I do like that this can a mystic theurge work, anyone find any 1st level sla's yet?
Considering i laid out its repercussions from 3 different books, and got like 2 somewhat viable concepts out of them. If gms dont allow it fine, all he is doing is stopping what amounts to 90% trap options. I'd allow it in my games, because a player would have to be pretty desperate for a specific character theme to go for most of these anyway.
The guide is ready.
Couple of questions on your guide.
You stated "Mystic Theurge (lvl 3 because of skill requirements). Extra delicious for Oracles and Sorcerers."
How? Remember Daylight is a 3rd level spell. You could pick up a 2nd level in arcane or divine easily and a 2nd level in divine and 3rd level in arcane easy, but I am not seeing two in each.
Also, what is your train of thought on the improved familiar?
An Aasimar needs only one level in Magus, then go EK.
So, think of it as a EK build, with a Magus dip.
I've already pointed out that going this route is inferior in every possible way for the Magus; its a 100% player trap. The Eldritch Knight's strengths over the Magus is that you can eventually get to 9th level spellcasting with a decent base attack bonus. By going Magus, you're giving up all of the magus's class features in exchange for a few bonus feats.
Even the so-called Guide linked into this thread doesn't bother giving any builds to show why this errata has any real merit to the player. The only one that I could even possibly see making a stronger build is the Mystic Theurge, as someone else said. Aside from that one class, nothing.
Here is a list of the possible SLAs from the Core races, including their type and level. I will add the Advanced races soon.
** spoiler omitted **
Karossii, as I noted on the last page the gnome Speak With Animals is (most likely) a 1st level arcane SLA.
Per the PRD entry on Spell Like Abilities it 'functions as' the Druid version of the spell (IE, first level spell) before the Bard version, but per the FAQ is Arcane.
Unless you can find a hole in that logic? While there is no 'normal' 1st level arcane version of the spell, I dont know that it matters... see the class SLA abilities which have no 'spell' equivalent for precedent
As far as why this FAQ matters with GM's and such... I kindof agree with BBT. Its a case of before, this was clearly not an option and it never occurred to me to bring it up.
Then the FAQ puts it on the table, and suddenly its worth asking about/considering.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if you don't like, don't want it, or want it to not exist, then this really isn't the thread for you.
Knowing that there is new options, and figuring out what is now available with those new options, is what we are discussing here.
Even if it's not the most awesome build, it's worth knowing what the new available builds are.
|
It isn't that they aren't the most awesome. It's that they are terrible. A lot of the excitement seems like it might just be because of nostalgia for older games and how PrC used to be so central to building a character in 3rd edition.
Getting worked up over things like this is going to lure less rules savvy people into accidentally ruining their characters. People search these boards for character builds all the time and if they don't understand what they are doing they can easily get sucked into these traps.
Mystic Theurge is probably the safest out of all this stuff so far and even then your still giving up some nice abilities to be a hybrid. EK is not a start your career kind of prestige class.
After much digging, I just discovered this. Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but if not it's quite exciting.
Fate Inquisition:
Augury (Sp): Once per day, you can use augury (2nd level divine spell) as a spell-like ability.
With this, Clerics, Inquisitors and maybe Druids can now become Theurges at level 4 much easier.
Also: Much to my dismay, it seems that Theurge SLA requirements can be satisfied by a higher-level Cleric hitting his lower-leveled Theurge-aspiring brother with Imbue with Spell-Like Ability.
Wow. I'm not sure I want to believe it.
Wow. I'm not sure I want to believe it.
This is coming from Ravingdork, who I agree with for once :).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the idea of a full Fighter with the Deadly Dealer feat.
Who doesn't love Gambit?
Here is a list of the possible SLAs from the Core races
Envoy, INT 11+; comprehend languages, detect magic, detect poison, and read magic (0th and 1st level arcane)
Ooh, missed that one.
Fate Inquisition:
Augury (Sp): Once per day, you can use augury (2nd level divine spell) as a spell-like ability.
...and that one. I had noticed Augury in several places, but for some reason thought it was a 2. level spell.
I personally think this is not a good idea, but since this is not the thread to discuss the merits of this idea, but rather the possibilities of it, I've created a new thread to discuss whether this should or should not be done, and why I feel it's a bigger issue than it first seems to be. That thread can be found here.
It happens - no worries.
|
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.
You're wrong on a couple counts there. The EK build of wiz 1/ fit 1/ EK 1 has the same BAB as the same level magus, and then starts pulling ahead at 5th level (wiz 1 / fit 1 / EK 3 = BAB +4). A simple trait like Magical Knack closes the caster level gap completely, and now at 5th level you've a got a character who is a full BAB point ahead of the magus, only one behind the fighter, and caster progression equal to a same level wizard. This is a huge difference, and one that stays pronounced throughout the next 5 levels of play.
|
|
I do like the idea of a full Fighter with the Deadly Dealer feat.
Who doesn't love Gambit?
This is absolutely the best thing to come of this rules FAQ. Absolutely.
I really like what this did for my gnome archer cavalier. A full progression Arcane Strike is just good stuff since it's just extra damage with only a small action economy hit. Once your challenge and tactician abilities are in place, it's just gravy. Also, like the best feat in the world if you're using the Mythic goodies. Mythic Arcane Strike is like giving every class or race with a caster level free access to the Inquisitor's best class abilities, and now full progression fighters (who have virtually no need for swift actions other than Mythic abilities) can slap on bonus damage and free weapon enchants, including insta-Bane. Cool Stuff.
|
|
This is absolutely the best thing to come of this rules FAQ. Absolutely.I do like the idea of a full Fighter with the Deadly Dealer feat.
Who doesn't love Gambit?
I thought the best part was allowing Quinggong Monks full progression on Arcane Strike.
You're wrong on a couple counts there. The EK build of wiz 1/ fit 1/ EK 1 has the same BAB as the same level magus, and then starts pulling ahead at 5th level (wiz 1 / fit 1 / EK 3 = BAB +4). A simple trait like Magical Knack closes the caster level gap completely, and now at 5th level you've a got a character who is a full BAB point ahead of the magus, only one behind the fighter, and caster progression equal to a same level wizard. This is a huge difference, and one that stays pronounced throughout the next 5 levels of play.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.
But hes still a worse fighter than a fighter, a worse caster than a Wizard (CL is pointless next to having lost spell progression), and a worse Magus than a Magus (its not BAB that makes them good... its action economy and spell threat). I still dont see the issue.
|
|
But hes still a worse fighter than a fighter, a worse caster than a Wizard (CL is pointless next to having lost spell progression), and a worse Magus than a Magus (its not BAB that makes them good... its action economy and spell threat). I still dont see the issue.
I wish people would get off the magus thing. THE MAGUS AND THE ELDRITCH KNIGHT ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THEY DO NOT DO THE SAME THING. You should be comparing the EK to same level wizards or same level fighters. More specifically, what we're talking about here is the difference between, for example, a human who wants to be an Eldritch Knight, and an Aasimar who does. The human has to pick up his full 5 levels of wizard and his fighter level, putting him behind both, but with greater versatility. The Assimar however, is only a little behind the fighter, and at exactly the same level as the wizard for casting just sans a few spell slots, but with d10 hit die and full BAB. That's where the differences come into play and where the balance gets thrown off. It has nothing to do with the baance between class A and class B, but the balance between race A and race B.
I would say you have a semi valid argument; but it is either a 1st level divine, or a 3rd level arcane. I do not see it splitting the source and the level - whichever takes precedence is the one used.
Yeah, if the design team had cracked open the Bestiary before making a ruling, that's probably how it would have worked. But apparently, they didn't.
If the Bestiary applies - and it has to, or we can't even determine the save dC of a Hold Person SLA - and the FAQ also applies, Speak with Animals is a level 1 arcane SLA. If both rules apply, they can't be parsed any other way.
Karossii, there is not a arcane version and a divine version of the spell here: there is a druid, bard, and ranger version. The rules tell us this SLA functions as the druid version.
The FAQ then tells us it counts as an arcane spell.
There are no contradictions here, just an odd result.
So, it is either arcane (a bard spell) OR divine (a druid/ranger spell).
Or its a special case as defined by the specific rules in question. The rules say it functions as a druid spell, AND that its arcane. Both of these things can be true.
I agree its not intuitive, but it is how the rules read currently.
For an equally odd comparison, Cure Light Wounds as an SLA counts as arcane, because it appears on non-divine spell lists.
|
|
But yes, suddenly some other races are better at things than the humans are. Gasp! Shock! Horror! Can't have that.
The sarcasm is unnecessary. The issue is not that some races are better than humans. It is that SLA's become worth much more than they are currently weighted for. Every race with an SLA is now even more versatile and has even more options. This puts races that were already cusping on what many would consider a clear advantage over other races, to an undeniable advantage in numerous areas. Their selection of feats and access to PrC's requiring caster levels or ability to cast spells of a certain level (amongst other things of less importance, like a gnome fighter being able to qualify as a lich) alters the power weighting in favor of any race that can grab an SLA. This also means that feats that were previously balanced against the requirements to access them (like Arcane Strike, unimpressive for most casters but a flat damage boost for most martials) are no longer balanced against the same rules that were assumed when they were written.
I don't mind the mechanic, but I don't like what it does to the comparative balance of races with built in SLA's versus races without that option.
But yes, suddenly some other races are better at things than the humans are. Gasp! Shock! Horror! Can't have that.The sarcasm is unnecessary. The issue is not that some races are better than humans. It is that SLA's become worth much more than they are currently weighted for. Every race with an SLA is now even more versatile and has even more options. This puts races that were already cusping on what many would consider a clear advantage over other races, to an undeniable advantage in numerous areas. Their selection of feats and access to PrC's requiring caster levels or ability to cast spells of a certain level (amongst other things of less importance, like a gnome fighter being able to qualify as a lich) alters the power weighting in favor of any race that can grab an SLA. This also means that feats that were previously balanced against the requirements to access them (like Arcane Strike, unimpressive for most casters but a flat damage boost for most martials) are no longer balanced against the same rules that were assumed when they were written.
I don't mind the mechanic, but I don't like what it does to the comparative balance of races with built in SLA's versus races without that option.
how does making one prc work and opening up a slew of trap options "putting them ahead". players who don't know what they're doing might be tempted into it, but a good friend would advise them against it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Bestiary applies - and it has to, or we can't even determine the save dC of a Hold Person SLA - and the FAQ also applies, Speak with Animals is a level 1 arcane SLA. If both rules apply, they can't be parsed any other way.Speak with Animals
School divination; Level bard 3, druid 1, ranger 1This spell, if arcane, is a bard 3. It cannot be arcane and 1st level. If you treat it as arcane, you use its arcane level. That is how it works.
If the SLA is "Arcane 3", you're disregarding the Bestiary. If it's Divine 1, you're disregarding the FAQ. The SLA is Arcane (Druid) 1.
...And that answer is bloody stupid, and I understand why you won't accept it. Common sense is screaming that of course you use the information you just got from the hierarchy in the Bestiary to determine whether the SLA is Arcane or Divine. You'd be a bloody daft t*!# to do otherwise. Well guess what, the recent FAQ is unambiguously telling you to put your pants on your head and call it "Arcane".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
Most spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list
bard 3, druid 1, ranger 1
Okay, let's see if I'm following correctly:
According to UMR, we first look to see if it's on the sorc/wiz spell list. It's not, so it says to default to cleric (not on that list either), and then druid.Okay, so we treat it as a druid spell.
Now, the FAQ says it's arcane unless it only appears on the cleric/druid list. This spell does NOT appear only on one of those lists, so the clause is not fulfilled and we therefore stick with arcane.
So... yeah, looks like it's an arcane druid 1 spell. :/
On the other hand, being a corner case, I can't say it bothers me too much.
Have we actually established that spell-like abilities equate to generic spells as well as specific spells for the purpose of prerequisites and prestige class requirements?
If the requirement is to be able to cast a specific spell -- the ability to cast that spell as a spell-like ability clearly counts.
If the requirement is to have a certain caster level -- the caster level of your spell-like ability clearly counts.
But if a spell-like ability corresponds to a spell of level x for the purpose of determining its saving throw -- does that mean that you meet a requirement of being able to cast spells of level x? All of the problems we have been discussing are based on the premise that the answer to this question is "Yes". None of the cited FAQs or quotes from the developers actually confirm that interpretation. Answering that question "No" would probably be the best way to eliminate the problem.
David, are saying having TWO SLAs would satisfy you?
Also, you are presuming there is currently a problem.
Edit: karossii, the FAQ doesnt modify the prd entry in any way and is not errata. Therefore the PRD takes precedence, and the FAQ clarifies how its implemented.