|
| 47 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big thanks to the Pathfinder Design Team for their work on the FAQs! This post is to request a clarification or re-affirmation of the recent FAQ on how to determine whether a spell-like ability counts as Arcane or Divine.
It might seem like a silly question, but it is worth asking and FAQ-flagging, since we've seen what "that's ridiculous!" first reactions have led to in the recent discussions and FAQs about SLAs.
The Agathion-Blooded (Idyllkin) Aasimar (Blood of Angels p. 21) gets summon nature's ally II as a spell-like ability in place of the standard Aasimar's daylight.
But although summon nature's ally II appears only on Divine spell lists (Druid and Ranger), the current FAQ, read strictly, would count the SLA as Arcane. Because:
Most spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list (such as holy smite) or something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine (such as a solar's spell-like abilities, as a solar usually directly serves a deity).
Since summon nature's ally appears on the Ranger list as well as the Druid list, taking the FAQ strictly would result in an Arcane SLA. As Quandary put it, "So by the RAW of the FAQ, the SNA spells that are also on the Ranger list would be arcane since they are also on the Ranger list. Dumb, yes. But recognizing dumbness if the first step to fixing dumbness."
So please click the FAQ flag on this post to request a clarification or re-affirmation from the Pathfinder Design Team.
***
I assume that something like the Universal Monster Rules on SLAs should operate to determine whether the SLA is Arcane or Divine. But given the language of the current FAQ and the PDT's consistent stance that SLAs should default to Arcane, maybe the rule is different. So click that FAQ flag!
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.
***
Another example of the same question is the Incorruptible alternate racial trait for Aasimars, which grants corruption resistance in place of daylight. Corruption resistance appears only on the Antipaladin, Inquisitor, and Paladin spell lists. Since that's not "only ... the standard cleric or druid spell list," the current FAQ would count that SLA as Arcane.
Some more examples (though I don't know anywhere that these actually come up as SLAs): an SLA of cure light wounds would be Arcane, since it's on the Bard list; an SLA of bless weapon would be Arcane, since it's on the Paladin list (not "only ... on the standard cleric or druid spell list").
***
Credit where credit is due: Rogue Eidolon was the first to ask this question. But since Sean K Reynolds has made it clear that a single, concise question in its own thread is most likely to get treated in an FAQ, here we are.
dotting
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's pretty clear the intent of the ruling is that it's arcane unless it only appears on divine lists. I realize that's what you're asking them to clarify, but I think most reasonable people will agree that's the intent. That could still possibly lead to corner cases where a spell appears on the witch list as well as a few divine lists and end up being "arcane" for spell-like abilities, but I imagine those cases will be rare, and I'm certainly not going looking for them.
|
|
It's pretty clear the intent of the ruling is that it's arcane unless it only appears on divine lists. I realize that's what you're asking them to clarify, but I think most reasonable people will agree that's the intent.
Yep, yep–but:
(1) I think the intent is probably something like the UMR for determining which "version" of a spell an SLA uses, not "if it only appears on divine spell lists." More on the distinction below. But sure, we're basically in agreement about what is probably intended here.
(2) But that's not what the FAQ says.
(3) "Most reasonable people will agree." Maybe. But this is an RPG forum. And you've seen the arguments we can get up to ... ;-)
(4) And given how the recent FAQs about SLAs have surprised a lot of folks, I think it's very much worth asking to make sure. Even though it seems obvious to us, maybe we're wrong!
(5) And even if we all agree on what the intent probably was, it's worthwhile to have an FAQ that says what it means, and it's worthwhile to clear up rules text.
(6) And even if you don't think there's a huge value to it in this particular case, it's so little effort to click the FAQ flag, and so little effort for the PDT to either tweak the wording or just flag this thread "answered in FAQ," it seems that the benefit–however small–is worth the tiny cost.
***
That could still possibly lead to corner cases where a spell appears on the witch list as well as a few divine lists and end up being "arcane" for spell-like abilities, but I imagine those cases will be rare, and I'm certainly not going looking for them.
The difference: cure light wounds is on the Bard spell list. Would an SLA of the spell be considered Arcane? I find that difficult to believe. I think some priority rule like the UMR probably better captures it.
Also, it would be nice to have a single rule that explains "which version of the spell" rather than two close but not the same rules. Someone brought up the case of Gnomes' speak with animals SLA. By UMR, it's treated as a first-level druid spell–but by FAQ it's treated as arcane. It would make more sense, to me, if the UMR also explained whether the SLA counted as arcane or divine, so you wouldn't have these mismatches.
But maybe I'm wrong.
In any case, it would be nice to have it cleared up! So click that FAQ flag!
I mean, is not that is such a complicate matter that requires a plenary session of the council, i'm sure it would take less than 5 minutes to errata such a blatant oversight.
I mean, is not that is such a complicate matter that requires a plenary session of the council, i'm sure it would take less than 5 minutes to errata such a blatant oversight.
They make all FAQ decisions together so they do have to all have a meeting for the FAQ to be changed, and if we dont request an FAQ they dont have the meeting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that why i faqued this, anyway i was pointing that to those who always predicate "it obvius so they shouldn't waste time responding it". Since it's obvius, it will also take very little time to fix. Especially when it seems a clear case of bad writing, while they have a clear idea of what the real meaning was.
|
|
One other issue that comes in are for spells like augury. That spell was divine-only until the witch came along and made it arcane.
So Johnny has the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Magic, and wants to use this new ruling to get augury as his divine requirement for mystic theurge. Then he buys the Advanced Players Guide and now it's no longer legal for him.
That's a silly example, but what if it were reversed? Right now a tiefling can qualify for the divine portion of mystic theurge by getting deathwatch as a SLA. What if a new class comes out later in the year that has arcane spellcasting and learns deathwatch? Is the character screwed?
I believe it would solve a lot of problems to have the judge of arcane or divine based on the book in which the spell comes out. Deathwatch and augury would be divine, because they were when they came out in the CRB. If the warlock comes out and knows deathwatch, that doesn't screw up an entire universe of SLAs.
So what we need is for the FAQ to change from cleric or druid to divine list?
I'd say that a spell like ability of an Aasimar is something that would strongly suggest that the ability should be divine, as the other qualifier of the faq suggests.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should just list every race/class and say what their default SLA is, arcane or divine. Then use lowest level spell of that kind of spell (arcane/divine) and you're done. It'd solve the majority of issues. Should a wizard only spell given by a cleric ability really be arcane? Default clerics divine and it'd be up to the DM to change.
that's my 2 cents...
|
|
I'd say that a spell like ability of an Aasimar is something that would strongly suggest that the ability should be divine, as the other qualifier of the faq suggests.
That's not an unreasonable thought, but the official position is that Aasimar SLAs are not automatically divine.
The thread where this question was first mentioned was exactly this question: "Are the spell-like abilities of an aasimar (or tiefling, or other similar race) automatically considered divine?"
The thread was marked "No Reply Required", and SKR chipped in to say:
The FAQ already says "spell-like abilities should be considered arcane ... unless something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine."
Which means "unless you have a really good explanation for why it should be divine, it's arcane." The end.
Which means the PFS team doesn't even have to say, "the following PC-allowed races are considered to have divine spell-like abilities: A, B, C..."
By not saying anything to the contrary, they are accepting (and enforcing) the idea that all PC-allowed races have arcane spell like abilities.
Which is why it's a decent question whether summon nature's ally breaks the default that PC-allowed races have arcane SLAs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"spell-like abilities should be considered arcane ... unless something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine."
The issue is that what is 'strongly indicated' to one person isn't to the next. Sigh... Leaving things like that is just asking for a heated debate. it would have been better is they'd have said they where ALL arcane and the DM has the option to alter instead of 'make a good enough case and maybe it's in!'
They should have just stuck with the Wizard/Sorc -> Cleric -> Druid -> Bard -> etc... system that's in the rules. That would be easier for everyone.
That's basically what we're asking for.
|
I'd say that a spell like ability of an Aasimar is something that would strongly suggest that the ability should be divine, as the other qualifier of the faq suggests.
Tiefling abilities are arcane or divine? they or the Aasimar will lose them if they fall from (dis-)grace?
Same thing for devil/demon/agation/angels ecc.Someone used the gnome speak with animals ability as a example of a divine spell. It is on the druid list, but I have trouble seeing a ability that is common to the whole race, good or evil, lawful of chaotic, as a divine ability granted by some deity.
They should have just stuck with the Wizard/Sorc -> Cleric -> Druid -> Bard -> etc... system that's in the rules. That would be easier for everyone.
One other issue that comes in are for spells like augury. That spell was divine-only until the witch came along and made it arcane.
The Universal Monster Rules priority list for SLA's already needs to be updated anyways for newer classes.
(via FAQ, I guess, since the classes aren't in the CRB)The wording there is'nt quite clear, but it seems to be understood to apply for determining spell level, and that's it.
That's why there is a separate FAQ ruling for determining arcane/divine status.
I think that is the problem here, instead of creating a separate arcane/divine determination that may diverge from the Spell Level determination, it is easier to play, less problematic, and simply more intuitive to use the exact same priority list. The highest priority class whose spell list it appears on determines both the Spell Level and the Arcane/Divine typing of the SLA... That is the obvious/intuitive approach, but for whatever reason the UMR priority list was read in such a way as NOT to also indicate arcane/divine in conformance with the class it associates the spell to. I think that judgement call can easily be changed, and in fact it makes more sense that the Core Rules for SLAs would cover the arcane/divine typing (via priority list) than the idea that the Core Rules DON'T cover the arcane/divine typing at all, which leaves the arcane/divine SLA FAQ as creating wholly new rules which the Core Rules don't cover at all.
For all the new classes (outside of CRB), it seem reasonable that they should be added BELOW (in priority) to previous classes in the same casting tier (i.e. Oracle and Witch are under Sorc/Wiz and Cleric as Full Casters, Magus and Inquisitor and Summoner are under Bard as 3/4 Casters, etc). Adding Ult Magic classes under APG classes would make some sense, but really Paizo could tweak the order as they prefer since they both already exist and this is just going into the FAQ.
That means that those classes' spell lists aren't going to disrupt the arcane/divine or spell level typing of SLAs that are on Core Class spell lists of the same or higher Casting 'Tier'. Only when a Class like Witch or Oracle gets a spell that Sorc/Wiz/Clerics/Druids DON'T have but Bards/Rangers/Paladins DO have would the new classes disrupt things. If there even are any examples of that, they are very few and far between and seem an acceptable 'cost' for a system that is clean, simple, and easy to use.
And BTW, yes, it feels slightly embarassing to be quoted in the top post of a major FAQ thread calling Paizo's rules "dumb". :-D
Tiefling abilities are arcane or divine? they or the Aasimar will lose them if they fall from (dis-)grace?
Same thing for devil/demon/agation/angels ecc.
Someone used the gnome speak with animals ability as a example of a divine spell. It is on the druid list, but I have trouble seeing a ability that is common to the whole race, good or evil, lawful of chaotic, as a divine ability granted by some deity.
Divine abilities aren't inherently granted by deities and in danger of being withdrawn by deities.
That is only true for Clerics, Inquisitors, and Sacred Servant Paladins.Even Druids don't have the wording of Clerics, (normal) Paladins don't, Rangers don't, Oracle's don't.
Druids and (normal) Paladins have their own alignment restrictions which could be understood to indicate their powers are granted thru a link to some 'cosmic' Neutrality of Nature/Lawful Goodness above and beyond and Deities, but a Deity isn't taking away their powers when they lose them. Druids that worship Deities don't actually even have the 1 step rule, although I feel that is the intent, the only limitation there for them is IF they worship a Deity they cannot cast Alignment description spells counter to the Deity.
Rangers and Oracle's are never in danger of losing their divine abilities for alignment reasons, if the Gods may have been involved in an Oracle developing their powers, there is nothing giving any God control to revoke them now that the Oracle has divine powers.
Likewise for SLA's that qualify as Divine, they are not subject to being in the good graces of a Deity, you just have them.
Essentially, while Gods and they powers they grant and can revoke are Divine, that isn't the only thing that is Divine, and Divine powers can spring up without the Gods involvement or ability to grant/revoke them.
Bump!
Hit that FAQ flag, folks! We want this one at the top of the FAQ pile for Monday morning!
(Then we can get started on the *next* SLA FAQ as we work out all the implications of the new ruling ...)
I wonder if the guys at Paizo will reevaluate this from the reverse angle on Monday morning. "What did we gain on the new SLA ruling that they are arcane/divine? (Ability to select prestige classes and feats beads on it) Compared to how many new FAQs do we have to answer now, and in the future?" From just an FAQ standpoint, this seems like a net loss from where I sit, not to mention there are other troubling aspects of this ruling for me...
Then again, it's obvious that I'm biased against this ruling, so take what I say with a grain of salt...
(1) I think the intent is probably something like the UMR for determining which "version" of a spell an SLA uses, not "if it only appears on divine spell lists." More on the distinction below. But sure, we're basically in agreement about what is probably intended here.
and
The difference: cure light wounds is on the Bard spell list. Would an SLA of the spell be considered Arcane? I find that difficult to believe. I think some priority rule like the UMR probably better captures it.
and
By UMR, it's treated as a first-level druid spell–but by FAQ it's treated as arcane.
and
That is the obvious/intuitive approach, but for whatever reason the UMR priority list was read in such a way as NOT to also indicate arcane/divine in conformance with the class it associates the spell to.
UMR?
A good tip prescribed in Army writing (although sadly is rarely followed) is the first time you use an acronym in an article, memo, etc is to spell it out and put the acronym after that.."attack of opportunity (AoO)". It would be incredibly helpful for people to do that on these boards. I've been following these boards for a while and I am still seeing new acronyms I don't know. It makes it very confusing for newbies.
Read the top post. He fully spells out "Universal Monster Rules" and in fact hot-links to the actual rule in question.
Bump!
Hit that FAQ flag, folks! We want this one at the top of the FAQ pile for Monday morning!
No thanks. I would rather use FAQ when it really is a Frequently asked question or when I care. Here- neither.
It's a minor corner case that makes little difference. The whole SLA used for qualifying for a PrC is a minor corner case with little IRL use.
But this is making me happy. Now, the big "HIT THE FAQ BUTTON PLEASE!!!!!!" questions are now such minor issues that it means the rules are well shaken out, all the important questions have been answered. Thanks for that.
Thanks for pointing it out Quandary.
Without the acronym next to where it's spelled out one could look for a long time.
Even the spell listed in the FAQ example Holy Smite, is on another spell list, the Inquisitor's. The spell description doesn't say so, but take a look at the spell list in the Inquisitor class description. The same is true of many of the "Holy" spells, which wouldn't make much sense as arcane spells.
So unless they made an error with the spell they picked, than the FAQ doesn't mean what it literally says.
I'm wondering if it means "unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list, ignoring other divine spell lists." So for example if a spell only appears on a Ranger, Paladin and Inquisitor spell lists, like Bowstaff would still be arcane as a spell like ability. Bless Water would be divine.
I think they are trying to screen out all the spells that wouldn't make much sense as arcane anything - Holy "whatever", Bless or Blessing "whatever", Divine "whatever" and things of that vein.
As far as races and creatures, just because something is an outsider doesn't make it divine. The solar example pointed out by the PF development team is because solars, like other angels, work directly for dieties and the description for angels indicates they have powers granted to them by deities based on the role they are assigned. So if a spell-casting class is divine then that's self explanatory. Beyond that the example we are given is when text indicates some creature is DIRECTLY getting it's powers from deities. That is what they are meaning by "strongly indicates" not just somehow related to a good or evil outsider.
There are sorcerer bloodlines based on outsider heritage, including angels, but their magic is arcane. I don't see why tieflings or assimars would be divine.
Just hope that they don't make a 'Solar' Wildblooded Mutant Bloodline and really confuse things.
Even if they did, I don't see how it would confuse anything.
Honestly, I would prefer if they just decide to screen out the Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Anti-Paladin spell lists to pick the ones that should be always be treated divine. I don't think it would take a terribly long time.
How is that better than using the class priority list, with arcane (and core) classes at the top of each 'tier' (full,3/4,1/2,etc)?
Guidelines detailing it spell by spell seems like alot of very specific work on Paizo's part which requires updating for every single new spell, and also seems less usable by players than a class priority list (which is already needed to determine spell level, so adding anything else is extra to memorize/look up).
|
|
UMR?
A good tip prescribed in Army writing (although sadly is rarely followed) is the first time you use an acronym in an article, memo, etc is to spell it out and put the acronym after that.."attack of opportunity (AoO)". It would be incredibly helpful for people to do that on these boards. I've been following these boards for a while and I am still seeing new acronyms I don't know. It makes it very confusing for newbies.
You're right, of course! My apologies if I contributed to the problem, and thanks for the reminder.
|
|
Bump!
Hit that FAQ flag, folks! We want this one at the top of the FAQ pile for Monday morning!
No thanks. I would rather use FAQ when it really is a Frequently asked question or when I care. Here- neither.
It's a minor corner case that makes little difference. The whole SLA used for qualifying for a PrC is a minor corner case with little IRL use.
But this is making me happy. Now, the big "HIT THE FAQ BUTTON PLEASE!!!!!!" questions are now such minor issues that it means the rules are well shaken out, all the important questions have been answered. Thanks for that.
I'm disappointed that, even if you aren't very interested in the particular question, you refuse to hit the FAQ flag in the interest of having a clear set of rules.
For what it's worth, the "arcane or divine" question matters for more than how to qualify for prestige classes (PrCs). For example, there are a number of abilities that grant bonuses to saves against one or the other sort. But the real point is, it's one of the most basic ways of classifying spells, so we don't really have a clear set of rules on spell-like abilities (SLAs) until we have a good understanding of how to classifythem as arcane or divine. And the question will continue to come up, in various contexts, until we figure it out.
Easy to house-rule, for sure. But (1) I'm honestly curious to figure out "the full picture" of the design team's new understanding of SLAs and (2) I play in Society (PFS) play sometimes, where having a clear set of official rules is much more important than for home games.
***
For what it's worth, I agree that there are more important unanswered questions. Specifically, I'm thinking of whether magical light effects of high enough level to operate in magical darkness get calculated before or after the darkness effect. I need to dig up and bump that thread now that PaizoCon is over and the designers might have time to answer it.
But in any case, having more important questions shouldn't stop us from asking this one too! It's not like it's one-or-the-other. It takes so little effort to click the FAQ flag after all!
[P.S. phone post, please forgive any infelicities in the text.]
|
|
Even the spell listed in the FAQ example Holy Smite, is on another spell list, the Inquisitor's. The spell description doesn't say so, but take a look at the spell list in the Inquisitor class description. The same is true of many of the "Holy" spells, which wouldn't make much sense as arcane spells.
So unless they made an error with the spell they picked, than the FAQ doesn't mean what it literally says.
I'm wondering if it means "unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list, ignoring other divine spell lists." So for example if a spell only appears on a Ranger, Paladin and Inquisitor spell lists, like Bowstaff would still be arcane as a spell like ability. Bless Water would be divine.
Good catch! I hadn't thought to look beyond the spell description.
Bump!
Hit that FAQ flag, folks! We want this one at the top of the FAQ pile for Monday morning!
No thanks. I would rather use FAQ when it really is a Frequently asked question or when I care. Here- neither.
It's a minor corner case that makes little difference. The whole SLA used for qualifying for a PrC is a minor corner case with little IRL use.
But this is making me happy. Now, the big "HIT THE FAQ BUTTON PLEASE!!!!!!" questions are now such minor issues that it means the rules are well shaken out, all the important questions have been answered. Thanks for that.
I'm disappointed that, even if you aren't very interested in the particular question, you refuse to hit the FAQ flag in the interest of having a clear set of rules.
For what it's worth, the "arcane or divine" question matters for more than how to qualify for prestige classes (PrCs)..... But in any case, having more important questions shouldn't stop us from asking this one too! It's not like it's one-or-the-other. It takes so little effort to click the FAQ flag after all!
Let us look at your question. “The Agathion-Blooded (Idyllkin) Aasimar (Blood of Angels p. 21) gets summon nature's ally II as a spell-like ability in place of the standard Aasimar's daylight” So what we have here is a odd version of a rare race from a little used book. How many times is this really going to come up? I have never even seen a Aasimar played. I have never even seen Blood of Angels nor heard of anyone using it. Then, someone would want to use this very rare race, with this rare book and this odd subtype. Completing this farce, that player would need to want to go into PrC (rare) where it makes a difference (more rare). Then, on top of that, the DM for that game would have to lack the common sense to interpret the following:Spell-Like Abilities: How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?
Most spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list (such as holy smite) or something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine (such as a solar's spell-like abilities, as a solar usually directly serves a deity)”Really? You really want to Design team to waste their time on this? I hope they have better things to do… no, I KNOW they have better things to do. You should be ashamed of yourself for starting this thread, and all 41 people who hit FAQ should also hang their head. I hope the design staff DON'T waste their time on this crud, since I am looking forward to many new fine Paizo products brought in on time, rather than them waste their time with this.
They can’t and SHOULD NOT try to answer every corner case. They have a general guideline, and you need to be able to have the common sense to apply it. And this isn’t even a corner case- it’s a corner case with three ‘rares’ piled on it and two “doesn’t matters’.
Do you really have numbers of Agathion-Blooded (Idyllkin) Aasimar clamoring to know the answer to this as they are going into a PrC where it will make a difference? Come on, get real.
And it may take no effort for YOU to hit that FAQ button but it takes very real effort on the part of a whole TEAM of Paizo staff to answer this silly question. Time which will be 100% wasted- as no one cares- not even you.
Dr, it's their job to answer this things. Actually, it's thier job to print functional and unambiguous rules in the books we pay them to buy. This does not mean we should have the pretense that everything should be perfect, but it's should come without saing that is their job to make clear any mistake they made while printing those books or errata/faq for those books. And the word mistake includes also said not-so-clear and easly misinterpreted statements. And it should take priority on publishing new books based on previus still-not-fixed rules. It's not "wasting time".
As an addendum, witch is still secondary to the point expressed above, the "corner case" is just and example, is not to be taken as the only thing. Let's not forget that paizo as supposedly printed a book that lets build your own race, where you can "buy" SLA, and for those that actually use that book is quite important if those SLA qualify them for that cdp they want.
"You should be ashamed of yourself for starting this thread, and all 41 people who hit FAQ should also hang their head."
Wow, a "your thread is bad and you should feel bad". Classy.
|
|
Let us look at your question. “The Agathion-Blooded (Idyllkin) Aasimar (Blood of Angels p. 21) gets summon nature's ally II as a spell-like ability in place of the standard Aasimar's daylight” So what we have here is a odd version of a rare race from a little used book. How many times is this really going to come up? I have never even seen a Aasimar played. I have never even seen Blood of Angels nor heard of anyone using it. Then, someone would want to use this very rare race, with this rare book and this odd subtype. Completing this farce, that player would need to want to go into PrC (rare) where it makes a difference (more rare). Then, on top of that, the DM for that game would have to lack the common sense to interpret the [FAQ] [...]
Well, it looks like I'm not going to persuade you of the value of this exercise. That's alright.
But for anyone who might read this thread and be inclined to the sort of position you're expressing, let me reiterate a few of the reasons why it seems to me like a good idea to click that FAQ flag.
To those people:
(1) As Dekalinder points out, whatever you may make of the particular example of the Idyllkin, it's just that–a particular example meant to illustrate the general question. Since arcane or divine is a basic way of classifying spells, I'm sure that the "arcane or divine?" question will come up in different particular cases. Perhaps some of those cases will seem less "corner-y," if that's something you care about.
Here are two cases I've already mentioned.
(1.a) The "Incorruptible" alternate racial trait (ART) for Aasimars grants them a similarly undetermined Spell-Like Ability (SLA). This ART is included in the Advanced Race Guide, which, if it matters to you, is closer to the core.
(1.b) The Traits section in the Advanced Player's Guide (APG) includes two traits that depend on arcane or divine classification. The Half-Elf race trait Failed Apprentice grants +1 on saves against arcane spells. The History of Heresy faith trait grants +1 on saves against divine spells. These look to me even closer to the core than the "Incorruptible" case.
But even though I can't think of any more particular examples right now, I'm not sure that it matters very much. For the point, as mentioned, is that when we have a lack of clarity on such a basic classification (arcane or divine), we can expect that the question will continue to come up, in various contexts, until we figure it out.
(2) DrDeth reports that, "I have never even seen a Aasimar played. I have never even seen Blood of Angels nor heard of anyone using it." Okay. My own experience is different. I've seen a number of Aasimars played, and most or all of them use some material from Blood of Angels.
(3) The lack of clarity in the "arcane or divine?" rule doesn't matter much in a home game. DrDeth is correct that it's a very very simple determination for the GM to make. But it does matter for Pathfinder Society (PFS) players. Organized play needs clear and consistent rules, especially if a character's build depends on the rules being interpreted a certain way (as would be the case for an Aasimar Mystic Theurge, the particular case we began with). (If it matters, my experience with Aasimar has been with fellow players at a PFS table using them.)
(4) Perhaps you may be tempted, like DrDeth, to suggest that the Pathfinder Design Team (PDT) has better things to do with their time. But I'm sure they're able to decide for themselves whether or not this FAQ clarification is worth their time. The point of this thread is to bring it to their attention. If it's not worth their time, they can always flag it "Answered in FAQ" or "No Reply Required." Or just ignore it! They've proven themselves perfectly able to pass on FAQ questions, even ones that seem (at least to me) much more important and that have many more FAQ flags. For example, this question about darkness and high-level light spells.
(5) Having a clear and consistent set of rules is valuable and a worthy goal in itself. Or as Sean K Reynolds put it yesterday,
Making rulings about how the rules of the game are supposed to work is exactly the responsibility of the design team.
Dr, it's their job to answer this things. Actually, it's thier job to print functional and unambiguous rules in the books we pay them to buy. This does not mean we should have the pretense that everything should be perfect, but it's should come without saing that is their job to make clear any mistake they made while printing those books or errata/faq for those books. And the word mistake includes also said not-so-clear and easly misinterpreted statements. And it should take priority on publishing new books based on previus still-not-fixed rules. It's not "wasting time".
Nonsense. Unless each line is expanded to a whole paragraph of legal “boilerplate”, there will always be rules where some tiny thing is ambiguous. They even provided us with a general rule, and that should be good enough. It's good enough for anyone with a modicum of common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the meantime, may I point out that while it's unlikely that either 'side' in the discussion will convince the other of error\correctness, the bickering does keep the post on the front page.
Your tears, they feed us... :P
(1.a) The "Incorruptible" alternate racial trait (ART) for Aasimars grants them a similarly undetermined Spell-Like Ability (SLA). This ART is included in the Advanced Race Guide, which, if it matters to you, is closer to the core.
(1.b) The Traits section in the Advanced Player's Guide (APG) includes two traits that depend on arcane...
There's no doubt for the Incorruptible issue, as that spell is ONLY a Divine spell, and that's covered under the general rule.
Next both traits specifically spell out what you get +1 on saves against arcane spells and a +1 on saves against divine spells. Is there a Save vs summon nature's ally II ? No. Corruption resistance is ONLY a Divine spell. Next?
The question you bring up in your OP is a super corner case which is stil covered by the general rule.
This is why they gave you a general rule. They are not going to bother with each and every SLA and spell out which it is. They don’t need to, as they gave you a general rule. So, is the spell only Divine? Then it’s Divine. If it appears on both Arcane & Divine, it’s Arcane unless “something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine” .
They specifically wrote a general rule for you to use Common sense. Use it.
You are demonstrating again thet you either don't read, or you don't understand. Dunnow witch is worst. Anyway, the FAQ states
Most spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list
So. Corruption Resistance. Does it appear only on the cleric or druid list? I read Paladin, Inquisitor, and Antipaladin. 3 of them are not cleric nor druid. So the answer is no. Thus is an Arcane SLA. RAW. Black words on white electronic paper. Does it seems correct to you?
To me no. Thus I FAQ.
You are demonstrating again thet you either don't read, or you don't understand. Dunnow witch is worst. Anyway, the FAQ statesMost spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell listSo. Corruption Resistance. Does it appear only on the cleric or druid list? I read Paladin, Inquisitor, and Antipaladin. 3 of them are not cleric nor druid. So the answer is no.
They are all Divine casters, it’s a Divine spell. Again, you need to use common sense. In fact, the spell from the OP, Summon Nature's Ally is also purely Divine.
Really? Is *THAT* what you two are hanging your hat on? That they said “standard cleric or druid spell list”, rather than Divine caster spell list? Well, if they had said that, they’d get people without common sense asking what is a "Divine spell caster’.
Are you REALLY expecting them to go back over each and every SLA in every single Paizo source book and edit it to indicate “Arcane’ or "Divine”??
They gave you a general rule. You’re supposed to use common sense.
*headdesk*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense would say that you can use Vital strike when spring attacking. But rules sais no.
Common sense says that Myrmidarch should be able to use a bow. Guess what, they can't.
Common sense says that Spellslinger outta be able to fire fireball from their gun. Gimme a guess. Right, they can't.
Common sense tells me that if you have 2 claws you can 2wf with them as they where dagger. Chant with me, "Rules says nay!".
I could go on witn pages and pages. Bottom line is
Common sense may say that Corruption resistance is divine. Still, rules don't give a s&~* about common sense
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tone of the this thread is getting a bit heated and personal. Please keep the messageboard rules in mind.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Jessica!
You are demonstrating again thet you either don't read, or you don't understand. Dunnow witch is worst. Anyway, the FAQ statesMost spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell listSo. Corruption Resistance. Does it appear only on the cleric or druid list? I read Paladin, Inquisitor, and Antipaladin. 3 of them are not cleric nor druid. So the answer is no.They are all Divine casters, it’s a Divine spell. Again, you need to use common sense. In fact, the spell from the OP, Summon Nature's Ally is also purely Divine.
Really? Is *THAT* what you two are hanging your hat on? That they said “standard cleric or druid spell list”, rather than Divine caster spell list? Well, if they had said that, they’d get people without common sense asking what is a "Divine spell caster’.
You suggest that in order to answer the question, "Is this Spell-Like Ability (SLA) Arcane or Divine?", we employ the test, "Is it only on Divine spell lists?"
That's an intuitively plausible idea, and one that goes some way to eliminating the oddity of the FAQ. But it seems to me that there are a couple problems with the "Divine Only?" test:
(1) Counterintuitive results. By the "Divine Only?" test, an SLA of cure light wounds would count as Arcane rather than Divine because it's on the Bard spell list. That's at least a little counterintuitive, I think, though it goes well with the design team's stance that SLAs will mostly be Arcane.
(2) Conflict with Universal Monster Rules (UMR) on SLAs. As quoted in the original post, the UMR for SLAs states:
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.
Consider the case of the Gnome. Gnomes get an SLA of speak with animals. Following the UMR, the SLA is the Druid version of the spell (Level 1). But following the FAQ, since it is also on the Bard spell list, it is Arcane. So we have a Level 1 Arcane SLA of speak with animals, which doesn't correspond to any one class's version of the spell.
That looks to me like a confusing and undesirable result. It seems to me that it would be far better to have a single rule that answers the question, "How do I treat this SLA?", than having several similar-but-not-quite-the-same rules to have to remember.
Hence the thought, expressed in the original post, that what was probably intended as the FAQ rule, and what seems best to me, is to extend the UMR to cover the "Arcane or Divine" question.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and that wasn't the intention and it's not what's best. That wouldn't bug me. But I'd like to know what the Design Team does intend for SLAs and what they think would be best.
Hence the FAQ.
(3) An Unstable Rule. A third difficulty, it seems to me, with the "Divine Only?" test is that it isn't a stable rule. Imagine there's a spell that is only on standard Divine lists. Now imagine that a book comes out with a new Arcane base class that includes that spell on its standard list. Do all SLAs of that spell suddenly switch from being Divine to being Arcane? That seems like an undesirable result from the perspective of wanting to maintain a clear and consistent set of rules. A priority list, like expanding the UMR to cover the "Arcane or Divine?" question, can be adjusted to account for the case of adding more material.
In case you think that this imagined example is only imagined, look at the spell augury. In the Core Rulebook (CRB), it is only on the Cleric spell list. So, it passes the FAQ test ("Only Cleric or Druid?") and it passes the "Divine Only?" test. – It would be a Divine SLA.
But when you expand the scope to include the Advanced Player's Guide (APG), it now switches to become an Arcane SLA, since the spell is on the standard Witch spell list.
Notice that, if you look at the PRD entry for augury, you wouldn't notice that, since the entry doesn't list it as being a Witch spell. I hadn't realized it until somebody pointed it out to me, so I had figured that the augury SLA granted by the Fate Inquisition would count as a Divine SLA.
So that looks like a problem to me. It would be better, I think, if you could tell whether an SLA is Arcane or Divine strictly by reference to the book the spell appears in, without having to worry lest you've missed it somewhere else.
Another example, pointed out just upthread, is the spell used in the FAQ itself. Holy smite is Cleric-only in the CRB but included in the standard Inquisitor spell list. So the FAQ doesn't even live up to its own ruling!
Now, you can answer the particular case of holy smite with a "Divine Only?" test, but given the reasons I've outlined here it seems to me that that test won't fully solve the problem.
But in any case, however the Design Team rules, it looks to me like the ruling is worth a clarification.
