The ragebred were-boar, see HERE , get Speak with Animals as a Spell=like Ability.
To qualify for Arcane Strike, one must be able to cast arcane spells.
Note:
-Speak with Animals is on the Bard, i.e. arcane, spell list. It is also on the Druid list.
-A post by Sean K. Reynolds, fwiw, reads:
"In general, SLAs use the sor/wiz spell level for DCs if the spell is on multiple spell lists, so you should assume that an SLA is arcane unless the source of the ability suggests otherwise (such as a spell that's only on the cleric list, or an SLA from a cleric domain, or uses Wisdom to determine DCs instead of Charisma)." see HERE . Emphasis mine.
-Spell-Like Abilities: How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?
The universal monster rules for spell-like abilities states: "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
|
There is a FAQ for that.
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
It's divine.
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
Despite your quote from SKR, it's pretty apparent that Charm Animal's appearance on the Druid spell list takes priority over it's appearance on the Bard spell list. It's Divine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a FAQ for that.
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.It's divine.
I quoted the FAQ in my question. It flies in the face of Reynold's post, and mentions the case when "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." Yet the spell Speak with Animals works exactly the same whether cast by Druid or Bard. At the very least the FAQ is not written as explicitly as needed. Why bring up that case at all, then??
Well, if we take the SKR quote into consideration...
1. Wereboar-kin have an SLA.
2. We first assume the SLA to be arcane in nature based on SKR's quote.
3. We look at the spell that the SLA is based on, if there is one. In this case, it's based on the Charm Animal spell from the Druid and Bard lists.
4. Based on the Universal Monster Rules and that FAQ, we then realize that the spell's presence on the Druid list takes precedence over it's presence on the Bard spell list.
5. We come to the conclusion that the SLA is divine.
SKR's quote is just stating a good starting assumption about SLAs. SLAs are more often arcane than divine. [citation needed]
...
SKR's quote is just stating a good starting assumption about SLAs. SLAs are more often Arcane than Divine. [citation needed]
SKR's quote isn't an assumption good or otherwise but gives a rather explicit formula. Is the spell solely on a divine caster/ domain list or is it Wisdom-based DC. That is an entirely different criteria from the FAQ cited (if we cede the weird "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes" clause). We can disregard SKR, but he was clear in his wording.
The earlier version used the class hierarchy (wizard > cleric > druid > bard > other) to determine spell level and details of function, and "is on an arcane list?" to determine whether it was arcane or divine. It's been changed, and now you use the hierarchy to determine both spell level and type.
Well, first off, the Wisdom-based DC thing is a terrible thing to look at. SLAs, by default, are based on Charisma. Regardless of whether or not they are arcane or divine.
Is the spell solely on a divine caster/domain list
Just like how the Universal Monster Rules and the FAQ state. The only addition is SLAs from Cleric domains being divine.
In general, SLAs use the sor/wiz spell level for DCs if the spell is on multiple spell lists, so you should assume that an SLA is arcane
so you should assume that an SLA is arcane
assume
The assumption is that the SLA is arcane unless there's some other reason it isn't because being on Sorc/Wiz takes precedence over being on any other list. Just as being on the Cleric list has precedence or being on the Druid list takes precedence over lists such as bard, paladin and ranger. And so on.
Well, first off, the Wisdom-based DC thing is a terrible thing to look at. SLAs, by default, are based on Charisma. Regardless of whether or not they are arcane or divine.
It might be terrible, but it's what he used for a rule. I don't see it as worse than the "spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes" phrase.
Is the spell solely on a divine caster/domain listJust like how the Universal Monster Rules and the FAQ state. The only addition is SLAs from Cleric domains being divine.
No. The two criteria are very different. SKR had divine for solely SLAs that were only on divine lists. Speak with Animals is clearly not by that judgment.
Regarding assumption- the word employed only reinforces that if and only if the SLA is only found on a divine list is it not arcane.
From the FAQ
The universal monster rules for spell-like abilities states: "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
This is from the first bestiary and not just from the FAQ and I think it probably should overrule Sean K. Reynolds' post on the forums. The FAQ just extends it to character and PC races. The bolded part seems to be more important than the "work differently" part since that part is not specific and gives no examples to make what it means clear.
So, it looks like the answer is 'no, you do not qualify for arcane strike from the were-boar skinwalker SLA'. I know this isn't the result you were looking for EpicFail, but the FAQ does make it abundantly clear. The FAQ overrules earlier forum posts by anyone, so all of this arguing about SKR's wording is utterly irrelevant.
So, it looks like the answer is 'no, you do not qualify for arcane strike from the were-boar skinwalker SLA'. I know this isn't the result you were looking for EpicFail, but the FAQ does make it abundantly clear. The FAQ overrules earlier forum posts by anyone, so all of this arguing about SKR's wording is utterly irrelevant.
What I'm looking for is clarity and not finding it. The FAQ and the Bestiary quote from which it's based are poorly written- the "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes" clause is being ignored and the list that follows taken for Gospel. If that is the intent of Paizo, perhaps they would do well to revise the text. It's bizarre to conclude that "the FAQ does make it abundantly clear."
The line about spells working differently for different classes is in reference to spells such as Unnatural Lust and Hold Person.
Unnatural Lust has a different spell level depending on what spell list you draw it from; bard's have it as a first level spell, sorcerers and wizards have it as a second level spell.
Hold Person has different components depending on the spell list. For clerics there's a divine focus component, for wizards a material component.
Or even Spiritual Weapon which is suggested to use Charisma instead of Wisdom for oracles.
Similarly, the distinction between a Charm domain cleric's Charm Person and a wizard's Charm Person needs to be made. One's divine, one's arcane. It can matter depending on things like monster abilities, items, feats, etc that grant bonuses against either the arcane or divine.
What I'm looking for is clarity and not finding it. The FAQ and the Bestiary quote from which it's based are poorly written- the "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes" clause is being ignored and the list that follows taken for Gospel. If that is the intent of Paizo, perhaps they would do well to revise the text. It's bizarre to conclude that "the FAQ does make it abundantly clear."So, it looks like the answer is 'no, you do not qualify for arcane strike from the were-boar skinwalker SLA'. I know this isn't the result you were looking for EpicFail, but the FAQ does make it abundantly clear. The FAQ overrules earlier forum posts by anyone, so all of this arguing about SKR's wording is utterly irrelevant.
What does that "work differently" sentence mean really? I don't think it means much in game terms, except maybe when talking about divine focus vs material components, which doesn't matter to SLAs.
The "list that follows" still exists even if the "works differently" sentence was clarified right? I think "A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order." is clear even if the sentence before it isn't.
Simply put, if we ignore the FAQ and anything other than "pazio published material," we are left with the Universal Monster Rules. Rules that apply to every creature, including the 0-HD creatures. What we might call "PC races."
All the FAQ even does is make it explicit that the Universal Monster Rules do apply to PC races. That and clarify that SLAs granted by a divine class are divine and vice versa.
...
What does that "work differently" sentence mean really? I don't think it means much in game terms, except maybe when talking about divine focus vs material components, which doesn't matter to SLAs.
Then the FAQ should have yanked the sentence out completely, or rewritten it to make it clear. The problem of unclear writing started in the Bestiary, and they didn't clean it up. As it stands, the sentences that follow can be taken to apply to cases where when cast differently applies. That would have Speak with Animals, which is not cast differently but follows the same procedure for Druid and Bard, not subject to the hierarchy that follows.
Again, they are different (arcane casting vs. divine casting, 3rd level spell vs. 1st level spell). However, it doesn't really matter if they are different. That sentence (which may or may not be considered unclear) in no exempts a Speak with Animals SLA from the following sentence. This sentence in question is merely trying to explain why the precedence list is a necessary thing. "Because spells can be different depending on who casts it, here's how to determine whose spells the SLA is like, in general."
Again, they are different (arcane casting vs. divine casting, 3rd level spell vs. 1st level spell). However, it doesn't really matter if they are different. That sentence (which may or may not be considered unclear) in no exempts a Speak with Animals SLA from the following sentence. This sentence in question is merely trying to explain why the precedence list is a necessary thing. "Because spells can be different depending on who casts it, here's how to determine whose spells the SLA is like, in general."
The sentence is unclear and either downright unhelpful or means to apply only when SLAs are "spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." In that latter case it would indeed exempt Speak with Animals as they are cast the same by Bard and Druid. Strangely, if that sentence were left out entirely, your supposition about what the badly written, muddled, yet somehow miraculously 'clear' sentence meant to say, i.e. "here's how to determine whose spells the SLA is like, in general," the meaning would be unequivocal. Just follow this list we have, etc.
The SKR comment you're quoting is from the mid-point of the rules discussion (to put it politely) that raged on the boards for several weeks following the initial SLAs count for prerequisite ruling.
The FAQ (which you also quoted) was issued as a result of those discussions - which included the suggestion that SKR's comment was vague and not in keeping with the priority list from the Bestiary.
In short, you're arguing something that was settled nearly a year ago - by the issuing of the current FAQ.
So, I'm going to step outside the bounds of written rules for a moment.
Bards and druids don't cast the same. They might both have the spell "Speak with Animals" as we know, but it's different between them. Bard magic and druid magic are two very different kinds of magic.
And back into rules:
The line about spells working differently for different classes is in reference to spells such as Unnatural Lust and Hold Person.
Unnatural Lust has a different spell level depending on what spell list you draw it from; bard's have it as a first level spell, sorcerers and wizards have it as a second level spell.
Hold Person has different components depending on the spell list. For clerics there's a divine focus component, for wizards a material component.
Or even Spiritual Weapon which is suggested to use Charisma instead of Wisdom for oracles.
Or like Speak with Animals, a 1st level divine druid spell and a 3rd level arcane bard spell. Without having a precedence list, how are you supposed to know what spell level to set the DC with? You need to have it because the spells are different. Regardless of how clear the first sentence, the precedence list is there for a reason and is how you look at SLAs for determining arcane/divine.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.
Now that I've taken a moment to browse the spell lists, I have a good example for you of how a spell can differ between classes other than just spell level or arcane vs divine.
This spell grants the skeletons created ranks in Profession(sailor) based on your character level and casting stat modifier. The spell works differently depending on your class.
Skr wrote that as his opinon at the time. Afterwards the whole crew worked out how to do it and it was different than his opinion. FAQ is official and more recent, it wins over a random forum post, don't ignore facts just because they don't say what you want them rto say.
The FAQ is horribly stated and thus lacks clarity. That's the fact that is being ignored. Thanks for guessing my motivation. It helps in a way to see people wrong about it and about the mud that is the FAQ.
...Or like Speak with Animals, a 1st level divine druid spell and a 3rd level arcane bard spell. Without having a precedence list, how are you supposed to know what spell level to set the DC with? You need to have it because the spells are different....
Bards and Druids cast Speak with Animals the same. In the case of spell DC, our wereboar would rely on a totally different formula spelled out in the race, so it is not pertinent to the logic of that sentence. Thanks for finding an example like "Skeleton Crew" that would indeed be different. Feel free to try to have the same be different in regards to whatever, but since it would be applicable if we had a Skeleton Crew SLA, I don't see where further discussion helps resolve anything, except of course how sucky that lead sentence is.
I find it amazing that the Paizo writers who made such a tough mechanic as the old Grapple streamlined, less confusing, and more fun choked on that lousy string of sentences.
The SKR comment you're quoting is from the mid-point of the rules discussion (to put it politely) that raged on the boards for several weeks following the initial SLAs count for prerequisite ruling.
The FAQ (which you also quoted) was issued as a result of those discussions - which included the suggestion that SKR's comment was vague and not in keeping with the priority list from the Bestiary.
In short, you're arguing something that was settled nearly a year ago - by the issuing of the current FAQ.
Thanks. If clarity is impossible on this issue, at least you gave me context. I respect the conclusion of a spell on an arcane list not counting as arcane as much as their choice of words.
The FAQ is perfectly clear.
Spell-Like Abilities: How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?
The universal monster rules for spell-like abilities states: "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
For spell-like abilities gained from a class, use the spell type (arcane or divine) of that class to determine whether the spell-like ability is arcane or divine. If the class doesn't cast spells, use the above rule for spell-like abilities from race or type.
Edit 7/15/13: Wording changed match the precedent in the universal monster rules for spell-like abilities.
Edit 9/23/13: Wording updated to clarify racial/type SLAs vs. class SLAs.
All you need to ask yourself to determine if your SLA is arcane or divine is "where does the SLA come from?" If it's from your casting class, then it matches the class; otherwise it follows the same progression as the universal monster rules.
You're just muddying it up by bringing dev comments up that predate the updates to the FAQ.
I respect the conclusion of a spell on an arcane list not counting as arcane as much as their choice of words.
Just being on an arcane spell list isn't what makes something an arcane SLA (by default) though. Is a Cure Light Wounds SLA arcane simply because witches and bards can cast Cure Light Wounds? No. Whether or not an SLA is arcane or divine is based on what spellcasting class the spell 'belongs' to. The list in the Universal Monster Rules and the FAQ show which has precedence over the others in its 'ownership' of the spell.
And look. At this point you're dismissing everything based on your dislike of the wording of the first sentence of the relevant text. A spell being arcane or divine based on who's casting it is a difference. It matters even if the spell is the same spell level and is based on the same casting stat between the two casting it. And differences, as you've accepted them, do exist with some spells. Skeleton Crew, Mad Monkeys, and others.
And really, if that sentence's clarity is that much of an issue for you, ignore it and get to the part that really matters. This first sentence is stating a reason why the precedence list exists; it doesn't change or affect any of the rules involved in determining whether or not an SLA is arcane or divine.
Bards and Druids cast Speak with Animals the same. In the case of spell DC, our wereboar would rely on a totally different formula spelled out in the race, so it is not pertinent to the logic of that sentence.
I think it is a matter of opinion that a spell doesn't work differently if it is cast at a different spell level.
There is no formula spelled out in the Skinwalkers entry about their SLA's DCs. The general rule is "10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature’s Charisma modifier."
Granted none of the different Skinwalkers have an SLA that both grants a saving throw and has a different spell level for the spell lists it is on. All of them either don't grant a save and may have different spell levels for various class spell lists they are on, or they do grant a save and are the same level on all the class spell lists they are on.
The sentence "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." is there to introduce the next two sentences. This is because if an SLA was used by a monster that did actually work differently depending on the class it was cast by, there needed to be a rule to determine which class that should be. This is mostly for save DC issues. If it worked the same across all classes then it is not a problem for the monster. The save DC is unchanged, and it doesn't matter if the spell is arcane or divine.
Now that they are allowing SLAs to qualify for prerequisites that require the ability to cast arcane or divine spells, the source of an SLA is an issue for character races. The save DC is still an issue and that is when we need to refer to "the list", and of course if a spell works differently in other ways. If a spell doesn't work differently at all across the various class spells lists it is on, the source of the spell still has to be determined in order to qualify for those feats that require the ability to cast arcane or divine spells.
That is where the FAQ comes in.
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
notice it doesn't have the "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." sentence. It just says what rule should apply to spell-like abilities "gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races)". It did not include the other sentence.
You're just muddying it up by bringing dev comments up that predate the updates to the FAQ.
I brought up the dev quote as relevant to a muddy issue. The water is muddy because of the FAQ retaining the awful writing of the Bestiary. Please do not shoot the messenger. If your above statement about the debate and SKR's point is accurate, then that my citation actually elicited context from you.
Here's what would be plain as day:
"When determining if a racial spell-like ability is divine or arcane, see if it appears on the Wiz/Sorcerer list. If so, then it is considered arcane. If it does not, use the following hierarchy in order presented to see where it first applies: Cleric; Druid; Bard; etc."
or it could read:
"When determining if a racial spell-like ability is divine or arcane, see if it appears on an arcane caster's spell list. If so, it's arcane. If it only appears on a divine caster's list, the SLA is considered divine."
Either of the above hypothetical is clear. The FAQ is not.
I don't think it is horribly stated at all, I think it is plain as day. Perhaps it is not your motivation that I should have questioned, but your reading skills.
Or we could guess at motivation and lob insults while pretending that the ambiguous is clear.
So you're saying that, in an FAQ about how to tell if a SLA counts as arcane or divine, stating that the SLA should be considered as the sorcerer/wizard version of the spell, does not constitute clearly defining the SLA as arcane? Likewise, stating that the SLA should be considered the cleric or druid version does not constitute defining it as divine?
The original bestiary text is clear and basically works how you seem to think.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.
In the original bestiary, if a spell worked differently when cast by characters of different classes, you had to use the list that followed to determine the save DC for the spell-like ability and other effects related to class in the spell. This is how all monsters spell-like abilities work.
If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed. Because the Save DC would be the same and it didn't matter if a monster was using a divine or arcane spell-like ability.
When the original bestiary was made the developers had not made the FAQ ruling that spell-like abilities count as spells for some prerequisites that call for the ability to cast arcane or divine spells. This makes the sentence in the bestiary more confusing possibly if you try to apply it to the spell-like abilities that you seek to use to qualify for prerequisites that call for the ability to cast arcane or divine spells.
Because it doesn't say what to do with SLAs that are identical across the various classes that can cast it (including spell level), which didn't matter for monsters but now we need to see if it is arcane or divine.
This kind of forces us to use the list that determines the type of spell the SLA is anyway. If we didn't use the list we would not know if any SLA was arcane or divine, and they wouldn't qualify for those prerequisites anyway.
EDIT: This is why the "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently..." sentence is not included when addressing SLAs "gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races)". They just assume that all SLAs "gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races)" should use the list that follows to determine what type of spell it is.
The original bestiary text is clear and basically works how you seem to think.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.In the original bestiary, if a spell worked differently when cast by characters of different classes, you had to use the list that followed to determine the save DC for the spell-like ability and other effects related to class in the spell. This is how all monsters spell-like abilities work.
If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed...
[emphasis mine]
Thanks for clearing that up. We can now clearly ignore the list that follows. I thought it beyond peculiar that an SLA on an arcane caster's list, Bard this instance, would not be considered arcane. As the level of the spell is meaningless in this case for the DC, it only drives the point home more forcefully as the SLA works the same across all classes.
"When determining if a racial spell-like ability is divine or arcane, see if it appears on the Wiz/Sorcerer list. If so, then it is considered arcane. If it does not, use the following hierarchy in order presented to see where it first applies: Cleric; Druid; Bard; etc."
How is what you've written there any clearer than what's already in the FAQ?
spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
The original bestiary text is clear and basically works how you seem to think.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes.In the original bestiary, if a spell worked differently when cast by characters of different classes, you had to use the list that followed to determine the save DC for the spell-like ability and other effects related to class in the spell. This is how all monsters spell-like abilities work.
If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed...
[emphasis mine]
Thanks for clearing that up. We can now clearly ignore the list that follows. I thought it beyond peculiar that an SLA on an arcane caster's list, Bard this instance, would not be considered arcane. As the level of the spell is meaningless in this case for the DC, it only drives the point home more forcefully as the SLA works the same across all classes.
You are selectively choosing what rules to follow. You want to count an SLA as arcane without a method of determining if it is. You are just including what supports your point. The game doesn't specify if an SLA that is gained from a creatures race or type is arcane or divine without that list. It wouldn't qualify for Arcane Strike without determining what type of spell it is. A spell isn't arcane or divine unless it is cast by an arcane caster or a divine caster, and the list applies that to racial SLAs.
It is your opinion that the level of the spell is meaningless, but it is the primary reason that rule exists in the first place. Look at the save DCs of SLAs for various monsters. That list is always followed to determine save DC. Just because that particular spell doesn't give a saving throw doesn't mean it is exempt from the general rules.
Thanks for clearing that up. We can now clearly ignore the list that follows. I thought it beyond peculiar that an SLA on an arcane caster's list, Bard this instance, would not be considered arcane. As the level of the spell is meaningless in this case for the DC, it only drives the point home more forcefully as the SLA works the same across all classes.
Cure light wounds does not work the same for a bard and a cleric. A creature with a bonus against divine spells would have a higher save against the latter than the former, for instance. The FAQ states that if an SLA appears on the cleric spell list but not the sorcerer / wizard list, it should be considered to function as the cleric version of the spell. Do you disagree that this is clearly defining cure light wounds as a divine SLA?
From the FAQ for the CRB:
"For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
Where is the confusion?
The SLA in question is Speak with Animals.
It is NOT a Wizard/Sorcerer spell (it is listed as "bard 3, druid 1, ranger 1"). Using the order of precedence from the FAQ, druid is listed BEFORE bard. Therefore it is considered the druid version of the spell. Druids are divine casters.
The Ragebred's SLA is therefore considered a 1st level divine spell. This is supported by the FAQ, which are OFFICIAL rulings by the Paizo design team.
...You are selectively choosing what rules to follow. You want to count an SLA as arcane without a method of determining if it is. You are just including what supports your point. The game doesn't specify if an SLA that is gained from a creatures race or type is arcane or divine without that list. It wouldn't qualify for Arcane Strike without determining what type of spell it is. A spell isn't arcane or divine unless it is cast by an arcane caster or a divine caster, and the list applies that to racial SLAs.
It is your opinion that the level of the spell is meaningless, but it is the primary reason that rule exists in the first place. Look at the save DCs of SLAs for various monsters. That list is always followed to determine save DC. Just because that particular spell doesn't give a saving throw doesn't mean it is exempt from the general rules.
I'm seeking clarity and I see none. I want a method so badly I wrote two above, either of which is very straightforward. It's amusing that someone who sees the lead sentence as clear has their entire argument fall apart when their own exposition is applies to it:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed.
Your very defense of the muck that is that is rule's intro shows what a very unclear creature it really is. I simply gave you back your own logic to show just that. The level of the spell is meaningless as Speak with Animals is cast the same whether by Bard or Druid. The trap is in the wording, clearly, and you fell into that trap. The DC of the racial SLA is not by level cast, and your argument would mean what if spells were the same level??
You've done a better job at showing how terribly written that sentence is than I have. Thank you.
If anyone has anything of substance to add- great I'm all ears. But there are several posters above who
simply ignore the first sentence in the FAQ and are incredulous that there's a problem. Feel free to defend the clearly unclear mess, but as you've outed its screwiness by your own explication I see no further reason to respond.
The DC of the racial SLA is not by level cast
Sorry, but what? This is a spell-like ability we're talking about, right? Those things that have DCs based on the spells they're like?
And even if an SLA does not have a DC (such is true with Speak with Animals), the spell level of the effect does matter. A skinwalker's Speak with Animals spell-like ability when used is an effect on the skinwalker. And, due to how spell-like abilities work, it can then be subject to dispelling.
Now, with regular Dispel Magic, things don't really matter. Dispel magic is all about the caster level of effects. Something that spell level does not affect. However, Greater Dispel Magic works a bit differently. It can dispel multiple effects starting with those of highest spell level and going to lowest.
So, if you see the point, it does matter what the spell level is. Even if there's no DC.
Oh. And yes. Arcane or divine does matter. Take the Divine Defiance line of feats for instance. They give bonuses against divine spells. Or saaaaay, this whole matter entirely, something that spawned over whether or not something was arcane or divine.
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
So, you open up the Bestiary to determine the DC or arcane/divine nature of an SLA and see this.
1. You know that some spells have different levels or different effects depending on the class. So, you read the first sentence and continue going. After all, there are things like Hideous Laughter or Skeleton Crew.
2. So, you come to step one of determining the spell's nature. Is this a sorcerer/wizard spell? If yes, you're done and you use that version of it. If no, you move on.
3. Is it a cleric spell? If yes, you're done and you use that version of it. If no, you move on.
4. Is it a druid spell? If yes, you're done and you use that version of it. If no, you move on.
5. Rinse and repeat going through the list.
Sorc/Wiz > Cleric > Druid > Bard > Paladin > Ranger > Everything else
Could you explain why there's a clarity issue here? It seems, to the majority of us, clean cut.
...You are selectively choosing what rules to follow. You want to count an SLA as arcane without a method of determining if it is. You are just including what supports your point. The game doesn't specify if an SLA that is gained from a creatures race or type is arcane or divine without that list. It wouldn't qualify for Arcane Strike without determining what type of spell it is. A spell isn't arcane or divine unless it is cast by an arcane caster or a divine caster, and the list applies that to racial SLAs.
It is your opinion that the level of the spell is meaningless, but it is the primary reason that rule exists in the first place. Look at the save DCs of SLAs for various monsters. That list is always followed to determine save DC. Just because that particular spell doesn't give a saving throw doesn't mean it is exempt from the general rules.
I'm seeking clarity and I see none. I want a method so badly I wrote two above, either of which is very straightforward. It's amusing that someone who sees the lead sentence as clear has their entire argument fall apart when their own exposition is applies to it:
"If the spell worked the same across all classes, including spell level, then you could ignore the list that followed.
Your very defense of the muck that is that is rule's intro shows what a very unclear creature it really is. I simply gave you back your own logic to show just that. The level of the spell is meaningless as Speak with Animals is cast the same whether by Bard or Druid. The trap is in the wording, clearly, and you fell into that trap. The DC of the racial SLA is not by level cast, and your argument would mean what if spells were the same level??
You've done a better job at showing how terribly written that sentence is than I have. Thank you.
If anyone has anything of substance to add- great I'm all ears. But there are several posters above who
simply ignore the first sentence in the FAQ and are incredulous that there's a...
Again, "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." is from the bestiary 1 and has been there since first printing. It did not originate from the FAQ and FAQ entries have modified SLAs since then.
You only accept "work differently" as meaning it has the same mechanical effect. I think that the developers meant the spell level as one of the ways a spell can "work differently". The evidence is all over the stat blocks of various monsters with SLAs. Being an arcane spell vs being a divine spell is also another way a spell can "work differently".
My argument was never that you could currently always ignore the type of spell a racial SLA is if every parameter of the spell was identical, including spell level across all the classes that could cast it. It was that, before there was a FAQ ruling that SLAs could be used to qualify for prerequisites calling for the ability to cast a certain spell or the ability to cast arcane or divine spells, it was not necessary to assign a spell with a type if the SLA 1) granted a save DC and the spell had the same level across all classes that could cast it, and 2) also had the same mechanical effects across all classes that could cast it. You just didn't seem to read anything past what you bolded.
As I posted before, the point is only that it didn't matter what type of spell an SLA was that a monster was using if parameter 1 and 2 were met. The version of a spell an SLA was based on was basically required when building monsters sometimes. The FAQ ruling on SLAs counting as spells for certain prerequisites has changed this as a matter of logic. You now have to assign a type to SLAs when trying to use them for certain prerequisites, you seem to want to ignore the rule for that.
Actually, nothing in the sentence "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes." excluded you from still assigning a type to racial SLAs even before the FAQ ruling on allowing SLA to count as spells for certain prerequisites. It is not an exclusionary sentence. It basically is there to give the reason the next 2 sentences exist. Not fulfilling that sentence does not mean you can't still apply the next 2. That sentence is still pretty clear when applied to monster SLAs.
You want that sentence to mean that somehow SLAs that do not "work differently" in your somewhat narrow idea and that are on multiple spell lists count as spells of every type of class that can cast them. That is just not supported anywhere I think.
This doesn't even touch on the fact there is a FAQ ruling that states:
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
It plainly says what SLAs it is talking about and what rule to apply to them. It does not include the sentence that you want to apply to it.
From the FAQ for the CRB:
"For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
Where is the confusion?
The SLA in question is Speak with Animals.
It is NOT a Wizard/Sorcerer spell (it is listed as "bard 3, druid 1, ranger 1"). Using the order of precedence from the FAQ, druid is listed BEFORE bard. Therefore it is considered the druid version of the spell. Druids are divine casters.
The Ragebred's SLA is therefore considered a 1st level divine spell. This is supported by the FAQ, which are OFFICIAL rulings by the Paizo design team.
So, apparently EpicFail has Epically Failed at his Perception check to even see my post...
@ EpicFail - Why are you ignoring the FAQ ruling that specifically mentions how to determine if a racial spell-like ability is arcane or divine?
Here's the link: Spell-Like Abilities: How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?
.
EDIT: I would also like to note that the FAQ was updated AFTER the post from SKR that you quoted at the start of this thread. The FAQ is official. That's the point of the FAQ. The Devs are only human (at least I think they're human...), and as such have changed their stances on certain issues from time to time.
They also changed things so that all official rules replies are posted using their "Pathfinder Design Team - Official Rules Response" Alias, and not a specific member of the team.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is ignoring many points of everyone's posts and doesn't want to respond anymore in the thread he created. Those are the attributes of a good debater.
I'm seeking clarity and I see none.
You know, it's pretty damn rude to ignore people answering your question on a public forum like this. It also suggests that your desire is not to get an answer, but simply to troll people and get them angry at you. If that's not the case, you have ample opportunity to prove it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes, if you are the only person to hold a controversial opinion, that makes you the trailblazer. Unfortunately, most of the time it means you are wrong. Even more unfortunately, people tend to assume they are always in that first bracket. It is hard to accept you may be in the second after putting so much investment into an idea.
If you really want to interpret the rules that way in your own game, EpicFail, you are free to do so --- but RAW things are very clear. You constantly claim there is some 'murkiness' to the interpretation and yet not a single person other than yourself has any trouble parsing the sentence.
At this point I fear the argument has more to do with pride than clarification. You've been given clarification.
You constantly claim there is some 'murkiness' to the interpretation and yet not a single person other than yourself has any trouble parsing the sentence.
Really? It's funny to see a sentence that's so clear that it takes hundreds of words to explain what it means and inspires an hilarious "I think that the developers meant" thrown in. I don't need to be a good debater, dariusu, you are doing all the heavy lifting for me. Thanks.
"Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes."
How silly of me not to drink the koolaid about how clear that sentence is. Never mind that the hypothetical rule I wrote in all of 90 seconds or so makes more sense or at the very least carries less baggage:
"When determining if a racial spell-like ability is divine or arcane, see if it appears on the Wiz/Sorcerer list. If so, then it is considered arcane. If it does not, use the following hierarchy in order presented to see where it first applies: Cleric; Druid; Bard; etc."
I know clarity when I read it. As I cited earlier, the rules that transformed grappling took a murky, rules-laden subject and made it playable, streamlined, and challenging and are clear. By the words that others, not myself, wrote the FAQ is mired in the bad form the Bestiary took. Feel free to shoot the messenger.
For spell-like abilities gained from a creature's race or type (including PC races), the same rule should apply: the creature's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
The only thing different between your words and the FAQ is the explicit and redundant spelling out that an SLA duplicating a spell from the Sorc/wizard list means it is arcane, and so forth.
Of course, you'll ignore this post as well, because it doesn't appear that you're actually interested in discussing this reasonably.
Really? It's funny to see a sentence that's so clear that it takes hundreds of words to explain what it means and inspires an hilarious "I think that the developers meant" thrown in. I don't need to be a good debater, dariusu, you are doing all the heavy lifting for me. Thanks.
The only reason there are even that many words is due to your insistence that it isn't clear in the face of literally every other poster in this thread.
"Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes."
How silly of me not to drink the koolaid about how clear that sentence is. Never mind that the hypothetical rule I wrote in all of 90 seconds or so makes more sense or at the very least carries less baggage:
"When determining if a racial spell-like ability is divine or arcane, see if it appears on the Wiz/Sorcerer list. If so, then it is considered arcane. If it does not, use the following hierarchy in order presented to see where it first applies: Cleric; Druid; Bard; etc."
And you once again are misconstruing the text at hand. You are latching onto one sentence when, if you bothered to read past it, you could see that it isn't actually part of determining anything about SLAs; it's stating the reason such rules exist. The rules (and the FAQ) say the exact same thing as what you've written there. Don't claim the rules are muddy if you're not going to argue about the text that tells how to determine things about SLAs. But, if you wish to insist on it, please continue.
A skinwalker's Speak with Animals SLA is divine. Sorry, if that wasn't the answer you were looking for.
Honestly, yes, I ignore the first sentence, because it does not change the completely unambiguous meaning of the following material.
That sentence could say "Some spells are actually ", and it wouldn't change how you determine what list an SLA comes from.
If it comes from a caster class, it's the same type as that caster class.
If it doesn't, you follow the hierarchy of spell lists, and it acts like it was taken from the first spell list you reach.
I am not seeing any possible confusion. There is only one actual ruling on the table. It's not as though we have another ruling to look at; SKR's forum posts before the final determination was made are not a "ruling", they are advice based on the current state of the game, and there have been significant changes to the game rules about SLAs since then, so it does not make sense to treat it as a ruling.
Whales? Pretty cool.
So, EpicFail, is this what you feel is ambiguous?:
The universal monster rules for spell-like abilities states: "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
Interesting, because it has NOTHING to do with Player Characters.
That paragraph is for monsters. The paragraph of the FAQ that everyone is directing you to specifically calls out PC races and their SLAs.
.
That being said, why don't you tell us what you're trying to do with this character?
Maybe then we can find a way to help you achieve your goal!
(Of course, that probably should be a new topic in the "Advice" section.)