Fighter going mythic? Choose archmage. Here's why.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 552 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Huh, two responses with opposite conclusions, that's interesting.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Huh, two responses with opposite conclusions, that's interesting.

The wonderful curse of the English language is that you can read the same words in different ways. It's doubly irritating when dealing with game rules.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
That's fine, but then why bother to post?

Because I am interested in the outcome, but not so interested in catching up on the intervening 300 posts of bickering. I certainly don't begrudge this of other posters in these cases.

Would anyone care to summarize the point for me? If nothing else, it will keep the thread on track.

The summary, as far as I can tell (which I admittedly do not understand as well as some others) is that it's either a CL 0 for spells which require a caster level with the knowledge that some spells do not require it, or it's irrelevant as this is a Su ability and doesn't require a caster level (this is the part I'm confused on).

If someone more knowledgeable than I can jump in and educate, I'd be obliged.


Trogdar wrote:
Huh, two responses with opposite conclusions, that's interesting.

If you are referring to master_marshmallow and my response, they are saying the same thing with different wording.

In my case, prepared spell and you can cast any of the ones prepared for the day.

In master_marshmallow's case, spontaneous once the spells are prepared.

They both get you to the same place (and have the same meaning in this case).

-Doomn


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Huh, two responses with opposite conclusions, that's interesting.
The wonderful curse of the English language is that you can read the same words in different ways. It's doubly irritating when dealing with game rules.

Never did meet an English prof or teacher that held that opinion.

There always seemed to be ONE correct answer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Huh, two responses with opposite conclusions, that's interesting.
The wonderful curse of the English language is that you can read the same words in different ways. It's doubly irritating when dealing with game rules.

Never did meet an English prof or teacher that held that opinion.

There always seemed to be ONE correct answer.

That's unfortunate. When I got my B.A.in English Literature that certainly wasn't the case. Now that I'm studying for my PharmD/MPH that hasn't changed. Lanuage is an abstraction and as such cannot be perfectly accurate. Sometimes two reasonable people will read something and reach different conclusions. Then they can persuade each other about who is correct.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few heated posts and the replies to them. Text is often an imperfect medium. Instead of responding with hostility or implications that the other person cannot read/digest information, take a moment away from the keyboard, and refocus on the ideas in the debate, not individuals in the conversation.

My apologies. I was simply trying to attack the argument that logic proves this premise, didn't mean to insult anyone.

My point remains however, that the first sentence in this ability does not grant the ability to cast spells. It only grants the ability to cast an already prepared spell or spell known by spending mythic power rather than a spell slot, and that taking part of the sentence without the rest of it does not prove this premise.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a few heated posts and the replies to them. Text is often an imperfect medium. Instead of responding with hostility or implications that the other person cannot read/digest information, take a moment away from the keyboard, and refocus on the ideas in the debate, not individuals in the conversation.

My apologies. I was simply trying to attack the argument that logic proves this premise, didn't mean to insult anyone.

My point remains however, that the first sentence in this ability does not grant the ability to cast spells. It only grants the ability to cast an already prepared spell or spell known by spending mythic power rather than a spell slot, and that taking part of the sentence without the rest of it does not prove this premise.

Maybe you replied to it? I don't recall you being insulting. I actually don't recall anyone here being insulting. It's been fairly civil as far as long threads go.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:

Never did meet an English prof or teacher that held that opinion.

There always seemed to be ONE correct answer.

That's because they teach it that way. I heard a joke about just that thing, that for every English teacher who thinks that way, there is a language historian laughing at them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

Never did meet an English prof or teacher that held that opinion.

There always seemed to be ONE correct answer.

That's because they teach it that way. I heard a joke about just that thing, that for every English teacher who thinks that way, there is a language historian laughing at them.

An etymologist, please.

Spoiler:
;]

There's an idea there, actually. You could make a house-rule allowing players to roll Linguistics checks to make up their own interpretations of the rules on the fly. Depending on how convoluted the exploit you were trying, it could be DC 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, etc. If it's less than 20, chances are it's fuzzy enough to make an official house-rule.

Now I'm struck by the image of a fighter, rogue, wizard and multi-classed renaissance (wo)man sitting in a tavern arguing the finer points of grammar and the relative worth of personal dogmatism versus a more laissez-faire approach to linguistic interpretation, and I can't help thinking that this scene will undoubtedly happen at some point, knowing my players. My feelings on the matter alternate between apprehension (°~º) and glee (:D).


^ Hilarious idea. Wow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
That's fine, but then why bother to post?

Because I am interested in the outcome, but not so interested in catching up on the intervening 300 posts of bickering. I certainly don't begrudge this of other posters in these cases.

Would anyone care to summarize the point for me? If nothing else, it will keep the thread on track.

The point of the thread, per the OP, is to prove the ridiculousness of following hardline RAW, as it allows strange things like this to occur.

The point of my participation in this thread is exceedingly different.

Basically: to educate myself, to learn how to make a nifty character concept work within the framework of the rules, and to help others do the same.

This post has a few things a warrior-type with this ability could do... and it's actually really cool, to me, too.

There are various arguments for why it can't ever work: no caster level or saves (though some spells don't need either of these), no concrete definition of "arcane" spell (though there is a list of "arcane spells" in the GMG), and the insistence of only one method of grammatical wording (which is an entirely correct reading, but not the only correct reading due to language).

There are probably a few other ideas that I've glossed over or forgotten at present.

Hope that helps!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
"You can" has never been and will never be an unconditional statement in this ruleset. I had this discussion with someone else just as obstinately wrong not too long ago and don't particularly feel like rehashing it in a new skin.
BigDTBone wrote:
It doesn't get much more explicit than "you can do X." That's why I am using the word "explicit" to describe how it is written.

"You can make a vertical standing jump of 100 feet" is explicit, but it doesn't trump the fact that you can't jump when you're paralysed and hogtied.

Similarly, "You can cast any spell...{goes on to give specific limits for spont and prepped casters}" doesn't trump the fact that you can't cast spells without a spell list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
"You can" has never been and will never be an unconditional statement in this ruleset. I had this discussion with someone else just as obstinately wrong not too long ago and don't particularly feel like rehashing it in a new skin.
BigDTBone wrote:
It doesn't get much more explicit than "you can do X." That's why I am using the word "explicit" to describe how it is written.

"You can make a vertical standing jump of 100 feet" is explicit, but it doesn't trump the fact that you can't jump when you're paralysed and hogtied.

Similarly, "You can cast any spell...{goes on to give specific limits for spont and prepped casters}" doesn't trump the fact that you can't cast spells without a spell list.

Specific overrides general. In your two casea, the paralyzed rules override the general rule of being able to jump, while the mythic power rules for arcane surge overrides the need for a spell list.

Scarab Sages

No, in my first example, the specific rule is the text of the ability to make superhuman jumps. And it doesn't override the general rule that people need to not be helpless, in order to move.

This is why the 'specific vs general' argument isn't a valid technique, since the rules can be said to be applied (general through to specific) in whatever order the speaker desires, in order to support any position they want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

No, in my first example, the specific rule is the text of the ability to make superhuman jumps. And it doesn't override the general rule that people need to not be helpless, in order to move.

This is why the 'specific vs general' argument isn't a valid technique, since the rules can be said to be applied (general through to specific) in whatever order the speaker desires, in order to support any position they want.

This is entirely false. By reading it the other direction (as you suggest) one entirely negates a directly opposing statement. This creates inherent conflict between to disagreeing statements and thus cannot be read to mean things that way when taken as a whole.

That does not relate to the situation of Arcane Surge.

Scarab Sages

The point I'm making, is that I'm always suspicious of arguments which rely mainly on 'Specific Trumps General!', because in most cases, the decision which rule to treat as 'The General Rule', and which rule to treat as 'The Specific Exception' has been carefully chosen by the person making that STG argument, so as to always match their prejudices, sometimes unconsciously. They start with their desired interpretation, and walk it back from there, filling in as they go.


Gotcha. I can see that as a precaution. I think it can apply in this case (and is thus a valid argument), but, due to English and interpretations (as I've said before), a GM could make a case of which one is specific or general.

EDIT: Obviously, as a GM, I think it's valid enough to allow into my games.


bookrat wrote:
Snorter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
"You can" has never been and will never be an unconditional statement in this ruleset. I had this discussion with someone else just as obstinately wrong not too long ago and don't particularly feel like rehashing it in a new skin.
BigDTBone wrote:
It doesn't get much more explicit than "you can do X." That's why I am using the word "explicit" to describe how it is written.

"You can make a vertical standing jump of 100 feet" is explicit, but it doesn't trump the fact that you can't jump when you're paralysed and hogtied.

Similarly, "You can cast any spell...{goes on to give specific limits for spont and prepped casters}" doesn't trump the fact that you can't cast spells without a spell list.

Specific overrides general. In your two casea, the paralyzed rules override the general rule of being able to jump, while the mythic power rules for arcane surge overrides the need for a spell list.

It does not say that. It says that you can bypass the need per spell casting mechanics to expend a prepared spell or spell slot by spending mythic power instead. At no point does it actually give you the ability to actually cast spells.

Logically, if it did, then there would be no need to mention spells slots or prepared spells at all in the fist sentence, would there?
It's not a matter of specific versus general, nor is it a matter of misinterpreted English, it is a matter of selectively excluding the condition setting clause of the opening sentence and only reading part of the sentence to gain this ability.
It does not give you the ability to cast spells, it only gives you the ability to bypass the need to spend a prepared spell or spell slot, per the actual text, not the skewed one.

Grand Lodge

Did someone resolve the Eschew Materials question? I looked through the thread but missed it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did someone resolve the Eschew Materials question? I looked through the thread but missed it.

The main reason I saw was that the feat in question gave no action by which to cast the spell.

This mythic ability does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcane Surge wrote:
As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot.

This is the entire sentence.

The format of the sentence is not "You can do X." It more or less says "You can do cast a spell by doing X instead of Y or Z," implying that in order to do X, you must be able do Y or Z in the first place.

Selective reading does not grant you the ability to cast spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arcane Surge wrote:
As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot.

This is the entire sentence.

The format of the sentence is not "You can do X." It more or less says "You can do cast a spell by doing X instead of Y or Z," implying that in order to do X, you must be able do Y or Z in the first place.

Selective reading does not grant you the ability to cast spells.

Nope that is not what it says.

The implying is being done on your end.

Grand Lodge

Rhedyn wrote:

The main reason I saw was that the feat in question gave no action by which to cast the spell.

This mythic ability does.

Why is that required but caster level isn't? Shouldn't it just default to the action the spell states?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

The main reason I saw was that the feat in question gave no action by which to cast the spell.

This mythic ability does.

Why is that required but caster level isn't? Shouldn't it just default to the action the spell states?

It's not just the action, but the mechanism. Ie; mythic power points that have a daily renewable allotment.

Grand Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
It's not just the action, but the mechanism.

Why that distinction? Are you saying that if there were no costs in mythic power, this ability would not grant spell casting?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

The main reason I saw was that the feat in question gave no action by which to cast the spell.

This mythic ability does.

Why is that required but caster level isn't? Shouldn't it just default to the action the spell states?

Caster level question does not follow, but the latter question strikes me as important.

Why would it not just default to the normal spell action in such a way that does not negate this mythic ability?

Spell not known? Negates mythic ability.
No caster level? Negates mythic ability.
Something needs to fuel a spell? I don't see how that is RAW conclusion, but it would solve the issue.
You need an explicit spellcasting class feature to cast spells? Negates mythic ability.

Hmmmmmmmm.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, since we are apparently allowed to not only ignore the whole ability but anything more than a fragment of the first sentence; using the eschew materials example:

Eschew Materials

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

I get this for free as a 1st level sorcerer, suck my balls reality, wishes for everyone! True resurrection for free if you die! Let's go adventuring friends!

Edit: and I'll have you note, it specifically says "You can cast any spell." Not "You can cast any one spell." That means I can cast 100 different spells a round! I'll hit the BBEG with every attack spell there is, every round! Take that!!!!


Rhedyn wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arcane Surge wrote:
As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot.

This is the entire sentence.

The format of the sentence is not "You can do X." It more or less says "You can do cast a spell by doing X instead of Y or Z," implying that in order to do X, you must be able do Y or Z in the first place.

Selective reading does not grant you the ability to cast spells.

Nope that is not what it says.

The implying is being done on your end.

Because I'm reading the whole sentence and using logic?


master_marshmallow wrote:
Because I'm reading the whole sentence and using logic?

I am afraid not.


Rhedyn wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Because I'm reading the whole sentence and using logic?
I am afraid not.

I believe so, sir.

The statements following this formula are:
If you prepare spells or cast spontaneously, you can cast a spell by spending Mythic Power instead but it must be one prepared or known.

I neither prepare or spontaneously cast spells, therefore I can cast spells without having to prepare or know them.

You are not a flying fish, though a GM could make an exception.


It is odd how you cite the logical fallacies that you are using. EDIT2: I am being unfair here. You have intricately weaved several fallacies that are truly a marvel to behold.

EDIT: The argument has moved far beyond the point you are misunderstanding. I would rather focus on the novel elements people are bringing up than to walk you through the fundamentals of symbolic logic.


Rhedyn wrote:
It is odd how you cite the logical fallacies that you are using.

So, snappy one liners without any explanation are designed to prove me wrong in analyzing your proposed premise?

I still want to know why you can bypass the rules to cast spells, what spell list(s) do you have access to, what is your caster level, what re your DCs, what is your primary casting stat, and why does half of this statement somehow trump the baseline mechanics of the game requiring that you be a member of a spellcasting class to cast a spell?

The answer, "because it says 'you can'" is unsatisfactory because of the Eschew Materials quote cited above. Unless you are also saying that Eschew Materials also allows you to cast all spells.

If that is your conclusion that's fine, but your logic must apply in all cases otherwise it isn't logic.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Eschew Materials also allows you to cast all spells.

Yes that is where the argument currently is.

Point 1: Eschew materials does not grant previously non-casters the ability to cast spells.
Point 2: This mythic ability does let previously non-casters cast spells.

Argument needed: How can 1 be true without 2 being false?

The only valid reason I have seen is that the mythic ability provides spell fuel. I do not see why this is a sound reason.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
It's not just the action, but the mechanism.
Why that distinction? Are you saying that if there were no costs in mythic power, this ability would not grant spell casting?

No distinction; arcane surge's provisions make it easier to adjudicate so I am choosing to focus on it first. If you think that eschew materials grants spellcasting then I dont nessicarily disagree on the surface, but I think you should explore the idea more and present your arguments in a detailed manner.

In other words, eschew materials wasn't my argument, and I'm not going to make someone else's argument for them.


Rhedyn wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Eschew Materials also allows you to cast all spells.

Yes that is where the argument currently is.

Point 1: Eschew materials does not grant previously non-casters the ability to cast spells.
Point 2: This mythic ability does let previously non-casters cast spells.

Argument needed: How can 1 be true without 2 being false?

The only valid reason I have seen is that the mythic ability provides spell fuel. I do not see why this is a sound reason.

But the Mythic version does not do that, it only lets you bypass the requirement to expend a spell slot, placing the requisite that it must be one prepared or known. It places a limitation on what spell can be cast clearly in the text. Not only must it be an arcane spell, but it has to be one prepared or known. The text being used specifically lets you spend mythic power in place of a prepared spell or spell slot.

Misquoting the rules does not grant you abilities, because it does not say that it grants you that ability. The mechanism presented is not a mechanism for casting spells, but it is one for bypassing the need to expend a spell slot or prepared spell. There isn't even a comma or semicolon in the sentence being quoted that could be used to separate it into different clauses, it is all one coherent sentence, you cannot take one part without the other.


Yuugasa wrote:

Well, since we are apparently allowed to not only ignore the whole ability but anything more than a fragment of the first sentence; using the eschew materials example:

Eschew Materials

Benefit: You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal. If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component on hand to cast the spell, as normal.

I get this for free as a 1st level sorcerer, suck my balls reality, wishes for everyone! True resurrection for free if you die! Let's go adventuring friends!

Edit: and I'll have you note, it specifically says "You can cast any spell." Not "You can cast any one spell." That means I can cast 100 different spells a round! I'll hit the BBEG with every attack spell there is, every round! Take that!!!!

That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.


@master_marshmallow

I'm not going to re-hash the entire thread with you. When you ask a question that has not been answered (or make an assertion that has not already been debunked), I will respond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.

Actually it is a very relevant discussion.

Why would that feat not let you cast certain spells and this ability would let you cast certain spells?


Rhedyn wrote:

@master_marshmallow

I'm not going to re-hash the entire thread with you. When you ask a question that has not been answered (or make an assertion that has not already been debunked), I will respond.

You haven't answered anything, only made snarky remarks and one liners about how I'm wrong without explaining.

What is your caster level? What is your primary casting stat? What are your DCs?

What happens if you get dispelled or counterspelled? These questions need to be answered in the text for the rules to support the conclusion.

Again, misquoting the rules doesn't give you the power to cast spells. The ability only lets you bypass the requirement to expend a spell slot or prepared spell.


@master_marshmallow

Read and understand the thread.


Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.

Actually it is a very relevant discussion.

Why would that feat not let you cast certain spells and this ability would let you cast certain spells?

For the purpose of this discussion I am willing to accept that eschew materials also provides the ability to cast spells.

Now, if people want to go about having that conversation then it's fine with me, but it isn't part of this conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.

Actually it is a very relevant discussion.

Why would that feat not let you cast certain spells and this ability would let you cast certain spells?

For the purpose of this discussion I am willing to accept that eschew materials also provides the ability to cast spells.

Now, if people want to go about having that conversation then it's fine with me, but it isn't part of this conversation.

That is a valid way to look at it.

Still. A like ability or feat is relevant to this discussion.

EDIT:
Mythics is well established as broken.
Eschew Materials is a CRB and came from 3.5. How it doesn't allow casting would imply precedence for how the rules are meant to be read and what is required for spellcasting. Or perhaps it turns out that our Fighters have went for over a decade without casting spells because we misread a feat. That is all very relevant to this conversation.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

@master_marshmallow

I'm not going to re-hash the entire thread with you. When you ask a question that has not been answered (or make an assertion that has not already been debunked), I will respond.

You haven't answered anything, only made snarky remarks and one liners about how I'm wrong without explaining.

What is your caster level? What is your primary casting stat? What are your DCs?

What happens if you get dispelled or counterspelled? These questions need to be answered in the text for the rules to support the conclusion.

Again, misquoting the rules doesn't give you the power to cast spells. The ability only lets you bypass the requirement to expend a spell slot or prepared spell.

CRB wrote:
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.


Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's an interesting idea. But we are talking about arcane surge here. If you want to convince other people about your idea that eschew materials is a new casting variant then you should start a new thread.

Actually it is a very relevant discussion.

Why would that feat not let you cast certain spells and this ability would let you cast certain spells?

For the purpose of this discussion I am willing to accept that eschew materials also provides the ability to cast spells.

Now, if people want to go about having that conversation then it's fine with me, but it isn't part of this conversation.

That is a valid way to look at it.

Still. A like ability or feat is relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps, but someone else asserting that this X is the same as Y does not obligate me to disprove Y, even if I believe X.


BigDTBone wrote:
Perhaps, but someone else asserting that this X is the same as Y does not obligate me to disprove Y, even if I believe X

True, but a look at eschew materials may lead to an understand of how PF rule language is meant to be read that is different from how English is meant to be read.


Rhedyn wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Perhaps, but someone else asserting that this X is the same as Y does not obligate me to disprove Y, even if I believe X
True, but a look at eschew materials may lead to an understand of how PF rule language is meant to be read that is different from how English is meant to be read.

Agree, I will start with [posit #1] options without sp/su/ex don't grant abilities unless they describe the mechanism of that ability.


The rules language is meant to be read as standard English. This is why certain abilities may have parallel functionality without parallel language being used, such as magic weapon abilities like shock and flaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would think the difference is one of grammar. Is the ability to cast any spell not the end of a sentence in arcane surge where eschew materials would be an obvious sentence fragment?

451 to 500 of 552 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fighter going mythic? Choose archmage. Here's why. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.