell, we could have started the combat and all become aware of one another half an hour ago before I do that...

They are totally separable ideas and situations that can be mixed and matched in any order. They are also totally separate concepts in real life! Surprise has nothing to do with preparedness in common English either. I can all of the sudden realize an enemy is in front of me with a split second to act first and have had NO IDEA that was about to happen. Or I can be intensely prepared and then have my enemy pop out from behind me. Different things entirely.

And in game should follow similarly, all of the following should be common sense possible scenarios:

A) I can be aware of my opponents, them not aware of me, yet I am still allotting my attention broadly and evenly. (surprise round, no readied action)

B) I can be equally aware of my opponents as they are of me, but still primed and ready to do X if and when I see Y, narrowly focusing my attention and mental resources on that one chain of events (no surprise round at all, but readied action yes)

C) I can be aware of my opponents before they are aware of me, and during that time, choose to focus all my attention on one narrow chain of cause effect (both a surprise round and a readied action)

D) I can be equally aware of my opponents as they are of me, and also allocating my attention broadly and evenly (no surprise round, no readied action)

etc. etc.

If you choose to be annoying and deny these common sense scenarios arguing "you have to be in combat already!" then even if for sake of argument we were to agree that was how the rules worked for sure, either way, out comes the bag of rats.

And if you flatly say "No" to the bag of rats, then IMO that's a point against you as a fun, competent GM, that you chose to make a house rule to deny somebody doing something that is RAW, common sense, AND not game breaking all at once. (utilizing bag of rats to effect a realistic situation)

Especially the part about it being RAW is relevant here as this is the rules forum. But it being done for the noble cause of acting realistically, and to fight AGAINST cheese, not for it, is also important.

Yes you roll it 5 times, but since they all hit at once, that creature only takes damage once (the sum of all the damage rolls applying simultaneously).

The glossary presents us with an ability X. X is Y. It then presents us with another ability, Z. Z is also Y. But, it wants to distinguish Z from X, so it next states that Z is not X.

How about

W = "spell-like abilities"
X = "spell-like"
Y = "Supernatural abilities"
Z = "like spells"

W is X, by part of name.
Y is NOT X, by direct statement.
X = Z. (as defined when it says that spell-like implies that it is like spells, bolded in quoteabove)
Thus, W is Z.
and also Y is not Z.

But, it wants to distinguish Z from X, so it next states that Z is not X.

This, by comparison, makes no sense, when they already distinguished the two subsections 3 times in a row by the standard methods: making a new formatted section break, putting a new bold header title on it, adding a colon. The notion that the reader might somehow still not know it's a new section is completely absurd, and is inconsistent with the writing style in literally every other page of the entire book series where sections change over.

So we have a choice between: "Were the writers telling us something useful? The thing that it would say if you read it in plain English that would indeed be super useful and relevant? And which the writers JUST TOLD YOU it meant?"

OR were the writers suddenly, temporarily, and inexplicably convinced that none of us understand how formatting works and that they needed to redundantly tell us that we are in a new section now? While at the same time contradicting what they just told you a term means 5 seconds ago?

Hmmm.

Items worn use the character's saves, as they are "attended".

For spells that say attended items get saves, yes. For spells that do not specify attendance of objects either way and have no save, no.

Attendedness of objects is relevant to, for example, chill metal. It is totally irrelevant for light.

To target worn gear you basically have to deal with the character's defenses.

Only to the extent of being able to touch it while it moves along with the witch, which is already all accounted for by needing to succeed in a melee touch attack and by the 50% miss chance for total concealment.

There are no other relevant "defenses" for this spell.

Invisibility hides you and your gear, why would it hide floating runes that are neither?

The FAQ allows for the possibility that the manifestations of the spell ARE actually you, and not floating runes. Maybe your skin changes color or something. Thus, FAQ allows for the possibility that invisibility hides runes. It also allows for invisibility not hiding runes, if you interpret the manifestations to neither be part of the caster's body nor equipment.

Yes it is an attack

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

It's in a very odd place in the rulebook, but it's there. Constrict is an offensive combat action, so it is an attack (it doing damage isn't even necessary -- it's just gravy!)

Whether or not it is eligible for sneak attack is a whole other can of worms with several other considerations though than just being an attack, which I don't care to get into one way or the other on this.

Well, the differences between ex, su, and sp abilities are called out in the glossary. Note that there is nothing about using different targeting rules

"Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like."

Since it says supernaturals are not spell-like, that shuts down all similarities at once, such that only specific exceptions for things that are the same will be the same. I.e. Su is a whitelist for spell-like features, not a blacklist, due to them establishing they are not spell-like.

And for the record supernatural abilities follow the rules for spells except where specifically called out differently.

Your quote says "MANY OF WHICH act like spells" (not all) and then (Su) says "magical but NOT SPELL LIKE" (so apparently those aren't among the many). I.e. it doesn't lead to the conclusion you're drawing. And in fact it states the opposite directly, saying they are not spell-like.

It is in the spells and magical effects section, where they drop "and magical effects" and just use spells.

Supernaturals are under "Special abilities" section and it explicitly says they are NOT spell-like. How you are managing to conclude the exact opposite of what it says based on non existent text is confusing.

You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes (if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load) or (wearing medium or heavy armor.)

Actually if it were parsed like this, then it would mean that wearing medium or heavy armor makes you invulnerable to acrobats. Take out the middle clause and see what remains:

"You cannot use acrobatics to move past foes [] wearing medium or heavy armor"

Wearing there refers to the FOES if anything in the first part of the sentence. I.e. medium armor creates an anti acrobatics force field. Do you think that's what they meant? I assume not. If not, then the only remaining option I see is what seems like the obviously intended one that "if your speed is reduced by X or reduced by Y, then no acrobatics"

Sure, you can "ask" it to attack

I'm glad we agree now.

but that is no different than asking any random animal to attack using Speak with Animals.

If that "random animal" happens to be one who, just like my companion, is super friendly toward me, trusts me, has known me for years, has an empathic bond with me, and is aware that lots of food and treasure typically result from hanging out with me and cooperating with my party, then yes. No different than that.

edit: Wait, actually, still different from that, because being intelligent means it is now even better able to realize the logical connection between "cooperate with these guys ==> treasure and food and companionship" than a less intelligent animal would. But otherwise yes.

It will accomplish only what the GM wants it to accomplish.

Agreed. If the GM typically has NPCs who are friendly toward you and who obviously stand to profit from voluntarily going along with your suggestions, and yet routinely decides to make those NPCs refuse to do so for no good reason whatsoever, then I would expect that GM to do exactly the same with an intelligent animal being spoken to as well.

Luckily, I've never met such a GM.

Crimeo you quoted a exact line where is says it will do almost anything you order it to do , barring like usual the suicidal part , while it also keeps "your interests at heart".

Do you spend all day long telling your familiar to do stuff? I certainly don't. I've never seen anybody at a table who does.

So like 95% of the time, the familiar is making its own choices about what it's up to. All of this time can potentially lead to other alignment making decisions and actions.

Hell you could literally order the familiar to follow a "alignment" and it would do so outside if it meant suicide, in which case i guess it would make some sense.

Sure you could probably intervene and change it back. This doesn't change the possibility of it having a different alignment in general/in the first place, though which is the OP's question. Even if you can use this tactic prophylactically ahead of time, MOST people simply don't (I've never seen it happen), so the great majority of the time, that won't be relevant either.

The price is based on the CL you choose, which can be set voluntarily lower than your max CL, though it has a minimum of the minimum needed to cast the spell. So a level 18 wizard can still choose to craft and sell CL 1 wands of CLW, or CL 3 wands of barkskin (but not CL 1 wands of barkskin, as minimum CL for a level 2 spell is 3)

Crimeo wrote:

Which means you have to look at the actual printed rules, which I think very clearly grant you a CL for having an SLA.

Actually, if you look at the actual printed rules, Wizards, Sorcs and Druids only have caster levels for the purposes of spells. There is nothing written down that I've ever read that actually says those spell casting classes explicitly have a catch all caster level.

I agree that this seems to be the case.

Although note that having "*A* caster level" does not necessitate having "a class level caster level" or your class having one, etc. -- if any of your spells have one, then you do have one of them as spell CLs.

"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." <-- A "spell's ... caster level" so you do have spell CLs, but not class CLs.

Magical knack refers to "your caster level in your class" -- If you want to be a stickler for rules, I don't think anyone can legally take this feat as a result, as again I agree with you on this point. If you don't want to be a stickler, well then do whatever you want as a house rule, that's beyond the rules forum.

Whereas if any feat or whatnot says you need "a caster level" not a "caster level in your class" then for THAT a rogue would qualify without house rules, because he meets the definition for having spell CLs.

Now that is OBVIOUSLY something that has been a part of DnD and Pathfinder for so long that everyone just knows it

This is not D&D, I don't know anything about that game nor should anyone need to or be expected to to play pathfinder. Nothing is "obvious" about games that you haven't and don't need to have played before as a prerequisite. As for pathfinder, class caster level has not "been a part of this game" for ANY amount of time, unless the first edition used to say this and was edited out, which I doubt very much.

That doesn't mean you can use the absence of an explicit caster level for casters to give a caster level to everyone.

Casters DO have an explicit caster level. Their class doesn't/not a class caster level, apparently, but they still have many spell-based caster levels, one for each spell they have, as defined under "caster level" in the magic section.

Rogues also have one if they have an SLA by merit of the section's rules. Rogues don't have one "because nobody does thus everybody does" that has not been anybody's logic on this thread as far as I can see. They have one because there's a rule saying you have one (spell ones) if you meet XYZ criteria, and they meet XYZ criteria. That is the reason.

Before level 4, Paladins and Rangers explicitly DO NOT have a caster level.

Agreed, so long as nothing else before that level has granted them any means by which to cast a spell, I'm not 100% sure there isn't one. But if not, then this is orrect.

For rogues, that's also the case UNLESS you take the talents that give you those SLAs, at which point you meet the criteria and gain CLs for those (not for your whole class).

all spellcasting classes have a caster level usually equal to their class level.

the "usually" there, i assume because it makes sense, is in regards to paladin/ranger who their actual class lists it as class level-3.

so, for a non-spellcasting class, the caster level is non existant (not 0)

It says "Spellcasting characters" not "characters from the following list of classes blah blah and blah" Spellcasting chracters includes a rogue who has gained an SLA, since SLAs act like spells, so they have become spellcasting characters. The CL is then "...equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell." I.e. rogue level. There is still not a Rogue CL, but there is a CL = to rogue level for the SLA.

There are FAQs that say SLAs don't act as cast spells for purposes of character options (which would be optional things like feats, etc.), but they still should for anything else not optional including all generic magical rules about how to handle spells and spellcasting in action economy, etc., including caster levels, as these are not character options.

It doesn't grant your class a caster level

Does ANYTHING grant your class a caster level?

Where are wizards granted a class caster level, and not just a caster level for individual spells?

I know somebody posted a FAQ that talked about adding to a wizard's class caster level, but as folks so eloquently argued and convinced me of earlier, you can't add to something that doesn't exist, so you still need root rules text giving them such a thing in the first place. Where is that?

If not anywhere, then technically, NOBODY can take magical knack.

Ok so reading what the FAQ actually says is being "obtuse" now. Sure.

If they wanted SLAs to not imply anything about spells at all, they would have just FAQed "SLAs do not count as casting spells." Takes 7 words.

The long, roundabout and repeated choice of "character options" only being mentioned, and not simply them not being spells at all can only be reasonably interpreted as INTENTIONALLY disqualifying character options that you choose to take, while NOT disqualifying allllll of the other automatic rules about spells, unless explicitly excepted.

Examples of automatically applying, not-option rules that are unaffected and that I have every reason to believe they intentionally did not want to be affected are: having to make concentration checks still with SLAs, provoking AoOs with SLAs, and getting caster levels from SLAs.

If that's not what they meant, then they did a terrible job of making it clear, and they should update it say which of the dozens of non-optional things they also want to include as not counting.

once more, SLA'S DON'T grant your class caster levels.

They are certainly NOT a "spell casting class etc" as you said.

The rules don't say "spellcaster class" They say "spellcasting CHARACTER" in the class she's using to cast the spell.

A rogue casting a spell is a spellcasting character, since SLAs act like spells by default, so what's the problem?

The SLA is not granting a spell casting level directly, it's just making you a character that can spellcast, and being any sort of spellcasting character = having a CL, by definition of CL.

[Three FAQs linked by Shroudb]

1) Not really relevant to our situation, nobody is claiming the rogue would have a CL higher than her rogue level. I would agree she doesn't, so this isn't necessary. Already agreed. Nor is this needed to get a CL. The definition of CL is clear. Plus this FAQ doesn't even establish that wizards have a CL on its own, since as everyone has repeatedly argued, you can't boost something you don't have, and the FAQ only refers to a boost, so you still need some other place for the wizard to have ever gotten a CL. The place he gets one is the CL definition (see below), the same place the rogue does.

2) This FAQ does not even mention the words "caster level" and it's about abilities with spell prereqs, so I'm not sure why you brought it up? Not saying it's irrelevant, just confused what the argument is.

3) No this does not establish that SLAs don't give you caster levels. What it says is that SLAs do not meet caster level prerequisites for item creation feats. Even if you assume (which it would be, an assumption) that this also applies to ANYTHING with prerequisites, it still would not mean that.

You can't use the SLA to fit a prereq for CL. That is not the same thing as SLA not giving you a CL. The key difference is that by the definition of caster level, SOME but not ALL SLAs would grant CLs. Specifically, racial SLAs would not grant caster levels, because the definition of CL says "the class that you're using to cast the spell" and racial SLAs aren't using any class to cast the spell. However, class-based SLAs would, because you are using a class to cast them.

Thus, SLA does not logically imply CL, and thus it is definitely a correct FAQ and the right call they made in my opinion to say that SLAs can simply fill in for CL in any prereq.

But SLAs CAN still give you a CL, by the definition of caster level, if they are class-based ones in particular, which I re-paste below for convenience:

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.

Is rogue a spellcasting character? Yes, once she has a SLA

This is the exact same clause and the same reason wizards have a caster level -- because they have spells they can cast from their class.

Guys, not supposed to debate the issue in this thread, yet the majority of people debating issue. The things you're talking about right now are directly on topic for the other thread up right now labeled major image something something (it's in the rules forum)

he sees a wall but has a pretty good idea that it might not be real

(And same for first part of your post, campincarl:)

That would be in conflict with the rules. "A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss." (CRB)

It is not just the translucency at issue. You are not even allowed to notice anything is amiss. Having a good idea it's not real despite not making your save would thus be leaving RAW.

Reality is reality, no matter what you believe.

I agree, and this has nothing to do with the thread. Nobody is arguing that whether the wall actually stops objects has anything to do with your belief.

I AM saying though that you CANNOT distrust its reality if you do not make your save. Full stop.

Wow. No. Absolutely not. You do not tell players how to roleplay their characters. You can control every other aspect of the campaign, but characters will make their own decisions, and that includes who they decide to trust.

At your table if you want, sure. But nope not by RAW. This is a rules forum. The rules very clearly spell out that you believe the illusion if you fail your save. Being told about it only gives you a +4 on your save. If that +4 isn't enough to change the result, you still believe the illusion, period.

This is not even slightly ambiguous.

Note by the way, that this does not translate to "I don't respect / trust the wizard as a person." Your mind is being magically coerced into believing by illusion magic. Not the same thing. It's not any more a reflection on your character or your relationships than your actions while dominated by dominate person are.

It's not even relevant anyway, as racial heritage means you actually have kitsune blood, it is your heritage to begin with, not somebody else's.

The "Fluff" of the feat has been mentioned before.

"Ignore the man behind the red curtain..."

I'm ignoring the fluff text that mentions change shape, because it doesn't exist. There is some fluff text, but it doesn't mention change shape, so you must be referring to some other fluff text I'm not seeing.

They can take the feat, sure, but until that person gains an ability that allows them to innately shape shift at will

No, no mention of "innately" and also no mention of "at will". All that the fluff text says is the ability shapeshift... period. To have any other form. Any of the million of things in pathfinder that allow you to shapeshift any number of times per day into any other form satisfy the fluff text.

Everything else relevant about it you are purely inventing. ("innate", "at will", "change shape in particular") Inventions =/= RAW. Nor is any of this RAI either, since racial heritage is clearly intended to cover race fluff as part of being that race for feat purposes. So it's neither RAW nor RAI, what is it?

Or if you disagree that racial heritage is intended as such, then please answer the question that has been avoided religiously this whole thread: What IS racial heritage intended for? Please give some concrete examples of it in use that fit this logic. If you can't say some things it can be used for, then that is evidence its intention is being misinterpreted, since they wouldn't write something with no uses.

(Something that is actually consistent with your argument please, not humans having "powerful, steely tusks" simply because they have teeth... if you're going to make that dramatic of a leap, well then humans also already have "other forms" because some days they're bloated, or they can lift weights and get bigger biceps. Being able to be applied consistently somehow would be nice too.)

So, you see no discernible difference between the average intelligence of an adult and the average intelligence of an infant.

As a professional psychologist, no, I don't. In fact, according to many people, they would be equal by definition. (I refer to IQ scores, which I don't really endorse, but putting it out there).

If the ability score were listed as "Rote Knowledge" then yes, there would be a massive difference, but it is not. "Rote knowledge" in game is already represented by a different thing: accumulated skill points so far.

Notice that the relationship between INT and skill points is one of rate:quantity. This perfectly matches real life conceptions of intelligence and knowledge. Intelligence is your rate of acquiring knowledge or ability to do so. If you are not given sufficient stimuli, you may not acquire knowledge quickly but can still be intelligent. It's more like your ideal rate if given everything you need -- but hell even THAT matches pathfinder: if you don't get challenging stimuli you don't get much XP and don't get more skill points despite INT!

Even when your knowledge is near 0, the rate is still likely the same on average as when you are an adult. Babies don't KNOW as much as you, but they learn as QUICKLY as you. Or again, if anything, they learn faster.

Oh didn't catch the "flavor-based prerequisites" phrase, lol, pretty obviously snarky yes.

You dismiss one link as fluff and that one mirrors the other sentence by sentence as sheer coincidence as mere RAI.

I'm not talking about informal likely allusions. Nobody in this thread will dispute the blatantly obvious fact that a kitsune feat was originally written for kitsune flavor, duh.

I'm talking about actual mechanical causal dependencies, prerequisites, and alterations that would imply mechanics restrictions. "Other forms" may be flavorfully alluding to kitsune shapes, but it is simply not a prerequisite, as it is not in the prerequisites section, and unlike "you can slap with your tail" or something, it does not create any sort of logical dependency on having other forms. If you want to ignore all that and lawyer that other forms are needed then okay, I gain another form with aspect of the falcon, my level 1 wizard spell.

The whole point of racial heritage is to qualify you past the fluff and story concept of being part-human part-[blank] in feats, abilities, etc. The intent, if that's what you care about, would then definitely be to get you past anything like this that isn't physically required or part of the actual ability (unlike needing a tail to tail slap).

Or, if you prefer to talk RAW, then it's not a prereq, and it only says "forms" not "kitsune form," so too bad, any forms work.

Pick your poison, they both lead to the same result. The only thing that doesn't is if you inexplicably start out RAW then shift mid stream to RAI only when it starts being convenient to your preconceived conclusion.

one mirrors the other sentence by sentence as sheer coincidence as mere RAI

This one is a complete non-issue. Yes it matches sentence structure. Who on earth cares, why would you ever thing this requires actual gameplay dependencies? Deadly aim and Power attack also use the exact same mechanic laid out in the exact same way. Which one of those is a prereq for the other, can you remind me?

Detect magic and detect evil use the exact same type of system, almost word for word swapping out one type of aura for the other, but otherwise same 3 round system, same info progression, everything. Can you also remind me which of those is a prereq of the other? You do need to know both of them to cast either, right? I'm confused.

Rapid shot is part of attacking. Arcane strike is part of attacking. They're all part of doing something else.

And? What does that have to do with it? The point was that they have "missing information" and yet somehow nobody complains about this and knows exactly what to do.

One could still easily have written "You can only deadly aim 3x/day." They didn't write a frequency cap, because you don't have to. Because when you don't mention restrictions to a granted ability, there are no restrictions. Pathfinder is a boolean rules system.

Crimeo: Go over the math of how you get 1 minute and you'll see a problem.

I didn't do any math, I was just echoing other posters. Now that I actually look it up, I think it would be 7 minutes, my apologies. Minimum possible caster level of a 4th level spell, since it says Beast Shape II. Unless there's some clause somewhere that is more relevant about default caster levels, but for otherwise unspecified items and magic scrolls and whatnot, it's usually minimum possible CL.