Fentomy's page

Even if the oracle has to attempt a saving throw vs a spell that does not allow a saving throw does not mean that the saving throw actually does anything. If the spell in question does not allow a saving throw than making the save is meaningless and does nothing. So RAW an oracle with the Reclusive curse would have to attempt a saving throw vs all spells. If the spell allows a saving throw than if the oracle makes the save he takes whatever affect the save gives, if the save does not allow a saving throw making the save does not do anything.

I hadn’t thought about it like that but I suppose you’re right. It doesn’t say that it negates the effects of the spell, just that you have to make a save.

Looking more deeply at it, I’m inclined to actually say that this might have been intended. Why would they specifically say, “and you must attempt saving throws to resist all spells cast by anyone other than yourself, even those cast by allies”? They’re calling out you, and allies. That seems OP, but it also seems like it was the intent, unless it was just a massive oversight.

1. Looks like it, though any GM with an IQ higher than a toaster will rule that it’s only going to apply to beneficial spells.

2. Not likely, though the wording makes this unclear.

3. From the SRD:
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.

I would rule yes, since it says they function like spells, and many offer a save, but I could see others ruling no.

Fentomy wrote:

There's also the spell Parasitic Soul.

Damn dude!

Yeah. It's a nasty spell.

That's kind of what I assumed but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!

There's also the spell Parasitic Soul.

When you cast a Quickened Gate spell, do you still have to use your standard action that round to concentrate to keep it open?

As has been said multiple times, this is not many different castings of the same spell. It is one casting of one spell that says that every time someone dies within the area/duration of the spell, the caster gets the benefits of DK. It's one spell giving the benefits multiple times, which is why it is my belief that the intent of the spell is that they should stack.

Otherwise, why have the spell?

I wasn't saying it was an exception to the rule, just that there are exceptions. All the time. And yes this one might not be explicitly stated as being an exception, but every other language in the spell description hints that that is the intent. Which was the original reason why this thread was started. I still maintain that this spell's intent was to have the CL and the HP stack.

Like you said, Diego, generally, the rules are set and nothing short of GM fiat can change that. But there are always specific exceptions. AC Bonuses from the same source don't stack. But dodge bonuses missed that email. Freedom of movement effectively keeps someone from being grappled, but a Tetori monk laughs at it. I'm just saying (and I think the OP was trying to say this) it seems like the intent of the spell was to have it all stack.

Also, again, I would argue that the specific source of the effects are from the individual creatures that die within the area/duration of the spell, while the general source is the spell. A *single* spell, cast only once, that explicitly says that it grants the effects (doesn't cast the spell) of Death Knell when the conditions are met. Seems intrinsically simple to me.

Thank you, Fentomy, but I think that everything that should be said has been said. No need to start a flame war. That was never the intention of this post.

I doubt that's ever the intention of any post. ;)

Diego is correct. Further, if it stacked, it would be heinously broken.

Whether or not it is broken is irrelevant. We all know that no sane GM would allow something like this but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.

Diego Rossi, you're right. Death knell aura is one spell that gets triggered when someone dies within it but it says that it gives you the benefits of Death Knell whenever someone dies and the conditions are met. That is the same spell (Not multiple of the same spell) giving the benefits. Like I said before, by this same logic, any spell that grants a bonus higher than +1, shouldn't. And that's just not how things are.

Edit: FAQ'd.

Cagey Bee wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Cagey Bee wrote:

Maybe my original post was unclear. I'm not asking if a Solar could cast this spell and give one of his constant SLA's, I was asking if a Cleric could cast this and grant a spell to the target as an always-on SLA. The example used was merely to show that some creatures have SLA's that are constant.

No... because no spell a Cleric can prepare operates that way. Clerics can not bestow orisons with Imbue with Spell Ability.

Thats not what I'm asking, either. My question isn't about Imbue with SLA, it's about Spellcasting Contract, which is drastically altered from Imbue. Spellcasting Contract says that the SLAs given are not limited to 1 use/day. It provides no limit to how many times the SLA can be used. That is where my question comes in. If someone could (essentially) have an at-will SLA, then is it possible to receive a SLA that is a constant benefit, like the ones that powerful beings have? That is what I'm asking.

I think you are misreading the spell.

This spell functions exactly like imbue with spell ability, except that you can imbue the target with any spell you have prepared (instead of just abjuration, divination, or conjuration [healing] spells) and the target may have more than one use of the imbued spells, depending upon the arrangements made when it is cast.

My emphasis. The spell clearly states that the guy getting the SLA's can use it more than once per day if that's what's agreed on. RAW, there's no limit.

As for the original question: Can someone sell their soul for constant True Seeing? Yes. I would say absolutely. Would I allow it at my table? Depends on the circumstance, but I would probably lean more towards no.

WombattheDaniel wrote:

Fair enough, but just to be absolutely clear: Does this mean that you get an untyped +1 to CL that stacks for every creature that dies within the radius and duration of the spell?

The source is always the same spell. Same source never stack, so no.

Nope. OP's right. The "source" isn't the spell, but the creatures that die within its area of effect, which would be different sources.

By your logic, casting magic vestment shouldn't give you any bonus bigger than +1, since it's the "same" spell. Plus, I find it really hard to believe that for a 2-level bump in cost, the only upgrade would be a POSSIBLE 1d8 temporary hp that DON'T STACK.

This is one spell, not multiple castings of the same spell. Every effect that comes from the "benefits of death knell" is not the casting of death knell itself, and is not subject to the stacking rules, with the exception of the enhancement bonus to str.

1. Natural abilities are any that the creature was "born" or created with. Senses, Natural Armor, DR, the undead Traits, speed, Spell Resistance, any Racial feats (though I don't see any) would all be natural abilities. Every ability listed under "Special Abilities" except for Status Sight would be automatic because they don't have any sort of activation.

Also, I'm not sure everyone would let you get away with this, but I also consider SLA's labeled as 'constant' to be automatic abilities too because they have always been and always will be on the body. That doesn't mean that they can't be dispelled, though. And you would never get them back.

2. Answered in question 1.

3. You're right. The creature casting it would not inherit the Grim Reaper's CHA but would instead use its own CHA score.

Bonus: it seems the Devs copied and pasted an earlier version of the Grim reaper stats before it was in Bestiary 5, and it was a different creature. Same basic stats but a little different. Apparently it was an incorporeal creature before but now it's not. It's not listed as having the incorporeal subtype and it has a STR score like you said.