Critical Success's page

Critical Success wrote:

So... has this never been "officially" answered by a dev? I just scoured Google results for over an hour and didn't turn up anything "official looking."

This has been answered in FAQ.

You can have spells added to your list of spells known, but unless a class feature of one of your classes put them there, you are unable to cast them unless the spell is also on your class's spell list.

FOR EXAMPLE

A Sorcerer gains an ability, outside of his class, that adds Cure Light Wounds to his list of spells known. He still can't cast it because it's not on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

Also, in most locales, necromancy is considered an evil act.

Thanks so much for the reply!

Two follow up questions then, so let's say that you're a level... 20 Rogue. You don't have any "Spells Known List." You take Eldritch Heritage and Improved Eldritch Heritage, so "For purposes of using that power, treat your sorcerer level as equal to your character level – 2, even if you have levels in sorcerer."

So then doesn't the very feat grant the ability to cast whatever spell is you choose with Improved Eldritch Heritage?

If not, then would taking a single level in Sorcerer (so a level 19 Rogue, level 1 Sorcerer) with these feats be able to cast whatever spell they chose with Improved Eldritch Heritage, because now they'd have a "Spells Known List?"

And finally, from the quote you provided, what if the original 20th level Rogue with IEH also has the Major Magic Rogue Talent which then gives them access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list?

I feel this would be easier if a Dev said, "Yes, EH with the Arcane Bloodline lets people cast a spell," or, "No. It doesn't."

Thanks for the help, btw!

So... has this never been "officially" answered by a dev? I just scoured Google results for over an hour and didn't turn up anything "official looking."

Sorry for the late reply on this, but I just saw it.

Here's a link to where, supposedly, one of the Pathfinder authors, Benjamin Bruck, who apparently wrote the Feat, states that, "Yeah, Improved Two-Weapon Feint should definitely have Two-Weapon Feint as a prereq."

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oqpa?Ultimate-Combat-Improved-TwoWeapon-Feint# 4

I hope that clears things up.

Thanks for responding, everyone. And thanks, Under A Bleeding Sun and Blahpers.

I completely agree with you guys. Your interpretations are basically exactly what I got out of it.

However, I do agree that there wasn't enough "exact wording" in the Feat, and that that has left a little too much ambiguity.

I'll see if I can work on my DM and get him to come around. ;)

I'd actually really like to get some clarification on the Twist Away Feat.

I love it, but my current DM is so against it that he's basically started punching kittens to sate his anger over it's introduction.

As far as I can tell, the basic issues most people have with it fall into three categories:

1) Was this intended to completely remove the need to roll Fortitude Saves?

The claims I keep hearing are that it's too powerful because it allows a character to completely ignore one of the functions of the game (Fortitude Saves).

My argument against that is that it has a prerequisite Feat and you have to take this Feat as well (obviously), so it basically requires two Feats. To me, that's more than fair considering you're also staggered until the end of your next turn whenever you use it.

Two Feats (yes, some classes, most notably Rogues, get Evasion early on) and the staggered drawback seem plenty worth this to me.

2) Does this Feat truly work on everything that could require a Fortitude Save?

Basically, this is a question about, "How does this work 'mechanically?'"

There are basically two ways that a character can be "forced" to make a Fortitude Save.

A) An enemy casts a spell that does NOT require a "to-hit" roll, but allows for a Fort Save.

B) An enemy makes some kind of attack, makes a "to-hit" roll, actually HITS the defender, and then the defender is affected by some property that allows for a Fort Save.

An example of the first case would be the spell Flare.

http://paizo.com/prd/spells/flare.html

It requires no attack roll but does allow for a Fortitude Save to negate.

In the second case, if a player were attacked and hit with a poisoned weapon or the Disintegrate spell:

http://paizo.com/prd/spells/disintegrate.html

Then the enemy has "already" hit that player.

So, does the defender "get hit," then claim, "I'm rolling my Twist Away as an immediate action." Roll, and then if they succeed on the roll, it retroactively makes it so that they weren't hit by the attack to begin with?

If this is the case, and they were dealt damage from the poisoned sword wound, would they then take no damage from the initial attack?

If this isn't the case, then do they take the sword damage but then somehow "twist away" from the poison?

If this Feat does contain this "retroactive" property, I think someone needs to clearly express that.

3) How does the "reality" of this Feat work?

This is dependent on the answers to the previous questions, but if you are able to "twist away" from a poisoned blade that DID successfully hit you that you took damage from, then... uh... Like... What's supposed to be happening there?

One guy on Reddit proposed that your character immediately vomits, and that's why he/she is staggered for a round, but my hunch is that wasn't what was implied by the design team.

Anyway, I think it's an awesome Feat. But any clarity on these points would be greatly appreciated.