|
The intent of the ruling was that it counts as, and they acknowledge it allows earlier access to some spell casting prestige classes than the standard 6th lvl limit.
They stated they are ok with it and will keep an eye on it, but don't think it's a problem.
So regardless of the old intent of linear progression being thrown out the window so we throw the original authors intent in...
The people who created the FAQ stated "we don't mind"
Which leads us not to the argument of 3rd counting as everything 3rd and less... but to why argue against it when there's good argument for my point of view and yours, but that the end result of the argument is me arguing in light of the FAQ written opinion, and you against it except in very narrow views.
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.
No, you have a $5 bill, which you can take to the bank and make it five $1 bills. You don't have a $1, you have $5. If you believe you have a $1, try putting that $5 bill into a vending machine that takes quarters and dollars. See how far your $1 dollar within that $5 bill gets you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you have a $5 bill, which you can take to the bank and make it five $1 bills. You don't have a $1, you have $5. If you believe you have a $1, try putting that $5 bill into a vending machine that takes quarters and dollars. See how far your $1 dollar within that $5 bill gets you.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.
You could, however, take it to a vending machine that accepts most denominations of your currency, and use it to purchase ("qualify for") an item that costs $1. Depending on how well-maintained said vending machine is, you could even receive change ;)
I think the point here is that there are two interpretations (obviously, from the fact this thread even exists), which means there's a legitimate request for clarity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in all fairness many will give change up to 10$ now a days...
If I told someone they needed two dollars for something, and they showed up with a 5, we'd all agree they had enough to pay for the 2 dollar item, even if it was more than I asked for and not the exact amount.
Try that on most public transport systems.
Better yet, try that on a bus in London. They don't make change. I remember carrying a pocket full of pound coins until I bought a bus pass. A real pain in the butt.
The point is, there are times when saying I have a fiver means you have the two as well. There are other times when you must have the two, and not the five.
Looking over the thread, I'd say that the intent from the devs is, this is a general store purchase situation (that is, if you show up with the five, you can buy the two dollar big gulp). But there's enough ambiguity that I can also see some RAW argument that there are certain PrC's that require you to bring a $2 bill, not two $1s, not a $5, but a $2 bill.
If I have $5, it is an accurate statement to say I have $1. And $2, $3,$4, or $5. Even if I got all $5 at once.
|
As far as the dollars analogy, the issue is strange. As far as Skills, I hope we can all agree that having a $5 bill still means you have $1, $2, etc.? What Spell-Like Abilities do, though, is give you a way to have $5 without it being redeemable for any lesser value of currency. It is worth $5, no more and no less. The chicken analogy above is closer than trying to use currency. Spells don't have fractional value, or can't be spent for lesser effect. You can't put a 3cm block in a 2cm hole without changing either the hole or the block.
As I've stated before, I would have agreed with your interpretation before the FAQ. No, I don't think it would be game-breaking to interpret things your way. But I don't believe that it is RAW, or even strictly RAI. I don't even need a Dev ruling. I just haven't seen a convincing argument for why I should (not could) interpret it the way you do.
If I have $5, it is an accurate statement to say I have $1. And $2, $3,$4, or $5. Even if I got all $5 at once.
Not really.
It is accurate to say you can spend your $5 on something that costs $1. Or $2. Or $3. Or $4. However, if I tell you to give me exactly $3, you cannot do so. You can give me $5, or you can give me nothing. You can ask me to give you change, but it's up to me if I do it or not.
If you actually had $3, in that you had 5 $1 bills (which is analogous to having all the spells from 1st to 5th), then yes, you could give me $3. But if I tell you I want a $2 bill and that's all I will accept, do you have $2? No you do not.
The argument that you must have exactly 2nd level spells is the same argument that your $5 is no good for $2. The only way the argument is valid is if the requirement is a $2 bill.
they will still accept your 5, you just don't get change back, flawed analogies are flawed.
Actually, here in Phoenix many of the drivers won't. Silly (in my opinion) but some of the drivers I've encountered have very strictly enforced the "Exact change only" sign.
If I have $5, it is an accurate statement to say I have $1. And $2, $3,$4, or $5. Even if I got all $5 at once.Not really.
Yes, really. The statement "I have $1," does not mean "I only have $1." That is an assumption and fallacy.
The issue with your example comes from conflating the problems specific to the example (a $5 bill is a discrete piece of currency) with the assessment of the truth value of the statement ($5 includes the value of $1).
you do know exact change signs mean "I'm not giving change so don't expect any"
When people enforce those signs they are not saying "if you have more you can't use my service" they are saying "if I charge you 9.50 don't expect change with your 10, 20 or even 50."
And I am telling you, whether you choose to believe me or not, that I have had bus drivers here, in Phoenix, who have refused to take 2 $1 bills for the (then) $1.25 bus fare. They would not accept the two bills and let me ride, even though I said I understood I couldn't get change. And it's happened to me on more than one occasion.
So yes, I do know what the signs typically imply; I am telling you that is not always how it is enforced in my experience.
That said, this is really pretty off-topic for the conversation, so I won't be responding on this line further.
The dollars analogy is confusing things because "currency" is not the same thing as "money" (which is why there is a difference between Nominal exchange rates and Real exchange rate, incidentally).
However, this actually can help illuminate the way I see the Spell Level issue.
If you have $5 of money, you posess all amounts of money less than that. You have three dollars, four dollars, fifty cents... This is BAB and skill ranks.
If you have a $5 bill of currency, you do not have a $3 bill. A Fireball spell requires a $3 bill. You cannot buy a Fireball with three $1 bills. You can buy one with a $5 bill, but you don't get your change back (using a higher level spell slot).
An SLA is a Metro token. It is equal in value to a certain dollar bill - a Daylight SLA is a $3 Metro token. You can't buy an ice cream with a Metro token. You can only use your Metro token to ride the metro, which is the equivalent of paying with a $3 bill.
To qualify for a PrC that asks for one spell, you need to ride the Metro. You can have that token, or you can buy one with an appropriate dollar bill.
To qualify for Mystic Theurge, you need $2 bills. An Aasimar doesn't have a $2 bill and he doesn't have a $3 bill - he has a $3 Metro token.
Fairly certain that this not only did not help, it muddled things further since several of the variant Aasimar heritages do gain SLAs that are equivalent to 2nd-level spells (Agathion-, Angel-, Azata-, Garuta-, and Peri-blooded).
The intention of the FAQ was that SLAs can be used to meet requirements, up to and including PrCs (such as Mystic Theurge, which was brought up as an example and was responded to directly by a designer without contradicting its validity).
So to ride the Metro, you either need a $2 bill or a $2 Metro token. In that situation, they are equivalent. You might not be able to go buy a cheeseburger with the Metro token, but for the specific purchase (of a ride on Mystic Theurge Railways), they are exactly equal.
Sorry for my confusion. I'm in IT and carrying our after-hours phone right now, and been dealing with a rather... special... customer, and so my brain is a bit fried, so I misunderstood your meaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the fact there are ways to cast third level spells without being able to cast second level spells weaken the argument that you progress through second levels spells to get to third level spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the fact there are ways to cast third level spells without being able to cast second level spells weaken the argument that you progress through second levels spells to get to third level spells?That's not the argument. The argument is that progression doesn't matter.. 3rd level spells exceed 2nd level spells as much as 4 ranks exceeds 2 ranks in a skill or a 7BAB vs a 6BAB.
The prereq is a minimum.
-James
The counter argument is that BAB, skills, and saves are a progression of bonuses that include all lesser amounts.
Feats and spells are discrete options that don't subsume any previous ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In every case you can list other than spell levels, the requirements are met, and then exceeded.You don't need to have exactly 2 ranks in a skill ever. You could go directly from 0 ranks to 4 ranks without ever being in between.
The question is simple: aren't the PrC prereqs, in general, considered as minimums to be met?
Certainly in the case of the MT, there is nothing special about 2nd level spellcasting per say.. it is just a benchmark.. and having 3rd level spells exceeds that.
-James
But you still have to put 2 skill points in before you can get to four. You have to have a BAB of +6 before you have a BAB of +7. You can have a. 3rd level spell without ever having a 2nd level spell.
Just to be clear, I don't it is anymore overpowered to allow it or that it is not what the devs intended. I just don't think your reasoning holds up.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the FAQ was that SLAs can be used to meet requirements, up to and including PrCs (such as Mystic Theurge, which was brought up as an example and was responded to directly by a designer without contradicting its validity).
So to ride the Metro, you either need a $2 bill or a $2 Metro token. In that situation, they are equivalent. You might not be able to go buy a cheeseburger with the Metro token, but for the specific purchase (of a ride on Mystic Theurge Railways), they are exactly equal.
Right; that's what the FAQ changed. Going back to the original question of the thread, it was asked why people would object to the ruling or at least find it incongruous. This is why; because now, your $3 Metro token qualifies you to ride the Mystic Theurge Railways, whereas before, you needed $2 bills or tokens.
This is in contrast to BAB requirements, which ask "you must have $5 of money to proceed." Not bills, just money. Having $6 or $7 includes having $5 of money.
The thread asked how these were different concepts; this is my explanation.
Actually, this is part of the debate. Does your $3 Metro token qualify you to ride the $2 Mystic Theurge train?
Personally, I've been thinking of these things as tally marks (yes, I realize I'm going back to elementary school for that reference). Skills, BAB, caster level, can all be represented by tally marks. Even if you have 5 marks, you can still point to one, two, and three. Even if you get an ability like Instant Mastery which gives you four ranks in a skill (presumably simultaneously), you can still point to rank 1, 2, and 3, even though there is also a rank 4 and at no point did you have only 1, 2, or 3 ranks.
With Feats and Proficiencies, you can't represent them that way. They each have a discrete mark, like a letter of the alphabet. Generally, you have to go through the alphabet to get to particular letters. Certain classes permit you to skip letters.
Spell levels used to only function in the sense of tally marks. You could not get the upper-level spellcasting power without gaining the lower first. With the SLA ruling, you can cast Gamma-level spells without being able to cast Alpha- or Beta-level. Mystic Theurge, in this case, requires you to be able to cast Divine and Arcane Beta-spells. A Gamma-spell is not a Beta-spell. Sure, you can prepare/cast a Beta spell in a Gamma slot, but that doesn't change that you can't prepare a Gamma spell in a Beta slot. Mystic Theurge requires those Beta slots (and an SLA is effectively a slot(s) that is permanently prepared with its one spell).
Apologies for the Greek alphabet, but it made a bit more sense to use that than the Roman alphabet for purpose of the analogy.
|
As evidenced by 128 posts, it's not clear; there is no RAW.
However, there is no doubt that from their inception in 3.0 PrCs have intended entry requirements to be minimums which, when exceeded, still count for qualifying purposes.
There is also no doubt that an entry requirement of being able to cast 2nd level spells was always considered to subsume the ability to cast 1st level spells.
So, what is the rationale behind the spell level requirement? Except for any requirement of a specific spell (such as dimension door), which uses your mastery of certain magics as a requirement, the 'can cast spells of X level' shows that you have the magical power that the PrC requires. Therefore, if your inherent magical power is considered to be 3rd level equivalent, then you have more power than you require for a PrC which requires you to have the power to cast 2nd level spells.
In this way, it is similar to BAB and skill rank requirements; these are minimums, and so is the spell level requirement.
If the requirement was for a specific spell, I would even take improved invisibility as if it were invisibility, but not vice versa. YMMV.
But the requirements we're talking about could be re-stated:-
* you need a BAB of at least +6
* you need at least 5 ranks in acrobatics
* you must have the power to cast at least 2nd level spells
As evidenced by 128 posts, it's not clear; there is no RAW.
However, there is no doubt that from their inception in 3.0 PrCs have intended entry requirements to be minimums which, when exceeded, still count for qualifying purposes.
There is also no doubt that an entry requirement of being able to cast 2nd level spells was always considered to subsume the ability to cast 1st level spells.
So, what is the rationale behind the spell level requirement? Except for any requirement of a specific spell (such as dimension door), which uses your mastery of certain magics as a requirement, the 'can cast spells of X level' shows that you have the magical power that the PrC requires. Therefore, if your inherent magical power is considered to be 3rd level equivalent, then you have more power than you require for a PrC which requires you to have the power to cast 2nd level spells.
In this way, it is similar to BAB and skill rank requirements; these are minimums, and so is the spell level requirement.
If the requirement was for a specific spell, I would even take improved invisibility as if it were invisibility, but not vice versa. YMMV.
But the requirements we're talking about could be re-stated:-
* you need a BAB of at least +6
* you need at least 5 ranks in acrobatics
* you must have the power to cast at least 2nd level spells
If you want to go with assumptions then you have to assume they are talking about spell casters and their respective power. Is the ability to cast one third level spell as a SLA as/more powerful than a caster who can cast several first and second level spells?
|
|
As evidenced by 128 posts, it's not clear; there is no RAW.
However, there is no doubt that from their inception in 3.0 PrCs have intended entry requirements to be minimums which, when exceeded, still count for qualifying purposes.
There is also no doubt that an entry requirement of being able to cast 2nd level spells was always considered to subsume the ability to cast 1st level spells.
So, what is the rationale behind the spell level requirement? Except for any requirement of a specific spell (such as dimension door), which uses your mastery of certain magics as a requirement, the 'can cast spells of X level' shows that you have the magical power that the PrC requires. Therefore, if your inherent magical power is considered to be 3rd level equivalent, then you have more power than you require for a PrC which requires you to have the power to cast 2nd level spells.
In this way, it is similar to BAB and skill rank requirements; these are minimums, and so is the spell level requirement.
If the requirement was for a specific spell, I would even take improved invisibility as if it were invisibility, but not vice versa. YMMV.
But the requirements we're talking about could be re-stated:-
* you need a BAB of at least +6
* you need at least 5 ranks in acrobatics
* you must have the power to cast at least 2nd level spells
And you also have to keep in mind that at the time this was accurate, SLAs could not be used for spellcasting requirement, only the ability to cast a certain spell (such as Arcane Trickster's requirement of being able to cast Mage Hand). SLAs of level X do not subsume the spellcasting of level X-1 because they are unconnected with any other spellcasting.
Also keep in mind, many PrCs that have a stated requirement of "able to cast spells of level X" stand side-by-side with another one that says "able to cast spells of level X or higher." You would think that they would notice that they had used differing linguistic standards. The fact that they don't state things as you suggest implies that they maybe didn't mean that meaning to be the case. I would be more inclined to trust your meaning if other PrCs didn't have your meaning using explicitly different wording.
So... Lets's check here. If you were playing PFS, who would let a SLA of 3rd level qualify people for Mystic Theurge?
Just to throw a little gas on the fire about skill ranks.
A headband of Vast Intelligence +6 (Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception) put on by a 10th level character jumps his Acrobatics, Stealth, and Perception from whatever they were to 10 ranks, instantly after the first 24 hours. He didn't level up, he didn't allocate ranks, he may even have 15 ranks in perception if he put 5 in before putting the headband on (although he only get's credit for 10).
In which case, he put in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and then got 15.
But, if a prestige class had the requirement of 8 ranks in Perception, nobody would argue he didn't meet that prerequisite at level 11 would they (Assuming he didn't take the headband off)?
So... Lets's check here. If you were playing PFS, who would let a SLA of 3rd level qualify people for Mystic Theurge?
I would, but I'd require them to have two spell casting classes (as that is also part of the class in that they have to pick one each of arcane and divine). But an Aaismar or Tiefling could theoretically qualify at level 3.
|
|
So... Lets's check here. If you were playing PFS, who would let a SLA of 3rd level qualify people for Mystic Theurge?
Yes, on the grounds that you meet and exceed the magical power level required.
There is nothing exceptional or unique about the ability to cast 2nd level spells. It's not a different skill-set, it's the same skill-set as casting 3rd level spells, just less powerful.
Since the SLA thing about qualifying didn't exist, then the spell level requirements must be about magic power at your command. Now that SLAs do let you qualify, the requirements are still about the magical power at your command. In both cases this is defined as the level of the highest spell (now including SLAs) that you can cast.
|
|
So... Lets's check here. If you were playing PFS, who would let a SLA of 3rd level qualify people for Mystic Theurge?
I wouldn't ever need to make the call, not running anything PFS. That said, I'm inclined to say no, and that's how my table will run. Grounds being that specific language is used, as opposed to the assumed language proposed by others which is explicitly used in some other PrCs, but not in Mystic Theurge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... Lets's check here. If you were playing PFS, who would let a SLA of 3rd level qualify people for Mystic Theurge?I wouldn't ever need to make the call, not running anything PFS. That said, I'm inclined to say no, and that's how my table will run. Grounds being that specific language is used, as opposed to the assumed language proposed by others which is explicitly used in some other PrCs, but not in Mystic Theurge.And that same specific language would also apply to not allowing a BAB7 character start to take levels in Arcane Archer.
Or at least reading that specific language in that fashion.
-James
"And I'm going to keep saying that regardless of any evidence to the contrary!"
I have to agree with James. It seems like splitting hairs. Either it's a minimum or nothing is. There are many instances in the game where you in fact do not go from X BAB to Y BAB in a linear progression. Fighters never have a 0 BAB, and most anything with racial HD begins at BAB Y from the get-go without some sort of progression. They just begin at BAB *insert number higher than another here*.
Now before anyone jumps on me, let me say that I think qualifying for prestige classes asking for spellcasting via SLAs isn't appealing. I just think James makes the best point and I agree that spell levels are just as linear (be they or not) as base attack and/or skill ranks are, and I find not applying the same logic across the board rather dishonest.
HOWEVER...
I rebuke that 2nd level SLAs qualify you at all. Or SLAs of any level for that matter because according to the rules SLAs are not spells. To qualify for the appropriate prestige classes you must cast spells.
Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options.
Most spellcasters prepare spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through prayers—while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation. Despite these different ways characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to casting them, the spells are very much alike.
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
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.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
Which seems to me to be the exact reason they require the ability to cast spells on prestige classes and the like instead of caster levels. Caster level is something you can get without actually casting spells, but spells are something you cannot.
|
|
I already posted about understanding the requirement for being able to cast 2nd level spells being able to cast at least 2nd level spells, because the requirement is for a minimum power level of your spells.
But, for arguments sake, if it really did mean 2nd level spells exactly (and 3rd or higher would not qualify)....why? What would be the rationale behind the ability to cast generic 2nd level spells being a measure of your ability but 3rd level spells would fail to impress? What could possibly be special about generic 2nd level spells?
It's been said that some PrCs use '2nd level spells', and some use '2nd level or higher spells', but I honestly don't see that as a deliberate difference, just a matter of writing style.
So, what could be the reason for 2nd level being good enough but 3rd level not being good enough?
Id allow it in my home games, whether or not the paizo staff feel the same however...
|
|
Setting aside the 3rd-level not being good enough for 2nd-level for a minute, there is also the issue of "Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells." Spells, not spell.
And while I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation, the understanding that 2nd-level spells means at least 2nd-level spells is very much an interpretation, not strictly as-written. Especially given the difference between saying 2nd-level and 2nd-level or higher.
I wouldn't allow it and I think ryric explained it all quite well on the first page.
Setting aside the 3rd-level not being good enough for 2nd-level for a minute, there is also the issue of "Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells." Spells, not spell.
And while I don't necessarily disagree with the interpretation, the understanding that 2nd-level spells means at least 2nd-level spells is very much an interpretation, not strictly as-written. Especially given the difference between saying 2nd-level and 2nd-level or higher.
I believe the designers either put out an FAQ or stated explicitly in a thread about this matter that the plurality of the word "spells" does not indicate "the ability to cast two or more spells", but is used in a general sense of "spells" as a category of action.
If someone can fly planes, it's understood to mean they have the capacity to fly multiple vehicles within a category of vehicles called 'planes', not that they are flying multiple planes all at once.
I have to agree with James. It seems like splitting hairs. Either it's a minimum or nothing is. There are many instances in the game where you in fact do not go from X BAB to Y BAB in a linear progression. Fighters never have a 0 BAB, and most anything with racial HD begins at BAB Y from the get-go without some sort of progression. They just begin at BAB *insert number higher than another here*.
Well, not to "jump on you," but you're still wrong. (Not arguing it's overpowered, just refuting your logic.) BAB and skill points are linear. Spell levels can be, but are not always. The fact that fighters start with BAB +1 merely means they gained that with their fighter level. Monsters get BAB from racial hit die the same way characters gain levels. That's the same as saying, "my fighter never had a BAB of 3 because we started at 5th level." The fact that you can have a 3rd level spell, without the ability to cast 1st or 2nd level spells, is proof they are not linear.
|
Setting aside the 3rd-level not being good enough for 2nd-level for a minute, there is also the issue of "Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells." Spells, not spell.
This one has been debunked time and again. Even if you do take it literally and say you only know one spell, you can simply cast it multiple times over a period of several days. You have just cast spells. None of the PrC requirements say all your spells have to be cast the same day.
|
|
Setting aside the 3rd-level not being good enough for 2nd-level for a minute, there is also the issue of "Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells." Spells, not spell.This one has been debunked time and again. Even if you do take it literally and say you only know one spell, you can simply cast it multiple times over a period of several days. You have just cast spells. None of the PrC requirements say all your spells have to be cast the same day.
For what it is worth, I am aware that when they said that SLAs count for prereqs, they also said the spells doesn't necessarily mean plural spells. I was pointing out a flaw in that reasoning, which is that it says spells instead of spell (as a general rule, some exceptions). That would tend to indicate that you are capable of casting more than one spell of that level, even if you can't cast them all at once. Yes, I was splitting hairs to make a point, but the point does stand.
As for being able to fly planes not meaning flying multiple planes at once, casting spells doesn't mean you cast more than one spell at once. It means that you're capable of casting more than one spell, the same as being able to fly planes means you are qualified to fly more than one vehicle classed as a plane. You make my case for me, sir. :)
Again, this argument was a deliberate hair-split against the original FAQ ruling, not for this argument. I still stand by my arguments upthread against this interpretation because I haven't seen a convincing argument for why an extremely limited 3rd-level SLA counts as 2nd-level spellcasting for purposes of Prereqs.