|
In Pathfinder, there are a lot of spell-like abilities granted by classes. In WotC's Spell Compendium, the language of "lesser spell immunity" was revised in such a way that it blocked all "spell-like effects." PF Core Rulebook uses the traditional 3.5 language, which is more ambiguous: spell immunity "protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks." I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
In that case, I believe "innate" was meant to be inclusive and not exclusive.
Meaning, it was meant to make it clear that a racial or class based spell like that the creature can perform is considered a valid target for the spell immunity.
The problem with your quest is that the Spell Like you want to become immune is not a spell. The spell "Spell Immunity" only protects against spells or spell likes of the same name as the spell.
I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?
Spell immunity protects against spells.
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks. Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect. A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.
I think the wording of the Spell Immunity spell is quite clear when read as a whole. I would not allow Spell Immunity to protect from any spell-like ability that does not directly mimic a spell in my campaign.
But ultimately what you do in your own game is in the hands of your own group.|
|
Thank you for your thoughts.
Any suggestions on something that does block spell-like abilities that aren't necessarily tied to a named spell? Such as all those spell-like abilities clerics, sorcerers, and wizards now have?
I already thought about spell resistance, which gives you a decent SR, which does apply to spell-like abilities whether or not they're tied to a specific named spell. Anything else out there? Thanks again.
Anything else out there? Thanks again.
Anti-Magic Field
Depending on the exact effect you are refering to there might be other options.
I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?Spell immunity protects against spells.
And spell-like abilities.
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 and counterspelled as normal.
So a Sp can be defeated by spell resistance. Spell immuntity says "The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance.."
So you would be casting Spell Immunity vs Bleeding Touch which is a spell-like ability which means Spell Resistance applies and you now have unbeatable SR vs that one specific spell.
|
|
And spell-like abilities.Except that it only protects against spell like abilities that duplicate spells, which Bleeding Touch isn't one of those Spell Like Abilities.
Other than the interpretation of the language of spell immunity, is there a sound reason to exclude spell-like abilities from what spell immunity protects against? You only get to block a couple spells with spell immunity, and those clerics with Death domain have plenty of other nasty things they can do to you other than Bleeding Touch.
If I were to research a new spell, "immunity from spell-like abilities," wouldn't it be fairly balanced to treat it just like spell immunity, i.e., a 4th level cleric spell? And since clerics have access to every spell on their spell lists, aren't we splitting hairs making spell immunity and "immunity from spell-like abilities" two separate spells?
I don't think a spell-like ability from a class is "innate," but it seems totally appropriate that spell immunity could and should be used to block specific class-based spell-like abilities. For example, if I'm about to enter a temple full of priests I anticipate have Death as a domain, I'd like to be able to cast spell immunity against their nasty Bleeding Touch spell-like ability. Thoughts?Spell immunity protects against spells.
And spell-like abilities.
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 and counterspelled as normal.
So a Sp can be defeated by spell resistance. Spell immuntity says "The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance.."
So you would be casting Spell Immunity vs Bleeding Touch which is a spell-like ability which means Spell Resistance applies and you now have unbeatable SR vs that one specific spell.
Not if you play by the rules.
PF like D&D is a game of exceptions. There is a general rule (in this case governing "Spell-like abilities" and there is a specific rule "Spell Immunity spell", which supercedes the general rule.
Please, read the full spell description again.
And please do not cut quotations short:
The warded creature effectively has unbeatable
spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells.
If your interpretation had been valid it yould have included spell-like abilities here as well.
This spell protects against spells and spell-like abilities that reproduce spells.
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified
spell for every four levels you have.
No mention of other spell-like abilities is made.
SPELL IMMUNITY
The name of the spell.
Beyond the rules you can rule whichever way you want to in your own game and James Hunnicutt's suggestion for a IMMUNITY TO SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES spell is a good proposal. However I would suggest it did not protect against spells or innate spell powers.
Which reminds me of something.
In AD&D 2e spell-like abilities had a sub-category called innate spells, which e.g. included the drow darkness and levitation abilities, which mimicked actual spells. I imagine the word "innate" in "Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures." is a legacy from AD&D.
I would suggest it was edited to "Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spells granted by spell-like abilities of creatures.
..
Not if you play by the rules.
Well I am showing directly in the rules where it works and you seem to be showing that if we ignore half the spell description that you are right.
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn't protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn't apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks.
The above is showing that any magic that is affected by spell resistance can be used for Spell Immunity.
Please, read the full spell description again.
Yes please do and stop using the name of the spell to try and show how the spell works. Instead use the actual full rules of the game.
This spell protects against spells and spell-like abilities that reproduce spells.
Please quote exactly where in the rules it says that as I see no such wording in the spell or under spell-like abilities. By their very definition spell-like abilities are just LIKE spells.
Its really simple as you get unbeatable spell-resistance vs a specific magic affect. Spell-Like abilities are affected by Spell Resistance. So their for Spell Immunity works against Spell-Like abilities just like the description says it does. It specifically mentions Supernatural and Extraordinary abilities as not being affect as neither one of those are affected by spell-resistance.
That is all you have to know to correctly use this spell. Does the ability you are making yourself immune to get affected by Spell resistance. If you answer yes and its less than 4th level in power then the magic does not affect you. If the magic you make yourself immune to is not affected by Spell Resistance (ie Acid Arrow) then you are affected by the magic.
Please quote exactly where in the rules it says that as I see no such wording in the spell or under spell-like abilities. By their very definition spell-like abilities are just LIKE spells.
Spell immunity protects against spells.
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks. Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect. A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.
Read the spell as it is written. It really is not that hard to understand the spell.
It is really simple... just read the spell and stop trying to wrigle something out of it that just isn't there.
However, you can use the spell any way you want to.
EDIT: cleared out some foul temper
Please quote exactly where in the rules it says that as I see no such wording in the spell or under spell-like abilities. By their very definition spell-like abilities are just LIKE spells.
Spell immunity protects against spells.
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks. Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect. A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.Read the spell as it is written. It really is not that hard to understand what the intention of the spell is.
It is really simple... just read the spell and stop trying to wrigle something out of it that just isn't there. You are grasping at straws.
You can use the spell any way you want to. Just don't try to make any one think that you are not playing by house rules. Because you are wrong!
So your whole argument again is to show just a few sections of the spell description? Actually I am sorry not even sections but individual words. You have to take the whole rules in to account not just the small section you wish to use.
You are stating your opinion instead of any facts at all. When you get around to showing me some actual rules to back up your opinion I would be interesting in reading them.
P.S - I fixed your highlighting above to take into account the whole description not just select words.
Please quote exactly where in the rules it says that as I see no such wording in the spell or under spell-like abilities. By their very definition spell-like abilities are just LIKE spells.
So your whole argument again is to show just a few sections of the spell description? Actually I am sorry not even sections but individual words. You have to take the whole rules in to account not just the small section you wish to use.
Lets try again 3rd time is the charm!
SPELL IMMUNITY
The warded creature is immune to the effects of one specified spell for every four levels you have. The spells must be of 4th level or lower. The warded creature effectively has unbeatable spell resistance regarding the specified spell or spells. Naturally, that immunity doesn’t protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn’t apply. Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures. It does not protect against supernatural or extraordinary abilities, such as breath weapons or gaze attacks. Only a particular spell can be protected against, not a certain domain or school of spells or a group of spells that are similar in effect. A creature can have only one spell immunity or greater spell immunity spell in effect on it at a time.
Specific beats general. And you realy cannot get more specific than reading the spell.
Thats my final comment on your stance.
EDIT: I would however enjoy your explanation of the difference between an innate spell-like ability and a spell-like ability. Because that is the actual key to this discussion.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Other than the interpretation of the language of spell immunity, is there a sound reason to exclude spell-like abilities from what spell immunity protects against?
If I were to research a new spell, "immunity from spell-like abilities," wouldn't it be fairly balanced to treat it just like spell immunity, i.e., a 4th level cleric spell?
And since clerics have access to every spell on their spell lists, aren't we splitting hairs making spell immunity and "immunity from spell-like abilities" two separate spells?
No, the wording is the reason
Yes, with GM approval (which he could withhold)
No, because if the GM didn't approve the spell you can't cast it.
you seem to be showing that if we ignore half the spell description that you are right.
You conveniently ignore the explicit beginning of the spell that requires the effect be a spell, not a spell like ability to focus on the later parts where it extends that protection out to creatures using that spell like ability of the same name as the spell.
...
you seem to be showing that if we ignore half the spell description that you are right.You conveniently ignore the explicit beginning of the spell that requires the effect be a spell, not a spell like ability to focus on the later parts where it extends that protection out to creatures using that spell like ability of the same name as the spell.
Not ignoring anything. A spell-like ability is a spell that simply uses a slightly different mechanic for casting. Spell Immunity gives you 100% Spell Resistance vs a magic effect. Spell-like abilities are magic that are affected by Spell Resistance. Hence the reason Spell Immunity specifically says Supernatural and Extendability are not affected as those types of magic are NOT affected by spell resistance.
Spell Resistance
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.
The Spell Immunity specifically says it affects spell-like abilities as they are spells. From the Spell-Like ability description: "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."
I am very sorry I can't make this anymore clear. I quoted the rules from the actual book both from the spell and related sections. I think you are latched on to the name of the spell instead of the actual spell description which has the actual rules.
We're having a problem here because we have an ability that doesn't have a direct spell analogue. The effects listed under Spell Immunity are spells, magic item effects (which frequently, nearly always) duplicate an exact spell, and the spell-like abilities of creatures (also frequently duplicating the effects of a specific spell). This won't be a game-breaking thing, to let Spell Immunity counter Bleeding Touch. But when you get down to it, depending on what you look at (definition of Spell-like abilities vs. spell immunity spell description) you can argue either way, as other posters already have. For the record, I'd say no, it can't be stopped with spell immunity, but that's just my gut talking.
Speaking of which, I need breakfast.
We're having a problem here because we have an ability that doesn't have a direct spell analogue. The effects listed under Spell Immunity are spells, magic item effects (which frequently, nearly always) duplicate an exact spell, and the spell-like abilities of creatures (also frequently duplicating the effects of a specific spell). This won't be a game-breaking thing, to let Spell Immunity counter Bleeding Touch. But when you get down to it, depending on what you look at (definition of Spell-like abilities vs. spell immunity spell description) you can argue either way, as other posters already have. For the record, I'd say no, it can't be stopped with spell immunity, but that's just my gut talking.
Yes, this is the heart of the matter. Spell-like abilities (whether innate or not is immaterial) that use the names and descriptions of specific spells are clearly covered by Spell Immunity.
Considering the Bleeding Touch ability is classified as a spell-like ability rather than Ex or Su, I'd make it subject to Spell Immunity as if it were a spell. The type of classification it has been given has to matter, rending it all the benefits and drawbacks of that class of ability.
I looked at the warlock's eldritch blast for some ideas. In that case, also a spell-like ability, it specifically referred to being equivalent to a spell of a particular level. Based on that, I'd say we've got all the tools necessary to adjudicate it with Spell Immunity. That helps me to rationalize not keeping other spell-like abilities from being subject to Spell Immunity just because there isn't a specific spell they're based on.
Bleeding touch is not subject to the effects of the spell immunity (or the greater or lesser versions thereof) for one very simple reason:
It has no equivalent spell level.
Spell immunity and its derivatives have clearly defined boundaries as to which spells, spell-likes, and magical effects they can grant immunity to. One of those boundaries is spell level. If the effect you're trying to become immune to is outside those boundaries, it is not a valid target for the spell.
Eldritch blast is subject to spell immunity because it does have a defined (if variable) spell level.
The effects listed under Spell Immunity are spells, magic item effects (which frequently, nearly always) duplicate an exact spell, and the spell-like abilities of creatures (also frequently duplicating the effects of a specific spell).
It is true that most Sp listed in places like the MM duplicate an exact spell, but not all. Their are plenty of references for Dragons with Sp abilities that work LIKE a spell but do additional stuff. Also when an Sp is listed that does not duplicate a exact spell its suppose to tell you the equivalent spell level of the power.
For example reference Mind Blast on an Mind Flayer and you will see that its actually a Sp ability and as it does not duplicate an exact spell it says its the equivalent of a 4th level spell. This means one could use Spell Immunity to become immune to the Mind Blast ability of a Mind Flayer.
Bleeding touch is not subject to the effects of the spell immunity (or the greater or lesser versions thereof) for one very simple reason:
It has no equivalent spell level.
Spell immunity and its derivatives have clearly defined boundaries as to which spells, spell-likes, and magical effects they can grant immunity to. One of those boundaries is spell level. If the effect you're trying to become immune to is outside those boundaries, it is not a valid target for the spell.
Eldritch blast is subject to spell immunity because it does have a defined (if variable) spell level.
Over all not a bad point except Spell-Like abilities by their very definition are the exact same thing as spells. This means they must come with an equivalent spell level. Eldritch blast just does a better job of telling us that than the Domains do.
As Bleeding Touch is gained at level one then it should be treated as a level 1 spell equivalent. The 2nd domain powers are gained at level 8 so they should be treated as 4th level spell equivalents.
Over all not a bad point except Spell-Like abilities by their very definition are the exact same thing as spells. This means they must come with an equivalent spell level.
Not even remotely true.
|
|
My take on this: From the text of the spell
"Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures."
So it protects against spell-like abilities that duplicate spells (subject to level) and abilities that do not duplicate existing spells but which do have a level listed.
Further, I'd allow a wizard to research a spell that duplicated a spell-like ability that is not based on an existing spell, assign it a level and then allow him to use Spell Immunity to counter the ability from the creature, subject to level limits.
Oh, another reason spell immunity won't protect against bleeding touch:
Spell immunity states that it protects against "Spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures".
Bleeding touch is not a spell, it is not a spell-like ability of a magic item, and it is not an innate spell-like ability of a creature. To be innate, it has to be "existing in one from birth; inborn; native" or "originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience". Bleeding touch isn't something a character is born with; it is something a character learns through experience. Thus, it is not innate.
What spell level is bleeding touch? It has to be level 4 or lower. If it has no spell level, then spell immunity has no effect (only works on 4th level or lower spells).
Is bleeding touch subject to a globe of invulnerability?
A better question (since a touch range spell technically pierces the globe) is:
Is Icicle (water domain) subject to a globe of invulnerability?
Since Icicle doesn't have a spell level, it probably isn't stopped by a globe of invulnerability.
|
|
Regarding all the spell-like abilities clerics, sorcerers, and wizards now can acquire based on their domain/bloodline/school, I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume they're the equivalent of 1st-level spells, since 1st-level characters can use them.
My attitude is that a normal or lesser globe of invulnerability should block all those Sp abilities you can get at character level 1.
Even if they're equivalent to 1st level spells, they're still not innate spell-like abilities, which means they're still not subject to spell immunity.
My attitude is that a normal or lesser globe of invulnerability should block all those Sp abilities you can get at character level 1.
OK, but if we assign a spell level to these spell like abilities, they're going to be affected by spell immunity.
Having a spell level means that something is a effectively a spell, or rather, it duplicates an effect that is equivalent to a spell.
Can't have it both ways: either it doesn't work with globe of invulnerability and spell immunity *or* it does.
Even if they're equivalent to 1st level spells, they're still not innate spell-like abilities, which means they're still not subject to spell immunity.
An innate spell-like ability is simply a spell-like ability that the creature has simply by being a particular creature.
A cleric with the water domain has an innate spell-like ability of icicle. There is no cleric with the water domain that doesn't have the icicle spell-like ability.
Likewise, a warlock has eldritch blast as an innate spell-like ability. There is no warlock without eldritch blast.
An innate spell-like ability is simply a spell-like ability that the creature has simply by being a particular creature.
Correct.
Clerics and warlocks are not creatures, they are classes. Humans do not have icicle as an innate spell-like ability. Neither do clerics, because they are not creatures. Human clerics have icicle as a spell-like ability, but it is not innate; it comes from being a cleric. Easiest proof of this is that it is possible to lose the ability to use icicle by ceasing to become a cleric. An innate ability cannot be lost.
Easiest proof of this is that it is possible to lose the ability to use icicle by ceasing to become a cleric. An innate ability cannot be lost.
You don't cease to become a cleric.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
You don't become something other than a cleric when you violate the god's code (: You're just a pretty worthless cleric.
Clerics and warlocks are not creatures, they are classes. Humans do not have icicle as an innate spell-like ability. Neither do clerics, because they are not creatures. Human clerics have icicle as a spell-like ability, but it is not innate; it comes from being a cleric. Easiest proof of this is that it is possible to lose the ability to use icicle by ceasing to become a cleric. An innate ability cannot be lost.
Sure it can. If a creature with innate spell-like abilities blows his fort and will saves when hit with a baleful polymorph he loses his innate spell-like abilities.
Sure it can. If a creature with innate spell-like abilities blows his fort and will saves when hit with a baleful polymorph he loses his innate spell-like abilities.
Temporarily, yes. That's like saying you can lose innate spell-like abilities by stepping into an anti-magic zone.
Let me rephrase, then, for the pedants:
There is no way to permanently and irrevocably lose innate spell-like abilities short of intervention by a deity.
Oh, another reason spell immunity won't protect against bleeding touch:
Spell immunity states that it protects against "Spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures".
Bleeding touch is not a spell, it is not a spell-like ability of a magic item, and it is not an innate spell-like ability of a creature. To be innate, it has to be "existing in one from birth; inborn; native" or "originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience". Bleeding touch isn't something a character is born with; it is something a character learns through experience. Thus, it is not innate.
I can not find any rule any where in the PFRGP to back up the difference between spell-like abilities and innate spell-like abilities. In matter of fact if you search the Core Rules PDF for 'innate spell-like' wording it is listed one time and one time only and that is in Spell Immunity. I even searched the 3.5 MM and again no luck.
In matter of fact the only place I found any rule reference to back up what you said is in the 3.5 FAQ.
What does "innate spell-like ability" mean for the purpose of qualifying for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39)? Does the Innate Spell feat create an innate spell-like ability?
"Innate," for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat, means "gained normally as part of the creature’s race, type, subtype, or kind."A duergar’s enlarge person and invisibility spell-like abilities, a tanar’ri’s summon tanar’ri spell-like ability, and a juvenile gold dragon’s bless spell-like ability are all "innate" spell-like abilities. A warlock’s invocations, a paladin’s ability to call her special mount, and any spell-like abilities gained from your class, feats, or similar sources are not.
Despite its name, even the Innate Spell feat doesn’t create an "innate" spell-like ability for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat. This is simply an unfortunate case of the same word being used for two different purposes.
So if we go with the FAQ being correct then there is a difference and the Sp gained from Domains would not be affected by Spell Immunity as its a class ability and not innate. Though with the wording of innate all over the sorcerer and their bloodlines Sp would be affected by Spell Immunity. LOL
Temporarily, yes. That's like saying you can lose innate spell-like abilities by stepping into an anti-magic zone.Let me rephrase, then, for the pedants:
There is no way to permanently and irrevocably lose innate spell-like abilities short of intervention by a deity.
Or, considering baleful polymorph is permanent, be subjected to that spell, blow the saves, and then never happen to have anyone lift the spell. And that's well below deity power.
Of course, you can't even cause the cleric to permanently and irrevocably lose their domain spell-like abilities since they can come back with an appropriate atonement.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I quoted the rules from the actual book both from the spell and related sections. I think you are latched on to the name of the spell instead of the actual spell description which has the actual rules.
No, I'm latching on the rules of the spell which conflict with your interpretation of a subsection of the spell rules.
Spell-Like abilities by their very definition are the exact same thing as spells.
That is no more true than Paladins are exactly like Rogues.
What does "innate spell-like ability" mean for the purpose of qualifying for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39)? Does the Innate Spell feat create an innate spell-like ability?
"Innate," for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat, means "gained normally as part of the creature’s race, type, subtype, or kind."
That means only racial Sp abilities.
|
Also, if a term is not defined in the pathfinder rulebook (IE. Line of Sight, Ally, Innate, ect., ect.,) the guys of Paizo have said to go with the dictionary term for it. This is not something they merely overlooked, it is because they think that their players are smart enough to realize that when something isn't defined that the most common sense answer is the correct one.
in*nate
Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-neyt, in-eyt]
–adjective
1. existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.
2. inherent in the essential character of something: an innate defect in the hypothesis.
3. originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience: an innate knowledge of good and evil.
This means that things learn from birth or merely through epiphanies of the mind or body are innate.
Abilities given to you by your class are not innate, unless they are specified as so. Since all the Sorceror's powers are derived of his blood, he innately gains his class abilities. This is the reason that sorceror abilities are considered innate, but clerical abilities are not.
They are innate to the CLASS, but that isn't the arguement. The arguement is, are they innate to the creature?
If yes, then they could be affected.
If no, then you must acquit.
|
|
Also, if a term is not defined in the pathfinder rulebook (IE. Line of Sight, Ally, Innate, ect., ect.,) the guys of Paizo have said to go with the dictionary term for it. This is not something they merely overlooked, it is because they think that their players are smart enough to realize that when something isn't defined that the most common sense answer is the correct one.
in*nate
Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-neyt, in-eyt]
–adjective
1. existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.
2. inherent in the essential character of something: an innate defect in the hypothesis.
3. originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience: an innate knowledge of good and evil.This means that things learn from birth or merely through epiphanies of the mind or body are innate.
Abilities given to you by your class are not innate, unless they are specified as so. Since all the Sorceror's powers are derived of his blood, he innately gains his class abilities. This is the reason that sorceror abilities are considered innate, but clerical abilities are not.
They are innate to the CLASS, but that isn't the arguement. The arguement is, are they innate to the creature?
If yes, then they could be affected.
If no, then you must acquit.
Definition 2 : "inherent in the essential character of something" leans towards class abilities all being innate. Also who is to say what part of 'going up a level' is learned and what part is the unlocking of intrinsic potential.
It's one for DM's to rule as they see fit.
Definition 2 : "inherent in the essential character of something" leans towards class abilities all being innate. Also who is to say what part of 'going up a level' is learned and what part is the unlocking of intrinsic potential.
The essential character of a cleric does not include the bleeding touch ability.
Definition 2 : "inherent in the essential character of something" leans towards class abilities all being innate. Also who is to say what part of 'going up a level' is learned and what part is the unlocking of intrinsic potential.The essential character of a cleric does not include the bleeding touch ability.
Domain powers are included in the essential character of a cleric. The specific domains chosen are certainly part of that class's essential character.
Domain powers are included in the essential character of a cleric. The specific domains chosen are certainly part of that class's essential character.
I disagree. So do the authors of spell immunity (as seen in the FAQ).
What is going on right now is why I disagree using the dictionary to try and explain game rules.
Their is still nothing in the core book that really shows or describes what is meant by a innate ability of any type. Its found in one place and one place only and that is in the Spell Immunity desc.
My opinion and what follows is only that. I am pretty sure that the word for innate spell-like abilities is an oversight left over from when the original designers of 3.x thought all Sp would only happen innate to creatures. What game balance reason would it need to only affect innate Sp, but not a class Sp. Not only is Spell Immunity weakened by having the word Innate in their, but its harder for DMs and players to pickup on that single word during actual game sessions.
|
|
Other than lawyerly interpretations of the language of the spell, I haven't heard any good reason that spell immunity shouldn't block class-based spell-like abilities. Allowing spell immunity to block class-based spell-like abilities won't upset game balance, and seems fair all around. In fact, I think the converse is true: allowing Bleeding Touch and similar low-level abilities to bypass spell immunity (or globe of invulnerability) seems unfair and unbalanced. So if you come to my gaming table, the house rule is that if someone wants to cast spell immunity (Bleeding Touch) they certainly can. Thanks folks.
This particular section of the rules appears to be a very valid candidate for an errata sometime in the future.
It seems odd that whether or not spell immunity works on a spell-like ability is determined by whether or not the ability in question is "innate" or not. If it's intended to work against spell-like abilities, then it should work against spell-like abilities… innate or no. To me, it seems that this issue probably would not have arisen but for the inclusion of all the new spell-like ability powers of clerics and wizards in the new rules. Few, if any spell-like abilities existed for classes, when the original text for spell immunity was written for core 3.5. (The only ones I can find are some of the bardic music abilities.) Without looking to be sure, the exact text was most likely ported to PFRPG without taking all the new class powers into consideration.
It seems odd that whether or not spell immunity works on a spell-like ability is determined by whether or not the ability in question is "innate" or not.
It's not -- or not ONLY determined by that, at least. The ability also has to have a level or level equivalent.
To me, it seems that this issue probably would not have arisen but for the inclusion of all the new spell-like ability powers of clerics and wizards in the new rules. Few, if any spell-like abilities existed for classes, when the original text for spell immunity was written.
Actually, there were quite a few. Bards, Paladins, Arcane Archers, Archmages, Blackguards, Heirophants, and Shadowdancers all are classes from the core rules and all have spell-like abilities.