really. learn something new from this ridiculous game everyday.
So a level 1 drow cleric can cast arcane spells?so a sylph using speak with animals can cast a level 3rd arcane or divine spell or does it resort to divine level 1?
Actually I may have been in error here novalord. I saw a person post a hierarchy of priority earlier that included all classes but it was not a dev. The FAQ for this says
Spell-Like Abilities: How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?
Most spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list (such as holy smite) or something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine (such as a solar's spell-like abilities, as a solar usually directly serves a deity).("Standard spell list" meaning "not altered in some way by an archetype, prestige class, racial ability, and so on.")
—Pathfinder Design Team, Tuesday
If anyone knows more about the hierarchy system and its authority, I would be interested.
Doesnt mean their powers are necessarily divine. Lillend Azatas, for instance, cast as bards.Agathions, peri, and azata aren't divine creatures?Aasimar are descended from angels and gain their power based on that ancestry. I don't see how it can get any more divine flavored than that.Last time I checked, Aasimar were descended from good outsiders, which can include agathions, peri, azata and the like. Dunno where you got that exclusively 'Angels' stuff from.
gonna incorporate a houserule caveat for my home games. "if the source of the sla is derived from a outsider or divine source, it is considered divine, regardless of said creatures spellcasting practices." that solves the problem on the home game front.
This might be useful to you. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=2?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#73
Alignment subtype Outsiders (or Tieflings/Aasimar?) would be more divine SLAs when on both list types?I dunno. I don't see a demon's powers as being particularly divine. An angel's, maybe.
So according to the above, and the FAQs linked, the following works without resorting to any particular race or feat restrictions..
Cleric. Take Fate inquisition and Trickery domain as the class domains (that might raise an eyebrow or two). That gives you a level 2 arcane & divine SLA, so all you need to worry about is what arcane class you need to strap on.
And there's no feat needed or specific race required.
Does that look right?
yeah that's a valid idea apoc. only problem being that as far as I know, norgorber is the only good that's going to give you those choices.
Well you can be a true neutral worshipper of Norgorber...
Or, you don't actually have to worship a god to be a cleric, you can draw your power from a concept or philosophy..
Plus, there's loads of minor deities in the campaign setting, including an Empyreal Lord of tricks which might just work..
I apologize if I'm stating the obvious, but the MT early entry because of SLAs only works if the DM ignores the skill prereqs...right?
Skills: Knowledge (arcana) 3 ranks, Knowledge (religion) 3 ranks.
Wizards and Clerics both get Skill Ranks per Level: 2 + Int modifier. So unless they have a high int, which admittedly a Wizard would have, they are still on the hook for 6 levels...right?
I'm not arguing, I'm clarifying; since I have an MT right now I rolled as 3/3/MT so if there is a way around that, other than DM fiat, I'm all for it.
Since you have to be level 3 to get three ranks, I don't think any character should have any trouble coming up with the six skill points necessary.
I suppose so.
I renew my perennial objection that MT + Esoteric Training + Magical Knack == win, even without the GM ruling in your favor.
Magical Knack is nice, but doesn't get you the extra spells (I think).
Esoteric Training is amazing, but hard to earn properly..
By the way,
Magical Knack is allowed under PFS play (other threads have it as not allowed).
It's listed in Ultimate Campaign.
I think everyone is reading the ruling way too liberally. Spellcasting and spell-like abilities are not the same thing. Being able to use daylight doesn't mean you can cast spells of that level, it merely means you possess the ability to mimic the effects of a spell, specifically a daylight spell.
So, for any feats or other options that require you to be able to cast daylight, you meet that requirement, but you aren't casting spells and do not possess spellcasting abilities. With spell-like abilities, you have a caster level. You do not have a spell list to draw from nor do you have a spell per day table. You can qualify for feats that require a caster level or the ability to cast a certain spell.
3.5 edition had a similar ruling on spell-like abilities and qualifying for feats/prestige classes, though it was worded a little differently. It was necessary for the Warlock class, who's abilities were all effectively spell-like.
Shfsh, when did that happen?
Deathless One, they've included a comment directly in the FAQ that they're aware that they've opened several prestige classes up to early entry via SLAs; I think it's safe to say that no one's being overly liberal in reading "SLAs meet casting prerequisites" as "SLAs meet casting perquisites".
Well, the FAQ actually says a SLA meets a prerequisite to cast that spell.
And while I agree with DeathlessOne, I realize I am very much in the minority on what that FAQ means.
Back on topic, since you have to be 3rd level for skill requirements, and you will want an arcane class and a divine class to build on, the new FAQ isn't very earthshaking for a Mystic Theurge build. Obtain one SLA from Cleric for divine, one from Race or Class for arcane.
Yeah no,
the ability to cast a 2nd level spell is not the ability to cast second level spells.
Not sure why some people are upset about getting MT at level 4. You are still 0.5 and 1 spell level behind and you don't progress any class features. You do get far more flexibility, but you get worse ability scores due to needing 2 different ones for casting. I don't think there is anything overpowered here.
However I'd be very interested to hear about original or optimized builds.
I wouldn't say I am upset about it, it is simply that it goes against how I read the rules (and FAQs), probably from all my experience playing 3.5. Nothing I have seen in Sean's posts, FAQs, or rules seem to directly contradict my reading, though I can see how it is read that way.
As far as the build itself, all class features on a caster fall well behind actual spell casting in importance (IMO), so being able to go
Sorcerer 2/Oracle 1/Mystic Theurge 10/Sorcerer +7 means for a giving up a single level of Sorcerer you get 11 levels of Oracle free, casting on the same stat.
Or Wizard 2/Cleric 1/Mystic Theurge 10/Wizard +7 similarly gets an almost free 11 levels of cleric casting. Stats aren't even that big of a deal since a 16 is all the wisdom you would need, which you could obtain even with magic items.
When I was asking about a similar thing I got this helpful link:
PDT has stated that one spell that you can cast more than once is good enough.
I don't think that post means what you think it means. They are saying that 'the ability to cast a first level spell' is the same thing as 'the ability to cast first level spells'. They are NOT saying that 'the ability to mimic a first level spell with a spell-like ability' is the same thing as 'the ability to cast first level spells'.
Can you cast a first level spell? Yes? Then you meet the requirements to cast first level spells.
Can you mimic the ability to cast a first level spells with a spell-like ability? Yes? That does not mean you can cast first level spells. Spellcasting is a class feature, not a spell-like ability.
Deathless One, they've included a comment directly in the FAQ that they're aware that they've opened several prestige classes up to early entry via SLAs; I think it's safe to say that no one's being overly liberal in reading "SLAs meet casting prerequisites" as "SLAs meet casting perquisites".
I am pretty confident that when they said that (and I'd put money on it), they meant that classes normally available to only spellcaster with the ability to cast a certain spell, would become open to non-spellcasters. An example?
Arcane Trickster: You need to have 2nd level arcane spellcasting AND the ability to cast mage hand. You can get magehand with a spell-like ability and meet that requirement. You still don't meet the 2nd level spellcasting with a spell-like ability that mimics a 2nd level spell.
A more specific example? Agent of the Grave. This class explicitly requires the ability to cast a certain spell (Animate Dead) but does not have a spellcasting requirement, and it progresses spellcasting (but only if you had a spellcasting class before taking the prestige class). This means that if you somehow got the ability to use Animate Dead as a spell-like ability, you meet the requirement of this particular prestige class.
Can you mimic the ability to cast a first level spells with a spell-like ability? Yes? That does not mean you can cast first level spells. Spellcasting is a class feature, not a spell-like ability.
If you actually read the whole thread, or even just skim it for SKR's posts, you'll see very quickly that the design team does agree that you can qualify for Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight early with a racial SLA.
SKR even gently mocks someone for being concerned about "Aasimar Theurges" and again later for suggesting the rule change is racist (since it allows races with SLAs to qualify for prestige classes early).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you mimic the ability to cast a first level spells with a spell-like ability? Yes? That does not mean you can cast first level spells. Spellcasting is a class feature, not a spell-like ability.If you actually read the whole thread, or even just skim it for SKR's posts, you'll see very quickly that the design team does agree that you can qualify for Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight early with a racial SLA.
Regardless of what the dev's have said, or rather 'what people have interpreted the dev's as saying', I withhold my judgement until they have clarified it with actual errata. I hold the dev's judgement in the highest respect and, after saying so, I think they are mistaken if this is truly how they ruled.
Spells and spellcasting are class features.
Spell-like abilities mimic the results of a particular spell.
Spellcasting has a progression outlined in the class that grants it.
Spell-like abilities do not have a progression to be advanced.
Spells are qualified by spell levels.
Spell-like abilities are not qualified by spell level, they merely have their specific attributes set by the spell they mimic (DC, effective caster level, etc).
Results? Spell-like abilities ARE NOT spells and CAN NOT fulfill the requirements of having a particular X level of spellcasting. The ONLY requirement they can meet is producing the effect of a specific X spell.
Whatever the community agrees upon, treating spell-like abilities as X level spellcasting is WRONG by pure logic alone and therefor subject to complete and total rejection.
All that aside, each DM gets to decide this particular matter at his/her own table. As for myself, well, my position is obvious. Have fun everyone!
I hold the dev's judgement in the highest respect and, after saying so, I think they are mistaken if this is truly how they ruled.
I agree that they have been mistaken about rulings before, but it doesn't make it less official.
Your position is perfectly fine for home games (for what it's worth, I also wouldn't let it work), but in PFS, you can now use SLAs to qualify for Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight whether you(we) like it or not.
Magical Knack is nice, but doesn't get you the extra spells (I think).
Esoteric Training is amazing, but hard to earn properly..
I pointed out in another thread (about my MT build, no less)It's not TOO terribly hard to gain fame IMHO:
About Semesters
Every school functions on what are known as “semesters.” You can make one Education check (using a skill chosen from your school’s Education check options) per semester. A semester’s actual in-game duration varies from school to school, and you shouldn’t hesitate to further adjust a school’s semester length to match the speed at which time passes in your campaign. As a general rule, a student should be able to attempt 4 to 6 Education checks per character level, so if in your game characters gain levels at a much accelerated or much slowed rate, you should adjust the length of a semester accordingly. One relatively simple way to hand-wave semesters is to simply treat each game session, no matter how much time passes during that session, as a “semester,” and allow characters in schools an Education check at the end of each game session. You can also simply tie these checks to character level, and allow characters to make 5 Education checks all at once every time they level up
That's 35-42 checks by level 7, not to mention the glory gained from their heroic exploits, which dovetails nicely with the fact that the characters become increasingly more famous during campaigns in general, and Rise of the Rune Lords in particular, which is what we're playing.
More to the point though, I don't understand the heartburn people are feeling now that builds that were universally once considered useless or worst than useless, are now at least viable. If a player is willing to put in the legwork to climb that hill, why punish them for making it to the top?
More to the point though, I don't understand the heartburn people are feeling now that builds that were universally once considered useless or worst than useless, are now at least viable. If a player is willing to put in the legwork to climb that hill, why punish them for making it to the top?
1: Its BS rules bending and treating the game like a spreadsheet at best.
2: it biases players towards playing a Asamir (which is a poorly written race) or a Teifling.
3: It takes away one of the appeals of the class, the challenge and the sense of accomplishment when one finally climbs the mountain and achieves theurgedom.
More to the point though, I don't understand the heartburn people are feeling now that builds that were universally once considered useless or worst than useless, are now at least viable. If a player is willing to put in the legwork to climb that hill, why punish them for making it to the top?
1: Its BS rules bending and treating the game like a spreadsheet at best.
2: it biases players towards playing a Asamir (which is a poorly written race) or a Teifling.
3: It takes away one of the appeals of the class, the challenge and the sense of accomplishment when one finally climbs the mountain and achieves theurgedom.
I can't speak to PFS, since I don't play that way. It never made sense to me that Paizo selectively bans rules that they wrote.
To your points:
1. Like a spreadsheet how, exactly? Chopping a whole 3 levels off of a classes prereqs is such an abomination? They are still going to be 1-2 caster levels behind their allies in power, and are going to have to put MORE thought into their build, spell selection and actions than nearly anyone else. Yes they can do anything, but they can't do everything. Actually, they can't even do anything.
2. Maybe, but I don't see too many Gnome Barbarians or Dwarf Wizards. The game isn't as strict as an MMO, but it already obviously favors some race/class combinations over others.
3. What glory? Google any and all Mystic Theurge threads or guides before the SLA ruling and you'll find 100% of them conclude the class is a bad idea. I know, since I have read all that I could find, and participated in more than a few of them. Most conclude you should accept you are going to suck and pick Sorcerer/Oracle to reduce MAD, or just play a Witch. Some of them go so far as to say you're *harming* your party by trying to do it.
To be clear, it's not my intention to be argumentative; in the end, we all have to run our tables as we see fit. Paizo tried to counter the obligatory multi-classing in 3.5 by rewarding single class progression, but in my opinion the pendulum swung WAY too far in the other direction. I think this is a pretty fair compromise. Really the fact that we can all see it so differently would seem to confirm that.
More to the point though, I don't understand the heartburn people are feeling now that builds that were universally once considered useless or worst than useless, are now at least viable. If a player is willing to put in the legwork to climb that hill, why punish them for making it to the top?
1: Its BS rules bending and treating the game like a spreadsheet at best.
2: it biases players towards playing a Asamir (which is a poorly written race) or a Teifling.
3: It takes away one of the appeals of the class, the challenge and the sense of accomplishment when one finally climbs the mountain and achieves theurgedom.
I can't speak to PFS, since I don't play that way. It never made sense to me that Paizo selectively bans rules that they wrote.
To your points:
1. Like a spreadsheet how, exactly? Chopping a whole 3 levels off of a classes prereqs is such an abomination? They are still going to be 1-2 caster levels behind their allies in power, and are going to have to put MORE thought into their build, spell selection and actions than nearly anyone else. Yes they can do anything, but they can't do everything. Actually, they can't even do anything.
Like a spreadsheet the way that it's obviously not rule as intended.
It's like a spreadsheet the same way that rage cycling is like a spreadsheet. It doesn't matter if even the designers approve of it, it's the idea itself. It's when an obscure rules loophole allows some bizarre interaction.
I hate rage cycling.
This is better than rage cycling, but barely.
|
I hate summoned creatures, I think it bogs the game down unnecessarily and people can select which monster they want rather than plan ahead with their spells to deal with nearly any situation...
sometimes they even use a spread sheet....
it's however completely 100% intended, it just doesn't fit my personal vision of the game.
I also don't care for summoning. I never have my (now pretty sweet) MT NPC do it, and thankfully none of my players have thought of it (yet).
Although it does take a certain amount of foresight to summon the right creature, at the right time, I suppose.
nope, memorize Shadow conjuration (you can now cast a multitude of spells and memorize summon monster (insert #) now you just refer to a table of spells when your turn comes up and cast per the situation, not what you planned ahead to do.
Well, couldn't they always Summon Monster ____. And they still need to know what monster can do what...right? I don't see Shadow Conjuring changes things that drastically.
Shadow Conjuration us one spell that can be a lot of other spells. Like a weakened Limited Wish.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the point I'm making is, that some people actually do use spread sheets in their game, and the ability to reference tables and create versatility, or "win" in scenarios due to good book keeping really turns some folks on.
The rules are the game, and being upset for some people really enjoying the rules aspect of it is silly.
It's like buying a present for a kid and getting upset he enjoys the box more than the toy inside the box.
Ummm literally, read the FAQ entry...that's when. Did you even look back at it before you questioned my post?
But I guess to save you precious time I did...Edit 9/23/13: Wording updated to clarify racial/type SLAs vs. class SLAs.
Well no, obviously I didn't "look back at it" before I asked. Or I wouldn't have asked as I'd have already known. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, I just hadn't heard about a change that was made all of three weeks ago. So sorry for impugning your honour or whatever.
So this is giving me all sorts of crazy ideas.
I have a character bard 4/sorcerer 1.
Does this character now qualify for Mystic Theurge?
(bard casts cure moderate wounds.)
Could I now advance bard as my "divine class" and sorcerer as my "arcane class"?
So this is giving me all sorts of crazy ideas.
I have a character bard 4/sorcerer 1.
Does this character now qualify for Mystic Theurge?
(bard casts cure moderate wounds.)
Could I now advance bard as my "divine class" and sorcerer as my "arcane class"?
nope, when cure spells are on bard spell lists thay are arcane spells. Also spontaneous casters make the worst theurges.
when cure spells are on bard spell lists thay are arcane spells.
Bard 1/Cleric 3.
If Cure Moderate Wounds is an arcane spell if you're a bard, it's an arcane spell, right? Or is it only arcane for bard 4/cleric 1?
I'm holding to the interpretation that a SLA does not have a spell level, even when it duplicates a spell that does not have multiple levels.
Cure spells cast from Bard casting are arcane spells. Cure spells cast from Cleric casting are divine spells. Cure spell-like abilities are divine.
SLA's do have a spell level per the FAQ.
Cure Moderate Wounds is a spell.
When a Bard, Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer or Magus casts it as one of their Bard, Wizard, Witch, Sorcerer, or Magus spells it is a arcane spell.
When a Cleric, Oracle, Druid, Inquisitor, Paladin or Ranger casts it as one of their Cleric, Oracle, Druid, Inquisitor, Paladin or Ranger spells it is a divine spell.
when it shows up as a spell like ability it defaults to a divine spell unless the text specifically lists it as arcane.
I hate summoned creatures, I think it bogs the game down unnecessarily and people can select which monster they want rather than plan ahead with their spells to deal with nearly any situation...
sometimes they even use a spread sheet....
it's however completely 100% intended, it just doesn't fit my personal vision of the game.
There's absolutely no difference between using a spell for what it was created to do, vs abusing a stupid loophole.
Oh wait :D