I think that trying to say '3rd level spells are not sufficient for 2nd level spells' is looking to wheedle.
It seems more a disagreement with the SLA ruling on what will qualify.
If that's the case, then take the stand against that which you object. Its far firmer ground.
I disagree. I don't dislike the ruling at all. However, I agree with jlighter's basic explanation for RAW.
It's not wheedling - it's being specific.
While I'd allow it based on the spirit, I'd argue that his ground is more solid, over-all, as in, "iterative increases" (such as sneak attack) count for minimums whereas "non-iterative increases" (such as spellcasting) do not.
The reason that spellcasting is not iterative is exclusively because of spell-like abilities. If those didn't exist, it may well be considered iterative.
It's a difference in organization.
I know you reject that. You've said as much in plain language. But disagreeing with your disagreement isn't wheedling. It's disagreeing.
James, you're completely ignoring the logic in the other direction in an effort to make a point.
if they added a way for a character to go from BAB+5 to BAB+7, then characters with BAB+7 would no longer qualify? (I mean prior to this ruling there was not a way to be able to cast 3rd level spells prior to being able to cast 2nd level ones).Do you find this troubling? I think it makes your position against as having elected to rest on very shaky grounds.
It does not. Because Base Attack Bonus is exclusively useful in terms of cumulative growth. (My apologies for use of "iterative" - I'm distracted by a toddler and often mix words.)
The reason spellcasting would be considered the direct result of additive growth (being inclusive instead of individual) is because it only came from growth over time.
Now, however, spellcasting (by virtue of being found in individual packets included in spell-like abilities) has been broken into its individual components. You have caster level and spell level which are different from each other and have become decoupled by virtue of the nature of creatures with spell-like abilities. Because spell-like abilities don't follow the progression of spell-casters, you can no longer create a direct link from one point to another.
To use an example from another thread, efreeti have a caster level of 11, but can use ninth level spells as spell-like abilities.
Base Attack Bonus cannot function that way at all. It's impossible. You can change attack bonus, but not base attack bonus.
Learning new spells as you gain levels (which is necessary to utilize caster level) is more akin to gaining proficiency with weapons of a certain category than it is increasing base attack bonus. The difference is that these categories are given numeric distinctions to create the DC for the spell.
Caster level roughly equates to base attack bonus: they both increase solidly over time and stack with themselves as they increase.
Thus, if something calls for caster level, than yes, you'd be correct. But if it calls for a spell of a given level, it's more analogous to require proficiency with a weapon of a specific category.
Unfortunately, that's about as close as you're going to get for an analogy.
Simple Weapons are the most basic "level" (or closest equivalent)
Martial Weapons are the second "level" (or closest equivalent)
Exotic Weapons are the third "level" (or closest equivalent)
Wizards, for example - who are masters of magical proficiency - are not masters of weapon proficiency. They lack the most basic ability to utilize weapons ("simple weapon proficiency"), and instead have a smattering of lesser abilities ("simple-weapon-like proficiency"). Thus, despite the fact that they have proficiency with some simple weapons, it wouldn't (necessarily) qualify for something that requires "simple weapon proficiency" (depending on the wording).
A wizard could, then, take proficiency with an exotic weapon. And exotic weapons are harder to come by (and often more powerful) than martial weapons, right? But that won't qualify them for a class that requires martial weapon proficiency.
The proficiency types follow a certain amount of exclusivity (like spell levels) and general power tendencies without any absolute rule about it (like spell levels), but still require exactly what they require.
is withn
The problem isn't the difference between base attack bonus and spell level. Those are two different things entirely and function very differently. The problem with comparing them at all.
Compare base attack with base caster level. Compare spell level with proficiency. Things make much more sense that way.
I think the "3 Options" is still missing an option.
1. Accept and embrace the FAQ. A 3rd level SLA can be used as a pre-req for Mystic Theurge.
2. Accept the FAQ, but don't embrace it. You need a 2nd level SLA for Mystic Theurge, but a higher level one will not suffice.
3. Reject the FAQ entirely.
4. Read the original FAQ as stating the same effective thing as the 3.5 rules explicitly said.
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.
So a spell like ability counts for specific-spell requirements (Dimension Door for Dimensional Agility, Mage Hand for Arcane Trickster) but not as a general spellcasting requirement (2nd level spells).
Except it does count for general spellcasting requirements--but only if it actually meets those requirements. A 3rd level-SLA is not a 2nd level spell, while a 2nd-level SLA (basically) is.
blahpers, that is my point. The FAQ doesn't say it counts as general spell casting requirements. It says it counts as the ability to cast that spell. What "able to cast that spell for purposed of prerequisites or requirements" is not defined.
The example in the FAQ uses a feat with a specific spell requirement, not a general spell casting requirement.
Considering this very idea is explicitly covered in the old 3.5 rules in a way that doesn't contradict the FAQ's wording, I advocate for that interpretation.
It still allows SLA to be useful in qualifying for feats or PrC. But it limits how useful they are in doing so.
blahpers, that is my point. The FAQ doesn't say it counts as general spell casting requirements. It says it counts as the ability to cast that spell. What "able to cast that spell for purposed of prerequisites or requirements" is not defined.
The example in the FAQ uses a feat with a specific spell requirement, not a general spell casting requirement.
Considering this very idea is explicitly covered in the old 3.5 rules in a way that doesn't contradict the FAQ's wording, I advocate for that interpretation.
It still allows SLA to be useful in qualifying for feats or PrC. But it limits how useful they are in doing so.
The devs have been pretty explicit that SLA's qualify as prereqs for "that level" of spell not just "that spell."
blahpers, that is my point. The FAQ doesn't say it counts as general spell casting requirements. It says it counts as the ability to cast that spell. What "able to cast that spell for purposed of prerequisites or requirements" is not defined.
The example in the FAQ uses a feat with a specific spell requirement, not a general spell casting requirement.
Considering this very idea is explicitly covered in the old 3.5 rules in a way that doesn't contradict the FAQ's wording, I advocate for that interpretation.
It still allows SLA to be useful in qualifying for feats or PrC. But it limits how useful they are in doing so.
It counts as "that spell", meaning you are treated as if you could cast that spell. If you can cast that spell, you can cast "n-level spells", where n is the level of the spell in question.
With that, I do not agree. It's a silly distinction, but it is a distinction. If you can't cast the spell or SLA as if it were a 2nd level spell, then you can't meet the criteria.
Personally, I find the entire issue silly.
|
Personally, I do agree with the notion of interpreting it as SLAs count as being able to cast that spell, but not to cast spells of that level. A Rogue who gets Mage Hand from taking the Minor Magic rogue talent should qualify for that part of the AT prerequisites. But an Aasimar Rogue shouldn't be able to do that to auto-qualify for AT without taking an appropriate number of caster class levels. I do not believe that being able to cast a spell of level N means you automatically count as being able to cast spells of levels A-M. That notion seems a tad ridiculous, the same as assuming proficiency in Elven Curve Blade or Bastard Sword qualifies for Martial Proficiency pre-reqs.
That said, what makes this an Apples to Oranges issue is the SLA ruling.
|
I originally found myself in the 3rd can't cast because it specifically says "casts 2nd lvl"
But after reading this, I'm inclined to take the stance it qualifies.
The people trying to make a distinction between BAB, Sneak attack, etc are creating a difference purely based on semantics, and they are applying it wrong.
As much as you want to declare them different, they are both linear progerssions that assume a prior bonuses/levels were there to get to the current point.
Let's take shadowdancer.
one requirement is mobility.
That has a requirement of it's own of dex 13.
If the character loses their dex due to age, are they no longer benefiting from shadowdancer, or able to take further levels in it? It's after all assumed that you had the dex of 13 or better to pick up the feat, maybe it's an unwritten assumption you have it as well. Which leads us to the well SLAs can't apply (wrong due to FAQ, which leads this thought to be wrong)
And What if we look at Arcane Savant, it says "any one item creation feat" if we have two or more do we no longer qualify?
Likewise with Celestial Knight, it says must be proficient in Heavy Armor, if we're not proficient in medium are we ineligible?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Let's take shadowdancer.
one requirement is mobility.
That has a requirement of it's own of dex 13.
If the character loses their dex due to age, are they no longer benefiting from shadowdancer, or able to take further levels in it? It's after all assumed that you had the dex of 13 or better to pick up the feat, maybe it's an unwritten assumption you have it as well. Which leads us to the well SLAs can't apply (wrong due to FAQ, which leads this thought to be wrong)
And What if we look at Arcane Savant, it says "any one item creation feat" if we have two or more do we no longer qualify?
Likewise with Celestial Knight, it says must be proficient in Heavy Armor, if we're not proficient in medium are we ineligible?
If you lose your 13 Dex, you lose the benefits of Mobility, and therefore you can't take more levels of shadowdancer. That's pretty well spelled out in how prereqs work.
Your Arcane Savant question is just the BAB question rephrased.
A better way to think about the "against" point is to flip around your last question - would a character who somehow only had Heavy armor proficiency qualify for a prestige class that required Medium armor proficiency? I would say no, and I would say this is very analogous to the SLA issue. It's currently possible to get "3rd level spells" while having skipped 1st and 2nd level spells. Since you skipped them you don't have them.
Nuhhhhhh... Sorry guys, but this discussion is stupid from the get-go.
Mystic Theurge requires arcane and divine spells of 2nd level. Paizo has said clearly that if you have such spells as a spell-like ability, you qualify. I can well see why they wouldn't, but now there IS such a ruling.
What does it mean?
It means the character needs to have access to a certain power of spells from both the arcane and the divine types of magic.
You could say that it's lvl 2 OR ABOVE, or you could go with EXACTLY lvl 2. What speaks for what?
Well, if you were completely anal about the rules meaning precisely what the letters written say, yes, you would end up with EXACTLY. But again - the requirement is one of having access to enough power. It's not that you need to be able to cast mirror image, or cure moderate wounds, or flaming sphere. It's that somehow, you know how to handle power of a certain magnitude. Guess what? A higher level spell is always "thought" to be of a higher power than a lower level spell.
I posit that the only sensible interpretation is that yes, with a daylight spell ability, you count as having that power.
End result: You get early access to sub-par prestige classes. Woo f@#&ing hoo. When the boards get drowned in complaints about overpowered mystic theurges, I will be quite ready to revisit this question. If Paizo reversed their ruling about SLAs to qualify, the answer would be just as clearly "no, you can't use the aasimar SLA to qualify for mystic theurge".
Hmmm... if I hit a shadowdancer with enough Dex damage to go below 13, do they suddenly lose ALL their shadowdancer abilities???
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Hmmm... if I hit a shadowdancer with enough Dex damage to go below 13, do they suddenly lose ALL their shadowdancer abilities???
You would if damage to an ability actually lowered the stat.
Drain however does lower, so if drained to 12 Dex you would lose all Shadowdancer abilities (except BAB and skill and saves.)
Wooo fun.
I originally found myself in the 3rd can't cast because it specifically says "casts 2nd lvl"
But after reading this, I'm inclined to take the stance it qualifies.
The people trying to make a distinction between BAB, Sneak attack, etc are creating a difference purely based on semantics, and they are applying it wrong.
As much as you want to declare them different, they are both linear progerssions that assume a prior bonuses/levels were there to get to the current point.
Let's take shadowdancer.
one requirement is mobility.
That has a requirement of it's own of dex 13.
If the character loses their dex due to age, are they no longer benefiting from shadowdancer, or able to take further levels in it? It's after all assumed that you had the dex of 13 or better to pick up the feat, maybe it's an unwritten assumption you have it as well. Which leads us to the well SLAs can't apply (wrong due to FAQ, which leads this thought to be wrong)
And What if we look at Arcane Savant, it says "any one item creation feat" if we have two or more do we no longer qualify?
Likewise with Celestial Knight, it says must be proficient in Heavy Armor, if we're not proficient in medium are we ineligible?
On the shadow dancer who loses dexterity... I'm not actually sure. I know in 3rd edition they would have. I've not actually seen anything in Pathfinder that I recall that says that if you no longer qualify for a PrC later than you can no longer take levels (though I seem to recall that wording on feats). Also, you can, in theory, get mobility from some source that allows you to bypass the DEX requirement, such as a hypothetical class feature or bonus feat. While the most common form is the feat that requires the dexterity, that's not an ironclad ruling of Pathfinder. That is, in fact, the reason that "good" PrC design (according to every piece of advice I've ever seen written on it) includes skill ranks instead of modifiers, feat requirements instead of ability score requirements, and base attack bonus instead of total attack bonus. Because there are ways around the ability score thing.
I'll get to this more after James' post below, but mostly to ask a question.
As to the other examples: no to both questions. Also, those aren't solid examples (though I see the logic) because they're doing the opposite of what I was talking about before.
Arcane Savant doesn't say you can't have more than one item creation feat.
Celestial Knight doesn't say you must have other proficiency (though I'm really curious how you'd get proficiency with heavy armor without having it in medium or light - no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually curious if this is a thing). In case the way I'm interpreting what you meant backwards from your intent, the answer is still "no", because Celestial Knight doesn't say you can't have proficiency other than heavy.
While you could choose to read the English that way you're suggesting, it would be completely nonsensical, because it would become impossible to acquire a prestige class ever, because you automatically always have things other than the prerequisites.
Your strongest example is the, "any one item creation feat". That could easily be read as only one.
But all of that is different in its entirety from what I'm talking about.
If something says, "must cast second level spells" (which spell-likes, by way of FAQ parts 1 and "oops", now qualify for) and you can cast third level spells and second level spells, no one is arguing that this disqualifies you. It doesn't have the "only" in "must cast second level spells", thus, despite being open to interpretation, there is only one that makes any kind of path to follow, that of "at least" (and thus being able to cast more or less is irrelevant).
However where we're disagreeing is with the "at least". And the reason we're disagreeing with that is because spells are ordered by number according to "level" (). Which, if spell-likes did not qualify, then the only way to qualify is by standard progression (i.e. first, then second, then third).
But since spell-like abilities do qualify, the progression is bypassed entirely.
It's like this. Let's say that something requires weapon specialization. Normally, that means a fourth level fighter (and thus a minimum of BAB +4).
Let's say that I have one race that gives me weapon specialization for free at first level (ignoring normal prerequisites). In the spirit of this ruling, this means they qualify for the class (which is true - they actually meet the prerequisites), so no one is arguing this, though some think it silly.
Let's say another race grants greater weapon specialization instead (also ignoring normal prerequisites). Do they qualify?
No. Not according to RAW or the intent of the FAQ (and subsequent clarification by the devs about spell-likes and qualifications). ()
But why wouldn't it?
Because they don't have weapon specialization. It doesn't require "greater weapon specialization", just "weapon specialization". The two are different, and it's clarified that they're different in greater weapon specialization's description.
This bonus to damage stacks with other damage roll bonuses, including any you gain from Weapon Specialization.
Note that it includes weapon specialization in it's wording, thus indicating that they are different and don't count for the same things.
Now that said, I agree with the idea that there's no reason to arbitrarily deny it. I'd let it go. But it's entirely valid to read it that it can't. I don't think it's the best method of handling it, but I do agree that the rules read that way.
Hmmm... if I hit a shadowdancer with enough Dex damage to go below 13, do they suddenly lose ALL their shadowdancer abilities???You would if damage to an ability actually lowered the stat.
Drain however does lower, so if drained to 12 Dex you would lose all Shadowdancer abilities (except BAB and skill and saves.)
Just curious: does that hold true in PF anymore? I've started to blend editions, and don't recall if losing ability scores due to drain is enough to kick you out of your feats (I think so) and thus your prestige classes (I don't recall this).
Is there any requirement that makes intended sense to be read as EXACTLY?
Yes: Proficiency and Feats.
Your use of the word "exact" is different from mine (and thus the divergence in our views), so let me explain.
Your definition of exact means, "if you have something else as well, it's no longer valid".
My definition of exact means, "if you have something else that in many cases requires something less, but in certain cases does not, that latter method does not count.
Let's use Shadow Dancer (and the mobility feat) as an example.
Example that fits your definition:
"You have the feat mobility. But you also have the feat dodge! You may not enter the prestige class!"
This is identical to interpreting having a "too high" base attack bonus, even if the degree of interpretation is different. It's the concept of having "too much" of something.
Example that fits my definition:
"You have the feat spring attack. But you don't have mobility! You may not enter the prestige class!"
Even though spring attack normally requires mobility, I can be a monk that doesn't have mobility that does have spring attack. Thus, my monk wouldn't qualify for Shadow Dancer.
I'm arguing that spell-likes function more directly like the second than the first.
Can you read things the other way? Probably. As I said, I'd do that in my own games. But by a more strict reading, it wouldn't fly.
EDIT: for word choice and to clarify my editing because I'd forgotten to do so earlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have been pretty explicit that SLA's qualify as prereqs for "that level" of spell not just "that spell."
[Nitpick]You can't be "pretty" explicit, it is either explicit or not. "Literally" and "explicit" are probably the two most over-used words I encounter regularly[/Nitpick]
I guess I just haven't seen these explicit opinions in FAQs or posts.
I have seen:
a)spell-like ability CL counts as CL for pre-req's
b)a specific spell like ability counts for item creation spell requirement
c)Spell like X counts as "cast spell X"
d)how to determine the spell level of spell likes
e)how to determine the source of a spell-like
But none of these explicitly say, spell like x (which would be arcane and 2nd level) is treated the same as "casting 2nd level spells."
Maybe I missed something more explicit, and even if not maybe it is exactly what the devs do have in mind. But as of now, I don't see it stated in such a way as to overturn my own reading. I understand and accept I am in the minority (though not alone), and that doesn't stop me from advocating my position.
Perhaps to stay more on topic, if I did accept "Spell like ability X (arcane 2nd level)" counts for requirements of "casting 2nd level spells" I would probably still be in the camp of "spell like ability Y (arcane 3rd level)" would not meet the requirement of "casting 2nd level spells".
I agree with several other posters that a)BAB +7 includes within it BAB +6, b)Skill rank 5 includes within it Skill rank 3, and c)a single spell-like ability considered 3rd level does not contain within it 2nd level.
To me, it is a logic problem. I am 32 years old. I can say I am 20 years old, and from a logic standpoint that statement is accurate.
The spell like ability doesn't operate like this, it isn't accurate to say the 3rd level spell like is also 2nd level.
@Samasboy1: Here's the FAQ in question. It's the 'edit' that directly implies that it counts as spell level X.
at least as far as I'm aware none of the spellcaster PrCs have a requirement of being able to cast a specific spell, but instead have a requirement of being able to cast spells of a minimum level.
Therefore, by adding the edit and stating that SLAs can qualify you for PrCs earlier than intended, the implication is that those SLAs meet the requirement of "Able to cast X level spells".
In order for your interpretation (that it doesn't mean "X level spells" but only particular spells) to remain logical, then there'd need to be an example of a caster PrC that required a specific spell.
I understand the edit has an implication, but its not strong enough for me to say one equals the other.
PrC that require a specific spell
Arcane Trickster (Mage Hand)
Agent of the Grave (Animate Dead)
Darkfire Adept (Summon Monster 3)
Mage of the Third Eye (Arcane Sight)
Diabolist (Lesser Planar Ally/Lesser Planar Binding)
Dissident of Dawn (Daylight)
Genie Binder (Lesser Planar Ally/Lesser Planar Binding)
Guild Agent (Detect Secret Doors)
Planes Walker (Magic Circle vs. Evil)
Possibly also Lore Master, Veiled Illusionist, and Winter Witch (each requires X number of Y type spells).
I really did not remember that many PrCs requiring specific spells.
Although I would ask - how many of those can be gained through racial SLAs (another component mentioned in the edit text)? I believe Daylight can be; can anything else?
Just by the by, I'm near-certain that during the discussions on this by JB and SKR, they stated that the intent of the FAQ would allow you to qualify early for Mystic Theurge and the like. I'll see if I can find the link.
[edit]
Here's the thread, and one of the specific comments:
"RJ Grady wrote: I'm sorry, this is just weird. I don't think low-level Eldritch Knights are going to be break the game, but I'm kind of annoyed at how the sense of "able to cast 3rd level spells" has been stretched beyond what can be readily intuited from the text. It seems as if the rules have changed in order to favor SKR's favored interpretation of Arcane Strike, rather than errata'ing Arcane Strike.
SKR wrote: It's not just my interpretation of Arcane Strike, it's the design team's interpretation of Arcane Strike.
And making rulings about how the rules of the game are supposed to work is exactly the responsibility of the design team."
This is (I believe - there were about 6 of them going on at the time) the thread that led up to the edit on the FAQ.
Note that Eldritch Knight's requirement is "Able to cast 3rd level spells"; it's offered up as an example of what the FAQ now allows, and SKR does not correct it (there, or in other posts in the thread, or in the numerous other threads on the topic going on at the time).
The main unanswered question on the topic, as far as I know, is whether or not a 3rd-level SLA qualifies you for something that requires a 2nd level spell...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main unanswered question on the topic, as far as I know, is whether or not a 3rd-level SLA qualifies you for something that requires a 2nd level spell...
yeah I was originally completely against it, 3rd isn't 2nd level. But when you take the context of other bonuses that progress and are required... it's easy to see the other way of looking at it, that 3rd is greater than 2nd and qualifies for 2nd lvl...
That having skill ranks, BAB, saves, more of a spell, etc works.
Take for instance the lore master, 7 divinations required, one which must be 3rd level or higher.
If it says "one 3rd level divination" and didn't say "or higher" would you tell someone with a lvl 5 divination that they didn't qualify because they needed to go find a lvl 3?
A literalist would say yes, someone who reads more into would say no it's fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main unanswered question on the topic, as far as I know, is whether or not a 3rd-level SLA qualifies you for something that requires a 2nd level spell...yeah I was originally completely against it, 3rd isn't 2nd level. But when you take the context of other bonuses that progress and are required... it's easy to see the other way of looking at it, that 3rd is greater than 2nd and qualifies for 2nd lvl...
That having skill ranks, BAB, saves, more of a spell, etc works.
Take for instance the lore master, 7 divinations required, one which must be 3rd level or higher.
If it says "one 3rd level divination" and didn't say "or higher" would you tell someone with a lvl 5 divination that they didn't qualify because they needed to go find a lvl 3?
A literalist would say yes, someone who reads more into would say no it's fine.
Doesn't the fact that your example does say "or higher" indicate that prereqs which do not say "or higher" don't allow that exception?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the greatest hair splitters i've seen on these forums in a while. The ruling is ambiguous, sure. One interpretation is more generally consistent and allows more early entry PRC *race options*. The other is more literal and allows for fewer options. The literal interpretation does not limit *PRC options* as you can still enter any prestige class early, you are just more restricted in what race you have to take to get that entry. Assuming you have race variants, it doesn't even do that.
If anything the literal interpretation creates a more cheesy environment as you have to cherry pick your race or variant ability to suit your PRC entry. Ultimately, why bother with this restriction if it doesn't limit cheese anyway? If you are going to accept the ruling (if you don't, that's a different argument entirely), why not just go by the simplest interpretation which creates the fewest headaches?
Sometimes I feel like people on these boards don't actually play Pathfinder, but instead some form of greenskinned forum time wasting.
|
|
The problem is that they language isn't always the same from writer to writer (and they've acknowledge this in the past)
here we have an example of language use
Page 48: Bladebound archetype, Life Drinker ability, last sentence, "must have" should be changed to "must have at least".
The "must have at least" language isn't actually needed. A 20 HD opponent has 10 HD and qualifies as a valid target for life drinker, in the same sense that a 20 Str opponent has 13 Str and qualifies for Power Attack.
He goes to clarify that having something beyond what's required is the same as having that lesser thing.
It's easy to read this and say 2nd is lesser than 3rd lvl spells, we can use it.
Sometimes rules aren't going to have the exact same name or wording.
* Part of that is because things are designed by different people and one prefers one wording to another.
* Part is because we don't want similar chunks of text near each other to be identical, because that's an awkward read and is boring.Note that the descriptions for flaming and frost aren't exactly identical, even though they work basically the same way. And would you really want the cleric class ability to be written as "channel energy (positive)" or "channel energy (negative)"? And the paladin ability as "channel energy (positive)"? And the necromancer ability "channel energy (positive, Turn Undead only)" or "channel energy (negative, Command Undead only)"? I mean, c'mon, try using that in a sentence. :/
* Part is because between book A and book B we've decided a better way to phrase a rule so it's clear to more people, so B's rule looks or is named just a little different than A's rule.
* Part is because English is a very flexible language, and whether you say "Sean kissed Jodi on their first date" or "Jodi was kissed by Sean on their first date," you should understand there was a kiss.
* Part of it is we have to wrap some text around a piece of art or make sure that a paragraph ends at the bottom of a page so a new header can start at the top, so we alter a word or two so the lines break differently. Not important words like "as a cleric of your level," but stuff that keeps the same intent. A paladin's ability could have been written as "Channel Energy: You channel energy as a cleric of your level. Paladins always channel positive energy, never negative energy, etc. etc." but it's cleaner to present it the way it is, rather than presenting negative channeling as a possible option for the paladin and then taking it away in the next sentence.
* And part of it is sometimes we make mistakes and don't write things as clearly as we should, or forget some obscure combination in this very complex game, or an author use a pre-errata wording of an ability when writing a new ability.
|
|
Doesn't the fact that your example does say "or higher" indicate that prereqs which do not say "or higher" don't allow that exception?If they were written by one person with that in mind, perhaps.
But I cannot recall offhand when 'or better' was used there... which PrCs use that?
-James
Both wordings appear in Core Prestige Classes (compare Arcane Trickster and Loremaster).
|
|
Also, interpreting requirements (the must have skill ranks, BAB, spell casting) as "must have had" makes it make a bit more sense. With Feats and Skill ranks (and possibly other requirements), you do have to maintain that minimum, something that was semi- impossible to undo before the retraining rules from Ultimate Campaign.
|
|
True. But since skill ranks and BAB can only really be interpreted as cumulative data, you did have 1, 2, and 3 before you put each successive point in. The only thing that stops spell levels being counted as cumulative is the SLA FAQ, which allows you to bypass any intermediary stages, as with feats. Does having Improved Two Weapon Fighting (but not Two Weapon Fighting) qualify for Crimson (Red Mantis) Assassin? No. Why should it? It's a different feat. The same can be said of SLAs. Higher proficiency doesn't mean you have the lower proficiency. A 3rd-level spell is not, nor does it contain, 1st- or 2nd-level spells (unless otherwise specified by spell). SLAs are not cumulative to anything, they just exist. Why should you gain a benefit for something you can't do normally and haven't otherwise earned?
When you lose BAB, you lose the benefit of such, such as losing the benefit of feats. And although it is a predecessor, 3E is irrelevant to this discussion since many relevant rules have been changed.
|
|
The very nature of the language you're using, "higher proficiency" means that it is greater and more than. Which as we have SKR stating that you count as having the prior even if it asks for a specific amount.
In the order of spell casting progression if I said after 4th lvl spells comes... you'd answer 5th lvl spells.
Likewise if I stated you need to be able to cast at least 2nd lvl spells, or if I told you you must be able to cast 2nd lvl spells, you'd view them as the same pre-req, even if in light of the way you are trying to talk that they'd be different.
From a writers point of view at the time, there's no reason to add extra language when must be able to cast 2nd lvl spells is the same as must be able to cast at least 2nd lvl spells.
When you read how pre-reqs work, and how SKR, FAQs, and other devs have talked, having something greater is perfectly fine for qualifying for something lesser.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really did not remember that many PrCs requiring specific spells.
Although I would ask - how many of those can be gained through racial SLAs (another component mentioned in the edit text)? I believe Daylight can be; can anything else?
Just by the by, I'm near-certain that during the discussions on this by JB and SKR, they stated that the intent of the FAQ would allow you to qualify early for Mystic Theurge and the like. I'll see if I can find the link.
[edit]
Here's the thread, and one of the specific comments:
Thanks for pointing out that thread.
Well, I still don't think the actual rules or FAQ state spell likes count as casting X-level spells, but I would definitely move this to at least RAI after reading the thread. Still not how I would run it in my game but that's not particularly relevant.
Which of those spells can you get as a racial spell like? All of them. Which can you get as a normal PC race? Not many.
I have seen Mage Hand and Daylight. Getting Detect Secret Doors should be easy through Rogue Talent or similar.
If anything the literal interpretation creates a more cheesy environment as you have to cherry pick your race or variant ability to suit your PRC entry. Ultimately, why bother with this restriction if it doesn't limit cheese anyway
No you don't. Nothing forces you to take those choices to qualify, you can qualify the same way anyone can qualify, using normal class abilities.
Normally Mystic Theurge would require Wiz 3/Cleric 3 (or Sorc 4, Oracle 4, etc). That spell-like abilities add additional ways to qualify is only additive, not restrictive.
True. But since skill ranks and BAB can only really be interpreted as cumulative data, you did have 1, 2, and 3 before you put each successive point in.
You are broke.
I hand you a $5 bill.
Did you have a $1 bill at some point between Broke and $5? Did you have a $2 bill?
If I level up and I dump 4 points into a skill I haven't put points into before, I went from 0 to 4, with no stops in between.
|
|
The very nature of the language you're using, "higher proficiency" means that it is greater and more than. Which as we have SKR stating that you count as having the prior even if it asks for a specific amount.
In the order of spell casting progression if I said after 4th lvl spells comes... you'd answer 5th lvl spells.
Likewise if I stated you need to be able to cast at least 2nd lvl spells, or if I told you you must be able to cast 2nd lvl spells, you'd view them as the same pre-req, even if in light of the way you are trying to talk that they'd be different.
From a writers point of view at the time, there's no reason to add extra language when must be able to cast 2nd lvl spells is the same as must be able to cast at least 2nd lvl spells.
When you read how pre-reqs work, and how SKR, FAQs, and other devs have talked, having something greater is perfectly fine for qualifying for something lesser.
In general, I would agree with you. The SKA FAQ changes the game, though, by making it so that one can surpass the prerequisites without ever meeting them. I have read how the pre-reqs work, and they only describe how they work in general. There are always exceptions, such as Monk/Ranger bonus feats, that bypass them. And I personally find a very large difference between saying "Pre-req requires X" vs saying "Pre-req requires X+" for any requirement. Especially when both wordings are used effectively side by side, and when they mean very different things. One has a specific condition, the other a minimum condition. Saying you need to be able to cast 2nd-level spells means you need to be able to cast them. Any lower or higher spell levels are irrelevant. Saying you need 2nd-level or higher spells is more open-ended.
As I've said previously, the only reason to look at the language this way is because it is now possible to meet a higher requirement without meeting the lower one. That wasn't possible before, because you can't have 6 of something without having 5 of that same thing. Even arguing that you could gain 6 skill ranks in one level doesn't mean that you don't have 5 skill ranks. BAB is likewise a cumulative function. Spell casting isn't when it comes to SLAs. They exist outside the normal cumulative process and thus are not part of it or subject to its limitations or interpretations. My opinion, of course.
|
|
True. But since skill ranks and BAB can only really be interpreted as cumulative data, you did have 1, 2, and 3 before you put each successive point in.You are broke.
I hand you a $5 bill.
Did you have a $1 bill at some point between Broke and $5? Did you have a $2 bill?
If I level up and I dump 4 points into a skill I haven't put points into before, I went from 0 to 4, with no stops in between.
The question isn't "Do I have a $1 bill." The question is "Do I have $1 dollar?" The answer of which is yes. That $5 bill is equivalent to 5 $1 bills, so the fact that the format is slightly different does nothing to affect the value.
Likewise, Instant Mastery grants four skill ranks. You still can't count to four without passing 1, 2, and 3. At least, not by the accepted standard method of counting.
If I hand you a sack of six apples and ask you if you could show me five apples, can you? Yes. The sixth apple doesn't matter. But, if I hand you a sack with three chickens in it with the numbers 1, 3, and 4, then ask you to throw chicken number 2 at my head, can you? No. That's the difference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you're creating distinction between spells being cumulative functions of your leveling your character and skills/hd/bab/saves, etc being cumulative functions of your leveling your character that does not exist.
You're changing this distinction in light of a new ruling that never has existed for the sole purpose of excluding something that is clearly thought to be trivial (this is evidence of the whole prestige classes for casters just aren't a concern at the moment *paraphrasing obviously*)
The ruling its self that's the root of this issue clearly demonstrates that the intent is "we don't care, this is not particularly powerful an option anyhow" to spend time debating the issue of if casting a higher lvl spell counts as also casting a lower lvl spell seems silly in that light. To this issue, RAW doesn't specifically address it nor does RAI.
Everything in this game works on a linear progression, either numerically or in other phrasing, such as Lesser (name), then just (name), then greater (name). While there are notable exceptions to somethings, namely progression of some feats through archetypes that provide exceptions you can expect someone with say mobility, to have a dex of 13, etc...
like wise the writers expected that if you have a skill rank of 4, you had one of 3. And if you can cast lvl 2 spells, you can cast lvl 1 spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And intention at the time of writing goes out the window when things are reinterpreted based on new possibilities that did not exist at the time of writing. I agree, this issue is trivial. So is the game. Yet you're still arguing it, as am I.
As for the distinction, I agree. It didn't exist before the ruling. But not everything works on the linear progression. SLAs have never been linear, thus they don't function as linear functions do. The writers likely intended for things to be linear, but when a ruling is introduced that turns things on their heads, you can't go off of original intent anymore. You have to go off of the intent of the ruling, which is as yet unclear on this point. Hence the trivial debate.