Spell like abilities, Arcane or Divine?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

62 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

With the new FAQ on Spell like abilities, this needs to be answered.

Are Spell-like abilities considered Arcane, or Divine?

What is the formula for figuring this out?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would assume neither.

Dark Archive

SKR wrote:
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).

Link

Dark Archive

Had this ruling existed before the APG, an inflict light wounds spell-like would have suddenly changed from divine to arcane because of the introduction of the Witch.

Grand Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
I would assume neither.

This is what I assumed.

It would seem, I was wrong.

I highly suggest hitting the FAQ button next to the original post.

Dark Archive

Aasimars are now able to cast 3rd level arcane spells and therefore qualify for Eldritch Knight. They can even gain the ability to cast 4th level arcane spells with age resistance but I haven't found a use for that yet.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

SKR may have his one comment, but this one thing I would like see in a official FAQ before implementing.

It's kind of a big deal.

I really don't see how anyone could not see that.


For some unknown reason, the explainations of what constitutes spell-like and supernatural abilities and how they behave in special situations like these, got cut down considerably when they were ported into Pathfinder. The d20 SRD has a few more sentences that answer many of these questions that seem to be popping up lately. In the Pathfinder version, these things are no longer explained.


My understanding was always that spell-like abilities are neither arcane or divine, but that may not be clarified at all in Pathfinder. I know in 3.5e they were neither arcane nor divine.

Grand Lodge

Well, things seem to have changed.

Want to know just how far?

I suggest hitting the FAQ button next to the OP.


I've marked it as FAQ. Personally, it seems a TERRIBLE idea to make them either Arcane or Divine, and an even WORSE idea to make them count as either. It should seem obvious that they are neither, and regardless of Paizo's ruling, I will rule it that way at my table. It sure would be nice to NOT have to extend my house rules though - especially for something that seems so dubious... What would be the possible implications here?

Early entry into Mystic Theurge. I'm not sure exactly how but it has to be possible. Probably a Druid or Cleric who's 6th level Domain Power is a Spell-like ability - Because those should completely count as Arcane if you want them to... ... ...

Non-spellcasters grabbing Arcane Strike because they happen to have a Spell-like ability, possibly from a feat, etc. Because Weapon Specialization is fighter only and other classes should be able to get BETTER bonus damage for the cost of a swift action (which some builds never use otherwise.)

I'm sure there's a million and one ways to abuse feats here too... Anyone else got any good idea for exploits? I suggest we point out the massive quantity of exploits so the guys down at Paizo will realize that the only logical answer here is that Spell-like abilities are NEITHER arcane or divine. I suspect there will be plenty enough exploits with just getting a caster level from Spell-like abilities. (Does this make a 5th level Paladin a 5th level caster when he gets Divine Bond? etc.)


Looks like someone on the design team made a poor decision.

I wonder if they think about the implications before they shoot off an answer.

Dark Archive

Mystic Theurge: Aasimar or Tiefling. Both can get spell-likes of 2nd level spells. Domain abilities won't work.


They are neither. The have always been neither.


Black Blood Troll, can you provide a link to this new FAQ on Spell Like Abilities? I looked under the section for the CRB but didn't see anything.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Black Blood Troll, can you provide a link to this new FAQ on Spell Like Abilities? I looked under the section for the CRB but didn't see anything.

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.

Grand Lodge

This and this one.

Also, SKR's comments, here.

Ninja'd


wraithstrike wrote:
They are neither. The have always been neither.

They were neither. But the recent ruling has made the spell-like abilities a bit more spell-like. And spells are either.


I don't like the implications of those rulings one bit. I shan't be using them.


VRMH wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
They are neither. The have always been neither.
They were neither. But the recent ruling has made the spell-like abilities a bit more spell-like. And spells are either.

For official purposes they are still neither. Until it is in an FAQ or errata SLA's have no type.


It is in a FAQ.
As posted above.


Darkwolf445 wrote:

It is in a FAQ.

As posted above.

No isn't. There is no FAQ saying they count as divine or arcane. If there were such an FAQ it would have to let us know when they are divine vs when they are arcane. SKR said we should assume they are divine, but nothing in the rulebook or FAQ backs his statement. Since not everyone comes to the boards this is something that should be in the book if Paizo wants it to work that way.

The Exchange

I must admit it had been my impression that since spell-like abilities are not true spells, the question of what "kind" of spells they are is nonsensical. The line Jadeite quotes - though it mentions that SLAs should be considered 'arcane' - seems to be doing so in the context of determining what 'level' of spell an SLA is equivalent to when matters of relative spell level come up. Unfortunately, in making that point it essentially says SLAs are arcane unless they don't appear on any arcane caster's list, which I strongly suspect was not the writer's intent...

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

If the answer isn't "neither," then spellcasting prestige classes become broken. FAQ'd.

Grand Lodge

If it were clear, then there would not be so many questions.

Grand Lodge

SKR's comments really needs solid confirmation in a FAQ.

Before putting forth anything towards PFS, or just about any DM, this needs it.

Usually, I can take SKR's comments to any one of my DMs, and get the okay.

This is a whole new ball game.

This is one of the biggest WTF rulings I have ever seen, at least, for me.


No kidding. Although someone earlier mentioned Mystic Theurge being a bad PrC, I'd point out that with this ruling, an Aasimar Cleric 3/Wizard 1 could take its next 10 levels in Mystic Theurge and be the casting equivalent of a Cleric 13/Wizard 11 - basically, having all the spells it would have gotten by going pure Cleric, and half a class progression's worth of Wizard spells to boot.

Silver Crusade

Xaratherus wrote:
No kidding. Although someone earlier mentioned Mystic Theurge being a bad PrC, I'd point out that with this ruling, an Aasimar Cleric 3/Wizard 1 could take its next 10 levels in Mystic Theurge and be the casting equivalent of a Cleric 13/Wizard 11 - basically, having all the spells it would have gotten by going pure Cleric, and half a class progression's worth of Wizard spells to boot.

Actually, if this exchange is correct, it looks like it might be possible (in an extreme case) to get MT 1 at level 4 via the Fiendish Heritage feat and the variant Tiefling abilities.

Grand Lodge

This means you can go Bloatmage at 2nd level.

Grand Lodge

Outside of SKR's earlier comments, has anyone heard more about this?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
This means you can go Bloatmage at 2nd level.

IMHO, SKR is talking abut hte nature of the ability. It is more fluff that anything. From the post you quoted he never say that SLA counst as spell. So no bloat mage at level 2.


Due to the repercussions of that post, I'm personally going to wait for the inevitable FAQ on it.

Grand Lodge

I am feeling the same thing.


FAQ'd. I have a feeling they are going to say that SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. This would effectively end the problem with aasimars being able to take Eldritch Knight at level 2. It also wouldn't overturn the FAQ that spawned all this. Able to cast dimension door as a SLA would still allow the Barghest to take Dimensional agility. This last part is kind of a stretch, but it technically wouldn't invalidate SKR's post about Minor Magic and Arcane Strike either.

Minor Magic wrote:

Prerequisite: Intelligence 10

Benefit: A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This spell can be cast three times a day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 10 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier.

Technically it gives him the ability to cast the spell. It also lets him cast it three times per day as a spell-like ability. I am suggesting here that, if the rogue had Rogue spell slots, he could slot that spell into them. This is me just reading it logically without applying any common sense to it whatsoever, so take it for what it is.

Edit: If they wanted, they could take it a step further, and just reaffirm that SLAs aren't spells, and can't be used to fulfill a prerequisite of "able to cast spells". "Able to cast spells" refers to spellcasting classes, Minor Magic being an exception due to the reasons I listed above. You could, however, still use SLAs to qualify for prerequisites that call out for a specific spell. "Able to cast Dimension Door" doesn't say you have to be able to cast it as a spell, so it is allowed.

Grand Lodge

Okay.

Now, we have people assuming they know the answer to the important question here, without a FAQ.

Please, proceed to hit the FAQ button on the original post.

This is too big to base off some comments.

Grand Lodge

Nothing has come of this?

I do find this to be quite the elephant in the room.


If it was as cut and dried as the brief comment that spawned this, I don't see why they wouldn't have answered this already, if only with "yeah, it's exactly like I said in my comment". Since they haven't, I assume they are mulling the implications and RAW/RAI. I will wait before official FAQ before implementing it in play. Although that really goes for lots of things that they mention in threads (or Blogs) yet should easily qualify as FAQ entries.

I hit the FAQ button, you can hit the FAQ button.

Grand Lodge

Oh, done and done.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

If it was as cut and dried as the brief comment that spawned this, I don't see why they wouldn't have answered this already, if only with "yeah, it's exactly like I said in my comment". Since they haven't, I assume they are mulling the implications and RAW/RAI. I will wait before official FAQ before implementing it in play. Although that really goes for lots of things that they mention in threads (or Blogs) yet should easily qualify as FAQ entries.

I hit the FAQ button, you can hit the FAQ button.

I assume they've been overwhelmed prepping for PaizoCon this weekend.

And then for GenCon after that.

But yeah. A question like this has pretty serious rules implications, as everyone's pointed out! Some time to mull the implications and RAW/RAI is probably a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking over the rules carefully, I think it is almost RAW that spell-like abilities are all arcane.

1. Spell-like abilities are just like spells in all ways except where they are explicitly defined differently.

2. All spells are arcane or divine.

3. Divine spells must come from a divine source.

4. Arcane spells are basically defined as "not divine."

5. (3) and (4) suggest a spell needs to explicitly be said to be from a divine source to be divine.

6. Spell-like abilities are not said to be from a divine source, therefore they are arcane.

(5) is the weak point in this like of reasoning.


Alternatively, you could use the same logic flipped to say that all spells are divine.

The rules don't say one way or the other on this. These aren't so much drawing power from a certain source as much as the thing just happening.

I'm sure this'll be asked at the Rules Q&A at PaizoCon too.


The quote from SKR in the 3rd post of this thread by Jadeite bacjs what Drachasor is saying.


And Paizo has specifically said that there is more than just arcane and divine: psychic magic, even though it is as of yet undeveloped and doesn't have any casting classes developed around it.


And alchemist magic is neither arcane nor divine.


Cheapy wrote:

Alternatively, you could use the same logic flipped to say that all spells are divine.

The rules don't say one way or the other on this. These aren't so much drawing power from a certain source as much as the thing just happening.

I'm sure this'll be asked at the Rules Q&A at PaizoCon too.

You definitely cannot flip it around as easily, imho. Divine spells MUST come from a divine source. That's the definition. So a spell would have to say it comes from a divine source to be divine. Arcane is the catch-all group. So you'd have to argue that spell-like abilities are neglecting to mention their divine source. I think that's definitely the weaker argument. Not that I am saying the rules are clear, mind you.

As for spell effects that are neither arcane or divine, that would be a case of specific text over-ruling the general. The Magic Section explicitly defines all spells as either arcane or divine. Spell-like abilities do not say they are an exception to this, so they are definitely either arcane or divine (by RAW).


By RAW, Spell-like Abilities aren't spells ;) Heck, the FAQ still says this.

We also have this quote:

Quote:
Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

Resemble is a pretty bad word choice, if they actually are arcane.

The whole thing is going to need to be fixed. Which is why FAQing this post would be so super awesome of you!

....well that's pretty annoying.

Intelligent Item Purpose, page 534ish, CRB wrote:
Defeat/slay arcane spellcasters (including spellcasting monsters and those that use spell-like abilities)

I'd be curious to see which of the two above is in error, although I'd generally err on the side of actual rules text as opposed to an entry in a random table for a mostly unused section of the rules.

Last year PaizoCon, if I went to the Rules Q&A forum, I was hoping to ask about the ability of the alchemist to take magic item creation feats. This year, I think I found my question.


The word "like" seems to cause a lot of problems on these boards.


Like totally.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Cheapy wrote:
By RAW, Spell-like Abilities aren't spells ;) Heck, the FAQ still says this.

I know they aren't technically spells. However, except where otherwise noted, they work just like spells.

Quote:
Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).

So by RAW, they are mechanically spells except where otherwise noted.

Oh, I can't believe I missed the following:

Quote:
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

So there we go. They default to arcane if there's a wizard version of the spell.


Are there any other rules that call out or interact with magic (with the exception of just spells) differently depending on whether it's arcane or divine?

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Spell like abilities, Arcane or Divine? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.