It was a stealth inclusion in the Occult Adventures FCB rules. When challenged on it, the developers said that was the way it was always supposed to work, or at least it is now and such language would exist in products going forward.
...
They had already confirmed that this was the way it was supposed to work.
...
Related Point: Can I apply the aasimar or elf oracle's favored class bonus to a revelation I do not yet have? Can I do so for the aasimar bard’s favored class bonus?
No, when choosing which class feature’s effective level to increase, you can only select a feature that you already have. For example, an aasimar flame oracle cannot choose to improve the wings of fire revelation with her favored class bonus until she actually gains the revelation at 7th level or beyond; she could not start augmenting it at 1st level.
...
I suspect that they previously thought this was obvious, but added the text in OA because this exchange showed them that it wasn't obvious to many people (including me). So I don't consider this to be a 'stealth inclusion.'
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes me chuckle to see people read rules through the prism of their characters benefit, then argue about it in these forums. Nowhere in your wildest dreams would the FCB allow you 1/2 a use of a wizard power you don't have access to. That is so far off RAI that I never would have considered it myself, even if the language of the FCB is not written very well.
I really think these players need to GM for a year, if just to see the game from the other perspective. No GM in their right mind would allow that liberal of an interpretation of a FCB.
Also, why do you have to be faced with the evidence of another passage?
OP argued about this for a long time before agreeing with the opposition. It just screams power hungry PC to me. Unable to accept that THEIR interpretation of a passage is wrong. I had a friend who was CONVINCED that a magical enhancement for a weapon (like Keen =+1) only cost the bonus listed, not the total number for the weapon. Because he read the passage that way, it work the way he thought it did. bought 4 different enhancements at 2k each. Without even giving the weapon a +1 enhancement first. Didn't confirm his idea with the GM, didn't ask anyone. Just got called on it when he spent WAY more $ than his character should have been able to.
Why not read a passage like this with the narrowest viewpoint possible, rather than seeing what you can squeeze by with a broad interpretation of the language. Of course you can only affect a power you already posses. Why would you be able to acquire another school's power for the cost of two skill points?
Ridiculous.
0 != 3+ INT modifier.This sums up why the OP is wrong.
Actually, I think that's the cause of the misunderstanding. The ability is still "normally" available 3+int times per day, meaning the FCB doesn't care about the number of uses the character actually has. I now suspect the wording is there because the wizard no longer has exactly int+3 uses after taking the FCB twice. They would instead have int+4 uses. And trying to prevent this error is probably why the language is so oddly worded.
One last thing.
Here's once again the Elf Wizard FCB
Select one arcane school power at 1st level that is normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier. The wizard adds +½ to the number of uses per day of that arcane school power.
And this is the gnome.
Add +½ to the number of uses per day of arcane school powers. This increase only applies to arcane school powers available at 1st level and normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.
Notice however how the writing is different regarding arcane school powers needing to be present in addition to the restriction of it being a 3+INT mod 1st level power.
Doesn't it seem like a bit of overkill? Why not use the same phrase twice. There have been plenty of occasions where different races offer the exactly same FCB and the phrasing of this one, if the only change was for it to apply additional uses to both necromancy (can't recall any other with two level 1 3+INT mod usable) powers. Doesn't seem very economical.
Different people write, develop, and edit these things in different books. It's not surprising that things aren't entirely consistent.
Another reason for things to be suboptimally worded is they sometimes just need to make a page fit a certain way, so words may be cut or added to paragraphs chosen more or less at random to make a given paragraph shorter/longer around some art placement or to facilitate a page break.
I also wanted to point out that apparently, when they actually require you to have picked up an arcane school with it's relevant powers, they'll put it in writing.
Select one arcane school power from the air or wood elemental schools that the wizard can currently use. The wizard class level is treated as though it were +½ higher (to a maximum of +4) when determining the effects of that power.
Moreover, this is an improvement to a power that would pretty much doubtlessly need its own uses since it doesn't grant uses itself. So if this needs to be clarified, how can the lack of clarification on the Elf FCB imply the need for preexisting school power?
Or maybe it also breaks down to paragraph economics.
Pretty sure this was the last of it.
Hopefully.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also wanted to point out that apparently, when they actually require you to have picked up an arcane school with it's relevant powers, they'll put it in writing.
Again, you can't assume because something is or isn't detailed in one place but is in another that there is meaning in the difference.
- The text may be written by different authors.
- Different authors may have different understanding of the rules.
- Editors and PDT team may read the authors text differently.
- Text may have been shorted to fit space or lengthened to consume space.
In short, the rules are not written as legalese and are adamantly not intended to be interpreted with that precision.
This makes me wonder. Can a sword binder wizard benefit from the FCB?
Sword of the Mage (Su): A sword binder can send his bound sword to strike his foes. He gains the hand of the apprentice ability of the universalist school, but can use that ability only with his bound sword. His range with the ability is close (25 feet + 5 feet per 2 wizard levels he possesses), and he can use it a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Intelligence modifier + 1/2 his level.
Is it still "normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier"?
@Melkiador
I would say so since it replaces the arcane school class feature and he gains a modified version of the Generalist 1st level power.
|
@Murdock Mudeater
The stay silent rule seems rather dishonest. I guess the quick glance rule is better in terms of game fluidity, during the actual role playing. But in the end, wouldn't it be the lots of reading rule? In theory it should provide you with a more founded answer which you can look over and discuss while not at the table.
The stay silent rule could be described as dishonest, but it also means that the GM doesn't need to micromanage every rule. And many things which have unclear rules, really don't need the GM's attention at the start of every session. So there is a degree of practicallity in the silent approach, especially in PFS where each session may have a new GM. The flipside is that the stay silent approach will likely be regarded as dishonest if it raises eyebrows in-game (but if it doesn't, then there is no problem).
The quick glance approach works best on rules that truly have no answer, especially if the rule has clear intentions, but unclear written rules. So the quick glance ruling will often rely on the intention of the written ability, rather than the exact mechanics.
The lots of reading approach is best on rules that do have actual answers, even if they are hard to find. Waiting for an official ruling would also be in this boat.
So for the Elf wizard favored class bonus, you could stay silent and just refrain from over using the school powers (don't raise eyebrows). You could ask in game, and the answer will likely be that you can't, even if actual rules against cannot be found. Or you could wait, likely indefinitely, for paizo to officially rule one way or another.
Personally, I think the intention is clear that this gives you more uses in your selected school's power only. I don't think the rules support this directly, and also don't contradict it directly. That said, as long as your character isn't abusive, broken, or otherwise over the top, I hardly see the problem and would not mind your character. So if I were the GM, you could do it until you asked me, or until your overpowered character started flauting their power.