| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
When a creature has multiple spell-like abilities usable once per day (for example a Keketar protean has 1/day—disintegrate (DC 23), prismatic spray (DC 24), prismatic sphere (DC 26) ), does that mean that he can use every one of those once per day, or only one of them per day?
The creature can use each one once per day.
It could use each of them once per day.
|
I have never had an issue with my PFS gnome getting to use all of my SLA's once per day. But, if it is causing issue, I will faq with you.
My gut tells me this:
1/day SLA 1, SLA 2, SLA 3
versus
1/day SLA 1, 1/day SLA 2, 1/day SLA 3
In the first case, treat as sorcerer, one casting of any of the three once per day.
In the second case, can cast each of the SLA 1/day.
That would really suck for gnomes...
|
I always thought is was the 1/day/each, because that is what makes things like Demons scary, and let's gnomes have something that sets them apart from Halflings. I have played many games and every GM I have seen runs them like that. Even the one's in green VO shirts at Cons.
Why change this now, it does not make sense.
I see ZERO reason why they should work like Sorceror spell slots, nothing of the sort is remotely suggested by RAW.
SLAs are not spell slots, and there is no equivalent mechanic relating usages of them to each other via a shared "pool" of usages.
If a designer wants to let a monster cast like a sorceror does, they can give them spells known and spell slots.
(There's nothing even compelling them to follow the 'standard' sorceror progression, it can be custom spells known/slots)
The RAW states "A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used."
Note the "it" in the singular, so each usage of an individual SLA simply doesn't care how often OTHER SLA's are used.
If the number/day was the total castings of all the following spells (i.e. akin to slots), the wording should state "X/day: Spell A /OR/ Spell B /OR/ Spell C" in order to convey that the different spells are choices for the same 'pool' of usages/day. The RAW's implicit "AND" conversely indicates that the X/day usage applies to each SLA independently.
Look at how Gnome SLAs are introduced in their Race description:
Gnomes with a Charisma of 11 or higher also gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day—dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, and speak with animals.
Note the use of "AND" for the final entry, rather than "OR"... If they intended a choice of all those like "spells known" with the same shared "usage/day" pool (like spell slot) they would have described it more like "...1/day may cast X, Y, or Z as an SLA". But they didn't.
On a design basis, why should SLAs of differing spell levels be mutually equivalent/ consume a shared 'usage pool' by the same amount, i.e. a Marid's 1st, 3rd, and 6th level 3/day SLAs? That just isn't even like Sorceror slots.
This came up at PaizoCon in relation to one of the creatures in a PFS scenario; the design team has indicated that this is incorrect.
Apparently those entries are supposed to be read as if they were sorcerer spell lists.
Flagging for FAQ and dotting for discussion after necroing this thread rather than creating a new one with the same title and content.
I can only imagine you misunderstood them.
There's no way a creature with, for example, 3 1x/day spell-like abilities only gets to use one of them a day. It would seriously reduce the CR of most such creatures, as any monster builder can tell you. As somebody else mentioned, that's not the way 3.5 worked, and in practice 99.9% of us have been playing it the other way for several years now - including in PFS - with complete agreement and nary a complaint.
|
I've been running it like a sorcerer. The stat block essentially reads the same as one for a sorcerer NPC.
Take the OP's example of the Keketar.
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 17th; concentration +24)
Constant—detect law, tongues
At will—chaos hammer (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), major creation, move earth, shatter (DC 19)
3/day — quickened confusion (DC 21), dispel law (DC 22), empowered chaos hammer (DC 21), polymorph any object (DC 25)
1/day — disintegrate (DC 23), prismatic spray (DC 24), prismatic sphere (DC 26), reshape reality
For the 3/day line - is this really 3 each of the abilities listed? It reads like a sorcerer stat block to me with 4 spells known, and not 3 quickened confusions, 3 dispel laws, 3 chaos hammers and 3 polymorph any objects.
Take the CR2 faerie dragon as another example.
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 3rd; concentration +6)
3/day—greater invisibility (self only)
Spells Known (CL 3rd; concentration +6)
1st (6/day)—grease (DC 14), silent image (DC 14), sleep (DC 14)
0 (at will)—dancing lights, flare
I'd admit surprise if folks were giving the CR2 creature six grease, six silent image and six sleep spells (for a total of 18 spells) a day.
Look again, Wake.
The Protean's are ALL Spell-Likes. He gets 3 each of Quickened Confusion, Dispel Law, Empowered Chaos Hammer, and Polymorph any object, along with 1 each of Disintegrate, Prismatic Spray, Prismatic Sphere, and Reshape Reality.
That's why it's a CR 17.
The Faerie Dragon explicitly has two lists.
It gets Greater Invisibility as a Spell-like 3 time sper day AND THEN it has a SPELLS KNOWN (with a parenthetical listing of how many Spells Per Day it has) section because a Faerie Dragon is a 3rd level Sorcerer, so it has 3 1st level spells known with 6 of them per day.
There is no discrepancy here and no way to read that as it having 18 spells per day.
Spell-like abilities are not spells. They have daily uses per ability, not spell slots or spells per day.
The protean can't trade in one of his Confusions for a Dispel Law or anything, because they do NOT "cast" like a Sorcerer.
This came up at PaizoCon in relation to one of the creatures in a PFS scenario; the design team has indicated that this is incorrect.
Apparently those entries are supposed to be read as if they were sorcerer spell lists.
Flagging for FAQ and dotting for discussion after necroing this thread rather than creating a new one with the same title and content.
Wha? Could you elaborate on the situation that led you to believe this? Which designers claimed that SLA lists are intended to work like sorcerer lists?
|
|
Looked again, at least on page 6 of the Bestiary. At the very least, I could agree it's unclear enough to click on the "FAQ" button for TetsujinOni, who I assume would only bring it up if he had good reason.
For the most part, for most monsters - I don't think it's mattered since any protean I've run hasn't had a chance to go that deep into its spell-like abilities. Thus, while (and if) running it like a sorcerer may be softballing, it's in the players' favor, so I guess that's a good default position. I think the only creature I've run to a point where it may have mattered would be the pukwudgie. :)
What makes things even more rough are when the monster stat block does this:
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 1st; concentration +3)
1/day—hydraulic push*Domain Spell-Like Abilities (CL 1st; concentration +4)
6/day—dazing touch
6/day—icicle (1d6+1 cold damage)Cleric Spells Prepared (CL 1st; concentration +4)
1st—bless, charm person, divine favor
0 (at will)—create water, guidance, stabilize
In this case, "Domain Spell-Like Abilities" are treated differently, and they actually repeat the same quantity per day on new lines. If there's an assumption that they work like spell-like abilities, they could've saved themselves a newline and used a comma.
Regardless, I've clicked FAQ, if for nothing more that a future revision/printing can make this clearer by letting the reader know these very sections may look and be formatted the same, but are actually interpreted differently.
FYI, your responses just can't be taken seriously when you flat out ignore the coherent points that other people are making.
"I don't think it's mattered since any protean I've run hasn't had a chance to go that deep into its SLAs. Thus, while (and if) running it like a sorcerer may be softballing, it's in the players' favor, so I guess that's a good default position."
That is hardly a solid rule interpretation, is it? But it does seem like something you would say if you are less interested in the actual then in conforming to your own assumptions. Even there, it is notably short-sighted, since of course "players"/PCs can of course have SLAs, and this affects how they may use them, e.g. Gnomish SLAs. You advocacy of 'softballing' ignores the evidence that another function is in fact INTENDED by the game design, and the game difficulty is structured around that working according to the intent.
Consider your point about Domain SLAs: It's not just each SLA that is broken out in a line, it is the Domain SLAs as a whole: They are being broken out separately (rather than integrated in the same section with other SLAs, merely placed on a distinct line appropriate to their usages/day) because they are a distinct class ability (which may be important to track because they are Divine Magic, and because they can be lost thru disobedience to Deity, etc). Is it a surprise that the SLAs from two separate Domains/ Domain Abilities are further broken out, likewise because they are separate class abilities (Domains)?
You just aren't pointing to any RAW which can justify arriving at your conclusion, and are ignoring all the details which argue against it, namely grammatical details. You write: "The stat block essentially reads the same as one for a sorcerer NPC." ignoring that SLAs are NOT written "the same" as Sorceror Casting blocks (with Spells/Day and Spells Known), and you can't even manage to notice when a Stat Block is listing SLAs separately from Sorceror Casting. Somebody who can make so many errors is supposed to have the superior understanding and be persuasive HOW?
BTW, I did actually hit FAQ because even though the vast majority of players/GMs seem to consistently understand that SLAs daily castings are not tied to each other, since no such link is ever given in the rules, I would agree it's valid to issue a FAQ simply because the stat-block format for SLAs usages/day isn't sufficiently explained anywhere in the rules, which it should be.
|
|
you flat out ignore the coherent points.. hardly a solid rule interpretation.. ignores the evidence.. ignoring all the details.. somebody who can make so many errors.. etc
Replies like this remind me why sometimes I avoid the forums.
Did I ignore something? Did I make errors? Because I quote stat blocks and agree they look similar enough to need clarification? Because I suggested that I've never seen a protean live long enough to use the same SLA enough times that it would matter?
My response is nearly entirely aimed at pointing out the two formats are too similar to not have something that clearly states they should be read differently from each other. This isn't a ding on Paizo, it's been that way since 3.5. Thus, +1 on the FAQ while I quoted some references for showing how similar they do read.
Perhaps you saw an argument and wanted one. I'm not looking for nor am I interested in one. You've read far too much into my reply if you feel I'm arguing one side versus the other or have reached some sort of conclusion and have apparently let that agitate you in some way.
I'm quite curious why TetsujinOni said what he did say... I suspect the lack of distinction in formatting has actually led to some printed monsters that are actually intended to be sorcerer-like.
Did I ignore something? Did I make errors? Because I quote stat blocks and agree they look similar enough to need clarification? ... I suspect the lack of distinction in formatting has actually led to some printed monsters that are actually intended to be sorcerer-like.
Those formats are very clearly different. You're the only person claiming that they're not, and you're not backing up your position when the flaws are pointed out, you're just re-asserting it. FYI.
|
|
Those formats are very clearly different. You're the only person claiming that they're not
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm pointing out that the individual lines within these:
3/day - bless, divine favor
and
1st (3/day) - bless, divine favor
aren't "very clearly" different. The only difference is the 3 characters that cover the spell level and a pair of parenthesis.
To a fledgling GM, glancing quickly down at a printed module while trying to maximize eye contact with players, that's not "very clearly different".
The fact this thread exists, prior to my participation, seems to indicate that I'm not the only person that thinks these two lines in a stat block appear to be formatted in too similar a manner.
That's really the only "claim" I'm making and honestly, I'm not really all that passionate about arguing over best practices in formatting a bestiary - except for the recent replies that seem to want to turn my musings about formatting into a side of a rules debate.
They are very clearly different with anything more than a cursory glance.
One is quite clearly in this format:
Spell-like abilities: [X Times per day] - [Abilities that are available X times per day]
The other is in this format:
Spells known [Spell Level (Number of times per day)] - [Spells known]
Which is why spell-like abilities appear in this format:
1/day: SLA
2/day: SLA
3/day: SLA
Even if some of the abilities are replicating the same level spell, whereas a spell list ALWAYS goes (for Spontaneous casters):
Spell Level (X/day): Y, Z
Which is again different from how prepared casters are presented:
"7th—chain lightning (×2, DC 23), heal, power word blind"
So the format goes:
Spell Level: [Spell (X times prepared)], repeat
Definitely X/day each.
|
In this case, "Domain Spell-Like Abilities" are treated differently, and they actually repeat the same quantity per day on new lines. If there's an assumption that they work like spell-like abilities, they could've saved themselves a newline and used a comma.
the domain spell like abilities were called out differently, because you list spell like abilities from different sources.
a creature's innate spell-like abilities are charisma based.
while class-based spell like abilities can specify a different stat. in this case, a cleric's spell-like abilities from her domains are wis-based, meaning they have a different DC, and different concentration value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR responded in my thread about the same topic last year that it was uses per day each.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ndpw?Monsters-Using-SpellLike-Abilities-Per-Da y#1
Edit: need help with link, can't get it to work, sorry.
Thanks, Seraphimpunk!