SLAs no longer count for fulfilling Prereqs


Rules Questions


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".

Personally I think this is a HORRIBLE call on Paizos part and I will be ignoring it in my games. The only thing that using SLAs to fill prereqs helped with were classes that are already considered to be lower tier classes because of the necessary investment like Mystic Theurge and Cerebremancer. This is even more annoying considering that just a year and a half ago they clarified how to classify the type of magic an SLA is (arcane or divine) which was primarily useful for using them to meet prereqs, and now they do this. Yeah I am not using this rule, this was a bad call on their part. I know they dont like multiclassing but still. Not good


Csb


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Where is the Rules question? The Rules forum is for actual rules questions. The advice, or general, or advice/suggestions/house rules forum would be more appropriate for your complaining.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm here to control the eventual flame tossed around here. Keep it clean and safe people don't need any wild out of control forum fires round here.


Apt name, OP.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any rules produced by Paizo can be overridden by a GM in their home games. This really only affects society play. I don't know if you're talking about ignoring the rules in society but if not then I think you're free to use the version of the rules you like and your players can handle.

Personally I have no problem with the change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry OP, you missed the s#@% storm by about three weeks.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am happy with the reversal. I thought the original change was a poor decision.

Scarab Sages

I don't care about the reversal for PrCs, but I hate that it takes away Arcane Strike from otherwise mundane classes.

Still, I don't see a rules question in this thread, and this has been discussed to death elsewhere.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
RedDogMT wrote:
I am happy with the reversal. I thought the original change was a poor decision.

+1


Imbicatus wrote:

I don't care about the reversal for PrCs, but I hate that it takes away Arcane Strike from otherwise mundane classes.

Still, I don't see a rules question in this thread, and this has been discussed to death elsewhere.

Actually, mundane classes getting arcane strike was the thing I liked least about the original ruling. I would have been happier if they had simply said it only counted for qualifying for prestiege classes, but I am happy enough with the revision as is.


It still counts for caster level though right? so arcane strike still works.


Dustyboy wrote:

It still counts for caster level though right? so arcane strike still works.

Prereq for Arcane Strike is "ability to cast arcane spells," which mundanes with SLAs no longer count for. This is different from having a specific spell as a prereq, such as with Dimensional Agility. There, having an SLA of Dimension Door qualifies.


Brotato wrote:
Dustyboy wrote:

It still counts for caster level though right? so arcane strike still works.

Prereq for Arcane Strike is "ability to cast arcane spells," which mundanes with SLAs no longer count for. This is different from having a specific spell as a prereq, such as with Dimensional Agility. There, having an SLA of Dimension Door qualifies.

Yes but does the caster level of the SLA still count? If you have a single spell for example, and then a scaling SLA such as drow's darkness. will the caster level count?


Dustyboy wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Dustyboy wrote:
It still counts for caster level though right? so arcane strike still works.
Prereq for Arcane Strike is "ability to cast arcane spells," which mundanes with SLAs no longer count for. This is different from having a specific spell as a prereq, such as with Dimensional Agility. There, having an SLA of Dimension Door qualifies.
Yes but does the caster level of the SLA still count? If you have a single spell for example, and then a scaling SLA such as drow's darkness. will the caster level count?

I wouldn't allow it. It's pretty clearly not the intent. I think it's clear that the casting level should be the one attached to the "ability to cast arcane spells" that qualified you for the feat.


Whoa. Didnt know Id actually get any response to this. Well here are a few choice responses.

1st, yes I did not indeed write this in the form of a question. Guess I should have added, would you do the same at the bottom of my post or something.

2nd, Really, I posted this because I was mad at this terrible decision to screw over prcs even harder then they already are so that people will continue to play the same limited sprue of builds by penalizing the desire to actually use the prcs or multiclass by making it as bad or as painful as they can.

3rd, No obviously I am not talking about society play. Personally society is much too stuffy for me. Also online play isnt really my thing and I know that's how id be doing it if I did play society. If you play society, then you play by their rules. There are no exceptions.

4th, yes I realize that this is a game where in all reality, unless you are playing society, the only true rule is that the GM is God, and what he/she says goes. So as far as ignoring ruling like this, that is completely within the scope of the GMs power.

5th, One big reason I will not be using this terrible ruling is because we are just about to finish building progressions for a campaign meant to go on for years where all but one of the characters were using SLAs gained from custom races to qualify for early entry into PRCs like Cerebremancer, and Mystic Theurge.

6th, Nice to see that some people other than me were upset about this. Although I had no idea that apparently there was a sh**storm about it when they released the decision a few weeks ago. They really should have left this one alone. Some of us dont like playing bland ol single class characters. Some of us like trying to create unique characters from classes that are typically considered to be subpar because of the way that they are built. The previous ruling on this allowed us that and now they want to take that away. Well, I refuse. I have always been one to say that I would rather have a ruling on something one way or the other then have no ruling at all, but then again this is the first faq from paizo that I have wholeheartedly disagreed with.


Emparawr wrote:

Whoa. Didnt know Id actually get any response to this. Well here are a few choice responses.

1st, yes I did not indeed write this in the form of a question. Guess I should have added, would you do the same at the bottom of my post or something.

2nd, Really, I posted this because I was mad at this terrible decision to screw over prcs even harder then they already are so that people will continue to play the same limited sprue of builds by penalizing the desire to actually use the prcs or multiclass by making it as bad or as painful as they can.

3rd, No obviously I am not talking about society play. Personally society is much too stuffy for me. Also online play isnt really my thing and I know that's how id be doing it if I did play society. If you play society, then you play by their rules. There are no exceptions.

4th, yes I realize that this is a game where in all reality, unless you are playing society, the only true rule is that the GM is God, and what he/she says goes. So as far as ignoring ruling like this, that is completely within the scope of the GMs power.

5th, One big reason I will not be using this terrible ruling is because we are just about to finish building progressions for a campaign meant to go on for years where all but one of the characters were using SLAs gained from custom races to qualify for early entry into PRCs like Cerebremancer, and Mystic Theurge.

6th, Nice to see that some people other than me were upset about this. Although I had no idea that apparently there was a sh**storm about it when they released the decision a few weeks ago. They really should have left this one alone. Some of us dont like playing bland ol single class characters. Some of us like trying to create unique characters from classes that are typically considered to be subpar because of the way that they are built. The previous ruling on this allowed us that and now they want to take that away. Well, I refuse. I have always been one to say that I would rather have a ruling on something one...

they always nerf the things that don't need nerfing and leave alone glitches like Racial heritage half orc followed by half-blood extraction


I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.
If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.


Emparawr wrote:

Whoa. Didnt know Id actually get any response to this. Well here are a few choice responses.

1st, yes I did not indeed write this in the form of a question. Guess I should have added, would you do the same at the bottom of my post or something.

2nd, Really, I posted this because I was mad at this terrible decision to screw over prcs even harder then they already are so that people will continue to play the same limited sprue of builds by penalizing the desire to actually use the prcs or multiclass by making it as bad or as painful as they can.

3rd, No obviously I am not talking about society play. Personally society is much too stuffy for me. Also online play isnt really my thing and I know that's how id be doing it if I did play society. If you play society, then you play by their rules. There are no exceptions.

4th, yes I realize that this is a game where in all reality, unless you are playing society, the only true rule is that the GM is God, and what he/she says goes. So as far as ignoring ruling like this, that is completely within the scope of the GMs power.

5th, One big reason I will not be using this terrible ruling is because we are just about to finish building progressions for a campaign meant to go on for years where all but one of the characters were using SLAs gained from custom races to qualify for early entry into PRCs like Cerebremancer, and Mystic Theurge.

6th, Nice to see that some people other than me were upset about this. Although I had no idea that apparently there was a sh**storm about it when they released the decision a few weeks ago. They really should have left this one alone. Some of us dont like playing bland ol single class characters. Some of us like trying to create unique characters from classes that are typically considered to be subpar because of the way that they are built. The previous ruling on this allowed us that and now they want to take that away. Well, I refuse. I have always been one to say that I would rather have a ruling on something one...

To be fair, there is a sh**storm (pardon my language) after every decision.

Scarab Sages

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
To be fair, there is a sh**storm (pardon my language) after every decision.

Not every decision. The Boar Style fix was pretty universally liked, and I don't really see any complaints about the new damage die increase chart.


NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.

A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
To be fair, there is a sh**storm (pardon my language) after every decision.
Not every decision. The Boar Style fix was pretty universally liked, and I don't really see any complaints about the new damage die increase chart.

I'm not sure most people care to comprehend the damage die increase chart. While it's as well designed as possible, it necessarily reads like a tax form.


Chess Pwn wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.
A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.

It was mostly directed at the OP who has clearly stated that he doesn't play PFS and will not be using this ruling anyway. If you're going to be changing the rules to be different than the official why not use a better rule instead of sticking with the same old nonsense that is still pretty restricting anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.
A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.
It was mostly directed at the OP who has clearly stated that he doesn't play PFS and will not be using this ruling anyway. If you're going to be changing the rules to be different than the official why not use a better rule instead of sticking with the same old nonsense that is still pretty restricting anyway.

There where some of us that both liked the old FAQ rule AND thought it made sense. For us, it's more 'why remake the wheel?'.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.
A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.
It was mostly directed at the OP who has clearly stated that he doesn't play PFS and will not be using this ruling anyway. If you're going to be changing the rules to be different than the official why not use a better rule instead of sticking with the same old nonsense that is still pretty restricting anyway.
There where some of us that both liked the old FAQ rule AND thought it made sense. For us, it's more 'why remake the wheel?'.

This. It makes sense for a innately magical race to be able to channel that magic into enhancing a weapon or being more predisposed to enter a magical class.

It makes sense that a rogue who has skimmed enough spellbooks to figure out how to use minor magic can do the same. Especially if they use a spellbook to change which spells they can cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.
A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.
It was mostly directed at the OP who has clearly stated that he doesn't play PFS and will not be using this ruling anyway. If you're going to be changing the rules to be different than the official why not use a better rule instead of sticking with the same old nonsense that is still pretty restricting anyway.
There where some of us that both liked the old FAQ rule AND thought it made sense. For us, it's more 'why remake the wheel?'.

To be honest, even if you're fine with using SLAs to qualify, it still doesn't make sense to have the basic entry to the class to be so lackluster.

Why force effective PrCs to jump through particular racial or domain hoops? If you're going to house rule anyway, why not just lower the requirements?


Imbicatus wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
To be fair, there is a sh**storm (pardon my language) after every decision.
Not every decision. The Boar Style fix was pretty universally liked, and I don't really see any complaints about the new damage die increase chart.

Wait, they finally fixed the damage chart? Link please?


thejeff wrote:
graystone wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.
A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.
It was mostly directed at the OP who has clearly stated that he doesn't play PFS and will not be using this ruling anyway. If you're going to be changing the rules to be different than the official why not use a better rule instead of sticking with the same old nonsense that is still pretty restricting anyway.
There where some of us that both liked the old FAQ rule AND thought it made sense. For us, it's more 'why remake the wheel?'.

To be honest, even if you're fine with using SLAs to qualify, it still doesn't make sense to have the basic entry to the class to be so lackluster.

Why force effective PrCs to jump through particular racial or domain hoops? If you're going to house rule anyway, why not just lower the requirements?

Because outrage is more fun!!!

Scarab Sages

Claxon wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
To be fair, there is a sh**storm (pardon my language) after every decision.
Not every decision. The Boar Style fix was pretty universally liked, and I don't really see any complaints about the new damage die increase chart.
Wait, they finally fixed the damage chart? Link please?

Here you go.


thejeff wrote:
graystone wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:

I never liked the previous ruling to begin with, so I'm happy it changed.

If you think the PRCs are under-powered just lower the spell level requirements and now everyone can use them, not just random weirdly built characters.
A lot of us play PFS as it's the most/only reliable way we have to play. And with PFS we have to do everything rules legal, so we can't just lower the requirements. The old ruling made it so you could do some prestige classes and not feel like you made a poor choice. Now we can't use prestige classes and be that relevant.
It was mostly directed at the OP who has clearly stated that he doesn't play PFS and will not be using this ruling anyway. If you're going to be changing the rules to be different than the official why not use a better rule instead of sticking with the same old nonsense that is still pretty restricting anyway.
There where some of us that both liked the old FAQ rule AND thought it made sense. For us, it's more 'why remake the wheel?'.

To be honest, even if you're fine with using SLAs to qualify, it still doesn't make sense to have the basic entry to the class to be so lackluster.

Why force effective PrCs to jump through particular racial or domain hoops? If you're going to house rule anyway, why not just lower the requirements?

You might as well ask why does this feat require combat expertise, dodge, or any number of feats that "so lackluster". The game is full of instances of having to take awful options to qualify for other options. Or Why does this need a 13 int or str or ect...

Not to beat a dead horse but as Imbicatus posted, for ME it makes more sense that naturally magical people are quicker at picking up these PrCs. There are a LOT of things that make less sense to me that are already in the game...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As a rules thread, I think this one should be locked or moved. It is a clear inflammatory thread that has no rules question in it and is only a place for the OP to get on his/her soap box.


Imbicatus wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
To be fair, there is a sh**storm (pardon my language) after every decision.
Not every decision. The Boar Style fix was pretty universally liked, and I don't really see any complaints about the new damage die increase chart.

.

Wait, where/when was this? I saw a thread about the subject but I assumed it went nowhere like any other thread of that nature.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locking this one. There isn't a rules question here, there's already other threads on the topic, and the wording of the OP was not conducive to discussion.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / SLAs no longer count for fulfilling Prereqs All Messageboards