| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".
So does my character with arcane strike gained via SLA lose it?
No more early access to MT and EK. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans don't lose anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Joy.
How many prestige classes are useless again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans don't lose anything.
Nothing stopped a human (or any race) from taking the lantern bearer trait and getting an arcane SLA that scales with character level. Don't kid yourself, every class and race lost out with this FAQ.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.
What is your definition of cheesy? I have yet to see anything I'd count as overpowered. Or is dealing a few extra points of damage with arcane strike somehow cheesy?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.
Care to name a single early entry prestige that is better than the base class it draws from?
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think early entry was cheesy, you're so far off the spectrum from those who do, any amount of explanations as to why it is will simply be met with blank stares, disagreements, or most probable, pointless debate that would in turn be met by those of us who do think it's stinky feta of the goat variety with the same blank stares, disagreements, and visceral returns.
This would lead to a spiraling vortex of pointlessness and about, oh if other hot topics such as rogues or alignment threads are any judge, fifteen pages or so of repeating the same tired arguments until the thread gets locked up.
Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think early entry was cheesy, you're so far off the spectrum from those who do, any amount of explanations as to why it is will simply be met with blank stares, disagreements, or most probable, pointless debate that would in turn be met by those of us who do think it's stinky feta of the goat variety with the same blank stares, disagreements, and visceral returns.
This would lead to a spiraling vortex of pointlessness and about, oh if other hot topics such as rogues or alignment threads are any judge, fifteen pages or so of repeating the same tired arguments until the thread gets locked up.
Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy.
Well at the very least we found out it was early entry that you thought was cheesy. It's tough to debate without common ground and 'cheesy' varies SO much between person to person it needs defined for the discussion.
On early entry, before the old FAQ did you see anyone use prestige classes? If so, I can see how you might think of it as a loophole. If not, did you think making them more viable brought more interest in playing them? I know for myself, I never saw anyone taking them until the old FAQ.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy.
So we won't have any agreement on this because there's no way to define what is 'cheesy' well enough to have a clear set of logical progression in the argument?
Considering you have made the positive assertion, that is very shaky argumentative ground to walk on. If you want to restrict something because it is cheesy, the onus is on you to adequately define 'cheesy' and prove it will cause issues.
It seems like you're saying you don't like early entry just because and there's no point arguing about it?
That seems like a very petty reason to restrict the play of other people.
How do Asimar Mystic Theurge's react to this? Many that i have seen have used the Summon Nature's Ally 2 ability to qualify for the devine prereq.
You can no longer do this. You must get there via class levels now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with graystone and, oddly, the quote in the post too.
The old ruling on SLAs made 2 prestige classes viable for the first time. I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting that this was creating overpowered PCs.
Now the space given to MT and a lesser extent AT goes back to being wasted space. Its a big move in the wrong direction imho.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, it has become nearly useless.
Theurge and Arcane Trickster are entirely useless. If you can succeed with those hobbled PRC's, you could just as easily succeed with the Adept NPC class. Eldritch Knight is still borderline viable, but it's pretty bad.
It's a shame for PFS players, but for home games I doubt there will be much change. Those who didn't use the ruling will keep going on, those who liked early qualification will just drop the prerequisites across the board. That's really the fix here: drop the prerequisites, the experiment proved fairly conclusively that these prestige classes simply don't need them.
I agree with graystone and, oddly, the quote in the post too.
The old ruling on SLAs made 2 prestige classes viable for the first time. I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting that this was creating overpowered PCs.
Now the space given to MT and a lesser extent AT goes back to being wasted space. Its a big move in the wrong direction imho.
Wait a second, AT might still be viable as it says "Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher."
Shouldn't SLA count as an arcane spell for this prereq?
I agree with graystone and, oddly, the quote in the post too.
The old ruling on SLAs made 2 prestige classes viable for the first time. I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting that this was creating overpowered PCs.
Now the space given to MT and a lesser extent AT goes back to being wasted space. Its a big move in the wrong direction imho.
Wait a second, AT might still be viable as it says "Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher."
Shouldn't SLA count as an arcane spell for this prereq?
AN SLA that casts mage hand counts as mage hand but doesn't count as arcane spell. So an SLA can still help count as named spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does it not nerf?
Single class wizards.
Single class clerics.
Single class druids.
Single class sorcerers.
Single class oracles.
Single class summoners.Yep, none of those were all that powerful, it's not like they could use a nerf. Nah, what really needs to be nerfed are rogue talents and prestige classes inferior to their base class!
It actually nerfs clerics, druids and oracles as they can no longer take an SLA trait for an arcane spell and get things like arcane strike. Not a big nerf but still a nerf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't think early entry was cheesy, you're so far off the spectrum from those who do, any amount of explanations as to why it is will simply be met with blank stares, disagreements, or most probable, pointless debate that would in turn be met by those of us who do think it's stinky feta of the goat variety with the same blank stares, disagreements, and visceral returns.
This would lead to a spiraling vortex of pointlessness and about, oh if other hot topics such as rogues or alignment threads are any judge, fifteen pages or so of repeating the same tired arguments until the thread gets locked up.
Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy.
Well at the very least we found out it was early entry that you thought was cheesy. It's tough to debate without common ground and 'cheesy' varies SO much between person to person it needs defined for the discussion.
On early entry, before the old FAQ did you see anyone use prestige classes?
Yup. Everyone I play with (at least 3 different groups, ranging from 5 to 7 players and play experience from 1 to 30 years) builds their characters based on flavor and story as opposed to how much damage they can deal. Therefore, when Prestige Classes make sense to them, the players in my groups utilize them.
It should also be noted, none of my groups have ever raised any question about entry requirements. The newest FAQ ruling falls in line with all of our base assumptions that we've been running with all along since 3rd Edition came out (i.e. nobody ever built a character based off of using SLA's to meet a prerequisite).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy.Considering you have made the positive assertion, that is very shaky argumentative ground to walk on. If you want to restrict something because it is cheesy, the onus is on you to adequately define 'cheesy' and prove it will cause issues.
It seems like you're saying you don't like early entry just because and there's no point arguing about it?
That seems like a very petty reason to restrict the play of other people.
A couple things.
First off, I didn't say "just because". I said I don't want to share my personal reasons why because you already disagree with the result and I severely doubt I will present facts you did not know already, but merely my own opinions about those facts(and nobody, not even those few open minded people who can actually be swayed by rational debate, is moved by presentation of opinion).
Further, I can tell by the language presented thus far in this thread that those who disagree with the recent ruling do so to such a degree that they will not likely be swayed by logical debate, but will entrench themselves further and merely look for an opportunity to present their counteropinion and reinforce their previous opinion. Perhaps that's a bit presumptuous...I don't know any of you, after all, but due to that fact I have only average humanity to work with...and the fact this is the internet, where people will argue until they have carpal tunnel over anything and everything with nobody changing their minds based on anything said over the course of half a novel worth of text
And second, I'm not the one who changed the rule, so to presume that I would deny people options "just because" is a bit silly...though I suppose I understand where you're coming from with that language given that I approved of the change, overall. I suppose I should add that there's quite a lot of decisions that I don't approve of, but the thing with design is that it's all interconnected, and you have to take the package as a whole. While I personally wouldn't want early entry via SLA or qualification for Arcane Strike with it either, I would want a redesign of those classes it allowed entry into for further balance.
It's not a reason in of itself for me, but certainly a supporting factor that early entry via SLA isn't a fix - it's a jury-rig, and a rather crappy one at that. It makes an otherwise poor prestige class into a poor prestige class that CAN be good, but not for beginners, or people playing the wrong race, or people who don't want to precision craft their characters for the purpose of rules-lawyering their way early into it beyond the original intent... the real thing to do, IMO, is hope some of the CRB prestige classes are going to be in the Unchained rewrites, because they certainly need it as much as the rogue et al.
This isn't a question of empirical evidence or logic. Neither ruling is objectively superior.
In my opinion, this was the right call.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
thegreenteagamer, when someone brings up " It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds." or "Suffice to say, most of us who think it's cheesy think it's REALLY cheesy." them themselves have brought up cheesy and make their opinions on it fair game. If you REALLY didn't want to talk about it you wouldn't have typed the word...
I'm aware some didn't like the old FAQ because it breaks their verisimilitude. Cool. Some wanted a greater difference between SLA and actual spells. Cool. Some just don't like things that look like loopholes. Cool. Not liking it because it's cheesy is, ... well cheesy.
I can't find this as a recent change? What am I missing?
Go to the faq page for the crb and search for "yesterday"(or february 2015 if you don't read this in time).
Here are the changes made yeesterday
Prestige Class Requirements: If a prestige class requires 5 ranks in a skill and I have 6 ranks in that skill, do I still meet the requirements?
Yes, because skill ranks are inclusive: if you have 6 ranks in a skill, then you have 5 ranks in that skill, and therefore meet the "have 5 ranks in [this] skill" requirement.
In the same way, if you have a BAB of +6, then you have a BAB of +5, and therefore meet the "have BAB +5" requirement.
In the same way, if you have Str 15, then you have Str 13, and therefore meet the "Str 13" feat prerequisite for Power Attack.
Feat prerequisites are not inclusive, as it is possible for a creature to have a feat without meeting that feat's prerequisites. For example, a ranger can select Precise Shot as a ranger bonus feat without having the Point Blank Shot feat; he does not meet the prerequisites for Far Shot (which has Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite) because he doesn't actually have the Point Blank Shot feat, even though he has a feat that lists Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite.
.......
Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
No.
.......
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".
......
Honestly I can see why they changed the FAQ. The old ruling was always stupid (and really should have never been made in the first place). It is a shame about screwing over early entry into prcs, but that is due to the fact that a lot of the prcs have bad entry requirements as written. It is basically a choice between worthless prcs(mostly) or stupid rules that enable bypassing prereqs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 on being understanding of this ruling in general, but not happy about it making several prestige classes anywhere from much less useful (for example, Arcane Trickster) to basically unusable (Mystic Theurge). If they had patched these prestige classes (or otherwise made a better means of entry for them) at the same time, I could call it good.
I never did much with casting PrCs, but I can feel the pain. Most of them are utter trash without early entry.
I can't find this as a recent change? What am I missing?Go to the faq page for the crb and search for "yesterday"(or february 2015 if you don't read this in time). {. . .}
I think this link will work for that FAQ without needing to search (going to have to try a day later to be sure).
I never did much with casting PrCs, but I can feel the pain. Most of them are utter trash without early entry.
Not sure I would want to say that most of them are utter trash without early entry, but some of the first few to be published are really hosed without early entry (notably Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge; Eldritch Knight is severely hurt but still potentially usable). Those prestige classes that were held back from early entry by skill and/or BAB requirements are still usable IF they were usable before this FAQ (which was not necessarily the case, but at least in those cases this FAQ did not make them even worse).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
On early entry, before the old FAQ did you see anyone use prestige classes? If so, I can see how you might think of it as a loophole. If not, did you think making them more viable brought more interest in playing them?
An elegant solution to a crappy Mystic Theurge class would be to either (a) fix the Mystic Theurge class or (b) create a new class that blends the divine and arcane spells lists (like the Witch).
An inelegant solution would be to take an existing rule and say "if you squint hard and put common sense aside, then you can finesse the existing rules into allowing early entry".
I'm glad the inelegant solution is gone.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad the inelegant solution is gone.
Removing the inelegant solution would be okay if there was any sign that the elegant solutions were on their way. PFS players are out of luck until such solutions arrive. Now they can't even get by on the inelegant one.
Yeah no more arcane strike with SLA.
Yeah martials can't have nice tings.
Should you ever again find some feat/ability/whatever that is nice for martials please don't mention it here on the boards or use it in PFS. If you do it will be nerfed.Edit: Sorry, I noticed the above was off-topic.
What has not changed but strengthened is the caster martial disparity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah.
Well, it makes for a cleaner system. They did say they would review the previous FAQ concerning this after a certain amount of time to see if it was unbalanced. With this, I'm guessing that they decided it was. I wouldn't mind seeing any reasoning behind this beyond mere speculation, but that's probably too much to ask for.
So if we are to rely on assumptions, my guess is that they got too many complaints that they allowed such things to happen. Call it cheese or anything else, it's an opinion. With the new hybrid classes, they were at least attempting to make a few prestige classes obsolete, so there was not as much call for early entry, but to me it kinda takes the wind out of my sails for certain character concepts that I cannot build anymore.
A diet without cheese would irk quite a few cheese fans. We would lose pizza. Hors d'oeuvres would never be the same. And if you're not a fan of goat or feta cheese, you're probably like several of my picky friends that don't like to experience new tastes. In any case, I'd rather not give up my cheese, but whatever. It's your game and we can house rule anything we like. My GM didn't allow it anyway.
It also means I have to edit my guide again, which I will say makes me a bit annoyed.
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.
Exactly. Requirements aren't there for RAW specialists to find ways around them, they are there so things are balanced in the way the designers originally planned.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. I've spent the past three weeks building a unique and flavorful character, making sure I cross the t's and dot the i's, and now this comes and destroys it. Frustrating.
As others have said, I don't think anyone has posted a single broken/OP build that used early entry. All it did was stop these prestige classes from being underpowered... and now they are underpowered again. Taking away interesting options... why??
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.
Exactly. Requirements aren't there for RAW specialists to find ways around them, they are there so things are balanced in the way the designers originally planned.
... ssssssssssiiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh.
The designers explicitly stated that access to things was a possibility in the old FAQ. It's hard to "find a way around" what a designer explicitly stated was possible to do.
Been away for a bit but still running at home and honestly I've never seen the early access as an issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally support this change to the existing trends.
As a GM, I just think it's easier to adjudicate this way.
As a player and min/maxer, I look at it as a challenge. How, now, can I make those prestige classes really shine given the new conditions?
Mystic Theurge is easy.
You simply become a member of a spellcaster guild (Inner Sea Magic) and get a +3 caster level boost to one spell casting class and a +1 caster level boost to another spellcasting class (though neither bonus can be higher than the character's HD).
Stacking this with the trait, Magical Knack, to get a +2 caster level boost to one class can net you with a +3/+3 caster level boost--or in other words: a standard wizard/cleric mystic theurge with full caster level (if not spellcasting progression).
This could be done as early as 7th-level if you never fail an education check (assuming 5 checks per character level).
So, at 7th-level, I could be a cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 1 with cleric CL 7th and wizard CL 7th, casting up to 2nd-level spells in both. Well, still kinda lagged. Still, at higher levels, it really picks up for some of the slack. It's really nice at level 16, for example, when you have CL 16th in both classes, and can cast 7th-level spells of both classes (and in the same action no less!).
The guild benefit is still REALLY cool despite that early lag. When used with that trait it allows for as much as a +5 caster level boost to a single spellcasting class (with a +1 to another).
That's crazy! My mind boggles at the multiclass possibilities. For example, you could play a fighter 1/sorcerer 6/dragon disciple 10/eldritch knight 3 with NO LOSS to caster level! Normally, you would be 5 levels behind.
Sorry, got a little off-track there. :P
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad for this. It destroys a lot of terribly cheesy builds.Exactly. Requirements aren't there for RAW specialists to find ways around them, they are there so things are balanced in the way the designers originally planned.... ssssssssssiiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh.
The designers explicitly stated that access to things was a possibility in the old FAQ. It's hard to "find a way around" what a designer explicitly stated was possible to do.
I wish I could favorite this more.
It isn't being a "RAW specialist," or "subverting dev intentions," when the dev team explicitly and specifically states, [paraphrase] "We understand this will allow early entry into PrC's. We're cool with that. PrC's are kinda bad right now. Hope this helps. Peace out." [/paraphrase].
This simply cannot be described as a loophole or an exploit any more than casting 9th level spells can be.
Dude not being honest with himself (DNBHWH): That wail of the banshee is super OP, loophole exploit. I smell your Gouda and cheddar sandwich from over here man.
Reasonable dude just trying to play a game (RDJTTPAG): What are you talking about? I'm an 18th level sorcerer and I could have chosen way better spells?
(DNBHWH): Exactly! You took 18 levels of the same class just so you could get that spell! That's some RAW exploit loophole right there! If you had taken any other options except for those 18 levels IN THE SAME CLASS, then you couldn't do that right now. You disgust me, you're like velveeta/rotel save the rotel.
(RDJTTPAG): Um? What? That's how it's supposed to work, it says it right here? What exactly do you find cheesy?
(DNBHWH): If you don't see it as cheesy I'll never be able to explain it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't being a "RAW specialist," or "subverting dev intentions," when the dev team explicitly and specifically states, [paraphrase] "We understand this will allow early entry into PrC's. We're cool with that. PrC's are kinda bad right now. Hope this helps. Peace out." [/paraphrase].
That's funny 'cause I read the old FAQ not long ago and what I recall it saying was
We realize this allows early entry into some PrCs but they're generally considered subpar so we're going to try this solution as see if we like it. We might change it up later.</paraphrase>
Which at the time I thought was an unusual caveat for an FAQ. Looks like they decided they didn't like it and changed it up. *shrug*
- Torger
