|
Hi everyone!
I don't know if anyone had this problem too.
In our games, the fact of the domain & school powers was spell-like abilities, and not spells, had a lot of secundary problems. Various examples:
*Our wizard used his magic missile power (Evocation) being grappled by a choker without need doing a spellcraft check.
*Later, the same wizard, captured by the villains, used his 1st level power (a sobrenatural effect, not an SLA) to break the ropes that were tying him. Again and again until the rope was disitegrated by the acid.
*The cleric, with the Charm domain, using her charm person ability (becase it hasn't verbal, somatic or material components, only a light concentration and a mental command) to charm a shoopkeer and don't pay her buying with a lot of witness.
*The evil cleric, tied and gagged using his lesser confusion power (from Madness domain) in the middle of the law court that was going to judge him.
All this actions couldn't done if we put a note in both classes saying that his SLA and supernatural abilities derivated from domain & school powers have verbal, somatic and material components (same as warlock)if the spell that simules have them.
Therefore both classes have its powers but they are not obtaining an unfair advantage from them using as mental command actions...
Cheers!
Hi everyone!
I don't know if anyone had this problem too.
In our games, the fact of the domain & school powers was spell-like abilities, and not spells, had a lot of secundary problems. Various examples:
*Our wizard used his magic missile power (Evocation) being grappled by a choker without need doing a spellcraft check.
*Later, the same wizard, captured by the villains, used his 1st level power (a sobrenatural effect, not an SLA) to break the ropes that were tying him. Again and again until the rope was disitegrated by the acid.
*The cleric, with the Charm domain, using her charm person ability (becase it hasn't verbal, somatic or material components, only a light concentration and a mental command) to charm a shoopkeer and don't pay her buying with a lot of witness.
*The evil cleric, tied and gagged using his lesser confusion power (from Madness domain) in the middle of the law court that was going to judge him.All this actions couldn't done if we put a note in both classes saying that his SLA and supernatural abilities derivated from domain & school powers have verbal, somatic and material components (same as warlock)if the spell that simules have them.
Therefore both classes have its powers but they are not obtaining an unfair advantage from them using as mental command actions...Cheers!
Unless the wizard directly stated that he was using his spell like ability defensively and passed the spellcraft/concentration check, the choker should have gotten an attack of opportunity in my view...a quick strike in the middle of the grapple or a chance to further improve the grapple.
In the second scenario, with even moderately intelligent viallains knowing some basics of what wizards and clerics can do, I think it likely a captive wizard would be kept tied and drugged. If you arent lucid or even conscious you wont be using supernatural or spell-like abilities.
Third scenario, if any bystander gets even a whiff that the exchange was magically influence would likely report it to the authorities. Secondly, depending on the deity the cleric could be in trouble with their church or their deity.
Fourth scenario, that is why most courts that can do so will have a caster either dispel magic or a wand of dispel magic handy. In extreme cases, manacles or a special circle that works as magic impairing/negating.
I dont have a problem with the domain/school powers that much myself. Plenty of ways to circumvent or flat out negate them.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
¡Hi!
I'm afraid that i don't explain it well.
I'm not searching for possible solutions to this examples. They are that, examples that things that happend in our game. And nothing (well, maybe someone yes) of them could pass being spells, not SLA.
Said that, that I was asking in loud word is... Clerics and wizards cast spells, not spell-like abilities. It should be more "appropiated" to them that their special class abilities (domains and spell schools) were more "spell-like" than mental actions that they activate.
It's more flavor than other thing...
Cheers!
Hi everyone!
I don't know if anyone had this problem too.
In our games, the fact of the domain & school powers was spell-like abilities, and not spells, had a lot of secundary problems. Various examples:
*Our wizard used his magic missile power (Evocation) being grappled by a choker without need doing a spellcraft check.
*Later, the same wizard, captured by the villains, used his 1st level power (a sobrenatural effect, not an SLA) to break the ropes that were tying him. Again and again until the rope was disitegrated by the acid.
*The cleric, with the Charm domain, using her charm person ability (becase it hasn't verbal, somatic or material components, only a light concentration and a mental command) to charm a shoopkeer and don't pay her buying with a lot of witness.
*The evil cleric, tied and gagged using his lesser confusion power (from Madness domain) in the middle of the law court that was going to judge him.All this actions couldn't done if we put a note in both classes saying that his SLA and supernatural abilities derivated from domain & school powers have verbal, somatic and material components (same as warlock)if the spell that simules have them.
Therefore both classes have its powers but they are not obtaining an unfair advantage from them using as mental command actions...Cheers!
Well, there are a few discrepancies with the examples you've quoted.
1. With the wizard being grappled by the choker: using a spell-like ability does provoke an attack of opportunity (PH 142). So, he probably couldn't use his magic missle SLA with impunity. Even if he were to try to use it defensively, I think you could be justified in adding a significant penalty to the check, what with him being strangled and all. Also, a straight quote from the PH on using SLAs defensively: "If the Concentration check fails, you can't use the ability, but the attempt counts as if you had used the ability".
2. With this example, you may have a problem. To the letter of the rules, there's nothing wrong with what the player did. You may be able to say that, even with a SNA one still needs to point at a target. If his hands are tied behind his back, that may be difficult.
3. If this cleric is of the good-guy variety, then taking actions such as this would bring her into some serious alignment conflicts. Perhaps her deity will not grant her any spells or domain powers the next day (or two) because of her abusing them. Plus, see item 4.
4. Using a SLA is still using magic, and it still requires the use of a standard action. Seeing someone in the middle of a conversation just stop talking and concentrate may be enough to allow others a spellcraft check to detect the use of magic (in poker, that is called a "tell"). And if is conceivable that, in a court of law, someone may be using Detect Magic or other magic to observe the precedings. And even a SLA would give off a large magic "footprint" under such scrutiny.
Still, you make some good points. Giving the Spell-Like and Supernatural abilities of the PCs at least a somatic component would go far in eliminating an overabundance of abuse. It's something to think about.
DogBone
¡Hi!
I'm afraid that i don't explain it well.
I'm not searching for possible solutions to this examples. They are that, examples that things that happend in our game. And nothing (well, maybe someone yes) of them could pass being spells, not SLA.
Said that, that I was asking in loud word is... Clerics and wizards cast spells, not spell-like abilities. It should be more "appropiated" to them that their special class abilities (domains and spell schools) were more "spell-like" than mental actions that they activate.
It's more flavor than other thing...
Cheers!
No, what we are saying is that the SLAs and SNAs are not the whole problem. The rules, as they stand, aren't that broken. You, as the DM, have the power to govern these abilities and their use. Adjudication of a game can be complicated, but a good DM can keep things from getting out of control and keep things fun. Don't be a "yes man" sort of DM, allowing the players to do whatever they want. Take charge and set some ground rules. Our suggestions will hopefully help you in future adventures.
DogBone
Good points all all around. I'll just add that I'm pretty sure some of what you describe requires the caster to actually see their target. So a blind fold maybe?
Thats just off the top of my head, theres no books here.
|
|
Well, I'll explain a little more my previous examples; if anything is not understanted, tell me and I'll try to do better. English and me are not good neighbours... :o)
1. Wizard grappled.
Well, it happens in alpha 1.1, not in 2, and I don't remember if could pass now with the new rules. The wizard was pinned by the choker. Of course, use an SLA cause an AO except if is cast on defensive. Magic missile has a Somatic component as spell, but not as SLA. It couldn't be cast as spell being pinned, but it can be cast as SLA.
2. Wizard Tied.
The bad guys could mantain him drugged or anyone solution propossed. Else, I liked his idea of use a SLA being tied for untied him. Isn't an example to a thing broken.. is an example of anthing that couldn't be done as spell (without metamagic, of course) but it could be as SNA.
Another example could be the transmutator that being tied use his telekinetic fist to break a glass coup and use the rests to cut the ropes. It is not broken, simply it can pass and as spell it can't.
3. Cleric with Charm domain
It is CN of a CE deity. I'm affraid that the cleric is not going to be punished by her deity... is more possible that she be reward :o). Of course is an standard action that could be noted or identified if, and I mark de "if" is detected. As spell is more probabbly to be noted by wittness that haven't spellcraft studies that as SLA.
Others domains as the Touch of Glory (Glory) are SNA, not SLA, and aren't subject to the spellcraft check and could be abused with easiness.
4. Evil Cleric
Well, again the solutions are easy. You are right. He coud be detected, dispelled or anything. But, the question is that the cleric CAN do it, tied and gagged in the middle of a sesion. I don't think that magic manacles creating controlled anti-magic fields are very common too. With a somatic, verbal, etc component, the world continues turning without need magic to do all. And again, any SNA derived from a domain could be problematic except in that anti-magic portatic field.
Sorry by not explain well my examples in the OP.
Is truth that when I have a player that has a good idea, if he is working inside the rules, I, normally, let id do. I could be more estrict, but normally I do not bear it in mind.
Cheers!
Said that, that I was asking in loud word is... Clerics and wizards cast spells, not spell-like abilities. It should be more "appropiated" to them that their special class abilities (domains and spell schools) were more "spell-like" than mental actions that they activate.It's more flavor than other thing...
Cheers!
I have got to admit I agree with you here, I think that as spell like abilities they are a bit out of flavour with the wizards and clerics traditions. Unfortunately I can't see any other way of implementing such cool powers with out keeping them as they are. I would rather keep them, than lose them.
|
|
I have got to admit I agree with you here, I think that as spell like abilities they are a bit out of flavour with the wizards and clerics traditions. Unfortunately I can't see any other way of implementing such cool powers with out keeping them as they are. I would rather keep them, than lose them.
Hi again.
I'd like too keep them.
I only was asking if would be better that they have somatic and vocal components even they are SLA or SNA. Is only neccesary adding it to the description.
Nothing more.
Cheers!
I have got to admit I agree with you here, I think that as spell like abilities they are a bit out of flavour with the wizards and clerics traditions. Unfortunately I can't see any other way of implementing such cool powers with out keeping them as they are. I would rather keep them, than lose them.
Hi again.
I'd like too keep them.
I only was asking if would be better that they have somatic and vocal components even they are SLA or SNA. Is only neccesary adding it to the description.
Nothing more.Cheers!
There is a predecent for requiring somatic or vocal component if you want to house rule it and justify it to your players. If i recall, any SLA or SNA that mimics a spell that has an expensive (over 1gp) material component, such as Wish, still requires that material. There you have rational for ruling that SLA and SNA require gestures and/or verbal if the spell does. Could further be explained as the gesture and vocal help focus the mind to cal upon the inherent power.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
There is a predecent for requiring somatic or vocal component if you want to house rule it and justify it to your players. If i recall, any SLA or SNA that mimics a spell that has an expensive (over 1gp) material component, such as Wish, still requires that material. There you have rational for ruling that SLA and SNA require gestures and/or verbal if the spell does. Could further be explained as the gesture and vocal help focus the mind to cal upon the inherent power.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Could you tell me where this come from? I was searching for it and i couldn't found it. In PH and in MM is said, and clearly, that they haven't, even for XP or foci...
Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance.
I only remember an exception to this rule: warlocks. They cast his SLA with arcane spell failure... [Complete Arcane pp. 7] And is SPF not somatic component... I was wrong initially about it.
I have got to admit I agree with you here, I think that as spell like abilities they are a bit out of flavour with the wizards and clerics traditions. Unfortunately I can't see any other way of implementing such cool powers with out keeping them as they are. I would rather keep them, than lose them.
I'd like keep the actual domain abilities as they are, but with a note to have them verbal, somatic components and spell failure (for wizards) if the spells that they mimic have, they work indeed as spells. And it is another saying that they could benefict from Spell focus (instead of Ability Focus) and metamagic feat (instead of feats of emulate metamagic effects, as quicken-spell like ability) so much the better.
Cheers!
Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance.
Which SRD are you looking at? 3.0 or 3.5?
I'm looking at my 3.5e DMG and the 3.5e SRD and this is what I have (page 289 of the DMG btw).
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are spells and 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).
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability’s effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See the table below for a summary of the types of special abilities.
No where does it state that the spell doesn't have a somatic, verbal, meterial, focus, or xp cost.
Also, the chart in that section also shows that Spell-like abilities still draw an AoO as a normal spell does. Supernatural abilities don't, but I think that's the power they are supposed to have, most abilities aren't supernatural so the ones that are are meant to be more powerful.
Also, here's the entry for the Archmage High Arcana "Spell-like ability" choice:
Spell-Like Ability: An archmage who selects this type of high arcana can use one of her arcane spell slots (other than a slot expended to learn this or any other type of high arcana) to permanently prepare one of her arcane spells as a spell-like ability that can be used twice per day. The archmage does not use any components when casting the spell, although a spell that costs XP to cast still does so and a spell with a costly material component instead costs her 10 times that amount in XP. This ability costs one 5th-level spell slot.
If it has to say that you don't use components, then it stands to reason that normal spell-like abilities would unless otherwise stated.
Note that no where does it say that it doesn't need any other components either.
As far as I can tell, you still need regular casting components for spell-like abilities unless otherwise stated.
|
|
As far as I can tell, you still need regular casting components for spell-like abilities unless otherwise stated.
May be I'm wrong? I'm not sure now... But, d20SRD.Org says the same thing that my copy of SRD... check it, please.
Anyone the designers (or anyone else) could help us?
Thanks for your answer, Kaisoku.
Cheers!
|
|
Which SRD are you looking at? 3.0 or 3.5?
I'm looking at my 3.5e DMG and the 3.5e SRD and this is what I have (page 289 of the DMG btw).
From the same SRD too...
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. 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 to being dispelled by 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.
Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.
Spell-Like Abilities: Using a spell-like ability works like casting a spell in that it requires concentration and provokes attacks of opportunity. Spell-like abilities can be disrupted. If your concentration is broken, the attempt to use the ability fails, but the attempt counts as if you had used the ability. The casting time of a spell-like ability is 1 standard action, unless the ability description notes otherwise.
Using a Spell-Like Ability on the Defensive: You may attempt to use a spell-like ability on the defensive, just as with casting a spell. If the Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) fails, you can’t use the ability, but the attempt counts as if you had used the ability.
SRD is very doubtful about it...
Cheers!
It's possible then that my DMG doesn't have the latest version of the rules, and the SRD I'm accessing must not either.
I checked WOTC's website, and it has that same line about Spell-Like abilities.
Odd that they would then have to write the extra line in the Archmage entry. Although that might just be because the Archmage was written based on previous rules, and then never changed.
Here is something else about SLAs and SNAs, they are not hindered by armor. A wizard in armor can rely on his school powers without fear of spell failure. Supernatural abilities are also not affected by spell resistance and do not provoke AoO.
While these changes are not bad, they will affect how a wizard or cleric (or possibly a druid) plays in game. A drow will always be affected by the evocation school's energy ray.
On the otherhand, many SLAs and SNAs work like spells. So blindfolding a spellcaster will prevent them from targeting some powers (or at least hinder rays and touch SLAs in some instances). Solid barriers will block some effects too, though it would be odd to box up a spellcaster for a trial. However, such a box with a hole smaller than 1-foot will block most effects and still allow conversation (see the section on line of effect in the SRD).
|
|
Here is something else about SLAs and SNAs, they are not hindered by armor. A wizard in armor can rely on his school powers without fear of spell failure. Supernatural abilities are also not affected by spell resistance and do not provoke AoO.
While these changes are not bad, they will affect how a wizard or cleric (or possibly a druid) plays in game. A drow will always be affected by the evocation school's energy ray.
Sure.
The spell failure for wizards may be another problem derivated from SLA and SNA without components. It's only 1/3 or 1/4 from his spells per day but is another factor to be consciencious.I'm more worried with the inutility of the metamagic and spell focus feats: Its usefulness is reduced because they don't work with SLA or SNA. Now only works in 2/3 or 3/4 from the magic capabilities from both clases. Reducing their efficiency in their supposely *core* abilities.
An both clases are more powerfull now with the ability to act in silenced zones o without their spell pouchs... And, as you said, ignoring the spell resistance of creatures thanks to their SNAs...
On the otherhand, many SLAs and SNAs work like spells. So blindfolding a spellcaster will prevent them from targeting some powers (or at least hinder rays and touch SLAs in some instances). Solid barriers will block some effects too, though it would be odd to box up a spellcaster for a trial. However, such a box with a hole smaller than 1-foot will block most effects and still allow conversation (see the section on line of effect in the SRD).
They were examples... nothing more. :o)
Cheers!
My group had this problem with the SLA abilities as well. We've house-ruled them to be "Spell Abilities" instead of Spell-Like Abilities.
Spell Abilities with an equivilent spell have all of the same components as that spell. If there is no equivilent spell then we default them to Verbal and Somatic components.
On the otherhand, many SLAs and SNAs work like spells. So blindfolding a spellcaster will prevent them from targeting some powers (or at least hinder rays and touch SLAs in some instances). Solid barriers will block some effects too, though it would be odd to box up a spellcaster for a trial. However, such a box with a hole smaller than 1-foot will block most effects and still allow conversation (see the section on line of effect in the SRD).They were examples... nothing more. :o)
Cheers!
I realized that. My comments were simply suggestions for how a society could deal with individuals that possess SLAs.