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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GreyWolfLord wrote:

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.

They'd be slapped down for different reasons:

Wizard uses Simulacrum on an Efreeti for 3/day Wish: No. I don't care if it's legal by RAW and RAI both, it's a gamebreaking exploit and won't happen at my table.

Fighter uses Arcane Surge to cast Time Stop, Mind Blank, et. al 31/day: No. This is not legal by RAW or RAI and won't happen at my table.

See the difference?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think for those who abuse the rules and twist them like only a munchkin can on these forums, the OP is perfectly valid.

Hey! I resemble that!


@kestrel287: yes--the fighter is having one of the precious few Nice Things they've unintentionally gotten taken away, while the wizard still has many BS things he can do outside of the many outright-gamebreaking combos he gets.

-if ruled that no native casting = 0CL, he'd be stuck to 0-level spells unless he started eating orange prism ioun stones for breakfast or something (using typeless CL bonus items like the OPIS (slotting it in a wayfinder to bring it to +0-+3 total effect depending on roll), a +4CL prayer bead, and a moon circlet (-2-+2 depending on moon phase)), letting him cast a 9th level spell with the archmage ability ONLY IF he rolled a 4 on the wayfinder stone AND it's the full moon that night, and only for ten minutes/day, which is some pretty specific circumstances and makes for a very unique character since their magic is so nebulous that even they can't predict what will happen.

-even if the effect's specifics trumped the usual spell level limitation, he'd have to stick to no-saves or other spells that don't scale with CL, since even if he gets to cast it, he'd still have no base CL for it to go off of for the effect scaling (getting the absolute minimum every time).

-whether it works with SLA CL is a whole different bag of worms; lightbringer's odd wording might allow it to work, but most others wouldn't i think?). the SLA=casting is pretty specific on what spell level you're effectively a caster of (daylight SLA makes you able to cast 3rd(?)-level arcane spells, but not 2nd or 1st level for pre-reqs like feats and PrCs.

i'm FAQing the OP in hopes that some clearer ruling will be made, but i'm kinda hoping they get to keep this option--preferably in a somewhat balanced manner (like option 1 or 2), obviously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
@kestrel287: yes--the fighter is having one of the precious few Nice Things they've unintentionally gotten taken away, while the wizard still has many BS things he can do outside of the many outright-gamebreaking combos he gets.

Nonono. The "nice things" the Fighter gets in Mythic is stuff like Fleet Warrior, Mythic Vital Strike, Mythic Power Attack, Adamantine Mind, etc. Not, as BDTBone is contending, the ability to cast every arcane spell in the game (note that he is denying such a rule as 0 caster level = 0th level spells; so this Fighter could cast, say, Time Stop (which has no caster level dependent variables and is far from the only powerhouse arcane spell in that boat)).

Note that said Fighter could do this as a Fighter 1/Archmage 1, under BDTBone's contention. 9th level spells at level one has moved so far beyond "nice things" that it's not even funny.

Yes, Wizards can be b%*+@$%~. And yes, the GM should manage them-- and I've heard of precious few GMs who haven't. So go ahead and strip away Mythic Cloudkill and Simulacrum. Ban Blood Money unless they're using their own native Strength stat. Make them deal with the realistic consequences of trying to, say, Gate in a Solar (it works, and with a high enough CL you might even be able to force it to do your bidding-- but Gate is explicitly planar transportation as opposed to the more nebulous Summoning so pray you were respectful). But you shouldn't be letting the Fighter break explicit rules or very clear RAI, just because the Wizard is able to use some poorly-worded spells.

Deal with the actual problem, don't try to make it worse.


glass wrote:

Reading this thread, I've gone back and forth as to whether this is RAW. It does say "you can cast any arcane spell", and that seems fairly unequivocal but is that enough?

The sorcerer has 5 paragraphs of text granting it the ability to grant spells, that this ability lacks. Which means that things that caster level and casting stat are undefined. IMO, if trying to use an ability generates 404 Not Found errors, then you cannot claim that you can use the ability by RAW.

EDIT: I just thought of a more fundamental issue. This spell allows you the ability to cast spells. Since you don't have to prepare them, you are now a spontaneous caster even if you weren't before. So the second restriction kicks in. Oops.

glass.

I think I'm leaning towards this EDIT. Maybe we're all just spontaneous casters with empty lists of spells known :)

Being able to cast spells without being a spellcaster goes against the rules... and English, I guess.


Is this still going on? Honestly it's not even RAW that you can pull this trick off. The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know. Each sentence must be read as part of the whole. Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells. This is explicitly stated in the definition of Spell-like abilities.

You simply can't do it.


It is an extreme assertion. According to the assertion, a level 1/mr 1 archmage can cast wish. Any is any right? You can only do this if you're a fighter. A wizard couldn't. That alone makes it an automatic no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
You simply can't do it.

Doesn't stop people from claiming otherwise, and I say more power to them. Whatever makes them happy.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Is this still going on?

it is less than 24 hours old. How long should things you don't like get talked about before we offend you?

Quote:
The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know

that is definately NOT what the power says. If it was written that way we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells.

Is this supposed to be a related comment or did you just want to tack it on for good measure? What are you trying to argue here?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how people try to change how English works rather than accept a Non-RAI RAW mistake.

Mythics are just packed full of nonsense RAW. GM interpretations are mandatory to run the base game, not to mention mythics.


BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Is this still going on?

it is less than 24 hours old. How long should things you don't like get talked about before we offend you?

Quote:
The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know

that is definately NOT what the power says. If it was written that way we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells.
Is this supposed to be a related comment or did you just want to tack it on for good measure? What are you trying to argue here?

A thread should last as long ad is needed. In this case it's already been addressed so the discussion is just wishful thinking.

I actually looked it up again and it's very clear.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Is this still going on?

it is less than 24 hours old. How long should things you don't like get talked about before we offend you?

Quote:
The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know

that is definately NOT what the power says. If it was written that way we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells.
Is this supposed to be a related comment or did you just want to tack it on for good measure? What are you trying to argue here?

A thread should last as long ad is needed. In this case it's already been addressed so the discussion is just wishful thinking.

I actually looked it up again and it's very clear.

I provided a detailed, line by line analysis in the OP. Care to share where you believe I got it wrong?

I also find it hilarious that you continue to make value statements about an argument that you claim to be settled.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Is this still going on?

it is less than 24 hours old. How long should things you don't like get talked about before we offend you?

Quote:
The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know

that is definately NOT what the power says. If it was written that way we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells.
Is this supposed to be a related comment or did you just want to tack it on for good measure? What are you trying to argue here?

A thread should last as long ad is needed. In this case it's already been addressed so the discussion is just wishful thinking.

I actually looked it up again and it's very clear.

I provided a detailed, line by line analysis in the OP. Care to share where you believe I got it wrong?

I also find it hilarious that you continue to make value statements about an argument that you claim to be settled.

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

Spoiler:
Did you know that you have more nerve endings in your gut than your brain? It's true. You can look it up. I know what you're going to say. You're going to say, "I did look it up, and you're wrong, bookrat." Well, that's because you looked it up in a book. I looked it up in my gut, and that's how I know I'm right. Because that's where the truth lies, in the gut.


Just because Fighter 1/Archmage 1 shouldn't be able to cast any arcane spell in the book doesn't mean they can't. It just means the rules are stupid. We all know the rules have been stupid before. We all know the devs did not intend this.

But that's exactly what it says.


bookrat wrote:
I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

I posted not one but two reasons why it doesn't work, neither of which had anything to do with my feelings. The first one might be arguable, but the second one is pretty insurmountable.

_
glass.


bookrat wrote:

"Quoted stuff."

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

I have seen arguments. The one that really swayed me was this:

One claim is that the fighter/archmage is granted the ability to cast spells without becoming a spellcaster. As I understood it.

He would be a spellcaster who doesn't prepare spells, then he is a spontaneous caster and thereby subject to the restriction that the spell must be one of his known spells.

Unless I completely misunderstood this thread.


DonDuckie wrote:
bookrat wrote:

"Quoted stuff."

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

I have seen arguments. The one that really swayed me was this:

One claim is that the fighter/archmage is granted the ability to cast spells without becoming a spellcaster. As I understood it.

He would be a spellcaster who doesn't prepare spells, then he is a spontaneous caster and thereby subject to the restriction that the spell must be one of his known spells.

Unless I completely misunderstood this thread.

There is nothing in the rules which states that if you are not one, you must be the other. The argument falls flat. And no, you didn't misunderstand it, it's just an erroneous argument.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DonDuckie wrote:
bookrat wrote:

"Quoted stuff."

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

I have seen arguments. The one that really swayed me was this:

One claim is that the fighter/archmage is granted the ability to cast spells without becoming a spellcaster. As I understood it.

He would be a spellcaster who doesn't prepare spells, then he is a spontaneous caster and thereby subject to the restriction that the spell must be one of his known spells.

Unless I completely misunderstood this thread.

I don't know where you're reading that rule. My copy of the CRB (page 206) says:

Quote:

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.

1.) We already know that many other rulebooks beyond the CRB have expanded the lists of arcane and divine spellcasters so, in principle, Mythic Adventures has the power to grant access to spellcasting to more characters.

2.) It says 'some spellcasters select' while 'others have access to a wide variety of options'. 'Most… prepare' while 'some cast… spontaneously'. Nothing about these statements precludes the third option brought up by BigDTBone. In fact, the phrasing leaves it open to interpretation.

3.) Specific beats general. Even if the rulebook did say that only spellcasters could cast spells (it doesn't), the rule in Mythic Adventures would trump it. Honestly, I'm not sure what the the problem is here. Obviously, MA should be errata'd to be less open to these shenanigans, but according to the RAW, BigDTBone seems to be 100% correct.


glass wrote:
bookrat wrote:
I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

I posted not one but two reasons why it doesn't work, neither of which had anything to do with my feelings. The first one might be arguable, but the second one is pretty insurmountable.

_
glass.

I'm willing to admit that I was wrong that your argument was not based on feelings. As your argument is wrong, just admit as much and that will prove that your resistance isn't based on a feeling of wrongness but rather a misinterpretation of the rules as written.

As an example, in another thread I was wrong on a RAW account where I had misinterpreted the rules. When this was pointed out, I admitted my error and retracted my statement as any sort of RAW (it may still be RAI or house rule preference, but not RAW).


bookrat wrote:
DonDuckie wrote:
bookrat wrote:

"Quoted stuff."

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

I have seen arguments. The one that really swayed me was this:

One claim is that the fighter/archmage is granted the ability to cast spells without becoming a spellcaster. As I understood it.

He would be a spellcaster who doesn't prepare spells, then he is a spontaneous caster and thereby subject to the restriction that the spell must be one of his known spells.

Unless I completely misunderstood this thread.

There is nothing in the rules which states that if you are not one, you must be the other. The argument falls flat. And no, you didn't misunderstand it, it's just an erroneous argument.

That clears it all up, thank you for not just asserting others are wrong. :D

But seriously, I looked around a little, and under the sorcerer class I don't see where it classifies the sorcerer as a spontaneous caster. And in the magic chapter under Sorcerers and bards it simply states that they don't prepare spells.
What makes them spontaneous casters? I honestly thought it was the ability to cast spells without preparation.


While it does say you can cast any arcane spell and thus a fighter could do that you would need to make up a bunch of house rules just to make it work(what is the CL? What sets the DCs? etc)

It's basically just a bad turn of phrase that even an extremely permissive GM would have to make a bunch of judgement calls on to have it function.


Yuugasa wrote:

While it does say you can cast any arcane spell and thus a fighter could do that you would need to make up a bunch of house rules just to make it work(what is the CL? What sets the DCs? etc)

It's basically just a bad turn of phrase that even an extremely permissive GM would have make a bunch of judgement calls on to have it function.

It's actually pretty simple.

You have no CL and you have no relevant bonus to the DC of spells. Plenty of spells are plenty strong without either of those (because spellcasting is just a tad broken).

Now having an SLA gives you both a CL and scales it off your cha. But that only follows from the nonsense FAQ the devs gave about SLAs. You couldn't actually interpret that from the rules.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1) Paizo has stated (and encouraged) to use common sense when interpreting rules text. This is so they don't have to make rules look even more like a legal document than it already does. Common sense tells you that this ability is meant to allow arcane spellcasters to cast spells without losing spell slots or prepared slots at the cost of mythic power.

2) Arcane surge explicitly says it's meant to allow a spellcaster to cast a spell without expending a spell slot or prepared spell. A fighter cannot take advantage of that because they have no class feature that grants spell slots or prepared spells.

3) Let me use an analogy to describe your argument. Let's say there's an item that can reduce the cost of a ki power to 0. Your argument basically says that this ring would allow fighters use ki powers without monk/ninja levels since it costs no ki points to activate. That wouldn't work because:
A) Fighters don't have the ki pool class feature.
B) Fighters don't have ki powers to use. Remember that UMD does not allow you to use class features.
C) The ring is obviously meant to reduce the ability costs for a monk, not grant monk class features to other classes.

4) Even if I agree with your interpretation, it still doesn't make any sense why an ability obviously meant for spellcasters would place bigger restrictions on spellcasters than non-spellcasters.

5) There's already plenty of RAW ways to break the game. Ones that don't need finding loopholes in mythic rules using convoluted munchkin logic to work. No player would use this "loophole" unless they were intentionally trying to break the game. No GM would allow such an obvious attempt to break the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DonDuckie wrote:


But seriously, I looked around a little, and under the sorcerer class I don't see where it classifies the sorcerer as a spontaneous caster. And in the magic chapter under Sorcerers and bards it simply states that they don't prepare spells.
What makes them spontaneous casters? I honestly thought it was the ability to cast spells without preparation.

Technically, Sorcerers are not spontaneous casters according to the CRB, as it never calls them that (if you know otherwise, please cite the page number). Clerics and Druids have the Spontaneous Casting class abilities, which allow them to substitute some spells for another. Clerics may 'spontaneously' use a cure/inflict spell instead of a channel energy, while a Druid may use a summon nature's ally in place of a prepared spell. That's what spontaneous casting is, technically speaking.

However, that being said, the term is also used to apply to spellcasters that do not prepare their spells. One citation of this would be the retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign (page 191), which says:

Quote:

Spells Known

If you are a spontaneous spellcaster (such as a bard, oracle, sorcerer, or summoner), you can retrain a spell known.

I don't see how it gets in the way of BigDTBone's assessment though.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

It's actually pretty simple.

You have no CL and you have no relevant bonus to the DC of spells. Plenty of spells are plenty strong without either of those (because spellcasting is just a tad broken).

Now having an SLA gives you both a CL and scales it off your cha. But that only follows from the nonsense FAQ the devs gave about SLAs. You couldn't actually interpret that from the rules.

To the first part that doesn't really jive with the rest of the game though, spells and spell-like abilities always have a CL and a calculation for DCs (as far as I am aware). You are basically just taking one single sentence and adding a homebrew spellcasting system from it that is never mentioned in the ability.

To the second part I haven't read the FAQ so I have no idea, maybe it makes sense with that, otherwise it just seems silly to me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Cyrad:

1.) Agreed. Everyone here agrees. This is a ridiculous thread. You're just pointing out RAI though.

2.) No it does not say that. You (and anyone who's not a lawyer) infer that. It's poorly worded, and should receive an errata.

3.) If all the item did was reduce the cost, then yes, that would be true.
A.) This mythic path ability says it grants the ability to do this thing.
B.) This mythic path ability says it grants the ability to do this thing.
C.) What the intent of the ability is doesn't change how poorly written it is.

4.) Agreed.

5.) Agreed, which is why the OP posted it as a parody of certain other posters who enjoy taking advantage of loopholes.

The Mythic Paths are suggested as being 'suitable' for specific types of characters, but there is no rule against picking an 'unsuitable' one, and it does in fact say that classes can find a different one useful.


Cyrad wrote:
5) There's already plenty of RAW ways to break the game. Ones that don't need finding loopholes in mythic rules using convoluted munchkin logic to work. No player would use this "loophole" unless they were intentionally trying to break the game. No GM would allow such an obvious attempt to break the game.

No really?

Of course no one would actually do this. That doesn't make it munchkin logic or any other sort of derogatory name-calling logic.

I am more impressed by the people willing to decrease their literacy for the sole purpose of rejecting a RAW quirk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuuniyevo wrote:
DonDuckie wrote:


But seriously, I looked around a little, and under the sorcerer class I don't see where it classifies the sorcerer as a spontaneous caster. And in the magic chapter under Sorcerers and bards it simply states that they don't prepare spells.
What makes them spontaneous casters? I honestly thought it was the ability to cast spells without preparation.

Technically, Sorcerers are not spontaneous casters according to the CRB, as it never calls them that (if you know otherwise, please cite the page number). Clerics and Druids have the Spontaneous Casting class abilities, which allow them to substitute some spells for another. Clerics may 'spontaneously' use a cure/inflict spell instead of a channel energy, while a Druid may use a summon nature's ally in place of a prepared spell. That's what spontaneous casting is, technically speaking.

However, that being said, the term is also used to apply to spellcasters that do not prepare their spells. One citation of this would be the retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign (page 191), which says:

Quote:

Spells Known

If you are a spontaneous spellcaster (such as a bard, oracle, sorcerer, or summoner), you can retrain a spell known.

I don't see how it gets in the way of BigDTBone's assessment though.

Thank you. The surge ability holds limitations for prepared and spontaneous casters respectively, I believe all casters are one or the other or both, but never neither(I can't cite a page for that).

Bone says in some posts that the ability grants the ability to cast spells, as a spellcaster which neither 'prepares spells' nor 'doesn't prepare spells' (the closest definition of a spontaneous caster to my knowledge).

My view:
- If you cast spells then you are a spellcaster.
- If you must prepare spells in order to cast them, then you are a prepared caster. And the ability only works for prepared spells.
- If you can cast spells without preparing them, then you are a spontaneous caster. And the ability only works for spells on your list of spells known.

The fighter 1/archmage 1:
Can he cast spells? yes, the ability grants him that -> spellcaster
Does he need to prepare spells in order to cast them? no. Okay.
Can he cast spells without preparing them? yes, through the ability -> spontaneous caster and in dire need of some spells known.

It's a contradiction.

PS.
I agree with Paizo's call for common sense in interpreting the rules. But not in RAW clarifications.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

WOOO!

Go hostility! This thread is great!

*noms on tasty aggression, hidden grudges, and biases*


bookrat wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Is this still going on?

it is less than 24 hours old. How long should things you don't like get talked about before we offend you?

Quote:
The spell you cast must be either one that you prepared today or be one that you know

that is definately NOT what the power says. If it was written that way we wouldn't be here.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells. They work like spells but are not spells.
Is this supposed to be a related comment or did you just want to tack it on for good measure? What are you trying to argue here?

A thread should last as long ad is needed. In this case it's already been addressed so the discussion is just wishful thinking.

I actually looked it up again and it's very clear.

I provided a detailed, line by line analysis in the OP. Care to share where you believe I got it wrong?

I also find it hilarious that you continue to make value statements about an argument that you claim to be settled.

I've noticed that every person who has claimed you are wrong has simply made the assertion that you're wrong without providing evidence or any argumentation based on your original analysis as to why you're wrong. Simply put: you're wrong because they feel you're wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

Reason WERE given. There is a difference between nobody cited and rules, and nobody citing rules that YOU agreed with.

Dishonesty is not appreciated here.


How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.


wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.


I think this thread has a point.

That mythic ability, by RAW, allows a non-casting class to cast any arcane spell in the game. The problems with that people have pointed out (CL 0, etc.) are glitches in the game that should be sorted out for people who want to use Mythic rules. Require spellcasting ability to take Archmage tiers or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

If you don't think there is any point to this thread, then don't post in it. You aren't required to read every thread in the forums. If you aren't interested in a discussion about RAW, and in particular about this facet of RAW, there are thousands of other threads you can read that might interest you more. Just as there are thousands of RPG books on the market that people other than you are interested in purchasing, but you are not required to buy. The forum isn't just for what personally interests you.

I personally thought this thread was an entertaining read. Well done BigDTBone.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.


137ben wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

If you don't think there is any point to this thread, then don't post in it. You aren't required to read every thread in the forums. If you aren't interested in a discussion about RAW, and in particular about this facet of RAW, there are thousands of other threads you can read that might interest you more. Just as there are thousands of RPG books on the market that people other than you are interested in purchasing, but you are not required to buy. The forum isn't just for what personally interests you.

I personally thought this thread was an entertaining read. Well done BigDTBone.

I guess it is not required that you read it either or you would have understood the point of my last post.


Well, there goes Paizo not having to reprint entire sections of books every time something new comes out...


wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.

Meh, my game plan on this is long. Now that the idea is out there I can use it as a counter argument. So, if you are annoyed by this you should steer clear of martial-caster disparity threads from now on.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, there goes Paizo not having to reprint entire sections of books every time something new comes out...

Not really. They just have to include one little prereq to fix this.


The ability granted by this power is neither spontaneous nor prepared. It is mythic power casting. The ability is fueled by expending mythic power points, not prepared spells or spell slots. This is a wholly new and distinct casting paradigm. That's why wizard/sorcerer specific spell level vs minimum caster level issues don't matter. The only place you are limited by class/caster level to what spell level you may cast in on the casting charts in the respective classes write-ups. Those restrictions don't apply to this casting form.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, there goes Paizo not having to reprint entire sections of books every time something new comes out...
Not really. They just have to include one little prereq to fix this.

I really hope they actually do address it, and I hope they do it before the sno-cone FAQ. Because that would be hilarious.


What I mean is, the section in the CRB that explains how magic casting works isn't a specific vs. general deal, it's a core mechanic.
They shouldn't have to reprint this so people won't look at things like this and "ZOMG free magic!" It doesn't work that way. Rules in the different books don't operate in a vacuum.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:
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.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.


Note that even with this trick, you still don't cast as well as a mythic sorcerer, since a lot of spells depend on caster level.

This reminds me of the big range of ways to break the game with a candle of invocation. Total cheese, and usable by any class. Sure, some class and race combinations can break the game sooner and/or harder (e.g., at the extreme end, in RAW 3.5 a couple of race/class combinations can become pun-pun at level 1, but anyone, even a commoner, can become pun-pun after a few levels), but with enough optimization even the lowly commoner can break into the top range of power.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.

Meh, my game plan on this is long. Now that the idea is out there I can use it as a counter argument. So, if you are annoyed by this you should steer clear of martial-caster disparity threads from now on.

I said you were annoyed. This is about the 3rd time you have misread something I put in this thread. What I should do is what I am doing now, and if annoyance is a reason to avoid martial-caster disparity threads then you should avoid them, since you are the one making passive-aggressive topics.

edit: The people that do this won't care about your counter arguments because they are likely just trying to "win" the argument. They will likely misrepresent anything you say.

Scarab Sages

AndIMustMask wrote:

@kestrel287: yes--the fighter is having one of the precious few Nice Things they've unintentionally gotten taken away, while the wizard still has many BS things he can do outside of the many outright-gamebreaking combos he gets.

-if ruled that no native casting = 0CL, he'd be stuck to 0-level spells unless he started eating orange prism ioun stones for breakfast or something (using typeless CL bonus items like the OPIS (slotting it in a wayfinder to bring it to +0-+3 total effect depending on roll), a +4CL prayer bead, and a moon circlet (-2-+2 depending on moon phase)), letting him cast a 9th level spell with the archmage ability ONLY IF he rolled a 4 on the wayfinder stone AND it's the full moon that night, and only for ten minutes/day, which is some pretty specific circumstances and makes for a very unique character since their magic is so nebulous that even they can't predict what will happen.

-even if the effect's specifics trumped the usual spell level limitation, he'd have to stick to no-saves or other spells that don't scale with CL, since even if he gets to cast it, he'd still have no base CL for it to go off of for the effect scaling (getting the absolute minimum every time).

-whether it works with SLA CL is a whole different bag of worms; lightbringer's odd wording might allow it to work, but most others wouldn't i think?). the SLA=casting is pretty specific on what spell level you're effectively a caster of (daylight SLA makes you able to cast 3rd(?)-level arcane spells, but not 2nd or 1st level for pre-reqs like feats and PrCs.

i'm FAQing the OP in hopes that some clearer ruling will be made, but i'm kinda hoping they get to keep this option--preferably in a somewhat balanced manner (like option 1 or 2), obviously.

Umm this isn't a fighter nice thing unless you ignore half the ability description where it places restrictions on how it must be a spell they know/have prepared/etc.


Devil's Advocate wrote:

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:
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.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Interestingly enough, the reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't provide a mechanism for casting spells. Arcane surge does provide a mechanism.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Cuuniyevo wrote:

Cyrad:

1.) Agreed. Everyone here agrees. This is a ridiculous thread. You're just pointing out RAI though.

2.) No it does not say that. You (and anyone who's not a lawyer) infer that. It's poorly worded, and should receive an errata.

3.) If all the item did was reduce the cost, then yes, that would be true.
A.) This mythic path ability says it grants the ability to do this thing.
B.) This mythic path ability says it grants the ability to do this thing.
C.) What the intent of the ability is doesn't change how poorly written it is.

4.) Agreed.

5.) Agreed, which is why the OP posted it as a parody of certain other posters who enjoy taking advantage of loopholes.

The Mythic Paths are suggested as being 'suitable' for specific types of characters, but there is no rule against picking an 'unsuitable' one, and it does in fact say that classes can find a different one useful.

I agree with your rebuttal, but there's many things Paizo needs to errata. While definitely poorly worded, it is obvious what the designers intended, and no GM would go with the OP's interpretation. Meanwhile, there's many abilities that simply don't work as written or failed to get updated. Myrmidarch's upgraded ranged spellstrike still hasn't been eratta'd despite not working as written and not having an obvious intent (either the designer didn't know how spell combat worked or the ability was supposed to allow the magus to full attack when casting a ray spell).


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

How about everyone who used "but it's RAW" in a discussion when you knew it was not RAI just apologize to BigDTbone so he does not make any more silly threads like this one.

Then we can waste our time on threads that actually have a point.

Actually most people use, "but it is RAW" because they disagree with the other person on what RAI is.

There are a few posters who both play and GM under the idea that high level spell casters get free wishes.

I agree but from what I understand of Big T's earlier argument is that he thinks they are being dishonest when they use "but its RAW", and it annoyed him into making this thread.

Meh, my game plan on this is long. Now that the idea is out there I can use it as a counter argument. So, if you are annoyed by this you should steer clear of martial-caster disparity threads from now on.

I said you were annoyed. This is about the 3rd time you have misread something I put in this thread. What I should do is what I am doing now, and if annoyance is a reason to avoid martial-caster disparity threads then you should avoid them, since you are the one making passive-aggressive topics.

edit: The people that do this won't care about your counter arguments because they are likely just trying to "win" the argument. They will likely misrepresent anything you say.

I didn't read you are annoyed. I determined you are annoyed by your statements.

Also, you are the one who was splitting the hair of "Rules as intended," being different from "using the rules in the way intended by the developers." Excuse the hell out of me if I am having issues following your actual point.

Also, you are the one who quoted a dependant clause of a non-related rule and claimed it was a global rule. Your credibility in deciding what is a "misrepresentation" has been depleted in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:

Check it out, everyone! The Eschew Materials feat lets fighters cast unlimited 9th-level spells!

Eschew Materials wrote:
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.

See that! "You can cast any spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less..." It says it right there in the first sentence. And it doesn't say that spells you cast require you to spend spell slots or mythic power. As long as it's a spell with a material component costing 1 gp or less, you just cast it for free whenever you want.

Also, the Quick Draw feat lets you draw a weapon even if you have no free hands or other prehensile limbs! It says, "You can draw a weapon as a free action..." It's granting you the ability to draw weapons even if you would otherwise be physically incapable of drawing weapons! After all, the ability to physically draw weapons is not a prerequisite for this feat, and the feat explicitly grants you that ability! If you have no available hands, you can just telekinetically draw your weapons!

Well, either that or an ability that says, "You can do X without doing Y," is granting you the ability to ignore Y whenever you do X, not also granting you the ability to do X. But that's crazy talk. That argument assumes that the English language grants readers the latitude to consider context and common sense when determining which of two clauses within a sentence is dependent upon the other. And, as we all know, the English language is an infinitely precise computer language, any sentence of which can have only one meaning when parsed, regardless of context.

Interestingly enough, the reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't provide a mechanism for casting spells. Arcane surge...

It works by strict RAW to me if the other one works. Of course this just highlights the point that you(general statement) can't go around shouting "RAW" because the words will still mean different things to different people. Maybe if it is something such as "you get a +1 to attack", which is very direct, but other than that RAW does not hold as much weight as many think it does.

PS: Not directed at BigT. Just making at point

151 to 200 of 552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.