Shaitans can use quickened glitterdust as a spell-like ability three times per day, presumably because they have the feat Quicken Spell-Like Ability (glitterdust).
However, shaitans do not qualify for Quicken Spell-Like Ability (glitterdust). They do not meet the feat's prerequisite, spell-like ability at CL 10th or higher, because they only have CL 9th for their spell-like abilities. Moreover, shaitans don't have a non-quickened glitterdust on their list of spell-like abilities, so it wasn't there in the first place to be quickened.
What's the deal?
I hate to say it, but I'm not terribly surprised that there appears to be an inconsistency with a stat block. I've encountered several in my Pathfinder products - I imagine that Paizo's as frustrated by the errors in their stat block editing as everybody else.
Why is it hard to believe that they would write an ability into a monster that it otherwise wouldn't qualify for?
The rules are there for PC's to follow, not DM's and monster makers.
If it makes the monster and encounter interesting- Do it. That is the rule
-S
As to not having a non-quickened version, if they would have had a SLA glitterdust 3/day before the feat then all of those could be quickened with the feat. Figure that makes sense in the stat block that way.
It was my understanding that the 3/day quickened versions were in addition to the normal uses of the spell-like ability. Then again, every other creature in the bestiary that has Quicken Spell-Like Ability (balor, bone devil, pit fiend, efreeti, and neothelid) chose an at-will spell-like to quicken, so that might make a difference.
P.S.: I just noticed that efreet only have CL 11th. That's one CL too low to quicken scorching ray.
Why is it hard to believe that they would write an ability into a monster that it otherwise wouldn't qualify for?
The rules are there for PC's to follow, not DM's and monster makers.
If it makes the monster and encounter interesting- Do it. That is the rule
-S
The best thing about 3.x, and theoretically Pathfinder, is that the rules are the rules for everyone. Monsters have BAB, stats, etc - just like the PCs. If you want a game where monsters don't operate the same way as PCs, and they have completely different rules for each, 4.x is the edition for that.
They are actually built using completely different rules.
Monsters are given stats and abilities to make them interesting encounters for the PC's.
PC's are build using classes that require the PC's to work together to overcome the monsters.
If they were built with the same rules all monsters would be 0HD, classes critters.
Monsters have various things at their disposals that the PC's do not: namely anything the game designer and/or Dm needs to make the encounter interesting. If you strip them of that, then the game will suck like a hoover very very quickly.
(a hoover being a vacuum cleaner..)
If the Monster gets (insert ability) when a PC couldn't qualify- well.. thats what monsters do.
In this case- they get an ability that a PC with the requisite SLA couldn't access. It isn't necessarily broken or a mistake- its an attempt to make a monster a little more unique than the other.
I not saying it isn't a mistake in this instance.. it very well could be.. but to assume that every time a monster "breaks the rules" that they made an error, is itself an error..
-S
I don't buy that argument in this case for two reasons.
First, this feat is from the Monster Feats section of the Bestiary. If monsters were not intended to abide by these rules, then these rules wouldn't be in the Bestiary.
Second, I don't have a problem with particular monsters having an ability that breaks the rules/guidelines in particular ways. It's an exception-based system after all. But if you're going to give a monster an ability that it wouldn't normally qualify for, you just give them that ability. You don't have to also justify it by giving the monster a feat it doesn't qualify for.
In this case, you just give shaitans the spell-like ability to produce a glitterdust effect three times per day as a swift action. Why waste a feat choice if you're giving them this ability by designer fiat in the first place?
I don't buy that argument in this case for two reasons.
First, this feat is from the Monster Feats section of the Bestiary. If monsters were not intended to abide by these rules, then these rules wouldn't be in the Bestiary.
Second, I don't have a problem with particular monsters having an ability that breaks the rules/guidelines in particular ways. It's an exception-based system after all. But if you're going to give a monster an ability that it wouldn't normally qualify for, you just give them that ability. You don't have to also justify it by giving the monster a feat it doesn't qualify for.
In this case, you just give shaitans the spell-like ability to produce a glitterdust effect three times per day as a swift action. Why waste a feat choice if you're giving them this ability by designer fiat in the first place?
Because designer fiat that costs a feat is less powerful than designer fiat for free.
To put it another way, PC class that has a class ability to let it qualify for feats it normally couldn't take is less powerful than a straight up bonus feat.The designers probably thought that this way was better balanced.
The designers probably thought that this way was better balanced.The designers likely made an error. And unlike, say WOTC, are good enough guys to admit its the case, rather than a 'feature'.
Its quacking Steve...it's waddling... its a duck.
One of the strengths of 3e and now pathfinder is that monsters do follow the same laws of physics. There are places for fiat, and this isn't one of them. If they wanted to give it as a racial bonus feat for example, that would make sense. They could even have swapped it with their current racial bonus feat...
These errors happen and they're reasonable to occur. I imagine that either the monster in question was altered a few times, or perhaps was even based upon another monster to which WOTC gave this 'feature'.. ;)
-James
My Ranger has Improved Precise Shot even though he does not qualify for it. My Monk has Combat Expertise even though he does not qualify for it.
Why are these "features" if they apply to classes and "errors" if they apply to monsters?
Isn't it just as likely that this case is an intentional exception to the rules as an oversight?
The designers probably thought that this way was better balanced.The designers likely made an error. And unlike, say WOTC, are good enough guys to admit its the case, rather than a 'feature'.
Its quacking Steve...it's waddling... its a duck.
One of the strengths of 3e and now pathfinder is that monsters do follow the same laws of physics. There are places for fiat, and this isn't one of them. If they wanted to give it as a racial bonus feat for example, that would make sense. They could even have swapped it with their current racial bonus feat...
These errors happen and they're reasonable to occur. I imagine that either the monster in question was altered a few times, or perhaps was even based upon another monster to which WOTC gave this 'feature'.. ;)
-James
My Ranger has Improved Precise Shot even though he does not qualify for it. My Monk has Combat Expertise even though he does not qualify for it.
Why are these "features" if they apply to classes and "errors" if they apply to monsters?
Isn't it just as likely that this case is an intentional exception to the rules as an oversight?
+1 to this. These things are not rare since 3.0.
I've to admit that are generally pointed out by the description of the monster or of the class.
|
I hate to say it, but I'm not terribly surprised that there appears to be an inconsistency with a stat block. I've encountered several in my Pathfinder products - I imagine that Paizo's as frustrated by the errors in their stat block editing as everybody else.
+1. I find at least two and more often five or six in every AP chapter...