Snappyapple's page

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Once invisibility ends you are no longer invisible and have no clause to sneak attack. This is the same whether you use iterative attacks, or even two weapon fighting to stab someone at the same time.

Frankly, if you want to think like that, why should you even get SA on the first attack anyways? After all, if Invis drops immediately when you attack, your first attack doesn't hit while you're Invis. so why should you get the benefit under RAW?

RAI if you attack with invis you get the benefit even if you lose invis; including iterative attacks that come at the same time.

If your group came from 4th edition, most of you should be aware that by RAW, they explicitly spelled out in stealth and concealment that "If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve the action. You can’t become hidden again as part of that same action." In the first printing of the books, this explicit explanation wasn't there, but was errata'd after some people asked about it.

In that edition, an action can consist of multiple attack rolls at once, such as an AoE effect like Fireball, or a power that grants multiple attacks against the same target. However, Sneak Attack in 4e can normally only be used once per turn. Thus, the rules allowed for you to get the bonus of Combat Advantage for multiple attack rolls in one action, but you could only apply Sneak Attack once.

And from 3.0/3.5, there's been numerous remarks and articles (such as from the Rules of the Game article on sneak attacks) from designers that say you do get the benefits of the Invisibility spell for your first attack, and only until your first attack resolves. Also, in a similar fashion to 4e, exactly when the benefits of stealth and concealment ends is also inferred to in the Stealth skill, where it says "Your Stealth immediately ends after you make an attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below)."

You seem to interpret the above text as stating the following:

"If you direct your war-trained mount to make an attack as a free action, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage of the Ride skill is a free action, BUT prior to directing your mount to do so, you must nonetheless make a successful Handle Animal check to command your mount to perform the Attack trick, which in turn requires you to expend a move action."

To arrive at your conclusion, you have to assume that the two Skills are contradictory to each other: that a free action (directing a trained mount to attack) is actually a free action on top of a move action.

Am I missing something? If so, you have my apologies! :)

I believe it is more like "If you direct your war-trained mount to make an attack this round (through another skill/action), you can still make your own attack normally by using a free action to make this Ride check."

This is because in 3.0/3.5, an entry in the warhorse stats stated that if you directed your mount to attack, you couldn't make your own attack without using that specific application of the Ride skill.

Although, it's been pointed out by Howie23, that in the last errata/faq of 3.5, one of the designers clarified it to mean that you may use this skill to both direct your mount to attack, and allow yourself to attack in the same round. Although the last part of the sentence "If you fail this check, or don't bother to make it, either you or your mount can attack this turn, but not both of you," implies that you could still make your mount attack on its own without the use of this skill, weirdness. *shrug*

I'm reversing my position and the meaning of the Fight with War-Trained Mount. I am doing so on the basis of the following passage from the 3.5 RotG articles on mounted combat ca link can be found in my profile. The link in question is to the second article.

This isn't a decision made lightly. This has been a topic I've debated since 2005. During the last days of 3.5, the RotG articles were modified to conform with the FAQ, Rules Compendium, and other sources. In some cases, Skip's original take on things was seen as an addition to rules and/or WotC's developers had found them to create problems. I suspect this was an area where there was a change in the last days and I haven't noticed it before.

It is my opinion that the RotG articles provide the closest thing that we have to a standard interpretation. While I'm not a fan of what this means to my sense of approaching the rules from the perspective of system mastery, I'm also of the opinion that a level of consistency is important and is worth making compromise.

The passage in question:

"Fight Along with Your Mount: Make a DC 10 Ride check as a free action. If you succeed, you can direct your mount to attack a foe and you also can attack as well. See the section on attacking while mounted for details. If you fail this check, or don't bother to make it, either you or your mount can attack this turn, but not both of you."

This is something I could stand behind, an update to clarify the use of that skill in 3.5, and possibly support the RAI interpretation of what the people have been saying about Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount. Though it being from the RotG didn't make it an official ruling, at least it showed the some sort of designer intent during that era of the game.

Snappyapple wrote:

People are arguing to death over RAW and grammar themselves about how to read Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount, I provide a background that gives explicit RAW usage of the exact same rules in previous editions, which also strongly implies the intent of the same rules in this edition, and somehow I'm being hinted as being contradictory or hypocritical? That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.

I'm not confusing you with someone else.

On one hand you have that the mounted combat is not supposed to allow the rider to handle the animal because of author intent.

On the other hand you have the authors intending to let the rider and mount charge together. But then the authors intent doesn't matter.

This is indeed one of the responses I was expecting. "If you ever argue against the intent that "Games are supposed to work", then you cannot use RAI at all in a rules discussion without being a hypocrite."

Well, I'll leave people to judge that as they will.

If RAI helps to fill in missing pieces of RAW to make it work naturally, then it's fine. If RAI needs to overturn RAW to make it work, it's not fine. (Somebody will probably analyze this sentiment to death and rebuff me again) And in this case, to you and those who said "RAI and RAW from Fighting with a Combat-Trained Mount support our interpretation", there's enough arguments going on between you guys and Ssalarn on RAW in this case, and I pointed out that RAI does not support that argument either, as cited from previous editions.

Snappyapple wrote:

That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.

I find that to be the time to leave people to their arguments.

Maybe it is. Sadly, I can see the possible comebacks that will be laid against me from this, should people keep up this attitude.

People are arguing to death over RAW and grammar themselves about how to read Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount, I provide a background that gives explicit RAW usage of the exact same rules in previous editions, which also strongly implies the intent of the same rules in this edition, and somehow I'm being hinted as being contradictory or hypocritical? That doesn't make sense nor makes me a happy apple, tbh.

Snappyapple wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Well thats an odd position to take. You want to argue explicit raw and the death of the author in some cases but here you're looking at the authors intent.

With all due respect, please do not confuse my statement with ssalarn's. I know that in an ongoing discussion like this people's point tend to blend in the memory after a while, but I don't recall having argued from the position of being pedantic about grammar in this discussion.

Ouch dude. Is saying "This thing does not say what you're trying to say it does" really pedantic? This isn't a "Can I vs. May I" thing, this is a "That thing literally does not contain words which mean what you're saying they mean" thing.

It wasn't a shade on your argument ssalarn, but apparently that's what some people think what you said is doing, and somehow I'm being attributed the same.

Well thats an odd position to take. You want to argue explicit raw and the death of the author in some cases but here you're looking at the authors intent.

With all due respect, please do not confuse my statement with ssalarn's. I know that in an ongoing discussion like this people's point tend to blend in the memory after a while, but I don't recall having argued from the position of being pedantic about grammar in this discussion.

I understand that this kind of confusion comes about easily in this situation, but I don't appreciate the sneery remarks when I've been nothing but cordial in my discussion so far.

srd wrote:

Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

Did Mr. Fishy miss a page? Mr. Fishy doesn't have his book, but the srd is usual accurate.

Attacks require a full round action. and Guide with your knees is a no action on a failed roll you lose the use of one hand. Lances are one handed when mounted or has that changed?

I'm not sure what it is you meant with Guide with Knees, but on Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount:

I'm not sure if this will help or hinder anyone's stance, but going back a bit in time to D&D 3.0 and 3.5, things worked a bit differently and some wordings that exist in PF now may very well be just a relic of that time.

Looking at my SRD of then, the Handle Animal skills didn't cover the command of all animal companions and mounts like it did now. The rules for commanding animal companions and using tricks were listed separately under their own section, and the Ride skill for various tasks involving mounts were a separate thing that wasn't so integrated with that, as mundane or Paladin mounts were treated as different things altogether.

From the rules back then we can find the original use of the Ride skill task Fight with a Warhorse that existed back then. As some people wondered, "If this task isn't there to for the Rider to direct his mount to attack, then it has no other use in Pathfinder since having a mount attack doesn't hinder the rider's ability to do so normally, therefore it must be for that purpose." Well, back in 3.0 and 3.5 this wasn't the case, as under the Warhose entry it reads "A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds at a Ride check (DC 10)."

With the removal of this line in Pathfinder, I suspect this use of the Ride skill to be an obsolete one.

On looking over rules from the past editions I strongly suspect Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount is an obsolete relic leftover from before, and has no real use in Pathfinder, and thus no real value in the discussion of the Mounted Combat rules.

Edit: To clarify, past edition rules explicitly support ssalarn's interpretation of the Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount usage, though this use of the skill is rendered pointless with the removal of this limitation in Pathfinder's new stats for the warhorse.

Option 1) The animal is set to defend. Defend explicitly doesn't need an action.

Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.

Option 2) Commanding your mount to fight is a free action ride check

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

I do have issues with two of your options though.

1) It is also in my opinion that Defend, and also many of the other tricks, imply a level of autonomy to the animal's actions once the command is given, which I mentioned in a post before. I'll assume Defend is used as an example by you mainly because this autonomy is explicitly specified in the trick. However, what that autonomy entails depends on how companions are controlled in your game, which there are no set rules for in Pathfinder. Like the examples given in Ultimate Campaign, the problem with giving player had full control of the mount, the player could decide that the mount charges exactly when she wants it to charge, aid another when she wants it do so, and basically completely negate the need for Handle Animal skills at all. Therefore, although this is technically a legal option, it first requires that this be a game where the players had complete or near-complete control of the actions of their animal companions.

2) I've also explained this in a post before that shows that this use of the ride skill is not meant to direct your mount to attack, but rather allows the rider to attack normally in the same turn that his mount did, by pointing out its origins in 3.0 and 3.5 where the rider could not attack at all if he directed his mount to, as stated explicitly in the description of the old Warhorse creature entry. With the removal of this limitation from PF mounts, this is likely an obsolete usage.

I'm not sure if this will help or hinder anyone's stance, but going back a bit in time to D&D 3.0 and 3.5, things worked a bit differently and some wordings that exist in PF now may very well be just a relic of that time.

Looking at my SRD of then, the Handle Animal skills didn't cover the command of all animal companions and mounts like it did now. The rules for commanding animal companions and using tricks were listed separately under their own section, and the Ride skill for various tasks involving mounts were a separate thing that wasn't so integrated with that, as mundane or Paladin mounts were treated as different things altogether.

From the rules back then we can find the original use of the Ride skill task Fight with a Warhorse that existed back then. As some people wondered, "If this task isn't there to for the Rider to direct his mount to attack, then it has no other use in Pathfinder since having a mount attack doesn't hinder the rider's ability to do so normally, therefore it must be for that purpose." Well, back in 3.0 and 3.5 this wasn't the case, as under the Warhose entry it reads "A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds at a Ride check (DC 10)."

With the removal of this line in Pathfinder, I suspect this use of the Ride skill to be an obsolete one.

A few questions, if anyone can clarify:

1. Once you have used a move action handle animal check to direct your attack trained animal to attack, do you have to use another move action to direct it to attack the following round? Or will it continue to attack until you give it new instruction?

2. If an animal is currently attacking, do you have to use a move action handle animal check to direct it to attack a new target? And what if its current target falls/dies? Will it stop attacking and stand still until given new direction, requiring a new move action handle animal check?

Basically, what I really want to know -- Assuming Ssalarn and other doomsayers are correct (I don't, but still), does that mean::

3A. A NPC "Knight" riding a non-AC mount must make a move action handle animal check at the start of combat to direct his mount to attack, and thereafter can make charge attacks normally.

or

3B. A NPC "Knight" riding a non-AC mount must make a move action handle animal check every round in which he wishes his mount to make an attack, and therefore can never make a charge normally.

Unclear, but it might be neither, you could check my previous post that started with a response to Aberrant Templar for what I thought about the level of implied autonomy of the animals after being issued a command to perform a Trick though.

So there are at least 3 different perfectly legal paths to make charging mounts work. If you think its broken its because of how you choose to read it.

While I won't spend time debating on the validity of one side over the other (doesn't seem to be working for anyone else here). I don't think the number of different ways to interpret a rule which share a commonality in one point makes it any more valid than the same interpretation(s) of the opposite.

As it stands it's still the same to me: someone clearing up the rules a bit would be really nice.

Technically, you can't charge while mounted at all. The rules say that you have to move at least ten feet. So you're gonna have to get off your horse, charge ten feet, then spend a Hero Point to ready an action to re-mount your house when it follows you and immediately attack so you can charge while mounted.

Except that breaks, like, three other rules. Can I just be a bard?

EDIT: You think that's a typo? You think I typoed there?

Nah, that just brings up more wonderful questions like "Does movement taken when I'm mounted count towards me moving, and does that allow me to gain the benefit of abilities like Skirmisher?" XD

Of course the new mounts are extra balanced looking either. The worg looks a lot like an intelligent(but not very) wolf with his bite trip and never going beyond medium, and the griffon is a flying pounce charger. Then again animal companions weren't very balanced with each other to begin with.

The griffon does make a pretty mean flying pouncer that makes the feat worthwhile for a battle buddy, if not so great for a mount.

The Handle Animal skill says that you have to make a check (and take a move action) to command an animal to attack, but the attack trick just says:

"The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able."

Attack is a specific type of action you'll find listed under Standard Actions. There are also several actions that require "Attack Rolls" that you could reasonably extend this to ... but charging doesn't necessarily require an attack roll. Attack rolls are defined as "represent(ing) your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round." Charging doesn't necessarily involve an attempt to strike an opponent. It could just mean that you're moving toward them in a very specific manner.

So if you're charging and not attacking, then all you're doing is moving in a restricted manner. There are no Handle Animal tricks or Ride tasks that cover "special full round actions" like charging.

TL;DR there are absolutely no rules that say you need to make a check or take an action in order for your mount to charge.

If you want to say that charging is an attack, there are no rules that specifically prove you wrong or right.

If you want to say that charging is not an attack, there are no rules that specifically prove you wrong or right.

But, for the record, of the two positions the second option is better supported by the rules.

I agree that there's no rules that makes it clear about whether a charge that ends without an attack being made falls under the intent of "attack" in the Attack trick, however I wholly disagree that your position is any better than the other side.

The basis of your reasoning is that the Attack action specifies an Attack Action, or at least one that involves making an attack roll, and thus a Charge action being taken without making an attack roll is not supported by the rules as falling under the provisions of the Attack trick.

Extending that logic, the Attack trick could not be used by a Druid, for example, to direct his animal companion to move across the battlefield to strike an opponent once within range, as that would involve moving, an action that does not fall under the definition of an Attack.

IMO, the definition of the Attack trick implies a level of autonomy in a similar vein to how the Defend trick was cited as before. If not directed towards any target in particular, your animal companion will advance and combat any opponent in an order and manner that your DM deem appropriate by the nature of your animal companion (and won't stop attacking until otherwise directed, or the conditions cited in the Down trick is met). If you direct it to attack a specific creature, it would also be logical that you may direct the method of attack used to a degree, whether how it be how many attacks to make, or using a special attack the animal companion possesses (barring those attacks covered by other tricks like Aid, Bombard, Maneuver, etc. which although hasn't been stated explicitly before, were added because these are methods of attack that don't come naturally to an animal and designers probably wanted to clarify, or exclude from the umbrella of the Attack trick from previous editions).

Coming back to the beginning, the rules aren't explicitly clear on a number of actions regarding mounts, such as: making a charge action with an attack, withdraw, run, readying an action, etc.

Of course, reading that many DM would just hand wave things like withdraw or run as falling under "Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." But, again, taking the literal interpretation of what's in the rulebook, it only covers the mount's use of the Move action. Having something like "It's a free action to direct an animal to use movement-only actions," would be quite enough to settle many things here.

What's unclear is unclear, that's great if you've got a hundred house rules to make the game work as you run it, it's better than being bogged down over small things. But, that doesn't make it wrong to ask for improvements or clarifications officially.

Needless to say, I fail to see how hyperbolic claims that Paizo "hates" mounted combat are supported with evidence of us providing more options for mounted combatants.

Here's my hyperbolic, sarcastic, and hypothetical analogy of what these new options mean to me...

Once upon a time, there was a feat called Weapon Specialization that only fighters got:

Weapon Specialization

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

But the DM found it unfair that only Fighters got all the fun, so in his benevolence, he created a new feat so everyone could benefit from it!

Poor Man's Weapon Specialization

Prerequisites: BAB +10, Proficiency with selected simple weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon.

Benefit: Select a simple weapon. You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Now all the non-fighters using simple weapons could have the same benefit as Fighters! But, what about everyone else who uses better weapons? In his wisdom, the DM thus made another feat.

Improved Poor Man's Weapon Specialization

Prerequisites: BAB +13, Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, Poor Man's Weapon Specialization with any weapon.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Now after spending 1 more feat than the Fighter, anyone who's using non-simple weapons can receive half the benefit of a Fighter who did the same!

What a great idea the DM had, this gave every non-Fighter class more options that are just as powerful as the Fighters'... except that any non-warrior classes can't easily meet the prerequisites for it and any warrior classes that could meet it, wouldn't want it because he either ends up worse off with a weapon that's sub-par, or a feat bonus that's sub-par.

If you can see the knob/lever/button, you might as well use mage hand.

There'd be no use for open/close if it only did the same as (or less than) mage hand. So it ought to work with hidden mechanisms.

I think the 'telekinesis' effect of Open/Close should be flexible to let you turn obvious knobs, or undo simple locks/bars from which you have line of sight to and know how to operate when you open the door, as much as it lets you flip an unlocked latch and open a container with one casting. But, if you don't have line of sight to the locking mechanism, or you don't know how to operate the mechanism, then nope. I mean, if Open/Close could operate hidden levers and knobs for me it would then also let me undo a locked door from the outside then.

What would that make Knock then?

fictionfan wrote:

Is there any way to heal without a saving throw.

Channel energy. Superstition only says you are required to make saves against spells. It does not say you have to save against supernatural abilities.

Edit: lay on hands as well. Doesn't even allow a save.

Neither does the healing aspect of Channel Energy in the first place, so they're both good to go.

As seen HERE,

it says, "As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style. You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style. For example, if you have feats associated with Mantis Style and Tiger Style, you can use a swift action to adopt Tiger Style at the start of one turn, and then can use other feats that have Tiger Style as a prerequisite. By using another swift action at the start of your next turn, you could adopt Mantis Style and use other feats that have Mantis Style as a prerequisite."

And, from having read that part of the rules, the description of the Crane Style feat, and the rules on feats in general, these were my conclusions on the Crane Style feats (and others like it):

1) To enter a stance or switch a stance, requires a swift action normally
2) You can only use feats with a style feat as prerequisite only in while in the stance of the associated style
3) The basic feats of a particular style, e.g. Crane Style, Tiger Style, Board Style, etc. are not limited by 2) because they don't have style feats as prerequisites
4) The +1 additional dodge AC of the Crane Style feat is explicitly stated to be usable while using the style, while the -2 reduction of the fighting defensively penalty is not explicitly stated to require the style.

To restate my final query again: do the rules mean that using ANY style feats of a particular style require you to be in the associated stance, or, in the case of several of the basic OOO Style feat, it is possible to use part of its benefits without needing to be in the associated stance?

Putting it into the context of the existing rules, do the rules mean:

Crane Style (Combat, Style)

Your unarmed fighting techniques blend poise with graceful defense.

Prerequisites: Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +2 or monk level 1st.

Benefit: You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. You also gain the ability to employ the Crane Style stance. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class.

or

As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style. You can use a feat of a particular style only while in the stance of the associated style. For example, if you have feats associated with Mantis Style and Tiger Style, you can use a swift action to adopt Tiger Style at the start of one turn, and then can use other feats that have Tiger Style as a prerequisite. By using another swift action at the start of your next turn, you could adopt Mantis Style and use other feats that have Mantis Style as a prerequisite.

Or another possibility entirely that I didn't think of?

I have a question about Style Feats.

Several of the Style Feats are written in this way:

Crane Style (Combat, Style)

Benefit: You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class.

Where part of the benefit "You take only a -2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively," occurs before "While using this style..."

I am having difficulty knowing whether these types of benefits are usable all the time even when I'm not using OOO style. I know that it explicitly states Style feats cannot be used out-of-combat, and feats higher up in the feat path cannot be used at all while not in the style, but this doesn't exclude the basic OOO Style feat being used when you're not in a particular stance?

So, what does it mean to be "using that style" or "in that stance"? Can I use any part of the baisc OOO Style feat without being in the stance? Or must I enter a stance (with its action requirement), whenever I choose to use any part of the basic OOO Style feats?

James Jacobs wrote:

Snappyapple wrote:

Many class abilities obtained through class features such as Sorcerer Bloodline or Cleric Domains grants the character spell-like abilities. However, many of these "... Ray" or "Touch of ..." don't emulate existing spells, but their descriptions also don't list what level of spell it should be treated as (such as Elemental Ray or Touch of Chaos) or what kind of effect type they carry (such as Vision of Madness).

I am not sure whether I missed something or whether this was intentional, since sometimes things come along like the Sage Bloodline's Arcane Bolt ability, which describes both the spell level and effect type for it. In any case, how should I determine the level or effect types for these abilities should they be subject effects like Spell Turning, Globe of Invulnerability, or Mind Blank?

Yeah, that's a problem that we didn't realize was a problem until too late. You'll note that when we do this now, such as for unique monster spell-like abilities, we assign effective spell levels.

It's not intentional.

The best way to handle it is to basically assume that spell-like abilities granted in this manner are equal to the minimum spell level a character of that level could cast. So if you get one of these things at 1st level, it's a 1st level spell. If you get one at 7th level, it's a 4th level spell. If you get one at 14th level, it's a 7th level spell. And so on.

@ Snappyapple, I recommend you check the FAQ first when you've got a question like this. ;-)

Ah, thanks. I googled within paizo.com for the question before asking, but that page didn't turn up in the top results at the time.

P.S. On a related note in my question, not restricted to Spell-Like Abilities, is there a ruling on possible effect types that are missing from some of the Su and Sp abilities gained through class? Looking at things like Aura of Forgetfulness or Vision of Madness. Same situation again where I don't know if it's intentional since abilities like Adoration from the Love subdomain is modified to be mind-affecting.

Many class abilities obtained through class features such as Sorcerer Bloodline or Cleric Domains grants the character spell-like abilities. However, many of these "... Ray" or "Touch of ..." don't emulate existing spells, but their descriptions also don't list what level of spell it should be treated as (such as Elemental Ray or Touch of Chaos) or what kind of effect type they carry (such as Vision of Madness).

I am not sure whether I missed something or whether this was intentional, since sometimes things come along like the Sage Bloodline's Arcane Bolt ability, which describes both the spell level and effect type for it. In any case, how should I determine the level or effect types for these abilities should they be subject effects like Spell Turning, Globe of Invulnerability, or Mind Blank?