Aasimars can use daylight once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equal to the aasimar's class level).
Therefore an Aasimar can cast 2 daylight spells in 2 days, 3 daylight spells in 3 days, 4 daylight spells in 4 days......It satisfies your plural problem. However, someone who was Imbued with a Spell-like ability can only cast one spell, they do not qualify.
I don't think so, because that is the same spell being cast different times. There is not more than one spell involved there.
(reference 'same source doesn't stack' re: multiple instances of identical spell: it's the same source, i.e. same spell)
The requirements are not 'cast a/one spell multiple times'.
The requirements are phrased to reference multiple/plural spells themself, not multiple/plural castings.
Regardless, the issue is not something cut-and-dry that is forcing Paizo's hand here.
It's totally plausible for them to rule that it requires casting spells in general, and not violate or modify any RAW doing so.
The FAQ and SKR's post on Arcane Strike do not even acknowledge the difference by your reading of being Imbued with one spell casting.
So any way you cut it, they need to deal with the grammar of the pre-reqs, which is distinct from the status of SLAs as such.
I don't think so, because that is the same spell being cast different times. There is not more than one spell involved there.
(reference 'same source doesn't stack' re: multiple instances of identical spell: it's the same source, i.e. same spell)
The requirements are not 'cast a/one spell multiple times'.
The requirements are phrased to reference multiple/plural spells themself, not multiple/plural castings.
Regardless, the issue is not something cut-and-dry that is forcing Paizo's hand here.
It's totally plausible for them to rule that it requires casting spells in general, and not violate or modify any RAW doing so.
The FAQ and SKR's post on Arcane Strike do not even acknowledge the difference by your reading of being Imbued with one spell casting.
So any way you cut it, they need to deal with the grammar of the pre-reqs, which is distinct from the status of SLAs as such.
So during the next game I want my wizard to cast two fireball spells, I only need to memorize one? Or perhaps I can cast the spell multiple times in the same turn. After all I am just casting one spell. You are pulling different uses of the word out of an entirely different context.
I apologize if this sounded snarky, it isn't meant to be, just trying to show one of the problems with your reading. Another being what happens to the sorcerer who only knows one 3rd level spell?
What poster VRMH wrote is correct. SKR's ruling on Arcane Strike is simply not supported by the RAW that has been referenced. The only RAW that he or Paizo seem to have referenced is the definition of SLA's themselves, which is sufficient for Dimensional Agility, but AFAIK they simply have not addressed the grammar of Arcane Strike or the Caster PrC pre-reqs, whether to disagree with VRMH or otherwise.
If a person makes the statement, "I drive Ford trucks," that statement is commonly understood to have a particular meaning: The person has a Ford truck, and he drives it; if he replaces that truck, it will be with a Ford. The common interpretation of that statement is not that the person owns multiple Ford trucks and drives them. And, hypothetically, if there were a club for people driving Ford trucks, a listed requirement of "Must drive Ford trucks" would be understood to mean that the truck (singular) that you drive must be a Ford in order to join.
This may not be appropriate by strict rules of grammar (I argue that both are accurate; plural nouns used in this fashion can refer to a multiple or to a singular item that happens to be a member of a common category), but it is a true statement based on common parlance.
The same logic led to SKR's statement regarding Arcane Strike. A prerequisite "Able to cast arcane spells" does not mean "Able to cast multiple arcane spells"; the common grammatical interpretation is "Able to cast one (or more) arcane spells".
That said, if you feel that it needs an FAQ, then I would make a separate post on it - but I'm betting that you'll get a "No response required" if you get a response at all. In this case, accuracy of grammar is trumped by common parlance to lead to a less restrictive prerequisite.
Will someone post a link to the FAQ (or the verbiage of the FAQ) in this thread?
Thanks!
I've found the quickest way to get to the rules FAQ vs the general Paizo FAQ is to click the Help/FAQ link on on the left side, right above the grey bar the says "SHOP".
Will someone post a link to the FAQ (or the verbiage of the FAQ) in this thread?
Thanks!
I've found the quickest way to get to the rules FAQ vs the general Paizo FAQ is to click the Help/FAQ link on on the left side, right above the grey bar the says "SHOP".
thanks I always found it a pain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will someone post a link to the FAQ (or the verbiage of the FAQ) in this thread?
Thanks!
I've found the quickest way to get to the rules FAQ vs the general Paizo FAQ is to click the Help/FAQ link on on the left side, right above the grey bar the says "SHOP".
Just to voice the thought again: The search function lets you limit your search to users, messageboard, etc.; I would love it if you could limit it to search the FAQs as well.
This may not be appropriate by strict rules of grammar (I argue that both are accurate; plural nouns used in this fashion can refer to a multiple or to a singular item that happens to be a member of a common category), but it is a true statement based on common parlance.
The same logic led to SKR's statement regarding Arcane Strike. A prerequisite "Able to cast arcane spells" does not mean "Able to cast multiple arcane spells"; the common grammatical interpretation is "Able to cast one (or more) arcane spells".
Can you link me to where SKR ever directly addressed this issue?
The ultimate ruling here is not the issue per se, rather how it is being justified.
I just don't believe I've seen evidence that the grammar was specifically addressed and ruled on, everything seems to have flown from the ruling on how SLAs function as spells, which is what is indicated when that is the only thing in the FAQ and they respond "Already Answered in FAQ".
As I've written, and you seem to agree, the grammatical usage is /wide open/ to varying interpretation,
which /does/ include reading it as requiring actual plurality either in the open-ended 'in general' or 'more than 1' sense.
Since it's open to interpretation, Paizo really does have latitude in interpreting that grammar.
They seem to have indicated that their hand was "forced" by the RAW, but when the RAW grammar is vague like this,
choosing an official interpretation is necessary, and they may choose whichever suits their preference.
But as far as I know, they have not acknowledged that this ruling is based on their preference of different mutually valid interpretations,
they have claimed they are just falling in line with RAW, which again seems to be based solely on the SLA ruling itself, not this grammatical issue.
Can you link me to where SKR ever directly addressed this issue?
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=2?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#56
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can you link me to where SKR ever directly addressed this issue?http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=2?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#56
THIS is also intriguing.
Can you link me to where SKR ever directly addressed this issue?http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=2?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#56
Well, that's exactly my point, the FAQ he's referring to doesn't deal with the grammar of the undefined indefinite plural "cast spells" pre-requisites. The justification for Dimensional Agility flows from the definition of SLAs and the non-problematic wording of that Feat's requirements. Arcane Strike and Casting PrCs like MT have grammar which is signifigantly different from the "cast a specific spell" model of Dimensional Agility. So in that post, or the FAQ, SKR is NOT addressing this issue at all.
|
THIS is also intriguing.Can you link me to where SKR ever directly addressed this issue?http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=2?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#56
Hah!
THIS is also intriguing.
What is intriguing?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, that's exactly my point, the FAQ he's referring to doesn't deal with the grammar of the undefined indefinite plural "cast spells" pre-requisites. The justification for Dimensional Agility flows from the definition of SLAs and the non-problematic wording of that Feat's requirements. Arcane Strike and Casting PrCs like MT have grammar which is signifigantly different from the "cast a specific spell" model of Dimensional Agility. So in that post, or the FAQ, SKR is NOT addressing this issue at all.Can you link me to where SKR ever directly addressed this issue?http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=2?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#56
Okay, follow along here:
Ability to cast arcane spells.
Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.
See how the plurality is identical?
For the first, SKR explicitly stated that Minor Magic (which only gives ONE spell-like ability) satisfies that requirement. To say that the same doesn't hold true for things like Eldritch Knight, you'd have to demonstrate that "arcane spells" and "arcane spells" are different from each other.| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
All my posts on this are PRECISELY holding that Arcane Strike and the Caster PrCs are in the same boat on this (but distinct from Dim. Agility).
As I wrote: "even though I don't really find the Arcane Strike application i[t]self inappropriate" [unbalanced or disruptive to the game]
I am trying to deal with the actual implications of RAW which Paizo has indicated is forcing their ruling here,
but the indefinite plural grammar for Arcane Strike / the PrCs inherently has multiple possible readings in English,
so there is no way it can 'force' their hand in choosing one, when several readings may be technically valid.
So when they say their ruling is because the RAW is forcing their hand, that indicates that they haven't dealt with that vague grammar at all.
They aren't in the same grammatic boat as Dimensional Agility which is what the FAQ uses as an example, thus they aren't inherently in the same FAQ ruling boat and there's nothing indicating that Paizo even realized that.
As I wrote: Now this grammar is pretty subtle, I hadn't even taken notice of it myself back when SKR was directly posting in the relevant thread, but it certainly seems more than relevant to the RAW functionality.
If they weren't saying the ruling is forced by RAW, and they were specifically affirming that they were making an official judgement about the the vague indefinite plural grammar, there would nothing to dispute, that is just their resolution of vague RAW wording. But that is not their claim, they have only issued a FAQ covering an SLA qualifying for pre-reqs of casting a SPECIFIC spell, where the RAW grammar IS totally clear and does tie their hands, and that is supposedly the single ruling being made:
Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
The indefinite plural grammar cases (Arcane Strike/PrCs) involve their own distinct ruling which is an open call about inherently vague grammar, which means that regardless of HOW Paizo rules on it, it is subject to a distinct ruling from the ruling on the simpler cases like Dimensional Agility. That there is supposedly only one ruling going indicates that they HAVEN'T addressed the specific ruling for the indefinite plural cases (probably overlooking the difference, like I did initially).
Problem solved.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=3?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#147
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Official Rules Response
|
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
The design team does not consider a prerequisite or requirement of "ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells" to literally mean "ability to cast at least two or more 1st-level arcane spells."
Being able to cast one spell of that type and level meets the prerequisite or requirement (if the prerequisite or requirement was intended to mean "two or more," it would say that, or use language like "at least two").
The design team does not consider a prerequisite or requirement of "ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells" to literally mean "ability to cast at least two or more 1st-level arcane spells."
Being able to cast one spell of that type and level meets the prerequisite or requirement (if the prerequisite or requirement was intended to mean "two or more," it would say that, or use language like "at least two").
Thank you!
Thanks.
although the interpretations were not solely "cast one spell" or "cast 2+ spells" (satisfied by 2+ SLAs), but also included "cast spells in general" which is not satisfied by SLAs but only spell slots (even with limited spells known, you can cast spells in general, expanding spells known/learned by various means if you are inclined to, which isn't modifying your ability to "cast spells in general" but depending on that fact, just as a fighter only having one martial weapon on their person doesn't change that they can attack proficiently with all martial weapons.)
I guess I will now be referring to MT as "Aasimar Theurge"/"Tiefling Theurge"/etc ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
Yeah, totally. I heard an aasimar/MT totally one-shotted the Whispering Tyrant. With enchantment spells, even.
i thought it was with telekinesis, hurling the human/MT at the lich as cannon fodder.
|
Yeah, totally. I heard an aasimar/MT totally one-shotted the Whispering Tyrant. With enchantment spells, even.Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
I heard it didn't even need that 1st shot, just scryed and fried. You know you're doing it wrong if you don't do it like that anyway ;-)
Yeah, totally. I heard an aasimar/MT totally one-shotted the Whispering Tyrant. With enchantment spells, even.Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
I heard he one-shotted it with the amounts of ludicrous outrage over this recent ruling....
Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run ... in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
You don't have a choice. A legal PC is a legal PC.
Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
Hey, I don't things like this should be changing mid-stream either (note I did NOT say I think the change is overpowered -- efficacy is beside the point), but when it comes to PFS, we don't have a choice. The ruling is clear, we have to follow it, period.
For those who play in PFS, I would suggest touching base with the head of PFS to find out if this change is going to be allowed at moderated tables. :P It's possible that it might be barred\ignored.
I heard he one-shotted it with the amounts of ludicrous outrage over this recent ruling....
The "ludicrous outrage" isn't over the ruling, but the idea that fairly substantive rules changes are being made (1) via FAQ rather than via errata, and (2) four years into the game's life.
But I think you already know that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible that it might be barred\ignored.
Or just results in you getting the Evil Eye if you insist on using it.
Or NPCs suddenly happen to treat Aasimar/Tieflings/SLA Scum (ahem) as bastard scum-of-the-earth.
I heard he one-shotted it with the amounts of ludicrous outrage over this recent ruling....The "ludicrous outrage" isn't over the ruling, but the idea that fairly substantive rules changes are being made (1) via FAQ rather than via errata, and (2) four years into the game's life.
But I think you already know that.
Well, I have heard people complaining about the changes themselves, despite the fact that most of the "rules gurus" on the forums (oh wise rules gurus! May I aspire to your heights someday!) seem to believe that most of the mechanical changes that will stem from this aren't of major concern. To be honest, I was commenting more on that.
As to the rules changes, I do disagree that this sort of change is a major problem. Maybe it's because I've played World of Warcraft since BC, and am used to major mechanical changes once every three months?
I do want to apologize for the tone of some of my comments of late, including the above regarding "ludicrous ruling". It's been a rough week at work, and normally I try to be more diplomatic\understanding (even on the Internet - eek!).
Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
I am equal parts surprised and disappointed so see someone with as many GM stars as yourself to say such a thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to apologize for the tone of some of my comments of late, including the above regarding "ludicrous ruling". It's been a rough week at work, and normally I try to be more diplomatic\understanding (even on the Internet - eek!).
/hugs Xaratherus
/cheer Xaratherus
For those who play in PFS, I would suggest touching base with the head of PFS to find out if this change is going to be allowed at moderated tables. :P It's possible that it might be barred\ignored.
PFS defaults to RAW. For stuff like this, unless it's specifically banned, it's good. I would be pretty surprised to learn that Mike, Mark, and John all somehow missed the kerfuffle over this, so I think if they were going to ban it they would let us know pretty quick.
I do want to apologize for the tone of some of my comments of late, including the above regarding "ludicrous ruling". It's been a rough week at work, and normally I try to be more diplomatic\understanding (even on the Internet - eek!).
S'okay, I tend to have that effect on people. I too am sorry, and you have my respect for being the bigger man.
Does PFS force people to DM for certain other people? I thought you could still choose who to game with, though I've never played PFS.
Does PFS force people to DM for certain other people? I thought you could still choose who to game with, though I've never played PFS.
Of course not. Everyone has the right to choose the table they sit at or the table they GM. But it would be pretty poor form if the GM decided to leave because a player showed up with a level 5 MT Aasimar and left all the other 4 players without a GM.
ah I see then. thanks for clearing that up!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does PFS force people to DM for certain other people? I thought you could still choose who to game with, though I've never played PFS.
The GM has the same right as everyone else at the table: To leave.
The GM has more leverage than the average player, because if the GM leaves, the table doesn't go. So if someone brings a character of questionable legality and the GM says "you can't use that" and the player insists, one has to leave the table--and the event coordinator is (hopefully) going to pick the GM every time.
But a GM who tries to ban a legal character concept is a problem for the event coordinator, because the whole point of PFS is consistency. If something is explicitly legal, it's legal at every PFS table. You can't just summarily ban Summoners for breaking the action economy, because the campaign coordinators don't agree with you, and they overrule you. So a GM who pitches a fit and refuses to run a table with a legal character he doesn't approve of might--might--win the argument that day, but--speaking as someone who coordinated a game day for half a year or so--it would only be the case if there was literally no other way to get those players a game, and that GM would certainly never run for me again, and I would inform my venture officers about the situation for whatever followup they thought was warranted. Because that's some nonsense.
wow.... just.... wow.....
Not what I had expected from this kerfuffle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, totally. I heard an aasimar/MT totally one-shotted the Whispering Tyrant. With enchantment spells, even.Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
Seriously Sean, not cool. This was never a power issue. It's an accessibility issue. It adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game and serves no purpose other than to count as something designers of the game must keep in mind when creating additional content.
I'm not a fan of this ruling and I'm not a fan of your snark. This is simply ludicrous and no one should feel the need to apologize for stating an opinion just because people disagree with them.
Yeah, totally. I heard an aasimar/MT totally one-shotted the Whispering Tyrant. With enchantment spells, even.Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
Seriously Sean, not cool. This was never a power issue. It's an accessibility issue. It adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game and serves no purpose other than to count as something designers of the game must keep in mind when creating additional content.
I'm not a fan of this ruling and I'm not a fan of your snark. This is simply ludicrous and no one should feel the need to apologize for stating an opinion just because people disagree with them.
*phone rings*
Pot: "hello?"Kettle: "your black"
*hangs up*
Yeah, totally. I heard an aasimar/MT totally one-shotted the Whispering Tyrant. With enchantment spells, even.Wow.
I have no intention of allowing this at any table I run, at home, or in PFS. Simply Ludicrous.
Seriously Sean, not cool. This was never a power issue. It's an accessibility issue. It adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game and serves no purpose other than to count as something designers of the game must keep in mind when creating additional content.
I'm not a fan of this ruling and I'm not a fan of your snark. This is simply ludicrous and no one should feel the need to apologize for stating an opinion just because people disagree with them.
There are extenuating circumstances here.
At home? No big deal.
In PFS? You have someone here who is a PFS GM - who is being trusted in a way by the game creators to abide by certain rules and to represent the game in a particular fashion - stating blatantly that they are going to ignore those rules.
I find that "not cool".
And again I'll point out that for a lot of people it was a power issue. Whether it is\was actually overpowered was irrelevant, there were numerous people complaining that it was 'cheese' and 'munchkining'.
Finally, I'll point out that I don't find the ruling particularly ludicrous at all. If I were to tell you that your dislike of this ruling is ludicrously moronic (I'm not, I'm just trying to make a point) would you really be inclined to reply to me in a civil fashion?