
![]() |
15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There are 2 different text for the casting time of SLA:
CRB magic chapter:
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.
Bestiary - Universal monster rules:
Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity.
I (probably influence by how they worked in the 1st and 2nd edition) have always used the Bestiary rule, having them require a standard action unless the monster ability explicitly said the SLA had a different casting time.
I had missed the first version until reading about it in another thread today.
Several GM that I know do the same.
So, what version of the text is correct? CRB or Bestiary?
And it is possible for Paizo to make an errata so that both text say the same thing?

Kolyarut |

They're both correct. I would imagine that since characters don't have constant SLAs that's why that version is listed in the CRB. Any SLA listed under a monster's stats in the bestiary as constant only takes a swift action to reactivate, which is different from casting the other SLAs.
So there is a distinction between SLAs that can be cast at will and constant SLAs. The former require standard actions to activate and the latter swift actions.

![]() |

They're both correct. I would imagine that since characters don't have constant SLAs that's why that version is listed in the CRB. Any SLA listed under a monster's stats in the bestiary as constant only takes a swift action to reactivate, which is different from casting the other SLAs.
So there is a distinction between SLAs that can be cast at will and constant SLAs. The former require standard actions to activate and the latter swift actions.
It is not about the swift casting time, it is about the 1 round dominate, 24 hours awakened and similar SLA.
The power level of a succubus change a lot if her SLA dominate person has 1 round of casting time.Both.
The second text you quoted says right there "unless noted otherwise".
They don't contradict.
Not in contradiction, but reading the Bestiary text alone I thought that "unless noted otherwise" meant "unless noted otherwise in the SLA ability description", the CRB text make it "unless noted otherwise in the spell description".

![]() |

@Diego Rossi
Huh?
Would you elaborate?
Succubus:
1/day—dominate person (DC 23), summon (level 3, 1 babau 50%)Dominate Person
Casting Time 1 round
Summon Monster
Casting Time 1 round
Agathion, Cetaceal
1/day—awaken, summon monster VIII (water elementals only)
Awaken, casting time 24 hours
It change how they work a lot.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

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.
As Diego stated, the bolded text is the important part of the query. The "unless noted" part is pretty clearly refering to the stat block/description of the monster.
However, by adding "spell description," you are referred back to the original spell description in the CRB which sets summoning as a 1 round cast. This is the point of contention. There is a significant difference in the usefulness of an outsider's summoning power if they have to give up an entire round of action to use it. Players already have an advantage with action economy. If, however, the outsider can summon a friend in the surprise round...well, the challenge just got significantly harder.

Arch_Bishop |

I used to believe, as Diego said - influenced by older versions -, that spell like abilities were indeed standard actions until i read this text and tried to figure out this confusing part.
I am starting to believe ,summoning or not, summoning and other spells as spell like abilities, with higher/different casting time than a standard action, have the casting time in the spell's description (according to this ruling) unless otherwise noted (see summon monster(sp) of the summoner class, that notes it is a standard action.)

Arch_Bishop |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |

Also

![]() |

HangarFlying wrote:Monsters break the paradigm. In short, monster SLA are always standard actions unless the description specifically says otherwise.Possible, but improbable. Without a rule explicitly saying that I would be very wary of that interpretation.
Oh, I don't know. I'm reading the Universal Monster Rule in the Bestiary and taking it for what it exactly says: spell-like abilities are standard actions unless noted otherwise. There really isn't much to be wary of.

Xaratherus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Diego Rossi wrote:Oh, I don't know. I'm reading the Universal Monster Rule in the Bestiary and taking it for what it exactly says: spell-like abilities are standard actions unless noted otherwise. There really isn't much to be wary of.HangarFlying wrote:Monsters break the paradigm. In short, monster SLA are always standard actions unless the description specifically says otherwise.Possible, but improbable. Without a rule explicitly saying that I would be very wary of that interpretation.
It results in a base game mechanic being treated differently depending on whether it's a PC race or a monster race. From a rules standpoint, it seems clunky that SLAs behave one way for monsters and a different way for PCs. I find that reason enough to question the idea.

AnnoyingOrange |

If a SLA follows a spell it has the casting time of the spell description, unless specifically noted otherwise in the monster description.
If it doesn't follow a spell then it is a standard action unless noted otherwise.
I oan see the summon (sp) ability go either way, but I think it follows the spell description unless noted otherwise in this case meaning a casting time of 1 round and similar restrictions / rules.
Dominate should have 1 round casting time.

![]() |

After further reflection, as well as reading this response from James Jacobs (point 5), I reverse my previous position.