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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We are literally arguing the semantics of using a period in place of a semi colon and how such usage implies that anyone with this ability can cast all arcane spells. Really guy?
When Silver dragons cast cleric spells they count as arcane, therefore I can cast those arcane spells also because there it's no definition of arcane spells, not a conclusive list of them anyway. All we have are class spell lists to go on, and since the fighter doesn't have one I suppose that means he has access to all of them including the entire cleric spell list because of the way silver dragons work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And now we're back to "you're wrong because I feel you are wrong."


bookrat wrote:
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.

I will, just as soon as you post a convincing argument for why I am wrong, rather than just asserting it. But I'm not gonna be holding my breath.

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

4e classes are, for the most part, clearly written. And, for the most part, balanced. It is pretty much the antithesis of Mythic.

_
glass.


glass wrote:
bookrat wrote:
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.

I will, just as soon as you post a convincing argument for why I am wrong, rather than just asserting it. But I'm not gonna be holding my breath.

Good news! I have! And so has at least one other person in greater detail than I. You may breathe now, just in case you were holding your breath.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

4e is an excellent example of how good mechanics is not the sole reason an RPG game is successful or not.

I can do a quick google search for Mythic mechanics. I cannot do that for 4e or 5e. Sorry, but the confusing convoluted wording of mythics takes less game time then trying to apparate books across the country to show the new guy or gal the rules they need to play. Even in local games, mythics run quicker than passing a book around or flipping through pages constantly. I love my PF books, but they mainly serve as paper weight unless I am taking a gander through the art.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
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.

On its own, the phrase, "You can cast any one arcane spell," does not grant anyone the ability to cast spells. To resolve an action using the "Casting a Spell" rules in the Core, you must have a defined caster level available in case you are required to make an unexpected concentration check. The phrase in question does not, on its own, define a caster level. To rule that the phrase in question allows non-casters to cast spells, you have to invent an unwritten house rule that provides the information you must have available when resolving any "cast a spell" action. You literally cannot make that ruling without also inventing a house rule.

In the same way, the hypothetical rule, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," does not, on its own, grant any character the ability to deal sneak attack damage. Sure, it says, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage," but to resolve a sneak attack using the Core definition of the sneak attack ability, you must have a defined amount of sneak attack damage available in case your attack hits. The phrase from the hypothetical rule does not, on its own, define your amount of sneak attack damage. If you rule that the phrase grants sneak attack damage to characters without sneak attack, your ruling requires you to invent an unwritten house rule defining the amount of that damage. You literally cannot make this ruling without also inventing a house rule.

If your interpretation of a written rule requires you to invent an unwritten house rule in order to resolve whatever it is your ruling allows, you are no longer talking about RAW. You are talking about house rules you are inventing to handle contingencies not covered by anything in the RAW. That is an instance of the RAW not defining something, not an instance of the RAW letting you do something broken.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
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.

On its own, the phrase, "You can cast any one arcane spell," does not grant anyone the ability to cast spells. To resolve an action using the "Casting a Spell" rules in the Core, you must have a defined caster level available in case you are required to make an unexpected concentration check. The phrase in question does not, on its own, define a caster level. To rule that the phrase in question allows non-casters to cast spells, you have to invent an unwritten house rule that provides the information you must have available when resolving any "cast a spell" action. You literally cannot make that ruling without also inventing a house rule.

In the same way, the hypothetical rule, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," does not, on its own, grant any character the ability to deal sneak attack damage. Sure, it says, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage," but to resolve a sneak attack using the Core definition of the sneak attack ability, you must have a defined amount of sneak attack damage available in case your attack hits. The phrase from the hypothetical rule does not, on its own, define your amount of sneak attack damage. If you rule that the phrase grants sneak attack damage to characters without sneak attack, your ruling requires you to invent an unwritten house rule defining the amount of that damage. You literally cannot make this ruling without also inventing a house rule.

If your interpretation of a written rule requires you to invent an unwritten house rule in order to resolve whatever it is your ruling allows, you are no longer...

Your hypothetical rule doesn't provide the mechanism by which one could determine the amount of sneak attack damage. If it said, "Your attack deals 4d6 sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," then there would be no doubt that you are granted the SA ability as described by that feature. It's awkward, doesn't progress like SA does in any other place, doesn't work like SA in any other place, but it is clear as day that you get it.

Similarly, the arcane surge ability doesn't say "you can cast a spell," it specifies the bounds of spell access by saying "you can cast ANY ARCANE spell." Not only that, but it provides a mechanism for 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."

As it stands, you have to house rule CL of that ability anyway because even if you are a prepared or spontaneous caster the ability specifically and explicitly isn't using your standard casting ability.

All of the issues with casting stat and CL actually exist for anyone who takes this ability at all, so those arguments against the ability don't hold water; because it's nothing special against my proposed use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Devil's Advocate wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
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.

On its own, the phrase, "You can cast any one arcane spell," does not grant anyone the ability to cast spells. To resolve an action using the "Casting a Spell" rules in the Core, you must have a defined caster level available in case you are required to make an unexpected concentration check. The phrase in question does not, on its own, define a caster level. To rule that the phrase in question allows non-casters to cast spells, you have to invent an unwritten house rule that provides the information you must have available when resolving any "cast a spell" action. You literally cannot make that ruling without also inventing a house rule.

In the same way, the hypothetical rule, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," does not, on its own, grant any character the ability to deal sneak attack damage. Sure, it says, "Your attack deals sneak attack damage," but to resolve a sneak attack using the Core definition of the sneak attack ability, you must have a defined amount of sneak attack damage available in case your attack hits. The phrase from the hypothetical rule does not, on its own, define your amount of sneak attack damage. If you rule that the phrase grants sneak attack damage to characters without sneak attack, your ruling requires you to invent an unwritten house rule defining the amount of that damage. You literally cannot make this ruling without also inventing a house rule.

If your interpretation of a written rule requires you to invent an unwritten house rule in order to resolve whatever it is your ruling allows, you are no longer...

I have already broken down why this is not the rules situation you are arguing it is. I am going by the description of the ability, in total, and taking into account all available context. By the RAW, it grants the ability to cast a spell (as it does, yes, exactly that for wizards and sorcerers, too), and the spellcasting rules don't break if you lack a caster level or a primary casting stat. In fact, the magic rules are written with copious sprinklings of how bards, sorcerers, and wizards work, with no mention of how "arcane casting" works. The magic rules, which also cover divine casters, are agnostic in so many ways as to how exactly you gain your spellcasting. Since Arcane Surge is equally agnostic, I cannot detect any case in which a contradiction occurs.

Liberty's Edge

RJGrady wrote:
the spellcasting rules don't break if you lack a caster level

But they do.

PRD wrote:
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, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

You have to cast it at your caster level or lower, but high enough for you to cast the spell in question. "Oh wait, I don't have one" is not a valid option, because we can't determine whether that's high enough to cast it or not. And no, CL from having a spell-like ability doesn't count either, because that CL only applies to the spell-likes, nothing else:

PRD wrote:
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:

You have to cast it at your caster level or lower, but high enough for you to cast the spell in question. "Oh wait, I don't have one" is not a valid option, because we can't determine whether that's high enough to cast it or not.

Arcane Surge grants you the dispensation to cast it. And the line you are quoting sets a minimum caster level for casting; it does not limit your caster level to your actual caster level. Specifically, you would cast it at your caster (0) or lower (uh...), BUT high enough for you to cast the spell in question.

So, if you cast fireball, it has to be at least 0th level, BUT at least 5th level. So, 5th level.

Ordinarily, this doesn't come into play, as in the normal course of things you can't gain spells that are a higher level than you cast, but this is not an ordinary situation.

Liberty's Edge

CL 0 =/= CL [doesn't have one].

And if I understand you correctly, you're saying that an ordinary 5th level wizard who has suffered a curse that gives him a -2 penalty to his caster level still casts his 3rd level spells at 5th level - because that's the minimum level of the spell, even though his caster level is only 3rd at the moment?


BigDTBone wrote:

Your hypothetical rule doesn't provide the mechanism by which one could determine the amount of sneak attack damage. If it said, "Your attack deals 4d6 sneak attack damage even if your opponent is neither flanked nor denied its Dexterity bonus to AC," then there would be no doubt that you are granted the SA ability as described by that feature. It's awkward, doesn't progress like SA does in any other place, doesn't work like SA in any other place, but it is clear as day that you get it.

Similarly, the arcane surge ability doesn't say "you can cast a spell," it specifies the bounds of spell access by saying "you can cast ANY ARCANE spell." Not only that, but it provides a mechanism for 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."

As it stands, you have to house rule CL of that ability anyway because even if you are a prepared or spontaneous caster the ability specifically and explicitly isn't using your standard casting ability.

All of the issues with casting stat and CL actually exist for anyone who takes this ability at all, so those arguments against the ability don't hold water; because it's nothing special against my proposed use.

Nah, there's a general rule for the appropriate stat to use for save DC for core caster classes (and probably specific ones for the splat casters).

Edit: I suppose you might mean the minimum stat level to cast a spell. But that would seem to be handled in the class descriptions and so would not be a problem either.


I'm no rules lawyer, but how does this go as a "It's not really RAW" counterargument:

A fighter trying to cast a spell has to go through the "Casting a Spell" process. Step one of which is choosing which spell to cast - it spells out how different classes do that in the core rules based on whether you are a prepared or a spontaneous caster. (There's only a subset of the classes listed, but subsequently released spell casting classes stipulate specifically how this step is performed).

As fighters arent in either of these categories, they can't actually fulfill this step of the process. They may well be granted the ability to cast any arcane spell by virtue of being an archmage, but they arent actually granted any known spells, nor do they have a spell list. As such, when casting a spell, step one is that they must choose from.....nothing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:

CL 0 =/= CL [doesn't have one].

And if I understand you correctly, you're saying that an ordinary 5th level wizard who has suffered a curse that gives him a -2 penalty to his caster level still casts his 3rd level spells at 5th level - because that's the minimum level of the spell, even though his caster level is only 3rd at the moment?

No, because you're assuming an arbitrary order of operations. It is worth knowing, for instance, whether the curse affects "caster level," "caster level of spells," and so forth. There are many cases of bonuses to caster level that don't raise "caster level" (i.e. the character's overall caster level). So, I am not saying that, and I don't think your objection really applies to this argument.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm no rules lawyer, but how does this go as a "It's not really RAW" counterargument:

A fighter trying to cast a spell has to go through the "Casting a Spell" process. Step one of which is choosing which spell to cast - it spells out how different classes do that in the core rules based on whether you are a prepared or a spontaneous caster. (There's only a subset of the classes listed, but subsequently released spell casting classes stipulate specifically how this step is performed).

As fighters arent in either of these categories, they can't actually fulfill this step of the process.

But they aren't casting as fighters. Arcane Surge takes care of choosing which spell to cast: "any one arcane spell." Arcane Surge replaces all those operations, even for the wizards and sorcerers for whom the ability was intended. For instance, wizards ordinarily expend an unused spell. With Arcane Surge, they don't expend any spells or slots, but instead can cast a spell they have prepared that day.

Liberty's Edge

RJGrady wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

CL 0 =/= CL [doesn't have one].

And if I understand you correctly, you're saying that an ordinary 5th level wizard who has suffered a curse that gives him a -2 penalty to his caster level still casts his 3rd level spells at 5th level - because that's the minimum level of the spell, even though his caster level is only 3rd at the moment?

No, because you're assuming an arbitrary order of operations. It is worth knowing, for instance, whether the curse affects "caster level," "caster level of spells," and so forth. There are many cases of bonuses to caster level that don't raise "caster level" (i.e. the character's overall caster level). So, I am not saying that, and I don't think your objection really applies to this argument.

I'm talking about "-2 to caster level," which means anything that checks any kind of caster level, the exact same way that the barbarian's "-2 to AC while raging" applies to regular, touch, and flat-footed AC, and even to his CMD. And yes, it exactly applies to this argument, because you said

RJGrady wrote:

And the line you are quoting sets a minimum caster level for casting; it does not limit your caster level to your actual caster level. Specifically, you would cast it at your caster (0) or lower (uh...), BUT high enough for you to cast the spell in question.

So, if you cast fireball, it has to be at least 0th level, BUT at least 5th level. So, 5th level.

and I'm trying to see how that's different from

RJGrady, slightly edited wrote:

And the line you are quoting sets a minimum caster level for casting; it does not limit your caster level to your actual caster level. Specifically, you would cast it at your caster (3rd) or lower (2 or less), BUT high enough for you to cast the spell in question.

So, if you cast fireball, it has to be at least 3rd level, BUT at least 5th level. So, 5th level.


I'm starting to be amazed at just how many people are arguing that the general rule overrides the specific rule.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:


I'm talking about "-2 to caster level," which means anything that checks any kind of caster level, the exact same way that the barbarian's "-2 to AC while raging" applies to regular, touch, and flat-footed AC, and even to his CMD. And yes, it exactly applies to this argument, because you said

Can you give me a specific example of -2 caster level, which is not itself subject to a rules question?


bookrat wrote:
I'm starting to be amazed at just how many people are arguing that the general rule overrides the specific rule.

Taking a quote from the book out of context without it's following disambiguative statements explaining how the aforementioned quote works in the context of actual game play is hardly general trumping specific.

I still want to know what spells are defined as arcane spells. The game doesn't have a conclusive list, only specific lists for classes that aren't the fighter plus all cleric spells since they are arcane spells when cast by a dragon.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
bookrat wrote:
I'm starting to be amazed at just how many people are arguing that the general rule overrides the specific rule.

Taking a quote from the book out of context without it's following disambiguative statements explaining how the aforementioned quote works in the context of actual game play is hardly general trumping specific.

I still want to know what spells are defined as arcane spells. The game doesn't have a conclusive list, only specific lists for classes that aren't the fighter plus all cleric spells since they are arcane spells when cast by a dragon.
Quote:


ells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers).

There you go. Dragon cleric spells are apparently not arcane spells, in the general case.


bookrat wrote:
I'm starting to be amazed at just how many people are arguing that the general rule overrides the specific rule.

You would not believe how many people forget this fundamental concept.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In rules discussions of this nature, a passionate plea for sanity is misplaced. It's a given that every so often, the rules furnish an unintended consequence. I don't think anyone is saying it should work this way, just that, whatever the intention, it appears to. If you can find a satisfactory reason why the interpretation of the RAW is wrong, by all means, post it. Otherwise, there's nothing to but chuckle and wait for the errata.


RJGrady wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying it should work this way, just that, whatever the intention, it appears to.

I think it should work this way. I think it's great, actually, and creates really interesting character concepts.

(But, again, since when am I considered sane?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying it should work this way, just that, whatever the intention, it appears to.

I think it should work this way. I think it's great, actually, and creates really interesting character concepts.

(But, again, since when am I considered sane?)

You are an example of how I was wrong earlier in the thread when I said that no one would rule this the way it was written at a real table.

Your argument also convinced me to allow it at mine.

Liberty's Edge

RJGrady wrote:
Shisumo wrote:


I'm talking about "-2 to caster level," which means anything that checks any kind of caster level, the exact same way that the barbarian's "-2 to AC while raging" applies to regular, touch, and flat-footed AC, and even to his CMD. And yes, it exactly applies to this argument, because you said
Can you give me a specific example of -2 caster level, which is not itself subject to a rules question?

Didn't I already do that? I could swear I already did that.

I wrote:
an ordinary 5th level wizard who has suffered a curse that gives him a -2 penalty to his caster level

Yeah, I thought I'd already done that.

I am curious about why "a specific example" is relevant to my question, however. Do you or do you not agree with the statement "if you can cast a spell with a minimum caster level higher than your actual caster level, you get a 'free' upgrade to the minimum CL"? Because that's what I'm asking - the cursed wizard is merely a concrete example of it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
bookrat wrote:
I'm starting to be amazed at just how many people are arguing that the general rule overrides the specific rule.
You would not believe how many people forget this fundamental concept.

Dragons specifically call out that they cast cleric spells as arcane spells.

By this logic, an archmage of any class can cast any spell on those lists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What kind of curse? Where is the writeup for the curse?

Liberty's Edge

RJGrady wrote:
What kind of curse? Where is the writeup for the curse?

No, seriously: do you or do you not agree with the statement "if you can cast a spell with a minimum caster level higher than your actual caster level, you get a 'free' upgrade to the minimum CL"? Because that's what I'm asking - the cursed wizard is merely a concrete example of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The caster level quote has been thrown around enough, but it really needs to be thrown around one more time.

Quote:
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, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Arcane Surge makes no provision for bypassing this requirement. This is not a case of specific vs. general; this is a case of general vs. undefined.

It has been claimed that Arcane Surge grants 'dispensation' to bypass this requirement. If someone can point to where, exactly, it is explicitly stated in Arcane Surge's text that one does not need to meet the minimum caster level of a spell, I would appreciate the quote. I would appreciate bolding further.

The closest I have been able to find is the "any" word. However, as "any" is an extremely vague term, attempting to contend that it is going to bypass such a stringent requirement-- a bypass that goes against the very core of the magic system-- should be supported with strenuous support. Is somebody willing to provide a detailed contention as to why this wording is correct? The burden of proof rests with the party making a claim; such as I've been able to find in these just-shy-of-three-hundred posts no such support has been provided.

It is more logical to read the word "any" here in the context of the entire ability; which is to say "any spell available to the caster". This is the logical premise when taking the ability as a whole because the next two statements go on to define exactly what that "any" refers to, by placing limits on them. Even if one supports the notion that the Fighter/Archmage is, by virtue of not meeting either requirement that limits any, able to cast arcane spells, you now have the same word trying to do two different things.

If "any" is taken only within the context of its own statement, it cannot be used to provide for the "any arcane spell within limits x and y" reading. In such an instance, our only guidelines are limits x and y. A Fighter outside limits x and y doesn't get to cast at all with this ability, because under this reading the defined available spells are only granted by the limits. By meeting neither limitation the Fighter locks himself out of the ability.

If "any" is taken within the context of the full ability, then yes, a Fighter would ignore limits x and y that are placed on the phrase "any one arcane spell" and would have an available mechanism to cast Wish at level one. However, if that is the reading, how can any also be used to ignore the caster level requirements? Within the full context of the ability it refers us to the caster's native casting abilities, and as such makes no provision for ignoring the caster level requirement.

Next, there needs to be a general admittance from all parties that the RAW is unclear. To writ, an alternative argument could be made that "any one arcane spell" means that Arcane Surge only grants the ability to cast any one spell, presumably chosen at the time Arcane Surge is taken-- that the Archmage must select Arcane Surge (Haste) or Arcane Surge (Time Stop). As support I offer the definition of the phrase "any one".

dictionary.reference.com wrote:
The two-word phrase any one means “any single member of a group of persons or things”

Thus, this phrasing can in fact support a third stance, entirely separate from the debate at hand. This needs to be recognized.

In summary: There needs to be a strict tautological argument dismissing minimum caster level restrictions from consideration if one is to seriously contend this ability as valid. Since we seem to be using strict-RAW in this debate, such an argument should be based entirely out of RAW sources. Dismissing it under the notion that "everybody has to houserule it" does not make this ability work for the Fighter under RAW.

Further, the very idea that there's some singular holy RAW reading of this ability needs to burn, as it is patently and clearly false by the dictionary-supportable third reading.


Seriously, a semicolon fixes this whole fiasco.


RJGrady wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm no rules lawyer, but how does this go as a "It's not really RAW" counterargument:

A fighter trying to cast a spell has to go through the "Casting a Spell" process. Step one of which is choosing which spell to cast - it spells out how different classes do that in the core rules based on whether you are a prepared or a spontaneous caster. (There's only a subset of the classes listed, but subsequently released spell casting classes stipulate specifically how this step is performed).

As fighters arent in either of these categories, they can't actually fulfill this step of the process.

But they aren't casting as fighters. Arcane Surge takes care of choosing which spell to cast: "any one arcane spell." Arcane Surge replaces all those operations, even for the wizards and sorcerers for whom the ability was intended. For instance, wizards ordinarily expend an unused spell. With Arcane Surge, they don't expend any spells or slots, but instead can cast a spell they have prepared that day.

I'm obviously intending the "casting a spell" section to be read as literally as the OP is suggesting Arcane Surge be read. It's obvious what was intended, but we're restricting ourself to what was explicitly spelled out. As such, the arcane surge power failed to grant the power to fulfil a pre-requisite step: before you can cast the spell, you have to choose it and although spell casters can all do that (which is pretty much why it wasn't mentioned), a fighter can't. Allowing wriggle room there by falling back on "what it obviously means" destroys the whole premise of BigDTbone's argument.

As such, I don't see any such dispensation in the Arcane Surge power for bypassing the step of selecting your spell. The fighter/Archmage can cast any arcane spell, sure. Now how does that work in practise? (Using the same extremist-RAW approach the OP did):

First step is to choose a spell - the rules give pretty clear guidance on how you do this and the fighter has no spell list and no prepared spell. Thus, despite being "able to cast any arcane spell" he can't actually fulfil the "choose which spell to cast" step (according to the same, RAW-is-all-that-matters approach the OP relied on).

Hand waving this as "well of course being able to cast any spell means they're all added to your spell list" or "because you're able to cast any spell, you can obviously choose any spell you like" is deviating from the extremist, the-rules-are-exactly-as-they're-written-and-that's-it approach the OP was advocating.

"Being able to cast any spell" doesn't inherently grant you any increase in the number of spells you know, nor does it grant you any prepared spells. So congratulations, you can now cast any arcane spell, but you can't actually fulfil one of the prerequisite steps (choosing which spell to cast) so it's not going to help you, since you'll never get to the casting bit (which you could fulfil, by virtue of Arcane Surge).


Steve Geddes wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm no rules lawyer, but how does this go as a "It's not really RAW" counterargument:

A fighter trying to cast a spell has to go through the "Casting a Spell" process. Step one of which is choosing which spell to cast - it spells out how different classes do that in the core rules based on whether you are a prepared or a spontaneous caster. (There's only a subset of the classes listed, but subsequently released spell casting classes stipulate specifically how this step is performed).

As fighters arent in either of these categories, they can't actually fulfill this step of the process.

But they aren't casting as fighters. Arcane Surge takes care of choosing which spell to cast: "any one arcane spell." Arcane Surge replaces all those operations, even for the wizards and sorcerers for whom the ability was intended. For instance, wizards ordinarily expend an unused spell. With Arcane Surge, they don't expend any spells or slots, but instead can cast a spell they have prepared that day.

I'm obviously intending the "casting a spell" section to be read as literally as the OP is suggesting Arcane Surge be read. It's obvious what was intended, but we're restricting ourself to what was explicitly spelled out. As such, the arcane surge power failed to grant the power to fulfil a pre-requisite step: before you can cast the spell, you have to choose it and although spell casters can all do that (which is pretty much why it wasn't mentioned), a fighter can't. Allowing wriggle room there by falling back on "what it obviously means" destroys the whole premise.

As such, I don't see any such dispensation in the Arcane Surge power for bypassing the step of selecting your spell. The fighter/Archmage can cast any arcane spell, sure. Now how does that work in practise? (Using the same extremist-RAW approach the OP did):

First step is to choose a spell - the rules give pretty clear guidance on how you do this and the fighter has no spell list and no prepared...

Hmm, is that rule expanded upon for non-core casters, or are cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, wizard, bard, and sorcerer the only classes that can chose which spell to cast.


*shrug*

As I said, I'm no rules lawyer, so I don't know. I guess it means that (if you take this extreme "the rules are literal and complete" view). It's hard to know, since it's all an intellectual exercise that only Tacticslion and his disciples would actually take at face value*. I'll be interested to hear BigDTBone's response/rebuttal.

Personally, I think the lesson is that "following RAW" is a fruitless endeavour, since the rules are neither complete, nor consistent. But Godel told us that nearly a century ago..

*:
in case it's necessary:

;)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
What kind of curse? Where is the writeup for the curse?
No, seriously: do you or do you not agree with the statement "if you can cast a spell with a minimum caster level higher than your actual caster level, you get a 'free' upgrade to the minimum CL"? Because that's what I'm asking - the cursed wizard is merely a concrete example of it.

I agree with the statement, in principle, but I don't agree the cursed wizard is an example of it. I don't know what the cursed wizard is an example of; that's certainly not a standard option for Bestow Curse, and since the text isn't in front of me, I couldn't begin to tell you how it interacts with minimum caster level.

Most caster level adjustments are tacked on the end. As in, you would set the caster level no higher than your caster level, then add a +1 caster level. I'm not sure how or under what circumstances a character's "caster level" would be affected but it seems like it would be a nightmare to adjudicate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
What kind of curse? Where is the writeup for the curse?
No, seriously: do you or do you not agree with the statement "if you can cast a spell with a minimum caster level higher than your actual caster level, you get a 'free' upgrade to the minimum CL"? Because that's what I'm asking - the cursed wizard is merely a concrete example of it.

I agree with the statement, in principle, but I don't agree the cursed wizard is an example of it. I don't know what the cursed wizard is an example of; that's certainly not a standard option for Bestow Curse, and since the text isn't in front of me, I couldn't begin to tell you how it interacts with minimum caster level.

Most caster level adjustments are tacked on the end. As in, you would set the caster level no higher than your caster level, then add a +1 caster level. I'm not sure how or under what circumstances a character's "caster level" would be affected but it seems like it would be a nightmare to adjudicate.

Believe it or not, we have this exact situation in the rules!

Orange Prism Ioun Stone grants a +1 Caster level. Slot it in a Wayfinder, and when a spell is cast it grants an additional +1D4-2 CL. The rules on it in a Wayfinder include this little gem:

Quote:
If this modified caster level is too low to cast the spell, the spell fails and is lost.

So, if circumstances dictate that a caster level drops below what it needs to be to cast the spell, the spell can't be cast. Clear as day, that.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Seriously, a semicolon fixes this whole fiasco.

I don't consider it a fiasco at all!

Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion and his disciples

... you have just uttered the world's most terrifying phrase.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:


So, if circumstances dictate that a caster level drops below what it needs to be to cast the spell, the spell can't be cast. Clear as day, that.

... for that item. As they say, "The exception proves the rule."


Steve Geddes wrote:

*shrug*

I guess (if you take this extreme "the rules are literal and complete" view). It's hard to know, since it's all an intellectual exercise that only Tacticslion and his disciples would actually take at face value*. I'll be interested to hear BigDTBone's response/rebuttal.

Personally, I think the lesson is that "following RAW" is a fruitless endeavour, since the rules are neither complete, nor consistent.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm not really sure what to say. The whole of the rules are very clearly not complete given that they explicitly call for DM ruling in cases. Or perhaps you are not actually trying to have a discussion at all (as per your spoiler). Either way, discussion on whether or not the rules cover all circumstances seems fruitless at the moment and so I will end my involvement in that for the time being.


RJGrady wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


So, if circumstances dictate that a caster level drops below what it needs to be to cast the spell, the spell can't be cast. Clear as day, that.

... for that item. As they say, "The exception proves the rule."

So... you have a decidedly unclear statement (since there is debate on your contention, clearly it's murky) and you refuse the validity of the one clarifying point in the rulebook out of hand rather than actually making any sort of argument-- and worse, actually attempt to use it to support your own point via a clichéd phrase?

Please tell me that I mistake your meaning.


Some things to keep in mind:

1) the requisite CL to cast a particular level of spell is provided by the individual class' spells class feature. No minimum caster level is inherently required to cast any spell. This provides the mechanism.

2) The minimum caster level requirement in the magic section (general rules) is a subordinate clause to a sentence describing a particular rule. Ie, voluntarily lowering your CL. Since no one has argued that voluntarily lowering your CL is required by this ability I think we can all agree that the quote flying around actually has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion and is, in fact, a red herring.


WWWW wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

*shrug*

I guess (if you take this extreme "the rules are literal and complete" view). It's hard to know, since it's all an intellectual exercise that only Tacticslion and his disciples would actually take at face value*. I'll be interested to hear BigDTBone's response/rebuttal.

Personally, I think the lesson is that "following RAW" is a fruitless endeavour, since the rules are neither complete, nor consistent.

** spoiler omitted **

I'm not really sure what to say. The whole of the rules are very clearly not complete given that they explicitly call for DM ruling in cases. Or perhaps you are not actually trying to have a discussion at all (as per your spoiler). Either way, discussion on whether or not the rules cover all circumstances seems fruitless at the moment and so I will end my involvement in that for the time being.

My point is that the OP is predicated on the idea that it's possible to play strictly RAW, whereas I dont think that's the case. However, if one is to try to do so it seems to me you have to be consistent in that application - you cant insist on strict "but the rules say..." interpretation for Arcane Surge and then say "Oh well, even though it doesnt grant you the ability to choose, that's implied...."

Admittedly, I may have missed BigDTBone's point.

The point for the spoiler wasnt to indicate that I'm not trying to have a discussion but that I wasnt having a go at Tacticslion and bookrat (on the off chance they thought I was).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tacticslion and his disciples
... you have just uttered the world's most terrifying phrase.

I can see the writing on the wall.


Steve Geddes wrote:


My point is that the OP is predicated on the idea that it's possible to play strictly RAW, whereas I dont think that's the case. However, if one is to try to do so it seems to me you have to be cosistent in that application - you cant insist on strict "but the rules say..." interpretation for Arcane Surge and then say "Oh well, even though it doesnt grant you the ability to choose, that's implied...."

Admittedly, I may have missed BigDTBone's point.

The point for the spoiler wasnt to indicate that I'm not trying to have a discussion but that I wasnt having a go at Tacticslion and bookrat (on the off chance they thought I was).

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.


WWWW wrote:

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.

My position is actually that the context makes it very clear what it means but that semantic arguments tend to be made in the absence of context (or with selectively quoted context).

However, I'm still interested in BigDTBone's rebuttal. I'm not really arguing the OP - at my table, you need to be a spellcaster to be an archmage, so that's all that's relevant to me.

I dont think that BigDTBone really believes the OP is how things should work though, so resolving the specifics doesnt seem important, to me.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.

My position is actually that the context makes it very clear what it means but that semantic arguments tend to be made in the absence of context (or with selectively quoted context).

However, I'm still interested in BigDTBone's rebuttal. I'm not really arguing the OP - at my table, you need to be a spellcaster to be an archmage, so that's all that's relevant to me.

I dont think that BigDTBone really believes the OP is how things should work though, so resolving the specifics doesnt seem important, to me.

When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words, as that is what this discussion was presumably originally about, and not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

So anyway, am I to take this to mean you do not care to continue. If so I am perfectly willing to drop things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWWW wrote:

When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words, as that is what this discussion was presumably originally about, and not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

So anyway, am I to take this to mean you do not care to continue. If so I am perfectly willing to drop things.

It may not be fruitful or interesting to you (I'm going to keep posting until it's not fruitful or interesting to me and wont take offense if you decline to respond).

However, to expand on my position somewhat. When you say:

Quote:
When I say what it means I am talking about the meaning of the words......not the implied developer intent that one might read into things.

I think this is a false dichotomy of sorts. In my view there is no, unique "meaning of the words" since "any arcane spell" could be limited in some fashion (To illustrate: does this, specific rule grant one the ability to cast an arcane spell with a vocal component when gagged? Can you cast a spell if you dont meet any of the other requirements? If you think "any spell" is unrestricted then it should, shouldnt it? Specific trumps general and all that.)

It seems to me that interpreting rules sometimes involves determining which meaning of some word or phrase should apply - "any spell at all", "any spell which you meet all the other pre-requisites for" (ie have the material components, can see the target, etcetera) or "any spell you can already cast". One way to do this is to try and discern what the designer intended, however that's not the only way (I prefer to take the meaning which my table will enjoy the most, even if I know it's against RAI).

To provide another illustration of my position. It seems to me that someone following BigDTBone's approach could point to the move action of "drawing a weapon" and argue that:

"All it says is that the weapon has to be within easy reach. It doesnt specify that it has to be within easy reach of the person taking the action though, so I'd like to draw the BBEG's weapon from across the room."

We could spend a lot of time debating what "within easy reach" entails, but it's clear what the rule should be - no matter what decision we come to as to what the words mean taken on their own.


Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.

My position is actually that the context makes it very clear what it means but that semantic arguments tend to be made in the absence of context (or with selectively quoted context).

However, I'm still interested in BigDTBone's rebuttal. I'm not really arguing the OP - at my table, you need to be a spellcaster to be an archmage, so that's all that's relevant to me.

I dont think that BigDTBone really believes the OP is how things should work though, so resolving the specifics doesnt seem important, to me.

As far as the rules lawyering goes; this ability is giving a new kind of casting. It isn't prepared (prepared spells), it isnt spontaneous (spell slots), but unique (mythic power points). All the rules needed to adjudicate the system are provided in the ability. Casting time -swift action, resource to manage -mythic power, spells allowed -any arcane.

All of these rules are more specific than the (general) "cast a spell" action rules, so those rules are trumped by the text in this ability.

As for my personal belief on whether this should be a thing? It probably has a use to someone somewhere. Depending on the group and the game; maybe it would even have a use at my table. Probably not though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:

So... you have a decidedly unclear statement (since there is debate on your contention, clearly it's murky) and you refuse the validity of the one clarifying point in the rulebook out of hand rather than actually making any sort of argument-- and worse, actually attempt to use it to support your own point via a clichéd phrase?

Please tell me that I mistake your meaning.

Let me elaborate. If it were the general case that a spell would fail to go off if the caster level were too low, the item in question wouldn't have to spell it out. Hence, my invocation of Cicero's rule: "The exception proves the rule." Unless you can find a general rule, the specific example actually weakens your case.


BigDTBone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
WWWW wrote:

While one must at times step outside the rules, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to ever follow any part of the rules.

Now, if you wish to argue that this specific instance is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to even hope to understand what it means, that might be a different matter.

My position is actually that the context makes it very clear what it means but that semantic arguments tend to be made in the absence of context (or with selectively quoted context).

However, I'm still interested in BigDTBone's rebuttal. I'm not really arguing the OP - at my table, you need to be a spellcaster to be an archmage, so that's all that's relevant to me.

I dont think that BigDTBone really believes the OP is how things should work though, so resolving the specifics doesnt seem important, to me.

As far as the rules lawyering goes; this ability is giving a new kind of casting. It isn't prepared (prepared spells), it isnt spontaneous (spell slots), but unique (mythic power points). All the rules needed to adjudicate the system are provided in the ability. Casting time -swift action, resource to manage -mythic power, spells allowed -any arcane.

All of these rules are more specific than the (general) "cast a spell" action rules, so those rules are trumped by the text in this ability.

So you wouldnt use the "cast a spell" section to adjudicate results of this? Or it sometimes applies, but only if it doesnt contradict this? It seems to me you're reading an awful lot into one word (granting this whole new kind of spellcasting as opposed to 'reading in' the intended restriction).

After all, you say the rules are complete. Yet, for normal spellcasting, they gave indications of how to choose a spell. They didnt do so here. Dont you think there's a choice as to whether the usual rules are "supposed" to apply or whether they're "supposed" to be captured by the all encompassing "any"?

Quote:
As for my personal belief on whether this should be a thing? It probably has a use to someone somewhere. Depending on the group and the game; maybe it would even have a use at my table. Probably not though.

But the point was essentially "Don't bring up silly RAW examples in theory debates" right?


RJGrady wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

So... you have a decidedly unclear statement (since there is debate on your contention, clearly it's murky) and you refuse the validity of the one clarifying point in the rulebook out of hand rather than actually making any sort of argument-- and worse, actually attempt to use it to support your own point via a clichéd phrase?

Please tell me that I mistake your meaning.

Let me elaborate. If it were the general case that a spell would fail to go off if the caster level were too low, the item in question wouldn't have to spell it out. Hence, my invocation of Cicero's rule: "The exception proves the rule." Unless you can find a general rule, the specific example actually weakens your case.

The general rule is the rule clearly stated under the "Caster Level" heading that states that you must meet the minimum caster level to cast the spell.

But... yeah, that was honestly enough for me to be done with this thread. We aren't interested in actually discussing the rules at this point. That would require actual discussion, not blatant and unwarranted dismissals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It is obvious a new kind of spellcasting, as the way it works for sorcerers and wizards is not the way sorcerers and wizards ordinarily cast spells. That seems irrefutable to me. For a wizard, Arcane Surge completely replaces the "choose a spell to cast" which is being used an ammunition. The argument that a fighter can't "choose a spell" has no legs.

251 to 300 of 552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.