|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
1- Does the +1 to caster level given by the Pyromaniac racial trait applyes to Produce Flame given by the same trait?
2- If a Gnome takes Fey Magic (Recharge Innate Magic)[Cold terrain], does RIM recharges itself and Produce Flame?
3- Can this Gnome cast Produce Flame indefinitely?
1 - Yes
2 - Yes, it would appear so
2 - Yes, but you would have to spend the standard action once Produce Flame was expended to recharge them both.
I am curious as to why Cold Terrain? Does it apply somehow or was that just a random pick?
|
|
Of curse. Thank you for your answer. I've seen variants of questions 1) and 2) a lot on paizo without a raw answer, so can I ask you to hit the faq button?
Other confirms would be really appreciated.
Edit: I'm gonna play Reign of Winter with a Winter Oracle. He cannot physically use weapons (curses), so a constant damage output would be a relief.
1 - Officially a spell like ability isn't a spell, so doesn't benefit. Expect a monumental amount of table variance though as it's still all a bit vague and up for debate.
2 - Probably. You could argue that the recharge isn't expended before you cast the recharge so it can't recharge itself. Regardless, this is the sort of oversight that gets eventually erratted out of working.
3 - Really the same as question 2.
|
|
There is a faq that states that Augment Summoning counts also on summoning made through spell like abilities. There are also faq that state that SLAs counts as spells for feat and PrC presequisites. Plus, it seems stupid to me that if you cast Produce Flame as a spell, you get +1 cl, but if you cast it as a SLA given by the same source that gives you the +1, you get no bonus. It's quite counter-intuitive.
If you cast RIM and you are interrupted, the spell is gone, but there is no effect. This means that the effects come after the "slot" has been expended, so the "slot" is empty when the effect takes place.
These are the reasons behind my thoughts, just to be clear. Is there a way to get a developer's answer on the fly?
There are also faq that state that SLAs counts as spells for feat and PrC
Actually, that's the problem. That FAQ was reversed.
And as for the recharge, I did say "probably", but you should expect DMs to reject it anyway, and expect for it to eventually be officially denied.
|
|
Considering that in order to use regularly this "combo" you need:
- to be in the terrain selected
- to have another racial SLA
- to give away some other good racial feature (2 RP) to get Fey Magic
- to spend at least a round recharging that other SLA
and considering that RIM only works for 1st - 0th level spells, I don't see how can it break the game. Anyway, these are still just my thoughts, irrelevent in absence of raws. So can you please faq this thread?
My gm just excludes house rules, so I need a raw-ish reference or an answer from a developer in order to get at least the +1 cl to Produce Flame.
Can I use a metamagic feat to alter a spell-like ability?
No. Metamagic feats specifically only affect spells, not spell-like abilities. Also, spell-like abilities do not have spell slots, so you can't adjust the effective spell slot of a spell-like ability.
Can I use a metamagic rod to alter a spell-like ability?
No. Metamagic rods allow you to apply a metamagic feat to a spell, and metamagic feats do not work on spell-like abilities.
Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as having that spell on its spell list for the purpose of activating spell completion or spell trigger items?
No. A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list, and therefore doesn't give the creature the ability to activate spell completion or spell trigger items.
Pyromaniac Gnomes with this racial trait are treated as one level higher when casting spells with the fire description
Spell like abilities are not spells. With that in mind:
1) No
2) Hahahahaha, that's bloody fantastic! By RAW it would appear so, although I would never allow such shenanigans in my games.
3) Yes, by RAW it would appear so.
Also, as a side note, you are extremely unlikely to get an FAQ or developer response since this question is not a controversial one and the question of spells vs spell like abilities has been addressed before.
CampinCarl, every question you just quoted from the FAQ is irrelevant to the question at hand. (Also, the no rods on SLAs ruling is stupid).
Spell-like abilities work like spells except in the ways they specifically don't. Spell Focus works for SLAs; other feats that modify spellcasting - except for metamagic - modify SLAs.
So yes, Pyromaniac also gives +1 CL for the SLA. It even gives +1 CL for a Kineticists fire abilities (which barely matters, as damage and effects are based on kineticist level, not caster level).
And yes, RIM can recharge itself, and you can have Produce Flame up (almost) all day long.
I've been using a similar gnome character with fell magic and fey thoughts(underground) to be able to cast chill touch all day underground. The +1 to necromancy DCs would appear to work in this instance
I don't think there has ever been an official response regarding question 1. And there may never be, as it's such a minor thing that few people are going to hit FAQ for.
The FAQs that Carl quoted while not specifically answering this question do give some insight into the intentions of the developers. So, if an official answer were to ever come, then it would likely be "no". But currently, any DM would be "right" to rule it either way, even in PFS, as there is no official answer regarding this specific issue.
I quoted those FAQs because they either explicitly say or heavily imply that spells are not spell like abilities, which I believe is an important distinction to be made for this conversation.
As for not liking one of them, your personal opinion on the stupidity of a rule does not change the validity of it.
You raise an interesting point. Can you reference where it says things like spell focus modify spell like abilities? I do agree that it is ambiguous enough to be reasonably ruled either way, and I would certainly not be opposed to the other ruling myself with a compelling argument.
~~~
|
|
But what CasualViking said is also true. By raw, SLAs work just like spells, aside metamagic feats and magic items. So, if you can apply Spell Focus, why would not be able to apply also the +1 cl. Point is that faq define when SLAs do NOT work as spells. In my opinion, it confirm that in all the other case SLAs are identical to spells (in the boundaries given by their definition).
Plus, you don't need to be personally involved to hit the faq button. If you think that a certain argument is unclear, faq the thread and help the community :)
We get it, you really want some FAQ votes. Please keep in mind that most rules questions are simply answered by the community and that the number of FAQ clicks does not change the chance of a question being answered (as specified in the FAQ guidelines).
Just give us a little time to get it figured out.
|
There was a dev post somewhere that recharge inate magic does not recharge itself when cast. But that RAW if you can get two uses of RIM as slas they soul recharge each other, but that is not supposed to work, and if they get around to it RIM will be errataed to never recharge RIM.
I leave finding said post as an exercise for the reader (I just don't care enough to go find it.)
Where is Fey Magic from? I can't seem to find it.
Edit: Found it in Heroes of the Wild. I agree with CampinCarl that choosing Recharge Innate Magic as your 1st level spell is 'bloody fantastic.'
|
I have a gnome bloodrager with the fire bloodline who uses the above combo as his main weapon(it counts as a thrown weapon so you add Str to damage and is a touch attack, thus can be full attacked with.) It's a pretty boss combo, and this works with a bunch of other races that get fey magic as well. Elves can get at-will erase, detect secret doors, and comprehend languages. By the way, I always select "urban" as the environment required as it is extremely easy to meet the requirements of that if you have a portable hole or something similar.
I have a gnome bloodrager with the fire bloodline who uses the above combo as his main weapon(it counts as a thrown weapon so you add Str to damage
No. Read the spell again.
You raise an interesting point. Can you reference where it says things like spell focus modify spell like abilities?
Every single bestiary entry that has both Spell Focus and spell-like abilities they could apply to.
Every single bestiary entry that has both Spell Focus and spell-like abilities they could apply to.
You raise an interesting point. Can you reference where it says things like spell focus modify spell like abilities?
Could you give an example, since I have not memorized the bestiary and/or what creatures in it have spell focus?
|
|
Helcack, it doesn't work that way. You can't even make iterative attacks with it if you were asking:
Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action
And no, you are not considered armed while holding the charge (unless you have a weapon in the other hand)
By the way, while it could seem really cheesy, here some considerations:
- Fighters have better ways do deal damage since level 1. Melee characters don't sum their strength, while ranged ones make better use of a bow. This somehow helps unoptimized characters. Of course, changing terrain is a combo-breaker.
- Casters have access to RIM by their spell list. Selecting Produce Flame with Fey Magic let you have 2/day (1/day + 1/day) uses of it; then, by using RIM as a 1st level spell (or using a scroll), you regain them BOTH. So you trade one 1st level spell to get two, and this is full legit. Plus, this way you can recharge at least one use of Produce Flame even when not in the selected terrain, and if the first Produce Flame ends in the middle of the combat, you only need one round to reactivate it, instead of two.
With my character, I'll probably go with this one.
A newer FAQ:
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
Sounds like users of spell like abilities are considered "spellcasters" again. Note that spellcraft can only identify a "spell as it is being cast", so if spell-like abilities aren't spells, you shouldn't be able to use spellcraft to determine what the spell is.
|
|
I can see that many people would disagree with how produce flame works, so I would expect table variation based on that fact. I was not asking anything. I was stating a fact. You are able to make iteratives with it as the relevant text you quoted does not apply[it is not a light or one-handed weapon, just a thrown weapon which would follow the rules for ammunition which you are allowed to make iteratives with], it is considered a thrown weapon[it states so in the text] so you would add strength to damage and other things that would apply to thrown weapons. Even though it says it does the same damage as the touch attack, that is just clarification text which Paizo does very often. The unofficial FAQ response is both unofficial and misleading as the spell does say it works as a thrown weapon when using the ranged version. RAI doesn't matter that much either as 95% of the spell was taken from the 3.5 rulebook.
I can see that many people would disagree with how produce flame works, so I would expect table variation based on that fact. I was not asking anything. I was stating a fact.
Or, you know, you might be wrong. Get off your high horse.
You are able to make iteratives with it as the relevant text you quoted does not apply[it is not a light or one-handed weapon, just a thrown weapon which would follow the rules for ammunition which you are allowed to make iteratives with]
Gray Warden's post is wrong on so many levels. I agree that you can make iteratives. The only problem with iterative throwing is getting fresh weapons into your hand, and Produce Flame specifically says it refreshes instantly.
, it is considered a thrown weapon[it states so in the text] so you would add strength to damage and other things that would apply to thrown weapons. Even though it says it does the same damage as the touch attack, that is just clarification text which Paizo does very often.
But specific trumps general, and this specific thrown weapon does 1d6+CL as the spell states. Your assertion that "deal the same damage as with the melee attack" is "clarification text" and not actual rules, seems pretty obviously not RAI and is certainly not holy uncontested RAW.
|
|
@casual viking: Sorry, did not mean to come across as on a high horse. I just have problems with being questioned and etc. not gonna get into it right now. I agree that the clarification text is not RAW, but it has been stated officially by devs(both PF and 3.5) that they used clarification text a lot. By RAW it would still be okay for OP as I don't believe he cares that it wouldn't add Str. For my bloodrager it would suck if it didn't, but I do think the PF RAI is that the spell is really bad(as RAI for PF tends to go on the lower power side historically)
|
|
Gray Warden's post is wrong on so many levels.
Oh no
So much wrongSo many levels
Just joking :) I've read the thread with James Jacobs before answering, and I was quite ok with that interpretation. I mean, it states that it behaves like a thrown weapon, but do you think you can hurl it at 240 ft with a -2 to hit LIKE A THROWN WEAPON? I don't think so. By the way you are tossing a FLAME, it burns, doesn't make bruises! How can your strength influence that?! Then a guy posted that reference from rules and it seemed quite suitable. My bad. Anyway, I'm not questioning you Helcack, I'm just trying to understand how this works because I'm going to use it too (and if it allows iteratives, I'm only happy about it).
The core of my answer was the other part, not because I want to convince you, just to condivide opinions and considerations. Are there any other wrong levels to be discussed about that part?