|
I did some searching across the forums, additional resources, and the guide, and I don't see this brought up anywhere, but it looks to me like it may be legal to get unlimited (out of combat) healing as a Technomancer at level 11.
You do this by taking the Necromantic Revitalization Spell (which is legal), combine it with a Necrograft or Borais boon so that the spell works on you (which is legal), and the Eternal Spell Magic Hack (which let's you treat a 1st level spell like a 0th and is legal). You are then free to cast spam the first level spell all day long and refill your hitpoints between every fight.
I would argue that this is obviously unintentional and would normally be something limited to theory-crafting, since Eternal Spell explicitly states that it's a GM call on whether spells outside the CRB are allowed. And I would argue few sane GM's would ever allow this combo. But since this is a 'shared GM space' with shared house rules and there doesn't seem to be anything in the guide or the additional resources page that puts any limits that would prevent someone from using this trick.
All I can find are statements about how the spells in a given book are or are not 'legal for play'. If they're legal, it implies they're usable in all the ways a character can use a spell, and therefore could be paired with Eternal Spell. Some GM's might interpret that differently, and normally, I'd be fine with that, but in this case, this particular combat seems to destroy (admittedly high level, for society) encounter balance pretty hard.
I can't be the first person that's noticed this?
|
|
I don't want to go this route (I mean, I certainly thought about it, but that's just my inner munchkin rearing its ugly head.)
I'm partly asking about whether this particular combo is intended to be legal, and partly asking what the heck 'Legal for Play' actually means?
I would argue, I think logically, that when the Additional Resources says that a spell is 'legal for play' it means it's legal in all aspects of the word. You can learn the spell, you can use the spell with other class features, feats, equipment, et al. It's legal in the same way that a new gun is legal or a new armor is legal or a new race is legal. You can use it for everything you can use it for. I'm pretty sure that's how it's actually described in the guide, but I'm AFB and can't check.
While this particular combo is obviously broken, there are plenty of spells outside the CRB that aren't and I don't think "table variation" on an 11th level ability that someone may have worked for years to build to is a good way to manage the overall campaign.
EDIT: I'm also kind of shocked this hasn't come up before now. I noticed this when PW came out but thought there'd be something obvious to stop it from working, I just only got around to looking for that thing, now and can't find it.
|
I would argue, I think logically, that when the Additional Resources says that a spell is 'legal for play' it means it's legal in all aspects of the word
This does not follow. Otherwise any banned spell you could just get in a spellgem under the argument that spell gems are legal therefore any spell you can put in them is legal.
If an item is banned from SFS that means it doesn't exist. It's not a scroll, its not a spell gem, its not an option for your class, and it's not an option for something you pick off a list or use from another ability. If knives are legal but ivory is not your ivory handled knife has a problem.
|
|
What?
The Spell Is legal for play, meaning you can use it for anything you're allowed to use it for.
The class feature is legal for play, meaning you can use it for anything you're allowed to use it for.
The item (or race) is legal for play, meaning you can use it for anything your allowed to use it for.
Noone is trying to take an illegal thing and put it into a legal thing. Anyone making that argument would be arguing nonsense.
Without a caveat on either the class feature or the spell, saying, "this is legal and that is legal so I'm going to use them both together" is completely valid.
The argument about the caveat on the class feature about 'GM approval' is the crux here. Because it either means we have to accept the Additional Resources as GM approval (universally), and should probably update that, or it means we're going to get table variation, which could end up really unhealthy for Organized Play.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Pithica --
Let me see if I can provide clarity.
Eternal Spell
Choose one 1st-level spell you know from the list of technomancer spells in the Starfinder Core Rulebook. You can cast it at will, as though it were a 0-level spell. It still counts as one of your 1st-level spells known, not one of your 0-level spells known. You can choose a 1st-level spell from a source other than the Core Rulebook with the GM’s permission.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
Can you take Necromantic Revitalization? Absolutely.
Can you take Eternal Spell? Absolutely.
Can you use Necromantic Revitalization with Eternal Spell? Not currently.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
Necromantic Revitalization is a spell from outside the CRB.
You can only use spells from outside the CRB with the explicit permission of the GM. In Organized Play, that's not us. That's OrgPlay Leadership.
Thursty, Tonya and John have not explicitly issued a clarification granting permission for this combo, so it is not available. You could attempt to lobby for it, but as you noted, it's a little overpowered. It's probably for the best that this particular combination is not legal.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What?
ok, my analogy definitely didn't work. My Bad
The Spell Is legal for play, meaning you can use it for anything you're allowed to use it for.
The class feature is legal for play, meaning you can use it for anything you're allowed to use it for.
The item (or race) is legal for play, meaning you can use it for anything your allowed to use it for.
which isn't everything. You're specifically not allowed to combine that with non core spells.
Noone is trying to take an illegal thing and put it into a legal thing. Anyone making that argument would be arguing nonsense.
In pursuit of mechanical advantage? In this game? Never.
Without a caveat on either the class feature or the spell, saying, "this is legal and that is legal so I'm going to use them both together" is completely valid.
No, because you have something that specifically says its not allowed to be combined with anything else.
You can have an American socket
You can have a European cord.
You are not allowed to put the european electric cord into the american socket
You are arguing that you can make an argument that you have an american cord and a european socket therefore you can plug one into the other despite one of the rules being you can't plug one into the other.
You're trying to argue that your argument is so good that it overrides whats written there and... no. It isn't.
The argument about the caveat on the class feature about 'GM approval' is the crux here. Because it either means we have to accept the Additional Resources as GM approval (universally), and should probably update that, or it means we're going to get table variation, which could end up really unhealthy for Organized Play.
False Dilema. There is no table variation. Unless the DM (organized play coordinators) say X spell can be used with Eternal spell (probably with an astrix in the additional resources document) then it can't be.
|
|
Thursty, Tonya and John have not explicitly issued a clarification granting permission for this combo, so it is not available. You could attempt to lobby for it, but as you noted, it's a little overpowered. It's probably for the best that this particular combination is not legal.
Again, in case it was not clear, I am not arguing that I want this particular case to be legal. I think it's broken. I don't think it should be legal. I'd be having this discussion in the rules forum except that in a normal game a GM would just say no, so it'd only be theory crafting. In fact, I'd be fine if the answer from on high was that no spell outside the CRB were legal for use with Eternal Spell, but I don't think that's the case right now.
You can only use spells from outside the CRB with the explicit permission of the GM. In Organized Play, that's not us. That's OrgPlay Leadership.
I want to agree with this, but if a thing is legally usable for one thing but not another, it needs to be spelled out, in some way, somewhere.
For example, Eohi boots, which are legal, have the following qualification in the Additional Resources...
A wearer cannot combine the full attack action associated with the eohi boots with any other class feature that might alter full attacks (such as flashing strikes or soldier’s onslaught.)
There are several things in additional resources or the guide that have caveats like that. I believe that either this spell or the class feature need to be one of them.
If I had a player that wanted a spell, ANY spell outside of the CRB to work with Eternal Spell, I would allow it if that spell were legal for play, because to me (and probably many other GM's/players) OrgPlay leadership saying a thing is legal without a caveat is giving permission to use it (for every way that it can be used).
|
|
If I had a player that wanted a spell, ANY spell outside of the CRB to work with Eternal Spell, I would allow it if that spell were legal for play, because to me (and probably many other GM's/players) OrgPlay leadership saying a thing is legal without a caveat is giving permission to use it (for every way that it can be used).
That's just wrong. Legal means its available. It doesn't mean it gets rid of all other restrictions.
|
Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin
|
If I had a player that wanted a spell, ANY spell outside of the CRB to work with Eternal Spell, I would allow it if that spell were legal for play, because to me (and probably many other GM's/players) OrgPlay leadership saying a thing is legal without a caveat is giving permission to use it (for every way that it can be used).
Out of curiosity, what would this player do if the next GM said "No that does not work"?
|
|
I'd be fine if the answer from on high was that no spell outside the CRB were legal for use with Eternal Spell, but I don't think that's the case right now.
It is absolutely 100% the case right now. Saying otherwise is either an easy to make mistake about who the GM is or illegitimate rules lawyering
Eternal Spell (Ex)
Choose one 1st-level spell you know from the list of technomancer spells. You can cast it at will, as though it were a 0-level spell. It still counts as one of your 1st-level spells known, not one of your 0-level spells known. You can choose a 1st-level spell from a source other than the core rules with the GM’s permission.
Unless someone has the GMs permission no source is allowed.
The burden of proof is on the player to provide evidence that DMs permission exists to pick a spell outside the core rulebook, not on the DM to definitely disprove that.
I don't think it's reasonable to have organized play double the work and screenspace for every spell to say its legal AND its legal with this one hack. That sort of thing gets exponentially more complicated with each part.
|
|
That's just wrong. Legal means its available. It doesn't mean it gets rid of all other restrictions.
I didn't say that it gets rid of all other restrictions. I'm not arguing that they said that junksword is a legal TM spell so now my Mystic can take it as a spell. The 'restriction' on eternal spell is 'with the GM's permission'. It is my contention that saying a thing is legal for play without putting a caveat or something is giving GM permission. It removes only that one restriction, because saying it's legal without caveat is permission.
Out of curiosity, what would this player do if the next GM said "No that does not work"?
Argue with the GM at table. At least, I think this is what is going to end up happening with Eternal Spell when more players start reaching the level where they can use it. Others may just avoid it even though they want to take it because they're afraid of a ban hammer. While I don't think many GM's would allow this particular combination, I do see a situation where some GM's (myself included) would interpret a spell being legal for play as legal for working with this class feature, and others (as evidenced by this very thread) won't.
I don't think a player should be unsure about what can be used with a level 11 ability they may have spent years trying to earn, and I wouldn't blame them for arguing. People get personally invested in their characters and what they can do. I don't think this potential uncertainty is healthy and should probably be addressed now, when there may only be 1 or 2 level 11 TM's out there rather than two years from now when you may have dozens or even hundreds and potentially a lot of table variation. While I started this thread as a 'Is this actually legal'? sort of question, my bigger concern (and the only reason I keep responding) is the assumption that 'GM permission' means the same thing to every table on the planet when that isn't spelled out anywhere.
I don't think it's reasonable to have organized play double the work and screenspace for every spell to say its legal AND its legal with this one hack. That sort of thing gets exponentially more complicated with each part.
Or, and bear with me here, you could just have one line in the guide or the FAQ or the additional resources that says, "Any material that is restricted to only be usable with material from the CRB is always restricted to work only with material from the CRB unless otherwise explicitly called out in Additional Resources or a Chronicle Sheet." They've already said something close to that with respect to Deities and the Borais. Alternatively, "Any combination explicitly requiring GM Permission in any legal source is not allowed unless its explicitly mentioned as allowed in the Guide, FAQ, or Additional Resources." Would also work. Default to no and you only have to call out any one spell you want to add.
I don't see any such line or anything remotely close to that either as a general rule or wrt Eternal Spell specifically. Maybe something like that is there in the PFS guide (for general rules, obviously), or maybe it's been said by OP staff at some point on the forum or at a Con and that's where you're all coming from. I did search for such a thing, but I'm human, I may have missed it. If its there, and you know where, please point it out to me. The only reason I'm still 'arguing' is that I'm curious if such a line existed and I just missed it, or if not, for them to add one wrt to Eternal Spell (or generally) the way they did with Deities and Borais.
If it's not, we're left with individual GM's interpreting what constitutes 'GM permission'. Personally, I absolutely agree with you that OP is officially the GM (not me) for the campaign. Some GM's may not, thinking they're the GM. Some GM's may think that saying something is legal without putting restrictions is giving permission. I'm in that last camp. If your not, fine, we disagree, I'm not trying to convince you of that. At this point, I don't actually care that we disagree, I am trying to convince OP official that this disparity is potentially a problem.
|
Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin
|
Out of curiosity, what would this player do if the next GM said "No that does not work"?Argue with the GM at table. At least, I think this is what is going to end up happening with Eternal Spell when more players start reaching the level where they can use it. Others may just avoid it even though they want to take it because they're afraid of a ban hammer. While I don't think many GM's would allow this particular combination, I do see a situation where some GM's (myself included) would interpret a spell being legal for play as legal for working with this class feature, and others (as evidenced by this very thread) won't.
And what if the GM continues to say no?
|
|
And what if the GM continues to say no?
Unless you're trying to imply something about my motives, I don't understand where you're going with that. I'm not saying they 'should' argue. Everyone should come to every table with the express purpose of everyone having fun. I'm not advocating for bad behavior. I'm saying that at some point someone will argue. It continues from there however it continues and would depend entirely on the player, the GM, and the table. My contention is that the fact that this could cause an argument in the first place is a problem.
Bad Actors exist. OP generally puts things in the rules pretty explicitly to try to limit their ability to make those arguments happen. I don't see such a thing there for this particular case (nor the general case of things requiring GM permission). I'm pointing this out in the hopes that they will add such a thing somewhere obvious. (Or, if it already exists, someone here will point me to it.)
Since it seems to continue being unclear, I'm not the player in this situation. I have no intention of using this combination. I'm the GM, having to say no to something I believe is allowed under RAW because I believe it's broken. I'm having to defend that position against a potential bad actor who may or may not over-react at a table even though it may have been allowed by a different GM at a different table already and may get allowed by a different GM at the table after mine. I see that as a problem. I don't want to be put in that position.
Starfinder Society Developer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Choose one 1st-level spell you know from the list of technomancer spells in the Starfinder Core Rulebook."
Would clearly indicate that this ability only works on spells found in the Core Rulebook pending some form of formal FAQ/Errata.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it seems to continue being unclear, I'm not the player in this situation. I have no intention of using this combination. I'm the GM, having to say no to something I believe is allowed under RAW because I believe it's broken. I'm having to defend that position against a potential bad actor who may or may not over-react at a table even though it may have been allowed by a different GM at a different table already and may get allowed by a different GM at the table after mine. I see that as a problem. I don't want to be put in that position.
Thurston's now cleared this up.
That said, I know that you GM in my region as well as in person. If a disagreement like this happens in the discussion of a PBP game, don't be afraid to call in backup from your VO team. I'm happy to be the bad guy if you need me to be the bad guy.
Given the level of this technomancer hack, I'm assuming this is taking place in an AP. Whether it's campaign mode or not, you can offer the player the opportunity to retrain their technomancer hack since their initial selection for the Eternal Spell hack was illegal. We don't penalize people for honest mistakes.
Hmm
|
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it makes it sound like Starfinder Society might benefit from the ”Is this infinite thing possible?” FAQ found in Pathfinder Society.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it makes it sound like Starfinder Society might benefit from the ”Is this infinite thing possible?” FAQ found in Pathfinder Society.
There's a couple of these common sense fallback things that could maybe be shared more from PFS1 into it's inheritors.