The target can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water, traveling at a speed of 5 feet. If protected against fire damage, it can move through lava. This movement leaves behind no tunnel or hole, nor does it create any ripple or other sign of its presence. It requires as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally, but cannot charge or run. Casting move earth on an area containing the target flings the target back 30 feet, stunning it for 1 round (DC 15 Fortitude negates). This spell does not give the target the ability to breathe underground, so when passing through solid material, the creature must hold its breath.Edit: to be fair, it does mention swimming, so I guess the spell gives you a swim speed of 5.....
Earthglide is a movement type
earth elemental reads
Offense
Speed 20 ft., burrow 20 ft., earth glide
Not that I see, but if we look at a spell that came out years later should that be used to retroactively make a spell weaker? Again going to my examples from earlier should we assume something is wrong with Shared Tactics and look for how we are meant to errata/change it because years later someone wrote and Paizo published an inferior spell at a higher level?
Was the original spell unclear? if so then using another spell that clarifies things makes sense, regardless if that other spell is older or newer than the unclear spell. Clarification is just that, clarification. There are two different ways the spell could be interpreted one is stronger than the other. If I could understand how bladed dash works purely from the text contained in the spell then there is no need to reference another spell.
For example, I can read ray of frost and fully understand how the spell works independent of any other spell. Certainly, a person could argue that it should be stronger or weaker when compared to other spells of a similar level but a spell coming out later that is higher level and weaker than ray of frost doesn't alter the RAW of the spell. If bladed dash could be fully understood from the text contained in the spell without any ambiguity then I wouldn't be trying to compare it to other spells that produce similar effects. My only goal in doing so is to gain a better understanding of which interpretation of the spell is consistent with other spells that do something similar regardless if they are newer or older than bladed dash. I'm not trying to buff or nerf bladed dash. I'm trying to keep it consistent.
EDIT: looking at the books prior (pre July-2011) might help provide insight to the level of what was getting published but you can't expect an author to decide what might get published in the future and decide based on that.
I really don't understand your argument. I feel like you dislike the fact that the interpretation for bladed dash that I'm supporting is the weaker of the two. That I am intentionally only looking at information that will lead me to this conclusion. If there is better information that can be used to make this determination please direct me to it. The spell I linked was the only spell I found that gave any sort of clear direction on which interpretation of bladed dash was more likely the correct one. If there is another spell or reference that is "better" then please please point me to it.
Earthglide is a movement type
earth elemental reads
Offense
Speed 20 ft., burrow 20 ft., earth glide
So, earth elementals have 3 movement types? They can walk at a speed of 20, burrow at a speed of 20 and earth glide at a speed of ????
So, earth elementals have 3 movement types? They can walk at a speed of 20, burrow at a speed of 20 and earth glide at a speed of ????Earthglide is a movement type earth elemental reads
Offense
Speed 20 ft., burrow 20 ft., earth glide
The target can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water, traveling at a speed of 5 feet.
So, earth elementals have 3 movement types? They can walk at a speed of 20, burrow at a speed of 20 and earth glide at a speed of ????Earthglide is a movement type earth elemental reads
Offense
Speed 20 ft., burrow 20 ft., earth glideThe target can pass through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth except metal as easily as a fish swims through water, traveling at a speed of 5 feet.
so... Earth elementals can walk at a speed of 20 feet, burrow at a speed of 20 feet and earth glide at a speed of 5 feet as per the spell. Got it.
edit: disregarding of course the extraordinary ability called Earth Glide that earth elementals get that is described in their entry....
Not that I see, but if we look at a spell that came out years later should that be used to retroactively make a spell weaker? Again going to my examples from earlier should we assume something is wrong with Shared Tactics and look for how we are meant to errata/change it because years later someone wrote and Paizo published an inferior spell at a higher level?Was the original spell unclear? if so then using another spell that clarifies things makes sense, regardless if that other spell is older or newer than the unclear spell. Clarification is just that, clarification. There are two different ways the spell could be interpreted one is stronger than the other. If I could understand how bladed dash works purely from the text contained in the spell then there is no need to reference another spell.
For example, I can read ray of frost and fully understand how the spell works independent of any other spell. Certainly, a person could argue that it should be stronger or weaker when compared to other spells of a similar level but a spell coming out later that is higher level and weaker than ray of frost doesn't alter the RAW of the spell. If bladed dash could be fully understood from the text contained in the spell without any ambiguity then I wouldn't be trying to compare it to other spells that produce similar effects. My only goal in doing so is to gain a better understanding of which interpretation of the spell is consistent with other spells that do something similar regardless if they are newer or older than bladed dash. I'm not trying to buff or nerf bladed dash. I'm trying to keep it consistent.
EDIT: looking at the books prior (pre July-2011) might help provide insight to the level of what was getting published but you can't expect an author to decide what might get published in the future and decide based on that.I really don't understand your argument. I feel like you dislike the fact that the interpretation for bladed dash that I'm supporting is the weaker of the two. That I am intentionally only looking at information that will lead me to this conclusion. If there is better information that can be used to make this determination please direct me to it. The spell I linked was the only spell I found that gave any sort of clear direction on which interpretation of bladed dash was more likely the correct one. If there is another spell or reference that is "better" then please please point me to it.
There isn't a better point of reference, but using material that came out after the spell in question doesn't help determine the if a spell is too good or too bad. That's the crux of the issue we don't have a hard and fast guideline for what may or may not be interpreted other than "ask your GM". I keep going back to the spells I named earlier because they are a clear example that sub-par options can come out after the fact. That doesn't change how existing options work unless someone from on high makes that call. So if we don't look at Burst of Speed, which may or may not have been written with the knowledge of Bladed Hook, then we have to evaluate the spell on it's merits.
There isn't a better point of reference, but using material that came out after the spell in question doesn't help determine the if a spell is too good or too bad. That's the crux of the issue we don't have a hard and fast guideline for what may or may not be interpreted other than "ask your GM". I keep going back to the spells I named earlier because they are a clear example that sub-par options can come out after the fact. That doesn't change how existing options work unless someone from on high makes that call. So if we don't look at Burst of Speed, which may or may not have been written with the knowledge of Bladed Hook, then we have to evaluate the spell on it's merits.
I agree that if you ignore the existence of the spell Burst of Speed there isn't another reference to look at to determine how Bladed Dash should function and it must be evaluated on its own. But it makes little sense to me to ignore additional information that is available just because it goes against a pre-conceived notion of how the spell works. You should use all of the information available to you, otherwise you're just cherry picking.
For example, the feat Eldritch heritage. There was a question regarding if you could pick mutated bloodlines with it or not. It was not clear from the feat if you could and arguments could be made both ways. Then we got the feat Exotic heritage. This feat explicitly allows you to take a mutated bloodline. It also easily clarifies that normally Eldritch heritage would not allow you to select a mutated bloodline.
Certainly, this clarification changes things for any game where the DM ruled that you could take a mutated bloodline with Eldritch heritage. It's a "nerf" for anyone that was in that boat. But there was no nerf, there was simply a new feat that came out that ended up indirectly providing a clarification for how the older feat works.
And Exotic Heritage was written with that intent but does that mean that the guy writing burst of speed looked at bladed dash and went "you know what we need a spell that let's you move through creatures squares to clarify that this doesn't?" It's unlikely now I'm in the camp that isn't sure I personally don't know how I would rule it since it's clear its not exactly a move action and we aren't sure how it would interact.