| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad we're in agreement. It doesn't say it gives the ability to cast spells to people who can't cast spells.
So it doesn't.
Get over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad we're in agreement. It doesn't say it gives the ability to cast spells to people who can't cast spells.
So it doesn't.
Get over it.
"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."
Oh look it lets you cast a spell!
Amazing! It is like it says you can do that word for word.
Reading.
Without expending a slot. So if you can't cast a spell in the first place, the ability does nothing for you."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."
Oh look it lets you cast a spell!
That is not how words work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without expending a slot. So if you can't cast a spell in the first place, the ability does nothing for you."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."
Oh look it lets you cast a spell!
That would be a fine assumption and a houserule.
|
That is not how words work.
Funny thing is, you can read words multiple different ways. And the way I read it, it doesn't do what you say it does.
That would be a fine assumption and a houserule.
It's an assumption of the ruleset, and thus not a house rule. Spellcasters are the only ones that cast spells, and fighters aren't spellcasters.
That is not a requirement in the ability.It's a requirement to cast spells.
Being able to cast spells is a requirement to cast spells? No problem, this ability grants it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is not a requirement in the ability.It's a requirement to cast spells.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if you applied this logic to spellcasting classes? The mythic ability says you can cast spells, and the class ability says you can cast spells. Do you already need to be able to cast spells to take a level in a spellcasting class in the first place?
I'm sure there's a distinction in RAW or in a reasonable interpretation thereof, but I can't recall it off the top of my head.
I have to agree with the liberal reading of this; specific overrides the general. The general rule is that you have to have a casting stat and/or an ability that grants spells in order to cast spells. This ability specifically grants the power to expend a mythic point to cast a spell - and then gives further guidance if you already cast spells through some other means.
But it may just be the pure hilarity of it all that causes me to lean towards this ruling - because (and let's be honest here) this is freaking hilarious in a very wonderful way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not how words work.Funny thing is, you can read words multiple different ways. And the way I read it, it doesn't do what you say it does.
The way you read it includes words not on the page.
I have this bad habit of believing that words mean what they do.
Abilities do what they say they do.
Get over it.
There's only one problem with this when people translate things into how they want.
According to that logic a chromatic dragon, blue isn't actually blue in color but according to it's descriptive text "With scales the color of the desert sky, this large, serpentine dragon moves with an unsettling grace"
it's a sad dragon with shades of yellow. ;-)
http://www.thedesertskyranch.com/images/image_intro_04.jpg
That just means that its scales change colors. Appropriate for a chromatic. :)
That comes from individual class features. At best your DCs are looking at 10+spell level.Hmm, this is a neat trick.
Though what would be the attribute for the save DC calculation. I am unaware of where, if anywhere, pathfinder might have listed casting stat DC priority.
Obviously your spells have no DC.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously this is not RAI, and it certainly not something any sane GM would allow, but... Holy s##&, is it amusing...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the relevant ability score for fighters is strength.
Therefore DC = 10 + str + spell level!
But if we are being consistent, then the DC for fighter spells would be 10+spell level because they were not listed as having a relevant ability score nor does the fighter class give them one.
If they get a CL through an SLA and the SLA is cha based then the relevant ability score would be cha.
I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."
The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.
Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?
Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.
I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."
It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.
The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.
The rule about not lowering your CL below the minimum to cast is a specific rule about intentionally changing your effective CL, it has no bearing outside that context.
The arcane surge ability adjudicates all of its own conciderations regarding what level of spell you can cast; it specifically and explicitly says "any arcane spell."
I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.
I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."
The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.
Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?
Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.
I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."
It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.
The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.
The rule about not lowering your CL below the minimum to cast is a specific rule about intentionally changing your effective CL, it has no bearing outside that context.
The arcane surge ability adjudicates all of its own conciderations regarding what level of spell you can cast; it specifically and explicitly says "any arcane spell."
Umm.... yes you did?
Really we are all way off topic as the OP has admitted its not RAI. His point was to call people using strict RAW in debates when they know or at least he beleives they know its not RAI.
Later I told him what is not RAI and what the devs did not think of are not always the same. You can have something that is legally OP. He disagreed and said that even if a combo is 100% workable it is against RAI when it gets to a point when a dev would think it is too good.
So I guess the question is "How do all of you feel about this?"
Umm.... yes you did?I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."
The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.
Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?
Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.
I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."
It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.
The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.
The rule about not lowering your CL below the minimum to cast is a specific rule about intentionally changing your effective CL, it has no bearing outside that context.
The arcane surge ability adjudicates all of its own conciderations regarding what level of spell you can cast; it specifically and explicitly says "any arcane spell."
No I didnt. How about you quote exactly what I bolded.
What Wraithstrike means is that he bolded the part about how a caster level must be high enough to actually cast the spell.
OK, that is dependent clause in a sentence talking about voluntarily lowering your CL. It literally has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of that sentence. And that sentence has no bearing on anything outside of voluntarily lowering your CL.
No I didnt. How about you quote exactly what I bolded.Umm.... yes you did?I didn't bold the part about lowering CL.I guess the missing casting stat makes this even worse. That might kill it even basing it on stupid raw.The casting stat rule is NOT in the magic chapter. It is part of each classes individual spells ability. It is therefore not a global restriction but a restriction of each class. It also has no bearing on Mythic Commoner of DOOM!This one is --> "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, ..."
The fighter does not even get to choose a caster level.
Then the question is asked how do we know what your caster level needs to be for a certain spell?
Well that depends on how your spell list is constructed, and this fighter does not even have a spell list.
I have yet to see anyone dictate how you can cast any spell without expending a slot translate into "you can bypass every other requirement also."
It would be like a feat that said "You can use any weapon, even those you are not proficient in without taking penalties", and someone tried to say "Oh, now I can use gargantuan weapons", while ignoring the size restriction.
The entire time focusing on the "You can use any weapon.." part.
The rule about not lowering your CL below the minimum to cast is a specific rule about intentionally changing your effective CL, it has no bearing outside that context.
The arcane surge ability adjudicates all of its own conciderations regarding what level of spell you can cast; it specifically and explicitly says "any arcane spell."
You quoted a subordinate clause in a sentence about voluntarily lowering your CL.
What Wraithstrike means is that he bolded the part about how a caster level must be high enough to actually cast the spell.OK, that is dependent clause in a sentence talking about voluntarily lowering your CL. It literally has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of that sentence. And that sentence has no bearing on anything outside of voluntarily lowering your CL.
So you are saying you dont need to be a certain caster level to cast a spell by the general rules?
Really we are all way off topic as the OP has admitted its not RAI. His point was to call people using strict RAW in debates when they know or at least he beleives they know its not RAI.
Later I told him what is not RAI and what the devs did not think of are not always the same. You can have something that is legally OP. He disagreed and said that even if a combo is 100% workable it is against RAI when it gets to a point when a dev would think it is too good.So I guess the question is "How do all of you feel about this?"
I think we should be clear, so please dont paraphrase me and don't try to abstract my logic. I specifically think that the sno-cone wish machine is not RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying you dont need to be a certain caster level to cast a spell by the general rules?What Wraithstrike means is that he bolded the part about how a caster level must be high enough to actually cast the spell.OK, that is dependent clause in a sentence talking about voluntarily lowering your CL. It literally has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of that sentence. And that sentence has no bearing on anything outside of voluntarily lowering your CL.
Yes. All the rules governing CL and spell casting are particular to the classes' "spells" class features. Absent of those class features you dont need any particular level to cast any particular spell. You just need the granted ability to cast spells. This power grants you the ability to cast spells.
EDIT, EVIDENCE; An Aasimar's daylight ability both counts as a 3rd level spell AND can have a CL of 1 is the Aasimar is 1st level.
Absent of those class features you dont need any particular level to cast any particular spell.So you don't need a caster level to cast a spell. How do you calculate caster level dependent variables?
In the OP. I suggest that you don't, but leave that open to debate. My personal opinion would be that any spell with a CL dependent option would treat CL as 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously this is not RAI, and it certainly not something any sane GM would allow, but... Holy s+%$, is it amusing...
No one ever accused me of being 'sane'!
(Why would that be an accusation, anyway?)
I think we should be clear, so please dont paraphrase me and don't try to abstract my logic. I specifically think that the sno-cone wish machine is not RAI.Really we are all way off topic as the OP has admitted its not RAI. His point was to call people using strict RAW in debates when they know or at least he beleives they know its not RAI.
Later I told him what is not RAI and what the devs did not think of are not always the same. You can have something that is legally OP. He disagreed and said that even if a combo is 100% workable it is against RAI when it gets to a point when a dev would think it is too good.So I guess the question is "How do all of you feel about this?"
I see no reason not to. This is a silly debate otherwise. If you have an issue with people saying "but RAW..." and then covering their ears and sticking their tongues out then that should be the issue.
It sounds like you are accusing them of dishonest debating which annoys me also, but if so just call them out instead of doing the same thing they do.
However you should also realize that some actually thing the wishbinding and other things are also RAI.
That is why I often ask people are they arguing RAI or RAW in debates so we can be on the same page.
So you are saying you dont need to be a certain caster level to cast a spell by the general rules?What Wraithstrike means is that he bolded the part about how a caster level must be high enough to actually cast the spell.OK, that is dependent clause in a sentence talking about voluntarily lowering your CL. It literally has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of that sentence. And that sentence has no bearing on anything outside of voluntarily lowering your CL.Yes. All the rules governing CL and spell casting are particular to the classes' "spells" class features. Absent of those class features you dont need any particular level to cast any particular spell. You just need the granted ability to cast spells. This power grants you the ability to cast spells.
EDIT, EVIDENCE; An Aasimar's daylight ability both counts as a 3rd level spell AND can have a CL of 1 is the Aasimar is 1st level.
That is an SLA. I asked for spells, and my bolded quote says spells need a minimum caster level to be cast or are you going to provide a quote saying that is no longer true?
In the OP. I suggest that you don't, but leave that open to debate. My personal opinion would be that any spell with a CL dependent option would treat CL as 0.Absent of those class features you dont need any particular level to cast any particular spell.So you don't need a caster level to cast a spell. How do you calculate caster level dependent variables?
So a spell with a caster level of 0 has no duration or a duration of instantaneous?
For the sake of the above question we will assume the duration is something like invisibility that is based on caster level
For certain damage spell we can use fireball which does 1d6/level.
I guess you could argue that the spell is cast, but nothing happens. Anyway this is my last RAW based argument. Everything else I say here will be based on why this thread exist. That is more interesting to me anyway that RAW that most people will know is not RAI.
|
I really have nothing to add to this, clearly it's not RAI but that's been established.
RAW? I have no idea. Seems like the general rules say no, but you get a weird situation where a very literal reading of a specific clause says yes. I'd say probably not. But I'm not going to seriously try and argue this, I don't think it's something that can actually be argued if you accept that language can be twisted this way and that.
It is hilarious though. I'm glad that this was thought of.
It would be quite amusing to run a game with a fighter doing this.
Magical Knack Trait +2 CL
And if you include 3rd party
I think for those who abuse the rules and twist them like only a munchkin can on these forums, the OP is perfectly valid.
On the otherhand, as a GM who would slap down half these nonsense things that people bring up on these forums that twist and break RAI...
There's NO WAY I'd allow the OP idea to occur, with much the same logic as many have already utilized in this thread.
CL for supernatural abilities tend to be equal to your HD. I don't think that's a RAW rule, but it's how the math breaks down for most any SU ability with a save.
SU does not have CL's. If they replicate a spell they will sometimes(such as the monk's abundant step) tell you to treat your HD as CL. In this case however you are actually casting a spell so you the HD would not work anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be pretty cool if Paizo was smart enough to allow any classes able to make use any mythic hero's paths. The idea that a swordman having god giving him the power of archmage would be awesome. It's great how Abyssal Sorcerer with Champion's path can still somewhat work, but stupid that barbarian can't take archmage when god gave him that title. Where is the joy of exploring something new and realizing a whole new version of yourself? That's why I love bloodrager, just smash and smash until he start to realize there are more he could do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously this is not RAI, and it certainly not something any sane GM would allow, but... Holy s+%$, is it amusing...No one ever accused me of being 'sane'!
(Why would that be an accusation, anyway?)
I know, right? Plenty of sane people talk to themselves.
But only the crazy ones get a reply.
:D