|
People have addressed the glossary, like myself. Mention of the glossary happened in the first two pages, though some portion of it did get axed with the removals.This gets back closer to the regular hum drum of slightly ambiguous things.
But that would depend on the stated claims being true. Where does the book define "spell-like" as a formal term?
Here you are.
Special AbilitiesThe following special abilities include rules commonly used by a number of creatures, spells, and traps.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
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.
Longer definition in the Bestiary:
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. 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. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
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.
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.
Format: At will—burning hands (DC 13); Location: Spell-Like Abilities.
Spell-like ability.
I think we can agree that using "spell-like" not in reference to SLAs would be quite silly, especially since the glossary entry on supernatural abilities is right below the spell-like ability one.
And at least, personally, I haven't seen "spell-like" used in any other context in Pathfinder.
To quote myself:
"Spell-like" is not the same as "like a spell." "Spell-like" is a defined term in the rules, "like a spell" is a descriptor.
"Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like" is used to differentiate the magical supernatural abilities from the also magical and just mentioned spell-like abilities.
The glossary presents us with an ability X. X is Y. It then presents us with another ability, Z. Z is also Y. But, it wants to distinguish Z from X, so it next states that Z is not X.
When did we get a new ability called spell like.
The only ones I know about are:
Extraordinary
Spell like abilities
Supernatural
As a counterexample: Supernatural abilities do not heed the magic section of rules. Breath weapons are supernatural abilities, so Breath weapons do not have defined shapes, sizes, and can universally pass through walls because they do not need LoE. Breath weapons act like this because cones and lines are defined under "Aiming a spell" and that section does not apply to supernatural abilities, such as breath weapons.
The rules for aiming a spell, specifically the rules for line of effect, say that whenever a spell targets an object or a creature or when you attempt to create an effect in a space, you must have line of effect.
Breath weapons are not spells, but they do create an effect in a space, thus they require line of effect. There's your explanation on how breath weapons work with the rules as written while otherwise treating supernatural weapons distinctly differently than spells and SLAs.
Are people seriously trying to argue that they can use hexes on targets their characters aren't able to target?
|
I have a lawyer in my group, and when he wants something, this thread is how it goes. Not to knock all lawyers, my dad was one, and I swore I'd never marry one, but then I went and did :)
I think he'd have hated my final year of my math degree, where we learned (this is different now, but back then) that there are 5 or so underlying axioms that numbers (and math that has to do with numbers) are based on, and they are basically just assumptions that weren't provable. Taught me in all life we have unspoken assumptions, and you have to get the 400 level courses to make them spoken.
Same goes for the game. Everything can't be written down because it's impossible to write it all down, even the FAQ only answers questions that enough people are unsure of. When 99% of the people are sure, they don't bother creating a FAQ, no matter how many times the question comes up.
Also, Common Law (for all of us in the US, Canada, and UK except Louisiana) is kind of that way anyway, "this is how it's been done" kind of sums it up.
Are people seriously trying to argue that they can use hexes on targets their characters aren't able to target?No you have to target them. But doing so only requires line of effect and not line of sight, unless the hex states otherwise, if it is a Su ability.
If supernatural abilities are spells, they require Line of Effect (see quoted text below).
If they are not spells, the book is silent on the matter, unless you take the text in the glossary at face value and assume that all information about a supernatural ability, how it is used, and what it targets is contained within the description of the ability (because that's what the glossary says).Overall, there are very few references to supernatural abilities in the CRB (two specific mentions, one in the Special Abilities section and one in the Glossary, and two other places: in the info on polymorph spells and in the section describing Natural abilities).
There is some credibility in the idea that an offensive use of a hex is considered an attack, but even that is ambiguous because the text says:
All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.
This has been pointed out in this thread before, but I'd like to call into question the specific use of the word spells throughout this section, once again. I have a hard time believing that in such a rule set -- where ambiguity and assumptions are very bad things to have and to use -- that the game developers, writers and creative minds would use the term "spell" to describe all magical effects and actions, when there is already distinction in place between "spell" and "supernatural ability" and "natural ability" and "extraordinary ability" in not one, but two places.
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have a hard time believing that in such a rule set -- where ambiguity and assumptions are very bad things to have and to use -- that the game developers, writers and creative minds would use the term "spell"
Many times in the past, developers have made comments on how they write the rules and how they expect GM's to use the rules.
The best way to highlight this fact, is by looking at the controversial FAQ answers. In these cases, the way the rules were written didn't match they way they were being interpreted.
I think you would be able to better understand how they would answer a new FAQ, if you considered the rules less a precise source and more like a collection of examples to extrapolate the final truth.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you can hex, and then didn't say that was restricted by LOS, then you can do it without LOS.
So all magic items that require attacks, don't require LoS either?
Again, just because it doesn't spell out a requirement doesn't mean that isn't an obvious requirement. For things like this, it would only be relevant if it spelled out Line of Sight was not required.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
When you do things that you think are obvious but are not written, that is called a house rule.
To everyone but you and el cuervo, every position you have taken in this thread seems like house rules.
But I'm not telling you that you are wrong, I'm ok with your interpretation of RAW. I just don't share it and I don't call it a house rule.
Are people seriously trying to argue that they can use hexes on targets their characters aren't able to target?No you have to target them. But doing so only requires line of effect and not line of sight, unless the hex states otherwise, if it is a Su ability.
I can't think of situation where you can target something you can't see...
Let me clarify this.
On a combat map, if you know there is an invisible opponent, and you have line of effect...
Are you saying you can just affect them with a hex without even knowing where they are?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
yes I do need to know (not see) his square
Ok, so let's recap.
Your current position is:
Line of Sight is required and if not present use the Total Concealment 50% miss chance when you pick a square that contains the target.
Line of Effect is required per attack rules.
Can we go back to post 18 and have you say this in that post?
If you had said this then, we would have saved 206 posts in this thread.