Summoner Class and Augment Summoning


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm currently working on a summoner, and while looking at feats it seems like spell focus: conjuration and augment summoning should be shoe ins for the summor, but since the primary summoning ability of the summoner is a spell like ability, it doesn't seem like they would take effect, which seems kind of unfair since then a Conjurer would be a better summoner than a Summoner. Also, the summoning of the eidolon doesn't have an ability listed with it (ie. is it ex? su? or sp?) so would any feats taken affecting summoning affect the eidolon? Any thoughts?


Erik Mehring wrote:
I'm currently working on a summoner, and while looking at feats it seems like spell focus: conjuration and augment summoning should be shoe ins for the summor, but since the primary summoning ability of the summoner is a spell like ability, it doesn't seem like they would take effect, which seems kind of unfair since then a Conjurer would be a better summoner than a Summoner. Also, the summoning of the eidolon doesn't have an ability listed with it (ie. is it ex? su? or sp?) so would any feats taken affecting summoning affect the eidolon? Any thoughts?

spell focus: conjuration and augment summoning work fine for any Summon Monster spell that the Summoner conjures up.

They have no effect on the Eidolon.


For the spells, yes, but the summoner can cast Summon Monster as a spell like ability 3+Cha modifier a day as a spell like ability, not from his daily allotment of spells. Would those feats affect this spell-like ability?


Erik Mehring wrote:
For the spells, yes, but the summoner can cast Summon Monster as a spell like ability 3+Cha modifier a day as a spell like ability, not from his daily allotment of spells. Would those feats affect this spell-like ability?

From D20PFSRD:

Benefit: Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it.

It says conjured via 'spell'. A spell-like ability is spell-like, but it is not a spell, so I'd say no.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Young wrote:
Erik Mehring wrote:
For the spells, yes, but the summoner can cast Summon Monster as a spell like ability 3+Cha modifier a day as a spell like ability, not from his daily allotment of spells. Would those feats affect this spell-like ability?

From D20PFSRD:

Benefit: Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it.

It says conjured via 'spell'. A spell-like ability is spell-like, but it is not a spell, so I'd say no.

This came up during the playtest. A very clear yes.

Andrew Betts wrote:
Can Augment Summoning also affect monsters summoned through this Spell-Like Ability?

Yes

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Spacelard wrote:

This came up during the playtest. A very clear yes.

Andrew Betts wrote:
Can Augment Summoning also affect monsters summoned through this Spell-Like Ability?

Yes

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Nice. So the Summoner does win the contest for a class that contains as many exceptions to the rules as class features.


Robert Young wrote:
Spacelard wrote:

This came up during the playtest. A very clear yes.

Andrew Betts wrote:
Can Augment Summoning also affect monsters summoned through this Spell-Like Ability?

Yes

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Nice. So the Summoner does win the contest for a class that contains as many exceptions to the rules as class features.

Sorry to disagree but spell-like abilities are treated exactly like spells to me. The phrase implies that it is exactly like a spell but different some how, ie no somatic component. I don't see how this is an exception to the rule specificaly for Summoners. All spell-like abilities, Summoner or otherwise, are treated the same.

Extraordinary abilities are non-magical and supernatural are magical but not spell like.

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.


Spacelard wrote:

Sorry to disagree but spell-like abilities are treated exactly like spells to me. The phrase implies that it is exactly like a spell but different some how, ie no somatic component. I don't see how this is an exception to the rule specificaly for Summoners. All spell-like abilities, Summoner or otherwise, are treated the same.

Extraordinary abilities are non-magical and supernatural are magical but not spell like.

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.

From D20PFSRD:

Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).

They are not spells. This distinction has caused the bifurcation of metamagic feats (quicken spell v. quicken spell-like ability). This has led me to conclude that feats that affect spells (Augment Summoning, Quicken Spell) do not automatically affect spell-like abilities. But now we have the Summoner and a ruling....


Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power.
From Pathfinder Reference Doc.

You can apply any metamagic feat (subject to the feats restrictions) to any spell-like ability. They function just like a spell and should be treated as such.
I don't think this has anything to do with an additional ruling just for the Summoner.

Scarab Sages

32 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a distinction here, and it's subtle, but important. When you add a metamagic feat to a spell-like ability, you end up having to use a spell-like slot one or more levels higher. Since there is no such thing as a spell-like slot, you can't use your metamagic enhanced spell-like ability. (If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities).

Augment Summoning, however, along with Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and the greater versions of same, has no need for a spell-like slot to function. Thus they work just fine with spell-like abilities in addition to spells.

Shadow Lodge

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


There is a distinction here, and it's subtle, but important. When you add a metamagic feat to a spell-like ability, you end up having to use a spell-like slot one or more levels higher. Since there is no such thing as a spell-like slot, you can't use your metamagic enhanced spell-like ability. (If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities).

Augment Summoning, however, along with Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and the greater versions of same, has no need for a spell-like slot to function. Thus they work just fine with spell-like abilities in addition to spells.

That REALLY makes a lot of sense, and wasn't anything I had noticed before. Thanks for the clarification.


Spacelard wrote:


You can apply any metamagic feat (subject to the feats restrictions) to any spell-like ability. They function just like a spell and should be treated as such.
I don't think this has anything to do with an additional ruling just for the Summoner.

Sorry, I was referencing the Bestiary rules section. If you can apply any metamagic feat to any spell-like ability (where does it say you can do this?) why are the feats empower and quicken spell-like ability listed under Monster Feats in the bestiary if they are, in fact, superfluous?

Is it your interpretation that a spell-like ability is actually a spell except for components, counterspelling, and minimum required casting attributes? My interpretation is that a spell-like ability is a magical ability that functions like a spell but is not actually a spell. The difference lies in separating these two game functions for other effects, such as metamagic, minimum caster attributes, etc.

Edit: I'd be more comfortable with the spell-slot reconciliation described above.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


There is a distinction here, and it's subtle, but important. When you add a metamagic feat to a spell-like ability, you end up having to use a spell-like slot one or more levels higher. Since there is no such thing as a spell-like slot, you can't use your metamagic enhanced spell-like ability. (If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities).

Augment Summoning, however, along with Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and the greater versions of same, has no need for a spell-like slot to function. Thus they work just fine with spell-like abilities in addition to spells.

This of course also brings up the issue of metamagic rods and spell-like abilities. Also if spell focus and ability focus can stack for a spell-like you can get some fairly nasty DCs.


When I first read the question, my immediate thought was "well, of course Augment Summoning works with the summoner's summon monster spell-like ability." Then I decided I needed to do some research and reflection to make sure.

While Jason answered "yes", to the original question, it's not clear to me now as to whether he made an exception or if he believes Augment Summoning should work with a Summon Monster spell-like ability in normal circumstances--and if the latter, that might imply he believes meta-magic feats could be used with spell-like abilities.

I understand that the description of spell-like abilities says "in all other ways, they function just like a spell", but there is a distinct separation of feats such as meta-magic feats and feats that work on spell-like abilities. As another example, Combat Casting makes a point to say a caster gains a +4 concentration bonus when casting a spell or using a spell-like ability. If a spell-like ability is just like a spell why is there a need to make a distinction?

Finally, while Pathfinder is not 3.x and has many subtle changes, past rules discussions about spell-like abilities seem to be clear that you can't use meta-magic (or other) feats that are meant for spells on spell-like abilities.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


There is a distinction here, and it's subtle, but important. When you add a metamagic feat to a spell-like ability, you end up having to use a spell-like slot one or more levels higher. Since there is no such thing as a spell-like slot, you can't use your metamagic enhanced spell-like ability. (If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities).

Augment Summoning, however, along with Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and the greater versions of same, has no need for a spell-like slot to function. Thus they work just fine with spell-like abilities in addition to spells.

Thats what I meant by metamagic restrictions.

Spell-like abilities occupy no slots and therefore can't have metamagic feats applied to them.

However the Summoner looks to kinda have "slots" 1st level SM1, 3rd SM2, 5th level SM3, etc a number of times equal to CHA+3/day.
So could/would an extended SM2 use up two castings of the Summoner's SLA?

Scarab Sages

Enkili wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


There is a distinction here, and it's subtle, but important. When you add a metamagic feat to a spell-like ability, you end up having to use a spell-like slot one or more levels higher. Since there is no such thing as a spell-like slot, you can't use your metamagic enhanced spell-like ability. (If you add metamagic feats with a +0 level modifier from some other source, they'd work fine with spell-like abilities).

Augment Summoning, however, along with Spell Focus, Spell Penetration and the greater versions of same, has no need for a spell-like slot to function. Thus they work just fine with spell-like abilities in addition to spells.

This of course also brings up the issue of metamagic rods and spell-like abilities. Also if spell focus and ability focus can stack for a spell-like you can get some fairly nasty DCs.

I would absolutely allow metamagic rods to work with spell-like abilities. It's not unbalancing in any way, and in my opinion matches the RAW.

As for Ability Focus and Spell Focus, there are two potential answers. The basic stacking rules state that two bonuses must both have different types (or no type) AND be from different sources to stack. One could argue that "Feats" are one source, even different feats. Under that interpretation, Spell Focus and Ability focus do not stack. It's a weak interpretation, however, as that would mean Acrobatic and Skill Focus (Acrobatics) don't stack, which doesn't match how I have seen the rules in use.

The other answer is, yes, since Spell Focus applies to an entire school, and Ability focus applies to a single attack, they do stack, and intentionally so, to allow monsters (who rarely get ability-enhancing magic items) to boost DCs to the same degree as PCs, if they decide to dedicate enough feats to it.

Of course, Ability Focus applies only to Special Attacks. Those are usually Su or Ex. Are there any examples of spell-like abilites listed as special attacks? I'm willing to beleive they exist, but none come to mind off the top of my head.


Robert Young wrote:
Spacelard wrote:

This came up during the playtest. A very clear yes.

Andrew Betts wrote:
Can Augment Summoning also affect monsters summoned through this Spell-Like Ability?

Yes

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Nice. So the Summoner does win the contest for a class that contains as many exceptions to the rules as class features.

Thought "exception to the rules" was a Summoner class feature?


Cartigan wrote:
Thought "exception to the rules" was a Summoner class feature?

Yeah, or a prereq.


Hey, at least they're not as bad as Space Marines.

Shadow Lodge

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

As for Ability Focus and Spell Focus, there are two potential answers. The basic stacking rules state that two bonuses must both have different types (or no type) AND be from different sources to stack. One could argue that "Feats" are one source, even different feats. Under that interpretation, Spell Focus and Ability focus do not stack. It's a weak interpretation, however, as that would mean Acrobatic and Skill Focus (Acrobatics) don't stack, which doesn't match how I have seen the rules in use.

The other answer is, yes, since Spell Focus applies to an entire school, and Ability focus applies to a single attack, they do stack, and intentionally so, to allow monsters (who rarely get ability-enhancing magic items) to boost DCs to the same degree as PCs, if they decide to dedicate enough feats to it.

Of course, Ability Focus applies only to Special Attacks. Those are usually Su or Ex. Are there any examples of spell-like abilites listed as special attacks? I'm willing to beleive...

For some reason I thought Skill Focus and the +2 feats were an explicit exception to the feats stacking rule. On looking it isn't explicitly stated though.

Dark Archive

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Of course, Ability Focus applies only to Special Attacks. Those are usually Su or Ex. Are there any examples of spell-like abilites listed as special attacks? I'm willing to beleive...

Huh, that's something I hadn't noticed. In 3.5, an Aboleth could take Ability Focus for his 'Special Attacks' of Enslave (Dominate Person) or one of the spell-like abilities listed under 'Psionics,' or a Troglodyte could use Ability Focus on his stench, all considered Special Attacks in 3.5, but in Pathfinder, none of those things are listed as Special Attacks (being listed under Spell-Like Abilities or Aura), and those creatures, having no 'Special Attacks,' would be ineligible for the Feat.

Weirdness.

Scarab Sages

Set wrote:


Huh, that's something I hadn't noticed. In 3.5, an Aboleth could take Ability Focus for his 'Special Attacks' of Enslave (Dominate Person) or one of the spell-like abilities listed under 'Psionics,' or a Troglodyte could use Ability Focus on his stench, all considered Special Attacks in 3.5, but in Pathfinder, none of those things are listed as Special Attacks (being listed under Spell-Like Abilities or Aura), and those creatures, having no 'Special Attacks,' would be ineligible for the Feat.

But they -could- take Spell Focus for their spell-like abilities, if I'm correct in my rules interpretations.


I think GMs should be particularly careful with SLA. I do not believe Spell Focus and Ability Focus were ever meant to stack. Monsters have monstrous ability scores, which almost always surpass PC ability scores and are as such in no need whatsoever to further boost their DCs beyond Ability Focus.

Too literal interpretation of similarities between spells and spell-like abilities would even permit spell-like abilities to be scribed onto scrolls, which due to the excemption from material components of SLA would unbalance the game a lot. Spell-like abilty scrolls of stoneskin are one example.


The Grandfather wrote:
Too literal interpretation of similarities between spells and spell-like abilities would even permit spell-like abilities to be scribed onto scrolls, which due to the excemption from material components of SLA would unbalance the game a lot. Spell-like abilty scrolls of stoneskin are one example.

This would be balanced out somewhat by the fact that such scrolls would always need Use Magic Device to be used, because the "spells" are neither arcane nor divine.

Quote:
I do not believe Spell Focus and Ability Focus were ever meant to stack.

They cannot stack, because you cannot get both for the same ability. Spell-like abilities are not "special attacks", and Ability Focus can only be applied to special attacks.


Zurai wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
Too literal interpretation of similarities between spells and spell-like abilities would even permit spell-like abilities to be scribed onto scrolls, which due to the excemption from material components of SLA would unbalance the game a lot. Spell-like abilty scrolls of stoneskin are one example.
This would be balanced out somewhat by the fact that such scrolls would always need Use Magic Device to be used, because the "spells" are neither arcane nor divine.

That is not always the case. Sometimes SLA are in deed specified as arcane or divine in nature.

Zurai wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
Quote:
I do not believe Spell Focus and Ability Focus were ever meant to stack.
They cannot stack, because you cannot get both for the same ability. Spell-like abilities are not "special attacks", and Ability Focus can only be applied to special attacks.

That is in all likelyhood not correct either. I am certain that you would be able to find so called "special attacks" among SLA.


Zurai wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
Too literal interpretation of similarities between spells and spell-like abilities would even permit spell-like abilities to be scribed onto scrolls, which due to the excemption from material components of SLA would unbalance the game a lot. Spell-like abilty scrolls of stoneskin are one example.
This would be balanced out somewhat by the fact that such scrolls would always need Use Magic Device to be used, because the "spells" are neither arcane nor divine.

The last paragrath on SLA in the bestiary p.304 explicitly states the arcane/divine nature of SLA.

Zurai wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
I do not believe Spell Focus and Ability Focus were ever meant to stack.
They cannot stack, because you cannot get both for the same ability. Spell-like abilities are not "special attacks", and Ability Focus can only be applied to special attacks.

The first example I found - was already in the first monster of the Beastiary: Aasimar. Granted the ability in question is actually a clerics touch. But in general the PRG casters have touch attack SLA which are clasified "special attacks".

I will not dwell on that further though as you basically agree with me that Ability Focus and Spell Focus do not stack :)


The Grandfather wrote:
The last paragrath on SLA in the bestiary p.304 explicitly states the arcane/divine nature of SLA.

Nope. It says it duplicates the X class version for the purposes of spells that have different effects when cast by different classes. Not for any other purpose, including arcane/divine-ness. As a matter of fact, NO SLA is either arcane or divine.

You're right about the Aasimar having an SLA in its special attacks, but touch of good doesn't have a DC ;)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Spell-like abilities are most certainly special attacks and, provided they have a save DC, can qualify a creature for the Ability Focus feat.

There are a number of areas in Pathfinder that show that spell-like abilities are special attacks. Spell-like abilities in v3.0/v3.5 D&D were considered special attacks. All one needs to do is realize that a stat block does not a rule make, it is merely a convenient method of showing data in an organized fashion. Once you do that, you'll realize that not every special attack is listed in the special attack section. Many of the stat blocks aren't even consistent, so using them as a basis for argument is rarely a good idea.

If my eidolon has scorching ray 3/day as a spell-like ability, or my necromancer has grave touch (or whatever it's called) you are going to have a hard time convincing me that those spell-like abilities are not special attacks. The abilities meet the very definitions of "special" and "attack." There is no way they are not special attacks.


Ravingdork wrote:
All one needs to do is realize that a stat block does not a rule make, it is merely a convenient method of showing data in an organized fashion. Once you do that, you'll realize that not every special attack is listed in the special attack section.

Please show me a definition of "special attack", then. The one provided in the book is an attack that is listed in the "Special Attacks" section of the stat block.


Zurai wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
The last paragrath on SLA in the bestiary p.304 explicitly states the arcane/divine nature of SLA.

Nope. It says it duplicates the X class version for the purposes of spells that have different effects when cast by different classes. Not for any other purpose, including arcane/divine-ness. As a matter of fact, NO SLA is either arcane or divine.

I disagree.

Spell-Like Abilities:

Bestiary p. 304 wrote:

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical

and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so
have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).
They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell
resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be
subject to spell resistance.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it
can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can
be used at will has no use limit. Reactivating a constant
spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spelllike
abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise,
and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible
to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability
defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity,
just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be
disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot
be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated
caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their
spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent
variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might
have. The creature’s caster level never affects which
spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given
caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character
would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster
level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s
Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like
ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or
duplicates + the creature’s Charisma modifier.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work
differently when cast by characters of different classes.
A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the
sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a
sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard,
paladin, and ranger, in that order.

Format: At will—burning hands (DC 13); Location: Spell-
Like Abilities.


The Grandfather wrote:
I disagree.

Your spoiler doesn't disagree with my statement. Just because a spell-like ability is the sorcerer/wizard version of the spell doesn't mean it's arcane. In fact, there is no provision in the rules for anything but spells to be either arcane or divine. The word "arcane" or "divine", when speaking in a mechanical context, always is referring specifically to a spell or the ability to cast spells. "Arcane spell". "Divine spell".

Furthermore, it's tied specifically into the class that casts the spell, not the spell list it's on. There are classes that can learn spells that are NOT on their spell list. Sorcerer is one example: Celestial Sorcerers learn bless at 3rd level, but bless is only on the Cleric and Paladin spell lists. By your definition, that would make bless a divine spell. It is not. It is an arcane spell, because a sorcerer is casting it.

Anyway, the whole argument is moot, because the rules have actually been officially clarified that Spell Penetration and so on DO apply to spell-like abilities, as do metamagics that don't require spell level increases. Read Complete Arcane.


Zurai wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
I disagree.

Your spoiler doesn't disagree with my statement. Just because a spell-like ability is the sorcerer/wizard version of the spell doesn't mean it's arcane. In fact, there is no provision in the rules for anything but spells to be either arcane or divine. The word "arcane" or "divine", when speaking in a mechanical context, always is referring specifically to a spell or the ability to cast spells. "Arcane spell". "Divine spell".

Furthermore, it's tied specifically into the class that casts the spell, not the spell list it's on. There are classes that can learn spells that are NOT on their spell list. Sorcerer is one example: Celestial Sorcerers learn bless at 3rd level, but bless is only on the Cleric and Paladin spell lists. By your definition, that would make bless a divine spell. It is not. It is an arcane spell, because a sorcerer is casting it.

Anyway, the whole argument is moot, because the rules have actually been officially clarified that Spell Penetration and so on DO apply to spell-like abilities, as do metamagics that don't require spell level increases. Read Complete Arcane.

No, that rule says that the default for spell like abilities is arcane, unless they are not arcane spells. The rules specifically state spell casting class trumps this, thus making the bless an arcane spell in your example. These do not contradict. If the sorcerer got a spell like ability to do bless, and it did not state it was arcane, by that definition it would be divine.


Caineach wrote:
No, that rule says that the default for spell like abilities is arcane, unless they are not arcane spells.

False. That rule says that the wording of the spell is for the sorcerer/wizard version by default. Seriously, does no one know the meaning of the word "context" around here?

Let me try my own bold emphasis:

Quote:
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.

That very clearly and unequivocally states the context of the statements that immediately follow it:

Quote:
A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

Context: some spells have multiple versions that vary based on the class that casts them.

Rule: spell-like abilities default to a certain version based on a priority list.
Rule in context: spells default to a certain version based on a priority list for the purpose of figuring out which version a monster casts.

Note that the version is the context, not arcane-ness or divine-ness. That has is not a property of spell-like abilities. SLAs are all neuter.


Zurai wrote:
Caineach wrote:
No, that rule says that the default for spell like abilities is arcane, unless they are not arcane spells.

False. That rule says that the wording of the spell is for the sorcerer/wizard version by default. Seriously, does no one know the meaning of the word "context" around here?

Let me try my own bold emphasis:

Quote:
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.

That very clearly and unequivocally states the context of the statements that immediately follow it:

Quote:
A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

Context: some spells have multiple versions that vary based on the class that casts them.

Rule: spell-like abilities default to a certain version based on a priority list.
Rule in context: spells default to a certain version based on a priority list for the purpose of figuring out which version a monster casts.

Note that the version is the context, not arcane-ness or divine-ness. That has is not a property of spell-like abilities. SLAs are all neuter.

Arcane or divine is in fact a case where they work differently. If a spellcraft check is made, you determine that difference in game.


Caineach wrote:
Arcane or divine is in fact a case where they work differently. If a spellcraft check is made, you determine that difference in game.

You cannot make a Spellcraft check on a spell-like ability. And, regardless, you do not learn the arcane or divine nature of a spell from a Spellcraft check, you merely "identify" it. You'd learn that the bad guy just cast fireball at you, but you have no way of knowing whether it's a wizard's fireball or an adept's fireball.

Anyway, the official word from 3.5 was that SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. Artificers and Warlocks do not qualify for prestige classes or feats that require "arcane caster level X" or "divine caster level X", or "cast <x spell> as a divine/arcane spell", even though they DO qualify for PrCs or feats that require "caster level X" or "cast <x spell>". Similarly, any scrolls they make contain non-arcane, non-divine spells and thus need UMD checks regardless of who tries to read them. Why? Because "arcane" or "divine" is a function of the spell caster, not the spell. Spell-like abilities are independent of all that, and have no arcane or divine status.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Arcane or divine is in fact a case where they work differently. If a spellcraft check is made, you determine that difference in game.

You cannot make a Spellcraft check on a spell-like ability. And, regardless, you do not learn the arcane or divine nature of a spell from a Spellcraft check, you merely "identify" it. You'd learn that the bad guy just cast fireball at you, but you have no way of knowing whether it's a wizard's fireball or an adept's fireball.

Anyway, the official word from 3.5 was that SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. Artificers and Warlocks do not qualify for prestige classes or feats that require "arcane caster level X" or "divine caster level X", or "cast <x spell> as a divine/arcane spell", even though they DO qualify for PrCs or feats that require "caster level X" or "cast <x spell>". Similarly, any scrolls they make contain non-arcane, non-divine spells and thus need UMD checks regardless of who tries to read them. Why? Because "arcane" or "divine" is a function of the spell caster, not the spell. Spell-like abilities are independent of all that, and have no arcane or divine status.

You CAN make a spellcraft check to identify the spell-like ability's spell effect AFTER it is cast provided there is an observable effect. You CANNOT identify it during its "casting" as there are no components to see. Other than that, I completely agree.


Ravingdork wrote:
You CAN make a spellcraft check to identify the spell-like ability's spell effect AFTER it is cast provided there is an observable effect.

That's Knowledge: Arcana, not Spellcraft. But yes, that does work.


Zurai wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
You CAN make a spellcraft check to identify the spell-like ability's spell effect AFTER it is cast provided there is an observable effect.
That's Knowledge: Arcana, not Spellcraft. But yes, that does work.

There is nothing in the spell like ability description that says spellcraft cannot be used. It says they have no verbal, somatic, or material components. Metamagiced spells that also do this can still be identified with spellcraft. It still provokes and AoO, so people can obviously tell that a spell is being cast.


Zurai wrote:
Anyway, the official word from 3.5 was that SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. Artificers and Warlocks do not qualify for prestige classes or feats that require "arcane caster level X" or "divine caster level X", or "cast <x spell> as a divine/arcane spell", even though they DO qualify for PrCs or feats that require "caster level X" or "cast <x spell>". Similarly, any scrolls they make contain non-arcane, non-divine spells and thus need UMD checks regardless of who tries to read them. Why? Because "arcane" or "divine" is a function of the spell caster, not the spell. Spell-like abilities are independent of all that, and have no arcane or divine status.

I think this makes the most sense, it explains why people cant abuse the system to meet prereq's for PrC's like Mystic Theuge. I have to admit i was on board with Caineach and Ravingdork until the Zurai posted

Zurai wrote:

Quote:

Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.

That very clearly and unequivocally states the context of the statements that immediately follow it:
Quote:
A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

Good catch on that Zurai


Zurai wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
You CAN make a spellcraft check to identify the spell-like ability's spell effect AFTER it is cast provided there is an observable effect.
That's Knowledge: Arcana, not Spellcraft. But yes, that does work.

Not if you are using detect magic. Then you would see its aura and use spellcraft to determine arcane and divine.

As a note, I do not think that spell like abilities should count for things like qualifying for a prestige class. I just think that they have a detectable trace as being arcane or divine. I am not familiar with the Artificer or Warlock, but if they are using spell like abilities and not spells, I don't see why they should even qualify for "caster level x" prestige classes. It means that if I take a gnome I can qualify for any "caster lvl x" class just by having racial spell like abilities.


Caineach wrote:
I am not familiar with the Artificer or Warlock, but if they are using spell like abilities and not spells, I don't see why they should even qualify for "caster level x" prestige classes. It means that if I take a gnome I can qualify for any "caster lvl x" class just by having racial spell like abilities.

They're both official WotC base classes (Warlock is in Complete Arcane, Artificer is in the Eberron Campaign Setting). Warlocks make extensive use of SLAs -- all their powers are SLAs. Artificers, notsomuch. Anyway, they qualify for "caster level" prestige requirements because all SLAs have a caster level (they have to in order to function like spells). And yes, that does mean that a gnome could get into any prestige class that only has a "caster level X" requirement as long as they're at least level X. Most classes have other spell-type requirements on top of just caster level, though. For example, the example used by Complete Arcane is the Acolyte of the Skin, which requires caster level 5 AND peaceful contact with a summoned evil outsider.

Here's the relevant text from CompArc:

Quote:
In the context of a feat or a prestige class requirement, a caster level prerequisite (such as "caster level 5th") measures the character's ability to channel a minimum amount of magical power. For feats or prestige classes requiring a minimum caster level, creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations instead of spells use either their fixed caster level or their class level to determine qualification. For example, Craft Wondrous Item has a requirement of caster level 3rd, so both a 3rd-level warlock and a nixie (caster level 4th for its charm person spell-like ability) meet the requirement.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
You CAN make a spellcraft check to identify the spell-like ability's spell effect AFTER it is cast provided there is an observable effect.
That's Knowledge: Arcana, not Spellcraft. But yes, that does work.

So it is. That's an odd change to the rules, splitting up spell identification between two different skills.


Ravingdork wrote:
So it is. That's an odd change to the rules, splitting up spell identification between two different skills.

Yeah, there's sporadic debate on it and has been since Beta or Alpha, whenever it was introduced (I can't recall which it was). I don't mind it overmuch, personally, but I know it bugs others.


Ok,I'm trying to build a Druid/Summoner 3/3

First off, I'd like to say while a lot of stuff has been put into this debate about Skill Focus and Spell Focus being stackable with the Summoner's SLA probably means something to all of you folks who know whereof they speak, that group doesn't include me.

I read Spell Focus

Choose a school of magic. Any spells you cast of that school are more difficult to resist.

Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic.

I read Skill Focus:

Choose a skill. You are particularly adept at that skill.

Benefit: You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving the chosen skill. If you have 10 or more ranks in that skill, this bonus increases to +6.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new skill.

I hope I'm not being really dumb here but I fail to see what either of these do for Summoning or the Summoned Creature (I'm guessing I must be missing something)

With Spell Focus it gives you a DC Bonus (I'll readily admit, as someone who doesn't do a lot of casting I'm not exactly sure of the applications and mechanics of that). Isn't that something that you roll when trying to affect someone else with one of your spells to overcome the target's spell resistance? If that is the case, how does it affect a Summon spell which doesn't really have a target (the critters summoned might but the spell itself doesn't)

With Skill focus I wonder how you can have a ready made feat sitting there waiting to be applied to critters who only a moment before weren't there.

Again, these could be incredibly dumb questions. If so, I apologize.

Second issue: I've seen it written here that you can only have one SM SLA ability active at once. When you summon the 2nd critter, the first goes poof. Does this same restriction also apply to a SM SLA and a SM Spell?

Thanks for your time,

HH

Dark Archive

Hockey_Hippie wrote:
I hope I'm not being really dumb here but I fail to see what either of these do for Summoning or the Summoned Creature (I'm guessing I must be missing something)

They don't. Spell Focus is a prereq for Augment Summoning, so the Summoner pretty much has to buy it anyway. (And hey, it will add +1 to the save DC of his Grease spells! Woo!)

The discussion about Augment Summons, Spell Focus and Spell Penetration *maybe* affecting SLAs, in addition to spells, is more to do with the fact that, unlike Metamagic feats, they don't affect the spell slot of the magic being affected.

Quicken SLA has to be different than Quicken Spell, because of the metamagic adjust (SLAs can't be adjusted in this fashion, as they don't occupy numbered spell slots), but Spell Focus (evocation) or Spell Penetration could, in theory, be an exception, under that logic, as they don't require any changed text at all for a Spell or a Spell-Like Ability.

Right now, the only thing we know is that Augment Summon works for the Summon Monster SLA of a Summoner.

Whether the above logic applies, or it's a very special exception, is unresolved. If the above logic applies, a Satyr with Summon Nature's Ally III as an SLA could take Augment Summons also, but that's not officially confirmed (or denied) yet. Similarly, an Efreeti with Scorching Ray as an SLA *might* be able to benefit from Spell Focus (evocation).

Hard to say. It's expanding the very specific exception for the Summoner SLA into a general case scenario (and applying it to a couple of additional feats), and while it makes a certain amount of logical sense, it's not an actual rule or anything.

In any event, Spell Focus, Spell Penetration or Skill Focus won't have any effect on Summon Monster spells *or* spell-like abilities, since they don't have save DCs, don't roll to overcome Spell Resistance and don't require any skill checks to use.

Quote:
Second issue: I've seen it written here that you can only have one SM SLA ability active at once. When you summon the 2nd critter, the...

One Summon Monster SLA at a time (even if you used it to call up 1d3 or 1d4+1 critters from a lower level list), but you can have as many summoned critters from Summon Monster *spells* (whether cast, or from a wand or scroll or whatever) at a time as you want.

If you have Summon Monster as an SLA from some other source, like as a monster ability, that also would be fine to throw into the mix. It's only the Summon Monster SLA from your Summoner class ability that can only be active once at a time.


Abilty Focus and Witchs Hex Do I need to take it for each hex for does one size fit all?

Dark Archive

Tom S 820 wrote:

Abilty Focus and Witchs Hex Do I need to take it for each hex for does one size fit all?

I am personally in the camp that one size fits all because Hex as a whole is ONE feature. It can be used to create multiple different effects but it is one specific ability.

However I can understand how it would be ruled otherwise for balance reasons.


Erik Mehring wrote:
For the spells, yes, but the summoner can cast Summon Monster as a spell like ability 3+Cha modifier a day as a spell like ability, not from his daily allotment of spells. Would those feats affect this spell-like ability?

exact text:

"...a summoner can CAST summon monster I as a spell-like ability..."
(Also: "He can CAST this SPELL as a standard action...")

my interpretation:
a spell-like ability is allowing the summoner to CAST summon monster I

I think the key word is CAST. Augment Summoning does not apply to the Eidolon as it's not a SPELL, it's summoned through a 1 minute RITUAL. (insert naked chicken dance here) Just my thought on the official ruling and the OPs original question.


If anyone would like to play a summoner at my table, I allow augment summoning to be applied to the eidolon in addition to the SLA. /threadjack

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
knightofstyx wrote:
If anyone would like to play a summoner at my table, I allow augment summoning to be applied to the eidolon in addition to the SLA. /threadjack

That should only work if the eidolon is summoned with the Summon Eidolon spell, by RAW.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Summoner Class and Augment Summoning All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.