| 20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a Horizon Walker with terrain dominance Astral Plane:
Astral Plane: The horizon walker gains a +1 competence bonus on attack and damage rolls against outsiders. He gains dimension door as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + the character's Wisdom modifier (caster level equal to the character's level).
...or the Shadowdancer with Shadow Jump:
Shadow Jump (Su): At 4th level, a shadowdancer gains the ability to travel between shadows as if by means of a dimension door spell. The limitation is that the magical transport must begin and end in an area with at least some dim light. A shadowdancer can jump up to a total of 40 feet each day in this way; this may be a single jump of 40 feet or four jumps of 10 feet each. Every two levels higher than 4th, the distance a shadowdancer can jump each day doubles (80 feet at 6th, 160 feet at 8th, and 320 feet at 10th). This amount can be split among many jumps, but each one, no matter how small, counts as a 10-foot increment.
...qualify for the Dimensional Agility feat?:
Dimensional Agility
Teleportation does not faze you.Prerequisites: Ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door.
Benefit: After using abundant step or casting dimension door, you can take any actions you still have remaining on your turn. You also gain a +4 bonus on Concentration checks when casting teleportation spells.
I'm hoping to get a Dev's attention on this one.
However, if you are not a Dev (or honestly, even if you are) I would prefer to have both your opinion on the interpretation of:
1. Rules As Written
2. Rules As Intended
3. Why you think this on both 1 & 2.
Thank you for your time. :)
RAW means you look at the words as they are written without saying "____ was the intent.
Example:
The dead condition does not state you can no longer take actions, while the paralyzed condition does. =RAW
No(99%) GM is going to allow you to continue to take actions once your character is dead. =RAI
Even in PFS which does not allow as much GM interpretation as a home game does the dead character is done.
We had our shadowdancer debate on the other thread. If another poster supports the SD then I will copy and paste my rebuttals.
For the HW by RAW they get to use the dimension agility feat since they are casting dimension door. I don't know if it is RAI, but the text only says they need to cast dimension door, and since spells and SLA's can both be cast I think it is really difficult to say they can't do it.
Can I use a metamagic rod to alter a spell-like ability?
No. Metamagic rods allow you to apply a metamagic feat to a spell, and metamagic feats do not work on spell-like abilities.
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/22/11
While this isn't about the specific topic at hand, SKR does point out that the abilities gained from spell-like abilities are not spells. So are you able to "cast" something that is not a spell? It seems so.
While the Shadowdancer's ability is a Supernatural ability there is nothing in the rules that states that it is "cast" when used. However, is it possible that for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of the Dimensional Agility feat that the Shadow Jump ability is "cast"ing Dimension Door?
Under Special Abilities it states:
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
However, the only ability it references specifically functioning like spells is the Spell-Like Abilities. For it to be "several" it would need to mean more than just the SLAs. Extraordinary and Natural Abilities don't seem to fit the bill of "function like spells". Is it possible it could have meant that Supernatural Abilities function like spells? If so are they considered to be "cast"?
Since the rules do not specify we are forced to make a judgement call on what the RAI was. I know my opinions on this but I want to know what all of your people's opinions are.
SU's are not cast. Some of them such as Abundant Step will reference a spell to let you know how it works. They would have caster levels if they did. SLA's are called out as functioning like spells.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.
Here is an earlier thread on this topic.
wraithstrike: What do you think the "...many of which function like spells." was refering to other than spell-like abilities?
Special Abilities
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
Its the first line under special abilities which includes Spell-like Supernatural Extraordaniry and Natural. Of those the majority tend to be spell like (always function like spells) or supernatural (sometimes funtion like spells in how they work)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "many of which function like spell" refers to any ability which references a spell, even if it is not cast.
As an example some of the witch's hexes reference spells and act life spells except for specific text, and the fact that SU's have their own rules.
The sleep hex as an example functions like(similar to) the spell, but unlike the spell it does not provoke, can not be counter-spelled or dispelled.
Edit: Talonhawke's explanation also works.
Talonhawke's is what I was going for, really.
So are we agreed that some Su can function like spells?
The arguement in the above linked thread was whether those abilities are "cast" which seems to be the crux of the matter here for some as well. Spell-like abilities are explicitly called out as "cast" while Supernatural are not. But could they be implicitly meant to cast?
The answer to that question seems fairly pivotal to this question for some.
For instance, does a Witch cast a Hex? The Slumber Hex mentioned above uses wording of "...as per the spell sleep." Taken at face value does that mean it is "cast" "...as per the spell sleep"? Or is it activated? To be honest, the wording on Spell-Like abilities also states both that it is "activated" and "cast". Is this situational? Does it depend on the wording of each individual spell-like or supernatural ability? Or what?
Since spell likes actually use the terms cast casting time i would say they are cast.
I don't think SU's do however both use caster level when needed to determine effects based off of a level.
I allowed the shadowdancer in my campaign to take the Dimensional Agility chain. I feel that it's RAI; even if it's not RAW.
Talonhawke's is what I was going for, really.
So are we agreed that some Su can function like spells?
The arguement in the above linked thread was whether those abilities are "cast" which seems to be the crux of the matter here for some as well. Spell-like abilities are explicitly called out as "cast" while Supernatural are not. But could they be implicitly meant to cast?
The answer to that question seems fairly pivotal to this question for some.
For instance, does a Witch cast a Hex? The Slumber Hex mentioned above uses wording of "...as per the spell sleep." Taken at face value does that mean it is "cast" "...as per the spell sleep"? Or is it activated? To be honest, the wording on Spell-Like abilities also states both that it is "activated" and "cast". Is this situational? Does it depend on the wording of each individual spell-like or supernatural ability? Or what?
Function like a spell does not mean cast. It only means it works like a particular spell in many respects.
As an example if I have an SU named Firedrop (does not really exist)that references the fireball spell that does not mean Firedrop is cast. It mean that it has a 20 foot radius, and does Xd6 damage, and allows a save for half.
The "as per the spell sleep" is just like my above mentioned Firedrop. It just says to read the description of spell X to find out how the SU works. By the very definition of an SU they "are not spell-like".
My interpretation would be, RAW -
Horizon Walker: Yes.
Shadow Dancer: No.
There's a good question as to whether SLAs are "cast" or not, but I would say yes they are (at least at this moment, bearing in mind I've had no coffee yet today) for the purposes of this feat. I would say maybe it would be better to say "use" the spell. So the Horizon Walker would get it, IMO.
Supernatural abilities, however, are definitely not cast. And further, it working like dimension door (in other words, consult the rules for that spell where otherwise they are not specified) is NOT the same as it being dimension door. Otherwise, the ability would be called dimension door, and not shadow jump (the Horizon Walker on the other hand gets the actual spell as an SLA).
And since the ability is not specifically called out like Abundant Step, I would not include it per RAW.
I might, however, as a GM, take arguments for why it might be intended as such, but it would be, IMO, a ruling that contradicts RAW.
I did hit the FAQ button as this is a little unclear (but part of this is because SLAs and Su abilities could always be explained a little better).
I think between wraithstrike, deathquaker and talonhawke, we have some good descriptions of RAW on this issue. As far as RAI, I have played with many dm's, some of whom are incredibly strict adherents to RAW, yet I can't imagine that any of them would prohibit the use of this feat by shadowdancers, and nor would I when I dm. My justification would be that by including abundant step as a pre-requisite for the feat, you are including anything which is functionally equivalent. As far as I can tell, shadow jump is functionally equivalent to abundant step except it has special restrictions - must begin and end in shadow, and the distance travelled is specified in the description of the ability, instead of dictated by caster level.
From what I have seen it is nearly unanimously agreed that Shadow Jump should be allowed to qualify for the Dimensional line of feats by RAI but not necessarily by RAW. I wonder if the developers have the same feeling and if they do whether they would make a statement officially allowing it or not.
I'm guessing with the amount of times that I have seen this topic come up that it is a something that the devs feel is too muddy of waters to touch but that is just conjecture. Its entirely possible that they think one way or the other and don't feel that they need to weigh in on it. Or possibly they would just prefer that people house rule it how they see fit. Whether it is something that needs to be house ruled or not is debatable.
Thank you for hitting FAQ by the way. It seems it is something worthy of clarification for all the confusion and calls for clarity that I have seen.
They are not functionally equivalent. One of them is restricted by ki points. Another only works in shadows.
Even the 2 different versions of hide in plain sight(ranger,shadowdancer) are not functionally equivalent and they have the same name.
Unanimous?
Everyone is saying by RAW the answer is no, and most everyone is saying no RAI.
Allowing something does not mean you think it is RAI. It just means that you think it is ok for your home games. I might even allow it, but I am 100% certain it is not RAI.
Things like this are not left open to GM interpretation because of things like PFS where your character is assumed to work the same way from game to game no matter who the GM is. Strange combinations of feats and corner cases are the types of thing they like to leave open to GM's.
PFS: This one is written in such a way that makes it too specific to reasonably allow for another official interpretation. If they were to agree to this it would open the flood gates on many other things that might then be called "reasonably equivalent. Of course this might get them to errata it to allow for the shadowdancer to use it, and that might be a good thing.
Sounds like the real question is -- did the developers accidentally forget about shadow jump when they wrote those feats, or did they intentionally exclude that ability?
Adding the line "this feat does not apply to shadow jump" (or something like that) would probably clear it up.
(It's stuff like this that makes me wish the feats (and class archetypes) had been open playtested in the Ultimate books. I understand the logistical reasons why they weren't, but in an ideal world...)
I doubt all 3 of them forgot it. I thought of the shadowdancer before I thought of the monk. Before I took the time to read the prereqs I assumed the shadowdancer could use it.
I don't think that line should be added. It sets a precedent of having to add a line for future feats in the same manner. At that point if a line is not added then people will always be able to argue that such a line is not there.
I might say that "You have to meet the exact prereqs for a feat unless otherwise stated" in order to avoid people trying to equalize. An example of this would be people asking can unarmed strikes, and natural attacks take the place of the other when qualifying for feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any reason to assume it would apply to other such abilities, except because the player would want it to. Were I writing it, and I intended for it to work with all supernatural abilities that emulate dimension door, I would've said so.
Maybe SKR or the author will surprise us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A note from the author on how it was limited during development.
I take this to mean that since they specifically limited it, it is not intended to work with anything but what is listed.
Good job on the research.
And after a little more discussion with him, the original turnover allowed any teleportation effect. That would've included things such as Shift, Shadow Jump, etc.
So we go from any to specific. Thanks again. :)
Works for horizon walker? maybe
Works for shadow dancer? no
You are wrong Lune.
Works for horizon walker? maybe
Works for shadow dancer? no
You are wrong Lune.
Ah the argument is over then. It appears leo1925 has a direct line to the devs' intentions. I mean he'd have to right? That would be the only way he could call someone "wrong" when we're discussing what was intended by the rules.
Or to say it another way: There's no reason to be a jerk. You have just as much of a possibility of being wrong as anyone else. Unless you're the dev that wrote it, you're just making assumptions about what they intended.
To the topic at hand though, I've noticed a trend while reading the original thread, people seem to be a stickler on the wording when it comes to the Shadowdancer, but are in favor of using a looser definition when it comes to Horizon Walker. If you feel it has to be cast neither one applies. So RAW is no for both or yes for both if you are less strict about the wording. The only way it can be yes/no (or no/yes) is if you're strict on one, but loose on the other.
Since we can only guess at the Devs' intentions and we have to assume the Devs are human and the possibility for mistakes exist, we need to determine a logical reason for the rule. What do those abilities have in common, or as limiting factors that would make them acceptable and other abilities less so? The only thing I can come up with is both the spell Dimension Door and the ability Abundant Step have limited uses per day. It seems to me the Devs did not want this ability used all the time in every encounter. The feat allows abundant step, so we have to assume that the devs didn't want it limited to just spell casting.
So we look at the classes in question:
Horizon Walker: has limited use of his abilities, so in my interpretation of what the devs intended (not saying I know what they intended, just what I think they meant) Horizon Walker fits and would be allowed.
Shadowdancer: Is also limited by the number of times he can use this ability per day. It seems to meet all of the limitations and would be allowed.
Unless someone can present a logical reason those two would be included and abilities that work exactly like them would be exempt, I think RAI includes Shadowdancer.
Since people were unsure of my meaning in the "who's played a shadow dancer?" thread and it's since moved past this issue...
I disagree with those saying you don't "cast" spell-like abilities, I think you do. In numerous places where a class or feat grants a SLA, it says you can cast it X times per day. A SLA provokes attacks of opportunity, requires concentration checks, and has a caster level and spell level, just like a spell. It is subject to spell resistance. It can have metamagic effects applied to it via feat like Quicken SLA; they just are separated from normal metamagic feats and have different costs/requirements since a SLA user doesn't have slots of each spell level to ratchet lower level effects up to.
I think all of that is more than enough to consider SLAs to be "cast," and that's how it worked in 3E, so without more definitive statements from developers / rules / errata, I would assume that has not changed. So, I think that RAW, Horizon Walker qualifies for Dim. Agility and Shadowdancer does not. I think regardless of RAW, both should be allowed to and I would allow it as a DM.
didn't read my posts
The logic with the HW is that it is casting dimension door. I don't see where you get that it is not. Now I don't think that is RAI, but it is RAW.
The SD is not casting anything. It is pretty clear that only SLA's and spells cast. It is also clear the one ability is not another one, and in cases where devs want open cases they this language-->"such as" or "as if".You will see that in some of the spells in the books.
There is no opened ended language. It clearly states A or B. The shadowdancer is clearly C. The original writer wanted to leave it open, and the devs not only shut the idea down. They went out of their way to only state two possible ways to do so.
If I say you can drive my truck or my car that is what I would mean. It does not mean you can drive my SUV because they both all use have 4 tires.
If I say you can use one of my automobiles then we have an open case.
Except that in some states SUV's are considered to be trucks.
..but an SUV is not a truck. :)
My intent was clear. A and B does not equal C unless using open ended language. :)
Except that by some people it is considered a truck and therefore is a truck depending on whose head you happen to be in.
I wonder why people disagree with me when I say the simplest things after all I know exactly what I mean.
I was not trying to write my sentence as if I was writing a rule. Do you need for me to do so to stop your hyperbole or are you actually not aware of the difference between something written to provide an example, and something meant to actually dictate a rule?
Another example
If you wish to enter the building you need a gold key or a silver key.
That does not mean you can use any key.
If I say any key will allow you access to the building then we have an open case.
Now of course anyone being intentionally obtuse can make anything not clear.
PS:What is in someone's head is irrelevant. What matters is the actual definition. If I am insane I might think a bike is a truck. That does not mean my thought on the subject should be taken seriously.
PS:If that is the case then nobody is disagreeing with me since that thought may very well be in my head and all thoughts in people's head are equally valid(potentially correct) no matter how far they are from the truth.
Chill dude. I understand your intent. I was pointing out that your example to prove your point was flawed as it was pointed out earlier and that your rebuttal proved nothing except that you can reiterate your point.
What is in someone's head is completely relevant when it comes to associated terminology. Definition usage vary between groups. When you try to define something as an absolute or actual definition you've got to remember that using it as such only applies if everyone else also agrees that it is actual or absolute or at the least try to have a majority.
Assuming that everyone that isn't using your terminology is being deliberately obtuse is the same as assuming that I am right because I am right as I see that I am.
I am not upset. I was just not going to debate hyperbole.
Could you explain how the above post applied to anything I said?
didn't read my postsWas a pot calling the kettle black
I think we all agree the Shadowdancer based on RAW, can't. However Sp's are not cast based on RAW either. That's where you're using a looser definition of cast. Can you find places where it says Sp's are cast? Sure, just like I can find places where it doesn't say that. So what does that prove? That the devs are flawed and don't always use consistent wording.
Now that we have proven the devs are flawed, and even the RAW is flawed (a Cleric 1 / Wizard 1 can convert Magic Missile to Cure Light Wounds if you take the RAW literally), we have to interrupt their meaning.
Can you give a logical reason for not allowing an ability exactly like the approved ones? My guess is you can't, so you're falling back on RAW instead of talking about RAI.
The crux of our problem is that you refuse to believe the devs may have made a mistake and not thought of everything. Also, to further your example, you're saying "I can use a motorcycle, you can't use an SUV because a motorcycle is closer to what they say than an SUV"
I am not upset. I was just not going to debate hyperbole.
Could you explain how the above post applied to anything I said?
Um. I fail to see how you can't understand how it applied to everything you said in your rather robust post, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and reiterate.
Your example used to prove your point was flawed because it did not have a concrete mathematical equivalency which is generally considered to be reasonably absolute. It did not have such due to a varying function in definition as perceived by different groups.
This can be seen as an extrapolation for why many people still insist that there is nothing wrong with using shadow jump to fulfill the requirements of dimension door despite the lovely array of evidence to the contrary. You are stating if A or B then allow for C. Other people are stating Shadow Jump, D, is equivalent to B+Q and therefore allows for C since D overall functions as B with further trailing variables. They still see the B component and therefore it fits in. Most languages, particularly, English, are shoddy when it comes to forcing a mathematical equivalency solely because of differing definition both of which are right based upon context variance.
So your syllogistic example wasn't. Because some groups of people view SUVs, B, as trucks, C. Stating that they are being deliberately obtuse is still akin to stating that I am right because I am right.
They are cast RAW. I do apologize since the proof is in another thread.
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.
If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability’s effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is gained.
With that out of the way you have nothing on your side to say this is RAI. SU's are not cast so they were obviously not saying you the Shadowdancer can cast. The shadowdancer ability is not the monk ability.
Now that we have proven the devs are flawed, and even the RAW is flawed (a Cleric 1 / Wizard 1 can convert Magic Missile to Cure Light Wounds if you take the RAW literally), we have to interrupt their meaning.
I showed RAI vs RAW with my "Dead" example. The monk ability is not in any way similar enough to the SD one to say they are equivalent for the purpose of qualifying for feats. They are no more similar than the hide in plain sight for the ranger and SD.
Nobody said the devs were infallible. I am saying that equating one ability with another is a far stretch. Saying the "shadowdancer or monk..." instead of just mentioning the monk is a far cry from "thought of everything".
I have actually discussed RAW and RAI. If you go to the "Anyone-actually-play-a-Shadowdancer" where this started you will see that.
I just realize I wound rather jerkish right now. I will use better wording in later post.
They are cast RAW. I do apologize since the proof is in another thread.
I showed RAI vs RAW with my "Dead" example. The monk ability is not in any way similar enough to the SD one to say they are equivalent for the purpose of qualifying for feats.
Nobody said the devs were infallible. I am saying that equating one ability with another is a far stretch. Saying the "shadowdancer or monk..." instead of just mentioning the monk is a far cry from "thought of everything".
1. I've read the other thread.
2. The equivalency values of the monk ability and the shadowdancer being the same, similar, or fantastically different as opposed to function or intent is a matter of opinion.
3. Stating that due to the inclusion of the monk ability they could not have left out the shadowdancer ability by accident or incidence is faulty logic. Although I will merrily agree with you that I think they left it out intentionally from the link you have shown. Although that post does not prove that they are not equivalent values for other groups of people.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. Rather I'm trying to show what I see as the reasoning behind the logic of the people that you are debating with and why that reasoning is valid despite some evidence to the contrary.
Just looked at horizon walker: RAW I would say no, cannot take the dimensional agility feat line. RAI I cannot be sure, I don't see as many potential for abuse as with the shadow dancer.
For completeness' sake I restate what I already said in the other thread: Shadow dancer, IMO, does not qualify for the feats, particularly not RAW. Regarding RAI: I do not know what the devs were thinking, but I see abusive potential in the ability, so it might have intentionally been left out. Hit and run techniques come to mind, for such a kind of scenario shadow jump is much more powerful than abundant step or dimension door.
So I would not allow SD to take the feats, unless I see some new facts proving the opposite :-)
Btw, regarding the questions regarding spell-like being similar to spells, there really could be some clarification. From the official Paizo Pathfinder FAQ we already know though that spell-like abilities
- cannot be modified by metamagic feats
- cannot be used with metamagic rodsCan I use a metamagic feat to alter a spell-like ability?
No. Metamagic feats specifically only affect spells, not spell-like abilities. Also, spell-like abilities do not have spell slots, so you can't adjust the effective spell slot of a spell-like ability.
- does not allow you to use magic items as if you had the spells availableCan I use a metamagic rod to alter a spell-like ability?
No. Metamagic rods allow you to apply a metamagic feat to a spell, and metamagic feats do not work on spell-like abilities.
Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as having that spell on its spell list for the purpose of activating spell completion or spell trigger items?
No. A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list, and therefore doesn't give the creature the ability to activate spell completion or spell trigger items.
Note how it explicitely says that a spell-like ability is not a spell.
I believe the reference to "casting" is made to explain that it requires a caster level, has the same casting time as the spell etc. IMO it is not supposed to mean that it is identical to spell casting, which is the link that apparently is made to reason why SD or HW should qualify for the line.OK, that longer than I originally intended after all :-P
They are cast RAW. I do apologize since the proof is in another thread.
I showed RAI vs RAW with my "Dead" example. The monk ability is not in any way similar enough to the SD one to say they are equivalent for the purpose of qualifying for feats.
Nobody said the devs were infallible. I am saying that equating one ability with another is a far stretch. Saying the "shadowdancer or monk..." instead of just mentioning the monk is a far cry from "thought of everything".
1. I've read the other thread.
2. The equivalency values of the monk ability and the shadowdancer being the same, similar, or fantastically different as opposed to function or intent is a matter of opinion.
3. Stating that due to the inclusion of the monk ability they could not have left out the shadowdancer ability by accident or incidence is faulty logic. Although I will merrily agree with you that I think they left it out intentionally from the link you have shown. Although that post does not prove that they are not equivalent values for other groups of people.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. Rather I'm trying to show what I see as the reasoning behind the logic of the people that you are debating with and why that reasoning is valid despite some evidence to the contrary.
I understand the why people can see them as the same, but other than both working like dimension door in some sense they are different. One is shadow based. The other allows a monk to slip through spaces due to his level of self-perfection. Fluff-wise and mechanically they are very different. I think people are homing in on the "dimension door" as if that is all that matters. That is just way to see "look here(dimension door) for further details" since rewriting the ability inside of a class ability is a waste of book space.
Thanks for the explanation.
edit: That "other thread" statement was for Jodaki
If access to dimension door in any form is all that matters, then why not just say that, is basically what I am asking.
The only reason I can think of is for overall appeal and function. Which is to say that the dimensional assault feats aren't terribly useful for most casters and the feat reads like it was designed for monks and the caster possibility feels like the afterthought to me. One could claim that the inclusion of the cast dimension door perquisite could be used as the inclusion value, but then why would they say cast. I would say because cast is typically the word used to describe the activation of spell like abilities and occasionally supernatural abilities depending on what you are reading or who you are talking with.
I'm not saying this is why only a reason for it to be so.
The Shadow Jump is still limited by the Dimension Door Spell since no exception is provided. The DD spell never says the actions are over for the round because of the amount of time DD takes. A monk as an example can do it as a move action IIRC, and he still loses the rest of his turn.
A caster can use metamatic to quicken it, and they still lose the rest of their turn.<--- That is why the amount of time it takes to use DD does not matter.
Why the feat is useful to the SD-->The feat was desired so a Shadowdancer can jump between shadows and still use any remaining actions. I will also add that while the duration of any teleportion affect is instantaneous it still takes up an action unless otherwise stated. The default action for an SU is a standard action.
The SD can no more take actions after jumping than a wizard could after using DD.
The only reason I can think of is for overall appeal and function. Which is to say that the dimensional assault feats aren't terribly useful for most casters and the feat reads like it was designed for monks and the caster possibility feels like the afterthought to me. One could claim that the inclusion of the cast dimension door perquisite could be used as the inclusion value, but then why would they say cast. I would say because cast is typically the word used to describe the activation of spell like abilities and occasionally supernatural abilities depending on what you are reading or who you are talking with.
I'm not saying this is why only a reason for it to be so.
SU's can't be cast though. Even when an SU has the word cast in it you are not casting the SU. There is only one SU that gives you the ability the ability to cast a spell, and it is explicitly called as as giving you the ability to cast, along with other things that are not covered by the original version of the spell. That annoyed me to no end when that first rules exception was created, which is for the ninja class because now the question is does the ability provoke attacks of opportunity. You are casting and by the rules casting provokes, but SU's dont.
Thanks for the discussion.
I blame myself for this post. Stand by my comments there.
If access to dimension door in any form is all that matters, then why not just say that, is basically what I am asking.
I think you're lending a HUGE amount of weight to a tiny word. I think the Devs use "cast" much more loosely than you do. If you look at Spell-Like abilities, the first sentence explicitly states they are not cast but activated. The description then goes on to say cast later, but I think that's more to mean "cast out of you; or thrown at someone else" as opposed to a litteral casting of a spell. I mean if you look at Abundant Step, it has a casting time, does that mean Su's are cast*?
As far as actions, the Shadowdancer says:
At 4th level, a shadowdancer gains the ability to travel between shadows as if by means of a dimension door spell.
If you look at the Dimension Door spell:
...After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn.
*I don't believe Su's are cast, it is just an example where the word cast(ing) comes up on things that aren't cast.
No they dont. Cast is only used when caster levels are involved, and in conjuction with SLA's and spells being involved.
Abundant Step (Su): At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door. Using this ability is a move action that consumes 2 points from his ki pool. His caster level for this effect is equal to his monk level. He cannot take other creatures with him when he uses this ability.
I don't see the word "cast" anywhere. Nor do I see it in your text for the shadowdancer ability. They have to tell you how to get the caster level so you know how far he can move with the ability, not because he is casting.
As I explained before. Sometimes an SU mimics the properties of a spell, but rather than reprinting the entire spell they just refer you to the spell. An example is a witch's hex.Another example is if I want a monster to be able use scorching ray, but I don't want it to be a spell I am not going to reprint scorching ray, and then say "but it is not cast". I am just going to let you know to refer to scorching ray and then tell you how I would like to determine the number of rays. That is all they are doing with DD. Referencing a spell does not mean you are able to use it to replace another ability.
I guarantee you won't see the word "cast" without a spell or SLA being in the same description of the ability in any book in Pathfinder.
Why? Because only spells and SLA's can be cast. Even if an SU grants you a spell it will specifically say you are casting the spell or SLA. Other than that you are not casting anything. You are just using an ability that is similar enough to the spell that it is based off of that they reference the spell so you know how to use it.
edit:abundant step has no casting time.
Cool, neither of us is convinced, and will probably remain that way. I feel you place way too much weight on a 4 letter word that the devs just threw in there because they didn't think about other Dimension Door-Like abilities, you think it was put there as a well thought out plan. So let's forget about that aspect of the discussion, and try it a different way:
I think you are so focused on what the letter of the rules say, that you are completely missing the spirit in which the rule was created. Can you give me any logical reason why the devs would have included Abundant Step, but excluded the Shadowdancer's ability?