| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is using a wand casting a spell?
Using a SLA?
A scroll?
Context?
It's something that popped into my mind recently. Before the recent SLA rulings, I took "cast a spell" to mean, "Do the thing that is listed as casting a spell per the magic rules, which is granted by a class." That's pretty much how it was in 3.5, especially with the Warlock's abilities as being called out specifically to quality as spells when they normally wouldn't. So, the thing that entered my mind was, "When the game says 'when you cast a spell,' what does that mean?" Before, I went by a fairly strict and straightforward interpretation. Now, I'm not sure if there's any place in the rules where it's spelled out what is meant by "cast a spell." I was wondering if anyone had a citation from the rulebook or the FAQ that spelled out what that meant.
SLAs are defined in the rules under Magic, but so are Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Natural abilities, so they don't gain that distinction simply by how their mechanics work. My best guess is that "cast a spell" still means more or less what it always meant, except that spell-like abilities, presumably because they are spell-like abilities, are assumed to be enough "like" spells to be spells. But if they are "like" spells in every way, aren't they just spells? If so, that's a lot broader than just changing what feats people qualify for. The weirdness with Mystic Theurge is just one example. I'd like to see that wound back.
If you were going to write up something that indicated dimension door was always dimension door, but still indicate that spellcasting means "the class ability to cast spells," then I think an improved definition of casting a spell is needed. Currently, the entire rules on the matter seem to consist of:
Special Abilities
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted.
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
which doesn't really specify that a SLA is a spell, although it could be inferred from the section I bolded. I think that opens up the interpretation that dimension door is always dimension door, as "functioning just like a spell" sounds like it could encompass "works with feats that modify that spell." But it's not clear to me that it means "is a spell."
Specifically, I'm having a hard time drawing a line to "this is a fourth level spell," and from there to "Ability to cast 3rd level spells," for example.
This also came up with regard to spectral hand. If SLAs are "casting a spell," that it does work with SLAs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really hate that SLA ruling.
I suppose the main way to tell the difference is whether it comes from an item, or yourself. If it comes out of you, it probably qualifies as 'casting a spell'. If it's from an item, it's 'activating an item'.
Casting a spell is casting a spell. Using a spell like ability is not casting a spell even if it is the same conclusion. It is using a spell like ability.
From the PRD:
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) 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).
This creates oddities with the SLA ruling. Spell Focus, for example, has been expressly stated to work with SLAs, and you can qualify for PRCs using SLA's to meet the prerequisites.
Me, I just completely disregard that ruling. SLAs are not spells in *any* way.
I really, really hate that SLA ruling.
+9000
Spell Focus, for example, has been expressly stated to work with SLAsWait, what? Where?
I know the Augment Summoning feat now applies to SLAs like Summon Nature's Ally and Summon Monster, but that took an FAQ.
Do all feats that modify spells now modify SLAs?
No. This is a ridiculous ipso hoc ergo propter hoc thinking.
It's attempting to retcon definitions.
So what is the definition? That's the wall I hit.
Spells differ from spell like abilities in that spells require at least one of 3 components to bring the spell effect into existance, requires concentration (and thus can be disrupted), can be counterspelled, and the effect is calculate by the class level of the character.
Spell like abilities do not have the spell component requirement, do not require concentration (and thus cannot be disrupted), cannot be counterspelled and the effect is based on the character level, not class level.
So what is the definition? That's the wall I hit.
The definition is that spell-like abilities are not spells; they're spell-like abilities.
That spell-like abilities should be similar in many ways to spell should not be surprising -- they are, after all, spell-like.
That's only because people are trying to extend the FAQ ruling to get them what they want. If they would stop that there would not really be any confusion.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.
A fireball spell cast and a spell like ability that is the same as the fireball spell will generate the same effect (big ball of fire), but that does not make the SLA = the spell. If you have a feat that requires you to be able to cast the fireball spell, then, unless otherwise contradicted, the Fireball SLA does not qualify you for that feat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell like abilities do not have the spell component requirement, do not require concentration (and thus cannot be disrupted), cannot be counterspelled and the effect is based on the character level, not class level.
One correction: SLAs DO require concentration, and CAN be disrupted.
Spell like abilities do not have the spell component requirement, do not require concentration (and thus cannot be disrupted), cannot be counterspelled and the effect is based on the character level, not class level.One correction: SLAs DO require concentration, and CAN be disrupted.
Reference?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a feat that requires you to be able to cast the fireball spell, then, unless otherwise contradicted, the Fireball SLA does not qualify you for that feat.
Also, this is incorrect, as the FAQ on Dimension Door shows.
It's the dimension door ruling and the Mystic Theurge implication in the FAQ taken together that throw everything into doubt. There is no longer a clear boundary how spell-like a spell-like ability is. I could be comfortable with the idea that the dimension door thing is keying off the phrase "you can cast" which is present in many SLA write-ups.
If you have a feat that requires you to be able to cast the fireball spell, then, unless otherwise contradicted, the Fireball SLA does not qualify you for that feat.Also, this is incorrect, as the FAQ on Dimension Door shows.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that FAQ. It seems that the spell-like ability and spells for the purposes of prereqs are synonymous.
However, there are still differences between casting a spell and using a spell-like ability. Counterspelling being one.
They really need to index the FAQ for searching purposes.
What is this "Mystic Theurge implication"?
Unless you are talking about using a SLA to power the combined spells -- and the FAQ for Mystic Theurge spells out what is needed when combining spells using a spontaneous spellcaster.
|
|
So, in the past, in order to be a Mystic Theurge, you needed to be able to cast 2nd level Arcane and 2nd level Divine spells, which meant you needed a minimum of 6 levels before you could take the Prestige Class.
But now if you're say, an Idyllkin Aasimar with Summon Nature's Ally II as a Divine SLA, and have taken a level in some class that gives you a 2nd level Arcane SLA, you now meet the requirements to jump into Mystic Theurge early.
Eldritch Knight and Bloatmage are two other popular ones.
Basically, they said that Arcane Strike could be powered by a SLA. Then they noted in the FAQ that they realize this meant you could qualify for certain prestige classes early. But that's only true if the Arcane Strike ruling is because a SLA is a spell. Up until that clarification to that clarification was added, you could interpret that as being between each SLA is a "spell" and you do "cast" SLAs. But Mystic Theurge says this:
Spells: Able to cast 2nd-level divine spells and 2nd-level arcane spells.
which is a little more specific. There is no loose language there. And the current FAQ says, yup, when we read this, we say that SLAs are spells.
So is there any sense in which a SLA is not a spell, apart from components and such?
I don't see the problem. Even if you qualify for the class doesn't automatically make all the class abilities usable for you based on your qualifications.
And the current FAQ says, yup, when we read this, we say that SLAs are spells.
You are over-generalizing (ergo hoc propter hoc). It allows you to qualify for the prestige class, no more, no less.
It does not say that you can use SLAs to fuel the class abilities that require spells in order to function.
SLAs do not wholly replace spells in all instances. Only in the specific instance where qualifications for feats/prestige classes are concerned.
And the current FAQ says, yup, when we read this, we say that SLAs are spells.
It does not. Re-read it.
It says that, "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."
So is there any sense in which a SLA is not a spell, apart from components and such?
Yes. If we're talking about something that's not a prerequisite or requirement, then the FAQ doesn't apply.
It allows you to qualify for the prestige class, no more, no less.
But why? The SLA section specifically says they are not spells, the requiremnents for MT says "Spells:" and yet it works.
By what principle can I discern in what ways a SLA is or is not a spell? When the FAQ says you can qualify for a PrC based on their ruling on feat prequisites, I don't even agree that one ruling necessarily leads to the other. You don't have to tell me that the FAQ says, I already know. One thing it does not say is that using a SLA is "casting a spell," yet the language concerning prestige classes implies exactly that.
If using a SLA is not "casting a spell," how does having a 2nd level SLA qualify you for Mystic Theurge? If you agree that SLAs qualify you for Mystic Theurge, you might be wrong about whether SLAs count as spells for other purposes.
It allows you to qualify for the prestige class, no more, no less.
But why? The SLA section specifically says they are not spells, the requiremnents for MT says "Spells:" and yet it works.
By what principle can I discern in what ways a SLA is or is not a spell?
By the principle that the rules (and FAQs) mean exactly what they say.
Can I use a SLA while under the effects of transformation?
You become a fighting machine—stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat. Your mindset changes so that you relish combat and you can't cast spells, even from magic items.
IMO, Transformation is similar to a Barbarian's rage -- can't use abilities that require concentration...and as SLAs require concentration and can be disrupted, the answer (again, IMO) would be no.
IMO, Transformation is similar to a Barbarian's rage -- can't use abilities that require concentration...and as SLAs require concentration and can be disrupted, the answer (again, IMO) would be no.
No, transformation does nothing like that. You can write operas while under the effects of transformation.
Maybe you have a SLA touch attack that is good for multiple touches.
You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell activation or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.
While SLAs are not specifically listed in the "can't do this" list of Transformation, given their level of similarity (requiring concentration being the biggest one), I can't see allowing SLAs while disallowing spellcasting.
I am going with it does what it says.
No spell casting, spell trigger, or spell completion.
Anything else: SLA, Supernatural (like Hexes), or otherwise is fine.
It might not seem to match the theme, but that's okay.
Does anything pop out that might suggest a precedent?
precedent for what?
allowing SLA's while under Transformation? or disallowing them?
My argument for allowing them would be the general rule that spells do what they say they do.
So you don't get sorcerer spellcasting (that you didn't already have) while under Form of the Dragon 3 because nothing in the spell says you do.
Similarly, you don't lose access to SLA while under Transformation since nothing in the spell says you do.