|
I've seen numerous arguments on whether or not an item would qualify you for a feat. Personally, I agree that as a standard action using the item (as Item Mastery states) to cast the spell as a SLA you could utilize Dimensional Agility, however, Dimensional Assault and Dimensional Dervish function as FRA, even though casting Dimension Door becomes a swift action. Economy interaction I'm seeing is the Item Mastery requires a standard that you aren't going to lessen, while the Dimensional Tree allows a caster to utilize as a swift. Lack of direct casting and instead casting via the item wouldn't allow for a reduction in economy.
Thoughts? Insights? Opinions?
|
Casting time from items isn't affected by your feats unless the feat says that it modifies casting time from items.
Teleportation Mastery (Item Mastery)
Source Weapon Master's Handbook pg. 27
You can coax teleportation from conjuration magic items.Prerequisites: Use Magic Device 4 ranks, base Fortitude save bonus +6.
Benefit: You can cause an item that has a conjuration spell of 3rd level or higher in its construction requirements to cast dimension door. You can use this ability once per day, plus an additional time per day at base Fortitude save bonus +9 and +12.
The item casts the spell, so it is a standard action (the default without other specifications).
Dimensional Agility
Source Ultimate Combat pg. 95
Teleportation does not faze you.Prerequisites: Ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door.
Benefit: After using abundant step or casting dimension door, you can take any actions you still have remaining on your turn. You also gain a +4 bonus on Concentration checks when casting teleportation spells.
The requirement is to cast DD, not to have an item that cast it.
To be able to take Dimensional Agility using Teleportation Mastery the requirement would have to be "or be able to us Dimension Door".
Item Mastery feats rules:
"Using an item mastery feat is a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, similar to activating a command word item, though you do not need to speak to use the feat. Creating these effects requires you to assault the existing magic of the item through your force of will and channel the item’s inherent magic through your own body; this act is thus governed by the user’s fortitude. All effects created by item mastery feats act as spell-like abilities and use your base attack bonus as the caster level. Any spell-like ability’s save DC is equal to 10 + the spell level + your Constitution modifier. If a spell-like ability calls for a calculation using your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma bonus or modifier, use your Constitution bonus or modifier instead." WHM pg. 26
It's not a spell cast by an item, it's a spell-like ability, explicitly created by the feat (and not the item), and the originator of the SLA is the user's body. It uses the user's ability scores and caster level (quasi), which is very different from how casting a spells or spell-like abilities from a magic item works.
This all points to using an item mastery feat behaving like any other SLA. Which includes the FAQ that says an FAQ counts like casting that specific spell.
Yes, the feats (all but Compulsion Mastery, weirdly) say you can "cause" an item to cast a spell... but the actual rules say different, so I'd write that term in the feat descriptions off as flavor text.
|
|
LOL, so a few words in the same phrase are rules, when others are flavor text, as suit you?
By the same logic "doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity" is flavor text, "use your Constitution bonus or modifier instead." is flavor text or any other piece of the text is flavor text.
The text you cite is clear, using an item mastery feat is "is a standard action ... , similar to activating a command word item", and "... doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, similar to activating a command word item".
Stuff that allows you to attack someone using a command word item will allow you to attack the feat user, stuff that allows you to change the standard action used to activate a command word item work on the feat.
You are right that the general rule explains that it is an SLA and the DD isn't cast by the item, even if the specific feat says differently. I agree that the discrepancy seems to be an error and that the general rule, in this instance, trumps the text of the feat, as it is way more detailed.
So I must correct my stance, Teleportation Mastery (Item Mastery)is a valid prerequisite for Dimensional Agility
First: Thank you for listening to arguments, and adjusting your position. After recently seeing multiple people doing anything they can, no matter how ridiculous, far fetched, or dishonest, just to not having to admit having been wrong, this is truly nice to see!
LOL, so a few words in the same phrase are rules, when others are flavor text, as suit you?
I only designate the word flavor text because a) it clashes with the general rules (or rather the specific rules for that type of feat) without saying so, and b) it uses a non-game-term.
The text you cite is clear, using an item mastery feat is "is a standard action ... , similar to activating a command word item", and "... doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, similar to activating a command word item".
Similarity does not denote relation. If I say my dog is similar in size to a beagle actually clearly shows that it isn't a beagle, because if it was, I wouldn't use the word "similar".
The rules use "as if" or "functions as" to make something behave as another rule segment or rule option. "Similar to" is used to explain how something works, without counting as the referenced option.
Using an item mastery feat does not use the magic item activation rules.
|
|
While I am hard-headed and hard to convince, I try to stay honest in my evaluation of the rules and to recognize when I am wrong, especially where that has a significant impact on the interpretation of a rule.
My problem with your interpretation of "similar to activating a command word item," as pure flavor text, is that it would be unneeded flavor text. If it has no game effect it is totally unnecessary and a waste of printed space, something that Paizo generally avoids. It doesn't add any flavor.
On the other hand, thinking about my position, there are problems with it. What happens if a character has abilities that allow him to do something while activating a command word item?
As I see it, they shouldn't interact. As a consequence, your position is more correct than mine.
Sigh.
I must admit I have changed my position to the point that I agree with you.
A pity, as I really dislike the "it is flavor text" argument, as I feel that it is too prone to abuse.
My problem with your interpretation of "similar to activating a command word item," as pure flavor text, is that it would be unneeded flavor text.
That's not flavor text. It is... explanatory text. Yeah ok, that doesn't make it better. The flavor text statement was regarding the word "cause" in the individual feat description.
The term "similar to" is actually mostly used to draw some rules from the referenced option, for example the Arctic and Aquatic Druid domains have an ability that functions "similar to using the Command Undead feat against undead". This doesn't appear to be the case here, though.
If it has no game effect it is totally unnecessary and a waste of printed space, something that Paizo generally avoids.
Pathfinder is actually chock full of unnecessary text. The closest examples are both Spell Combat and cFlurry of Blows mentioning TWF, but not using any TWF rules. But there're plenty other examples: Weapon Training says you add the bonus to CMB of maneuvers made with those weapon, even though that is already covered in the maneuver rules. Mobility and Haste say you lose the dodge bonus when denied the dex bonus, even though the combat rules already says that. The Monk's Unarmed Strike class feature says "This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.", even though everyone can do that. The consequitive Monk class features Proficiency and AC Bonus both say you lose the bonus when wearing armor. Almost every natural weapon granting option repeats part of the natural attack rules (e.g. that it becomes a secondary attack when combined with manufactured weapon attacks). Most bonus feat class features say the feat is gained in additon to regular feats, even though if that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be a bonus feat.
Hell, look at how many class features give a maximum for a scaling ability that you couldn't surpass anyway! Take Inspire Courage: "At 5th level, and every six bard levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +4 at 17th level." The next increase would be at level 23, which doesn't exist, meaning stating the maximum has absolutely no effect.
I know multiple devs have talked about how they were pressed for space... but I honestly think that's just excuses made for shoddy writing. Give my 20 minutes and I can probably cut you a dozen pages from the CRB!
Flavor text that gets abused and causes arguments at the table should be called spicy text.
*raises glass*
Another thread in rules arena questioning which rules as written are actually rules, and which are actually just flavor as written.
Equipment Trick is a feat? Dimension Savant is a four feat chain that cannot reasonably be finished before level 15?
Bought and paid for... let the player play.
Literally, who gives a $#!+ about the RAW of a situation where logic and common sense and just not being an @$$hole will guide you to a workable solution? Why complicate the issue asking for the opinions of others, when you know for a fact that we only come into the thunderdome to fight? Lol.
Now that I have said my opinion on this matter, we can close the thread, because we all know that my opinion is the correct one... you're welcome. Lol.
Don't you just love the rules arena?
Just emphasizing how a lot of people sound in here half the time... opinion vs opinion on which rules texts as written are actually relevant. Bunches and bunches of my opinion is better than your opinion. Or my ooinion will somehow prove so superior to your opinion that you will change your opinions to match mine.
This whole section should have been shut down the day Paizo stopped giving a $#!+ about PF1... who are we to decide what they meant to say? It was their job to say it in a way that wouldn't leave us questioning every little freaking thing. They failed us, and there is no use for us to try figure out their failures.
The official rules as written even say that having fun is the ultimate goal of the game, so do what is most fun for your table. And just be more consistent in your rulings than Paizo was when they wrote the rules/flavor BS we find ourselves arguing about.