RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rebuild under those rules would only extend to people who had taken levels in the class that lost early access. Because if you don't have that class then that class wasn't changed. The guides rebuild rules are not meant to allow rebuild if something you haven't yet taken changes. And since the SLA's themselves haven't changed they wouldn't count.<snip>
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to its current XP, maintaining the same equipment
Now, admittedly its not clear how to parse that but I THINK that it is saying that the default expected action would be to allow a rebuild. Certainly for characters who are in the Prestige Class, arguably for all characters aiming for the prestige class (that quote is exceedingly unclear wrt who gets the rebuild)
<snip>
(Did some anti-wall-of-text snipping and added some bolding.)
If you were a 3rd-level ranger, and the Ranger's spellcasting class feature changed from requiring WIS 11+ to requiring CHA 11+, would your PC get a rebuild? Or would it only go to rangers of at least 4th level (who actually have the affected class feature)? Your statement that I bolded seems to indicate that a 3rd-level ranger would get no accommodation from the rebuild rules, because "something you haven't yet taken" (spellcasting) is what changes.
That's pretty close to what we have here: the EK (for example) went from requiring the player's choice of Wizard5 or Scryer1, to requiring Wizard5.
Now, if that hypothetical change to ranger spellcasting happened, and the PFS response was to grandfather rangers of 4th level and higher, while lower-level rangers were expected to either progress without spellcasting, invest a lot in CHA headbands, or start dipping cleric for that little bit of WIS-based casting and we promise it won't wreck your concept at all; do you think the affected players would be unhappy? Do you think it would be unreasonable to ask for campaign leadership to reconsider, even after the decision was made? Do you think asking for commentary on that decision would be as trivial and unreasonable as asking for commentary on every decision (as some have tried to suggest)?
TLDR:
If a low-level ranger would get a rebuild due to a change in the functionality of a class feature he doesn't have yet (such as his spellcasting), then the consistent thing to do would be to give a rebuild to a low-level PC whose requirements for entering a Prestige Class changed.
|
|
If you were a 3rd-level ranger, and the Ranger's spellcasting class feature changed from requiring WIS 11+ to requiring CHA 11+, would your PC get a rebuild? Or would it only go to rangers of at least 4th level (who actually have the affected class feature)? Your statement that I bolded seems to indicate that a 3rd-level ranger would get no accommodation from the rebuild rules, because "something you haven't yet taken" (spellcasting) is what changes
Well that's pretty explicitly a "class feature-dependent ability score" especially since a ranger can still use that spellcasting ability to activate wands without UMD before reaching 4th level.
So your example doesn't seem to apply in my opinion.
I mean a prestige class isn't something that your going to automatically get when leveling like a class feature. It's a choice and while I agree that normal progression on some of the prestige class isn't the most optimal it's still a valid and legal choice (though unfortunately one that a few people wouldn't have fun with)
So I do not think that a rebuild option was taken away when the grandfathering was given to a select few.
Though I do wonder if the reaction to the grandfathering of some characters will make it hard for the same decision to be made in the future and take the grandfathering of some option off the table completely and forced us to only have the guides option.
Which would be sad for some future players.
|
I almost hesitate to post this as I don't want to provoke a new argument. So, if you don't like what I'm about to say, take it as my own opinion that needn't be rebutted. You won't be convincing me to change my opinion anyway.
To Paizo:
At least this customer is happy with your decision to reverse your decision to allow SLAs to qualify for early entry. I thought you got it wrong in the first place, and am satisfied you now have it "right".
I hope the angst from vocal minorities rolls like water off a duck's back rather than causing you to avoid addressing problems like this in the future.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
@Jiggy: There big flaw I see in your analogy is that the situation you described is more akin to the warpriest change, where a secondary mental stat (Cha) changed and a class feature-dependent ability score was changed from Cha to Wis. The Year of the Sky Key Q & A explains what change was allowed and referenced the new text in the guide to handle that.
Even if that wasn't there, the other difference is that the ranger is already a ranger, while the Scryer1/Fighter1 isn't an Eldritch Knight yet, which reinforces Jeff's statement you bolded as in your example, neither the Scryer or Fighter class changed, but the ranger's changed.
On that note, I can see where you are heading, but you'll need a better analogy.
EDIT: Bah, ninja'ed, darn taking the time to hyperlink the blog /shakefist
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost hesitate to post this as I don't want to provoke a new argument. So, if you don't like what I'm about to say, take it as my own opinion that needn't be rebutted. You won't be convincing me to change my opinion anyway.
To Paizo:
At least this customer is happy with your decision to reverse your decision to allow SLAs to qualify for early entry. I thought you got it wrong in the first place, and am satisfied you now have it "right".
I hope the angst from vocal minorities rolls like water off a duck's back rather than causing you to avoid addressing problems like this in the future.
FWIW, it seems most of us have come to terms with the actual SLA decision itself. While the original FAQ may have had mechanical implications that some of us found to be preferable (in that several of the prestige classes are poorly balanced, particularly the core ones, and using this trick brought them more into line with the the power level of the rest of the game), the actual rule was quite odd and not at all intuitive, and the Pathfinder system makes more logical sense under the revised ruling. The crux of the current debate is how to handle the fallout of the change for existing PFS characters who were impacted by it, rather than the change itself.
|
Though I do wonder if the reaction to the grandfathering of some characters will make it hard for the same decision to be made in the future and take the grandfathering of some option off the table completely and forced us to only have the guides option.
Which would be sad for some future players.
As I said, and obviously only speaking for myself, I'd have been as happy with the rebuild option for my existing Mystic Theurge as I am with the grandfathering.
And my wannabes don't get anything either way so they don't care.
|
I have a suggestion ..it likely wont go anywhere but at least its an attempt
so the typical Early entry was based on a few things if I am not mistaken - FYI I have a character that is past the Mark and will remain unchanged by this ruling
2 classes
Stats
so people want rebuilds .... Mike and John don't - and the adjucation argument is a VERY Valid reason
so why not Split the baby as it were
now this will only work for multi class access
Rather than a full rebuild - Pick one
Meaning ability to Retrain 1 Class -
-----MT to be gets to decide to follow the path of the Divine or Arcane
-----Arcane Trickster - Pick one - sneak attacker or Spellcaster
-----EK - Pick Arcane or Martial (intentionally leaving out the magus 4 EK build)
I cant remember the 4th one - Im tired
I believe this would be easy to adjudicate since if you have the preceding combinations its fairly obvious where you were going
Unfortunately .. Stats is a bigger issue ... and I recall back to the banning of 5 archetypes that stats were allowed because of 1 of those 5 - Synthesists - Those characters were TRULY unplayable after the archetype was dumped
but the original argument was "a character can be played with any stat set" and outside of the synthesist that was absolutely true
----- Edited for generalization of Roles
this suggestion ges everyone some of what they want - players get to have functional PC's without the massive expenditure of Prestige .... Staff gets a moniker of control in Limiting the abuse of full rebuilds
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So your example doesn't seem to apply in my opinion.
I mean a prestige class isn't something that your going to automatically get when leveling like a class feature. It's a choice...
I left the following out of my post because I was already getting longwinded, but maybe I should have included it:
A low-level ranger coming into spellcasting isn't assumed, either. For example, he might have just been starting his build with a 2-level ranger dip for the prereq-free bonus feat and favored enemy, and never have had any plans to continue all the way to Ranger4. In fact, that's not even all that uncommon. I'd wager there are more Ranger2/SomethingElseX's out there than there are Eldritch Knights.But I bet those characters would be allowed to rebuild, too.
If there were an alteration to what you needed to qualify for a future class feature that you might or might not even end up getting at all, I'd like to think we'd see everybody who could take it getting some kind of accommodation (in whatever form that might take).
Even if that wasn't there, the other difference is that the ranger is already a ranger, while the Scryer1/Fighter1 isn't an Eldritch Knight yet, which reinforces Jeff's statement you bolded as in your example, neither the Scryer or Fighter class changed, but the ranger's changed.
In theory, would you say there's anything that could ever change about a prestige class that could warrant accommodation for PCs who had not yet taken their first level of the PrC? If not, why not? If so, what would it have to be if not entry requirements?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if that wasn't there, the other difference is that the ranger is already a ranger, while the Scryer1/Fighter1 isn't an Eldritch Knight yet, which reinforces Jeff's statement you bolded as in your example, neither the Scryer or Fighter class changed, but the ranger's changed.In theory, would you say there's anything that could ever change about a prestige class that could warrant accommodation for PCs who had not yet taken their first level of the PrC? If not, why not? If so, what would it have to be if not entry requirements?
To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm learning towards no as I'd have to think of Prestige Classes as something like the other thing that has requirements: feats. If a feat's requirements were changed (in this case, let's say adding another feat as a prerequisite), I think the process would be the same in this situation. Those who have it already are grandfathered to keep it and those who did not will have to meet the new requirements to get it.
One thing to note, though, is that in actuality, the requirements for the Prestige Class(es) didn't change at all. What changed is something that counted as a requirement no longer counts. I understand that indirectly, it feels like a change in the prestige class requirements, but it really is not.
|
|
One thing to note, though, is that in actuality, the requirements for the Prestige Class(es) didn't change at all. What changed is something that counted as a requirement no longer counts. I understand that indirectly, it feels like a change in the prestige class requirements, but it really is not.
I don't understand the distinction you're making.
How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?
|
|
One thing to note, though, is that in actuality, the requirements for the Prestige Class(es) didn't change at all. What changed is something that counted as a requirement no longer counts. I understand that indirectly, it feels like a change in the prestige class requirements, but it really is not.
I don't understand the distinction you're making.
How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?
Because the prerequisites have not changed.
For example: PrCs that required the ability to cast 3rd level spells still have that same prerequisite. An aasimar being able to cast daylight no longer qualifies as "being able to cast 3rd level spells" is all.
|
One thing to note, though, is that in actuality, the requirements for the Prestige Class(es) didn't change at all. What changed is something that counted as a requirement no longer counts. I understand that indirectly, it feels like a change in the prestige class requirements, but it really is not.
I don't understand the distinction you're making.
How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?
Because the prerequisites have not changed.
For example: PrCs that required the ability to cast 3rd level spells still have that same prerequisite. An aasimar being able to cast daylight no longer qualifies as "being able to cast 3rd level spells" is all.
This exactly.
The PrC requirements have not changed at all, the only thing that changed is the ability of certain races/classes to circumvent those requirements.
A race/class combo that used to be able to fast track can now enter at exactly the same time as anyone else, at the rate written in each PrC entry. The classes haven't changed and neither have their entry requirements.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
I don't understand the distinction you're making.How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?
Because literally, RAW, the requirements for the prestige class didn't change. For example, Eldritch Knight requirements are 'proficiency with all martial weapons and ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells'. After the FAQ update, that did not change. The requirements weren't 'proficiency with all martial weapons and ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells or use a 3rd-level spell-like ability.' What the FAQ update did was remove the SLA's as a substitute for the required spellcasting ability, but it did not change the PrC's spellcasting requirement.
I hope that distinction makes sense. If not, I'll try again.
EDIT: Ninja'ed again!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
I don't understand the distinction you're making.
How is it not a change to say that SLA no longer satisfy the requirement?
Because literally, RAW, the requirements for the prestige class didn't change. For example, Eldritch Knight requirements are 'proficiency with all martial weapons and ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells'. After the FAQ update, that did not change. The requirements weren't 'proficiency with all martial weapons and ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells or use a 3rd-level spell-like ability.' What the FAQ update did was remove the SLA's as a substitute for the required spellcasting ability, but it did not change the PrC's spellcasting requirement.
I hope that distinction makes sense. If not, I'll try again.
This is true, but it's basically a semantic argument and doesn't actually make any difference.
I disagree that it's a semantic argument. It's more RAW than I'd prefer, but that's a valid argument against more generous rebuilds/grandfathering. I think it's necessary as is a solid, consistent reason why the rebuild rules in the Guide are not being applied and why extended grandfathering wasn't set.
Sorry Flashbacks cost your team one run.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that it's a semantic argument.
You don't think that the difference between changing the text and changing what the text means is just semantics? You think that changing the definitions of the terms in the text is—meaningfully—less of a change than altering the text itself?
With all due respect, I no longer know how to have a conversation with you on this subject. Maybe I'll think of something later? Here's hoping.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
@Jiggy: I want to send you a detailed private message about this, but before I do that, I have a question first.
To you, do you see the previous "SLA's counting as 'able to cast X-level spell'" as a substitution or a equivalency? By that, I mean do you see the requirements implicitly written as "able to cast X-level spells, but you can substitute SLA's of the equivalent level as a qualification" or as "able to cast X-level spells, with SLA's of the equivalent level being the same thing"? I understand that this is nitpicky, but I think that's one of the reasons some of us are seeing it different from others.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that, I mean do you see the requirements implicitly written as "able to cast X-level spells, but you can substitute SLA's of the equivalent level" or as "able to cast X-level spells, with SLA's of the equivalent level being the same thing"?
Neither.
The requirement is, and has always been, "ability to cast ".
For a while, the definition of that game term was "any spell effect you can produce which is arcane and whose associated spell is 3rd level".
Then, the definition of the game term changed to "any spell effect you can produce from a spellcasting class feature which is arcane and whose associated spell is 3rd level".
|
|
Bloatmage-----MT to be gets to decide to follow the path of the Divine or Arcane
-----Arcane Trickster - Pick one - sneak attacker or Spellcaster
-----EK - Pick Arcane or Martial (intentionally leaving out the magus 4 EK build)
I cant remember the 4th one - Im tired
I was under the impression that bloat wasn't TOO Terribly affected by this. I mean full casting progression .. 6th level entry vs 2nd sure .. but hardly a in the same catagory as the MT, EK, and AT
|
|
Appeals to raw are kind of silly when people can rewrite the rules.
I'm getting flashbacks to the southpark basketball league episode.
I think this is to the RAW of what happens when they rewrite the rules.
I'm getting flashbacks to Calvinball.
Why do I need to be hit in the face with a dodge ball?
THWAP
Its in the rules
Remind me how that rule got there?
THWAP
We made it up
So we don't make up some different because?
THWAP
Its in the rules!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
@Jiggy: Personally, even now, I still see it as an implicit substitution, that the ladder of SLA's cannot be used to reach the top of the wall of prestige class requirements.
However, I can understand your position better, why what you say makes sense. It doesn't change my mind that I believe Mike/John still made the right call, but I better understand the reason for your arguing that it is not. I shall concede to you, o' requested forum archivist.
|
|
How about a Kitsune burning 3 feats on magical tails to qualify at level 6 instead of level 9 ???
I thought the only reason those feats were in the game was to get the early access... maybe someone can find another benefit though
I have a character I'm building around getting as many of the 9 tails as she can (she'll manage either 5 or 6).
In order for them to be useful, you have to have a decent CHA, and feats you won't miss. (Mine are on a FIghter with a 15 CHA.) They'd also be fairly useful for a CHA-based multi-classed caster, since their DCs are based on your total character level.
Obviously, they'd be much more useful in an urban or espionage-based game than one focused mainly on combat.
|
|
As someone who built and played a fighter/sorcerer/Eldritch Knight without SLA early entry?
My sympathy for people caught by the policy change is light. I thought the SLA early entry thing was a half-baked experiment at best.
Trust me, being a fighter relying on Mage Armor and Shield for four levels was...interesting.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let's look at a hypothetical example. Imagine that Paizo decided to back down from full 9-level spellcasting, and now wizards are put on a 6-level casting progression, not getting 3rd-level spells until Wizard7.
So for someone to go into EK, they've gone from having to go Fighter1/Wizard5 to Fighter1/Wizard7. The text of the EK entry requirements still hasn't changed; it's the same "3rd-level arcane" that it always was. But I think any reasonable person would say the gameplay reality has changed.
Now if that happened, should a Fighter1/Wizard4 (or whatever) have some sort of accommodation? I mean, does losing one point of BAB a couple levels down the road (compared to their planned build) merit action, or do we just say they have to live with the build?
|
So your example doesn't seem to apply in my opinion.
I mean a prestige class isn't something that your going to automatically get when leveling like a class feature. It's a choice...
I left the following out of my post because I was already getting longwinded, but maybe I should have included it:
A low-level ranger coming into spellcasting isn't assumed, either. For example, he might have just been starting his build with a 2-level ranger dip for the prereq-free bonus feat and favored enemy, and never have had any plans to continue all the way to Ranger4. In fact, that's not even all that uncommon. I'd wager there are more Ranger2/SomethingElseX's out there than there are Eldritch Knights.But I bet those characters would be allowed to rebuild, too.
But, as I think an earlier poster pointed out, the Ranger class losing Spellcasting would affect a level 2 Ranger, even though they have not gained access to Spellcasting yet. A level 2 Ranger can use wands. Take the Spellcasting class feature away from the class, and now a level 2 Ranger can't use wands. That's a change to the class that should qualify under the current rule for rebuilds.
If anything, the current situation could be called a change to all of the races, classes, feats, etc. that grant a spell-like ability, as opposed to being a change to the Prestige Classes those abilities would potentially grant entry to. That's a whole lot of potential rebuilds.
I don't personally have an issue with grandfathering a larger number of characters in this particular situation, but I can understand how that might have bigger implications.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But, as I think an earlier poster pointed out, the Ranger class losing Spellcasting would affect a level 2 Ranger, even though they have not gained access to Spellcasting yet. A level 2 Ranger can use wands. Take the Spellcasting class feature away from the class, and now a level 2 Ranger can't use wands.So your example doesn't seem to apply in my opinion.
I mean a prestige class isn't something that your going to automatically get when leveling like a class feature. It's a choice...
I left the following out of my post because I was already getting longwinded, but maybe I should have included it:
A low-level ranger coming into spellcasting isn't assumed, either. For example, he might have just been starting his build with a 2-level ranger dip for the prereq-free bonus feat and favored enemy, and never have had any plans to continue all the way to Ranger4. In fact, that's not even all that uncommon. I'd wager there are more Ranger2/SomethingElseX's out there than there are Eldritch Knights.But I bet those characters would be allowed to rebuild, too.
That is not what my example was.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you were a 3rd-level ranger, and the Ranger's spellcasting class feature changed from requiring WIS 11+ to requiring CHA 11+, would your PC get a rebuild? Or would it only go to rangers of at least 4th level (who actually have the affected class feature)? Your statement that I bolded seems to indicate that a 3rd-level ranger would get no accommodation from the rebuild rules, because "something you haven't yet taken" (spellcasting) is what changes.
Sorry. The original post was separated from the more recent one and I lost it in the wall of text of this thread. I believe the answer here would still be yes. I was originally going to say because of scrolls, but I can't find the FAQ on classes using spell trigger and spell completion items before they have spell casting. I don't know if it's both or just spell trigger. It doesn't matter, though. Because how do you tell the difference between a 3rd level ranger who plans to take another level and one who doesn't? You can't without asking the player. Even a Ranger 2/SomethingElse X might take future Ranger levels, and there's no way to objectively know one way or the other without input from the player. What you can objectively know is that the character has taken a level in Ranger, and the Ranger class has changed.
The point being, a character who has a level in a class that changes has already taken an option that is affected (whether they've gotten to that point yet or not). A character that hasn't taken any levels in an affected class hasn't taken an affected option yet. It may be that the Cleric 1/Wizard 3 is hurt more than the Ranger 3 who never intends on getting to Ranger 4, but the line either has to be drawn somewhere, or someone needs to adjudicate rebuilds on a case by case basis. A character having to have a level in the effected class is a clear and distinct line that can be used to determine whether or not a rebuild is allowed. Trying to take that to a finer level, like only if they already have the affected class feature, gets to be problematic, because sometimes an affected class feature matters to a character that doesn't have it yet (like wands with a Ranger). So drawing the line at that level means John and Mike need to make a call on every rebuild situation. The rule as written now doesn't require that.
I also think it's consistent (from what I remember) with how the change to Crane Wing was handled. Crane Wing and Crane Riposte were allowed to be retrained, because they directly changed. Crane Style and characters who had not taken Crane Wing yet weren't. That meant some characters were caught on the wrong side of the rebuild cutoff. Their choices were to continue on and take the revised Crane Wing, or to use retraining. It's the same situation with early entry prestige classes (except instead of a rebuild, it's grandfathering). Characters who were building toward an early entry prestige class can still build toward normal entry, or they can use retraining. They were unfortunate to end up on the wrong side of the grandfathering line, but a line had to be chosen.
(Or did rebuilding Crane Style get changed after the fact, and I just don't remember?)
As I mentioned, I'd be fine with expanded grandfathering. It looks to me, though, like Mike and John tried to pick the cutoff that was consistent with the general rebuild rules, then decided that instead of forcing all of the existing early entry prestige class characters to rebuild, they would go ahead and grandfather them in.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A character having to have a level in the effected class is a clear and distinct line that can be used to determine whether or not a rebuild is allowed.
Drawing the line there makes sense for Core/Base classes where you can take a level in it at any time and it's just a matter of whether you did or not.
Drawing the line there makes less sense for Prestige Classes, where you can't take a level until after a certain point.
When you want to start being a ranger, you take a level of ranger.
When you want to start being an eldritch knight, you take a level of fighter, then a level of wizard, and so forth, and then eventually take a level of EK.
PrC's have a window of "committed but no levels yet" that base classes don't have. Pretending there's no difference (or at least, failing to account for that difference when determining campaign policy) is a mistake.
Things that are fundamentally different need to be handled differently.
|
|
If you were a 3rd-level ranger, and the Ranger's spellcasting class feature changed from requiring WIS 11+ to requiring CHA 11+, would your PC get a rebuild? Or would it only go to rangers of at least 4th level (who actually have the affected class feature)? Your statement that I bolded seems to indicate that a 3rd-level ranger would get no accommodation from the rebuild rules, because "something you haven't yet taken" (spellcasting) is what changes.Sorry. The original post was separated from the more recent one and I lost it in the wall of text of this thread. I believe the answer here would still be yes. I was originally going to say because of scrolls, but I can't find the FAQ on classes using spell trigger and spell completion items before they have spell casting. I don't know if it's both or just spell trigger....
I'm not sure what kind of FAQ you are looking for, but the use of spell trigger and spell completion items is laid out pretty well in the CRB.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
This indicates that a caster without a high-enough caster level can do it, but might make a mistake.
Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll. Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.) Note that some spells are effective only when cast on an item or items. In such a case, the scroll user must provide the item when activating the spell. Activating a scroll spell is subject to disruption just as casting a normally prepared spell would be. Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance.
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.
The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score.
If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
Note that the requirements do not include a high enough caster level. Both paladins and rangers specify that they do not have a caster level until level 4, which implies that they do not meet that fourth requirement that they have to make a caster level check to cast too high of a level spell from a scroll.
|
|
Jiggy - Fair enough, and I wouldn't have an issue with establishing a different line in this situation. I just wanted to point out that the way they've ruled is consistent with what they've done in the past in terms of where the line is. I don't personally see a lot of room for abuse in the proposed expanded grandfathering.
DesolateHarmony - Somewhere there is an FAQ (or maybe it's actually in the rules) that states that a Class that gains Spellcasting at a level other than 1st can still use wands at 1st level. I don't remember what, if anything, that FAQ says about scrolls. What you say makes sense, but I know there's addictional clarification out there somewhere. I just can't figure out where.
|
|
From my first spoiler up there:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I'll look for a FAQ on it, but that seems perfectly clear. The language for scrolls means they cannot be used by such a character (they need to have a caster level).
Edit: This is from the class description of Alchemist:
Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.
It specifically allows the alchemist to use wands, and not scrolls. Might this be what you were thinking about?
|
|
By that, I mean do you see the requirements implicitly written as "able to cast X-level spells, but you can substitute SLA's of the equivalent level" or as "able to cast X-level spells, with SLA's of the equivalent level being the same thing"?Neither.
The requirement is, and has always been, "ability to cast ".
For a while, the definition of that game term was "any spell effect you can produce which is arcane and whose associated spell is 3rd level".
Then, the definition of the game term changed to "any spell effect you can produce from a spellcasting class feature which is arcane and whose associated spell is 3rd level".
Actually, I think the definition, unless my understanding of the update is incorrect, in that it now says, "Any spell effect you can produce from an arcane spell of the appropriate level, unless a specific spell is listed, and you have an SLA that cites that exact same spell."
So, "3rd level Arcane spell" requires being able to actually cast 3rd level Arcane spells in general, but 'Cast Dimension Door" only requires either the ability to cast Dimension Door, or have an SLA that explicitly references Dimension Door as what it is equivalent to/off which it is based.
|
|
The Prestige class didn't change. The base classes didn't change. The races themselves didn't change. Nothing changed that would normally allow a rebuild.
Your Wizard 1/Cleric 3 or whatever can still qualify for Mystic Theurge after taking two more levels of wizard. Or you can retrain that one level for the low cost of 7 Prestige. Or keep it! This is Pathfinder Society, after all. It's not like the character is unplayable. Suboptimal, sure, but that's not a death sentence. People still play rogues, after all. 9_9
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Prestige class didn't change.
If the Prestige Class hadn't changed, this thread wouldn't exist. But it did change. Specifically, the entry requirements changed. The text of the entry requirements didn't change, but what the entry requirements actually mechanically ARE changed. To suggest a meaningful difference between changing the words and changing the meaning is entirely unreasonable.
|
|
By that, I mean do you see the requirements implicitly written as "able to cast X-level spells, but you can substitute SLA's of the equivalent level" or as "able to cast X-level spells, with SLA's of the equivalent level being the same thing"?Neither.
The requirement is, and has always been, "ability to cast ".
For a while, the definition of that game term was "any spell effect you can produce which is arcane and whose associated spell is 3rd level".
Then, the definition of the game term changed to "any spell effect you can produce from a spellcasting class feature which is arcane and whose associated spell is 3rd level".
Actually, I think the definition, unless my understanding of the update is incorrect, in that it now says, "Any spell effect you can produce from an arcane spell of the appropriate level, unless a specific spell is listed, and you have an SLA that cites that exact same spell."
So, "3rd level Arcane spell" requires being able to actually cast 3rd level Arcane spells in general, but 'Cast Dimension Door" only requires either the ability to cast Dimension Door, or have an SLA that explicitly references Dimension Door as what it is equivalent to/off which it is based.
That is correct, which still allows my Rogue/Witch to go into Arcane Trickster by picking up Mage Hand via the Minor Magic talent.
|
|
The Prestige class didn't change.If the Prestige Class hadn't changed, this thread wouldn't exist. But it did change. Specifically, the entry requirements changed. The text of the entry requirements didn't change, but what the entry requirements actually mechanically ARE changed. To suggest a meaningful difference between changing the words and changing the meaning is entirely unreasonable.
In the past, rebuilds are given to people who actually have levels in a class that has had changes made to them (such as the Warpriest). So, to be consistant, rebuild options should be given to people who actually have levels in the Prestige Classes already, not to those who were simply planning on taking them at a later date.
Since Im sure that statement above wont be enough to do it for you, let me ask another question:
If I had a character who hadnt actually taken levels in Warpriest yet, but had planned to take a few later on, and I felt my character concept was ruined now because of the change, then should I have been allowed a rebuild?
IMO, no. Only characters who are currently being affected by the change to the class in which they have levels should be given a rebuild (if even then).
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
What were the requirements for a given PrC prior to the revision in the FAQ?
What are the requirements for that same PrC after the revision to the FAQ?
Are both of those the same? If they are, then what has changed is not the requirements of the PrC, but how a character's abilities might meet them, and those two things are most certainly not the same thing, at least not in my opinion.