|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read about this recently in the Advice forum, and figured I'd pose the question here just in case I get weird looks from PFS judges. I'm not looking for an FAQ, just a consensus. I'm aware of the SLA FAQ, but this still seems "too good to be true".
The Scryer subschool for Wizards gives you a Spell-like Ability that "otherwise functions as clairaudience/clairvoyance", which is a 3rd-Level Sorcerer/Wizard spell.
Does this qualify for early entry into the Bloatmage Prestige Class which requires the ability to cast "3rd level arcane spells"?
"otherwise functions as" and "cast 3rd level spells" is not the same. When the term "otherwise functions" is used, they mean it has the same spell description and has the same rules for how the ability works. You can't actually cast the 3rd level arcane spell and you don't have it on your spell list.
You could also make the semantics argument that even should this count as a 3rd level arcane spell, the Bloatmage requires "spells", plural. It is more solid of a stance, though I prefer the first one I gave.
The FAQ establishes that SLAs count as spells for the purpose of qualifying for things. As far as the level, SKR gave this answer:
Q: What is the spell level of a Spell-Like Ability that acts as an existing spell, but with some changes?
A: If it cites an existing spell, and you know the spell level of that spell, what effective spell level do you think the spell-like ability is? And if it doesn't cite an existing spell, is there a rule or FAQ telling you how to determine its effective spell level?
So yeah, it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, if that ruling was around when all those prestige classes were created, I wonder if they would've had different requirements.
Man, if that ruling was around when all those prestige classes were created, I wonder if they would've had different requirements.
I'm guessing, at the very least, the Aasimar would be altered, given the way all the other X-blooded aasimars work.
"otherwise functions as" and "cast 3rd level spells" is not the same. When the term "otherwise functions" is used, they mean it has the same spell description and has the same rules for how the ability works. You can't actually cast the 3rd level arcane spell and you don't have it on your spell list.
You could also make the semantics argument that even should this count as a 3rd level arcane spell, the Bloatmage requires "spells", plural. It is more solid of a stance, though I prefer the first one I gave.
Both of those issues have been addressed in FAQs, MurphysParadox, and you are incorrect on both counts. All SLAs count as the ability to cast spells for the purposes of qualifying for feats; SLAs granted by a class feature count as arcane or divine based on the type of spell the class can normally cast.
Additionally, when a prerequisite calls for "able to cast X spells" that means you must have one or more spells or spell-like abilities to qualify.
So yes, it would appear that you could use it to meet the spell-casting qualification for Bloatmage. You'd still have to be human to get the two prerequisite feats, of course (or a race that grants one or the other feat as a bonus).
|
So yes, it would appear that you could use it to meet the spell-casting qualification for Bloatmage. You'd still have to be human to get the two prerequisite feats, of course (or a race that grants one or the other feat as a bonus).
Actually, the original poster mentioned PFS. In PFS wizards replace Scribe Scroll with Spell Focus (choose one) at first level - so any race will qualify.
I was unaware of that PFS rule (I don't PFS), but it makes sense since giving the restriction on crafting.
I don't agree that "otherwise operates as" counts as "able to cast".
The example given in the FAQ is about the Barghest, which has actual honest-to-goodness spells in his SLA list. The original poster doesn't have a spell, he has an ability that emulates the functionality of a spell for the sake of not duplicating the entire contents of the spell description in the school's description block.
Yes, it is semantics, but almost all rule disagreements are. If it said that the Scryer subschool grants you "Clairaudience/Clairvoyance" with a caster level equal to your wizard level as spell like ability X/day, I'd agree that it works as the FAQ example.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't agree that "otherwise operates as" counts as "able to cast".
The example given in the FAQ is about the Barghest, which has actual honest-to-goodness spells in his SLA list. The original poster doesn't have a spell, he has an ability that emulates the functionality of a spell for the sake of not duplicating the entire contents of the spell description in the school's description block.
Yes, it is semantics, but almost all rule disagreements are. If it said that the Scryer subschool grants you "Clairaudience/Clairvoyance" with a caster level equal to your wizard level as spell like ability X/day, I'd agree that it works as the FAQ example.
It was to this exact argument that designer Sean K Reynolds was responding with the quote that RainyDayNinja provided above. The Design Team counts that type of SLA for things like this. I can dig up a link to that thread if you like, but suffice it to say everything you're thinking was already thoroughly hashed out when that series of FAQs first came out, and the consistent response from the designers was "Yes, really; yes, really; yes, really."
I don't agree that "otherwise operates as" counts as "able to cast".
The example given in the FAQ is about the Barghest, which has actual honest-to-goodness spells in his SLA list. The original poster doesn't have a spell, he has an ability that emulates the functionality of a spell for the sake of not duplicating the entire contents of the spell description in the school's description block.
Yes, it is semantics, but almost all rule disagreements are. If it said that the Scryer subschool grants you "Clairaudience/Clairvoyance" with a caster level equal to your wizard level as spell like ability X/day, I'd agree that it works as the FAQ example.
The Barghest does not have spells in his list of spell-like abilities. No one has spells in a list of SLAs. Why? Because SLAs aren't spells. They are always magical abilities that function like spells*, but they are never the spell itself. That's sort of the point of an SLA.
A creature that can cast the spell Dimension Door has the spell Dimension Door. A creature with a spell-like ability of Dimension Door can use a magical effect that mimics DD, but it does not have the actual DD spell.
So the argument that "otherwise operates as" fails to count doesn't hold up because all spell-like abilities "otherwise operate as" the spell upon which they're based, without being the spell itself.
*Or in a few rare cases as magical abilities that are spell-like but don't exist as spells elsehwere in the game.
|
However, none of this does anything to change the fact that an Aasimar can easily qualify for Bloatmage at level 2, just by being able to cast daylight, because OBVIOUSLY an Aasimar, descended from angels and other divine beings, has divine arcane spell-like abilities. Wait, what?
...yeah, the SLA FAQs are weird.
|
It was to this exact argument that designer Sean K Reynolds was responding with the quote that RainyDayNinja provided above. The Design Team counts that type of SLA for things like this. I can dig up a link to that thread if you like, but suffice it to say everything you're thinking was already thoroughly hashed out when that series of FAQs first came out, and the consistent response from the designers was "Yes, really; yes, really; yes, really."I don't agree that "otherwise operates as" counts as "able to cast".
The example given in the FAQ is about the Barghest, which has actual honest-to-goodness spells in his SLA list. The original poster doesn't have a spell, he has an ability that emulates the functionality of a spell for the sake of not duplicating the entire contents of the spell description in the school's description block.
Yes, it is semantics, but almost all rule disagreements are. If it said that the Scryer subschool grants you "Clairaudience/Clairvoyance" with a caster level equal to your wizard level as spell like ability X/day, I'd agree that it works as the FAQ example.
Yep, this.
But is it really Clairaudience/Clairvoyance if it has so many additional modifiers and limiters as is listed with the Scryer ability?
As a standard action, you place a scrying sensor at a point within medium range (100 feet + 10 feet/wizard level) that you can see and have line of effect to. You can see or hear (not both) through this sensor for number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1). The sensor otherwise functions as a clairaudience/clairovoyance spell with a caster level equal to your wizard level. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
It isn't the same ability, it doesn't actually do the same thing, and it is not mimicing the spell. It isn't like the "can cast daylight as per the spell 3 times a day" or "At will - diminsional door" used in other stat blocks.
What I'm saying is that the Scryer wording is not the same wording used in any other SLA-for-class-requirements examples that I've seen or that have appeared in the FAQ. Maybe I've not seen them all, and obviously we can guess what I'd tell my players if they asked to do this in my games, but I still see this specific case to be different.
|
|
For PFS play I would just add the following:
A lot of people here feel this is clearly against RAI even if it had been given the clear. In cases like that there always is a higher chance that it might be reversed / pulled in the future.
If someone finds a truly horrendous way to misuse the SLA ruling / or if it spreads too much / too many people complain - then there is always the chance of this happening.
I'm lacking the magic to predict the future. It is up to you to take the risk. Right now you are fine as far as I can tell.
"The sensor otherwise functions as a clairaudience/clairovoyance spell "
Claisaudience/clairvoyance functions as a 3rd level spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@MurphysParadox - Why does it need to exactly duplicate the spell in order to count? Look at what the PrC requirement actually is:
Ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.
• We know from the famous FAQ that SLAs count as spellcasting for this purpose, so we're good there.
• We know from a related FAQ that, as an SLA granted by an arcane class, the SLA is arcane, so we're good there.
• We know from a post from the Pathfinder Design Team that the "s" at the end of "spells" in the requirement doesn't actually require multiple 3rd-level spells (one will suffice), so we're good there.
• We know from Core Rules that the spell level of an SLA is the same as the level of the spell it's based on, and we know from designer commentary that a modified version still uses the base spell's level, so we're good there.
So exactly which element of the PrC's requirement does the SLA's variant nature cause it to not fulfill?
The element that says this isn't Clairaudience/Clairvoyance but some simplified, limited, and manipulated version. In fact, it overrides the spell in every way but the forbidding of enhanced senses. What if instead of having a bunch of qualifiers and then the "otherwise functions", it said:
As a standard action, you place a scrying sensor at a point within medium range (100 feet + 10 feet/wizard level) that you can see and have line of effect to. You can see or hear (not both) through this sensor for number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1). Once you have selected the locale, the sensor doesn't move, but you can rotate it in all directions to view the area as desired. This ability does not allow magically or supernaturally enhanced senses to work through it. This ability functions only on the plane of existence you are currently occupying. If it is naturally pitch black, you can see in a 10-foot radius around the center of the spell's effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
The bolded section is the only part of C/C that is actually kept after all the other modifiers are applied. That's what I'm trying to get at. The only practical purpose of "otherwise functions" is to keep from having to duplicate the bolded section. And probably something about a prevent-divination abilities/items, which is easy enough to add with something like "this ability counts as a divination effect with a CL equal to your level".
There is no RAW that states that an SLA that behaves like spell X, but with these modifications, is treated as a different level.
In Seebs' above example regarding a mass CLW that functions exactly like standard CLW is still a 5th level-equivalent SLA because the text says that it's based on MCLW. It may not be wholly sensible but it's still RAW.
As silly as it may seem, if there was a hypothetical SLA whose text read, "This SLA does absolutely nothing but otherwise operates as Create Demiplane, Greater," then you'd have a 9th level-equivalent SLA.
Now, as a GM you could house rule it, and I probably would.
Imagine, if you will, a prestige class which requires the ability to cast 9th level arcane spells.
Now imagine this spell-like ability:
Optimism: Once per day, as a spell-like ability, you can create an effect similar to a wish spell, only it can only be used to duplicate the effect of a single 0-level sorcerer/wizard spell.
WOO-HOO! I qualify as being able to cast 9th level arcane spells!
Yes, you do. I know you're trying to be sarcastic, and I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I see no ambiguity in the RAW here.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The element that says this isn't Clairaudience/Clairvoyance but some simplified, limited, and manipulated version.
No one's claiming otherwise; everyone agrees that the diviner's send senses SLA is not an exact duplicate of clairaudience/clairvoyance but is instead heavily modified.
So what?
Why does that matter? Where is the line in any of the FAQs that says they only apply to SLAs that exactly duplicate a spell? Where is the line in any PrC requirement stating anything along those lines?
No one is questioning your assertion that send senses is not a carbon copy of clairaudience/clairvoyance. What I'm asking is why that difference matters in the context of using it to qualify for a PrC.
I think the issue is that this spell is not broken...
Yes, that's basically what I was building up to (to which I was building up? stupid english).
We have a reference to a higher level spell for the categorical effects (divination school) and the specific limitations (no enhanced senses, magical darkness, etc) but the actual meat of the spell, the range and duration and placement and effect, is modified before it ever says to reference the original spell.
You just said it better with the sample Lesser spell and the 5th level divine cure light wounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it matters is mostly just an intuitive one: If a power has been so obviously nerfed that it would be obviously one or more likely two levels lower as a spell, it seems odd for it to still count as a higher level.
"Seems odd for it to count" =/= "Doesn't count".
The element that says this isn't Clairaudience/Clairvoyance but some simplified, limited, and manipulated version.No one's claiming otherwise; everyone agrees that the diviner's send senses SLA is not an exact duplicate of clairaudience/clairvoyance but is instead heavily modified.
So what?
Why does that matter? Where is the line in any of the FAQs that says they only apply to SLAs that exactly duplicate a spell? Where is the line in any PrC requirement stating anything along those lines?
No one is questioning your assertion that send senses is not a carbon copy of clairaudience/clairvoyance. What I'm asking is why that difference matters in the context of using it to qualify for a PrC.
More specifically, where in the FAQ does it say that something that is "based on" or "otherwise functions as" counts?
The FAQ says:
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.
The Barghest stat block says
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 6th)
At will—blink, levitate, misdirection
1/day—charm monster (DC 16), crushing despair (DC 16), dimension door
See, it doesn't have an ability with modifiers that "otherwise functions as". It has an SLA that is Dimension Door (CL 6th). Straight forward and easy.
Another example is the Aasimar racial ability
Spell-Like Ability (Sp): Aasimars can use daylight once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equal to the aasimar's class level).
Again, not limited, not modified, just the actual spell done as an SLA.
See? The FAQ isn't addressing this wording format. Posts in forms by our illustrious leaders are enlightening and informative and provide useful insight into design theories, but only official FAQ entries actually count as official to my knowledge.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
More specifically, where in the FAQ does it say that something that is "based on" or "otherwise functions as" counts?
Where it says that SLAs count.
If the FAQ says that X counts, and Y is an instance of X, then Y counts. The FAQ says SLAs count. Send senses is an SLA. Ergo, send senses counts. That is how english works.By stating that SLAs count for prereqs, the FAQ has—by even the most basic levels of logic and reading comprehension—also stated that SLAs of such-and-such a variety count for prereqs. Failing to list every variety of SLA in existence does not mean they weren't talking about them all; it means they have enough of a grasp on intelligent use of categorization to to reference all of them at once.
So yes, the FAQ does say that modified SLAs count, because it says that SLAs count and a modified SLA is an SLA.
@MurphysParadox: That's fine, but irrelevant - you're still missing Jiggy's point: The requirement is not the ability to cast a specific spell; it's the ability to cast a spell of a particular level. If Bloatmage stated a requirement of being able to cast Clairaudience\Clairvoyance, then you might have an argument; but that's not the requirement.
With no rules to state otherwise, the comparison to a particular spell is sufficient to say that the SLA would be of an equivalent level to the referenced spell. Ruling otherwise is acceptable, but a house rule.
[edit]
Part of the confusion here is apparently an assumption that there can be SLAs that don't count as spells.
That's not true.
By the FAQ ruling, all SLAs count as spells - even the ones that aren't based on a particular spell. In those rare cases, it would be up to the GM to determine the level equivalency of the SLA - but stating that the SLA did not count as a spell for the purposes of requirements would be a house rule.
[edit 2]
Just to point out, the reverse would be true as well. If you had a spell-like ability that said that it functioned like Cure Serious Wounds, but that it restored all hit points without a roll and gave you 1000 platinum to boot, it would still be an SLA with an equivalent spell level to Cure Serious Wounds.
As some context...the Design team ruled this way to reduce the number of corner cases that (admittedly) exist in the base rules. They wanted to make the rules easier and have less exceptions, but it sort of had the side effect of allowing access into PrCs a bit earlier than expected.
So, keep in mind the context of trying to make the rules easier when discussing SLAs.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
even the ones that aren't based on a particular spell. In those rare cases, it would be up to the GM to determine the level equivalency of the SLA
Actually, there are quite a few SLAs that aren't based on spells (especially among bloodline and domain powers), and there is a rule (for some reason also reiterated in a FAQ post) stating that the spell level for an SLA that doesn't reference a spell is equal to the highest-level spell a character with that SLA could cast. So if your domain gives you a 30ft elemental ray SLA that isn't based on a spell, and you get it at 1st level when your highest available spell levels are 1st-level, it's a 1st-level SLA.
even the ones that aren't based on a particular spell. In those rare cases, it would be up to the GM to determine the level equivalency of the SLAActually, there are quite a few SLAs that aren't based on spells (especially among bloodline and domain powers), and there is a rule (for some reason also reiterated in a FAQ post) stating that the spell level for an SLA that doesn't reference a spell is equal to the highest-level spell a character with that SLA could cast. So if your domain gives you a 30ft elemental ray SLA that isn't based on a spell, and you get it at 1st level when your highest available spell levels are 1st-level, it's a 1st-level SLA.
Whoops, absolutely right. I overlooked that statement.
|
|
This is the last time we open up Hemotheurge School to whiny, dumb, sorcerers. I told the others we needed clear education requirements for all applicants but "Nooo... we can't discriminate against the less intelligent arcanists." Look at the sort of scum that gets in the door when you ease up on the restrictions! It's outrageous!