Its pretty obvious what he's trying to do with this character, play a skinwalker boar with arcane strike. He's begging to be told that it is okay by RAW, and it just isn't happening so he's latching on to minutia in an attempt to salvage his concept.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This doesn't seem worth it to argue.
Just nab the Alluring trait, and he will qualify for Arcane Strike.
blackbloodtroll wrote: This doesn't seem worth it to argue.
Just nab the Alluring trait, and he will qualify for Arcane Strike.
Thanks for suggestions- good catch. As background, I had read in a Barbarian guide that ragebred netted Arcane Strike. I might wind up taking that feat, but there are so many others that would be better for this particular guy that I probably won't. I'm not even sure I'll take the ragebred itself. I was absolutely interested in the game rules and was actually hoping something else had been written. We're not talking about an essential feat like say Power Attack or Weapon Finesse that make or builds after all. I'll take your first piece of advice after this:
shadowcatX wrote: Its pretty obvious what he's trying to do with this character, play a skinwalker boar with arcane strike. He's begging to be told that it is okay by RAW, and it just isn't happening so he's latching on to minutia in an attempt to salvage his concept. What's obvious are the assumptions. Perhaps instead of ESP about the so-called obvious, you could see the confusion other posters have had about the screwy sentence. My favorite, and it's a hard choice, is the
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
I wasn't begging for either personal attacks or for inadvertent comedy, yet you and others provided both.
EpicFail wrote: What's obvious are the assumptions. Perhaps instead of ESP about the so-called obvious, you could see the confusion other posters have had about the screwy sentence. My favorite, and it's a hard choice, is the
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
I wasn't begging for either personal attacks or for inadvertent comedy, yet you and others provided both.
When you choose to willfully ignore the actual rules of the game in the rules forum, that is such an invitation, actually. That said, I have not attacked you, I haven't called you a name, haven't insulted your genealogy, or anything else, I have simply made comments as to your behavior within this thread.
That said, you're the one hung up on that single sentence. A sentence which does nothing to change the meaning of the sentence following it, which definitively answers your question.
The sentence in question is a pure topic introduction, that means nothing different in context from "Sometimes you may need to know which version of a spell a spell-like-ability is based on."
I told the wise b'bloodtroll I wouldn't argue, so I'll just shut up after posting this gem written by my closest comrade in arms:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
which, while not worded quite correctly, says a lot about that one sentence that is, supposedly, just an intro or means nothing.
EpicFail wrote: I told the wise b'bloodtroll I wouldn't argue, so I'll just shut up after posting this gem written by my closest comrade in arms:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
which, while not worded quite correctly, says a lot about that one sentence that is, supposedly, just an intro or means nothing.
Uh.
Sure, I'd endorse that.
But!
Counting as an arcane spell, or a divine spell, for purposes of qualifying for feats or classes, is an example of a way that two spells might not work the same.
Let me present an alternative approach:
Imagine that this sentence meant something significant. Is there anything at all that this sentence could possibly mean that would get you the result you want? Because I cannot make any sense of your behavior if we don't assume that it's somehow become important to you that it be correct or at least fairly reasonable to think that the SLA for skinwalkers qualifies for arcane strike. You've been giving off a lot of emotional-investment cues.
I can't think of anything the sentence could mean that would get you to where you'd need to be for that SLA to be arcane.
seebs wrote: ...Is there anything at all that this sentence could possibly mean that would get you the result you want? As you asked politely and this is not an argument, I'll respond. No. There is no way that sentence can get me what I want because what I wanted was clarity.
I do not believe that.
Clarity, we have. There is no ambiguity here. There may be words that you are not sure of the intent of, but there is no possible meaning of those words which could possibly, ever, change the meaning of the rule. So the rule is perfectly clear.
The reason people keep being suspicious that what you want is a different answer, not "clarity", is that you have repeatedly quoted, referred to, cited, and appealed to an earlier forum post which was not a ruling at all, but which would have given a different answer. However, there is a completely unambiguous precedence ranking between that earlier forum post and the rules as they now clearly stand, and furthermore, that forum post predates the primary reason for which this question is now relevant. It would have been, at the time, impossible for the forum post to be intended to answer the question of whether a given spell-like ability qualified for arcane strike, because spell-like abilities in general could not qualify for arcane strike at the time.
There is no reading of the rule that produces a different answer. Therefore the rule is clear. Since the rule is extremely clear, and this is probably one of the most unambigously and thoroughly answered FAQs the forums have ever seen, that you continue to assert that there is any kind of lack of "clarity" is ... unusual.
Unless, of course, what you really want is for the rule to be different so that you can achieve some kind of emotional validation, say in a rules debate you got into with another gamer not on these forums. Or at least for the rule to be ambiguous.
But the rule's not ambiguous. It's very clear, it's very straightforward, and it has been FAQd to death so thoroughly that it is no longer possible to raise it due to its reduced constitution score.
You have clarity. Whether you are able to accept that clarity is your own decision, ultimately.
I think it is a very cheesy way to get more damage.
Arcane strike should stay with arcane casters.
I would prohibit it as GM
Helikon wrote: I think it is a very cheesy way to get more damage.
Arcane strike should stay with arcane casters.
I would prohibit it as GM
Its cheesy because it isn't printed in the core rule book, right? Oh wait. . .
Because wizards love arcane strike, amiright?
House rules is -----> that way.
EpicFail wrote: I told the wise b'bloodtroll I wouldn't argue, so I'll just shut up after posting this gem written by my closest comrade in arms:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
which, while not worded quite correctly, says a lot about that one sentence that is, supposedly, just an intro or means nothing.
"If wishes were horses, we'd be eating steak."
Someone posted something stupid on the internet, what's your point?
ShadowcatX wrote: EpicFail wrote: I told the wise b'bloodtroll I wouldn't argue, so I'll just shut up after posting this gem written by my closest comrade in arms:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
which, while not worded quite correctly, says a lot about that one sentence that is, supposedly, just an intro or means nothing.
"If wishes were horses, we'd be eating steak."
Someone posted something stupid on the internet, what's your point? Wait. Are you saying I am stupid? He is not quoting me.
He is noting that he said he would try to discontinue arguing, which was said in response to my comments that some maybe simply be debating, for the sake of debating, and not actually believe the stance they are taking.
He then quotes some one else.
blackbloodtroll wrote: ShadowcatX wrote: EpicFail wrote: I told the wise b'bloodtroll I wouldn't argue, so I'll just shut up after posting this gem written by my closest comrade in arms:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed."
which, while not worded quite correctly, says a lot about that one sentence that is, supposedly, just an intro or means nothing.
"If wishes were horses, we'd be eating steak."
Someone posted something stupid on the internet, what's your point? Wait. Are you saying I am stupid? He is not quoting me.
He is noting that he said he would try to discontinue arguing, which was said in response to my comments that some maybe simply be debating, for the sake of debating, and not actually believe the stance they are taking.
He then quotes some one else. My post had nothing to do with you, I was addressing the quote he provided.
EpicFail wrote: "If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed." I cant find this quote from the FAQ or SKR, can someone point me to where this is found?
You know epicfail sometimes when something is clear to everyone but you it might be better to assume everyone else is right rather than trying to figure it out on your own. We all make errors sometimes and it quite often isn't worth the spilled ink and arguing.(Most of the time we are wrong if everyone disagrees unless we are some super duper special genius)
ShadowcatX wrote:
My post had nothing to do with you, I was addressing the quote he provided. Cool. Just being sure.
No, because I believe in RAI not bend the rules for more power!
You can master any challenge by skill and teamwork and a good GM will give you a challenge worth your time.
I am playing two campaigns now and booth are CORE + APG and we manage just fine although some people are quite unoptimized.
And Rulemongers ---> EXIT
I mean in all honesty, in wich AP do you need Arcane Strike as a non Bard or melee sorcerer to succeed?
Helikon wrote: No, because I believe in RAI not bend the rules for more power!
You can master any challenge by skill and teamwork and a good GM will give you a challenge worth your time.
I am playing two campaigns now and booth are CORE + APG and we manage just fine although some people are quite unoptimized.
And Rulemongers ---> EXIT
I mean in all honesty, in wich AP do you need Arcane Strike as a non Bard or melee sorcerer to succeed?
A good DM can handle sandbagging encounters or optimizers.
Also, telling rulemongers to get out of the rules forum is probably not the wisest move.
As to RAI, if you want to follow them, Arcane strike DOES work with (arcane) spell like abilities because the developers said it did when they answered the question in the FAQ. Or do you think you know what they intended better than they themselves do? Bending the rules to gimp someone is just as much a bending of the rules as it is if they do it to make themselves more powerful.
As to you playing in two campaigns that are core + apg, so what? Your limitations do not apply to the rules forum, we answer questions presented to us as accurately and as thoroughly as possible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Helikon wrote: No, because I believe in RAI not bend the rules for more power!
You can master any challenge by skill and teamwork and a good GM will give you a challenge worth your time.
I am playing two campaigns now and booth are CORE + APG and we manage just fine although some people are quite unoptimized.
And Rulemongers ---> EXIT
I mean in all honesty, in wich AP do you need Arcane Strike as a non Bard or melee sorcerer to succeed?
Arcane Strike is Core.
The FAQ that specifies that SLAs can be used to satisfy prerequisites is Core.
If you were truly playing CORE + APG you would allow it, but you are using house rules to ban it.
Please do not use your house rules in the Rules thread.
Helikon wrote: No, because I believe in RAI not bend the rules for more power!
You can master any challenge by skill and teamwork and a good GM will give you a challenge worth your time.
I am playing two campaigns now and booth are CORE + APG and we manage just fine although some people are quite unoptimized.
And Rulemongers ---> EXIT
I mean in all honesty, in wich AP do you need Arcane Strike as a non Bard or melee sorcerer to succeed?
You probably don't, but it's absolutely unambiguous that Paizo thinks that if you have an arcane SLA, you qualify to use that feat. The only reason people are saying "no" to this particular case is that, under the also unambiguous rules for SLA types, this is a divine SLA.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
