If you are playing an AP in Campaign Mode (non-PFS PCs, credit being assigned to PFS PCs), there is absolutely no requirement for the PCs actually played to be, in any fashion, PFS legal.
That's very interesting; I didn't know that and the GM for this game may not either.
I think the plan is to introduce the group to PFS in general though, including the types of rules restrictions that will come up, and I think that's why PFS rules were being used for the AP. AFAIK, anyway.
Entirely possible. I know the campaign I am running of RotRL is in a mode similar to PFS Core, with non-Core items by request.
From the Guide, Page 31:
Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing group undertaking the entire, six-book campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign (such as 20 point buy, unavailability of hero points, etc...) when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
So wizards have CLs. Although now that you made me go look this up, so do rogues with SLA features it seems.
Since they are now "spellcasting characters using the class to cast a spell"... This is not a bonus or modifier, this is straight up being set equal to their class level in that class. Unless it says somewhere that SLAs acting just like spells doesn't count for this sort of purpose.
Still doesn't matter for the thread's OP though.
RJGrady wrote:
LazarX wrote:
But the class itself does not. Magical knack raises the caster level of a class not of particular spells. A rogue with an SLA still has an overall lack of caster levels for any other purpose.
So does a wizard. Seriously.
Crimeo:
once more, SLA'S DON'T grant your class caster levels.
They are certainly NOT a "spell casting class etc" as you said.
They simply have an ability, for which ability and only that, they treat their level as caster level.
RJgrady:
a wizard has a caster level for ALL purposes: i.e. for prerequisites. It's vastly different than a character with a caster level only for some very specific purpose.
(at least the PDT is "almost certain" that it's this way)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:
I'm pretty certain it won't do anything.
For reference, Mark has weighted that picking magical knack on a kineticist won't do a thing since, despite everything they do being a sla, they don't have an actual CL.
Rules wise:
Magical knack raises your CASTER level.
+
Sla's don't grant CL any more.
=
Your rogue CL will always be 0
Your sla are based on ROGUE level
+
Magical knack doesn't do anything for your rogue level
=
Your sla will always be equal to rogue level.
I think you're reading too deeply into this. Spell-like abilities clearly have a caster level (for the spell-like ability in question).
But the class itself does not. Magical knack raises the caster level of a class not of particular spells. A rogue with an SLA still has an overall lack of caster levels for any other purpose.
Ah, if it specifically calls out the class' caster level, well now, that makes more sense! Yeah, as written, I don't see how that trait can help a rogue's spell-like abilities.
I was asking about a different Rogue Talent, but in This Old Thread we failed to come up with any way to boost the Rogue Talent's effective caster level.
What I'd like to see is multi-classed Rogues who actually DO have a caster level and the ability to cast spells be able to use that casting ability as the prerequisite for Rogue talents that otherwise require Minor or Major Magic talents, and for the caster level to stack with the Rogue-level-as-caster-level for such talents.
Unlike Entryhazard, I'm fine with the reversal on SLAs.
I'll never live it down to Paizo for having reversed that ruling on SLAs, everything is just worse now.
I would have to disagree with that. The SLA FAQ set a horrible precedent that cascaded in to many facets of the game, that would then need further clarifications/changes. it was a mess. IT was all the product of the want to enter prestige classes sooner than intended by the designer of the classes.
RJgrady:
a wizard has a caster level for ALL purposes: i.e. for prerequisites. It's vastly different than a character with a caster level only for some very specific purpose.
Citation please. I have already quoted the relevant rulebook section on caster level. If there is somewhere in the rules that says what you are saying, please share it.
For instance, re-reading the wizard class, there is no place in it that specifies a caster level.
RJgrady:
a wizard has a caster level for ALL purposes: i.e. for prerequisites. It's vastly different than a character with a caster level only for some very specific purpose.
Citation please. I have already quoted the relevant rulebook section on caster level. If there is somewhere in the rules that says what you are saying, please share it.
For instance, re-reading the wizard class, there is no place in it that specifies a caster level.
the faq that specifically states that SLA don't grant "caster level"
the faq that specifically states that SLA don't grant "caster level"
Can you specifically link that?
it's in the core rulebook faq. (spread over multiple faq's actually)
the actual faq is that an sla doesn't allow you to qualify for things with requirement "requires caster level X"
the discussion that went on with the PDT clarified, that for everything else, like p.e. arcane strike, metamagics, feats, crafting, prestige classes, etc, the SLA doesn't count as providing your character with a caster level.
The ONLY time it counts, is if the requirement is specifically the particular sla (like p.e. sla: mage hand 1/day is enough for requirement "ability to cast mage hand")
1st faq:
this establishes that the actual "spellcasting" ability does grant a generic caster level:
Spoiler:
Quote:
Prestige Classes and Spellcasters: Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?
No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.
2nd faq:
This establishes the fact that having an sla doesn't mean that you are a caster in general but ONLY for that particular ability
Spoiler:
Quote:
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".
3rd faq
The final nail in the coffin is this one. It establishes that having a spell-like ability foesnt grant you a caster level in general
Spoiler:
Quote:
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..
The 3rd faq in particular was quite talked about when it changed to what it is now. And the clear answer is that for everything that requires a "generic" caster level (like p.e. arcane strike feat) the answer is still no.
Magical knack:
Quote:
Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.
the rogue class doesn't have a "caster level".
Mark (on the very same question, just replace "rogue" with "kineticist":
Mark Seifter wrote:
I'd say that most likely you don't have a "caster level in that class" to raise, like Chess Pwn describes, though I'm not 100% convinced.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shroudb, wasn't it also clearly stated by the designers that the FAQs only apply to themselves?
Does taking your third FAQ example, and assuming that it applies to anything other than item creation prerequisites, not totally go against the designers' intentions for the FAQ?
In short, aren't you just making assumptions based on your interpretations of the FAQ?
Arcane Strike was disallowed because it requires the ability to cast arcane spells, not a caster level.
The first one merely establishes that caster level can have increases and clarifies that prestige classes don't grant anything not stated.
The second one has nothing to do with caster level at all.
The only one of those that even seems to apply is the item creation one. But that could be true for a different reason, not because rogues don't have a caster level. Perhaps the devs have decided that in the future, item creation feats should have a prereq of "Spellcaster level X" rather than caster level, and they simply haven't put out errata on the subject yet. Or maybe they might decide to walk that one back in the future, after talking about whether a caster level is a caster level.
once more, SLA'S DON'T grant your class caster levels.
They are certainly NOT a "spell casting class etc" as you said.
The rules don't say "spellcaster class" They say "spellcasting CHARACTER" in the class she's using to cast the spell.
A rogue casting a spell is a spellcasting character, since SLAs act like spells by default, so what's the problem?
The SLA is not granting a spell casting level directly, it's just making you a character that can spellcast, and being any sort of spellcasting character = having a CL, by definition of CL.
Quote:
[Three FAQs linked by Shroudb]
1) Not really relevant to our situation, nobody is claiming the rogue would have a CL higher than her rogue level. I would agree she doesn't, so this isn't necessary. Already agreed. Nor is this needed to get a CL. The definition of CL is clear. Plus this FAQ doesn't even establish that wizards have a CL on its own, since as everyone has repeatedly argued, you can't boost something you don't have, and the FAQ only refers to a boost, so you still need some other place for the wizard to have ever gotten a CL. The place he gets one is the CL definition (see below), the same place the rogue does.
2) This FAQ does not even mention the words "caster level" and it's about abilities with spell prereqs, so I'm not sure why you brought it up? Not saying it's irrelevant, just confused what the argument is.
3) No this does not establish that SLAs don't give you caster levels. What it says is that SLAs do not meet caster level prerequisites for item creation feats. Even if you assume (which it would be, an assumption) that this also applies to ANYTHING with prerequisites, it still would not mean that.
You can't use the SLA to fit a prereq for CL. That is not the same thing as SLA not giving you a CL. The key difference is that by the definition of caster level, SOME but not ALL SLAs would grant CLs. Specifically, racial SLAs would not grant caster levels, because the definition of CL says "the class that you're using to cast the spell" and racial SLAs aren't using any class to cast the spell. However, class-based SLAs would, because you are using a class to cast them.
Thus, SLA does not logically imply CL, and thus it is definitely a correct FAQ and the right call they made in my opinion to say that SLAs can simply fill in for CL in any prereq.
But SLAs CAN still give you a CL, by the definition of caster level, if they are class-based ones in particular, which I re-paste below for convenience:
Quote:
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
Is rogue a spellcasting character? Yes, once she has a SLA
Is she using the class to cast that spell? Yes, that's where she got it.
= Her caster level in Rogue is therefore = to her rogue class level.
This is the exact same clause and the same reason wizards have a caster level -- because they have spells they can cast from their class.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.
So SLAs do work exactly as spells by default, except in any situations explicitly excluded.
If some developer or rule says that arcane strike is an exception, then arcane strike is an exception, hence "usually" (i.e. by default but not always due to exceptions). SLAs will continue to "usually" act as spells in other circumstances where exceptions have not been made, nor can exceptions be inferred to make any general conclusions, since the wording choice clearly implies there are some limited exceptions to be expected.
Quote:
I'd say that most likely you don't have a "caster level in that class" to raise
"Most likely" makes this useless. I.e. he didn't have time to think through it carefully. Which is probably why this is not FAQ anyway, is it?
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.
So SLAs do work exactly as spells by default, except in any situations explicitly excluded.
If some developer or rule says that arcane strike is an exception, then arcane strike is an exception, hence "usually" (i.e. by default but not always due to exceptions). SLAs will continue to "usually" act as spells in other circumstances where exceptions have not been made, nor can exceptions be inferred to make any general conclusions, since the wording choice clearly implies there are some limited exceptions to be expected.
no, they didnt say that arcane strike is an exception.
they staed, quite clearly that: Having an sla deosn't mean you count as able to cast spells. which is the requirement of arcane strike.
and "most likely" doesnt make it useless.
it means:
MOST LIKELY a gm will say no, and it's within his right. There is a SLIGHT chance to allow you to though.
(if every single irrelevant combination of abilities was to be faq'ed, then the faq would be 100times the length of the actual books)
There USED to be a faq stating that sla allow for prerequisites.
This faq was changed to
sla's don't allow you to take item creation.
So then there's not a faq about SLAs not giving you CL.
Which means you have to look at the actual printed rules, which I think very clearly grant you a CL for having an SLA.
Since SLAs by default act "just like" spells, and thus unless an exception is made, an SLA caster is a "spellcasting chatracter" and thus as long as this spellcasting is from a class ability (which it is here), their CL = their class level for that class.
The rules as written give you a CL for a class-based SLA, unless exception is made. So if they removed the exception, it goes back now to giving you a CL.
There USED to be a faq stating that sla allow for prerequisites.
This faq was changed to
sla's don't allow you to take item creation.
So then there's not a faq about SLAs not giving you CL.
Which means you have to look at the actual printed rules, which I think very clearly grant you a CL for having an SLA.
Since SLAs by default act "just like" spells, and thus unless an exception is made, an SLA caster is a "spellcasting chatracter" and thus as long as this spellcasting is from a class ability (which it is here), their CL = their class level for that class.
The rules as written give you a CL for a class-based SLA, unless exception is made. So if they removed the exception, it goes back now to giving you a CL.
SLA are NOT spells.
They ACT like spells.
this is why there was a need for a faq to begin with.
This is why with the old faq one could take crafting feats AND arcane strike.
This faq was intentionally removed.
What is so hard to get?
RJGrady wrote:
shroudb wrote:
if rogue was a spellcasting character then he would be eligible for arcane strike.
No, because Arcane Strike says
Quote:
Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.
And the rogue cannot cast arcane spells. They have a SLA.
oh, don't tell me.
Crimeo still believes that having an sla counts as "being a spellcaster"
Developer on the faq change:
"John Compton wrote:
A character who does not fulfill the conditions above does not retain the ability to use a spell-like ability to qualify for a prestige class or other character option, in accordance with the recent FAQ
personally if you want to make a rogue with some minor magic I would suggest just going ahead and taking a single level as a wizard (most likely since INT also helps a rogue often) or sorcerer if you want to be a social rogue with a good CHA.
Then yes, Magical Knack would be helpful
(the wizard I think would be more flexible long term with just a single level as you can keep leaning any 1st level spells you find)
For extra fun be a Carnivalist Rogue and get a familiar as a rogue (most GMs would let you stack levels for your familiar - may even be actual RAW).
The advantages for a rogue of taking a single level as Wizard (or another caster class other than Alchemist) would be:
multiple 0-level spells with unlimited uses per day
a selection of 1st level spell slots per day
a familiar (likely better as an option than arcane bond - especially if it stacks with Carnivalist as your familiar would then be keeping up with your character level - and in any case it will always have half your HP and BAB etc)
(alertness from your familiar when near you and another boost)
ability to activate wands or use scrolls w/o UMD as long as they are in your class
if Wizard - scribe scroll (or if using PFS rules free spell focus)
if Wizard - arcane school abilities many of which are excellent for a rogue (Divination - foresight is phenomenal - all rogues love always acting in the surprise round) and you get a boost to your initiative (+1 but hey you get it plus a bunch of other things)
boost to your WILL save which is often a rogues weakest save
All in exchange for delaying your sneak attack progression and delaying your BAB progression (so very real downsides but not horrible).
I think certainly worth also freeing up two or three+ rogue talents (minor magic, major magic, familiar)
(I would also encourage using the unchained rogue vs the regular core rogue but if you are using core PFS rules you don't have that option - you also wouldn't have the foresight school option or the carnivalist rogue option either)
Later you would also have the option of looking at the Arcane Trickster prestige class if you wanted to focus on being a magical rogue
yes, this is the sort of language used throughout pathfinder rulebooks to refer to one thing being able to fill in prerequisites etc. for another. For example racial heritage "you count as that race" it doesn't say you literally ARE. Yet this is perfectly sufficient to meet definitions and prereqs and such.
Or the spell "scale spikes" - the spikes "act like" shield spikes, I.e. you use the same rules and consequences as if you had shield spikes.
Similarly, if an SLA acts like a spell, it meets definitions and such like being a spellcasting character, and otherwise fitting into other spellcasting rules. If it didn't mean anything like that, then this phrase would be totally pointless in the first place.
The new FAQ makes perfect sense, still though, because CL doesn't JUST require being a spellcasting character. So it would not be correct to say that SLA alone grants you CL prereqs. It requires being a spellcasting character that got the spell from a class in particular. Which is not all SLAs, because racial SLAs are a thing. You have to meet all criteria in the definition, and "SLA" doesn't purely by itself with no other info.
Quote:
This faq was intentionally removed.
Yeah, so it doesn't matter anymore, and we go now to the book published rules alone, which allow for a CL for class-based SLAs in particular.
Personally I would allow it because the matter seems ambiguous enough to fall under table variance since RAW isn't clear enough, and I don't see it as game breaking at all.
yes, this is the sort of language used throughout pathfinder rulebooks to refer to one thing being able to fill in prerequisites etc. for another. For example racial heritage "you count as that race" it doesn't say you literally ARE. Yet this is perfectly sufficient to meet definitions and prereqs and such.
Or the spell "scale spikes" - the spikes "act like" shield spikes, I.e. you use the same rules and consequences as if you had shield spikes.
Similarly, if an SLA acts like a spell, it meets definitions and such like being a spellcasting character, and otherwise fitting into other spellcasting rules. If it didn't mean anything like that, then this phrase would be totally pointless in the first place.
The new FAQ makes perfect sense, still though, because CL doesn't JUST require being a spellcasting character. It requires being a spellcasting character that got the spell from a class in particular. Thus not just any SLAs is sufficient to fill in for CL related stuff would be incorrect. You have to meet other criteria in the definition. Racial SLAs for example wouldn't work.
Quote:
This faq was intentionally removed.
Yeah, so it doesn't matter anymore, and we go now to the written rules alone, which allow for a CL for class-based SLAs in particular.
history lesson:
before the 1st faq SLA's didn't allow you to pick up things like crafting feats and arcane strike.
after the 1st faq you were specifically allowed to treat sla's as having a caster level for requirements and other stuff.
this faq was removed. It was changed to NOT be able to pick up things with requirements with an sla.
we now have the 2nd faq, which disallows sla's for applying for requirements.
Without something allowing you to count as having a GENERIC caster level you cannot pick up things that require caster level. Unless you point me, in the rules, where it states that Sla grant your CLASS an actual caster level.
A character who does not fulfill the conditions above does not retain the ability to use a spell-like ability to qualify for a prestige class or other character option, in accordance with the recent FAQ
Right, and caster levels are neither prestige classes nor character options.
They are just a defined fact of life. You do not "Take" them or choose them. If you meet the definition, then they non-optionally exist, whether you want them to or not.
Quote:
Without something allowing you to count as having a GENERIC caster level
Rogues have the same and AFAIK ONLY thing that gives you a caster level as wizards have: a satisfaction of the quoted definition of caster level.
If there's some other place wizards are getting their caster level from, let me know.
A character who does not fulfill the conditions above does not retain the ability to use a spell-like ability to qualify for a prestige class or other character option, in accordance with the recent FAQ
Right, and caster levels are neither prestige classes nor character options.
They are just a defined fact of life. You do not "Take" them or choose them. If you meet the definition, then they non-optionally exist, whether you want them to or not.
now you are being intentionally obtuse.
Every single option that required casting level or ability to cast stuff, isn't eligble anymore if you have only an sla and NOT an actual spellcasting class.
Ergo, sla dont grant you the "spellcasting" feature, which is the thing that grants caster levels.
but somehow, you still retain CLASS caster level (because that's the only thing that magical knack alters, your CLASS caster level)
whatever floats your boat man.
p.s.
i don't think it's amatter of power, yes, in my homegame, i would also allow it because it's not a big thing to have 1 more casting of a 1st level spell IF you multiclass 2 levels away from roque (will it help in anything else? i don't think so)
But we are in the rules forum, and by RAW, Sla don't grant you the spellcasting feature, which is what grants you CLASS caster level (either arcane or divine or psychic)
Crimeo wrote:
Rogues have the same and AFAIK ONLY thing that gives you a caster level as wizards have: the quoted definition of caster level.
If there's some other place wizards are getting their caster level from, let me know.
A spell-like ability has the same effects as a spell, but the way it is performed is significantly different, such as their lack of verbal, somatic, or material components.
Ok so reading what the FAQ actually says is being "obtuse" now. Sure.
If they wanted SLAs to not imply anything about spells at all, they would have just FAQed "SLAs do not count as casting spells." Takes 7 words.
The long, roundabout and repeated choice of "character options" only being mentioned, and not simply them not being spells at all can only be reasonably interpreted as INTENTIONALLY disqualifying character options that you choose to take, while NOT disqualifying allllll of the other automatic rules about spells, unless explicitly excepted.
Examples of automatically applying, not-option rules that are unaffected and that I have every reason to believe they intentionally did not want to be affected are: having to make concentration checks still with SLAs, provoking AoOs with SLAs, and getting caster levels from SLAs.
If that's not what they meant, then they did a terrible job of making it clear, and they should update it say which of the dozens of non-optional things they also want to include as not counting.
The main focus of the revised faq was that a SLA of a 3rd level spell no longer counts as "the ability to cast 3rd level spells." The only difference between where we are now and late 3.5 is that in 3.5, SLAs did let you qualify for item creation feats.
Magical Knack does not require a "spellcasting" class, a class with caster level, or anything of the sort. It requires you to name a "class," and then it describes how it affects your caster level for that class. Since minor magic does calculate a caster level from your rogue class, it's covered. This doesn't even require any general ruling about SLAs and caster level to resolve.
But if it did, there's nothing in the FAQ that suggests this won't work. Possibly, it won't work.
Or, possibly, item creation feats will be errata'd to require spellcaster levels, or the FAQ will change and say SLAs do count.
More succinctly: if you are of the opinion that when they say "character options" they also meant to include non-optional defined terms and automatic results like gaining a caster level, then you should ALSO just as well assume that SLAs do not provoke AoOs, are not subject to concentration, etc. Does anybody assume that? If not, why not, if this is your logic?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
before the 1st faq SLA's didn't allow you to pick up things like crafting feats and arcane strike.
True, though this was not well understood (hence the need for a FAQ).
shroudb wrote:
after the 1st faq you were specifically allowed to treat sla's as having a caster level for requirements and other stuff.
Again, quite correct.
shroudb wrote:
this faq was removed. It was changed to NOT be able to pick up things with requirements with an sla.
This is where you wander into "assumptions" territory. Where is the rule that states spell-like abilities don't allow you to qualify for things?
shroudb wrote:
we now have the 2nd faq, which disallows sla's for applying for requirements.
The FAQ you describe does not appear to exist. There is one that says spell-like abilities do not allow you to qualify for item creation feats, but that's totally different than not qualifying for anything at all.
shroudb wrote:
Without something allowing you to count as having a GENERIC caster level you cannot pick up things that require caster level. Unless you point me, in the rules, where it states that Sla grant your CLASS an actual caster level.
It doesn't grant your class a caster level, so you couldn't take things like Magical Knack, but your character does now have A caster level.
personally if you want to make a rogue with some minor magic I would suggest just going ahead and taking a single level as a wizard (most likely since INT also helps a rogue often) or sorcerer if you want to be a social rogue with a good CHA.
Or just a straight rogue with heavy investment in UMD. The real question is... how much magic do you want?
magical knack can also be used by classes that have a caster level that which is lower than their total character level (mostly doesn't do all that much but would raise your effective level for your spells - though it doesn't give you additional spells or slots)
Where are wizards granted a class caster level, and not just a caster level for individual spells?
I know somebody posted a FAQ that talked about adding to a wizard's class caster level, but as folks so eloquently argued and convinced me of earlier, you can't add to something that doesn't exist, so you still need root rules text giving them such a thing in the first place. Where is that?
If not anywhere, then technically, NOBODY can take magical knack.
Ok so reading what the FAQ actually says is being "obtuse" now. Sure.
If they wanted SLAs to not imply anything about spells at all, they would have just FAQed "SLAs do not count as casting spells." Takes 7 words.
The long, roundabout and repeated choice of "character options" only being mentioned, and not simply them not being spells at all can only be reasonably interpreted as INTENTIONALLY disqualifying character options that you choose to take, while NOT disqualifying allllll of the other automatic rules about spells, unless explicitly excepted.
Examples of automatically applying, not-option rules that are unaffected and that I have every reason to believe they intentionally did not want to be affected are: having to make concentration checks still with SLAs, provoking AoOs with SLAs, and getting caster levels from SLAs.
If that's not what they meant, then they did a terrible job of making it clear, and they should update it say which of the dozens of non-optional things they also want to include as not counting.
They actually went a long way to clarify that sla's AREN'T "cast spells"
they had a whole post when the change happened.
but i dont know how to search for this.
The end decision was:
sla's are 100% NOT "cast spells".
This is why, nowadays, sla's don't allow for arcane strike, which only needs you to be able to cast spells.
They had to go out of their way to clarify that because of the previous faq they had, which was 100% opposite of what we have now.
A lot of builds were destroyed/changed then, to some i say "good ridance" to others i say "aww no" myself. And i still, personally, don't agree with the general ruling they made.
but here, in the rules section, the only thing that matters is that they actually said that "sla's don't count as being able to cast spells (in general), except when the only requirement is "ability to cast that specific spell""
this makes it obvious, that the caster level of an sla is different from the caster level of a whole class in particular. and since magical knack only boosts the caster level of the "class" and not of specifc abilities, then it won't work.
by raw, taking a trait p.e. that read like "raise the caster level of vanish by 1" would apply to "sla: vanish 1/day"/ but taking a trait that said "raise your arcane spellcasting level by 1" wouldn't apply to "sla: vanish 1/day"
at least that's how i piece toghether all those faqs about sla's.
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't grant your class a caster level
Does ANYTHING grant your class a caster level?
Where are wizards granted a class caster level, and not just a caster level for individual spells?
I know somebody posted a FAQ that talked about adding to a wizard's class caster level, but as folks so eloquently argued and convinced me of earlier, you can't add to something that doesn't exist, so you still need root rules text giving them such a thing in the first place. Where is that?
If not anywhere, then technically, NOBODY can take magical knack.
from prd magic:
Quote:
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
the only problem for rogue is that having an sla doesn't make you a spell caster, since sla's aren't considered "cast spells"
They actually went a long way to clarify that sla's AREN'T "cast spells"
If you want to interpret it this way, I find that reasonable.
But only if you also commit to SLAs not being subject to things like concentration checks, etc., either. Do you?
Quote:
"sla's don't count as being able to cast spells (in general), except when the only requirement is "ability to cast that specific spell""
That's not what it said. It said they don't count for prestige classes and for character options. Not "in general" Unless I'm missing something.
Again, if your whole interpretation of their intentionality was to nuke any relation to spells at all, then okay, fine, that's not absurd at all. But I'm inclined to take them at face value what they said -- nuking options and abilities that people take, but otherwise having them still abide by all the automatic spell rules like AoOs, concentration, and that would include caster levels.
It never says that though, in FAQS, as just a flat, generic statement, is the thing. They tack on endless careful qualifiers like "...for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements" or "...for character options" etc. etc.
I take this honestly to mean that they wanted to make an intentional distinction and have it ONLY not count as such for optional things you choose like feats and whatever, and yet to continue functioning as cast spells for all automatic rules involving spells, of which there are dozens that SLAs generall abide by in any game I've ever played. Like concentration checks. Caster levels would be another such automatically applying definition, as part of just the set of basic underlying automatic spell stuff.
i keep mentioning arcane strike, because it's only requirement is to be able to "cast arcane spells"
and it was mentioned that sla's don't count as that anymore.
not specifically because it is arcane strike, but because sla's aren't "cast arcane spell"
As for concentration checks, you still have to make them, because it's one of the things that is mentioned in the sla. but as other things, like v/s/m you bypass them. you can cast in armor, etc.
so, sla's behave like spells (in some occasions) and they dont behave like spells (in all other occasions)
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
sla's aren't considered "cast spells"
It never says that though, in FAQS, as just a flat, generic statement, is the thing. They tack on endless careful qualifiers like "...for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements" or "...for character options" etc. etc.
I take this honestly to mean that they wanted to make an intentional distinction and have it ONLY not count as such for optional things you choose like feats and whatever, and yet to continue functioning as cast spells for all automatic rules involving spells, of which there are dozens that SLAs generall abide by in any game I've ever played. Like concentration checks. Caster levels would be another such automatically applying definition, as part of just the set of basic underlying automatic spell stuff.
it doesn't NEED to say that.
Sla's aren't spells. so they aren't casted.
IF sla's were actually casted THEN it would have to say that.
i keep mentioning arcane strike, because it's only requirement is to be able to "cast arcane spells"
Yes and arcane strike is an optional ability that you take, this is consistent with their other selective wording in the other FAQ that suggests you can't use SLAs for any optional taken abilities, etc. but can and should treat them as spells still for non-optional automatic underlying magic rules.
The FAQ you are referring to does not say "they are not cast spells in general" The entire question asked was in the context of prerequisites and requirements for taken optional powers, and this example was only given in that context too, using that as a prereq for taking things like feats.
I find it as a clear intention by Paizo that they absolutely do still count as cast spells in the context of automatic, underlying rules of magic such as throughout the whole magic chapter, action economy stuff, etc.
Quote:
Sla's aren't spells. so they aren't casted.
They are spells for purposes of other rules by default, as the SLA entry says they "act like spells" "usually [i.e. unless otherwise stated]"
Quote:
so, sla's behave like spells (in some occasions) and they dont behave like spells (in all other occasions)
No, "usually" means by default, this terminology is used all over the place elsewhere in the book, along with "most __'s do blank" etc.
For example, the caster level definition says "Most..." so if your opinion is that things like most and usually imply "need an explicit inclusion" then wizards do not have caster levels, because they're never given an explicit inclusion.
Only "most" spellcasting classes get it, and wizards are never mentioned as being part of the most, by that logic, so nope, they can't have CLs. Obviously, this is not what is meant, these terms refer to default unless otherwise excepted.
Which means you have to look at the actual printed rules, which I think very clearly grant you a CL for having an SLA.
Actually, if you look at the actual printed rules, Wizards, Sorcs and Druids only have caster levels for the purposes of spells. There is nothing written down that I've ever read that actually says those spell casting classes explicitly have a catch all caster level. Paladins and Rangers EXPLICITLY have a CL of class level - 3. By a super strict interpretation of the rules as they are written, Wizards don't qualify for any feat that has a CL as a prereq, because they only have caster levels for the purposes of actual spell casting.
Now that is OBVIOUSLY something that has been a part of DnD and Pathfinder for so long that everyone just knows it, and it doesn't actually NEED to be written down. It's the very definition of an unwritten rule.
That doesn't mean you can use the absence of an explicit caster level for casters to give a caster level to everyone. A rogue doesn't have a caster level. It isn't 0 any more than dividing by 0 gives you 0. It doesn't exist.
Before level 4, Paladins and Rangers explicitly DO NOT have a caster level. The caster level is NOT 0, it is null. Undefined. Nothing. A Paladin with this trait would have a spell casting CL (that is, a caster level for the purposes of casting spells ONLY) of nothing at level 1, nothing at level 2, still nothing at level 3, and 3 at level 4.
If you character doesn't have a firearm, and takes a theoretical feat that allows them to make two additional attacks per turn with a firearm, that doesn't mean a gun suddenly appears in their hand every round, fires twice, and vanishes into the ether. You don't have a firearm, so you can't make firearm attacks. Can't + 2 is still can't.
