If exploits are defined by the fact that they get closed, there's only a difference between exploits and legitimate options after the closure, and almost any option could turn out to be an exploit the next time the FAQ updates. I still don't see why the distinction should matter unless somebody's fun is being spoiled.
Ilja, for good or ill, it works. Spell-like abilities are all either arcane or divine, they have levels and they count as spells for the purpose of meeting prerequisites. This is all covered in the other threads linked in the OP. Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics, but there was an example given of a spell-like ability explicitly meeting a "Must be able to cast spells" prerequisite and a developer quote asserting that the example is correct.
If you have dimension door as a spell like ability, you can cast dimension door. If you can cast dimension door, you can cast spells, because it is one.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics, but there was an example given of a spell-like ability explicitly meeting a "Must be able to cast spells" prerequisite and a developer quote asserting that the example is correct.
It had to do with a rogue with the Minor Magic talent (which grants exactly one SLA) qualifying for Arcane Strike (whose prereq differs from that of the Eldritch Knight only in the phrase "3rd-level"). Designer Sean K Reynolds said not only that it worked, but that they almost used it as their example in the FAQ.
On topic of the bigger issue - What was the reason for this change? Were spell-like abilities broken? Or did someone just "think it would be cool"...? Because it seems like spell-like abilities may as well be called spells these days.
On the justification for my frustration topic:
Should a Gnome Barbarian who just happens to have the ability to use dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, and speak with animals each once per day be able to get the same mileage out of the arcane strike feat as a magus who dedicates his life to the art of mixing swordplay and magic? Should that Gnome Barbarian be able to take Craft Magicl Arms & Armor? Craft Wondrous Item? Craft Staff...? Why am I seriously having to ask these question????
This is not to mention that the Arcane Strike feat outclasses weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization for 90% of melee builds as is, which usually don't use their swift action. So what do you get out of 4 and 12 levels of fighter? Arcane strike gives scaling bonus damage for a single feat that just requires you pick one of the many races that have an SLA. For 4 and 14 levels of fighter you can take two feats that apply only to a specific weapon, and the damage scales worse in general. With the interpretation that SLAs are arcane and give you a caster level, Arcane Strike just became easy for any build to access.
That folks, is what we call "power creep". It is slight mind you, but make no mistake, it IS power creep.
EDIT: Also, should our Gnome Barbarian be able to become a Lich...? Again, why do I even have to ask this question?
|
Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics, but there was an example given of a spell-like ability explicitly meeting a "Must be able to cast spells" prerequisite and a developer quote asserting that the example is correct.It had to do with a rogue with the Minor Magic talent (which grants exactly one SLA) qualifying for Arcane Strike (whose prereq differs from that of the Eldritch Knight only in the phrase "3rd-level"). Designer Sean K Reynolds said not only that it worked, but that they almost used it as their example in the FAQ.
I don't think there is any debate than SLA work for qualification, as in Arcane Strike or "Ability to cast arcane/divine" etc...
And I don't think that is actually a problem. I actually like the clarification and can't really think of anywhere this is a "problem".
I do think there is some question if a SLA is also a spell of a set level for the purposes of qualifying, particularly since spells can be of different levels based on class.
This seems to be the point of clarification that needs to be addressed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I do think there is some question if a SLA is also a spell of a set level for the purposes of qualifying, particularly since spells can be of different levels based on class.
This seems to be the point of clarification that needs to be addressed.
Oh, that? That's covered in the Universal Monster Rules. SLAs have spell levels, and if it's different on different lists, there's a set hierarchy of "if it's not on this class' list, go to the next one" to see what level it is.
|
|
@Mech-E - That Gnome barbarian is a gnome, and SLA are is a racial advantage of Gnomes, who take a -2 to Str which is a racial disadvantage.
The Gain for Arcane strike isn't that great, relative to other feats the Barbarian could take. Is it a boon? Yes. Is it a broken boon? Not particularly IMHO. Any class could get the same thing (and more) with a one level dip into any casting class.
Now on the other hand if you are able to skip what would usually take 5 levels of a full caster class...that seems more troubling to me and I would like clarification on that issue.
|
|
You are thinking of caster level, not spell level
"Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. 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.
Format: At will—burning hands (DC 13); Location: Spell-Like Abilities."
As far as I can tell, an SLA isn't automatically assigned a spell level, only a caster level.
Which makes sense since spell level is a function of class, not inherent to the spell.
Correct me if I am wrong.
they count as spells for the purpose of meeting prerequisites. This is all covered in the other threads linked in the OP. Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics, but there was an example given of a spell-like ability explicitly meeting a "Must be able to cast spells" prerequisite and a developer quote asserting that the example is correct.
Now I see SKR has reversed his stance on SLA's a lot in this post. Then the question is, does metamagic rods work with spell-like abilities now? If not, why not?
I wonder if they're going to be reducing the inconsistencies or increasing them...
One thing I wonder though is why even bother with caster level prerequisites on magic item crafting? Lots of the races and 80% of the classes can have get it for minimal investment.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@ciretose - Whoops, this is another topic with rules in different places. The Magic chapter of the CRB includes this:
In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
...
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted.
Given that it also says an SLA functions just like the spell, and only gives spell-level formulas for when an SLA doesn't mimic an existing spell (and you have to have a spell level to determine save DCs), I think it's a fair conclusion that the default for a typical SLA is that the spell level is equivalent to that of the actual spell.
And then if the spell level is different on different lists, you go by the hierarchy in the UMR.
ciretose: Previously, SKR has had the stance that "SLA are not treated as spells", even when shown the CRB quote Jiggy had here. Now he's seemed to change stance, as shown in the post I linked in my last post. I believe now he agrees with the CRB quote, that unless called out as an exception, spell-like abilities are to be treated as spells in every respect.
|
|
But a Spell like ability is not a spell. Spell level by definition would seem to indicate it is talking about a spell.
So if we follow this through, we can get the benefits of SLA giving access to requirements that only require access to any arcane or divine power, or a specific spell, without the more problematic aspect of SLA being equal to investing multiple levels in a casting class.
If a SLA is not a spell (which it isn't) it would not have a spell level, which is a designation for what level a class can cast a spell at, rather than a reflection of what the Spell (or SLA does)
You can have your arcane strike, or crafting using SLA, without having the EK or MT problem.
And it makes sense.
|
|
Also, let us look at the full CRB:
"Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted."
Which indicates the spell level isn't based on the spell itself, but based on the the highest-level class spell the character can cast.
Nothing in there otherwise assigns a spell level to a Spell Like ability, which is by definition, not a spell.
The spell level would be irrelevant for SLA. It has no spell level. You can either cast it or you can't.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a SLA is not a spell (which it isn't) it would not have a spell level
Then what's the save DC on a Musetouched aasimar's glitterdust SLA?
EDIT: Also, I just found in the Combat chapter of the CRB where it says you can use SLAs on the defensive (i.e., casting defensively) and it gives the DC as a formula based on the SLA's spell level.
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.
See ZanThrax's quote and SKR's follow-up here.
Since they almost used this an example, it makes their intention fairly clear: For the purposes of meeting the Arcane Strike prerequisite, an SLA (in this case granted by the Minor Magic Rogue trick) qualified. As it stands, being coupled with the FAQ on item creation feats, that seems to set a precedent of being able to meet prerequisites of spells in general using SLAs.
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted."
Which indicates the spell level isn't based on the spell itself, but based on the the highest-level class spell the character can cast.
You ignored the part where this only applies to SLAs with no spell equivalent.
SLAs of actual spells function as spells. It says so right in the PRD.
Edit: your quote does, on the other hand, explicitly establish SLAs have spell levels, which is good to know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with the OP.
Further, I think the design team either (1) didn't stop to think of the implications when they made the ruling, or (2) didn't think them through thoroughly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think this?
It completely changes the entire prestige class equation in many cases. It also complicates the design of anything which grants SLAs. It is just too big an FAQ entry, or even errata. It seems like an unintended consequence of extending the (logical) conclusion that SLAs should qualify as item creation prerequisites.
I can't find the quotation, but I remember reading something Monte Cook said/wrote about how integrated the 3rd edition rules are, and how changing one thing can affect any number of seemingly unrelated things. This just really seems like an example of that (to me).
I agree that it changes the PrC equation in many cases. It actually makes them worth taking. :P
All of the concerns here must* revolve around the idea that allowing early access to one or more PrCs can result in overpowered characters. Until that is shown to be true, I don't really find the speculative arguments all that troubling.
*Concerns about things like "intention of design" and philosophical concerns are, at least in my opinion, irrelevant; they're personal arguments rather than systemic concerns, and can simply be avoided by not allowing the changes at your table.
ciretose: The rules also state that they work like spells in all regards except noted. Also, if we go by "they're named spell-LIKE, not SPELL, so they shouldn't have SPELL LEVEL" then one might as well say spell resistance shouldn't apply to them either...
137ben: If they thought it through properly and realized what significant change this would be, they probably wouldn't have put it in the FAQ and some off-hand comments by SKR on the forum (note that the FAQ entries by themselves don't allow SLA's as spells, it's SKR's comments that does that), they'd have put it into errata or a dev blog like the stealth rules.
|
|
If a SLA is not a spell (which it isn't) it would not have a spell levelThen what's the save DC on a Musetouched aasimar's glitterdust SLA?
EDIT: Also, I just found in the Combat chapter of the CRB where it says you can use SLAs on the defensive (i.e., casting defensively) and it gives the DC as a formula based on the SLA's spell level.
Considering SLA's don't provoke...
Do you disagree that this all is better stated clearly rather than through implication?
I agree the intent is to have SLA be able to meet the criteria of a given spell it replaces for pre-requisites. It is another matter entirely if the intent was to replace class level requirements, which is what designating a spell level does.
My guess is they are talking it out before they release a clarification.
A sensible approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is a significant change. I still don't understand how any significant changes imply that the designers haven't thought it through. Have you considered the possibility that they thought it through, and liked the changes?
Because they've shied away from making changes of that magnitude in Errata -- let alone in a FAQ entry -- in the past.
Considering SLA's don't provoke...
Actually they do. It's in the Combat section of the CRB.
All of the concerns here must* revolve around the idea that allowing early access to one or more PrCs can result in overpowered characters. Until that is shown to be true, I don't really find the speculative arguments all that troubling.
Rogue Eidolon has done that. When it looked like Mystic Theurge wouldn't be available until 5th level it looked like it was only a really good option rather than a must have option, but with the ability to get into it at 4th level it pretty much becomes significantly over powered.
Mystic theurge does seem to be the only offender so far though. A 12th level eldritch knight with spell critical might be a concern, but honestly that's an area of the game I don't have a whole lot of experience with so I'm not the best to make a judgement call there.
I think a fair fix in that instance, then, would be to up the skill rank requirements for Mystic Theurge. Require 4 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) and (Religion), and the problem is solved.
To elaborate on the earlier Disintegrate concern and Eldritch Knight (which I know may not be the only one): I'm currently playing an 11th level Magus. I have a spell-storing weapon that I regularly charge with an Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp (using Magical Lineage). On a regular round, I can cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp with the Empowered arcana (equivalent to 15d6), discharge the one stored in the sword (for another 15d6), and then cast Forceful Strike for another 10d4. At minimum on a successful, you're looking at 30d6 + 5d4 + weapon damage, 30d6 + 10d4 + weapon damage on a failed save (plus bull rush), or (most painfully) 45d6 + 10d4 + weapon damage x2 (on a crit) - and since I'm using a scimitar with a Scabbard of Keen Edge that crit happens pretty often.
Maybe not quite as powerful the Disintegrate combo mentioned, but I can do it more times per day and with less negated damage from saving throws.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is they are talking it out before they release a clarification.
A sensible approach.
Yes, a very sensible approach.
And it remains a sensible approach even if they already did it (past tense) rather than still being in the middle of it.
Last I checked SLAs had a spell-level based on the original spell unless noted otherwise (this is important because of spells like globe of invulnerability or spell turning, and also for determining the Concentration check DCs). Off the top of my head I don't see this causing any huge problems with existing material though it does muddy the waters a little in some cases since many creatures have high level SLAs.
At first glance I'd say this probably makes it much easier for creatures like outsiders to qualify for some prestige classes (though any prestige class that advances casting is likely going to be wasted unless they also cast as X class, which kind of makes it a moot point).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Given the amount of discussion still going on, I would say that if that was the clarification, it didn't succeed...
Actually, it doesn't seem like there are too many people who still want more clarification; especially compared to how many there were before. There were even people in the rules thread who were opposed to the PrC issue who accepted the "Answered in FAQ" label as a ruling. Similarly, discussion in most of the threads I mentioned has either petered out compared or shifted to discussing whether the "ruling" is a good idea.
For instance, the PFS thread I started is now analyzing the power level of the "new" Mystic Theurge, presumably with the intent of determining if it needs a PFS-only nerf. No one's questioned the meaning of "Answered in the FAQ" in that thread, to my knowledge.
The rules thread that got that label is falling rapidly to the bottom of the page.
Same with the original thread in Advice, and even what's left of activity there isn't really about whether the FAQs mean you can qualify for PrC's or not.
Even in this thread, most folks are discussing whether the "ruling" was a good idea, not whether or not it really means early PrC entry.
So if, as you suggest, we assess the situation based on the amount of discussion; then it's pretty clear from the rapid decline of discussion that most folks are taking "Answered in the FAQ" on a thread asking if the FAQ allows SLA-based PrC entry to mean that yes, it does.
Given the amount of discussion still going on, I would say that if that was the clarification, it didn't succeed...
Which is weird, because it isnt unclear. The answer to "do SLAs qualify for PRCs" is. "Answered in FAQ" and the FAQ says "yes"
The fact that people are unhappy with it does not make it "unclear".
|
|
Oh wise all knowing oracles...
The Devs are conspicuously absent from the further clarification of how this works with EK and MT. There are how many threads currently discussing this and how many Dev comments on the EK, MT, spell level issue?
I think clearly the intent is to allow SLA to qualify for crafting and for entry level abilities. I think most people feel this is a positive clarification (Our group had basically already been doing this so no skin off our back) but there are what seem to be legitimate concerns about some relatively corner cases.
This can easily be cleared up by a one line post from a Dev, any Dev saying "Yes, we considered EK and MT" or "No, that pre-requisite means (x)".
The fact that this hasn't occurred, despite the volume of threads and posts about it...well I'll just say that generally kurfluffles like this end in actual clarification at some point down the line.
This one wouldn't require more than a line or two.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There are how many threads currently discussing this and how many Dev comments on the EK, MT, spell level issue?
Currently discussing that particular topic? I'm aware only of you. Prior to "Answered in the FAQ"? Four whole threads.
This can easily be cleared up by a one line post from a Dev, any Dev saying "Yes, we considered EK and MT" or "No, that pre-requisite means (x)".
Or maybe by replying to "The FAQ implies X; is that for real?" with "Answered in the FAQ".
The fact that this hasn't occurred, despite the volume of threads and posts about it...well I'll just say that generally kurfluffles like this end in actual clarification at some point down the line.
This one wouldn't require more than a line or two.
When the design team has seen a pile of FAQ-flags, read the post, and changed the status to "Answered in the FAQ", how can you then go on to claim that they haven't weighed in? Who do you think marked it as "Answered in the FAQ"? Why do you think they did so?
Looking through the list of prestige classes, there doesn't seem to be anything really strong (though I'm not through them all yet).
For monsters this opens up a LOT more that they can use with no or just a single caster level, but since they're within the DM's control it allows nothing more "broken" than what is already in the CR system (young advanced creatures etc).
Most prestige classes seem to either require spells of level 3, which there aren't that many other ways of getting, or have other restrictions that make the change much more minor.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jiggy - Are you trying to poke a fight or is it just your nature?
The Devs consistently weigh in on less and there is a long history of "answered in the FAQ" being clicked without actual clarification.
@Ilja - I wouldn't be surprised if they are waiting to let the community do the theorycrafting before they weigh in with specificity.
I think the Devs (or at least SKR) are excited by the possibility it opens in some areas. And some of the new options are quite interesting. But when SKR weighs in on the Divine vs Arcane issue which is completely spelled out in the FAQ and really didn't need any additional clarification IMHO, but does not weigh in on the elephant in the room of EK and MT, that implies to me that everyone wants to make sure they are on the same page before anyone says anything, lest we have a cluster.
All of them are clearly on the same page about exactly what they wrote in the FAQ (including Arcane strike)
The implications of corner cases, and to be clear we are mainly talking about how a few prestige classes mix with a few non-core races, so these are corner cases, is something I'm sure they want to discuss before someone comes in and gives the literally one line answer that resolves all of this for everyone.
I personally think it is silly and odd to have a class qualify for a 3rd level pre-requisite but not a 1st or 2nd level. But they may also be concerned about other unintended consequences.
Could it be that this was discussed as part of the FAQ. Yes, but then one would think there would be some comment, as there was with the Arcane/Divine stuff.
I actually like the arcane qualifies you stuff (as I said, we've always run it that way) but I can see why people are concerned about the spell level stuff and I find it surprising if this was something that was intended that the devs wouldn't just put a one liner out there in one of these threads to confirm it.
Why wouldn't they?
Now maybe it was discussed but the details are still being fine tuned and everyone is working out wording. But the patronizing tone of the boards when someone dares say something should be clarified certainly is unhelpful beyond epeen waving...
Don't know if others have seen it but it is intentional that this allows early access to PrCs and it is intentional for allowing SLAs to be treated as spells for qualification of other prerequisites such as feats.
First, do me a favor, look at some optimization guides and tell me how many say the eldritch knight is just an awesome choice. No seriously, go ahead. I'll wait.Back? Ok. Now that we've established that Eldritch Knight, as written prior to this, was pretty much 100% suboptimal, maybe you see the reason for this.
So does it change the dynamics of the game? I don't think it really does. Your eldritch knight build put forth here is just about as bad as the one you put forth before, and the fact that it gains "a 16th level ability at 11th level" doesn't salvage it. Barbarian 1 (improved speed ftw) / Wizard 1 is probably the best entry, but even that won't be broken with this.
So this is not directed specifically at Shadowcat, It's more a general observation after reading through many of the SLA threads. Most people defending the change are saying that it's not a bad thing because even with the changes the improved prestige classes are weaker than a full Wizard, Sorcerer or even Magus. And I agree that they do seem to be right, This change probably won't result in totally broken builds. However one thing that I haven't seen addressed in any of the threads is what this does to further marginalize some of the less optimal core classes. If I am making a fighter is there any reason not to make my build (caster 1/fighter 9 ek 10)?
You'd lose:
Armor training 3&4 which are pretty weak abilities.
Weapon training 3&4 which does hurt a little but made up for with gloves of dueling
Bonus feats which with the EK's feats and the feat you probably get from your caster class = 1 feat total
Armor mastery. Again a pretty weak ability for the level you get it at.
Weapon mastery- this is a pretty good ability but it's 20th level which few people ever see.
You gain:
10 levels of spell casting
Access to using items with no UMD check
A bloodline, school power or arcane pool
better saves
To me this pretty much puts the final nail in the pure fighter's coffin.
For rogues it's not quite as cut and dried. The trickster's horrible BAB and lack of any bonus feats hurt. But Rogue 3/Magus 1/EK 10/AT 6 keeps the 3/4 BAB, gives you 16 levels of casting and 5d6 of sneak attack. Even with the lack of utility spells on the magus list I think it more than outweighs what you lose.
The nail was already in the fighters coffin. Under the previous rules you could just as easily go Wiz5/Ftr1/EK10/Arcane Archer 4 or Sor6/Pal2/EK10/Dragon Disciple 2 and be far better off than straight Ftr2o and worse off than straight Wiz or Sorc 20.
The difference being Wizard 5/fighter 1 or sorc 6/Paladin 2 aren't holding the front line through half their careers. They eventually hold their own in melee but only after some growing pains that many players didn't want to put up with. They also both have some flavor and role play restrictions that players wouldn't want to deal with.