|
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes because
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/magic.html
against a spell
RAW: That rule is for spells, not supernatural abilities.
Common sense dictates that said ruling would extend to other magical abilities
not to mention Cackle works off extending the duration of hexes that failed and becomes dramatically less useful if you don't know they've failed as you may find you're pointlessly burning moving actions. Which pretty obviously wasn't the intended use of the ability.
It is arguably a good way for a DM to be a dick to a Witch by abusing a not really grey grey area, should they want to, but thats toxic behavior/
Which is why i put the RAW tag on it.
RAW: Supernatural abilities are not spells.
RAI: Who knows, we would have to ask the devs.
GM Fiat: You can rule that they work the same way.
If we start to make supernatural abilities behave like spells where there are no specific rules to differentiate them, we will see some strange behaviors that are not commonly accepted as rules as intended. Like allowing to (improved) counterspell a supernatural ability.
Generally, I would agree for most standard encounters.
The only thing I would add is that that there may be a time that the opponent, or even the player, realizes they were targeted with a magical effect and wants to pretend it worked to gain some sort of advantage. This should be possible (for non-PFS), though not abused. I haven't seen the Intrigue stuff, so there may be rules in there for this situation, but otherwise I would allow for a series of checks and counter-checks for this type of thing.
Some hexes have a fairly obvious effect that will let you know if you succeeded or not right away, the target falls asleep, or runs away scared, or seems afraid of you. While others are in the realms of you couldn't possibly know (misfortune im looking at you). How do you tell that someone has bad luck? Only way we could tell is that we see them fumble on nearly everything they try to do ("Yeah, that guy has bad luck").
Again, this is the rules forums, so i believe we have to avoid answers like "on my tables..." or "common sense says..." when there are rules saying differently or when there is no answer for it on the rules.
Many things that apply to spells also apply to SLAs and supernatural abilities, such as hexes. In this case I believe the statement about succeeding on a saving throw applies, but we don't have an explicit statement about such.
From Core: Special Abilities, in which Supernatural Abilitiy is classified and defined, "work like spells." All rules pertaining to spells pertain to all Special Abilities unless explicitly altered as it does under SLA, Sp, and Ex. The Supernatural Ability entry defines how it differs from a spell (so nobody who read the rules would allow a SP to be counterspelled).
Therefore: RAW, you know if your target made it's save against a Targeted Effect.
Edit: This rule would also include Ex, like Stunning Fist. If they make they're save, you know it (the rules don't provide for a way to fake being stunned reactively, anyhow, nor am I sure why you'd want to, but I digress...)
@Blake's Tiger
I agree that they explicitly call for dispells and counterspells, it was an example from memory.
But though Sp (spell-like) calls that they work like spells, Supernatural abilities only says that they are magical but not spell-like. (Source).
Or are you telling me that you could Research a Supernatural ability?
The rules for identifying a succesful save talks about spells, not magic in general. Of course, if you could find this reference you spoke of, i would gladly chance my point of view on this matter.
Like allowing to (improved) counterspell a supernatural ability.
That is already expressly prohibited:
A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.
EDIT: Weird delayed post ninja'd
Again, this is the rules forums, so i believe we have to avoid answers like "on my tables..." or "common sense says..." when there are rules saying differently or when there is no answer for it on the rules.
This is a rules forum however the question isn't, is there an explicit rule, is it? Its do Witches know when their hexes don't work?
Now being that we're discussing pathfinder a game with mind boggling scope and thus vast areas of grey, sometimes there are not explicit rulings for things and if you ask me part of the point of a rules thread is to suggest useful/logical rulings in such situations. Not to mention part of a GMs job.
Cackle and evil eye are clearly intended to work in this way. Not to mention that spell like abilities function as spells for this ruling and most hexes, although supernatural are in a literal sense spell like, its seems to me and from the looks most everyone else a reasonable ruling.
If an explicit ruling is discovered of course observe it, if one is not then reasonable is as good as can be hoped for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or are you telling me that you could Research a Supernatural ability?
No. You are referencing a rule from a different book that provides rules for Researching Spells. It is not part of the Spells rules in Core.
The rules for identifying a succesful save talks about spells, not magic in general. Of course, if you could find this reference you spoke of, i would gladly chance my point of view on this matter.
I'm talking about the rules of Magic as published in Core.
(Heading Font)Special Abilities
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.Spell-Like Abilities: 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 granted.
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
Extraordinary Abilities: These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
The syntax is, left-to-right, top-to-bottome.
1. Special Abilities "function like spells." The very first rule.
2. Special Abilities are classified as SLA, Sp, Ex, and "natural abilities."
3. This is how SLAs differ from spells.
4. This is how Sp differ from spells.
5. This is how Ex differ from spells.
Your interpretation is bottom-to-top (and completely ignoring the first line if the rules) If your interpretation was correct, we would know nothing about how Sp work except, "These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas." Everything else about how to handle saving throws, touch attack mechanics, detecting magical auras, handling energy types, etc. would not apply because what came before in the chapter on magic and higher section on spells does not apply.
1. These two sentences define how Sp function. Full stop.
I don't see anywhere saying you cannot research either of those abilities though, if they "work like spells" and "function like spells". So a character would need 8 hours of sleep to recover his arcane supernatural abilities? Since, unless defined, they work like arcane spells.
And no, my interpretation is specific overwrites general.
I will just leave this link and this link here
I will just leave this link and this link here
You asked me for my specific page citation of the actual rule, and I provided it, at no insignificant expense of time. You refute with two opinion posts by players similarly misreading the rules.
Your interpretation is not that specific overrides general as the specific does NOT say that a successful save against a Targeted Effect does not alert the caster/user to the failed effect (or any other alteration of how saves work). It specifically overrides AOO, disruption, spell resistance, counterspelling, and dispel magic.
As far as I know, yes, you need 8 hours of rest to recover expended supernatural abilities.
No, it's not that im misreading, the rules are grey and will suffer from table variation on that regard. The proof of that is that you claim that im misreading, and i will keep saying that you are the one misreading it. If the rules were clear, we wouldnt be having this conversation.
As for rules quotation, "many of which function like spells." is not the same as "all of which function like spells with a few exceptions, as noted bellow", like you are trying to say (unless im also misreading your posts).
Even James Jacobs seems to (partially) disagree with what you said earlier (Source) as he says you wouldnt know that an extraordinary ability succeeded or not.
His words are not RAW, but it's the closest to RAI we got (as i mentioned earlier on this thread, by "ask the devs"), and since it seems like the RAI on this matter is different from the answers on stackoverflow, those answers must be revised aswell.
As for rules quotation, "many of which function like spells." is not the same as "all of which function like spells with a few exceptions, as noted bellow", like you are trying to say (unless im also misreading your posts).
That is what I am saying. The latter would be more clear, yes, but there being a more clear way of saying it does not negate the existing syntax of the chapter. If Supernatural Abilities existed as a its own Heading and lacked the sole sentence under that heading, which precedes the subheadings, there would be confusion because it would call back to nothing. However, it is a Subheading under the Heading Special Abilities, which directly calls back to the rules on Spells.
Without accepting the call back to rules on spells, we would technically know nothing about: Concentration (overridden by specific call out for Su), Counterspells (overridden by specific call out for Su), Combining Magic Effects (what bonuses stack/don't stack, etc), what School an effect falls under for detecting magical auras, Casting Time, Range, Aiming (including whether you have to save vs. your own Effect even if harmless, line of effect, AoE overlays, etc), Duration, Saving Throws (including who feels what on a success/failure, the point of discussion), Spell Resistance (overridden by specific call out for Su)..
All of that applies or none of that applies. We don't get to pick and choose.
P.S. For the topic of discussion (Supernatural Abilities), it would have been correct and proper to say, James Jacobs partially agrees with [me], as he stated that Su would work as being discussed and only disagreed with my digression into Ex, which is not the topic of discussion.
It may not be the topic, but does cause a problem with the way the rules are being interpreted here.
Part of what you quoted from the magic chapter does not talk specifically about spells, but magic in general.
How saving throw works is part of the combat chapter, so it's already covered there.
How bonuses of the same type stack or not is defined on common terms (pages 11 and 13). The part about not stacking repeats quite a few times through the book, it even repeats itself twice on the same page on the magic chapter.
Concentration has rules all over the place, and works regardless of spells. Many things may require concentration, spells and spell-likes being only two of them.
The fact that it uses a standard action is called out on Special Abilities, not for spells. And that's also part of the combat chapter.
There is no casting time for supernatural abilities nor any reference of how long it takes, except that we assume it happens imediatelly as the action is declared because nothing says otherwise.
Range and areas may be defined on the magic chapter because that's where those rules are more commonly used, but there are other abilities that will also refer to those rules and are not spells, such as lanterns or combat feats.
Saying that they are spells because they have a duration or range is like saying spells are weapons when they use things related to weapon, such as combat maneuvers from a Tsunami spell. Personally, iv never seen a supernatural ability that refers to personal, short, medium or long that didn't actually mention a spell name, they all have the distance listed or no distance listed because the ability's text already says it affects the creature only.
As for the school of magic, what if we can't classify the effect with a school of magic? How do we know how to classify the school of magic for things like Ability Drain, Breath Weapon, Curse, Damage Reduction, Frightful Presence, Disease, Emotion Aura, Entrap, Flight, Gaze, Immunity (specially something as ambiguous as Immunity to Sleep or Paralyzis), Blindsense and a few others supernatural abilities that do not even sound like spells?
IMO, unless it duplicates a spell, supernatural abilities have no school of magic and the second round of detect magic will give you no further information other than what was discovered on the first round . Again, rules are grey here.
How would you even measure the power of a supernatural magical aura if it has no spell level or caster level? Or are you saying that, because they are spells, the caster level of an extraordinary and supernatural ability is equal to the class levels of the class that granted the ability?
About counterspells again, it says that supernatural abilities are not subject to counterspelling, but does not say you cannot use a supernatural ability to counterspell a spell or spell-like ability. Which seems totally valid if it duplicates a spell effect.
For instance, Change Shape says it works like Polymorph, thus if someone attempts to cast Polymorph on you and you had a readied action you could counterspell it and not be affected at all.
Same could be done by a creature with Fear (Su) against the Fear spell.
First, I would agree that Supernatural abilities are in fact a grey area as many of them are not necessarily replications of spells, even though they are magical effects, and thus subject to GM variation as per RAW only spells are mentioned with this statement. Spell-like abilities are clearly meant to function as spells and would fall under the same ruling.
Supernatural abilities are magical effects, just like spells are also magical effects. Super natural abilities are not spells, even though some clearly mimic spell effects. The devs could have easily worded the saving throw description to state "magical effects" and not just limit it to "spells" when describing whether or not the caster knows if it fails, and they didn't.
So, to answer the question, if a Witch Hex is (Sp), then yes you would know if they failed or not and likewise the target knows if they are being targeted or not. In my opinion, if the Hex is (Su), then GM table rule (as RAW).
Now as a GM I also agree that as intended, I would play that if the Supernatural ability specifically replicates a spell, then it is also subject to the same ruling. So with Slumber Hex for instance, the target would know it is being targeted and the caster would know if it failed.
Personally I would generally agree (and run) that any Su that allows a Save lets the caster know if it worked or not because this is a game that is meant to be fun for players. Because it would be fun for players, for a specific situation I may not let the player know if it worked without making opposed check, because the NPC may be trying to fake like it worked.
Incidentally, I would also say that for Ex abilities, the user only automatically knows for sure if it worked or not for things that have an obvious effect. However, generally as a GM I would still tell them unless there is a good reason not to (again, because fun game for players).
Saying that they are spells because they have a duration or range . . .
That is not what I am saying.
1. I am not saying that they are Spells. I am saying that they reference the rules for spells where not explicitly overridden either in the general Supernatural Ability subheading or in the specific ability's description.
2. I am not saying that they "function like spells" because they have a duration or range. I am saying this because the rules, as I cited, state that they "function like spells." That referential statement tells us where to look for that information (like do I need line of effect, how do I adjucate a save, what order do I apply contradicting magical effects, etc).
You're also misrepresenting the chapter on Magic.
9. Magic: Two paragraphs of generic summary. Full stop. No rules text outside of headings.
Heading: Casting a Spell (rules I discussed)
Heading: Spell Description (rules I discussed, including line of effect, saving throws [so much more than the basics outlined in combat], the difference between instantaneous and permanent, holding a charge, etc).
Heading: Arcane Spells (rules)
Heading: Divine Spells (rules)
Heading: Special Abilities: "A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells." (I read as, 'See above rules except where exceptions are made.')
Subheading: Spell-Like Abilities (exceptions)
Subheading: Supernatural Abilities (exceptions)
Subheading: Extraordinary Abilities (exceptions)
Subheading: Natural Abilities (defined by not being the above 3)
Full stop.
The quibble may be the word "many." Does it mean "many" of the following four types of Special Abilities (you argument is only Spell-Like, so many = 1)? Or does it mean many of all existing Special [edit: corrected typo, Supernatural -> Special] Abilities function like spells except for some, separately described, Abilities out there? Like how Profane Gift allows Sugestion to be used without line of effect, or how Breath Weapons have entire paragraphs and tables in the Bestiary explaining how they work (which still need the implicit reference back to Heading Spell Description to know if a cone goes around corners or not, or even technically that a line needs line of effect).
Furthermore, I'm confident that I could adjudicate each of your problem examples by following the rules as I am reading them.
It's clear that you're set in your conclusion as I am in mine. Our opposing views only stand as arguments to sway other readers. However, please do not misrepresent me or my statements in your zeal.
Im not misinterpreting your arguments, i do see your point, but i want to point out that there are other interpretations on this matter. This whole thing would have been avoided if there was one or two more lines describing how to qualify supernatural abilities.
As i said, by what is written and interpreting the way you are, extraordinary abilities are also "like spells" (JJ statement says otherwise though).
Personally i would rule it similarly to how @justaworm described it. With few exceptions (such as abilities with absolutely no visual/audible effect), the user would imediatelly know if their target succeeded or not.
(you argument is only Spell-Like, so many = 1)?
The text is talking about special abilities in general, and many of them ARE SLAs. It doesnt say "many of the following".
Ability Drain, Breath Weapon, Curse, Damage Reduction, Frightful Presence, Disease, Emotion Aura, Entrap, Flight, Gaze, Immunity (specially something as ambiguous as...), Blindsense . . .
For fun, I'll adjucate these. Reasonable people may disagree.
Ability Drain: necromancy, instantaneous effect, no aura to detect
Breath Weapon (chromatic dragons): evocation, instantaneous effect, no aura
Breath Weapon (bronze dragon repulsion breath): abjuration, aura strength = HD
Breath Weapon (ice mephit): evocation, instantaneous, no aura, and necromancy, aura strength = HD
Curse: enchantment (curse), aura strength = HD
Damage Reduction (if Ex): not magical, no aura
Damage Reduction (if Su): abjuration, aura strength = HD
Frightful Presence: Ex, not magical, no aura
Disease: Ex, not magical, no aura
Emotion Aura (if Su and not Ex): Enchantment (emotion), aura strength = HD
Entrap: Ex, not magical, no aura
Flight (if Ex): not magical, no aura
Flight (if Su): transmutation, aura strength = HD
Immunity (if Ex): not magical, no aura
Immunity (if Su): abjuration, aura strength = HD
Blindsense: Ex, not magical, no aura
[edit: challenge accepted, Su versions of more commonly Ex abilities adjucated below]
Frightful Presence is only Ex in the Beastiary, but for the sake of argument: Necromany (emotion)
Disease: Necromancy (disease)
Entrap: likely instantaneous, but Evocation or Transmutation depending on the mechanism
Blindsense is also only Ex, but if it was Su, it would be Transmutation
For the record, all those you listed as "not magical" have examples where they are listed as supernatural abilities on the bestiaries (Ex: A ghoul's disease is Su).
As i said, by what is written and interpreting the way you are, extraordinary abilities are also "like spells" (JJ statement says otherwise though).
To qualify JJ's statement: How many Ex abilities do not have a visible effect? Poison (Ex)? If you judge that instantaneous loss of a stat doesn't have some physical reaction or manifestation (reasonable) or the poison has a delayed onset (also reasonable). That appears to be the sole possible exception (barring very unique abilities in some Bestiary entry somewhere). You could also interpret the "not magical" rule in the Ex entry to imply the Caster-Target link through saving throw does not exist (reasonable).
Ex abilities do still need to call back to Spell Description, though, so you know they need line of effect (unless they say they don't), how to adjucate a "Partial" or "Half" effect on a save, etc. depending on the ability.
Regardless, Su are magical, and those magical rules are written in Casting a Spell and Spell Description.
For the record, all those you listed as "not magical" have examples where they are listed as supernatural abilities on the bestiaries (Ex: A ghoul's disease is Su).
Bolded for emphasis. Here is an example of using hyperbole to misrepresent my statements. "All" does not fairly represent 'Two out of seven abilities you listed as "not magical" have [Su examples].'
To further clarify the real topic of discussion, this is going to come up a lot more on the Monster-as-Initiator side of things. Vampire Domination and Nereid Beguiling Aura are two examples.
If you decide that Su do not give feedback to the initiator on a save, then let you fighter use Quick Draw and stab the vampire in the heart with a stake against Flat Footed AC because he pretended to be dominated. :)
I thought it was clear that i meant the ones where you didn't list both Su and Ex, since, well, you had listed the others already.
And to be fair, they were four out of ten.
Again, i know you were classifying them for fun and i didnt even take your list as being serious. I was just pointing out that there are examples where they are supernatural on the published books.
Also, i noticed you listed Diseases as Necromancy, but i know of at least one disease afflicting spell that is transmutation: Sickening Strikes. It would be fair to say that most of those effects could be classified as transmutation, as it is the most varied spell school.
Frightful Presence is only Ex in the Beastiary
It is Ex on the universal monster rules where the abilities are described, like others. But on specific monster's, there are examples of Frightful Presence being Su, such as the Nightmare Creature Template (B4), or spawn of divine destruction (Inner Sea Bestiary).
Since the most iconic creatures that got Frightful Presence are Dragons and the Tarrasque, i don't think they needed the look back and rewrite it or explicitly state that it was Ex since only those creatures had it at the time.Poison (Ex)?
Also Diseases and Ability Damage.
Or the target of those should automatically know they just failed a save against a poison/disease/ability damage as per
A vampire's Domination says it works as <spell name. On those cases, im fine with it working exactly like the spell with <these exceptions>.
A vampire can crush a humanoid opponent's will as a standard action. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire's influence, as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). The ability has a range of 30 feet. At the GM's discretion, some vampires might be able to affect different creature types with this power.
I dont see why it would list a range and caster level if supernatural abilities are like spells with the exceptions listed under special abilities.