| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that long ago I got into a discussion on this board regarding the use of monster feats, specifically Quicken Spell-Like Ability being used by a Paladin with the Orcish bloodline Eldritch Heritage feat line... there seemed to be a lot of debate as to whether or not those feats could be taken by PC's and over the applicable meaning of the opening line under the Monster Feat entry:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them.
I also find it interesting to see multiple examples of characters being specifically referenced in the 'Feat Descriptions' text.
Now obviously any DM can house-rule them in or out, but I was hoping to get some sort of definitive ruling one way or the other and it was reccomended that I start a thread asking for the question to be flagged as FAQ... so that's what I'm doing.
Also, arguments for or against are welcome. I get that the Eldritch Heritage feats can cause much controversy due to some of the statistical gymnastics that optimizers can perform with them, but I hate to see creative players penalized because someone else somewhere made the most effective character they could.
There is no need to FAQ this. Anyone saying players can't take monster feats is just making stuff up. If that were true they would have been able to provide a definitive statement. The rules state that a character can take a feat that it qualifies for.
Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.
At no point is there any wording to say feats in the bestiary are off limits.
The official ruling is that if a PC can qualify for them he can take them, as you point out in bold.
A better question to ask is "Does a paladin with orc bloodline qualify for quicken spell like ability?" That's where the rules get a mite fuzzy.
Quicken Spell Like Ability has a prerequisite that you be high enough to cast the spell like ability quickened as though you were a wizard before you can take quicken spell like ability with that particular spell. Normally, this isn't a problem because spell like abilities are normally spells. Touch of Rage, however, isn't. (It probably shouldn't be spell like at all, but que sera.) Its a unique effect that can't be duplicated through spells. Ergo, we can't determine what level a wizard is able to cast a quickened version ergo, we can't determine the prerequisites for the feat, ergo the paladin can't meet said prerequisites.
I guess this is part II of the FAQ... SLA's that don't specifically mimic spells are in fact granted an effective level RAW which is all you need to establish what level the character needs to be to fulfill the pre-req for the feat... BUT there is a quote which says:
The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 4.
Now, this quote has created a tremendous amount of debate within our group... one side says that it directly prohibits using the Quicken SLA feat from ANY SLA that does not duplicate a spell already in the game. The other side believes that the purpose of the quote is to specify when a creature can use the feat with a SLA that duplicates a spell, to prevent them from getting earlier access than a creature of its CR should have... and that interpretting the rule the other way suggests that monsters are limited in what they can Quicken based on unrelated character restrictions (not having a spell that duplicates the SLA) which is ludicrous - and that's not even getting into the possibility of characters being able to research and create their own spells which might duplicate the effect.
That question, about whether or not SLA's that don't duplicate spells exactly, was answered in the other thread IIRC. I should have added to my wishlist, which I normally do for a quick reference, but I forgot to do so.
That question, about whether or not SLA's that don't duplicate spells exactly, was answered in the other thread IIRC. I should have added to my wishlist, which I normally do for a quick reference, but I forgot to do so.
Answered by whom? I did not see that - I remember the points I made above leaving the issue unresolved.
Monsters should not be limited on what they can Quicken based on whether or not the SLA duplicates a spell in existance... but they SHOULD be limited on how early they can Quicken an SLA that duplicates an existing spell since the bar has already been set for that, which is what I believe is the intent of the quote and why it should be FAQ'ed.
As written the SLA has to be duplicating a spell. If not then that phrasing would not be needed. That is the most literal reading anyway. If the "duplicating a spell" verbage is just extra words then it needs to be removed.
Otherwise the following phrasing is much better:
The creature can only select a spell-like ability with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level. <---Note that the "duplicating a spell" verbage has been removed. When you add it back it, which is how the book has it, then a restriction is in place.
If there is a thread needed on SLA feats then one should be made. As for monster feats in general I don't think there is any question that they can be taken, because there is nothing other than GM Fiat that can stop a PC from taking a feat that he qualifies for.
That question, about whether or not SLA's that don't duplicate spells exactly, was answered in the other thread IIRC. I should have added to my wishlist, which I normally do for a quick reference, but I forgot to do so.Answered by whom? I did not see that - I remember the points I made above leaving the issue unresolved.
Monsters should not be limited on what they can Quicken based on whether or not the SLA duplicates a spell in existance... but they SHOULD be limited on how early they can Quicken an SLA that duplicates an existing spell since the bar has already been set for that, which is what I believe is the intent of the quote and why it should be FAQ'ed.
I went and checked it again, and no agreement was reached, but I do think it each question of a rule should gets its own thread so it does not get bogged down inside of a thread dedicated to another rule.
I guess this is part II of the FAQ... SLA's that don't specifically mimic spells are in fact granted an effective level RAWWhere is that rule? I've heard it mentioned (actually, it might have been you I've seen mention it), but I've never seen anyone link to it on the PRD or give a page number.
and that interpretting the rule the other way suggests that monsters are limited in what they can Quicken based on unrelated character restrictions (not having a spell that duplicates the SLA) which is ludicrousThis certainly sounds like you're extremely biased in which way you think this should go.
It would affect one character out of many in a way that I can certainly amit seems over-powered. I don't have a vested interest in being right... BUT, I feel that the logic of my position is sound. I don't think a person who passionately believes that 2+2=4 is necessarily 'biased', but since all of this relies on the ambiguous wording of a third party, I'm asking for clarification rather than simply pronouncing my position as correct.
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 granted.
ShadowcatX, I do agree that if a monster has an SLA that does not mimic a spell he is out of luck though.
It would affect one character out of many in a way that I can certainly amit seems over-powered. I don't have a vested interest in being right... BUT, I feel that the logic of my position is sound. I don't think a person who passionately believes that 2+2=4 is necessarily 'biased', but since all of this relies on the ambiguous wording of a third party, I'm asking for clarification rather than simply pronouncing my position as correct.I guess this is part II of the FAQ... SLA's that don't specifically mimic spells are in fact granted an effective level RAWWhere is that rule? I've heard it mentioned (actually, it might have been you I've seen mention it), but I've never seen anyone link to it on the PRD or give a page number.
and that interpretting the rule the other way suggests that monsters are limited in what they can Quicken based on unrelated character restrictions (not having a spell that duplicates the SLA) which is ludicrousThis certainly sounds like you're extremely biased in which way you think this should go.
What is the point of the extra words then? Read this post again to see what I mean.
All righty here we go to tackle this question. I've done some research and some Spell-like abilities do not mimic spells directly however reading through some rules I found from the rules:
"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."
Which means to me that some spell-like abilities don't mimic spells, but resemble spells and I think Touch of Rage is a perfect example where a spell-like ability resembles a spell.
Quicken spell-like ability specifically says "The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 4."
So I think at the RAW level this particular instance, Touch of Rage cannot gain the benefits of quicken spell-like ability, because it does not duplicate a spell, it only resembles a spell (Rage, sor/wiz 2).
However as a DM I would rule that, especially in this case, you can take quicken spell-like ability for any spell-like ability that you have regardless if it duplicates or resembles a spell, as I feel the wording is poor for quicken spell-like ability. Anyway happy gaming.
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 granted.ShadowcatX, I do agree that if a monster has an SLA that does not mimic a spell he is out of luck though.
So a monster is out of luck because a wizard he has never encountered doesn't have that specific spell in his spellbook? That just makes zero sense to me.
Moreover, RAW allow for new spells to be researched and created. Every time you step into a campaign world its assumed that there are already literally uncounted spells out there that don't appear in the rulebooks... so to view the rules in that limiting form just doesn't make any sense to me.
Its not as if this is the first rule that's ever been worded poorly, but it makes far more sense to interpret that particular rule as addressing SLA's that DO happen to duplicate existing spells, not as restricting everything else that doesn't for no apparent reason.
As much as I would love to quicken ToR, I think it's a good thing that I can't.
FWIW, you can gain an different but equivalent benefit from the trait 'Optimistic Gambler', though of course from an optimizing standpoint its better to use both.
I'm fine with my DM telling me 'I'm going to restrict that because I think its over-powered'... I have a Paladin who takes the full line of Eldritch Heritage feats for the Orcish Bloodline and he's dominating without it. However, as the player behind him, looking at how my effectiveness diminishes when facing non-evil characters, it certainly makes sense that I would want to take advantage of a potent buff not dependent on alignment, especially when there is a compelling role-play reason to do so.
A DM making the call one way or another has nothing to do with my interpretation of the intention of this rule, nor the logic behind it. FWIW, I also think that ToR is far more potent than True Strike (or any other 1st level spell) as the benefits you gain scale with level and apply for an entire round - including AoO's.
So a monster is out of luck because a wizard he has never encountered doesn't have that specific spell in his spellbook? That just makes zero sense to me.No, a monster is out of luck because there is no listing for that particular spell like ability as a spell and thus we can't assign a minimum level for quickening that ability.
I'm afraid that's not true - as stated, 'If a spell-like ability 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.
In this case, a Sorcerer's SLA gained at 1st level is to be considered a 1st level spell as that is the highest level spell they can cast. Ditto with those gained at later levels, even if acquired through feats like Eldritch Heritage. In the case of SLA's granted at 1st level to Sorcerers but acquired through the Eldritch Heritage feat, Quicken Spell-Like Ability would become available for that SLA at 12th level since their caster level is equal to their character level -2.
Moreover, RAW allow for new spells to be researched and created. Every time you step into a campaign world its assumed that there are already literally uncounted spells out there that don't appear in the rulebooks... so to view the rules in that limiting form just doesn't make any sense to me.Researching spells requires the cooperation of the DM. If you've got the cooperation of the DM, you can probably get him to house rule this into the game in the first place so you don't have to worry about researching it as a spell first.
I think its safe to say that pretty much everything you want to do in any game requires the cooperation of the DM, so I'm not sure how that's germaine to the discussion.
Its not as if this is the first rule that's ever been worded poorly, but it makes far more sense to interpret that particular rule as addressing SLA's that DO happen to duplicate existing spells, not as restricting everything else that doesn't for no apparent reason.No, it doesn't "make far more sense" it leads to far more abuses. The level cap is put in there to keep monsters, and characters, from coming up with broken power combinations.
It DOES in fact make far more sense. It could also ~possibly~ lead to far more abuses but more often than not it would simply allow for a wider diversity of monsters to be created and generate more options for the players as well. That's never an intrinsically bad thing in my opinion and I have never been of the school of thought that games should be balanced around what a 1% of the most optimizing-minded players MIGHT do at the expense of everyone else.
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 granted.ShadowcatX, I do agree that if a monster has an SLA that does not mimic a spell he is out of luck though.So a monster is out of luck because a wizard he has never encountered doesn't have that specific spell in his spellbook? That just makes zero sense to me.
Moreover, RAW allow for new spells to be researched and created. Every time you step into a campaign world its assumed that there are already literally uncounted spells out there that don't appear in the rulebooks... so to view the rules in that limiting form just doesn't make any sense to me.
Its not as if this is the first rule that's ever been worded poorly, but it makes far more sense to interpret that particular rule as addressing SLA's that DO happen to duplicate existing spells, not as restricting everything else that doesn't for no apparent reason.
Balance trumps realism*. I am assuming that is why it works that way. I did look through the bestiaries, and I noticed that the only SLA's that have those feats applied to them are the ones that duplicate spells. I would think that if all SLA's applied at least one SLA that is not duplicating a spell would have been used.
*I am not saying that an SLA that does not duplicate a spell is unbalanced. It may just be a precautionary thing in case they want to give a monster a really powerful SLA. They could do so without worrying about how it interacted with those feats.
The core assumption is that only the printed spells exist. Anything beyond that is up to the GM. Whether or not other spells exist varies by group.
If other spells existing was a core assumption then finding someone to give you a spell you wanted instead of researching your own spell might be a more viable option.
Balance trumps realism*. I am assuming that is why it works that way. I did look through the bestiaries, and I noticed that the only SLA's that have those feats applied to them are the ones that duplicate spells. I would think that if all SLA's applied at least one SLA that is not duplicating a spell would have been used.
*I am not saying that an SLA that does not duplicate a spell is unbalanced. It may just be a precautionary thing in case they want to give a monster a really powerful SLA. They could do so without worrying about how it interacted with those feats.
I think your final statement is a fair argument and one that I could certainly be convinced of, that they KNOW existing spells are balanced and Quicken SLA is balanced against Quicken Spell, but they don't know - or intend - for other SLA to have to pass the same scrutiny. I don't know that I agree 100% with it, but if a designer explained it with that reasoning I could absolutely accept that.
Having said that, I have always thought that 'balance' was a necessary evil and one pursued with far, far too much passion by some. It is almost never the determining factor in games that I run - role-play and often times realism pretty much always trumps it. The game will never be perfectly balanced any more than the real world will ever be completely fair, and as such carries with it an implicit demand that we accept that fact. Entire game systems have died as a result of that relentless pursuit that should remain - in my opinion - a philisophical discussion for the die-hard statiticians among us.
I'm afraid that's not true - as stated, 'If a spell-like ability 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.As I said before, I'd love to see where you get that text from. Provide a link to the PRD or a page number and we can stop this discussion.
Here you go - under the main entry for Spell-Like Abilities, at the bottom of the section.
And for the record, I've already stated numerous times that I'm relatively indifferent to the benefit this might grant one particular character out of a countless host of others. Its not exactly as if this were the only opportunity for abuse for those who are abuse-minded. I run far more games than I play and while I might not rule arbitrarily against this feat/SLA combo, I would certainly discuss it privately witht he player ahead of time and discourage its selection as over-powered if I felt that were the case.
The game is and always will be about ROLE-PLAY for me, otherwise I'd spend my time and money on MMO's... but that doesn't mean that I should say I believe something I don't just because someone has to accuse me of bias when their argument isn't standing on its own merit.
The core assumption is that only the printed spells exist. Anything beyond that is up to the GM. Whether or not other spells exist varies by group.
How often do campaigns introduce new rules? New traits, new spells, new feats, new monsters, new magic items and so on have appeared in pretty much every published adventure I have ever played. Why would they do that if the existing rules are already all-encompassing? Because a KEY aspect to the rules is the allowance for new items to be discovered, new abilities to be learned and new creatures to be faced... the fact that what is listed for us is only the beginning, only the core of what we might experience is at the very heart of the game.
Here you goThank you. With that, I would agree, by RAW you can take quicken spell like ability, at what, 9th level?
At the soonest, which makes sense, because that's the soonest Quicken Spell would be useful to characters, correct?
Right. Er, well mostly right, there's that trait that reduces metamagic for a single spell, but do we have to get that technical? 9th level = 5th level spells = quickening first level spells. Good enough for me.At the soonest, which makes sense, because that's the soonest Quicken Spell would be useful to characters, correct?Here you goThank you. With that, I would agree, by RAW you can take quicken spell like ability, at what, 9th level?
Unfortunately that consensus doesn't solve the greater debate as to whether or not Quicken SLA is applicable to SLA's that don't currently exist as spells. That's really what the FAQ needs to definitively address in my opinion.
The core assumption is that only the printed spells exist. Anything beyond that is up to the GM. Whether or not other spells exist varies by group.How often do campaigns introduce new rules? New traits, new spells, new feats, new monsters, new magic items and so on have appeared in pretty much every published adventure I have ever played. Why would they do that if the existing rules are already all-encompassing? Because a KEY aspect to the rules is the allowance for new items to be discovered, new abilities to be learned and new creatures to be faced... the fact that what is listed for us is only the beginning, only the core of what we might experience is at the very heart of the game.
What do you mean how do new campaign introduce new rules? Most of us just assume the other things were already in the campaign. As an example if I am running Golarion, and a new spell comes out it does not change anything. The players now just have access to a new option, but Paizo can't account for what a GM might or might not do. That is what that last statement means. I have never actually played under a GM who gave a second thought as to what may or may not exist.
Just to be clear, by printed spells I mean official(by Paizo) spells.