| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krispy, the issue I see would be in organized play, where a player can come to a group and use the letter of the RAW (whether or not it violates RAI) to play something which is either dramatically overpowered, dramatically underpowered, or simply not 'party friendly'...
Whether or not something is legal for organized play is not necessarily related to it being legal at all.
I dont do PFS, but I am aware many options like Master Summoner and Synthesist are not legal for it.
These options didnt have to be FAQed out of the book, did they? They're still valid choices as written.
The new FAQ ruling may very well end up being illegal for PFS... that doesnt mean it needs changed for general use.
Design Manager
|
Allowing SLAs to qualify for a PrC is never going to fly.What exactly is the issue here?
Its an advanced character build using advanced racial options and already requires GM approval for every case I can think of this working.
I cant see any legit reason to oppose it unless other people having fun with it bothers you. You can always houserule it... which goes both ways of course.
But i think more options with the gm having veto authority is better than less options in the box.
It does make a difference for things like PFS though. Aasimar and tieflings are standard races for PFS play, so knowing whether they're able to leap into Prestige classes at 2nd level normally not available until 6th or 7th level could make a pretty big difference. Organized play is where a lot of people are introduced into the hobby, so it also kind of introduces the standard that carries forward from there. Having a solid precedent at this level makes it easier to adjudicate the issue throughout all levels of play.
I personally don't think that qualifying for PrC with SLA's is too big a deal, other than the fact that it increases the value of those SLA's and becomes a more serious consideration for the relative power of a given race. 1/day Daylight is almost more flavor than advantage, until it suddenly means that you're getting full BAB and full caster progression at level 3.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I've gotta say, when I first read the very first post in this thread, I rolled my eyes and thought "another person trying to break the game by overanalyzing the rules". But that FAQ really does convince me that you can use SLAs to qualify. I'm convinced. Bring on the 2nd-level prestige classes!!! :-D
Ah that right I never pay attention to aasimar and the other way out there races because I always felt like they'd just be weird to play most of the time.Way out there races like the Gnome? Speak with Animals is a 3rd level Bard spell. Sure it's also a 1st level Druid and Ranger spell, but since we're to assume it is Arcane, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, I see no reason a Gnome would be particularly Divine, so not Druid or Ranger, and thus Bard is the only Arcane class that gets the spell.
Thus, a Gnome at 1st level can cast a 3rd level Arcane spell.
Except the core description of Spell Like abilities say you use Druid before bard. Its therefore (apparently) a 1st level arcane version of the druid spell?
EDIT: Scratch maybe. Thats exactly the result of applying all rules. It functions as the druid spell before the bard, but as per the FAQ is arcane.
|
|
After having looked at it, I do believe this works. I doubt it is RAI, but I do believe it works.
Actually, I kinda think it is intentional. There was a big to-do after this FAQ was issued. Follow the thread there and look at SKR's posts. Also, thanks to BBT we got the arcane/divine question answered. Both of these threads made a lot of noise about qualifying for prestige classes early. I think the design team had to have been aware of the implication when they released their most recent FAQ, so I'm taking qualification for prestige classes as intentional. (Though I'm a bit surprised at it.)
After having looked at it, I do believe this works. I doubt it is RAI, but I do believe it works.Actually, I kinda think it is intentional. There was a big to-do after this FAQ was issued. Follow the thread there and look at SKR's posts. Also, thanks to BBT we got the arcane/divine question answered. Both of these threads made a lot of noise about qualifying for prestige classes early. I think the design team had to have been aware of the implication when they released their most recent FAQ, so I'm taking qualification for prestige classes as intentional. (Though I'm a bit surprised at it.)
I am surprised and flabbergasted, but yes, I posted super quickly about the implications (thanks to Cheapy alerting me to the thread) and was expecting to hear that PrCs are an exception.
I asked them about the arcane / divine thing a few days ago at PaizoCon, bringing up the Mystic Theurge, and I think they said that it does cause some issues. But I really wish I was paying more attention to that part, as I was focusing on the arcane / divine distinction.
Divine Assessor ( D20pfsrd link ) is also usable with this.
But it sucks. So no big deal there.
EDIT: The guide wasn't opening on my phone, but I see that this has already been taken into account. I apologize for bringing it up again.
On the topic as it was started, I think its a pretty cool thing. My GM is letting me bring in a Musetouched blaster sorc/druid/theurge.
Hardly optimal, and the raw power is all from druid (and not really anything i couldnt do with just the one level in crossblooded sorcerer as i wont exceed sorcerer wand potential in the context of the campaign), but it provides a cool way for me to dodge all that Wildshapey stuff i dont like about druids.
A couple ideas i passed on that seem good for theurge builds are things like Sorcerers with Sage Bloodline being a great choice for divine prepared casters.
Its going to be hard to pass on Nature/Lore Oracle for Cha to AC for many sorcerers now, if they're looking for that sort of protection.
'
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I personally don't think that qualifying for PrC with SLA's is too big a deal, other than the fact that it increases the value of those SLA's and becomes a more serious consideration for the relative power of a given race. 1/day Daylight is almost more flavor than advantage, until it suddenly means that you're getting full BAB and full caster progression at level 3.Even id a DM allow this, if you do not have a previous spellcasting class then you do not receive new spells, since the PrC states
"+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class"
Still, a Fighter1/Wizard1/EKX is waaaaay different than a Fighter1/Wizard5/EKX. Also means you can replace wizard with sorcerer in an EK build without actually getting slowed down by a level compared to the wizard, the way you normally would.
Alternatively, just take your first level in Magus. Now you qualify at 1st level, so 2nd level is EK. You lose one level of spell progression at EK1, but are now essentially a Magus with d10 HD and (nearly) full BAB. (Well, there's also the issue of missing some class features at Magus2-3, but if EK was the goal in the first place...)
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't think that qualifying for PrC with SLA's is too big a deal, other than the fact that it increases the value of those SLA's and becomes a more serious consideration for the relative power of a given race. 1/day Daylight is almost more flavor than advantage, until it suddenly means that you're getting full BAB and full caster progression at level 3.Even id a DM allow this, if you do not have a previous spellcasting class then you do not receive new spells, since the PrC states
"+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class"
1 level of sorcerer, 1 level of fighter, and "tah-dah!" An aasimar qualifies for Eldritch knight at 3rd level and can advance his sorcerer casting via the PrC.
So to my earlier point- I don't have a problem with the idea itself, I have a problem with the fact that SLA's become worth way more than they're currently balanced to be. Being able to actually cast the spell Daylight once in the course of an adventuring day is cool, but not a big game changer. Being able to jump into prestige classes 5 levels before other races, qualify for feats requiring caster levels without ever taking a level in an arcane class, and similar boons actually make those SLA's worth substantially more. This throws the Race point system from the ARG right out the window, and drastically changes the balance between the various races.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, a SLA counting as a divine / arcane spell for all requirements and actually granting you a caster level doesn't meet the requirement of being able to cast spells of a certain level? There is zero logic in your counter argument. And that you actually only have to be able to cast a single arcane / divine spell is being proven by the fact, that a sorc with exactly one spell of said level already meets the requirement.You're the one who's committing the logical mistake of a false equivalence.
The dimensional ability chain has has it's pre-req the specific ability to access dimension door magic.
Meeting that requirement is not the same as having the general ability to cast fourth level spells of a class list.
Why not (specifically)?
As I understand it, we've established that:
• Aasimar's daylight SLA counts as arcane;
• Aasimar's daylight SLA counts as being able to cast the spell for purposes of prereqs;
• Daylight is a 3rd-level spell.
So the prereq for Eldritch Knight is "Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells."
Is the aasimar's SLA "casting" for purposes of prereqs? According to one of the FAQs, yes.
Is the aasimar's SLA 3rd-level? According to the rules for spell levels of SLAs, yes.
Is the aasimar's SLA arcane? According to one of the FAQs, yes.
So which specific part of "Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells" is not met by the aasimar's daylight SLA? Which point do you claim to be false?
So are we arguing over the one ruling that would make PRC's viable? cause pathfinder gave them a pretty hard shaft except in niche cases. and I don't recall those cases involving prestiges that required spellcasting as prereqs, though I admit I could be wrong, as long as someone could prove that this would lead to more power than what dipping and straight classing can't. Eldritch knight is a concern, but already nine out of ten people say "just play a magus, it's better" so I am not sure about that one either.
|
So, a SLA counting as a divine / arcane spell for all requirements and actually granting you a caster level doesn't meet the requirement of being able to cast spells of a certain level? There is zero logic in your counter argument. And that you actually only have to be able to cast a single arcane / divine spell is being proven by the fact, that a sorc with exactly one spell of said level already meets the requirement.You're the one who's committing the logical mistake of a false equivalence.
The dimensional ability chain has has it's pre-req the specific ability to access dimension door magic.
Meeting that requirement is not the same as having the general ability to cast fourth level spells of a class list.
Why not (specifically)?
As I understand it, we've established that:
• Aasimar's daylight SLA counts as arcane;
• Aasimar's daylight SLA counts as being able to cast the spell for purposes of prereqs;
• Daylight is a 3rd-level spell.So the prereq for Eldritch Knight is "Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells."
Is the aasimar's SLA "casting" for purposes of prereqs? According to one of the FAQs, yes.
Is the aasimar's SLA 3rd-level? According to the rules for spell levels of SLAs, yes.
Is the aasimar's SLA arcane? According to one of the FAQs, yes.So which specific part of "Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells" is not met by the aasimar's daylight SLA? Which point do you claim to be false?
Let's assume that there were a hypothetical PrC with a requirement "proficient with simple weapons." Would a commoner qualify for it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some material relevant to Jiggy's point. (Well put, Jiggy!)
Does this mean that a Rogue with Minor Magic does qualify for Arcane Strike then?
ZanThrax, yes (we almost included that as an example in the FAQ answer).
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let's assume that there were a hypothetical PrC with a requirement "proficient with simple weapons." Would a commoner qualify for it?
What's that got to do with anything? If such a thing actually existed, it would establish precedent for rules interpretation. But it doesn't.
Your question is not about determining how the rules work; it's about trying to get the listener to think of the hypothetical situation as absurd, draw a correlation between the hypothetical and the real, then apply the same label of absurdity to the real issue, and then finally to accept that absurdity implies illegality. Except your belief in your hypothetical being absurd is an assumption rather than a fact, you have nothing to support the validity of the comparison, and then you rely on a fallacious assumption that whatever you find absurd must not be a valid interpretation of the rules.
In short: yeah, I agree it seems silly, but that's entirely irrelevant to determining whether or not that's how it currently works.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's assume that there were a hypothetical PrC with a requirement "proficient with simple weapons." Would a commoner qualify for it?What's that got to do with anything? If such a thing actually existed, it would establish precedent for rules interpretation. But it doesn't.
Your question is not about determining how the rules work; it's about trying to get the listener to think of the hypothetical situation as absurd, draw a correlation between the hypothetical and the real, then apply the same label of absurdity to the real issue, and then finally to accept that absurdity implies illegality. Except your belief in your hypothetical being absurd is an assumption rather than a fact, you have nothing to support the validity of the comparison, and then you rely on a fallacious assumption that whatever you find absurd must not be a valid interpretation of the rules.
In short: yeah, I agree it seems silly, but that's entirely irrelevant to determining whether or not that's how it currently works.
You mistake my point entirely. I'm not going for ad absurdum; I was noting that there is a distinction between having access to one specific game element of a certain class and having access to all game elements of that class. That's where the unacceptable logic leap comes from, for those who don't accept the idea that a single SLA qualifies you for a PrC that says "can cast spells of X level." A single, predetermined SLA of X level is not automatically equivalent to "can cast spells of X level," any more than "proficient with quarterstaff" is logically equivalent to "proficient with simple weapons."
Let's assume that there were a hypothetical PrC with a requirement "proficient with simple weapons." Would a commoner qualify for it?If you look at the actual game you will see that any time multiple proficiencies are required the word all is used. Therefore your theoretical example can't happen. Example:
Must be proficient with all martial weapons.
And yes, I am aware that PrCs involving weapon proficiencies specify "all" or a specific number. That's why we don't have arguments about weapon proficiencies for PrCs. The rules for what "being able to cast a spell" means, though, are far less coherent, and thus, we get these kind of disputes.
If "spells" is read to meant "multiple spells per day" Jiggy's example of wiz 5 / fighter 1 with 14 int. can't become an eldritch knight. If it is meant knowledge of multiple spells then a fighter 1 / sorcerer 6 doesn't qualify.
Sure - but as written, that's actually a completely valid interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it's as logically supported as the idea that being able to cast one spell is equivalent to being able to cast spells plural.
|
Design Manager
|
To get back to the original question, this lets you get into Arcane Archer a level earlier, although you're not going to be nearly as effective.
This is a really bad example since most arcane archers are already 6 levels in a martial class with full BAB and a 1 level dip into an arcane casting class.
The Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge are much better examples since they typically require multiple levels in at least 2 classes and would normally kick in around 7th level or so. Now, PrC that give full or near-full progression in two major class abilities (spellcasting and BAB, or spellcasting from two sources) can be accessed at much earlier levels while still providing full benefit. This means that races with SLA's are now at a distinct advantage, and turn PrC's that were formally nice but basically on the same power level as full progression classes into wicked advantages.As Jiggy mentioned earlier, there is a world of difference between a Fighter 1/ Wizard 5 / EK x and a Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 / EK x, especially during levels 3 - 10.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let's assume that there were a hypothetical PrC with a requirement "proficient with simple weapons." Would a commoner qualify for it?What's that got to do with anything? If such a thing actually existed, it would establish precedent for rules interpretation. But it doesn't.
Your question is not about determining how the rules work; it's about trying to get the listener to think of the hypothetical situation as absurd, draw a correlation between the hypothetical and the real, then apply the same label of absurdity to the real issue, and then finally to accept that absurdity implies illegality. Except your belief in your hypothetical being absurd is an assumption rather than a fact, you have nothing to support the validity of the comparison, and then you rely on a fallacious assumption that whatever you find absurd must not be a valid interpretation of the rules.
In short: yeah, I agree it seems silly, but that's entirely irrelevant to determining whether or not that's how it currently works.
You mistake my point entirely. I'm not going for ad absurdum; I was noting that there is a distinction between having access to one specific game element of a certain class and having access to all game elements of that class. That's where the unacceptable logic leap comes from, for those who don't accept the idea that a single SLA qualifies you for a PrC that says "can cast spells of X level." A single, predetermined SLA of X level is not automatically equivalent to "can cast spells of X level," any more than "proficient with quarterstaff" is logically equivalent to "proficient with simple weapons."
And yes, I am aware that PrCs involving weapon proficiencies specify "all" or a specific number. That's why we don't have arguments about weapon proficiencies for PrCs. The rules for what "being able to cast a spell" means, though, are far less coherent, and thus, we get these kind of disputes.
Whether it was your intent or not, everything I said about your comparison still stands: you're assuming (rather than supporting) that your hypothetical would be silly, you're not supporting your claim that the comparison is valid, and you're (incorrectly) assuming that successfully labeling the issue at hand as silly somehow has any bearing on how the rules work.
|
|
those who don't accept the idea that a single SLA qualifies you for a PrC that says "can cast spells of X level." A single, predetermined SLA of X level is not automatically equivalent to "can cast spells of X level,"
I see your point. But it isn't correct here. I'll quote my post you seem to have missed. Notice the wording on Arcane Strike's prerequisite.
Here's some material relevant to Jiggy's point. (Well put, Jiggy!)
Does this mean that a Rogue with Minor Magic does qualify for Arcane Strike then?ZanThrax, yes (we almost included that as an example in the FAQ answer).Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
|
|
those who don't accept the idea that a single SLA qualifies you for a PrC that says "can cast spells of X level." A single, predetermined SLA of X level is not automatically equivalent to "can cast spells of X level,"I see your point. But it isn't correct here. I'll quote my post you seem to have missed. Notice the wording on Arcane Strike's prerequisite.
Actually, I didn't miss it, and I was careful with my phrasing - I wasn't arguing my own view, but what I believe to be the viewpoint of the parties who don't buy into the basic idea. Sean's post is pretty clear; it looks like it was RAI, at the very least. My personal opinion has more to do with frustration at the general vagueness in the overall ruleset surrounding the concepts of "caster level," "can cast spells" and so on than anything involving PrCs. After all, as has been noted already several times in this thread, we're not really seeing hugely broken consequences even if the ruling is carried through to its fullest extent.
I don't see the big deal. 3 level EK, what can they do better that 3 level Magus can't do better?
|
This seems oddly unintentional but other then the capstones it probably isn't going to horrifically overpower anything just to have a 4 level advantage in a prestige class.
It'll suck to be a 0 BAB melee or ranged based character until level 3 for those maguc/wizard/EK's....
Theory crafting is fun and all but who'd want to level it? Bleh.
|
Design Manager
|
I don't see the big deal. 3 level EK, what can they do better that 3 level Magus can't do better?
Better spell selection and a rapidly increasing BAB. I really don't like the comparison anyways though, because the magus and the EK are two totally different things. The real question is, what can that EK do at levels 3-7 compared to a character with the same goal who has to wait through those levels before he can start progressing. And the answer there is "A lot". Instead of comparing apples and oranges, look at the difference between the two apples.
As I've mentioned previously, the issue is not with the function itself, it's with the fact that elevates the options and comparative power of certain races (many of whom are already arguably more potent) a large step ahead of races who lack that option. SLA's which by themselves are not that impressive, give huge advantages to races that by and large are already pretty powerful.
|
|
Actually Ssalarn it'll be a bit behind on Magus BAB up until character level 5, and then tied for another 3 levels. So your looking at it not having a better BAB then a straight Magus until 9th level.
Not to mention you'll be 2 levels behind on your wizard spells so your actually get your second level wizard spells the same time a Magus would get their spells and your only a sliver ahead by 9th level and down a whole spell level from a straight wizard. Certainly your selection is better but then the Magus gets plenty of great spells and
In those 7 levels of EK you've gotten...2 bonus feats (which is only 1 more then a Magus would have at that point) and you get to count as a 7th level fighter. A 9th level magus has a huge pile of nice abilities, like the ability to fight in medium armour with no spell failure, spell strike, and several arcana abilities.
So the answer to what can the EK do at levels 3-7 that the other character couldn't? Take Weapon Specialization. Not exactly overwhelming.
I've yet to see any post the "must ban build" that implies this is overpowered, quite to the contrary as morgan showed it's still subpar, just slightly less so.
Aasimar Fighter 1/EK 10/AA 4/Wizard 5?
that combo is no different than Fighter1/wizard5/ek10/aa4
edit:actually taking it in that precise order that you gave would only grant five levels of wizard spellcasting, since the +1 spellcasting explicitly calls out arcane spellcasting class.
Question: assuming an aasimar counted as being able to cast third level spells innately (daylight), do they also count as being able to cast 2nd level spells? Or do th ey only qualify when it's exactly third? [/phone]
Question: assuming an aasimar counted as being able to cast third level spells innately (daylight), do they also count as being able to cast 2nd level spells? Or do they only qualify when it's exactly third? [/phone]
as written no since they don't know any 2nd level spells.
Question: assuming an aasimar counted as being able to cast third level spells innately (daylight), do they also count as being able to cast 2nd level spells? Or do they only qualify when it's exactly third? [/phone]as written no since they don't know any 2nd level spells.
A workaround is to take any of the variant Aasimar (or Tiefling). They all have second level SLA's, I believe.
most PrC's still require a certain number of ranks in skills...which the maximum is equal to your character level.
so while an EK does NOT have this issue, it is still a pretty big hinderence in most cases. what PrC's are exceptions to this rule of "skill rank reqs"?
Honestly Cheapy, the only issue I see in this whole thread is that 99% of the builds people are proposing are player traps if taken at 2nd / 3rd level. Like, seriously? Why would a Magus want to go into Eldritch Knight at 2nd level? They'll be delaying Spell Recall, loosing out on tons of class features, and only making up for it with a slightly better Base Attack Bonus and a few bonus feats. Also, don't forget that the Eldritch Knight's "add this class to any fighter levels you have for qualifying for feats" ability won't apply to the Magus because he doesn't HAVE a Fighter level when qualifying for feats until 10th level. Unlike the Samurai, who gains a Fighter level for feats if he didn't have one, the Eldritch Knight specifies that its class levels only stack with Fighter Levels if you already possess Fighter Levels.
So far, no one has shown me a Prestige Class build that actually benefits from this errata, so I am going to classify it as, "Player Trap" until further notice.
Honestly Cheapy, the only issue I see in this whole thread is that 99% of the builds people are proposing are player traps if taken at 2nd / 3rd level. Like, seriously? Why would a Magus want to go into Eldritch Knight at 2nd level? They'll be delaying Spell Recall, loosing out on tons of class features, and only making up for it with a slightly better Base Attack Bonus and a few bonus feats. Also, don't forget that the Eldritch Knight's "add this class to any fighter levels you have for qualifying for feats" ability won't apply to the Magus because he doesn't HAVE a Fighter level when qualifying for feats until 10th level. Unlike the Samurai, who gains a Fighter level for feats if he didn't have one, the Eldritch Knight specifies that its class levels only stack with Fighter Levels if you already possess Fighter Levels.
So far, no one has shown me a Prestige Class build that actually benefits from this errata, so I am going to classify it as, "Player Trap" until further notice.
it makes an cleric5/sorcerer1 mystic theurge aasimar viable but divine spellcasting focused, that's the only one that gets me excited from the core rulebook.
from the the APG...nadda, unless we can find some Divine sla's. I believe that to be the case if it's on a divine casters spell list but not on the sorcerer wiz, but I can't be sure. oh and does anyone know of a level 1 sla? then that race could have an easier time with dragon disciple...slightly easier.
Wouldn't daylight (and any aasimar spell like) be divine since their power is about as good an excuse for a spell like to be divine as exists?
ironically no so the ruling applies for any sla on the sorcerer/wizard spell-list...and yes it bugs me too.
I believe the FAQ said spell like abilities were arcane unless there is a very good reason for them to be divine.Wouldn't daylight (and any aasimar spell like) be divine since their power is about as good an excuse for a spell like to be divine as exists?ironically no so the ruling applies for any sla on the sorcerer/wizard spell-list...and yes it bugs me too.
ooh skipped over that part...in that case swap cleric(or oracle) and sorcerer(wizard would be better on level requirements though) for the mystic theurge, and it opens some APG options like a skirmisher/trapper ranger5 into nature warden(though that seems like a trap)...that's about it. gonna look through my paths of prestige in a moment, but I have my doubts about brokenness.
paths of prestige exploits
an aasimar (any dervish build)into dawnflower dissident
an aasimar (any skill focused class 5) into grey gardner
does any race have a level 3 sla? because that could help for a martial hellknight signifier build, or a martial based razmiran priest.
a dwarf adopted aasimar skyseeker martial build.
anyone with a second level can become a martial storm kindler.
a martial tattoed mystic
a martial umbral court agent
yeah seeing martial access to spellbased prcs...pretty frickin weak trap options.