If an SLA works just like a spell that SLA should release that same light, and by the rules there is no other way to identify the spell. Flavor should not make rules. The rules should however make sense when possible.How do you mean by the rules there is no other way to identify the spell? You CAN identify a spell that is stilled, silent, and eschewed. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
I wasn't using flavor to make rules, I was using flavor to explain rules as they already work.
You said a light was released as an example as to how it worked. That is mechanical not flavor.
To be clear if you can't see the spell being cast you should not be able to identify it since it is just like an SLA. If you want to argue there is an affect that the spell gives off, then the SLA should do it also. If you want to see these affects are only seen with spells, it sounds like an excuse to me. Two people standing around appearing to do nothing are the same to me. The fact that one is using an SLA should not make it harder to spellcraft or counterspell what he is doing.
That is mechanical not flavor.
I'm not sure how you are differentiating those terms, but that's okay, it doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that mechanical/flavor that works with every single RAW rule is a perfectly valid interpretation. I was merely offering it to you since you said you couldn't get your head around the rulings. If you don't like the interpretation, you certainly don't have to use it. :)
If you want to argue there is an affect that the spell gives off, then the SLA should do it also.
Actually this is exactly what I've been saying. I favor the idea that you can identify a SLA, but would love a FAQ, offhand comment, Facebook comment, or backhanded insult from a dev regardless.
I think you're confusing my explanation for why you cannot counter-spell a SLA with my explanation for why you can identify one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. I am not even talking about counterspell. I am strictly talking about identifying. I understand what the rule is. I am saying it makes no sense, and it should be changed. Neither an SLA or a silent, still eschewed spell should be able to be identified.
I can justify almost any ruling by changing flavor. I just think my idea of how they should work makes them more consistent. :)
I just think my idea of how they should work makes them more consistent.
Ah, I understand you now. By the by, what IS your idea of how they should work? Is it the typical "spells are simply their components" route that Malachi seems fond of?
I just think my idea of how they should work makes them more consistent.Ah, I understand you now. By the by, what IS your idea of how they should work? Is it the typical "spells are simply their components" route that Malachi seems fond of?
The idea is that you must be able to see or hear something to let you know the spell is being cast. That something should be based on the rules such as a component, not the GM saying there is a flash of light, "that only happens with spells, but not SLA's", even though they are identical for the most part.
PS:I won't say "they are simply their component" because in that case anyone could cast a spell if they happened to watch a caster do it enough times.
I still put the flash of light in for SLA, of course. ^.^
I won't say "they are simply their component" because in that case anyone could cast a spell if they happened to watch a caster do it enough times.
One could argue that's what a Wizard is, except the amount of watching that is required adds up to decades of study. :) Granted, I believe that magic has more minutia than that, but there are certainly some D&D fans who feel that's all it is.
Floating mystic glyphs, not flash of light. Check the Wayne Reynolds art ;-)
I still put the flash of light in for SLA, of course. ^.^
I won't say "they are simply their component" because in that case anyone could cast a spell if they happened to watch a caster do it enough times.One could argue that's what a Wizard is, except the amount of watching that is required adds up to decades of study. :) Granted, I believe that magic has more minutia than that, but there are certainly some D&D fans who feel that's all it is.
I understand that rules-wise that is all it is, and an SLA is the spell without the components. I just dont like to look at it that way.
Floating mystic glyphs, not flash of light. Check the Wayne Reynolds art ;-)
I was trying to keep it simple for the sake of the discussion. ^.^
I understand that rules-wise that is all it is, and an SLA is the spell without the components. I just dont like to look at it that way.
Yup, and you're very welcome to do so! At this point I was just wondering what your opinion was, and appreciate you sharing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even casters using all the required components cannot cast a spell they know without having prepared it first/having an unused slot.
The idea that there is something to observe beyond the components that still allows identification requires that these undefined 'other things' be unique for each spell. What are they? If they are unique sounds the caster utters, surely that's the verbal component?
If they are unique actions the caster performs, surely that's the somatic component?
If the sounds/actions are not unique, then how could they be used to identify the specific spell that will shortly be cast?
If they are visible and/or audible, then even a silent, stilled spell will betray your attempt at stealth. Remember, we are not talking about the spell once it is cast, we are talking about things that can be heard or seen before the spell exists. How can the magic happen before the magic happens?
Like Wraithstrike, I like things to make sense. The whole idea that there must be something but not even the devs know what it is seems absurd.
Having read the comments by Jason which sent the game down this particular cul-de-sac, his response didn't seem dictated by a conviction that these undefined phenomena actually exist in the game, more that the part of the Spellcraft description in Pathfinder dealing with this says, 'Identify a spell as it is being cast', where the same part of Spellcraft in the 3.5 DMG says, 'Identify a spell being cast (You must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components).
If PF had done a better job of cutting&pasting then we wouldn't be having this debate! We would agree that verbal or somatic components must exist, and be used and observed, to be identified with Spellcraft. And we would agree that SLAs cannot be identified this way as they have no verbal or somatic component.
I don't believe we should be led down the garden path by this cut&paste oversight.
The alternative is that the PF devs deliberately changed it so that spellcasting involved other, undefined, unique and observable phenomena. Yet, if this is deliberate, how does Jason himself know nothing about it? If this was a deliberate change between editions (for no good reason that I can see), it is beyond belief that Jason didn't know about it. If he knew about it then the post linked above would have him explain exactly what these things are, not try to explain the unexplainable.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that in 3.5 Spellcraft could not identify SLAs because they lack V and S components. There is no doubt that a still, silent spell could not be identified by Spellcraft during the casting process.
The rules only changed between editions when they deliberately, explicitly changed. A space-saving cut&paste does not convince me that the devs changed how spells are cast, how SLAs work nor that the Spellcraft skill works differently.
Futhermore, the whole system works better with the 'must be able to see or hear verbal or somatic components' line. It must have seemed so obvious to the cut&paster that it only makes sense that way, so not bothering to paste that bit couldn't hurt, could it? I mean, who'd be that stupid?
My solution? I wouldn't define the Spellcraft check as a recognition of physical, verbal, or somatic components, but a more mystical 'perception. I see Spellcraft as the person actually interpreting the 'energy' of the spell to determine what is being cast.
I mean, who'd be that stupid?
Yeah! Obviously making a bunch of assumptions based on no tactile evidence is the smart way to go! -.-
I wonder if sarcasm is as easy to spot as unnecessary and thinly veiled insults.
it only makes sense that way
Been seeing a lot of this recently (not just in this topic). It seems that more and more people are being convinced that their lack of seeing a reason is equivalent to unreasonable. Also, disagreement is being excused as insensible.
There is reason and there is sense. You simply do not like it or disagree with it. It's possible to respect an opinion you do not agree with, and it's possible to see sense and still come to a different conclusion. It's about being open minded and using perspective.
It's possible to respect an opinion you do not agree with, and it's possible to see sense and still come to a different conclusion. It's about being open minded and using perspective.
On the Internet??! For shame!
(And yes, that was sarcasm. And agreement to an extent)
|
Specifically, this part:
SLAs are not spells. SLAs merely duplicate the effects of spells and can be disrupted like spells, but they don't come with the innate know-how of "a spell is element X, Y, and Z, combined for a specific effect," which is the sort of knowledge you need to incorporate a spell into a magic item. An SLA is "I think really hard, and this neat thing happens," it's a shorthand way of creating/manipulating a power that you don't actually understand. It's like knowing that you want to create a rabbit with glowing fur, and you have one guy who studied glowing jellyfish and understand how the genes work, and another guy who can cut open a glow-stick to let all the toxic glowing chemicals out.emphasis mine.I found rules text that says otherwise, thus the new FAQ about crafting magic items with SLAs. Which pleases me, as I like the idea of a demon or whatever being able to craft magic items without having to take levels in a spellcasting class.
Would the game be simpler if spell-like abilities worked exactly like spells in every way possible? Hell yeah. But we inherited some 3.5 text and didn't get a chance to change it when making PF, so we're stuck with the little technicalities (such as spell trigger items). Ah, well.
Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, yesterday
You think to change this FAQ too?
Alchemist: Is an alchemist a spellcaster for the purpose of crafting magic items other than potions?
As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item.
The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/02/13
As thing stand now a Rogue taking the Minor magic Talent or a Gnome with charisma 11+ can take any magic item crafting feat. A alchemist, member of a class dedicated to magic use, can't take any.
|
|
In the 3.5 PHB on page 82;-
Spellcraft DC 15+spell level
Task Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
This meant that a still, silent spell could not be identified as it was being cast. It also meant that SLAs could not be identified as they were being initiated; first, they lack a verbal or somatic component. Second, they are not spells!
However, the PF equivalent says:-
Task Identify a spell as it is being cast
Spellcraft DC 15+spell level
Which is the most probable explanation?
* They cut down the word count to save space, but had no intention of changing how the game works
OR
* They decided that the spellcasting process now has an observable, identifiable, unique thing but didn't define or even mention it, and forgot all about it when asked a year later
AND
* Changed the Spellcraft skill so that it can now identify an SLA by observation before it comes into existence despite there being nothing to observe, and/or change SLAs so that the user must do something (undefined) that resembles spellcasting so that it can be identified using the same knowledge that identifies spellcasting, and chose to inform us of this momentous change by not telling us that SLAs can be identified using Spellcraft when they could have said 'Identify a spell or spell-like ability...'
Which is it?
|
|
It's more of a corner case, but would Magus Spell Combat (if it allows casting other class' slots to begin with) allow casting SLAs as part of Spell Combat? (assuming the spell is also on the Magus list)No, because he actually has to be casting one of his magus spells from his magus spell list ("... [he] can also cast any spell from the magus spell list ..."), not a spell-like ability that happens to have the same name as a spell from the magus spell list.
(As a related example, a druid/magus who had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell shouldn't be able to cast it with spell combat just because it's also on the magus spell list. Even if the druid/magus had flaming sphere prepared as a druid spell and a magus spell, he shouldn't be able to cast his druid copy of that spell as part of spell combat because spell combat is about casting your magus spells in melee combat, and I doubt the casting of a druid's flaming sphere works the same way as the magus spell.)
and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action
Wouldn't be better to change the text to "a spell he has memorized as a magus" or "in a spell slot given by his magus class" or something similar?
Reading the current text I would interpret as "any spell [not spell like] that is on the magus list can be used, regardless of where it come from."
Which is the most probable explanation?
A
OR
B
AND
C
*bolded sections truncated for readability. Full quote can be referenced a few posts above.
Also a bit of cherry picking and ad hominem.
The point is, we have threads that have gone over this and it has been discussed at length. There is no reason to keep insisting that you are correct with the exact same arguments you have made before (and which I have already countered) when all I entered this thread for was to see if I can catch a dev's attention.
There is no final conclusion. There is a substantial lack of information, and insisting that there's a "right" answer is tedious.
|
|
Malachi counterspelling isn't the same thing as identifying and identifying isn't the same thing as knowing that someone is casting a spell.
A caster can counterspell a unidentified spell with a dispel magic without problems.
Not my point.
Do you think that the devs deliberately changed spellcasting to include a hitherto un-hinted at 'something', unique to each spell, that allows a spell being cast to be identified even if that spell has no verbal or somatic component, as required in 3.5?
If you think that there was a deliberate change, why don't even the devs know what this 'something' is?
The implications of this for the Mystic Theurge class are...interesting.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The implications of this for the Mystic Theurge class are...interesting.
Hellooooo Tiefling Cleric3/Wizard1/MysticTheurge1. I can't believe you are currently PFS legal.
I think there are several consequences of this change that hasn't been properly thought through; PrC-qualification being one of them.
|
I think this is being read into too much. Nothing in the FAQ says that a tiefling spell-like ability counts as a 2nd-level arcane spell, does it? The way I read it, a feat or prestige class with the prerequisite "ability to cast darkness" would be satisfied by a tiefling's spell-like ability, but that doesn't make that spell-like ability "2nd-level" or "arcane." It provides a caster level, which means it qualifies the race for crafting feats, but some of people's fears about the implications of this ruling seem unfounded.
Edit: the arcane strike ruling made me question this comment. Apparently the tiefling's darkness is arcane? It doesn't necessarily follow that it's 2nd-level, though.
I think this is being read into too much. Nothing in the FAQ says that a tiefling spell-like ability counts as a 2nd-level arcane spell, does it? The way I read it, a feat or prestige class with the prerequisite "ability to cast darkness" would be satisfied by a tiefling's spell-like ability, but that doesn't make that spell-like ability "2nd-level" or "arcane." It provides a caster level, which means it qualifies the race for crafting feats, but some of people's fears about the implications of this ruling seem unfounded.
Edit: the arcane strike ruling made me question this comment. Apparently the tiefling's darkness is arcane? It doesn't necessarily follow that it's 2nd-level, though.
It's definitely 2nd-level for purposes of effects that depend on spell level (like the concentration DC to cast it defensively is 19). In the same way, an ifrit's burning hands SLA wouldn't make it through a lesser globe of invulnerability because it's 1st level.
|
|
Although, if Paizo wants to backpedal, there's nothing actually in the FAQ yet that cements the mystic theurge/arcane strike thing as far as I'm reading. And it definitely makes sense that things that care about "spells" wouldn't work even though things that care about specific named spell effects and caster levels would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SLA's are not arcane or divine, and until errata comes out that is still how it is. I think it is better to keep it as being typeless. Otherwise you have to figure it out for every monster type, which just creates more questions.
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.
Sweet, vindication that the Horizon Walker Dimensional Dervish build is in fact legal. Thanks.
|
|
In general, SLAs use the sor/wiz spell level for DCs if the spell is on multiple spell lists, so you should assume that an SLA is arcane unless the source of the ability suggests otherwise (such as a spell that's only on the cleric list, or an SLA from a cleric domain, or uses Wisdom to determine DCs instead of Charisma).
Another question about this:
a qinggong monk spell like abilities are arcane or divine?While a monk abilities are wisdom based they don't come from an external, divine force, but instead from a internal source. That seem more arcane than divine to me (actually if I was the one to chose I would make them a third kind of "magic", like in Rolemaster, essence, channelling and mentalism).
or Psychic magic. some existing Bestiary monsters have been linked to that, even though the Psychic magic system (classes) havent' been written up yet. Monk SLAs would probably count as that (if they were classed as anything)
I think it makes sense that a SLA "casts" a spell, and it's been long established since 3.5 that SLA grants a caster level. However, I don't think it makes sense for it to count as as "spellcasting" (that's a class feature) or for a SLA to count as an arcane or divine spell. For consistency's sake, SLA should probably count for item creation, since there are always a variety of class features that do and aren't precisely spellcasting.
It may seem picky, but I thought the 3.5 distinction between "caster level" (a calculation that determines the effectiveness of a given spell effect) and "spellcaster level" (your level in a class that grants the ability to cast spells) saved a lot of headaches. Admittedly, the terminology could be clearer.
It does count for item creation, now.
Follow the above links.
There are some hearty changes, that seem to create more questions, than they answer.
Which is why I created this thread to try and get a FAQ on this :) Or atleast some guidelines.
When I made it, I did not expect this turn of events (for good reasons!), so it's all the more important now.
I feel pretty clear on everything except on how tell if a SLA is arcane, and I feel sort of funny equating "the ability to cast 2nd level spells" with anything other than spellcasting as a class feature. While a SLA might be treated as a 2nd level spell, I have trouble with the notion it is actually a second level spell.
The implications of this for the Mystic Theurge class are...interesting.Hellooooo Tiefling Cleric3/Wizard1/MysticTheurge1. I can't believe you are currently PFS legal.
If this ruling sticks, I just might make this.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If this ruling stick, it's madness. I mean, aasimar can cast daylight as a SLA, witch is a 3rd level spell, and by what SK said, count as arcane. Witch means aasimar arcane caster can access prc like eldritch knight at wiz 1/fighter 1
I can see a need to best determine if the SLA is Arcane or Divine. If only divine classes have the spells (aside from the Witch say), would it be divine?
If so, I began creating a Tiefling with the Fiendish Heritage Feat and rolled 100 (and so twice more on the table) getting Death Knell (divine) and Minor Image (arcane) SLAs. Maybe I can make him a Wizard 1/Cleric 1/MT 10?
Suggestion for the designers: Since early access to PrCs seems to be a big issue here, add a caveat that SLAs don't apply toward the prerequisites for PrCs. Yes, it's an obvious balance 'kludge', but oh well.
I would rather they just not count as arcane or divine. That way it is never an issue. Other than qualifying monsters for certain feats which they don't need I see it causing more problems than it will fix.
Official Rules Response
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
|
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Thank you. Seems reasonable to me.
Now we can stop arguing about it. (Who am I kidding?)
yes??