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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

22 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 18 people marked this as a favorite.

The archmage is intended for arcane casters but there isn't a prerequisite that requires it.

Then there is arcane surge. Spoilered in whole, though I will break it down in parts.

Arcane Surge:
(Su): 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. If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it); if you're a spontaneous caster, this spell must be one of your spells known. If the spell requires a saving throw, any non-mythic creatures affected by the spell roll twice and take the lower result. If you must attempt a caster level check for the spell to overcome a creature's spell resistance, you can roll your caster level check twice (adding your tier to each) and take the higher result. You can't add a metamagic feat to a spell you cast using this ability.

MA wrote:
Arcane Surge (Su): 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.

So that's straight forward. You can cast ANY arcane spell. You don't have to have an available spell slot or the spell prepared.

MA wrote:
If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it);

You don't prepare spells, so this restriction doesn't apply to you.

MA wrote:
if you're a spontaneous caster, this spell must be one of your spells known.

You don't cast spells spontaneously so this restriction doesn't apply to you. This will require you to be careful though. The SLA FAQ could really hurt you here, because SLA's count as spontaneous spells. Make sure to avoid any option that grants an SLA.

MA wrote:
If the spell requires a saving throw, any non-mythic creatures affected by the spell roll twice and take the lower result.

No problem here, cool

MA wrote:
If you must attempt a caster level check for the spell to overcome a creature's spell resistance, you can roll your caster level check twice (adding your tier to each) and take the higher result.

This isn't any issue in itself but it brings a question to light, what is my caster level?

It is clear that you don't have a caster level from a class but does this mean you have a CL=0 or CL= -- ?

Is there an important difference? Perhaps. Having a CL makes it easier to adjudicate CL variables in spells than a --. Assuming the worst case, any spell that has a CL based variable (including range) would simply fail.

MA wrote:
You can't add a metamagic feat to a spell you cast using this ability.

No problems here.

So, congrats you MT1 archmage! You now have access to all of the levels of all the arcane lists! Finally, an Exploitable "RAW" option that gives an incredibly overpowered ability to MARTIALS! A fighter with more versatility and raw power than a wizard!


Um...did you seek the FAQ regarding Eldritch Heritage and trying to cast spells not on your spell list?


14 people marked this as a favorite.

How high do you even have to be


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
How high do you even have to be

It is a tier 1 option.


Lathiira wrote:
Um...did you seek the FAQ regarding Eldritch Heritage and trying to cast spells not on your spell list?

I don't see how this applies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically, trying to cast spells that aren't on your spell list doesn't work. It was meant for shenanigans regarding Eldritch Heritage (arcane), wherein an oracle would take that feat, trying to gain access to spells not on their list. Long story short: if you try to cast a spell that is not on your spell list, you can't.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
How high do you even have to be
It is a tier 1 option.

I don't think he's talking about mythic tiers...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.

There is also the problem of being able to cast a spell not on your list. This ability does not provide that. It only allows you cast a spell that you expending a slot.

"I can cast a spell and keep all of my slots" does not equal "I can cast a spell even if I have no spell list".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.

There is also the problem of being able to cast a spell not on your list. This ability does not provide that. It only allows you cast a spell that you expending a slot.

"I can cast a spell and keep all of my slots" does not equal "I can cast a spell even if I have no spell list".

Except that's not what the ability says. The ability says "you can cast any arcane spell"

This ability is granting you spellcasting ability. It provides you with the spell list of "any arcane spell." It isn't slot powered at all. The ability is powered by mythic points.

Now, IF you happen to cast spells in some other way then this ability has restrictions.


Lathiira wrote:
Basically, trying to cast spells that aren't on your spell list doesn't work. It was meant for shenanigans regarding Eldritch Heritage (arcane), wherein an oracle would take that feat, trying to gain access to spells not on their list. Long story short: if you try to cast a spell that is not on your spell list, you can't.

Yeah, this is a specific power which overrides that General rule. This power explicitly and specifically grants the power to cast ANY arcane spell.


While it may well be that this rules shenanigan is valid RAW, it is also completely irrelevant. No rational GM will let it fly, and while PFS requires RAW, they do not use mythic (outside of one adventure).

A mentally tortuous exercise, but nothing more.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm pretty sure that this is meant to be used only by arcane casters. While it grants the power to cast any arcane spell, it doesn't grant a list to the fighter/commoner/aristocrat/golem/whomever in question. Marked for FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.

Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lathiira wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this is meant to be used only by arcane casters. While it grants the power to cast any arcane spell, it doesn't grant a list to the fighter/commoner/aristocrat/golem/whomever in question. Marked for FAQ.

I am 100% certain you are right about the intention.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

LOL. The funny part is that this s+&% might actually work...

Did they really create a "class" that allows the user to cast any arcane spell but didn't bother to add the prerequisite of actually being able to cast spells?

Glorious!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

When you're SELECTIVELY quoting RAW anything is possible. You're leaving out the bits that say that this must be either a spells known if you're a spontaeous caster, or a spell prepared in a spell slot if you're not.

So no, by RAW, when not ignoring the parts inconvenient to this cheese idea... it does not work.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

When you're SELECTIVELY quoting RAW anything is possible. You're leaving out the bits that say that this must be either a spells known if you're a spontaeous caster, or a spell prepared in a spell slot if you're not.

So no, by RAW, when not ignoring the parts inconvenient to this cheese idea... it does not work.

I didn't selectively quote anything. I talked about the entire power in detail in the OP and addressed that point. Also, it isn't written how you put it. It's easy to say anything you want about the rules when you SELECTIVELY change them to match your argument at will.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

LazarX,
It does say that it must be from spells known if spontaneous caster, and spells prepared if you prepare spells. Technically, it doesn't say anything about people who don't prepare spells or cast spontaneously.

Although yes, very few GMs would let this fly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

When you're SELECTIVELY quoting RAW anything is possible. You're leaving out the bits that say that this must be either a spells known if you're a spontaeous caster, or a spell prepared in a spell slot if you're not.

So no, by RAW, when not ignoring the parts inconvenient to this cheese idea... it does not work.

I didn't selectively quote anything. I talked about the entire power in detail in the OP and addressed that point. Also, it isn't written how you put it. It's easy to say anything you want about the rules when you SELECTIVELY change them to match your argument at will.

Reread your own quoted material.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

LOL. The funny part is that this s@$# might actually work...

Did they really create a "class" that allows the user to cast any arcane spell but didn't bother to add the prerequisite of actually being able to cast spells?

Glorious!

This is precisely what happened. With the added awesome of that it actually works worse if you do cast spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.


LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
LazarX wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

When you're SELECTIVELY quoting RAW anything is possible. You're leaving out the bits that say that this must be either a spells known if you're a spontaeous caster, or a spell prepared in a spell slot if you're not.

So no, by RAW, when not ignoring the parts inconvenient to this cheese idea... it does not work.

I didn't selectively quote anything. I talked about the entire power in detail in the OP and addressed that point. Also, it isn't written how you put it. It's easy to say anything you want about the rules when you SELECTIVELY change them to match your argument at will.
Reread your own quoted material.

Read the OP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

Actually some of those are RAI and RAW, but getting them to pass a table is another discussion.

Some of those shenanigans are RAI, but RAI and "a good idea" are two different things.

What you proposed is not even RAI, and I don't think the issue here is that you posted it. The issue is that you posted it as if it was acceptable to do in a real game. You may have just meant this as a mental exercise, but it did not come across that way.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

Actually some of those are RAI and RAW, but getting them to pass a table is another discussion.

Some of those shenanigans are RAI, but RAI and "a good idea" are two different things.

What you proposed is not even RAI, and I don't think the issue here is that you posted it. The issue is that you posted it as if it was acceptable to do in a real game. You may have just meant this as a mental exercise, but it did not come across that way.

I feel this is a valid option at any table that allows the sno-cone wish machine. In that regard it is 100% serious suggestion.


BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.

See my post above about specific trumps general with regards to the spell list issue.

My point is satirical in that RAW exploits shouldn't be used in theory discussions. Any theoretical argument which brings up sno-cone wish machines or timeless planes of unlimited crafting should also be prepared to face the reality of the most powerful caster AKA a commoner with one mythic tier.


BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

If you can't understand why an explicit statement would be needed to allow noncasters to cast spells I'm not sure there's any discussion to be had here.

"You can" has never been and will never be an unconditional statement in this ruleset. I had this discussion with someone else just as obstinately wrong not too long ago and don't particularly feel like rehashing it in a new skin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.

See my post above about specific trumps general with regards to the spell list issue.

My point is satirical in that RAW exploits shouldn't be used in theory discussions. Any theoretical argument which brings up sno-cone wish machines or timeless planes of unlimited crafting should also be prepared to face the reality of the most powerful caster AKA a commoner with one mythic tier.

The difference being that those examples are actually, explicitly how the spells work due to lazy writing, or at least suffers from ambiguity in wording.

This is just silly. As satire it falls flat because it fundamentally misunderstands the content it is parodying.


Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

If you can't understand why an explicit statement would be needed to allow noncasters to cast spells I'm not sure there's any discussion to be had here.

"You can" has never been and will never be an unconditional statement in this ruleset. I had this discussion with someone else just as obstinately wrong not too long ago and don't particularly feel like rehashing it in a new skin.

It doesn't get much more explicit than "you can do X." That's why I am using the word "explicit" to describe how it is written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.

See my post above about specific trumps general with regards to the spell list issue.

My point is satirical in that RAW exploits shouldn't be used in theory discussions. Any theoretical argument which brings up sno-cone wish machines or timeless planes of unlimited crafting should also be prepared to face the reality of the most powerful caster AKA a commoner with one mythic tier.

The difference being that those examples are actually, explicitly how the spells work due to lazy writing, or at least suffers from...

This is sloppy writing at its finest. It EXPLICITY ALLOWS ANYONE TO MAKE THE ACTION. Then has restrictions about how SOME characters are restricted.

It absolutely does not get any clearer in any place in the rules that you CAN do a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look up the Skill Mastery vs UMD thread and save me the effort of explicitly pointing out how dumb that statement is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why this does not work - "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." CRB - Chapter on Magic

Since your Caster Level = 0, you cannot cast spells of any type as you require at least CL of 1 to be able to cast 0 - level spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic JMD031 wrote:

Why this does not work - "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." CRB - Chapter on Magic

Since your Caster Level = 0, you cannot cast spells of any type as you require at least CL of 1 to be able to cast 0 - level spells.

So take one of the many traits that give you SLAs and a CL. Or if you don't mind having to take a few specific races, take gnome or some other race that has SLAs and a CL baked in.

Alluring
Draconic Echo
First Memories
Harrow Chosen
Light Bringer
The Lantern Bearer
Patriarchy!!!!
Wendifa Apprentice

Sure, you could go "Buuuuuuuuuut they say you only have a CL for those SLAs!!!!" So? The point is you have a CL now. Taking a level in a casting class only gives you a CL for the purposes of class spells. A wizard 4/fighter 4 would be CL 4 and still qualify for arcane surge, for example, because he has a CL.

A few of the traits, such as Light Bringer, even explicitly give you a CL equal to your character level, without the clause "for this SLA".


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know any GM's who will let you pass go with this idea.
Me either, I also don't know any GM's who would put up with the sno-cone wish machine, or planar binding shenanigans, but those get thrown around as "RAW" all the time. This ability is clear as day in the RAW. There is no hemming or hawing. The ability specifically and explicitly states "you can cast ANY arcane spell," by burning a mythic power point.

"It doesn't say I can't" =/= RAW.

If it tells you what to do if you're X and what to do if you're Y, that doesn't mean Z can do it because no restrictions are given for Z.

This isn't a "doesn't say I cant" scenario. This is the rules SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY say I CAN do this thing scenario.

I still don't think it is RAW because even RAW must take other RAW into account. See my first post here to see which restriction has not been bypassed.

You would need RAW stating "You can even cast spells if you have no spell list" or something similar, for it to really be RAW and bypass all restrictions from other parts of the CRB.

Basically you only get to bypass the rules that an ability says you can bypass if one is to be really technical about it.

Since you know this is not really supposed to work this way, what was the point of this thread?<----What I am really curious about.

See my post above about specific trumps general with regards to the spell list issue.

My point is satirical in that RAW exploits shouldn't be used in theory discussions. Any theoretical argument which brings up sno-cone wish machines or timeless planes of unlimited crafting should also be prepared to face the reality of the most powerful caster AKA a commoner with one mythic tier.

I agree with that, but what if it is perfectly legal(per RAI) but still potentially overpowered enough that most GM's still wont' allow it?


That would work but then you are restricted to your SLAs only since they are spontaneously cast.

This works if your CL is 0 but if you CL is - I am not sure what happens.

In the end the fighter will only get his Mythic power a day in spells. That can be alot at tier 10 but who cares.

As he points out this no worse then sno cone wish machine.

I think he might use this in mythic fighter vs wizard 20 battle. Since that allows all raw silliness then the real issue just what to do with caster level.


Same quote JMD used: "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."

A Wizard 4/Fighter 4 can use Arcane Surge. He cannot use Arcane Surge to cast any arcane spell, because CL4 means he doesn't qualify to cast any spell of level 3 or higher-- he can Surge any level 2 spell he wants that he has prepared though. A Fighter 8 cannot use Arcane Surge at all, because he has no caster level.

The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard. Having a caster level is meaningless if it can't be applied to the spells you want to cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*slow claps*


Actually I think that Mythic JMD031 might have the right of why this does not work. If you have CL 0 instead of - then CL increasing things could let you cast some spells. I think even as high as 4th level spells could happen.


Since you don't have a CL, then most of the spells you can cast will be really weak.

For example you can dimension door farther than you can teleport.


Ipslore the Red wrote:


So take one of the many traits that give you SLAs and a CL. Or if you don't mind having to take a few specific races, take gnome or some other race that has SLAs and a CL baked in.

As soon as you have a spell you're probably bound to the restrictive text of the ability and can only use it to cast that one spell. As the OP points out, it only works if you have no way to cast any spell at all.

Except of course, as you have no caster levels, and the rules text doesn't explicitly give you a caster level, you can't actually cast any spell you have been given. You could perhaps gain a few caster levels via ioun stone and similar, but not enough to cast useful spells.

You cannot, of course, argue the ability is intended to give you a caster level, because there is no intent to give spells to nonspellcasters with this ability at all.

Silly RAW is a double-edged sword sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:
The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard.

False.

SLAs qualify you for magic item crafting feats. But an SLA may be considered spont casting, thus crippling this trick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard.

False.

SLAs qualify you for magic item crafting feats. But an SLA may be considered spont casting, thus crippling this trick.

Houserules are irrelevant to RAW.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard.

False.

SLAs qualify you for magic item crafting feats. But an SLA may be considered spont casting, thus crippling this trick.

That doesn't make my statement false?

If you have a 20th-level character with the Light Bringer trait (grants the ability to use Light as a SLA, caster level = character level = 20), and he happens to have one of his 20 levels in Wizard, what caster level does he cast Burning Hands at? Unless you respond with "CL 20" and justify it, my statement is true.

A CL of a SLA can be applied to feats, etc. that have a CL as a prerequisite. They cannot be applied to other spells. These are two entirely unrelated things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
The various traits give you a CL for that SLA/those SLAs only. They're explicit in that regard.

False.

SLAs qualify you for magic item crafting feats. But an SLA may be considered spont casting, thus crippling this trick.

Houserules are irrelevant to RAW.

Key word was maybe.

"pell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.

A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

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. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.

Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

Format: At will—burning hands (DC 13); Location: Spell-Like Abilities."

I don't see anything that gives you slots or spontaneous casting by name.

As long as your SLA is arcane then that is your arcane caster level as per FAQ. Therefore all spells you cast with this mythic ability work off that caster level.

*The main thing here is that that SLA faq was silly


wraithstrike wrote:

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.

I think the distinction here is that I 100%, no question, without a doubt, no hesitation, think that simulacrum was NOT intended to give you access to free wishes. To me, RAI is not in play. That is exactly the same as the dead condition argument. But people claim it is valid. To me this is just as valid. Anyone who wants to use sno-cone wish machine in an argument should be prepared to deal with the mythic tier 1 commoner of DOOM!


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.

I think the distinction here is that I 100%, no question, without a doubt, no hesitation, think that simulacrum was NOT intended to give you access to free wishes. To me, RAI is not in play. That is exactly the same as the dead condition argument. But people claim it is valid. To me this is just as valid. Anyone who wants to use sno-cone wish machine in an argument should be prepared to deal with the mythic tier 1 commoner of DOOM!

Yeah, but "outside of dev intentions because nobody bother to write a /feat/spell/etc better" and "against the rules per RAI" are not the same thing. That is the point I was making in my last post.

As an example in a post a while back I think I saw a way to get +10 to your caster level. It is done with various feats and magic items that stack legally. Doing that could allow you control over really strong monsters with gate(the spell).<---This is more in line with the sno-cone.

Now most likely this combination is not going to fly at a table because you just cast gate and win, but all of the various caster levels stack legally per RAI. <----Falls into my "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" category.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is you still need to have min CL to cast the spell. The stone gets you all level 1 spells and a bead of karma plus the stone gets you 1 2 and 3. Might be able to squeak out 4th level spells some how but you are not getting the upper half of spells.

This only applies if you actually have CL 0 and not CL -.

I guess you could argue that CL part is only talking about lowering CL and you do whatever you want at your max level. CL 6 commune and CL 11 wish support you but are SLAs and not full spell casting.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I get the point you are trying to make, but what you are proposing is very different from the things you are against.

For the sake of argument let's say I agree this is 100% RAW, but not RAI:

You are taking one reading of the ability that you know is not going to work that way and comparing it to abilities that may or may not work a certain way.

Simulacrum as an example reads like many people argue for it. It is RAI to me, however it is also terribly written in such a way that it needs a rewrite. I have been intending to rewrite for my own games, but I have never gotten around to it.
It falls more into "yeah this is rules legal, but you still should not do it" camp.

This argument you are making is more into the "You know this is not RAI" camp. Just like the "dead" condition per RAW.

It is almost as bad as the poster who recently tried to argue that you can take AoO's against yourself recently.

I think the distinction here is that I 100%, no question, without a doubt, no hesitation, think that simulacrum was NOT intended to give you access to free wishes. To me, RAI is not in play. That is exactly the same as the dead condition argument. But people claim it is valid. To me this is just as valid. Anyone who wants to use sno-cone wish machine in an argument should be prepared to deal with the mythic tier 1 commoner of DOOM!

Yeah, but "outside of dev intentions because nobody bother to write a /feat/spell/etc better" and "against the rules per RAI" are not the same thing. That is the point I was making in my last post.

As an example in a post a while back I think I saw a way to get +10 to your caster level. It is done with various feats and magic items that stack legally. Doing that could allow you control over really strong monsters with gate(the spell).<---This is more in line with the sno-cone.

Now most likely this combination is not going to fly at a table because you just cast gate and win, but all of the various...

I fail to see the difference between, "against dev intentions," and, "against RAI."

1 to 50 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.