| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preface
1) I’m a huge fan of Pathfinder – it’s a great system and though I have my gripes, I’m generally happy to house-rule them and move on.
2) I am NOT a game designer by trade, I dabble in it as a hobby and enjoy digging into games and trying to understand every little bit and piece.
Introduction
There has been a recent flurry of FAQs (thank you in general for that Paizo Design Team) with many long standing issues being clarified. Unfortunately, there have also been some FAQs that (I believe) are going too far – as opposed to clarifying bits and pieces of the Pathfinder system, they are making changes to assumptions that are at the very core of the game. For those of you who haven’t been following the forums lately, I’m specifically referring to the possibility that using SLAs allows you to qualify for prestige classes early – much earlier in some cases – Wizard 1 / Fighter 1 / Eldritch Knight X or Magus 1 / Eldritch Knight X, for example.
Relevant info on prestige classes and early entry via SLAs
The caster level granted by an SLA allows you to select item creation feats.
SLAs count as spells for prerequisites.
SLAs can be either Divine or Arcane.
For the record, I’m not yet convinced that the RAW of the rules actually allows taking levels in prestige classes for a few different reasons. But as this is not the primary purpose of this thread, I will direct those interested in discussing the merits of prestige classes and SLAs based on the wording of the rules to this thread. There is also this thread for those who want to hit the FAQ button on the issue.
Why I perceive this to be a problem
If this ends up becoming the law of the land, count me as beyond concerned. It has long (3.0 days forward) been an understood design philosophy that prestige classes required at least 5 levels of base classes before entry. The fact that this changes the base assumption (5 levels of base classes) about only a small percentage of prestige classes is just the beginning of the problem. This is poor game design philosophy – You don’t change some of the most basic assumptions about a major portion of the game without creating more problems than you’ve solved.
More specific to this problem, I’m afraid making changes like this will only move us closer to the 3.5e days of “I take 1 level in this prestige class, then 2 levels in this other prestige class, then a level in this third prestige class.” Wasn’t one of Pathfinder’s primary goals to make base classes viable? If we now feel like prestige classes are not viable, then why not do something about it for all of the prestige classes? If some of them are not viable, rewrite those ones. But please, please, don’t FAQ a “fix” for one-quarter of the prestige classes, thus making them over powered. (Sure, they seem like a trap now, but the ability to freely quicken a spell on a critical at 11th level instead of 16th level seems like a HUGE bump for a crit fishing Eldritch Knight. Hello power creep!)
Conclusion
In my opinion, incrimental FAQs should not be the way in which a major system change happens. Changing the base mechanics of prestige classes requires a lot more than what was done - otherwise there will be more problems created than were solved. If this were going to be done, it would have needed to be done when the Paths of Prestige rulebook was published, but that ship has sailed...
Discuss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't see this as a problem. It's weird and it allows some extremely sub-optimal builds, but pathfinder has always been full of such things (as has 3.x D&D).
Yeah, it lets characters into some multiclass mage prestige classes earlier than before, but they were all dramatically sub-par, precisely because they kick in way too late. We don't need an early assassin or horizon walker.
The eldritch knight, mystic theurge and arcane trickster are a completely different concept to normal prestige classes. They have no themes or fluff of their own and they exist solely to make half-and-half multiclassing viable for spellcasters. Fixing that particular kind of prestige class is a very different thing to fixing the rest.
It's also not power creep. Power creep is a continuous increase in the power of options presented in successive products. This is a buff to existing options that have been around for as long as pathfinder itself. I'm not convinced its even enough to bring them up to par. Huge bumps are are a good thing when they're targeted and judged correctly.
It's also not power creep. Power creep is a continuous increase in the power of options presented in successive products. This is a buff to existing options that have been around for as long as pathfinder itself. I'm not convinced its even enough to bring them up to par. Huge bumps are are a good thing when they're targeted and judged correctly.
Right. A casters power is based primarily on their highest level spells, and these tricks still slow you down on that front.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I approve and enjoy it, I have a friend who would hate this.
Capital HATE.
Anytime there's an exploit based on system mastery, loopholes and niche rules applications it ruins the fun for him. It makes me a little sad, since there's this whole aspect of the game I enjoy that I can't share with him.
Paizo did right by my friend when they marginalized PrC's. I was fine with it and have sinced not incorporated 3.5 materials in our games for about two years now.
This ruling is fun, cool and interesting, but for the wrong reasons. It will infuriate those who want to enjoy the game they love without being bogged down by system mastery. It also doesn't add anything genuine to the game.
I believe the requirements for PrC should be more clearly defined as casting class levels vs spell-like abilities. It may be interesting for many of us, but it's irresponsible of us to push this into law when it alienates so many more people.
I already went through all the prc's from the core, apg and paths of prestige in the other thread. I found 2 semi viable options that are still worse than straight playing a class. the rest are giant player traps.
I approve and enjoy it, I have a friend who would hate this.
Capital HATE.
Anytime there's an exploit based on system mastery, loopholes and niche rules applications it ruins the fun for him. It makes me a little sad, since there's this whole aspect of the game I enjoy that I can't share with him.
Paizo did right by my friend when they marginalized PrC's. I was fine with it and have sinced not incorporated 3.5 materials in our games for about two years now.
This ruling is fun, cool and interesting, but for the wrong reasons. It will infuriate those who want to enjoy the game they love without being bogged down by system mastery. It also doesn't add anything genuine to the game.
I believe the requirements for PrC should be more clearly defined as casting class levels vs spell-like abilities. It may be interesting for many of us, but it's irresponsible of us to push this into law when it alienates so many more people.
Good points here Shane, and I agree with this quite a bit. Pathfinder already heavily rewards system mastery - it does not need to do so any further. One of my biggest problems with this is the disparity level of PCs within the same campaign based on the level of system mastery of the player. It's difficult for a DM to balance an encounter when making it fun and doable for half the group means means making it far too easy for the other half, or worse yet, trying to challenge the system mastery half of the group results in (almost) killing off the casual half of the group.
I also agree 100% with your point about this being for the wrong reasons. I would be fine with a re-write for prestige class requirements or anything more comprehensive that effects all prestige classes in the right amount, but this is not that. This is a seemingly accidental evolution of SLA FAQs that suddenly changes one of the most important fundamental rules fore prestige classes (5 or more levels in base classes) for approximately 25% of prestige classes... That this is not a balanced way to address a "problem" SHOULD be obvious. (This is also assuming that Paizo feels prestige classes being suboptimal is a problem, given that part of their original design intention was to make base classes more optimal, thereby making the previously optimal choice - prestige classes - less optimal.) Whether those prestige classes are weak as is, could use the bump, or would end up overpowered is not really the point of this thread.
until you find that anyone with the remotest sense of system mastery will stay far the hell away this exploit. most of prcs this will work on (keep in mind many of the better prc's have skill requirements) are caster focused prc's (magambyan arcanist for example) that can now be taken martial builds to make almost completely useless characters.
|
Mystic theurge is frankly a substandard character build in Pathfinder. You lose channeling and domain bonuses (cleric), wildshapes (druid), bloodlines and bonus spells(sorcerer), higher school benefits (wizard, not so bad), and favored class bonuses.
Benefits are having more spells, but being at least one whole spell level behind, even with this change. Frankly, I just don't see any great benefit, unless you are trying to be the 6th or 7th party member and a utility character.
on the original topic: I too am concerned about a major system change like this. What I don't like about it is previously BAB and caster levels were pretty solid, no end-around, side steps, etc for meeting this requirement. This change is not so similar to a change saying that for anyone with darkvision, it counts +3 bab towards qualifying for PrC classes. My question is why mess with it? If you want to make some of the PrCs solid choices mechanically, then do that, but not through altering a major system standard.
|
An exploit is an exploit. Claiming system mastery for using an exploit is like claiming to be a master of math for using a calculator you kept hidden up your sleeve on a math test.
This instance is going to be interesting, as we are discussing consequences of a ruling that may or may not be intended.
But an exploit is an exploit for a reason. If I am able to complete the 100 yard dash in under 10 seconds because I used a motorcycle, that doesn't mean I get into the Olympics, even if it isn't specifically forbidden enough...
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For those concerned that the impact of recent FAQs on prestige class entry might be unintended, there is a thread HERE trying to collect FAQ clicks to get that very question settled. Just click the link and then click the FAQ button on the upper-right of the first post. Thanks!
An exploit is an exploit. Claiming system mastery for using an exploit is like claiming to be a master of math for using a calculator you kept hidden up your sleeve on a math test.
This instance is going to be interesting, as we are discussing consequences of a ruling that may or may not be intended.
But an exploit is an exploit for a reason. If I am able to complete the 100 yard dash in under 10 seconds because I used a motorcycle, that doesn't mean I get into the Olympics, even if it isn't specifically forbidden enough...
except in this case it's more like you get a loophole that allows you to get a 10 foot head start as long as you're using an unmodified ford fusion in a nascar race. To paraphrase Alexander Augunas, "this is a load of trap". one good (not broken) option, plus one or two meh options, and a slew of trap options make for one crappy exploit.
|
|
The base question underlying all of this is if this is an option or an exploit.
Does my being able to have Daylight qualify me for 3rd level spell entry give me unbalanced access to things.
That is something I don't know.
Is there a "See if this can be used to make something broken" thread yet, because that is really the only question that matters to most people I think.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is there a "See if this can be used to make something broken" thread yet
Something like that, over in Advice. LINK
---------------------------
Also, to those following along: the Rules thread that asked whether the FAQ really allowed early PrC entry was marked by Paizo staff as "Answered in the FAQ".
|
|
I hope they realize they are going to need to do more than just click "Answered in the FAQ" with regards to this question...
The primary movers seem to be Aasimars and Daylight, as Daylight is a 3rd level spell. (Once again Aasimar hax...)
So the only really interesting thing that is kind of an issue is the EK. You have early entry for a Magus, which isn't that great, and you have early entry for the fighter/sor or Fighter/wiz which could (emphasis on could) be somewhat more problematic.
There is also a Mystic Theurge issue, although I still think you would need to have 5 levels of a full divine to qualify (although you could argue the Aasimar is Divine rather than Arcane...I would say the ruling frowns on it...), and you would need one additional level of an arcane class to benefit so you are 6th level before you get it and still lagging way behind and not getting your class benefits so that doesn't particularly bother me.
I would prefer if you have a class without level adjustment, the spells given as a class ability not qualify as 3rd level, but I'm also not sure the problem is as big as the outrage.
Still, having a dev wade in would be helpful. But I suspect the silence is also due to this needing them all to have a pow wow to get on the same page before they speak ex cathedra as it were...
There is also a Mystic Theurge issue, although I still think you would need to have 5 levels of a full divine to qualify (although you could argue the Aasimar is Divine rather than Arcane...I would say the ruling frowns on it...), and you would need one additional level of an arcane class to benefit so you are 6th level before you get it and still lagging way behind and not getting your class benefits so that doesn't particularly bother me.
Theurge requires second level spells, meaning Daylight does not qualify for it.
Tieflings and Variant Aasimar do, however, have appropriate SLA's.
I still think this is a perfect example of an 'advanced' character option however. Its something you can do if you understand the system, and I've not seen much evidence it produces overpowered results.
Advanced applications of mechanics to do cool things permeates Pathfinder, and I think this example is far from the most absurd thing you can pull off.
Its certainly no Vivisectionist/Beastmorph, Synthesist, or Ridiculous Pouncing Barbarian build.
Even if it proves to not imbalance anything right now (Magus 2/ Wizard 2/ Eldritch Knight 10 - Spellstrike Close Combat Disintegrate - if you crit, you swift action cast Disintegrate into your sword again and continue attacking. 2 Disintegrates in a single round along with 3 attacks and 15-20 crit for 56d6 on a failed save (magical knack) - more if you invest feats. How is this NOT a problem?), I predict that it will cause problems in the future. At the very least, it is yet ANOTHER FAQ that created more questions than it answered - that in itself is a bad thing. The Pathfinder system is already complicated enough to teach new players, something like this does not help that in any way. Also, it's being done for the wrong reasons.
I don't agree that this adds additional complexity.
The game is complex as you want to make it.
You could take only the original classes that were ported over from D&D and still have a perfectly viable game.
This adds options. If they were required - and I don't really believe they are; as others have said, with one or two exceptions, PrCs in Pathfinder are for flavor purposes, not power - then it might be a concern of added complexity. But since there's absolutely no necessity to take a PrC in order to be 'competitive' in combat or even social situations, players who have less understanding of the system will simply play like they don't exist, and be absolutely fine in doing so.
btw, MechE, the 'concern' you posted regarding Disintegrate has nothing to do with a PrC. A 15th level Magus can do the exact asme thing: Spell Combat\Spellstrike; cast Disintegrate, crit, use Quickened Arcana to cast a second Disintegrate. Unless I'm missing something?
btw, MechE, the 'concern' you posted regarding Disintegrate has nothing to do with a PrC. A 15th level Magus can do the exact asme thing: Spell Combat\Spellstrike; cast Disintegrate, crit, use Quickened Arcana to cast a second Disintegrate. Unless I'm missing something?
Its also damage based, and not great at that. Its way inferior to what a dedicated blaster could put out with a pair of optimized fireballs, and probably significantly less threatening than a Save or Die build/Control Build.
This is the type of ruling I like the least: one that opens a can of worms for no particularly compelling reason (that I can think of, anyways).
For the record, I hadn't really thought through the magus idea all that well - either way, you're making 16th level abilities available at potentially 11th level for a magus 1/eldritch knight 10. Is it game breaking, I'm not sure - that's not my forte, but it is definitely going to change the dynamics of the game, and for what reason?
either way, you're making 16th level abilities available at potentially 11th level for a magus 1/eldritch knight 10.Sorry, I must have missed something; what 16th level ability is getting accessed at 11th?
EK's capstone?
Magus 1 / EK 10. Not the ideal way to go through Eldritch Knight, but it's happening.
Yes ciretose, it is different enough that it requires scrutiny. Part of my concern in this thread is that nobody from Paizo is saying "we thought through all the aspects of this, and we think it should be fine." The absence of that confidence from Paizo tells me that they did not go through the exercise of "Ok, before we put out this FAQ, what new issues could be create? Ok, yeah,that's a doozy - is there a way to prevent this, or is this a good thing? Good thing you say, hmm, ok so what is our answer to these obvious follow up questions? We want to come off as confident."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Part of my concern in this thread is that nobody from Paizo is saying "we thought through all the aspects of this, and we think it should be fine." The absence of that confidence from Paizo tells me that they did not go through the exercise of...
So if Paizo doesn't publicly announce that they went through a good process, you assume they didn't? Doesn't that seem a little harsh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, maintain that though I enjoy things like this, it doesn't help the game. Yes the game is only as complex as YOU want it to be, at least until you add ME to the mix. No one plays this game alone. As such we need to be considerate of those who blanch and recoil at exploits. It really comes down to a matter of respecting your fellow player/GM.
I don't believe it over powers the game, but it does add an unnecessary complexity that is both awkward and exploitative. It WILL be a problem down the road and it is an easy fix. Some simple re-interpretation on the wording for PrC's and your done.
As much as I like finding a way to early entry any of the PrC's, I'd rather have Paizo offer outright support for existing PrC's instead of this "rules interpretation" hoopla. Just my 2 cents.
Am I being a bit harsh about this, yes. Too harsh, maybe. Call me a passionate critic - I love this game, and while I can simply house rule things away, this new direction of changing some of the most basic parts of the game concerns me very much.
The SLAs and Feats/Prestige classes thing isn't something that come up suddenly, it's been in the works for weeks. Have I thought through this thread completely? No. As much as I enjoy this game, it isn't my job. My intention was to begin a discussion about some of the things that I perceive as being mistakes. I'm expressing frustration with a new ruling that seems very dubious.
My job, since it came up, is that of an engineer. As an engineer, it is my job to improve processes and products - a necessary portion of that is evaluating the risk and subsequent possibilities of any change that I suggest. I know the guys at Paizo are busy, so I don't mean to have unrealistic expectations. However, foreseeing obvious problems with major changes and answering them decisively with a "We've evaluated the risk and the benefits outweigh it because of X, Y, and Z" is an expectation of mine, yes.
Magus 1 / EK 10. Not the ideal way to go through Eldritch Knight, but it's happening.
Yes ciretose, it is different enough that it requires scrutiny. Part of my concern in this thread is that nobody from Paizo is saying "we thought through all the aspects of this, and we think it should be fine." The absence of that confidence from Paizo tells me that they did not go through the exercise of "Ok, before we put out this FAQ, what new issues could be create? Ok, yeah,that's a doozy - is there a way to prevent this, or is this a good thing? Good thing you say, hmm, ok so what is our answer to these obvious follow up questions? We want to come off as confident."
Main benefit seems to be Spell Critical on a Crit Confirm gives a extra spell/rd.
As to being too harsh, I don't think you are. You're arguing your position to the best of your ability, but you're not name calling or anything. I see no problem with it personally. (Of course, I've been accused of being too harsh before myself.)
To clarify this a bit further - I have high expectations. In general, Paizo has not let me down on a regular basis, so those expectations have held, and for that I'm happy. In this case though, I feel they've fallen short of the expectation in a rather big way. Simply said, this isn't a sound, balanced approach to prestige classes, and it also seems very ancillary to SLAs - feels like an unintended exploit, except that people have been talking about this possibility for weeks.
So what am I supposed to think? Paizo chose to skimp around the actual main question about SLAs (feats and prestige classes)? Or they chose to make a major change to how SLAs (normally an a small flavor boost to a race) interact with prestige classes without making it clear? They made a major change that applies to some prestige classes, but not all, based on prerequisites of the prestige classes that was never intended to create such a difference? And they gave no reasoning for doing so?
Again, I have no problem with changing prestige classes, but if it's going to be done, it should be done fairly, and for the right reasons, and with the right methods. On those, I rate this a 0/3.
I think i am missing something. How is the SL bit leting you to Magus 1/ek 10? Given this was brought up along with the magus 2/wizard/2/ek 10 example and no one said anything I am assuming i am missing something.
I can see if a PRc had a prereq like 'needs a lvl 2 spell' and you were a Tiefling You could sneak your way in.
But he Magus/ek examples dont actually meet those requirements.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw the thread title and thought this thread would be about the bigger underlying issue.
I think i am missing something. How is the SL bit leting you to Magus 1/ek 10? Given this was brought up along with the magus 2/wizard/2/ek 10 example and no one said anything I am assuming i am missing something.
I can see if a PRc had a prereq like 'needs a lvl 2 spell' and you were a Tiefling You could sneak your way in.
But he Magus/ek examples dont actually meet those requirements.
The magus/ek advances magus spells, which is a very bad choice. You are better off just going magus in that case.
To the main idea. Based on the completeness of these recent FAQs and the speed with which they have been officially defended/clarified, I think it pretty safe to say that a lot of brainstorming and weighing of pros and cons was already in place before releasing this decision. I am not saying that everything should be accepted without thought, but it sounds like you hadn't even considered that they have actually put some work in up front on this decision.
I dont think you got my question. So I shall repphrase. How does a magus /qualify/ for EK at lvl 1? The thread i thought was about faq changes to how SLA interact with prereq.
So an Asimar, could qualify for a PRC that says 'must be able to cast daylight' or 'must be able to cast at least 1 4rth level spell. Got it.
But the example given was just Magus 1/EK 10. the Magus cant meet any of the prerequisites for the prc. Which seems to be the information i am missing. or was there some 'lets ignore all prerequisites' thing tot he discussion i missed?
I dont think you got my question. So I shall repphrase. How does a magus /qualify/ for EK at lvl 1? The thread i thought was about faq changes to how SLA interact with prereq.
So an Asimar, could qualify for a PRC that says 'must be able to cast daylight' or 'must be able to cast at least 1 4rth level spell. Got it.
But the example given was just Magus 1/EK 10. the Magus cant meet any of the prerequisites for the prc. Which seems to be the information i am missing. or was there some 'lets ignore all prerequisites' thing tot he discussion i missed?
just Aasimar then, though i wanna throw this out there since i thought of it. SoH Aasimar, add racial heritage orc, stir in urban barbarian, add a splash of witch doctor, eat up.
I dont think you got my question. So I shall repphrase. How does a magus /qualify/ for EK at lvl 1? The thread i thought was about faq changes to how SLA interact with prereq.
So an Asimar, could qualify for a PRC that says 'must be able to cast daylight' or 'must be able to cast at least 1 4rth level spell. Got it.
But the example given was just Magus 1/EK 10. the Magus cant meet any of the prerequisites for the prc. Which seems to be the information i am missing. or was there some 'lets ignore all prerequisites' thing tot he discussion i missed?
To qualify to become an eldritch knight, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Spells: Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.
Weapon Proficiency: Must be proficient with all martial weapons.
An aasimar can cast 3 third level arcane daylight spells over the course of 3 days.
A magus has a spell list to advance and is proficient with all martial weapons.
Personally, I think stuff like this is cool. I'll admit, it reeks of cheese, but then again the PrCs suck anyways and I don't find it over powering.
I like system mastery as long as it doesn't interfere with flavor. Making an outsider race(Aasimar) able to reach a PrC or two early, doesn't hurt flavor wise. If anything, means that more should be inclined towards that line of adventuring(more flavor, not less imo).
Furthermore, were I in the design chair for this FAQ, I would have released an additional FAQ/Errata for PrCs to clarify how I'd want PrC requisites to interact with this other FAQ. Possibly even lowering the bar of entry for the PrCs if the concern is blocking out other options for those PrCs.
My 2P on the subject anyways.
MechE, I understand why you're concerned, but you keep repeating that this is not a balanced approach to prestige classes. I can't agree with that.
Right up in the first reply to this thread I pointed out that the affected prestige classes are for the most part a very different animal. They're also in need of something to make them more accessible and more potent. The same cannot really be said of the loremaster, for instance.
The classes that benefit significantly from this ruling are all designed to compensate for the limitations of the multiclassing system when it comes to spellcasters. They have always failed to help enough.
In the upgrade to Pathfinder multiclassing got worse and base classes got stronger. Prestige classes did improve slightly, but not nearly as much. That makes sense, because in 3.5, prestige classes overall were better than base classes.
The problem is those few multiclass fixer prestige classes weren't as good as the others. Treating all prestige classes equally is not a balanced approach because they are not equal. Making the only worst of them better is a balanced approach.
Yes, it is possible to get a level 16 feature at level 11, but when you do it does relatively little. Like everything the affected PRCs can do, its power depends on your levels in two classes. Both those get lower the earlier you get the feature. It practically balances itself.
To those asking if it's an exploit or an option: Exploits are valid options. There's no meaningful difference.
The rules are the rules, even when they're absurd. We don't have to play by them, but the only reason to forbid an option is because we don't like what it does.
Did the designers intend the rule? If they didn't, is it a bug or an unintended feature? I think these are the wrong questions. I think we should be asking if it does anything problematic.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I do agree that this can allow for some cheesiness, and I disagree with the ruling on item creation feats (or well, I don't think it's bad as a house rule but I don't think it should be the official stance). And I STRONGLY disagree with their arcane/divine SLA's.
However:
This doesn't allow early access to Eldritch Knight.
Eldritch knight requires 3rd level _spells_, not spell-like abilities. There is an important difference in wording between that and dimensional agility - dimensional agility doesn't mention spells at all. It just says "cast dimension door" which a barghest can do. That doesn't mean the barghest casts a 4th level _spell_, it means it casts dimension door as a spell-like ability.
The devs have been pretty explicit with "spell-like abilities are like spells, but they aren't spells", so basically, whenever it says "spell", spell-like abilities doesn't work. Likewise, craft wand does not require "5 levels in a spellcasting class", it requires "caster level 5".
I'm not saying I agree with this, I think it's very prone to confusion and would have preferred a strict "spell-like abilities are spells" or a "spell-like abilities work separately" but it is what it is.
To take an even more explicit example, look at the requirements for Arcane Trickster:
http://paizo.com/prd/prestigeClasses/arcaneTrickster.html
Spells: Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher.
This ruling means that as long as you can cast a _spell_ that is 2nd level or higher (for example through being a 3rd level witch), and can cast mage hand (for example through minor magic talent), you can take levels in it. However, being able to cast acid arrow and mage hand as spell-like abilities does not qualify you.
I can't think of any prestige classes you can get early access to right of the bat, but there might very well be.
@Ilja - That seems reasonable if that becomes the ruling, particularly since many spells have different levels depending on who is casting them.
If SLA's aren't considered to have levels, I think that addresses all concerns, correct?
It is my understanding that it already is the ruling, though spread out in different places and badly structured. Look on the comments on discussions about Spell Focus and metamagic rods for SLA's.
I think somewhere there's a ruling that SLA's are considered to have levels, related to the question "what level are SLA's that don't mimic spells, like wizard school powers?" to which the answer IIRC was "count them as a spell of a level equal to the highest-level spell a wizard could cast at the level you gain the ability" (so that if you gain it at level 7 it would count as level 4). This is just from memory, and I honestly can't bother to research it further, but it should be possible to find.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There is a very meaningful difference between an exploit and an option.
An exploit (aka loophole) will be closed once identified.
And option won't.
At this point there is some debate as to which this is.
Well, the thread asking whether the FAQ really meant you could get into PrC's early was marked "Answered in FAQ".
So it's been "identified" by Paizo staff. And it hasn't been "closed".
Thus, according to the definitions quoted above, it's an "option" rather than an "exploit" or "loophole".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy - You aren't wrong, but I don't think that is a nearly clear enough response to resolve the questions on the matter.
If it were, we wouldn't have multiple threads emerging after the FAQ post asking for clarification, now would we?
These threads all came about before the rules one got marked as "Answered in the FAQ" yesterday. I'm not aware of any that have been made since then (though I haven't scoured the boards for new ones yet today).
HERE is where I first noticed that thread getting marked as "Answered in the FAQ". Are there any threads you know of that started after that?
So if the measure of clarity is, as you suggest, related to how many threads pop up; then that means that if all these threads popped up before the "Answered in the FAQ" response and nothing's really shown up afterwards, then it must not be too unclear to most folks.
Not that I buy the premise of "thread density = unclarity level" but I wanted to answer you on your own terms.
EDIT: For reference, the threads I know of are:
The one in Advice, which was the first of the batch, and predates the "ruling" by days.
This one, which came several hours before the "ruling".
The rules one, which obviously predates its own "answered in FAQ" flag.
And the PFS one (later moved to Rules) which I started before the "ruling".
If there's anything I missed that suggests the "ruling" caused more threads/confusion than the FAQs themselves, feel free to point it out.