Spellthief + Factotum = infinite spells?

[Chronos]

At 5th level, a spellthief (Complete Arcane) gains the ability to steal spell-like abilities, either as part of a sneak attack, or as a standard action touch from a willing donor. After stealing, the spellthief can use the SLA once, and the donor can't use that SLA until the spellthief uses it (or after a minute). The ability does specify that if the ability has a limited number of daily uses, the donor must have at least one use left, or the spellthief can't steal it. But unlike the Steal Spell ability, which costs the donor a spell slot, Steal Spell-Like Ability doesn't take away one of the donor's daily uses.

Enter the factotum (Dungeonscape), which can use sorcerer/wizard spells as SLAs. A factotum can prepare almost any such spells (up to a level limit), and can change which ones they prepare each day, so there are a lot of really good spell-like abilities available. Each one is usable only once per day, but that doesn't matter for our purposes.

Now imagine a party containing a spellthief and a factotum (or possibly the same character). The factotum prepares a bunch of utility spells, things that would be useful out of combat (since it takes multiple actions to make this work, probably not practical in combat). Whenever the party needs one of those spells, instead of the factotum casting it, the spellthief steals it and then the spellthief casts it. And then, once the spellthief has cast it, the factotum gets it back, ready to repeat the process whenever desired.

[Anthrowhale]

It seems legit.

If the Spellthief is small, then they can ride the Factotum with an exotic saddle so the SLA battery is always available.

[Paragon]

The only caveat being that a 5th lvl Spellthief can only steal 1st level SLAs (2nd at 6th, 3rd at 9th etc) but yeah seems legit :)

[ciopo]

"For all purposes (caster level, save DC, and so on), treat the spell-like ability as if it were being used by the original possessor of the ability" doesn't this imply that the use is consumed for the original possessor?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

"For all purposes (caster level, save DC, and so on), treat the spell-like ability as if it were being used by the original possessor of the ability" doesn't this imply that the use is consumed for the original possessor?In which case, simply steal it again.

[Chronos]

Quoth ciopo:

"For all purposes (caster level, save DC, and so on), treat the spell-like ability as if it were being used by the original possessor of the ability" doesn't this imply that the use is consumed for the original possessor?
Except that the Steal Spells ability has the same line, but then also says that stealing a spell costs the donor a spell slot. Would this mean that a spellthief stealing and using a spell ends up costing the donor two spell slots (one when it's stolen, one when it's used)? And it's clearly not literally for all purposes, because the spellthief still gets to make choices like targets for the spells (the ability would be pretty useless if you stole an enemy caster's Finger of Death or something, and then they got to choose that you were using it on yourself).

And only stealing SLAs up to 1/3 of your spellthief level isn't actually much of a restriction (at least, for the two-character version), because that's only a little slower than the factotum spell progression, anyway.

[Crake]

I think the "for all purposes" line would definitely be pretty hard to argue around for any reasonable DM who isn't interested in infinite loops in their campaign, so it's definitely not a 100% closed case on whether it's legal or not, but if you're playing in a game where infinite loops are generally acceptable, then sure, you could probably get away with aruging that.

[Thunder999]

Pretty sure that "For All Purposes" line refers to using all their statistics, feats and such, otherwise it would also treat them as the caster, meaning they get to determine the target, effects like what creature to summon or energy type to resist etc.

[Promethean]

"For all purposes (caster level, save DC, and so on), treat the spell-like ability as if it were being used by the original possessor of the ability" doesn't this imply that the use is consumed for the original possessor?

Unfortunately, using this line of logic is what people use to pretend Use-Magic-Device with certain items gives them class features. Your reading of RAW is sensible, but it can be used as a form of legitimization by the forces of evil.

[Gruftzwerg]

Unfortunately, using this line of logic is what people use to pretend Use-Magic-Device with certain items gives them class features. Your reading of RAW is sensible, but it can be used as a form of legitimization by the forces of evil.

Except that in this case the very same argument excludes the cheese here. (yeah it's me, the so called "forces of evil"...)

Because this line calls the general rules for this situation out. And that means the original owner of the ability has to expend a daily charge (if the ability is daily charge based). The "line" calls for the general rules and doesn't let you ignore em.

Here we have evidence that this line ("for all purposes") doesn't always lead to more cheesy results.

But let me guess:
When I use the line to get cheesy results its bad,
but I use the very same line to deny cheesy results it's 100% RAW and as intended (RAI).

[Crake]

But let me guess:
When I use the line to get cheesy results its bad,
but I use the very same line to deny cheesy results it's 100% RAW and as intended (RAI).


I understand you blue texted this, but it is literally the DM’s job to parse and interpret the rules (which may include ignoring or altering rules that have been written poorly) in such a way that it is healthy for the game, and by extension, the ramifications that they imply for the campaign setting as a whole.

I always found the notion of “this is unambiguous RAW, so therefore I can do it” to be such a pointless notion, especially for things that are so obviously disruptive. If youre looking for glitches and exploits, go play a video game, theyre filled with them.

[Gruftzwerg]

I understand you blue texted this, but it is literally the DM’s job to parse and interpret the rules (which may include ignoring or altering rules that have been written poorly) in such a way that it is healthy for the game, and by extension, the ramifications that they imply for the campaign setting as a whole.

I always found the notion of “this is unambiguous RAW, so therefore I can do it” to be such a pointless notion, especially for things that are so obviously disruptive. If youre looking for glitches and exploits, go play a video game, theyre filled with them.

I get what you mean and I hope that you should know by now that I barely play at higher lvls of optimization myself. Nor do I support that RAW should be used as an argument to demand a certain ruling from any DM.

But for forum purposes we need to differentiate between RAW, RAI and balance tips with complete House Rules. We don't want to answer all questions with "ask your DM". We want to aid the process of discussions that (might) appear on tables.

And imho from a logical point of view, each discussion should start with RAW. Because if it does its job well, there is no reason to alter it in most cases for a DM.
If RAW seems to be to unbalanced, we can look for RAI indicators or which kind of reading leads to more comfortable balance results.
If everything else fails, we can look for individual house rule options.

Finally, TO showcases are like sandbox experiments or like a crash-test simulator. It has its own purpose. You don't need to like it, not to play after the rules presented. That is not the purpose here. The purpose is to have some fun with RAW and to maybe teach future generations what causes this kind of loopholes, so they can avoid them when they should come into the position where they create rules, laws, code, and other stuff that has the same difficulties...

edit:
the main reason why I blue texted it was to point out a simple rule that all DM should follow, unless they wanna have player get mad at em. And that is "consistency" in his or her rulings/interpretations. Thus a DM who is consistent would always use the same interpretation for that line. As I am for my RAW arguments here. I still use the same interpretation, just that in this case it denies the cheese.

[Chronos]

In case there was any uncertainty, I don't have any intention of using this trick in a game. The group I play with doesn't even play 3rd edition any more. I just find exploration of the rules themselves to be an interesting exercise.

[Promethean]

I understand you blue texted this, but it is literally the DM’s job to parse and interpret the rules (which may include ignoring or altering rules that have been written poorly) in such a way that it is healthy for the game, and by extension, the ramifications that they imply for the campaign setting as a whole.

I always found the notion of “this is unambiguous RAW, so therefore I can do it” to be such a pointless notion, especially for things that are so obviously disruptive. If youre looking for glitches and exploits, go play a video game, theyre filled with them.

You do know people do that mostly for theoretical exercises to see just how far they can push the rules right?

It's called Theoretical Optimization for a reason. It's for fun thought exercises.

[Crake]

I get what you mean and I hope that you should know by now that I barely play at higher lvls of optimization myself. Nor do I support that RAW should be used as an argument to demand a certain ruling from any DM.

But for forum purposes we need to differentiate between RAW, RAI and balance tips with complete House Rules. We don't want to answer all questions with "ask your DM". We want to aid the process of discussions that (might) appear on tables.

And imho from a logical point of view, each discussion should start with RAW. Because if it does its job well, there is no reason to alter it in most cases for a DM.
If RAW seems to be to unbalanced, we can look for RAI indicators or which kind of reading leads to more comfortable balance results.
If everything else fails, we can look for individual house rule options.

Finally, TO showcases are like sandbox experiments or like a crash-test simulator. It has its own purpose. You don't need to like it, not to play after the rules presented. That is not the purpose here. The purpose is to have some fun with RAW and to maybe teach future generations what causes this kind of loopholes, so they can avoid them when they should come into the position where they create rules, laws, code, and other stuff that has the same difficulties...

edit:
the main reason why I blue texted it was to point out a simple rule that all DM should follow, unless they wanna have player get mad at em. And that is "consistency" in his or her rulings/interpretations. Thus a DM who is consistent would always use the same interpretation for that line. As I am for my RAW arguments here. I still use the same interpretation, just that in this case it denies the cheese.


You do know people do that mostly for theoretical exercises to see just how far they can push the rules right?

It's called Theoretical Optimization for a reason. It's for fun thought exercises.

You two seem to have missed the part where RAW can be ambiguous enough to be interpreted in more than one way. In those cases, trying to argue RAW is a fools gambit.

[Gruftzwerg]

You two seem to have missed the part where RAW can be ambiguous enough to be interpreted in more than one way. In those cases, trying to argue RAW is a fools gambit.

There are 2 options by TO: RAW if you end up with multiple possible interpretations:

1) If they exclude each other, you (as virtual dummy DM) have to pick one and stick to it like at a table. Not the most elegant TO option, but it is one. (unless one is obviously dysfunctional)

2) If they don't exclude each other, by strict RAW you (as virtual dummy DM) would need to apply both interpretations for your TO project.

RAW-TO is basically crash-testing the rules. Nothing more. And that is what entertains the TO community. You don't need to like it. But maybe see that it helps to point out where authors have failed to properly set their rules. If you recognize what caused the mess, you can come up with house rules to prevent it. And that gives you the ability to prevent situations like these in the future, if you somehow should end up in a position in life where you maybe write rules, laws or code yourself...

Imho RAW-TO trains your perception for language and helps you to see the fine details and pitfalls better. It's helps you to use a language more precise, since you are more aware of the things that cause these exploits in the first place.

A good lawyer also looks for possible exploits in the laws, by reading the Laws As Written. These can sometimes be so devastating, the the actual law might need to be changed to avoid that problem. It's the same as with RAW.

[Promethean]

You two seem to have missed the part where RAW can be ambiguous enough to be interpreted in more than one way. In those cases, trying to argue RAW is a fools gambit.

Um no?
Being able to argue raw more than one way is the cornerstone of TO.

[Crake]

There are 2 options by TO: RAW if you end up with multiple possible interpretations:

1) If they exclude each other, you (as virtual dummy DM) have to pick one and stick to it like at a table. Not the most elegant TO option, but it is one. (unless one is obviously dysfunctional)

2) If they don't exclude each other, by strict RAW you (as virtual dummy DM) would need to apply both interpretations for your TO project.

RAW-TO is basically crash-testing the rules. Nothing more. And that is what entertains the TO community. You don't need to like it. But maybe see that it helps to point out where authors have failed to properly set their rules. If you recognize what caused the mess, you can come up with house rules to prevent it. And that gives you the ability to prevent situations like these in the future, if you somehow should end up in a position in life where you maybe write rules, laws or code yourself...

Imho RAW-TO trains your perception for language and helps you to see the fine details and pitfalls better. It's helps you to use a language more precise, since you are more aware of the things that cause these exploits in the first place.

A good lawyer also looks for possible exploits in the laws, by reading the Laws As Written. These can sometimes be so devastating, the the actual law might need to be changed to avoid that problem. It's the same as with RAW.


Um no?
Being able to argue raw more than one way is the cornerstone of TO.

Okay, but the point in both circumstances is that both readings are a valid reading of the rules, so who are you arguing with and why?

[Promethean]

Okay, but the point in both circumstances is that both readings are a valid reading of the rules, so who are you arguing with and why?

I'm replying to your quote here:

I always found the notion of “this is unambiguous RAW, so therefore I can do it” to be such a pointless notion, especially for things that are so obviously disruptive. If you're looking for glitches and exploits, go play a video game, theyre filled with them.

Given the context I assume Gruftzwerg is doing the same.

Neither of us are arguing that it isn't the DMs job to parse the rules. We aren't at a table here and your attitude from the quoted comment onward seems rather hostile to people who are on this board to have fun and talk to people.

[Gruftzwerg]

Okay, but the point in both circumstances is that both readings are a valid reading of the rules, so who are you arguing with and why?
If both are valid, by RAW you may not ignore either one, unless it creates a dysfunction.

To remind you, we had been arguing about the interpretation of "base".
You wanted me to limit it to a single valid interpretation.

I have tried to show you that unless there is either an indicator by text or a dysfunction (e.g. by excluding each other like black and white), you have to take all valid interpretations.

Since base is undefined this means i can interpret it as:
- multiple bases
- as the ability itself
- as the effective (target) base of the ability (bonus)
- ...

All these can coexist without causing a dysfunction. Imho by using "base" we have a limitation that is not as strict as if they would have written "if the granted power scales with cleric lvls", which allows for a broader application of the ability. It becomes more often useful, but not stronger. Just more flexible in its application.

And as said: It's not game breaking & (imho) a pure 100% raw reading, so why not keep it? Does it become so strong/flexible that you need to add more limitations?
Are you so stingy as DM? ;) (*joke*)

Like Promethean said, I'm not arguing that a DM may not rule otherwise. But as I tried to show, I don't see any reason why. It's balanced and raw.