|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do note that the FAQ also says that SLAs are not spells and that things that affecting spellcasting only affect actual spellcasting. But this is at odds with the most recent clarifications.
This is all the fault of that line in the CRB saying SLAs can be used to make magic items. I still think we should just get rid of that line and rescind all this.
I actually like that change.
I think if you look at SLA as individual abilities that don't suit any spell level requirement pre-requisites it could work find.
If you can cast Daylight once a day, great. You have access to an arcane source and you can use it to craft items that require daylight.
No issue for me there. In fact it opens up all sorts of interesting new parallel options. Arcane Striking Gnome fighters and barbarians. Arcane striking rogues with minor magic.
Those are cool concepts that basically allow access to low level feats which isn't going to particularly break anything.
It is when you give that the added value of making you a caster of 3rd level spells that issues arise, as now you are bypassing 4 levels of investment.
I like parallel options. This makes a Gnome fighter an interesting choice. This bumps the rogue's minor magic ability to create a whole parallel track that is really potentially interesting, but not broken or over powered.
These are just side options. I like additional options. I don't like clearly superior options that obsolete what should be the core.
But it seems that things between rule sets are causing confusion and drifting into minutia rather than asking "What is the best for the game?"
And frankly, things like this may be why we are ready for 1.5.
I actually like that change.
I think if you look at SLA as individual abilities that don't suit any spell level requirement pre-requisites it could work find.
If you can cast Daylight once a day, great. You have access to an arcane source and you can use it to craft items that require daylight.
No issue for me there. In fact it opens up all sorts of interesting new parallel options. Arcane Striking Gnome fighters and barbarians. Arcane striking rogues with minor magic.
Those are cool concepts that basically allow access to low level feats which isn't going to particularly break anything.
It is when you give that the added value of making you a caster of 3rd level spells that issues arise, as now you are bypassing 4 levels of investment.
I like parallel options. This makes a Gnome fighter an interesting choice. This bumps the rogue's minor magic ability to create a whole parallel track that is really potentially interesting, but not broken or over powered.
These are just side options. I like additional options. I don't like clearly superior options that obsolete what should be the core.
But it seems that things between rule sets are causing confusion and drifting into minutia rather than asking "What is the best for the game?"
And frankly, things like this may be why we are ready for 1.5.
I agree. But I'd like to add that 1.5 should be written in the style of the Beginner Box.
|
|
Which is why I said in the other thread the perfect counter to DnD next and all it's closed playtesting is for Paizo to announce they are going to release a backward compatible open source 1.5 core rulebook with a year (or even two years) of open play-testing.
Worked against 4e, and that was before Pathfinder was the bestselling RPG.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that I find a little sad is that many people (including myself) have been asking Paizo for more FAQs because we want the rules to be more clear. Now that we have more FAQs people are asking Paizo to stop giving us FAQs because they 'change the game'.
This is why we can't have nice things. I just hope that Paizo doesn't eventually get fed up with our antics, lol.
|
For the record, here (at the bottom of this page) is the line about magic items that precipitated the shift in understanding SLAs:
Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind.
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect.
And for more of a look at what the devs might have been thinking, I like this pair of SKR posts:
And this also enables crafting magic items who don't even involve the specific spell/SLA but require a certain CL for their effect, e.g. normal vanilla magic weapons/armor?Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
Yes.
Correct.
In fact, until I found the "can use SLA" rule at the start of the Magic Items chapter, we almost ruled that an SLA creature could select the feat, but could only craft things that didn't have spell requirements, as all of the backmatter about item creation just talks about "have the spell prepared (or known, if a bard or sorcerer)," which would still allow for +1 weapons and such.
I just don't see why counterspelling (even SLA vs. SLA) is banned,basically that is THE only difference of SLAs vs. (Still/Silent/Eschewed) Spells. Why?A wizard did it. I mean, 3.5 did it. Backwards compatibility, not having time to review every aspect of the game before publication.
|
|
@Drachasor - Two things.
1. RAW is always going to be an interpretation of RAI, not the other way around.
2. This version was a rushed attempt to incorporate a houseruled 3.5 ruleset into a new ruleset in order to save a company that found themselves out in the cold when WOTC abandoned the OGL.
It is amazing how well Jason did given what he was under. But we are at a point where the Core Rulebook is old enough that giving it a full once over to clean out all the problems and revise makes sense, so long as it keeps to the d20 we all know and love.
@Drachasor - Two things.
1. RAW is always going to be an interpretation of RAI, not the other way around.
2. This version was a rushed attempt to incorporate a houseruled 3.5 ruleset into a new ruleset in order to save a company that found themselves out in the cold when WOTC abandoned the OGL.
It is amazing how well Jason did given what he was under. But we are at a point where the Core Rulebook is old enough that giving it a full once over to clean out all the problems and revise makes sense, so long as it keeps to the d20 we all know and love.
10-15% page count could be chopped and the book would be clearer for it.
|
|
This version was a rushed attempt to incorporate a houseruled 3.5 ruleset into a new ruleset in order to save a company that found themselves out in the cold when WOTC abandoned the OGL.
It is amazing how well Jason did given what he was under. But we are at a point where the Core Rulebook is old enough that giving it a full once over to clean out all the problems and revise makes sense, so long as it keeps to the d20 we all know and love.
Yup. Count me in on "looking forward to a cleaned-up PF." But it's tricky. The possibility of a 1.5 came up in the Ask James Jacobs thread recently. Here's what JJ had to say:
Do you think a "rules patch" would be a viable option instead of a new edition of Pathfinder? Something like a book that "converts" existing rules to a new edition, rather than re-releasing all the core books again. It would be like the 3.5 conversion book, except big and replacing new edition core books. That would certainly solve the problem of keeping all of the books useful moving forward.So... something like 3.5 was for 3rd edition?
I think that's a viable option, but I also think that folks will regard that as a new edition in the same way that folks regarded 3.5 as a new edition, despite WotC's claims that it was not.
Ask yourself this. If this is the "way it has been all along" then why is there NOT ONE SINGLE NPC in NPC CODEX built to these standards?The Gnomish Arcane Archer on pg 203 could have used it, but did not.
The Gnomish Eldritch Knight on pg 221 could have used it, but did not.
How do you know they didn't? I don't see anything detailing the order in which the class levels/prestige class levels were taken.
Plus, what good is an arcane archer or eldritch knight with just gnomish spell-like abilities as magic? An arcane archer wants to imbue his arrows with decent spells and an eldritch knight wants to advance as a caster while also advancing with good fighting skills. Neither goal is going to be met by sticking to a gnome's inherent spell-like abilities even if you used them to enable an earlier entry into the prestige class.
|
|
RAW is the best wording you can come up with to express RAI, within the confines of word count.
And words are always subject to interpretation. Otherwise every Supreme Court Decision would be 9-0.
If you think you can have an unchallenged RAW, you are out of your mind.
And worse, if you set that as the goal you make the perfect the enemy of improvement, and we get nowhere.
At this point there is a lot about SLA to discuss. Hell, it may eventually be a distinction with a completely different meaning in future versions.
If I were in charge, any ability you get in a non-level adjusted class would be considered a 1st level spell, with level adjustment being set on the full caster level progression to determine what level spell an SLA is considered.
But that would probably have tons of unintended consequences as well...
It seems like the Devs decided to treat SLAs more like spells, and now the differences that lead to the distinction are coming to the front.
We'll see.
|
|
Ask yourself this. If this is the "way it has been all along" then why is there NOT ONE SINGLE NPC in NPC CODEX built to these standards?The Gnomish Arcane Archer on pg 203 could have used it, but did not.
The Gnomish Eldritch Knight on pg 221 could have used it, but did not.
How do you know they didn't? I don't see anything detailing the order in which the class levels/prestige class levels were taken.
Plus, what good is an arcane archer or eldritch knight with just gnomish spell-like abilities as magic? An arcane archer wants to imbue his arrows with decent spells and an eldritch knight wants to advance as a caster while also advancing with good fighting skills. Neither goal is going to be met by sticking to a gnome's inherent spell-like abilities even if you used them to enable an earlier entry into the prestige class.
The link I posted earlier makes it clear that SKR ruled differently on the matter up until 5/6
This is a change. That isn't a bad thing, and I disagree with the OP that this is a "wrong" way to do it.
But it is 100% a change.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I want to put my finger on the pulse of this thread and see if I'm following where everyone's at now. Mostly because some folks have gone from "this isn't necessarily how it is" to "this is a change".
Is there general agreement that - for good or ill, and regardless of whether it used to be the case or not - recent FAQs and designer commentary mean that you can now qualify for certain PrC's via SLAs?
Is the current main topic of discussion centering around whether that idea is a clarification or rules, a change of rules, a change of intent, or some other thing; as well as whether or not the FAQ was the appropriate place for it?
|
|
And that is what the op is saying, the new FAQ just hange the things. There was a rule before, and there is a completely iferent rule now.
But it's worth keeping in mind that this wasn't an arbitrary, instantaneous change. It was a several-FAQ process kicked off when the designers noticed (and felt bound to honor) rules text that they had previously missed. The end result is a pretty big shift in how SLAs are understood, but it's not like it was an on-the-dime turnaround. And it does make the FAQ more consistent with the printed rules.
(Though maybe you agree with Cheapy that they should have just eratta'd out the offending line. But they chose not to.)
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does mean that treating the Core Rulebook like the freakin' US Constitution is silly.
Some of those Amendments have holes you can drive a truck through. And the way they erratta'd the 18th Amendment by issuing the so-called "21st Amendment" instead of just fixing what was wrong with the 18th? Totally not cool, man.
|
|
For the record, the PDT just updated the FAQ to explicitly acknowledge the PrC implication:
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.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.
Let me address that last issue first. If several people question what a FAQ means then the FAQ is NOT clear.
NO! Not even close. Look, it’s true that sometimes the FAQ isn’t clear. It’s true that sometimes the FAQ opens new questions. But just because “several people question what a FAQ means “ does NOT mean “the FAQ is NOT clear”. Some people will argue no matter what. Take the example of using Vestigial limbs for extra attacks. Other people argue just to rile up the Devs- in other words they are trolls. Some posters just hit the FAQ button to annoy Sean.
4th ED was good and bad. What was great is if you subscribed. They when you did your PC, they auto-corrected, they fixed all the FAQ, the rules changes, and the brokenness. I admit, if you didn’t subscribe, it could be tough.
|
|
@Jiggy - It is both.
There has clearly, unquestionably, been a change to SLA. You can look at what SKR wrote then and what he writes now.
That is a dramatic change. One can argue it was a realization that they were "wrong" and now are "right" but one can not reasonably argue that is not a change.
Now within that framework there is a shift from "SLA is not a spell" to "SLA is more a spell than not a spell". With that comes using SLA to craft and to meet prerequisites. But in that process the question is where is the differentiation between spell and spell-like in qualification. With the change, we add the cool ability to give access to arcane based feats with less investment, which is cool.
At the same time, did they really mean for you to be able to skip level and levels of class pre-requisites by being a specific race, or was that an unintended consequence.
I think this is more complicated than was originally thought, considering it just happened about two months ago that a Dev read a passage differently than they had before. And while I don't disagree with the reading, to follow Vic's lead I don't disagree that the original US constitution had all that three fifths language...
So where I think we are is the Devs have said you can use it to qualify for crafting and feats, and that they are arcane generally and...well...I'm waiting to hear on the rest but I can see a strong case either way.
I have some thoughts on the matter myself.
1) I like the chance as it was worded. The idea that if an ability functions as a spell, its considered the same as being able to cast that spell for meeting prerequisites. For example, I could see taking this FAQ one step further to allow a creature that uses Supernatural Abilities that mimic spells to qualify for specific feats that require those spells. The big example I can think of is allowing a shadowdancer's Shadow Jump to count as dimension door for the purpose of qualifying for the Dimensional Dervish feat chain.
2) For me, this FAQ stops short at anything that requires the ability to cast spells. You have the ability to cast one specific spell a couple times per day; you don't have the ability to actually cast arcane spells. For that, you would need the Spells class feature. All of this Prestige Class chatter not only seems like a pretty loose interpretation of the rules to me, but also as nothing but gibberish; after all, I could only find one, maybe two Prestige Classes that are worth using this loophole for, and that's mostly restricted to the Mystic Theurge, which is a poor Prestige Class option becoming slightly less detrimental to your party. For nearly every other option, using a SLA to qualify for a Prestige Class means that you are actually worse off then you were before because you don't have a caster level (and spells per day) to advance through the Prestige Class.
Yes, that's a pretty loose interpretation, but Paizo has confirmed that as the official interpretation there.
That is basically a choice on their part, indicating that they think such functionality is pretty cool and isn't unbalancing,
i.e. they wanted that interpretation more than the alternatives which would disallow that.
In home games you can rule otherwise, and indeed you aren't violating the RAW there, only the offical interpretation of vague RAW phrasing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside/tangent, this FAQ reminds me of what happened when the monk's flurry of blows was FAQed a while back. Not the same situation, I admit, but a case where clarification via FAQ has opened a can of worms due to standing interpretations of the rules by players vs. developer interpretations.
In all other ways, they are treated like spells. Nice try though.
Still trying to argue this wasn't a change? That ship sailed hours ago. But whatever floats your boat I suppose.
So you're not actually going to write a response? You don't actually have a meaningful argument? Cool, whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Here's my response. The text:
...they are treated like spells.
Doesn't actually appear in the Core Rulebook. As far as I can tell, you just made it up.
But let's just save time, shall we? Whatever it is you're trying to win, I concede. You're clearly too smart for me.
RAW is the best wording you can come up with to express RAI, within the confines of word count.
And words are always subject to interpretation. Otherwise every Supreme Court Decision would be 9-0.
If you think you can have an unchallenged RAW, you are out of your mind.
And worse, if you set that as the goal you make the perfect the enemy of improvement, and we get nowhere.
If your argument is that they don't need to use errata when RAW explicitly contradicts what they are saying is RAI, then you're wrong. If your argument is that they don't need to use errata when RAW very clearly implies something else than what they said is RAI, then you're wrong.
Beyond that I do agree RAW won't ever be perfect. That's no reason not to errata mistakes as you come across them. 3.X certainly showed it wasn't hard to do while maintaining a similar word count.
I think the ability and necessity to errata things depends on the rule in question, and it not just about having a similar word count. The idea is to keep all of the words on the same page as the original book. If you errata enough things eventually something will be pushed to another page.
So you're not actually going to write a response? You don't actually have a meaningful argument? Cool, whatever floats your boat I suppose.Here's my response. The text:
...they are treated like spells.Doesn't actually appear in the Core Rulebook. As far as I can tell, you just made it up.
But let's just save time, shall we? Whatever it is you're trying to win, I concede. You're clearly too smart for me.
Bugley there was a change, but the point you used was countered by what Jiggy point.
Basically you got to the correct destination, but you took the wrong path.
If would be like me arguing the RAI of a rule is X, and I may be correct, but my explanation of why might be incorrect.
|
|
Request for a quick clarification of the "arcane or divine" FAQ: SLA FAQ Clarification Request: Arcane / Divine
Please hop over there and click the FAQ flag!
How about this: Can you find, in any Paizo product, a single instance of an NPC that uses a spell-like ability to qualify for a PRC? Because I can provide many examples which do not.
It's still better than the "clarification" that monks can't attack twice with a single weapon -- in that case, not only were there no examples of it working that way, there were several examples of it working the opposite way!
|
|
It does mean that treating the Core Rulebook like the freakin' US Constitution is silly.
Some of those Amendments have holes you can drive a truck through. And the way they erratta'd the 18th Amendment by issuing the so-called "21st Amendment" instead of just fixing what was wrong with the 18th? Totally not cool, man.
Vic, to add levels of Gunslinger, do I need to belong to a well regulated militia? Thanks in advance for clarifying.
4. You can't really learn the rules without the PFSRD, since it is the only accurate source. It makes buying the books a lot less useful..
I don't find the PFSRD very accurate at all, altho it does have a lot of stuff. And, I have learned the rules, without going to the PFSRD.
Look, the little things that are now being answered in FAQ are corners cases only of interest to a few. Not know that SLA can get you into a PrC is something of very little import, really. Few people want to get into a PrC and even if so, often taking a couple extra levels in a class as opposed to the PrC is hardly a PC-killer move.
Most of the FAQ are just putting into words what most of us have played all along as most of us use common sense and RAI.