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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, it seems to work. It says "any arcane spell," which would seem to include spells you could not ordinarily cast, whether due to not having it on your spell list, having too low a casting stat, or insufficient caster level.

However, you don't have a casting stat or casting level. So, SR is going to suck. I'm not even sure you can make a SR check, but if you can, you won't usually succeed. Anything based on caster level is going to suck; your fireball does 0d6 damage. I'm guessing the casting DC is just 10 + the spell level, since you have no casting stat modifier.

This is hilarious, yet exactly as broken (in every sense) as you would expect from something that is not supposed to happen. There was no reason for the ability to be written as "any one arcane spell;" it would work as intended if it said "an arcane spell."


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.

Huh.

That is a fair point.

I'm still pondering over the exact implications of this. But I want to commend you on forming an actual argument instead of frothing at the mouth going "nuh uh".

EDIT: Someone did point out that this feat does give you an action to cast spells. SO although you can cast spells, you have no action to actually spend casting spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Huh.

That is a fair point.

I'm still pondering over the exact implications of this. But I want to commend you on forming an actual argument instead of frothing at the mouth going "nuh uh".

It's interesting. Usually, the ability is such a way that when it says "you can do X" it rests on an existing capability. But because this ability has a branching description based on whether you are a spontaneous or prepared caster, the rest of the description places "If" at the beginning of the restrictions. Normally, there is no "If," and sentences like "this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it)" simply apply. But unlike Eschew Materials, all the restrictions on Arcane Surge has "if" in front of them, so if those condition's aren't triggered, the restrictions are never applied at all.


BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Ah, that's where you lost me. In a RAW discussion, I don't see anything about this paradigm written anywhere. So attributing features to it doesn't make sense.

There is nothing in the term spontaneous caster that demands spell slots. At least not to my knowledge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What we really need is an IF/ELSE. Like this:

"If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it); otherwise, this spell must be one of your spells known."

EDIT:

Ack, this needs to be rewritten entirely, using "When you cast an arcane spell" as the opener. As it is, this ability also allows you to cast as a swift action, and it's not clear how (Su) is going to interact with the effects of this spell. I.e. as written, this ability might allow you to cast fireball as a swift action and ignore SR. That's obviously not intended, but when an ability doesn't do what it says it does, it makes it that much harder to adjudicate corner cases.


RJGrady wrote:

What we really need is an IF/ELSE. Like this:

"If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it); otherwise, this spell must be one of your spells known."

But that would exclude characters that are both(their spontaneous spells known). Never heard of any that are neither.

EDIT: didn't see your EDIT :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole conversation seems like it would make a good card for the Munchkin Card Game.

"Find one oddly written sentence in a whole paragraph of rules: Spawn an entire alternative magic system."

+1 Level.


RJGrady wrote:

What we really need is an IF/ELSE. Like this:

"If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it); otherwise, this spell must be one of your spells known."

EDIT:

Ack, this needs to be rewritten entirely, using "When you cast an arcane spell" as the opener. As it is, this ability also allows you to cast as a swift action, and it's not clear how (Su) is going to interact with the effects of this spell. I.e. as written, this ability might allow you to cast fireball as a swift action and ignore SR. That's obviously not intended, but when an ability doesn't do what it says it does, it makes it that much harder to adjudicate corner cases.

Arcane Surge is meant to be a swift action. It's almost the sole value of the arcana over Wild Arcana, which (after errata) is a standard action, but doesn't require you to know the spell and comes with a caster level bonus.


kestral287 wrote:


Arcane Surge is meant to be a swift action. It's almost the sole value of the arcana over Wild Arcana, which (after errata) is a standard action, but doesn't require you to know the spell and comes with a caster level bonus.

Really?


RJGrady wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


Arcane Surge is meant to be a swift action. It's almost the sole value of the arcana over Wild Arcana, which (after errata) is a standard action, but doesn't require you to know the spell and comes with a caster level bonus.
Really?

Ayup. Wild Arcana is a lot better in terms of options granted. The only reason to grab Arcane Surge is its superior action economy. In the book Wild Arcana is also a swift action, but an FAQ nerfed it down to standard.


wraithstrike wrote:
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.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified. No legitimate RAW reasons were given. Just RAI and house rules reasons (which can be very valid, just not RAW). If you can show a legitimate RAW argument, then by all means do so, but until you or anyone else does, then you're just invoking RAI or a house rule - which is another way of saying that you're against it simply because you don't like it and feel that it isn't something that should be allowed.

This single ability puts a whole new spin on martial caster disparity conversations when using strict RAW.

It's also yet another example of why practically no table is ever run using strict RAW, and there's always RAI and house rules to fill in the gaps that sometimes slip through. It's perfectly valid to feel that something in this game shouldn't be allowed, and if you and your table want to play that way, by all means do so; but at least be honest about it - after all, dishonesty is not appreciated here.


Quote:
This single ability puts a whole new spin on martial caster disparity conversations when using strict RAW.

The only spin I see from doing such a thing is that in order to compete at all with casters a martial character has to become a caster. Nothing about a martial characters class abilities is adding anything to the debate here.

That is pretty much the entire martial/caster debate established right there. To compete with a caster you must become one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Quote:
This single ability puts a whole new spin on martial caster disparity conversations when using strict RAW.

The only spin I see from doing such a thing is that in order to compete at all with casters a martial character has to become a caster. Nothing about a martial characters class abilities is adding anything to the debate here.

That is pretty much the entire martial/caster debate established right there. To compete with a caster you must become one.

I've been laughing about that for a while now. You are absolutey correct.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuuniyevo wrote:
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.

This is actually a really, really salient point. I like it.

My Trickster fighter, Champion magus, Defender rogue, and Marshal paladin all function quite well, despite the classes not being "suitable" to those paths.

To be clear, I've never thought of the idea the OP suggested. To be more clear: I DON'T FIND IT RIDICULOUS, and, in fact, think it's a great idea for a martial to take as a mythic path.

Because, why not? I mean, sure, an arcane is limited through some method or another, but the martial is limited by effective caster level and a lack of casting stat.

This makes it a very interesting ability - in fact a great story ability -, but definitely no where near as powerful as a caster using it. It's broken, but still usable. Basically, what this means, is that the martial is going to be a great buffer (really useful for a martial), with the occasional ability to do really nifty things (like grant Inherent bonuses). The fact that the door is open to them doing whatever (though not necessarily doing so successfully) really makes them feel mythic. It means they have the capability to do great and interesting things, but despite their broad access, they just can't do it as well as their actual caster brethren who (barring Wild Arcana), are more limited in scope, but not in power.

The assertion that this is a ridiculous thing to do is incorrect at its core, and is one of the reasons the arguments on this thread are so baffling.

We. Are. Talking. About. Mythic.

These are characters that, if they select the correct path options, can be worshiped as gods, and produce definitive truth that they are, in fact, gods to be worshiped.

"Oh no! The god might actually cast a wish to grant an inherent score increase! T3h horrors!"

I faq'd it, knowing full well that Paizo will, at some point, get around to it and do the exact opposite of what I want (i.e. they are going to shut this down).

And I have to say, that makes me sad. This whole thing makes me sad.

This thread is filled with people I like and respect who due to - from what I can tell - pride, are going all "NO RAWR!" at the other. Even if it's not meant that way, it comes off as it.

And, let me be clear - I do not agree with all the "pro" arguments. Some are weak, at best.

Do I think it works RAW? Yeah, sure. But, for reasons that wraithstrike pointed out, it also can not work through RAW.

That which is written can be read in different, equally valid ways. It's a pretty cool feature of language, actually - some might call it a bug, but I think whether it's a bug or feature depends on the context. The fact is, language is cool.

Is this RAI? Not a chance. (Which is really, really sad.)

It is an exploit, and one dependent on a GM's good will and their willingness to work with the player in question.

And that's not a bad thing. GMs that allow this aren't bad GMs. GMs that disallow this aren't bad GMs.

If your point in being here is to prove that RAW is stupid (like the OP's was), than I'm disappointed. If your point in being here is to verbally shut down a pretty cool option that makes for an interesting character (I'm looking at you, Juju Oracle), than I'm disappointed. And both of you are making a good conversation about it difficult.

EDIT: or, you could say, for the levity...


icehawk333 wrote:

WOOO!

Go hostility! This thread is great!

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

YEESSSSSSS~! YEEEEESSSSSSSS~! FEEEEEEED MEEEEEE~!


Quote:
The assertion that this is a ridiculous thing to do is incorrect at its core, and is one of the reasons the arguments on this thread are so baffling.

Given this ability comes online at Mythic level 1 which, for example, in WotR you get at what, Character level 4 then I think I have to disagree. If we accept BTB's interpretation out hypothetical Fighter 4/Archmage1 is stopping time, shapechanging into huge dragons and creating pet simulacra.


And doing it at a CL of --, which, in game-purposes, is always treated as 0-ing out, whenever it comes into play.

That means time stop (fighter isn't doing anything fightery with that), shapechang into huge dragons for 0 minutes (I suppose you could count it as half a minute, like 0-level spells count as half a spell level for various purposes?), and making a simulacra with a maximum of 0 hit dice.

... not really that impressed, so far, so what else you got?

EDIT: I mean, the time stop thing is impressive insomuch as it allows a fighter to self-buff with those spells, which is nice, I suppose. Although come to think of it, there are precious few buffs that don't rely on the caster level in some regard or another, so...


Well yes obviously but if you are going to present it as a realistic choice then you are presumably going to assign it some sort of caster level, probably based on character level. At that point it becomes completely out of whack for anyone to take and is an auto pick for every single class in the game.

I should add that I don't think this works as either RAW or RAI, you have a caster level of --, have no way to determine DC and don't get to selectively read the section to remove the section on prepared versus spontaneous.


You guys do realize that all of the hopping-around-angry-arguing RAW/RAI MYTHIC has basically recreated D&D 4E?

just say'n... :)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Any time someone uses the term 'basically' I find that they are employing extreme hyperbole and that the item in question is NOT basic in any sense of the word.


bookrat wrote:
andreww wrote:
Quote:
This single ability puts a whole new spin on martial caster disparity conversations when using strict RAW.

The only spin I see from doing such a thing is that in order to compete at all with casters a martial character has to become a caster. Nothing about a martial characters class abilities is adding anything to the debate here.

That is pretty much the entire martial/caster debate established right there. To compete with a caster you must become one.

I've been laughing about that for a while now. You are absolutey correct.

DSP psionics seems to address this issue. Both the caster and martial concept are polluted by the other.

The martials without anysort of "spellcasting" still conjure psionic weapons and/or armor with various associated effects that allow them to stay relevant in higher levels. The downside for added utility and diversified defensive capabilities was a dialing back on DPR. Fighters are still better at full attacking than soulknifes and aegi at high levels.

Likewise "casters" get easier access to AC, temp health, DR, blasting, and many other straightforward solutions to problems. The downside is that there is not nearly as many exploits and tricky RAW "spells" for psionics. They are not expected to exploit the system.

When was the last time you saw a high level wizard rain magical destruction down on foes or slam a foe into a wall with his mind?
When was the last time you saw a high level fighter actually get within melee reach of a dragon?


andreww wrote:

Well yes obviously but if you are going to present it as a realistic choice then you are presumably going to assign it some sort of caster level, probably based on character level. At that point it becomes completely out of whack for anyone to take and is an auto pick for every single class in the game.

I should add that I don't think this works as either RAW or RAI, you have a caster level of --, have no way to determine DC and don't get to selectively read the section to remove the section on prepared versus spontaneous.

... "realistic"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

There is nothing to base anything off of. The fighter has no CL. That translates into "--" whenever it appears anywhere else. Since this isn't an (Sp), but an (Su), there's no assigned CL. Any CL you apply is going to be entirely an artificial construct based on your interpretation of the "weight" of RAW. If you're going to interpret things as broken, of course they will be broken. I find nothing to indicate that an (Su) should have a CL of the character's hit dice. If you'd prefer, however, feel free to interpret that way, but, since you assert that it doesn't work in the first place, there's no reason to assert the CL works the way you say it does.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
... "realistic"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

He means realistic as in the practical application of the ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
... "realistic"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?
He means realistic as in the practical application of the ability.

... "practical"? You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

;)

EDITED: slightly, for better parallelism.


Tacticslion wrote:

And doing it at a CL of --, which, in game-purposes, is always treated as 0-ing out, whenever it comes into play.

That means time stop (fighter isn't doing anything fightery with that), shapechang into huge dragons for 0 minutes (I suppose you could count it as half a minute, like 0-level spells count as half a spell level for various purposes?), and making a simulacra with a maximum of 0 hit dice.

... not really that impressed, so far, so what else you got?

EDIT: I mean, the time stop thing is impressive insomuch as it allows a fighter to self-buff with those spells, which is nice, I suppose. Although come to think of it, there are precious few buffs that don't rely on the caster level in some regard or another, so...

Eh, if we're being technical then it might work in the sense that one can cast the spell, but it probably doesn't work in the sense that trying to resolve the spell makes everyone's head explode due to undefined values and the battle mat is ruined as the smouldering remains of their bodies slump forward spilling mountain dew and cheetos across the table. Well that, or the DM has to make something up which lies outside of the rules.


Which is fine by me.

(The GM working with the player, as noted in my post that he responded to, not the slumping bodies thing. That just sounds gross, tragic, and messy.)

Shadow Lodge

Tacticslion wrote:

You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

;)

You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?


TOZ wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

You... do realize we're playing mythic, right?

;)

You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

Pffffft!

In ways that make sense to the game, certainly. What we disagree on is what makes sense for the game. Hence:

me wrote:

Do I think it works RAW? Yeah, sure. But, for reasons that wraithstrike pointed out, it also can not work through RAW.

That which is written can be read in different, equally valid ways. It's a pretty cool feature of language, actually - some might call it a bug, but I think whether it's a bug or feature depends on the context. The fact is, language is cool.

Is this RAI? Not a chance. (Which is really, really sad.)

It is an exploit, and one dependent on a GM's good will and their willingness to work with the player in question.

And that's not a bad thing. GMs that allow this aren't bad GMs. GMs that disallow this aren't bad GMs.

What that means is that I read it as both entirely valid or entirely not valid, dependent upon the GM in question. Both readings are correct, and that's something the GM is going to have to decide for themselves. But telling someone else that their reading is not correct is... well, not correct.

I'm sorry for the spirit the OP made this thread in. I'm glad the OP made the thread. These aren't contradictory - I like this premise, and am pleased that the OP created something that educated me, but I wish he'd had a better spirit about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Upon reading the entry on Archmage, I have discovered that it actually states that you have to be an arcane caster under the section labeled Classes.
On mobile now, will update with quote later.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

But nothing is broken! Only an extreme idiot of a GM would allow a player this, and if we're going to dumb down Pathfinder to accommodate that class of idiot, I'd rather find another game to play.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
But nothing is broken!

Never said it was. Haven't you heard the phrase 'fix it until it's broken'?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
LazarX wrote:
But nothing is broken!
Never said it was. Haven't you heard the phrase 'fix it until it's broken'?

i always went by "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."


Cyrad wrote:
No GM would allow such an obvious attempt to break the game.

No sweeping generalization is ever correct.

Spoiler:
Not even this one.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
i always went by "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

They also say prevention is the best medicine.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Upon reading the entry on Archmage, I have discovered that it actually states that you have to be an arcane caster under the section labeled Classes.

On mobile now, will update with quote later.

Unfortunately, it does not. That section simply states that the archmage is the most common and/or suitable for classes that cast arcane spells, not that it is restricted to characters who can cast spells.

prd wrote:
Classes: The archmage is the most common path selection for characters capable of casting arcane spells, particularly sorcerers and wizards. Bards, summoners, and witches will find that this path has a great deal to offer, though some other paths might also prove useful to them.

Additionally:

prd wrote:
Archmage: A master of arcane magic, the archmage casts powerful spells with great skill and ease, and shapes reality at whim. The powers of the archmage allow her to alter her spells, penetrate foes' defenses, and master nearly any subject. While many of the archmage's abilities are most valuable to a character with a high Intelligence score, those with high Charisma scores will also find a wide variety of powerful options. The path of the archmage is suitable for arcane spellcasters.


And I'm say'n, just play 4E.
All the classes are MYTHIC.
:)


TOZ wrote:
You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

I do want to say, however, that this does make an interesting premise. It implies that the game in this case is something that can be definitively won with a singular ability.

Even a spontaneous sorcerer with free ability to access all ninth-level spells, and the ability to convert his lower level spell slots to ninth level spells on a one-to-one basis can't actually "auto-win" any more than any other caster can "auto-win". Certainly, a GM could just, you know, roll over, but a GM has the benefit of, you know, being a GM. If the GM doesn't want someone to auto-win, they won't. There are always bigger fish somewhere (and even Cthulu is kind of chumpish - which fits, given that he's really naught more than a minor thing - comparatively - in his own works of literature).

All that said, there's actually nothing wrong with going, "YOU'RE MYTHIC!" and allowing a player to "win" - it all depends on the social dynamic. Most games that are, "You win!" mean that the game is over, and a new one will have to start - after all, the player just "won", right? Some like to explore what happens after the player "wins"... and that could be an interesting game experience in its own right.

And, beyond that, let's take a hypothetical commoner. Let's make him, say, fourth level. Suddenly, he gains mythic 1! Woo! He totally takes this ability, and, you know, I'm totes gonna let him have his CL equal to his hit dice... plus his mythic rank! DOODZ! HE PWNS!

... accept, he's still a fourth level commoner. He might (maybe) be able to push his hp all the way up to (6+6+6+6+12 temporary+CON mod*lvl = 36+[CON mod*lvl]; let's say 18 +2 racial +4 enhancement +5 inherent +2 bonus = 31 or +10; that's 40; total: 76 hp) 76, maybe? That's pretty impressive as a 4th level commoner!

... but I'm still hecka susceptible to the humble first level sleep spell. Or worse, a first level witch! Even a fourth level fighter could crush me in a few rounds, despite my draconic options.

But... but... but... simulacra! Right, that's why I added the +5 inherent bonus. But I find it exceptionally interesting that a commoner with no ranks in knowledge (planes) knows how to make replicas of creatures so very well.

Barbarians, fighters and so on are tougher, naturally. But... that just means "don't target their fortitude saves". Oh, gee, I wish I had a creature that targeted his will saves within APL+3... hm... unfortunately, I'm sure there's nothing like that?

And heaven forbid someone ever use dispel magic! The terror of a third level spell!

The point is, it doesn't break the game unless a GM allows it to. And even under the greater amounts of permissiveness, it's strange to come to the conclusion that they automatically win the game.

Admittedly, the more powerful they get, the more impact their spell-power will have. But a GM has the power of GM. There is nothing mightier than that, and a player who seeks to break things would do well to remember that there are entire races of creatures (many of which are easily more powerful than the player, some of which may have the same "trick" themselves) that exist to keep the universe from falling apart.

Incidentally, monk actually has a caster level, is not a spontaneous caster, and could choose this ability. Intriguing.

Regardless, the point is that under the most broken things, sure, things will get broken.

But the reading I propose? Doesn't actually cause most of those problems. As I said, a 0 minute duration shapechange, right up there with a 0 HD simulacrum as "not impressive".

EDIT:

LazarX wrote:
But nothing is broken! Only an extreme idiot of a GM would allow a player this, and if we're going to dumb down Pathfinder to accommodate that class of idiot, I'd rather find another game to play.

Thank you. Good to know my standing in your eyes! :D

Quark Blast wrote:

And I'm say'n, just play 4E.

All the classes are MYTHIC.
:)

This is false. Thanks for playing, though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Partially ninja'd by bookrat, but I'll post it anyway…

master_marshmallow wrote:

Upon reading the entry on Archmage, I have discovered that it actually states that you have to be an arcane caster under the section labeled Classes.

On mobile now, will update with quote later.

I'd be very curious to see that, as my copy of MA says no such thing. My copy says:

Quote:
The archmage is the most common path selection for characters capable of casting arcane spells, particularly sorcerers and wizards. Bards, summoners, and witches will find that this path had a great deal to offer, though some other paths might also prove useful to them.

The other paths also point out how they appeal to, or seem useful to, or that they're a common choice. None of them say you have to be a member of a given class to choose that Path. There are some abilities that call out a feature as being required. Wild Arcana says a spell you cast has to be on your spell list and of a level that you can cast from a spellcasting class; Bloodline Intensity says you need the bloodline class feature to select it; Flexible Counterspell says you have to expend a spell or spell slot (which you wouldn't have because you only have those spells after a swift action on your turn, not usable during someone else's turn); Flexible School says that you have to have the arcane school class feature to select it; Greater Familiar Link says you have to have a familiar to select it, etc, etc, etc. Point being: They say when you need a class feature to use a mythic ability; Arcane Surge does not have the same restriction Wild Arcana does.

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that this is how it should work (though I appreciate Tacticslion's enthusiasm); I'm just saying that this is how it's written. This whole thread amuses me, and I'd like to point out that this is in the "General Discussion" section of the forum, and some people should lighten up. =]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm light as a feather.


TOZ wrote:
You don't apply the mythic rules in a way that makes sense for the game? You just yell "YOU'RE MYTHIC" and they win the game?

Ah! I just realized one more thing about this that seemed "off" that I was trying to figure... and now I realize it.

This basically ignores my entire line of how I interpret the rules texts, and presumes andrewww's assumption of greater caster levels. Otherwise, you can't hit an "I win" button with this. I addressed three of the most broken elements in the game already, and am interested in more: gate doesn't allow you to summon anything (twice your caster level is still "--") and while planar travel is cool, I guess, that's not all that impressive. Fabricate and true creation also rely on caster level.

Given that there is no casting stat (any time an ability score is lacking, unless otherwise noted, the rules explicitly treat it as having a modifier of +0, and if you have a non-ability, but increase it, such as a vermin gaining intelligence from hit dice increases, it "increases" to "1" as if from zero), no caster level (though some have posted interesting tricks for acquiring those), and similar things (under the interpretation I gave above), I'm curious, now, exactly what a player would be able to come up with. They certainly wouldn't be able to be a "buffer", as I originally noted, as they have a CL of 0. It would be very interesting to see what a player could come up with under that paradigm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MYTHIC TOZ wrote:
I'm light as a feather.

Stiff as a board?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Stiff as a board?

Only for certain ladies.


kestral287 wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


Arcane Surge is meant to be a swift action. It's almost the sole value of the arcana over Wild Arcana, which (after errata) is a standard action, but doesn't require you to know the spell and comes with a caster level bonus.
Really?
Ayup. Wild Arcana is a lot better in terms of options granted. The only reason to grab Arcane Surge is its superior action economy. In the book Wild Arcana is also a swift action, but an FAQ nerfed it down to standard.

Gah, if that's the intended verbiage, then the wording is saying, "This is the ability and the action it requires, and this is result." Which means the spellcasting is "Supernatural," which means it should ignore SR, but the description says you can roll twice against the SR you ignore. And you can cast any one arcane spell.

That's a complete mess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not fully sure how raw stacks up on this but I tend to agree with Tactislion. The thing is the fighter can pick up several CL worth of levels through items. That makes it much more useful.

In my home game I might let this one happen depending on the situation. I would probably limit the level up spell you can cast to either you MT or half your level. Fighter 1 MT9 wants wish or Fighter 18 MT 1 wants wish I am fine with that. Fighter 1 MT 1 wants wish. Not so much on this one.

As a thought exercise how would you folks read

Weapon trained
"You may wield any weapon with no penalty regardless proficiency." Lots of fluff text about using any and every weapon type out there.

Does this mean you can use a colossal great sword or does simply mean you do not suffer proficiency penalties. This is kinda similar to shield master.

Also one could argue that you have to have the spell slot to cast the spell you just do not lose it when you cast like this.

Also I agree with the OP on the silliness of "Pure RAW"

Scarab Sages

Quark Blast wrote:

And I'm say'n, just play 4E.

All the classes are MYTHIC.
:)

In my opinion the only thing you should do is purge it with fire, I never felt my class choice mattered in that game and I was just playing cardboard cutouts of the same Npc. Although I do admit there are a fee things worth picking up from the ashes like the minion mechanic the edition as a whole felt hollow.


Edition Wa-er, I mean off topic discussion:
The longer I think about it, the more I admire what they were trying to do. I think the minion mechanic actually needed altering, but was a great idea in theory. I think the system held some great potential, but got bogged down in a combination of "sameness" and uninteresting or incomplete mechanics.

This is one of the reasons why one of my favorite inventions for the entire system was the Monster Manual on a Business Card. It's a wonderful breakdown of the system, and it puts everything relatively cleanly and neatly into useful categories. If that were the entire 4E system, and everything else was kind of "hung" on that chassis, I suspect I may have enjoyed it a lot more.

Similarly, the "setting" was kind of "meh", even though it had some exceedingly interesting and good elements to it - this goes for how they treated FR, as well, for that matter.

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, that's rather off-topic. I kind of wish 4E had been better than it was. It's troubled beginnings certainly didn't help. :/

At least some people really enjoyed it, however, so that's really cool.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

3 people 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.
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.

Arcane surge does not provide a mechanism for casting a spell any more than Eschew Materials does.

A mechanism for casting a spell would have to explain how it interacts with all of the rules contained in the section of the Core Rulebook entitled "Casting a Spell." Those rules, as a group, are the definition of what casting a spell is in Pathfinder.

From a rules perspective, an ability that says "you can cast a spell" is not spellcasting. Spellcasting is what happens when you perform an action allowed by that ability and also go through the process described in the "Casting a Spell" section to resolve that action.

Note that the rules in the "Casting a Spell" section repeatedly reference caster level. An ability that does not define a caster level cannot be used as a mechanism for casting a spell because it does not provide enough information to resolve the action it supposedly allows.

Also, you cannot bypass this mechanical defect by always using your action to cast a spell that is caster level independent, because concentration checks still depend upon caster level and can occur even while you are casting a spell that is caster level independent.

In fact, any time a PC casts a spell, the player has no way of knowing if a concentration check will be required. There could be a hidden opponent ready to cast a spell that creates a weather effect if you cast a spell, necessitating an unexpected concentration check.

The so-called spell casting mechanism you are proposing for arcane surge literally cannot tell you, at the time your character begins casting any spell, if your GM will have sufficient information to resolve your action using the the "Casting a Spell" rules.

Your proposed mechanism cannot ever guarantee that it will allow you to use the "Casting a Spell" rules to resolve your spell, so it is not a complete mechanism for casting a spell. It is also not RAW, because the written rules you cited do not contain enough information to implement your proposed mechanism. If a mechanism invokes things that are not actually defined anywhere in the rules, it isn't really a "rule as written."


Devil's Advocate wrote:
If a mechanism invokes things that are not actually defined anywhere in the rules, it isn't really a "rule as written."

Basically this. You cannot selectively ignore sections of a set of rules to infer the use of implied powers. The rules as written are terribly clear. If the section was a single statement, "As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell", you would be 100% correct. But you are not. The clauses are there to specifically guide you through what you need to do this. The fact that it omits specific rules for every other possible case that does not cover the statements contained within does not make those things possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That is precisely the problem, though. "You can cast any one arcane spell" is in one sentence. All the meanings we are supposed to infer are locked behind a couple of gates that start with, "If." Of course we are supposed to read the whole thing together. But the whole thing together does not restrict characters who are neither prepared nor spontaneous casters.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the mythic version of Tail Terror.

201 to 250 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.