| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The FAQ ruling on SLA typing as Arcane/Divine seems to discuss only monster and racial SLAs:
The universal monster rules for spell-like abilities states: "..."
The same rule should apply for all creatures with spell-like abilities, including PC races...
What about SLAs gained from non-racial sources, like Classes or Feats without Race pre-reqs?
I am thinking of Domains and Inquisitions, i.e. abilities inherently tied to a Divine connection with a Deity.
Some of these grant SLAs which by application of the rule outlined in the FAQ would be classed as Arcane (as they are on Wiz/Sorc list).
Should SLAs from an obviously Arcane/Divine source (such as Arcane/Divine Class Abiilty)
defer to that obvious source for it's Arcane/Divine typing, and not use the above FAQ rule?
Should the FAQ (mentioning Monster/Racial SLAs) apply to any other SLA that doesn't have any obvious Arcane/Divine association?
Qi-Gong Monk SLAs might be one case (I would say they should count as Psychic Magic, but that's kind of undefined as of now...)
(I know James Jacobs said a few monsters like Neothelids and Intellect Devourers are intended to be "Psychic Magic" related,
and the previous FAQ said an exception applied for 'obviously Divine related' sources like Solars who serve Deities,
(although both of those cases NOW clearly fall under the normal "Monster" SLA rule...),
I'm sure there's a host of others, and the FAQ as of now only directly mentions Racial SLAs...???
If it was intended to apply to "all SLAs" I would have thought it would be shorter to just say that,
rather than say the monster rule applies to all "creatures with SLAs (including PC races)",
which can certainly could imply that creature-type doesn't matter but what is being discussed is still racial SLAs...
They said "apply for all creatures" which is, implicitly, "all".
Then they added "including PC races" because they knew, rightly, that we would wonder if "universal monster rules" include PC races or not, since PC races are not generally considered monsters.
In short: all creatures with SLAs follow this rule. All of them, including PC races and NOT excluding anything.
I'm with jiggy on this one. They're basically just re-affirming that PC races are under the purview of the UMR.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seems to me that "including PC races" is probably just there because the hierarchy is listed in the Bestiary and therefore some people might assume it only applied to "monsters".
Generally, when a categorical statement contains a parenthetical "including X", it's in order to preempt any assumptions that X wouldn't count. It never implies that X is the only thing the category refers to.
Thus, "including PC races" does not imply that they're only talking about racial SLAs. Given that nothing else in that entire FAQ references race in any way, there's nothing left to even remotely suggest that the FAQ is not universal.
The example of PC races isn't confusing me, I'm fine with that as an example either way,
my confusion stems from them saying it applies to all creatures with SLAs,
when "creatures with SLAs" (as opposed to "all SLAs") is un-necessary to invoke unless concerned with racial SLAs.
In either case there is no reason to be confused that it only applies to monsters, because the entire point of the FAQ is:
"this rule already discusses applying to monsters. now we are saying it also applies to other things."
Nobody would ever think the FAQ only applies to monsters, because the FAQ would then be doing absolutely nothing.
Expansion from "monsters" to "all creatures" implies creature type irrelevance to racial SLAs since the difference of monsters/all creatures is a change in creature type... Certainly I understand the formal argument for reading otherwise, I'm just asking for clarification from Paizo beyond what is available from formal reading of their FAQ (which have known to be modified in the past... such as this exact FAQ).
That just seems a normal inferrence of implication/context to me, just as I would not think that the previous (RAW) Monster-only rule in fact applied to Class SLAs taken by Monsters (i.e. it was discussing Racial SLAs of Monsters, not how being a Monster changes the magic typing of Class SLAs they gain, which would then be different to non-Monsters with the exact same Class SLA).
Setting-wise, it matters for if Clerics can use Domain SLAs in Rahadoum with no problem what-so-ever.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The example of PC races isn't confusing me, I'm fine with that as an example either way,
my confusion stems from them saying it applies to all creatures with SLAs,
when "creatures with SLAs" (as opposed to "all SLAs") is un-necessary to invoke unless concerned with racial SLAs.Setting-wise, it matters for if Clerics can use Domain SLAs in Rahadoum with no problem what-so-ever.
"Creatures with SLAs" in no way implies talking about racial SLAs. A human cleric with a domain SLA is a "creature with an SLA".
Sure, you can stand on that formal reading which I'm not disputing in any way, but in that case you are saying that no actual information is being conveyed by the FAQ saying "all creatures with SLAs" rather than just "all SLAs", and given the chain of associations (monster/creature/race) and the assumption that the choice to use words is meaningful, I believe there MIGHT just be a different intented meaning vs. if they said "all SLAs". I'm not asking about what the formal RAW could technically cover, I'm asking their intention.
I'm with jiggy on this one. They're basically just re-affirming that PC races are under the purview of the UMR.
Well, right. But the previous (RAW) rule was for Bestiary/Universal Monster Rules for SLAs... I.e. Monster Special Ability SLAs. Not Class Ability or other SLAs that aren't invoking the Bestiary rule, even for Monsters that take those Classes/Class Ability SLAs. So expanding the same rule from monsters to also include PC races (and all creature types) isn't necessarily changing that dynamic, is it? If it is, it is doing MORE than just putting PC races under the purview of UMR, it is also affecting Monsters with Class Levels. I also felt the implication was that the FAQ was just putting PC races under the purview of the Monster (UMR) SLA rule, but there's an interpretation that goes beyond that... Thus my question posed to Paizo.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you're trying to figure out what they're intending to say, you might look at the whole FAQ (including the question) instead of two words.
The question in big lettering in the FAQ is "How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?"
Not "How do I know whether a racial spell-like ability is arcane or divine?", just "How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?"
The question is very obviously global.
You are suggesting that "the intention" was to respond to a question about all SLAs by only answering it for a subset of SLAs, without clearly noting that distinction and without telling us how it works for everyone else.
I'm with you Quandary. Having SLAs granted by arcane classes be divine or vice versa is completely counterintuitive and would be a complete reversal from the dev statements made on this leading up to the final FAQ.
Yeah. It's also relevant for the things which give bonuses/immunity to Arcane or Divine magic as a group,
e.g. they have bonus vs. Divine spells... but not the SLAs of a Cleric granted thru their Deity's Domains (by "all SLAs" reading/intent).
If you read the FAQ in question, it ends with
That's why you read the whole FAQ—not just a few words from it and try to interpret context based on those few words.
If you read the FAQ in question, it ends with
That's why you read the whole FAQ—not just a few words from it and try to interpret context based on those few words.
Thanks for the clarification... Just to be clear, by pointing out the importance of that line, you are saying that it's meant to stand on it's own as a separate rule, not just merely describe the UMR-derived priority sequence of class spell lists which is the topic of the paragraph it ends? If it isn't an independent rule, but is just referencing the same class spell list priority sequence, then it doesn't seem to change things one way or another (beyond explicitly stating that UMR's "the SLAs are presumed to be the sorc/wiz versions... or cleric, [et al.] in that order" means the SLA is arcane/divine in accordance with the class indicated by the priority sequence)
The universal monster rules for spell-like abilities states: "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."
The same rule should apply for all creatures with spell-like abilities, including PC races: the creature'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. Use the spell type (arcane or divine) of that class to determine whether the spell-like ability is arcane or divine.
It seems far from obvious that the final sentence of the same paragraph has spontaneously switched to describing an independent rule deriving from the actual class granting the SLA... in fact, the usage of "that" in "that class" (rather than "the class granting the SLA") would normally reference back to the last established context of "class", which would be the UMR-derived "class spell list priority sequence".
It seems plenty of other people were also confused (everybody seeming to disagree with my post so far - if one can disagree with a question, and many posters on related subjects in other threads), so I'd say that is just an awfully regrettable phrasing and location for such a line, if it's meant to be an independent rule. A brief contextual preamble like "For SLAs deriving from Class Abilties..." (use the arcane/divine type associated to the Class) would do wonders to give it more sense, if not putting a line break between paragraphs or even moving it to earlier in the FAQ so there is no confusing adjacency with a different context of "class".
I've updated the FAQ. Hopefully it is clearer now.
Thanks Sean, that's crystal clear.
Excellent, thank you.
Awesome. Thanks a bunch for doing a great job.