Early Entry? What Early Entry?

[Ethereal Gears]

Le sigh. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow)

That is all. Glad I only play with a heavily house-ruled home group who won't let this kinda backtrackin' stand!

[NightbringerGGZ]

To be fair, a lot of GMs weren't allowing the early entry rule anyway.

[Psyren]

They could've left this one alone imo.

(Though to be perfectly honest, I wasn't using PrCs anyway.)

[Arbane]

If I'm reading that right, that still allows Aasimar Daylight shenanigans, right?

What a pointless 'fix'.

[Psyren]

If I'm reading that right, that still allows Aasimar Daylight shenanigans, right?

What a pointless 'fix'.

It seems to now be "only if the thing you're trying to get into requires Daylight specifically." In other words, NOT if it requires "3rd-level spells."

And given the example they used... perhaps someone was trying to get their Barghest into, I dunno, Razmiran Priest or something. (I couldn't think of any PrCs that require 4ths.)

[icefractal]

I'm generally all for making things easier to get into, and providing more options instead of less, but even I thought that early entry via SLA was bogus as a general rule. Prerequisites should mean something. Now if some abilities are so anemic that getting them 10 levels early doesn't unbalance anything, then the problem is that those abilities suck.

Same thing with ECL = CR. For a number of monsters, that's fine. As a carte-blanche rule? No way in hell. I know that LA was usually way overpriced, no argument there. But a Nymph is not a 7th level character, and a Ghaele Azata is not a 13th level one, especially not the way the rules are written (counting the given stats as 10-based, and allowing a full rebuild).

[Ilorin Lorati]

And given the example they used... perhaps someone was trying to get their Barghest into, I dunno, Razmiran Priest or something. (I couldn't think of any PrCs that require 4ths.)


Not at all. James Jacobs just hates fun. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1038?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#51875)

[Psyren]

Not at all. James Jacobs just hates fun. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1038?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#51875)

Is that really all that prompted this? I dunno why people keep bringing rules questions into those threads anyway.

But like I said, there aren't really any PrCs in PF that I care about early entry for, and 3.P makes its own rules pretty much.

[Ilorin Lorati]

It wasn't even the early entry I cared about, it was the flexibility in dealing with abilities that didn't actually require spells in use but had an arbitrary prerequisite that said "You need x amount of spell training. For reasons." Feats like Arcane Strike and the like.

[Psyren]

It wasn't even the early entry I cared about, it was the flexibility in dealing with abilities that didn't actually require spells in use but had an arbitrary prerequisite that said "You need x amount of spell training. For reasons." Feats like Arcane Strike and the like.

That might still work - if "specific spell" still works, then "cast spells" might, even if "cast {level} spells" no longer does.

[icefractal]

It wasn't even the early entry I cared about, it was the flexibility in dealing with abilities that didn't actually require spells in use but had an arbitrary prerequisite that said "You need x amount of spell training. For reasons." Feats like Arcane Strike and the like.Sure, but the problem there is that most of what Paizo puts out is underpowered and over-prerequisited. I'd rather spot-fix things the players want to use up to spec. than basically throw away prerequisites entirely.

Although admittedly not an option in PFS. But PFS is already the "not too much fun" zone.

[Raven777]

As far as logic goes, this is actually one that makes sense. SLAs are not spells.
Doesn't mean I don't think some feats and PrCs shouldn't be easier to get into, though.

[grarrrg]

Honestly, I'm surprised they let that go as long as they did.


And while we're on the subject of FAQ's...
Eldritch Heritage > WildBloodline (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9sxm) finally has a definitive answer...
NO!

[Snowbluff]

Ugh, way to screw with us, Paizo. :smallsigh:

So when's that Eldritch Knight buff coming? What, never? You only stop supporting things? Got it.

Myrmidarch needed a patch, right? Did that come?

[Ssalarn]

Prerequisites should mean something. Now if some abilities are so anemic that getting them 10 levels early doesn't unbalance anything, then the problem is that those abilities suck.


It's a little bit of both. Currently, all the prereq thresholds for the CRB archetypes are set too high, and the rewards for that investment are practically non-existent.

The prior ruling was nice in that it meant there were at least few viable options for accessing the associated character options. The limited number of races who could take advantage of them were unfortunate, but no more mechanically or thematically inconsistent than the 3.5 elf-only Arcane Archers, Dwarven Defenders, etc. Races with magic in their blood were more adept at learning techniques and styles that blended magic with other power sources or techniques; how is that weird?

My biggest issue with the FAQ is the same one I've had with a couple of their other ones, most notably the mounted combat FAQ: when there were two possible directions for the FAQ and balance was not an issue, they chose the direction that decreased viable character options. That bugs me just a little.

Now, I can see where this choice provides them with a more predictable rules base for future design, but seeing as how it's at the expense of existing materials and their previous FAQs and design decisions make it seem very unlikely that they'll do the kind of adjustments necessary to return the re-nerfed PrCs to viability... Well, it's a bit disappointing.

It also goes to show that Pathfinder Society is king in almost all of their decisions. It's showing up here, where the FAQ announcement was actually made in the PFS forums, it was the driving force behind the Crane Wing nerf, and it's been a major influence in other places. Since Pathfinder Society is the only place they can get solid statistics that include an even spread of system mastery levels, you can bet that whatever the consensus there is, it'll be reflected in the decisions made by the design team.

[icefractal]

So when's that Eldritch Knight buff coming? What, never? You only stop supporting things? Got it.Look, if they started fixing things just because they were weak to the brink of useless, they'd be on a slippery slope of having to admit that crap options were actually undesirable, instead of "good fuel for roleplaying". :smallamused:

Far safer to just nerf the things that people whine about and/or catches their attention. I'd call it a bad plan, but their sales say otherwise. :smallsigh:


Edit: And agreed, PFS has much to answer for. At first I thought the relatively unrestricted access was a good thing, made it more tolerable in the case that I ever played a PFS game, but now I wish it went with a "walled garden" approach like Living Greyhawk had. At least then things that are only a problem when locked to pre-set encounters (Crane Wing) wouldn't be nerfed for the player-base at large.

[Psyren]

Ssalarn is spot-on.

At the same time though, I can see why they might lean towards PFS as the driver for the balance decisions. After all, in a home game the GM can look at a FAQ ruling and say "yeah this feels too weak, I'm buffing it" or "this is still too strong, I'll take it down another notch." A PFS GM has none of these recourses - the law is the law. So since the home games can deal with it on their own, they tailor many of their decisions such that response (b) is hopefully less common than response (a).

But as far as buffing things - well, we've got the Melee Combat Toolbox coming out early this year (counterpart to the Ranged one we already got), and fixes/buffs for some of the ACG snafus, then after that we've got Pathfinder Unchained. And among all that, even more FAQs to come. Should be an interesting year!

[Kurald Galain]

And while we're on the subject of FAQ's...
Eldritch Heritage > WildBloodline (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9sxm) finally has a definitive answer...
NO!

That's a bit confusing though... let me see if I get this straight.


Even though they're really just more distinct bloodlines, "wildblooded" counts as an archetype that replaces nothing, so they can't be taken by the Arcanist's bloodline exploit.
Even though they're just more domains, "animal and terrain domains" and "subdomains" also count as an archetype. This means that the Inquisitor can't take them, and neither can the Divine Hunter (for who it would be fitting to take an animal domain, but no dice).
Wizard arcane discoveries are also an archetype, not that that matters since there's no out-of-class way to pick them up.
Wizard subschools, however, are not an archetype, so the Arcanist can still take those with his school exploit.
Bard masterpieces are also an archetype, however the Skald class specifically mentions that it can take them anyway.

[Ethereal Gears]

I can totally see the fluff-related arguments for and against this. I personally just think it seems smooth and logical that, like, races who are inherently magical have an easier time combining like thievery and magic (AT) or fighting and magic (EK) than people who don't, like, have magic in their frickin' blood. Anyway, I could see people not buying that, and that's fair enough. Fluff is very subjective.

This whole thing just kinda irks me because there was no inherent abuse, it made a lot of fun if suboptimal PrCs (like AT, which is something that doesn't really have a base class equivalent in PF in terms of role) viable. I mean, yeah, my group will probably just houserule this away. I guess I mostly feel bad for PFS folks and people whose GMs treat Paizo FAQs as gospel or whatever. Like, it doesn't personally affect me (at least unless our group votes to play by this new FAQ) but it seems unnecessary and, like Ssalarn said, I cannot fathom why you'd ever wanna rule in favour of fewer build options when abuse or balance ain't an issue. Anyway, yeah. Not the dramatic moment of the year. Just a mild, dull letdown.

[Mithril Leaf]

I'm just glad that everyone is finally noticing how Paizo is a bunch of hacks who don't really care about making things fun. If only Dreamscarred made their own d20 spin off.

[Psyren]

I'm just glad that everyone is finally noticing how Paizo is a bunch of hacks who don't really care about making things fun. If only Dreamscarred made their own d20 spin off.

Who is this "everyone" you speak of? :smallconfused:

I'm expecting a lot of fake outrage over this as people angrily point to all the PrCs they weren't using anyway taking another level of waiting to get into.

Did I think the FAQ was fine as it was previously, sure, but I'm not about to lose sleep over it either way. Archetypes are the way to go in PF.


That's a bit confusing though... let me see if I get this straight.


Even though they're really just more distinct bloodlines, "wildblooded" counts as an archetype that replaces nothing, so they can't be taken by the Arcanist's bloodline exploit.
Even though they're just more domains, "animal and terrain domains" and "subdomains" also count as an archetype. This means that the Inquisitor can't take them, and neither can the Divine Hunter (for who it would be fitting to take an animal domain, but no dice).
Wizard arcane discoveries are also an archetype, not that that matters since there's no out-of-class way to pick them up.
Wizard subschools, however, are not an archetype, so the Arcanist can still take those with his school exploit.
Bard masterpieces are also an archetype, however the Skald class specifically mentions that it can take them anyway.


Wildblooded is meant to be a thing specifically for sorcerers. People were complaining when the Arcanist came out that there wouldn't be a need for sorcerers anymore; first Arcanists came along and effectively became the spontaneous caster that could swap out their spells known every morning, and along with that, the Blood Arcanist came along and took the bloodline abilities too. This is the quick and dirty fix to that - by making wildblooded and crossblooded be sorcerer-specific things, sorcerers still have things only they can do, such as being the arcane caster who can use all three mental stats. This ruling also means that they can tie bloodlines and hexes and other such modular things to specific archetypes (and thus bump them up in power) without worrying about it being easy for a non-member of that archetype to grab them. For example, this ruling means that a Hexcrafter Magus cannot crib the Frozen Caress hex from the Winter Witch. And while the ruling is specific to archetypes, it suggests that rules elements unique to a PrC are off limits too, like the Winter Witch PrC's Numbing Chill Hex also being off limits to a Hexcrafter.

For the masterpieces, yes, specific trumps general and the Skald gains access.

[Mithril Leaf]

Who is this "everyone" you speak of? :smallconfused:

I'm expecting a lot of fake outrage over this as people angrily point to all the PrCs they weren't using anyway taking another level of waiting to get into.

Did I think the FAQ was fine as it was previously, sure, but I'm not about to lose sleep over it either way. Archetypes are the way to go in PF.


Most of the people in this thread? It's a slow process admittedly.

[Psyren]

Most of the people in this thread? It's a slow process admittedly.

Ethereal: negative
NightbringerGGZ: meh
Arbane: unclear, put down as negative
icefractal: positive
Ilorin Lorati: negative
Raven777: seems positive
grarrrg: meh
Snowbluff: negative
Ssalarn: meh
Kurald: responding to different topic
Mithril Leaf: negative

That's 4/11 responses to the ruling being negative, then I throw in mine (meh) so I'd say you're being premature.

[Kurald Galain]

Kurald: responding to different topic


Put my down for 'meh', then. I don't care either way about this change, and I completely disagree that Paizo "don't really care about making things fun".

[N. Jolly]

I'm seriously annoyed by this, but I'll just cross post


Oh man, SLAs just got Crane Wing'd hard, as did most casting based prestige classes.

I dislike this ruling, but not because I liked the original one. It was silly, made for silly situations, and wasn't great. But it did help give Pathfinder more of a unique feel to it, something that made it feel different from 3.5 in a ruling sense. Something that in 3.5 would have been considered a 'no brainer' was an actual rule here, and I appreciated the amount of unique builds and such that this ruling allowed.

So while it's probably more balanced (that's debatable), it's also more boring and constricting, which feels like a large problem here. I liked my strange builds that were possible due to this, and letting it go for this long is the real problem. We grew comfortable with the old ruling and accepted it as a quirk of the system, and even made interesting concepts around it.

So yeah, this ruling just sort of bums me out.

[Snowbluff]

Well, if you scrap the votes that don't care, you have 4 negative to one positive, right? I mean, you don't make a change for the people who don't think it matters, right?


My biggest issue with the FAQ is the same one I've had with a couple of their other ones, most notably the mounted combat FAQ: when there were two possible directions for the FAQ and balance was not an issue, they chose the direction that decreased viable character options. That bugs me just a little. Could you explain this one to me? I like mounted combat.



It also goes to show that Pathfinder Society is king in almost all of their decisions. It's showing up here, where the FAQ announcement was actually made in the PFS forums, it was the driving force behind the Crane Wing nerf, and it's been a major influence in other places. Since Pathfinder Society is the only place they can get solid statistics that include an even spread of system mastery levels, you can bet that whatever the consensus there is, it'll be reflected in the decisions made by the design team. I think it might be less of a consensus and more of a vocal minority.

[Almarck]

I'm actually quite happy with the ruling. But only because I think the SLA = Cast Spell of Level X admission thing to be a terrible bug and really should have been patched sooner. I do understand that people are disappointed with the ruling though.

Anyways, I think this'll cut down on the number of people using SLA's to break into PrC's that might be slightly dysfunctional for them. IE, using an SLA that scales by total class level to get into a spellcasting boosting PrC. I'm sure there's still plenty of holes, it's just this removes most of 'em.

How many people in this room use prestige classes? How many of you are affected negatively by this descision? While I have my own feelings, still I do understand many of you are dissatisfied

[BWR]

What I'm getting out of some responses: "wah wah, I can't cheat creatively work my way around RAI therefor the changes are stupid and horrible and everyone who tries to fix the game so it works as intended is a douche"
Cry me a river. I never allow cheap workarounds like that in any case so even if it was explicitly permitted and approved by the devs, it wouldn't fly at my table.

[Psyren]

Well, if you scrap the votes that don't care,

Why would you? "Meh" is in fact a valid response to this.
Besides, I was counting not to support the ruling itself, but to counter Mithril's bogus claim that "a majority in this thread" had some kind of epiphany about Paizo's black heart and chitinous exoskeleton based on the ruling. :smalltongue:

(On that note - 1 more negative and two more positive)

[Mithril Leaf]

What I'm getting out of some responses: "wah wah, I can't cheat creatively work my way around RAI therefor the changes are stupid and horrible and everyone who tries to fix the game so it works as intended is a douche"
Cry me a river. I never allow cheap workarounds like that in any case so even if it was explicitly permitted and approved by the devs, it wouldn't fly at my table.

Do you let people play wizards? Playing a wizard is objectively stronger than nearly any usage of this workaround.


Why would you? "Meh" is in fact a valid response to this.
Besides, I was counting not to support the ruling itself, but to counter Mithril's bogus claim that "a majority in this thread" had some kind of epiphany about Paizo's black heart and chitinous exoskeleton based on the ruling. :smalltongue:

(On that note - 1 more negative and two more positive)

For the record not once did I say majority. I said everyone which was hyperbole. I don't respect how Paizo handles things as a rule of thumb, although the base rules of Pathfinder are in fact marginally better than 3.5s. They haven't real done anything beyond buff casters as far as balancing goes though.

[Snowbluff]

Do you let people play wizards? Playing a wizard is objectively stronger than nearly any usage of this workaround.
Or like... most of the straight classing options.



For the record not once did I say majority. I said everyone which was hyperbole. I don't respect how Paizo handles things as a rule of thumb, although the base rules of Pathfinder are in fact marginally better than 3.5s. They haven't real done anything beyond buff casters as far as balancing goes though.

Mhm. Out of the people that the rule actually affects, they generally dislike it. The SLA was a legitimately good rule, but had few applications. Imagine if the Warlock from 3.5 could use that rule? How many options would that open up for him?

It's another one of those cases with knee-jerk reactions. Honestly, you have to make a decision between your class features and favored class bonuses to get into a PrC in the first place. How would make this any more difficult actually add anything to the game? How does further limiting sub-optimal, interesting character concepts improve the game?

[Psyren]

For the record not once did I say majority.


Most of the people in this thread?

*shrug*


They haven't real done anything beyond buff casters as far as balancing goes though.

Were they supposed to be?

Also, Polymorph, Wall of Iron, Arcane Lock etc.


EDIT: Also, everyone around here is inventing fallacies so I should do it too. Saying "Wizards exist, so anything that inhibits power on a lower tier than T1 is meaningless or excessive" is not a reasonable argument. It works great in theoryland where wizards are the god-class that leaves the GM broken and weeping, but that is not at all how wizards typically play out or else they would be roundly banned from coast to coast.

[BWR]

Do you let people play wizards? Playing a wizard is objectively stronger than nearly any usage of this workaround.


I fail to see your point. If I wanted everything supremely balanced I wouldn't play PF. If all I cared about was things being of equal strength I wouldn't play PF. The workarounds invalidate the idea that PrCs aren't easily or immediately available. Power doesn't enter into it.

[Snowbluff]

I fail to see your point. If I wanted everything supremely balanced I wouldn't play PF. If all I cared about was things being of equal strength I wouldn't play PF. The workarounds invalidate the idea that PrCs aren't easily or immediately available. Power doesn't enter into it.

Um... no. This isn't the case at all. It's not that much easier to get into the class. For example, the EK (probably the notable example) needs a feat in the first place. I would say adding a racial option doesn't make it easier in terms of cost, and the race implies a different upbringing or set of abilities. You don't benefit immediately, either.

[Coidzor]

Not at all. James Jacobs just hates fun. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1038?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#51875)

The decision itself isn't of particular interest to me, but I'd really like to see some statements from James Jacobs or Jason Buhlman that didn't make me cringe more often than not. :/

[icefractal]

Mhm. Out of the people that the rule actually affects, they generally dislike it. The SLA was a legitimately good rule, but had few applications. Imagine if the Warlock from 3.5 could use that rule? How many options would that open up for him? If it applied to class abilities like the Warlock, it might be fine. Certainly, I'd support a rule that said "levels in SLA-using class = caster levels".

But on the other hand, consider the Svirfneblin. Stone Tell as a SLA; that's a 6th level spell. Incidentally, the ARG considers the entirety of the Svirfneblin SLAs to be only 2 RP total; within reach of anybody. So a 1st level character with that SLA can qualify for something that would normally require 11th level. Does that really seem appropriate?

On a related note, the more I look at it, the more I think that the way 3E tried to set prerequisites "organically" - by requiring skill ranks or BAB or spells but almost never just raw level - was a mistake. It makes pre-planning necessary to not suck, it allows early entry, and because it allows early entry, things get made weaker so they don't break the game if accessed early. Just say "requirement: 10th level", and then you can give out stuff appropriate to a 10th level character. Also, not having BAB vs spells as a prerequisite might short-circuit some of Paizo's hate for giving non-casters shiny things.

Again, I'm completely in agreement that Paizo sets their level of balance rather badly, and that a lot of prerequisites should be lowered or dropped entirely. Unlimited SLA-qualification is just a bad way to accomplish that.

[Almarck]

I'm personally of the opinion that any levels or abilities pertaining to SLAs shouldn't be "real" caster levels, if only because it seems a little odd why someone who is a fighter suddenly takes a full casting PrC because he has prestidigitation. Granted, I am a RAI sorta guy, so that might be why I don't feel like the ruling is unfair.I am of the opinion some classes or abilities should require actual spellcasting and not using backdoor methods, even if subpar; it's not just a matter of power, but one of transparency.

Granted, I think this problem wouldn't be so bad if some things would just be "givens" and that "taxes" were lowered. Paizo does overly complicate things unfortunately.

Edit: I am also in agreement with Ice. If Prestige Classes were built differently instead of requiring "Feat Taxes", maybe this would not be an issue? Perhaps if they were structured similarly to 4e's Paragon Paths?

[Snowbluff]

If it applied to class abilities like the Warlock, it might be fine. Certainly, I'd support a rule that said "levels in SLA-using class = caster levels".

But on the other hand, consider the Svirfneblin. Stone Tell as a SLA; that's a 6th level spell. Incidentally, the ARG considers the entirety of the Svirfneblin SLAs to be only 2 RP total; within reach of anybody. So a 1st level character with that SLA can qualify for something that would normally require 11th level. Does that really seem appropriate? 1) I'm against the artificial segregation for racial and class abilities.

2) The Warlock DOES have an arcane caster level, allowing access to PrCs posted in the books it's from. However, most other sources use spell level. It's weird; they can even qualify for specific spells, just not whole spell levels.

3) That's a problem with the RP system. RP is a way worse rule than the old SLA one.

4) Go find me a prerequisite with a 6th level spell requirement. Otherwise this point is moot.


On a related note, the more I look at it, the more I think that the way 3E tried to set prerequisites "organically" - by requiring skill ranks or BAB or spells but almost never just raw level - was a mistake. It makes pre-planning necessary to not suck, it allows early entry, and because it allows early entry, things get made weaker so they don't break the game if accessed early. Just say "requirement: 10th level", and then you can give out stuff appropriate to a 10th level character. Also, not having BAB vs spells as a prerequisite might short-circuit some of Paizo's hate for giving non-casters shiny things. Preplanning is required in either system. It's not a bug, it's a feature. It's THE feature of the d20 system. It's been a good optimizing edition.

If you're doing a concept and early entry provides a shortcut to completing it, then more power to you. The PrC abilities are that strong as far as I can tell, and have to compete with class features.


Again, I'm completely in agreement that Paizo sets their level of balance rather badly, and that a lot of prerequisites should be lowered or dropped entirely. Unlimited SLA-qualification is just a bad way to accomplish that.
It allowed for specific build to be accomplished as the player please without a significant power boost in any stretch of the imagination. It's not like we have Incantatrix or Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil in PF. We just have the crummy original PrCs, minus the cool ones, and the generally lousy PF ones.

[Psyren]

I agree with Snowbluff that pre-planning isn't a problem. Planning out your character is a form of expression, and expression is a core aesthetic/engagement of this game.

This bullet though:



4) Go find me a prerequisite with a 6th level spell requirement. Otherwise this point is moot.

is missing the point. The point is they could never design one while that ruling was in place, at least not without guaranteeing (or having to worry about) a low-level way to get in. Better to latch the door and give the GM the key, then leave the door open and tell every GM "you might have to close that."

[Mithril Leaf]

I agree with Snowbluff that pre-planning isn't a problem. Planning out your character is a form of expression, and expression is a core aesthetic/engagement of this game.

This bullet though:



is missing the point. The point is they could never design one while that ruling was in place, at least not without guaranteeing (or having to worry about) a low-level way to get in. Better to latch the door and give the GM the key, then leave the door open and tell every GM "you might have to close that."

The issue isn't that they couldn't make a good PrC that requires something that could be bypass by SLAs. The issue is that having now closed that option, they still won't make a good PrC that requires such a high level spell. If PrCs were worth it, maybe preventing people from entering them early could have been a good thing.

[Psyren]

The issue isn't that they couldn't make a good PrC that requires something that could be bypass by SLAs. The issue is that having now closed that option, they still won't make a good PrC that requires such a high level spell. If PrCs were worth it, maybe preventing people from entering them early could have been a good thing.

For 6ths and 5ths, probably not, but 4ths and especially 3rds are a reasonable gating mechanism that this ruling could have circumvented. Which is not even to say that doing so would have "broken" anything, just that it would be unintended.

[Mithril Leaf]

For 6ths and 5ths, probably not, but 4ths and especially 3rds are a reasonable gating mechanism that this ruling could have circumvented. Which is not even to say that doing so would have "broken" anything, just that it would be unintended.

And what PrCs have they made that are objectively better than just staying in the base class that this unlocked?

[Snowbluff]

For 6ths and 5ths, probably not, but 4ths and especially 3rds are a reasonable gating mechanism that this ruling could have circumvented. Which is not even to say that doing so would have "broken" anything, just that it would be unintended.

The thing about 5th and 6th level SLAs is that the game isn't designed that way. Usually PrCs are 5 or 10 levels long. In PF, it seems to be mostly 10 levels long. If you get a PrC with a 6th level requirement, it would end up in a Magelord situation where you couldn't finish it before epic levels. Additionally, the abilities granted by PrCs are often ones that don't really fit into a specific "appropriate level."

So when we bring up the gnome guys, we get an outlier that is an example of the RP system being a joke, and lacks any current or foreseen application. I kind of wish I could do something with it, though.

[Psyren]

And what PrCs have they made that are objectively better than just staying in the base class that this unlocked?

Objectively better at what? Making bread? Dancing the hula? Playing sudoku?

A prestige class is - or rather, is supposed to be - a collection of abilities (at least some of them unique), organized around a theme, for which you sacrifice or delay at least some of the things the base class would have given you in payment. They were never supposed to be "Base Class Plus" like they became in 3.5 with Incantatrix, MotAO, Planar Shepherd and the like. If "objectively better" is what you're looking for from a PrC, I have a feeling PF is going to keep disappointing you, and good thing too.

So I look at a PrC like Agent of the Grave. If you fish around with feats, items, races, buffs etc. long enough, you can probably replicate everything it gives you on a straight cleric. Or... you can just take the PrC and use the extra time to... play the game, or something.


The thing about 5th and 6th level SLAs is that the game isn't designed that way. Usually PrCs are 5 or 10 levels long. In PF, it seems to be mostly 10 levels long. If you get a PrC with a 6th level requirement, it would end up in a Magelord situation where you couldn't finish it before epic levels. Additionally, the abilities granted by PrCs are often ones that don't really fit into a specific "appropriate level."

So when we bring up the gnome guys, we get an outlier that is an example of the RP system being a joke, and lacks any current or foreseen application. I kind of wish I could do something with it, though.

There are plenty of 5-level PrCS in PF.

And there's plenty you can do with the Race Builder and still be reasonable.

[Mithril Leaf]

Objectively better at what? Making bread? Dancing the hula? Playing sudoku?

A prestige class is - or rather, is supposed to be - a collection of abilities (at least some of them unique), organized around a theme, for which you sacrifice or delay at least some of the things the base class would have given you in payment. They were never supposed to be "Base Class Plus" like they became in 3.5 with Incantatrix, MotAO, Planar Shepherd and the like. If "objectively better" is what you're looking for from a PrC, I have a feeling PF is going to keep disappointing you, and good thing too.

So I look at a PrC like Agent of the Grave. If you fish around with feats, items, races, buffs etc. long enough, you can probably replicate everything it gives you on a straight cleric. Or... you can just take the PrC and use the extra time to... play the game, or something.

So you're expected to both pay a price in the form of feat taxes, and also become mechanically weaker. If the classes just offered specialization instead of actively weakening you, then more people would be inclined to take them without trying to use free rides. Instead you're expected to get weaker and pay for the pleasure. A good prestige class should make you better at some things and worse at other things. If you can instead stay in the base class and be better at the things the PrC is supposed to be good at while also being good at the things it's bad it, that's a bad PrC. Most of the PrCs in Pathfinder (Horizon Walker is a notable exception) don't make you objectively better than continuing the base class at their specialty.

Also I quite enjoy many aspects of pathfinder for your information. This is however not due to Paizo being good at their job, but due to the fact that it's the systems that people such as Dreamscarred Press and Radiance House write their material for. Occultist is an excellent class. Psion is an excellent class. Psychic Warrior is a class that is martial and able to do things well instead of getting to be gimped for 'roleplay' reasons.

An example of a good PrC in my opinion is the Psicrystal Imprinter. It is a class with an opportunity cost: You pay a caster level and take a few mediocre feats. In exchange you gain an excellent psicrystal that provides you with a number of benefits. It is a class that is worth taking, although not all of my psions would take it. If a person would be mechanically much better off if they didn't take a prestige class, as is the case with many Paizo PrCs, I would not want to take it on the vast majority of my characters.

EDIT: Also Objectively Better is something which is already present in the game. Power Attack is a feat that is stronger than a large number of other feats. Is that wrong too? If I want to play a perfectly balanced game I'll go play Legend.

[Psyren]

So you're expected to both pay a price in the form of feat taxes, and also become mechanically weaker.

You're missing my point - stronger at one thing does not, and should not, mean stronger across the board. If you PrC into Agent of the Grave, you can control far more undead than the average evil cleric, you can use your enchantment spells to control still others (and bypass their turning resistance by doing so,) you can heal yourself with inflict spells, you can base your hit points off Cha, and you gain auto-desecrate on any undead you create. None of those things are "mechanical weaknesses" - so long as you want to do what the PrC is designed to do, i.e. make you a necromancer. In other words, the point of a PrC is to focus your build around a certain concept, and gain thematic benefits (both mechanical and flavor) to better mesh with that concept - not to become, again, Base Class Plus, and that is the trap that many 3.5 PrCs fell into and that PF PrCs are getting away from (but causing them to look inferior in comparison.)

Also, there are no "feat taxes" for Agent of the Grave, and there are other PrCs with no feat requirements either, or that require feats you likely would have been taking anyway, like Loremaster's metamagic and item creation requirements.



A good prestige class should make you better at some things and worse at other things.

Right, and a lot of them do that.



EDIT: Also Objectively Better is something which is already present in the game. Power Attack is a feat that is stronger than a large number of other feats. Is that wrong too? If I want to play a perfectly balanced game I'll go play Legend.

Power Attack is indeed better than many feat choices, but there are many other good feats competing for that slot too, and many builds (such as archers or thousand-cuts style melee) ignore it. Thus it moves from being "objective" to "subjective."

[Mithril Leaf]

You're missing my point - stronger at one thing does not, and should not, mean stronger across the board. If you PrC into Agent of the Grave, you can control far more undead than the average evil cleric, you can use your enchantment spells to control still others (and bypass their turning resistance by doing so,) you can heal yourself with inflict spells, you can base your hit points off Cha, and you gain auto-desecrate on any undead you create. None of those things are "mechanical weaknesses" - so long as you want to do what the PrC is designed to do, i.e. make you a necromancer. In other words, the point of a PrC is to focus your build around a certain concept, and gain thematic benefits (both mechanical and flavor) to better mesh with that concept - not to become, again, Base Class Plus, and that is the trap that many 3.5 PrCs fell into and that PF PrCs are getting away from (but causing them to look inferior in comparison.)

Also, there are no "feat taxes" for Agent of the Grave, and there are other PrCs with no feat requirements either, or that require feats you likely would have been taking anyway, like Loremaster's metamagic and item creation requirements.

Right, and a lot of them do that.

Power Attack is indeed better than many feat choices, but there are many other good feats competing for that slot too, and many builds (such as archers or thousand-cuts style melee) ignore it. Thus it moves from being "objective" to "subjective."

Alright, whatever. I'm done caring, you win. Paizo are a bunch of Golden Gods who can do no wrong. Every negative comment someone can make about them is inherently untrue, and thus Psyren is always correct. Enjoy the thread.

[Psyren]

Alright, whatever. I'm done caring, you win. Paizo are a bunch of Golden Gods who can do no wrong. Every negative comment someone can make about them is inherently untrue, and thus Psyren is always correct. Enjoy the thread.

I wouldn't have to defend Paizo if y'all didn't go to such ridiculous extremes to find things to complain about.

[Mithril Leaf]

I wouldn't have to defend Paizo if y'all didn't go to such ridiculous extremes to find things to complain about.

But they can't do anything wrong anyway, it only makes sense you would always defend them. We clearly are just misguided and can't see the truth of the matter.

[Psyren]

But they can't do anything wrong anyway, it only makes sense you would always defend them. We clearly are just misguided and can't see the truth of the matter.

I guess you're not done engaging me after all...

You're the one that admitted you were being hyperbolic (#30), not me.

And now I'M done. Sheesh.

[Mithril Leaf]

I guess you're not done engaging me after all...

You're the one that admitted you were being hyperbolic (#30), not me.

And now I'M done. Sheesh.

All I'd really like is for you to admit some of the flaws that Pathfinder has. It certainly has some good stuff which I made as a concession. You did nothing of the nature.

[Snowbluff]

There are plenty of 5-level PrCS in PF.

And there's plenty you can do with the Race Builder and still be reasonable.
That's... well, frankly... that's hardly a rebuttal. Most PrCs don't fit the criteria of being capable of being entered with the SLAs and provide a benefit over the base class ones. Ergo, 6th level SLAs are the builder's fault, and are still useless and beneath consideration.

As for Agent of the Grave, doesn't it eat skill points, require a specific spell, and a year of your time? You also lose a caster level. Yuck. EDIT: It's Cha based? Isn't 2 points per level almost all of your points?

[NightbringerGGZ]

Most of the people in this thread? It's a slow process admittedly.

Hey Mithril, I'm not trying to be antagonistic but I'd like to point out that not every one has your opinion of Paizo. Shoot, they've got Rogue Eidolon on the team now and I respect him quite a bit as both a designer and a person. Nobody here is saying they're perfect, but I don't buy that they're somehow worse than the team behind 3.5 or really any other version of D&D.

If you actually talk to the devs over on their forums, if you present a well stated argument, I've found you get intelligent and reasoned responses. That generally holds true with all developers, I can attest to that from my MMO days and from my own work as both a developer and a project manager.

Yes, the rule system they've published isn't perfect, and often isn't pretty but for the most part it works out well enough and is still quite fun to use. Add in the fact that they charge a fair price for their products, offer most of their published materials for free and offer pretty amazing levels of direct access to their developers and I can say they're a group of devs I'm more than happy to support. And offer constructive criticism to, of course.

[Psyren]

All I'd really like is for you to admit some of the flaws that Pathfinder has. It certainly has some good stuff which I made as a concession. You did nothing of the nature.

I've done so on numerous occasions in the past. I just reserve them for the real problems - like everything to do with Sacred Geometry, or discounting Summoner spells along with giving them a skillmonkey fighter as a class feature, almost the entirety of the firearm rules, or bungling Prone Shooter, or bungling Bolt Ace, or bungling Ecclesitheurge. I didn't agree with the Crane Wing nerf either, or the inability to combine Crossblooded + Wildblooded. These are all flaws, no question. Is that enough censure, or should I keep going?


That's... well, frankly... that's hardly a rebuttal. Most PrCs don't fit the criteria of being capable of being entered with the SLAs and provide a benefit over the base class ones. Ergo, 6th level SLAs are the builder's fault, and are still useless and beneath consideration.

As for Agent of the Grave, doesn't it eat skill points, require a specific spell, and a year of your time? You also lose a caster level. Yuck. EDIT: It's Cha based? Isn't 2 points per level almost all of your points?

The year can happen even before you're a level 1 cleric (acolytes and all that) or just during. No, it's not Cha-based. Knowledge skills you would be taking anyway as a primary caster are not "eaten," and a spell every necromancer who has pretensions to the title will want is not wasted. So all that remains is a lost caster level, which I think is a fair trade for all the benefits.

[Snowbluff]

The year can happen even before you're a level 1 cleric (acolytes and all that) or just during. No, it's not Cha-based. Knowledge skills you would be taking anyway as a primary caster are not "eaten," and a spell every necromancer who has pretensions to the title will want is not wasted. So all that remains is a lost caster level, which I think is a fair trade for all the benefits.

Well, for starters the spell makes the most weaksauce forms of undead.

Lich's Touch, Unholy Fortitude, Undead Manipulator, are charisma based abilities.

Please don't take this PrC. It only delays your better necromancy spells by one level. You are an inferior necromancer for one level.

[grarrrg]

Well, for starters the spell makes the most weaksauce forms of undead.

But it makes LOADS of horde undead through Inspired Necromancy (note that the text points out that the "dead" caster level STILL counts Twice for control-pool).


Lich's Touch, Unholy Fortitude, Undead Manipulator, are charisma based abilities.

Lich's Touch is more flavorful than outright useful.
Unholy Fortitude is optional.
Undead Manipulator is not CHA dependent. The example spell of Charm Person is CHA dependent though.

Do note that the 5th level ability Secrets of Death is INT dependent, and allows you to cherry pick Necromancy spell from other lists with no extra penalty (i.e. no "but takes a slot 1 level higher")

[Snowbluff]

But it makes LOADS of horde undead through Inspired Necromancy (note that the text points out that the "dead" caster level STILL counts Twice for control-pool).
You get severe diminishing returns on the basic types. You act as though this will matter. You can have better minions from other spells really easily.



Lich's Touch is more flavorful than outright useful.
Unholy Fortitude is optional.
Undead Manipulator is not CHA dependent. The example spell of Charm Person is CHA dependent though.

Do note that the 5th level ability Secrets of Death is INT dependent, and allows you to cherry pick Necromancy spell from other lists with no extra penalty (i.e. no "but takes a slot 1 level higher")

4 versus 1, grarrrg. The spells aren't worth it compared to the caster level lost. Know more spells from more schools and have more spells per day of higher levels.

[Der_DWSage]

Y'all are picking some really tiny nits, here. To add in my two onyx gems (Worth 25 GP each) to the comments from most recent to least recent...

1)Just because it requires the weakest of minion-creating spells to get access doesn't mean it can only be used with those spells. Agent of the Grave works just fine when you get the bigger things like Create Undead, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/create-undead) and at 5th level, a handful of Burning Skeletons (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/skeleton-burning) as suicide bombers and Bloody Skeletons (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/skeleton-bloody) as constant aids and flanking buddies to the party Sneak Attacker or meatshields to keep the frailer members of the party from dying isn't a bad idea at all.

2)Yes, those really are easy requirements. Even if you only have two skill points per level, there's far worse you can do than Knowledges relevant to most campaigns and a good half of the creature types. You lose a caster level, but it really does make you more specialized in being a Necromancer, and you can soak up the caster level loss with a trait, and there's worse fates for a Tier 1 caster than to be put at spontaneous caster progression. There's plenty of awful prestige classes to pick on, but Agent of the Grave is pretty solidly 'meh.' I personally wouldn't take it, but I could see doing so if I wanted a ton of undead.

3)Yeah, the organic barrier to various prestige classes kind of works, but it's still painful in many cases, and people will indeed leap on whatever way they can to get in early. This is more than reasonable in some cases (Mystic Theurrrrrrrge!) but silly in others. As painful as it is, they either need to slap an actual level requirement on some of these classes and lose the pre-reqs, or just give it a flat skill requirement. (Though I'm sure it's only a matter of time before those can be overidden as well.) The Race Point system also overvalues some things to a silly degree, and undervalues others similarly.

4)It would be nice if they looked over the various prestige classes and either gave them class features to actually make them useful, or just lowered the requirements. Alas, I think the chances of it happening are somewhere between slim and nil.

5)...Plenty of FAQ rulings to disagree with, and you choose this one? It was silly to start with, and remained a thorn in the side of all right-thinking people whenever they heard it brought up again. You can't tell me, with a straight face, that the initial ruling was logical and consistent to how they intended various spell-level requirements to work. Weak prestige classes are another issue altogether, and I'd rather see them coming around to being more consistent rather than keeping the ruling and forcing people to find loopholes to get into anything interesting. Maybe with this ruling, they'll also release some prestige classes with decent design and reasons to exist! (Hahaha, not holding my breath on that, but I stand by the logic.)

6)Awww, I can no longer make my RAW-abiding GM cringe whenever I bring up the idea of a 2nd level Eldritch Knight...ah well. Not like I was serious with it anyway.

[Milo v3]

I'm not really sure what the issue is with not letting Specific SLA's count as full-on spellcasting. I mean, just because a darkmantle has a SLA doesn't make it a spellcaster.

[stack]

If anyone had ever let me play an early entry mystic thuerge, I would be very disappointed.

[Psyren]

Hey Mithril, I'm not trying to be antagonistic but I'd like to point out that not every one has your opinion of Paizo. Shoot, they've got Rogue Eidolon on the team now and I respect him quite a bit as both a designer and a person. Nobody here is saying they're perfect, but I don't buy that they're somehow worse than the team behind 3.5 or really any other version of D&D.

If you actually talk to the devs over on their forums, if you present a well stated argument, I've found you get intelligent and reasoned responses. That generally holds true with all developers, I can attest to that from my MMO days and from my own work as both a developer and a project manager.

Yes, the rule system they've published isn't perfect, and often isn't pretty but for the most part it works out well enough and is still quite fun to use. Add in the fact that they charge a fair price for their products, offer most of their published materials for free and offer pretty amazing levels of direct access to their developers and I can say they're a group of devs I'm more than happy to support. And offer constructive criticism to, of course.

Whenever I try to be this rational and measured about it, I just get "waaaah Psyren is biased admit teh flaws!!1!one!"


*snip*

Very much this as well.

[Snowbluff]

I know from experience that fora are a lousy way to enact change in a system.

I'm not really sure what the issue is with not letting Specific SLA's count as full-on spellcasting. I mean, just because a darkmantle has a SLA doesn't make it a spellcaster.
Oh sure. Milo, take a moment to think. So the Darkmantle has an SLA. Now, how can he benefit from a casting PrC without casting class levels of his own?

If anyone had ever let me play an early entry mystic thuerge, I would be very disappointed.
... Dammit! I wanted to do that, too. :smallfrown:

EDIT: Wait, can't we just use sacred geometry? Problem solved I guess. It doesn't say you can't use Heighten Spell with it. Everyone should be taking Sacred Geo: Heighten + Quicken for their Theurge Builds, anyway. Pack it up, everybody! Problem solved. Just make sure to play a Samsaran, Instead.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Whenever I try to be this rational and measured about it, I just get "waaaah Psyren is biased admit teh flaws!!1!one!"

Well... half the time if feels like nobody even engages with me when I comment about Paizo. :smalltongue: I've got a lot of criticism for Paizo but I think you need to be polite when you bring your criticisms up with them and that you need to be able to backup your arguments with both experience and logic. I don't like just bashing on them constantly, even SKR had his upsides after all.

[Mithril Leaf]

Well... half the time if feels like nobody even engages with me when I comment about Paizo. :smalltongue: I've got a lot of criticism for Paizo but I think you need to be polite when you bring your criticisms up with them and that you need to be able to backup your arguments with both experience and logic. I don't like just bashing on them constantly, even SKR had his upsides after all.

He did after all say that the monk can qualify for BAB feats when flurrying.

[NightbringerGGZ]

He did after all say that the monk can qualify for BAB feats when flurrying.

Well, I actually had some decent chats with him on the Paizo forums specifically about painting miniatures. He's fairly knowledgeable about various minis companies and helped me track down some options for the really odd ball characters I come up with.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Eh, whatever. The ruling is how I would have worked things in the first place, admittedly only with the very pedantic interpretation that a spell like ability doesn't qualify for the ability to cast x level spells. Paizo is trying to patch up a very complicated system after years of FAQ/errata negligence combined with the occasional reactionary FAQ. Things are going to be messy.

[Milo v3]

Oh sure. Milo, take a moment to think. So the Darkmantle has an SLA. Now, how can he benefit from a casting PrC without casting class levels of his own?
What? It doesn't matter whether it's a darkmantle or any other creature with SLA's but no casting, just having SLA's doesn't make them a spellcaster. Darkmantle was just the first creature I thought of that I knew had a spell-like ability.

[Der_DWSage]

Wait, can't we just use sacred geometry? Problem solved I guess. It doesn't say you can't use Heighten Spell with it. Everyone should be taking Sacred Geo: Heighten + Quicken for their Theurge Builds, anyway. Pack it up, everybody! Problem solved. Just make sure to play a Samsaran, Instead.


Wait, can't we just use sacred geometry?


use sacred geometry?

If you're using Sacred Geometry for any reason, besides to show that it's an incredibly poorly designed feat on multiple levels, you're probably in the wrong.

[atemu1234]

If you're using Sacred Geometry for any reason, besides to show that it's an incredibly poorly designed feat on multiple levels, you're probably in the wrong.

Well, it was fun when I played with Statistics majors.

[Snowbluff]

If you're using Sacred Geometry for any reason, besides to show that it's an incredibly poorly designed feat on multiple levels, you're probably in the wrong.
I feed on your suffering! :smalltongue:

Well, it was fun when I played with Statistics majors.
Yeah, I enjoy using it. Math is fun and educational!

[atemu1234]

I feed on your suffering! :smalltongue:

Yeah, I enjoy using it. Math is fun and educational!

Downside being now everyone I play with is reliant on calculators for even the SIMPLE maths involved in D&D. I feel like if anyone used it now in my group, 3/4 of the players' heads would pop.

[Snowbluff]

Downside being now everyone I play with is reliant on calculators for even the SIMPLE maths involved in D&D. I feel like if anyone used it now in my group, 3/4 of the players' heads would pop.
I usually work with some scratch paper, if in dire need. The archer in my PF group is using a build I made, so he has to preroll his turn for Sacred Geo and all of his attack. I have enough dice to quickly sort them physically, so I can get a geo roll done fairly quickly.

[icefractal]

Sacred Geometry won't work, it only lets you raise a spell to the virtual level you could cast normally. Hence why it isn't that useful until 7th level when you can start throwing Quickened stuff with no downside.

I'm actually planning to take that feat, next time I'm playing a 7th level+ caster, because:
1) The minigame looks like it would actually be fun, the first few times. It's a lot quicker once you realize you can zero-out most of the dice with any matching pair.
2) After that, I can write an app that rolls and solves it.
3) IIRC, it was proved that by somewhere around 12 ranks, it's impossible to fail.

And if it proves too strong, I can always just use it to throw out Quickened Ghost Sound, so I have my own theme music and appropriate sound effects happening.

[Snowbluff]

Sacred Geometry won't work, it only lets you raise a spell to the virtual level you could cast normally. Hence why it isn't that useful until 7th level when you can start throwing Quickened stuff with no downside.
Heighten Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/heighten-spell-metamagic---final) actually changes the spell's actual level.


I'm actually planning to take that feat, next time I'm playing a 7th level+ caster, because:
1) The minigame looks like it would actually be fun, the first few times. It's a lot quicker once you realize you can zero-out most of the dice with any matching pair.
2) After that, I can write an app that rolls and solves it.
3) IIRC, it was proved that by somewhere around 12 ranks, it's impossible to fail, so after that point it's just free metamagic.

And if it proves too strong, I can always just use it to throw out Quickened Ghost Sound, so I have my own theme music and appropriate sound effects happening.
Good luck solving it directly. I think you've seen the math, right? Unless you use a trick like canceling with ones or seeking the nearest ten, it's actually problematic to do it by checking each probability.

[icefractal]

Heighten Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/heighten-spell-metamagic---final) actually changes the spell's actual level.

Good luck solving it directly. I think you've seen the math, right? Unless you use a trick like canceling with ones or seeking the nearest ten, it's actually problematic to do it by checking each probability.I know Heighten would work - if you could apply it enough. However ...
When casting a spell using Sacred Geometry, first determine the effective spell level of the modified spell you are attempting to cast (calculated as normal for a spell modified by metamagic feats). You can apply any number of metamagic effects to a single spell, provided you are able to cast spells of the modified spell's effective spell level.So if you can't cast 4th level spells yet, you can't Heighten a 1st level spell by three levels.

Re: Solving it - I assume you mean by a program? Brute force could get pretty huge, admittedly.
I think if you did something like:
1) Locate a pair, remove them from the pool.
2) Try to build up to the target, starting from the minimum dice needed.
3) Discard all the rest, using the pair.

Then the number of combinations tested isn't too bad. Like with 10 dice, somewhere on the order of 12^9, often less.
It could always kick the result back to the user if it can't solve in a reasonable amount of time.


Edit: And this talk about Heighten gave me a suspicion, so I checked - the metamagic reducing traits say nothing about excluding Heighten. So both traits = 4 levels early entry. Nobody tell Paizo.

[The Random NPC]

Re: Sacred Geometry, it was 14 dice, here's the post with the table (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17889602&postcount=131), and here's the thread with all the math (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363930-Sacred-Geometry-and-Arithmancy).

[Snowbluff]

I know Heighten would work - if you could apply it enough. However ...So if you can't cast 4th level spells yet, you can't Heighten a 1st level spell by three levels.
That's a fair point. It may be self fulfilling, though.


Edit: And this talk about Heighten gave me a suspicion, so I checked - the metamagic reducing traits say nothing about excluding Heighten. So both traits = 4 levels early entry. Nobody tell Paizo.

Of course, this is definitely true. Good work.

[Peat]

And just like that, huge chunks of my unpublished Gish guide became obsolete...

Difficult to complain really. Always felt like a really weird exploit and while, yeah, mechanically it gave EK and AT a needed kick in the pants to bring them up to par, the real problem was just not giving PrCs love to begin with. Which makes me mildly exasperated, but there we go.

[Snowbluff]

And just like that, huge chunks of my unpublished Gish guide became obsolete...

Difficult to complain really. Always felt like a really weird exploit and while, yeah, mechanically it gave EK and AT a needed kick in the pants to bring them up to par, the real problem was just not giving PrCs love to begin with. Which makes me mildly exasperated, but there we go.

With Magical Lineage and Sacred Geometry, you qualify for every spell level.

As for the "pedantic" "argument" that it's only "one" spell, we can surely say that's not true. You need to cast spells. Nothing says in what times frame. If I cast continual flame, and I can cast it tomorrow, I would described as being able to cast multiple spells.

[Peat]

With Magical Lineage and Sacred Geometry, you qualify for every spell level.

As for the "pedantic" "argument" that it's only "one" spell, we can surely say that's not true. You need to cast spells. Nothing says in what times frame. If I cast continual flame, and I can cast it tomorrow, I would described as being able to cast multiple spells.

I'd somehow completely missed out on that feat ever existing... holy batman, I can play Countdown at the rpg table!

Eh, I've learned my lesson. If I ever get around to revising it and posting it, I'll not be relying on FAQ'able getarounds in it :D

[Snowbluff]

I'd somehow completely missed out on that feat ever existing... holy batman, I can play Countdown at the rpg table!Mhm. How did you miss this one, though?


Eh, I've learned my lesson. If I ever get around to revising it and posting it, I'll not be relying on FAQ'able getarounds in it :D
Listen, according to Paizo, playing the game is a workaround. It won't be long before they decide it's not RAI to be in a prestige. So, just worrying and learn to love the bomb... of optimization. Not to mention that this trick is a Snowbluff original. The only way it would make it onto the Paizo board and the attention of monkeys with typewriters is if this place were full of narcs. :smalltongue:

[Almarck]

With Magical Lineage and Sacred Geometry, you qualify for every spell level.

As for the "pedantic" "argument" that it's only "one" spell, we can surely say that's not true. You need to cast spells. Nothing says in what times frame. If I cast continual flame, and I can cast it tomorrow, I would described as being able to cast multiple spells.

I think things would have been so much simpler if spellcasting amd spell like abilities were given more rigid definitions.

ie. "Spell like abilities emulate the effects of spells but do not actually count as spellcasting nor do they actually have an actual caster level. Instead spell like abilities use class levsls or racial hit dice to determine their effective casterlevel.

Spell like abilities that have effective spell levels do not count as being able tp cast a spell of x level.

Neither spell like abilities nor their associated effective casterlevels , may be used to meet prerequisites that require spellcasting or caster levels.
however spell like abilities , may be used to qualify as prerequisites for casting specific spells."

there more rigid and less subject to interpretation. Honestly I think we're forgetting that spell like abilities are abilities that emulate spellcasting and aren't true spells.
granted I know people dont like this but if things were defined better this dispute wouldnt have neeeded fp occur.

additionally does the loophole exisr in3.5? Were there any well known cases fpr its use pre pathfinder?

[Squirrel_Dude]

With Magical Lineage and Sacred Geometry, you qualify for every spell level.

As for the "pedantic" "argument" that it's only "one" spell, we can surely say that's not true. You need to cast spells. Nothing says in what times frame. If I cast continual flame, and I can cast it tomorrow, I would described as being able to cast multiple spells.No, I'd describe you as casting a spell multiple times. You can cast spell, but not cast spells.

[Snowbluff]

And that's just wrong. It never specifies if it's multiple spells or multiple spells. If you can do one, you meet the prerequisite. Oh, and did you notice those terms read identically? It's because they do. Spells refers to the effect, too.

Squirreldude said it first, sorcerers of the 6th level can not cast 3rd level spells. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's what his (hopefully hypothetical and definitely ridiculous) argument.

If you are accustomed to working under the assumption that rules are wrong, add metamagic master. Now you can cast 2 "spells," and I'm still the king, baby! You can be a duke.

I think things would have been so much simpler if spellcasting amd spell like abilities were given more rigid definitions.

ie. "Spell like abilities emulate the effects of spells but do not actually count as spellcasting nor do they actually have an actual caster level. Instead spell like abilities use class levsls or racial hit dice to determine their effective casterlevel.

Spell like abilities that have effective spell levels do not count as being able tp cast a spell of x level.

Neither spell like abilities nor their associated effective casterlevels , may be used to meet prerequisites that require spellcasting or caster levels.
however spell like abilities , may be used to qualify as prerequisites for casting specific spells."

there more rigid and less subject to interpretation. Honestly I think we're forgetting that spell like abilities are abilities that emulate spellcasting and aren't true spells.
granted I know people dont like this but if things were defined better this dispute wouldnt have neeeded fp occur.

additionally does the loophole exisr in3.5? Were there any well known cases fpr its use pre pathfinder?
OH... oh... oh dear.

1) SLA are spells in every ways except that "they are not spells."

2) Allowing SLAs for qualification was a good rule change made in PF. It wasn't the case in 3.5, aside from a few, very specific exceptions, such as qualifying for specific spells. See the Complete Arcane for further information. See the Complete Arcane, Dragon Magic, and Tome of Magic as to why this is dumb. See the d20 Standard Reference Document for the original definition of SLA, as this is the source of the 3.5 and PF uses of the term.

3) It was a specific rule, so the above is irrelevant. Emphasis on "specific" and my use of the past tense.

3) James Jacob's complaint is only a personal one rather than a rational one. "SLAs aren't spells because SLAs aren't spells," in stead of "oh man, that messes with the game."

4) It didn't mess with the game in it's current or any foreseeable state.

5) Creating more separation between abilities such as you're describing is frankly, bad in every way I can imagine. We don't need specific rules for how this works. We already know how they interact. See #3 and #4 as to why I'm against the backtracked rule.

IF you need to be brought up to speed on anything else, feel free to ask.

[Squirrel_Dude]

And that's just wrong. It never specifies if it's multiple spells or multiple spells. If you can do one, you meet the prerequisite. Oh, and did you notice those terms read identically? It's because they do. Spells refers to the effect, too. It specifies that it's multiple spells and not multiple spell castings.


Squirreldude said it first, sorcerers of the 6th level can not cast 3rd level spells. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's what his (hopefully hypothetical and definitely ridiculous) argument....

I'm aware.

Eh, whatever. The ruling is how I would have worked things in the first place, admittedly only with the very pedantic interpretation that a spell like ability doesn't qualify for the ability to cast x level spells. Paizo is trying to patch up a very complicated system after years of FAQ/errata negligence combined with the occasional reactionary FAQ. Things are going to be messy.

[squiggit]

Not a fan, and it goes against their earlier comments on the same subject, but I can't care much about the early entry change since there wasn't much worth entering anyways.

More annoyed with not being able to Arcane Strike with an SLA now.


Eh, whatever. The ruling is how I would have worked things in the first place, admittedly only with the very pedantic interpretation that a spell like ability doesn't qualify for the ability to cast x level spells.

So would you also not allow a sixth level sorcerer to take a PrC that requires 3rd level spells? Just curious

[Squirrel_Dude]

So would you also not allow a sixth level sorcerer to take a PrC that requires 3rd level spells? Just curiousI could try and do some mental gymnastics that would make sorcerers work but SLAs not, but I'll just settle on "Eh, wouldn't be the first time that a sorcerers got screwed."

[Psyren]

I disagree on the "spell != spells" ruling. It never says you have to cast 3rd-level spells in one day." If I cast that spell today and cast it again tomorrow, I have cast spells.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I disagree on the "spell != spells" ruling. It never says you have to cast 3rd-level spells in one day." If I cast that spell today and cast it again tomorrow, I have cast spells.You've cast spell. You've cast spell multiple times, but you've cast spell.

[Psyren]

You've cast spell. You've cast spell multiple times, but you've cast spell.

Multiple times = spells. They never said it had to be two different spells. If I cast a spell today and then again tomorrow, that's spells.

Again, your ruling would mean a Sorcerer 4 or Bard 5 can't get into Mystic Theurge - yet NPC Codex 228 and 229 directly contradict you.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Multiple times = spells. They never said it had to be two different spells. If I cast a spell today and then again tomorrow, that's spells.

Again, your ruling would mean a Sorcerer 4 or Bard 5 can't get into Mystic Theurge - yet NPC Codex 228 and 229 directly contradict you.Wouldn't be the first time designers got rules wrong when making NPCs. For example: A suggested combat tactic of the "monastic sniper" "grove guardian" monks is to use both vital strike and spring attack, for example.

[deuxhero]

Are there any example NPCs that were built right?

[Divayth Fyr]

You've cast spell. You've cast spell multiple times, but you've cast spell.
So, if for an entire week you'd eat an apple a day (all of them of the same kind), and someone asked you "have you eaten apples?" the answer would be "I have eaten an apple"?


Are there any example NPCs that were built right?
Don't know about Pathfinder, but there was a case where the only part wrong wasn't in the character herself, but the mount (or something long those lines)

[Psyren]

Wouldn't be the first time designed got rules wrong when making NPCs

No, you're the one who's wrong. Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster - every PrC statblock in the book with sorcerers/bards let them in with a single spell known. This is clear designer intent. Your reading is simply wrong.


So, if for an entire week you'd eat an apple a day (all of them of the same kind), and someone asked you "have you eaten apples?" the answer would be "I have eaten an apple"?

Exactly.

[Squirrel_Dude]

So, if for an entire week you'd eat an apple a day (all of them of the same kind), and someone asked you "have you eaten apples?" the answer would be "I have eaten an apple"?Poor analogy. I can't eat the same apple twice. I can cast the same spell an infinite number of times and still correctly state that I "cast a spell."


No, you're the one who's wrong. Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster - every PrC statblock in the book with sorcerers/bards let them in with a single spell known. This is clear designer *intent.* Your reading is simply wrong.Sounds like you're talking RAI, which is irrelevant. :smallwink:



I probably should have stated earlier that I am aware that this argument is really dumb. I think it "works," but only in a way that is terrible. The entire thing hinges on a GM being a giant obtuse prick to someone trying to gain early access, using the basis of a single letter to prevent it.

[Psyren]

Poor analogy. I can't eat the same apple twice. I can cast the same spell an infinite number of times and still correctly state that I "cast a spell."

Still waiting for an answer on the three PrCS I mentioned. You can believe they built the PrCs wrong, but until you have a designer quote saying so, they are a legitimate example to point to and say this was intended.



Sounds like you're talking RAI, which is irrelevant.

Except it's not, at all. And it's RAW as well, just a different *interpretation* than yours.

[Mithril Leaf]

Still waiting for an answer on the three PrCS I mentioned. You can believe they built the PrCs wrong, but until you have a designer quote saying so, they are a legitimate example to point to and say this was intended.

Except it's not, at all. And it's RAW as well, just a different *interpretation* than yours.

Just wanted to chime in saying how exciting it is I can agree with Psyren on this.

[Milo v3]

1) SLA are spells in every ways except that "they are not spells."
Huh? When was the last time a monster's SLA's had spell components, or had to get there SLA's from a prayer at dusk or reading a spellbook, can a monster gain new Spell-like abilities from scrolls?

[Divayth Fyr]

Huh? When was the last time a monster's SLA's had spell components
The same time a Silent spell Teleport had them.


had to get there SLA's from a prayer at dusk or reading a spellbook
The same time a Sorcerer had to.


can a monster gain new Spell-like abilities from scrolls?
Can a Sorcerer?

;P

[Peat]

Mhm. How did you miss this one, though?

Listen, according to Paizo, playing the game is a workaround. It won't be long before they decide it's not RAI to be in a prestige. So, just worrying and learn to love the bomb... of optimization. Not to mention that this trick is a Snowbluff original. The only way it would make it onto the Paizo board and the attention of monkeys with typewriters is if this place were full of narcs. :smalltongue:

Because my op-fu is weak *bows head in shame*

And, well, if I included it in a guide, that would probably end up giving it away, wouldn't it? :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

You've cast spell. You've cast spell multiple times, but you've cast spell.


Multiple times = spells. They never said it had to be two different spells. If I cast a spell today and then again tomorrow, that's spells.

Again, your ruling would mean a Sorcerer 4 or Bard 5 can't get into Mystic Theurge - yet NPC Codex 228 and 229 directly contradict you.
For the record, I can't find the specific wording that implies that each casting is its own spell in PF. Just going to say I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, or at least not right when it comes to this rule and PF. 3.5, I would be right. NPCs aren't always a good way to solve this.

Still, I'm the king. I made a trick. I hope my gloating doesn't make your victory any less sweet, 'cause good job, Squirrel.

Huh? When was the last time a monster's SLA's had spell components, or had to get there SLA's from a prayer at dusk or reading a spellbook, can a monster gain new Spell-like abilities from scrolls?
You know what I mean, Milo. :smallwink:

Because my op-fu is weak *bows head in shame*

And, well, if I included it in a guide, that would probably end up giving it away, wouldn't it? :smalltongue:
Huh. That's a good point. As a luminary, it's my job to share knowledge, but it's also my duty to protect it. It would become worthless if it became common knowledge. Then again, as an arrogant person, I want everyone to know how great I am. How about you don't share it, because it's such an obnoxious trick?

[YossarianLives]

I sure do love all the debates we get into.

*gets popcorn.

[Ilorin Lorati]

The same time a Silent spell Teleport had them.
The same time a Sorcerer had to.
Can a Sorcerer?

If you really look at it, most racial SLAs are just more simple versions of sorcerer abilities: in-born magical talents that can be used (more or less) on command. If a gnome's SLAs aren't spells, then why are a sorcerer's? Why is there a difference? Should SLAs even be a thing, or should the distinction be more general?

[Milo v3]

If you really look at it, most racial SLAs are just more simple versions of sorcerer abilities: in-born magical talents that can be used (more or less) on command. If a gnome's SLAs aren't spells, then why are a sorcerer's? Why is there a difference? Should SLAs even be a thing, or should the distinction be more general?
If sorcerers have SLA's instead of spells, then their spells wouldn't be able to be countered, since only spells can be countered, multiclassing with sorcerer would be much better, since caster level would equal HD, and sorcerers wouldn't have to sleep to regain their spells.

All that said... I prefer sorcerers getting SLA's instead, especially since it increases the justification for getting level one, two, and thre spells at will eventually.