While trying to determine the casting time for innate spells, I came across the following:
Cast a Spell excerpt: You cast a spell you have prepared or in your repertoire.
If the Cast a Spell activity is only for prepared or repertoire spells, how does one cast innate spells exactly?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Innate Spells still say you cast them and they are explained in the rules right before the Cast a Spell activity. So you just cast them like any other spell, no special rules apply unless the feature granting you the spell says otherwise.
Innate Spells still say you cast them and they are explained in the rules right before the Cast a Spell activity. So you just cast them like any other spell, no special rules apply unless the feature granting you the spell says otherwise.
Well I guess naga's are out of luck. (If they have to adhere to all the Cast A Spell rules, then they can't meet the somatic components of most of their spells.)
Likewise, a wendigo can't use it's Rid the Wind ability because it triggers only after casting a 10 minute spell.
Succubi and other discreet casters can't discreetly use their magic either.
There are numerous other examples of where the game breaks down if you're right about that.
Not sure what the right answer could possibly be if not that though.
All your examples are NPCs. It has been well established that NPCs don't follow the same rules as PCs.
Respectfully, I beg to differ.
While it's true that NPCs and monsters aren't built the same way as PCs and often have unique abilities, they still follow all the same rule mechanics for movement, strikes, and other things, except where specifically noted by their entries.
Clearly, a monster should be able to use its innate abilities. So in cases like the naga, somatic components would involve movement, but not hand gestures — something more dance-like, perhaps, or using its tail to draw mystical sigils in the air. A mute creature casting innate spells with verbal components would use some other means of making sounds, similar to a bard using a musical instrument.
That's all well and good, but are there any rules anywhere supporting that notion?
Yes, on page 444 of the CRB.Clearly, a monster should be able to use its innate abilities. So in cases like the naga, somatic components would involve movement, but not hand gestures — something more dance-like, perhaps, or using its tail to draw mystical sigils in the air. A mute creature casting innate spells with verbal components would use some other means of making sounds, similar to a bard using a musical instrument.That's all well and good, but are there any rules anywhere supporting that notion?
Actual text please. P444 looks fine to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this before, creatures like Nagas are still able to provide somatic components. You don't NEED hands to provide that component, and you don't NEED speech to provide a verbal component.
For examples, nagas provide somatic components with their tails, or even their heads. Animals with innate spells can provide verbal components with growls and similar vocalizations.
The rules in the CRB are for PCs. Please stop assuming they apply to monsters who can literally deal 2d12+20 damage with a dagger if they are written that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, a monster should be able to use its innate abilities. So in cases like the naga, somatic components would involve movement, but not hand gestures — something more dance-like, perhaps, or using its tail to draw mystical sigils in the air. A mute creature casting innate spells with verbal components would use some other means of making sounds, similar to a bard using a musical instrument.That's all well and good, but are there any rules anywhere supporting that notion?
It boils down to "Specific Overrides General".
Which is not great, as what is specific and what is general is not always clear. But this tells us that Innate Spells assigned to a specific creature clearly work.
Not happy? Well there are some details.
The rules on Spell Components say that material components are somatic components and somatic components boil down to Manipulate Actions This is what lets us know that the caster can wiggle a suitable appendage instead of a complex hand gesture. Yes you could get a bit upset because it mentions hand in a few places. But there is a specific out here so it is clearly OK
So that means basically any creature can use innate spells. I can make an argument even an ooze can create a suitable appendage to cast a spell.
To use Verbal Components you need to be able to speak a few words. It is arguable that is possible even for a creature that doesn't have a proper language. Ok maybe that is a bit dubious. But these are innnate spells. Just as long as some vocalization is possible it should work. In the end "Specific Overrides General".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean page 5 of the beastiary says:
"A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block."
So I think a Naga would have the ability to use somatic components for it's spells.
There are also established rules that allow for substitution of components (See Sorcerer) AND it has been stated explicitly that you should not list "silent" abilities on a stat block.
Except the manipulate trait says the following: Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait.
Spells with somatic components have this trait.
If we're supposed to ignore the manipulate trait because monsters are different, wouldn't that also mean that fighters can't use Attack of Opportunity against spellcasting monsters?
If we're supposed to ignore the spell components, wouldn't that mean we should also ignore other aspects of the spell, in effect treating innate spells differently?
Where does one draw the line?
What makes an innate spell different from a normal spell?
Except the manipulate trait says the following: Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait.
You combine this with "A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block" and that'd mean they DO have "a suitable appendage".
If we're supposed to ignore the manipulate trait because monsters are different, wouldn't that also mean that fighters can't use Attack of Opportunity against spellcasting monsters?
Who said ignore? They have the ability to do what is in their stat block but that doesn't mean you'r dropping traits.
If we're supposed to ignore the spell components, wouldn't that mean we should also ignore other aspects of the spell, in effect treating innate spells differently?
Again, who said ignore.
What makes an innate spell different from a normal spell?
"A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block."
So you're saying nagas have an unlisted ability to use somatic components, despite not having a suitable appendage, and that this would provoke as normal?
Sure seems like breaking the rules to me. Everyone will end up playing it differently because no one would really know where those invisible lines are drawn.
Not saying you're wrong. It just seems like a silly, inefficient, confusing, arbitrary way to go about it.
|
Yeah... you're getting hung up on the rules where it mentions hands or appendages, for Somatic Components all you need to be able to do is make gestures. You can make gestures with your body, neck, head, or in this situation tail just as well as any creature with hands could with their own biology, to assume that an NPC is incapable of spellcasting because they weren't born with humanoid style body parts is silly at best, especially since the Innate Spells rules specifically outline that if a creature has something on its statblock then it CAN use it.
This isn't a problem, at least not for the Naga. As for the issue with the casting time for the Wendigo, that's a bigger issue that I think was just overlooked in the editorial process when they converted the creature for 2e and is a different type of issue altogether.
So you're saying nagas have an unlisted ability to use somatic components, despite not having a suitable appendage, and that this would provoke as normal?
You 1000% completely MISSED what I said: they are treated as if they had the correct appendage do to the line I quoted.
Sure seems like breaking the rules to me. Everyone will end up playing it differently because no one would really know where those invisible lines are drawn.
What invisible line? "A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block" The stat block IS a VERY visible line to draw: the monster/npc can do what is listed in the stat block... That is something EVERYONE can follow without playing differenty.
Not saying you're wrong. It just seems like a silly, inefficient, confusing, arbitrary way to go about it.
IMO, it seems less 'silly, inefficient, confusing or arbitrary' that inventing new abilities for each issue instead of just skipping all of those and just listing the end abilities: what is gained by adding an ability specific to naga's so that they can cast spells? Added word count? Either way ends up the same, with the naga being able to cast spells. It's not like players can use it and it needs to be balanced and worded with them in mind.
Secondly, you seem to be arguing that a naga doesn't have a "a suitable appendage": what is the definition of that? If you can't point to an in game definition for that, you really can't say they don't have one?
Except the manipulate trait says the following: Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait.
Which also means that Creatures with a suitable appendage can.
Leaving suitable appendage undefined. But its clearly not limited to just hands.
I understand that it's not limited to just hands and hand like appendages. However, nagas don't have any appendages at all, of any kind. To claim otherwise is to defy the very definition of the word "appendage," and thus the rule that states a creature or character must have a suitable appendage to take manipulate actions (and by extension, cast many spells).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that it's not limited to just hands and hand like appendages. However, nagas don't have any appendages at all, of any kind. To claim otherwise is to defy the very definition of the word "appendage," and thus the rule that states a creature or character must have a suitable appendage to take manipulate actions (and by extension, cast many spells).
Its at this point I start to accuse you of "Speciesism", or at least a lack of immagination. Yes creatures with a Snake body type have no hands. It is a consistent problem in the human centric expression of the rules and not a problem in real life. It is blantant discrimination inherent in the langauge of the expression "appendage".
They use their whole body as a hands. They do actually grapple. The can wiggle and dance. Their whole body should count as a suitable appendage and a free hand. Look at the implication of the word rather than a narrow definition.
|
|
Your interpretation assumes these creatures were not born with their current anatomy, and haven't practiced using their spells and abilities with their form. You might as well argue that Nagas shouldn't have a Speed since they have no legs, after all, a humanoid with no legs wouldn't have a speed?
See how ridiculous that point is? You can't compare Nagas to humanoids. They were born as snakes, and have years of practice being a snake that can cast spells. Immortal Ichors are oozes and they can cast spells, even though they have no "appendages", will you suggest living blood of a dead god can't cast spells just because it's an ooze?
I understand that it's not limited to just hands and hand like appendages. However, nagas don't have any appendages at all, of any kind.
It's got a tail doesn't it?
To claim otherwise is to defy the very definition of the word "appendage," and thus the rule that states a creature or character must have a suitable appendage to take manipulate actions (and by extension, cast many spells).
Really? You can take a feat as a tiefling to make your tail capable of using simple interaction actions. Hence, the pathfinder game accepts a tail as a suitable appendage in some situations. As such, it's be YOU that's defying the in game definitions of the word. Even under normal definitions, you'd be 100% wrong. "In vertebrates, an appendage can refer to a locomotor part such as a tail, fins on a fish, limbs (legs, flippers or wings) on a tetrapod; exposed sex organ; defensive parts such as horns and antlers; or sensory organs such as auricles, proboscis (trunk and snout) and barbels."
Its at this point I start to accuse you of "Speciesism", or at least a lack of immagination.
Wow. I'm xenophobic simply because we disagree on our reading of the rules? If you're one of those people who negatively label others who disagree with you, rather than try and have a logical discussion, than there's really nothing more I have to say to you.
Just to be clear, this is the logic you guys are using?
Really? That doesn't strike anyone as being a little thin?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its at this point I start to accuse you of "Speciesism", or at least a lack of immagination.Wow. I'm xenophobic simply because we disagree on our reading of the rules? If you're one of those people who negatively label others who disagree with you, rather than try and have a logical discussion, than there's really nothing more I have to say to you.
No I'm poking fun at you. It just felt amusing to use a politically left wing argument.
Yes it is a widespread problem with the language of the rules, being human centric. That is a fair bit of effort to avoid as naturally our language IS human centric. With a bit of interpretation we can get past that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, we're going with the rule that states creatures are able to use all the abilities listed in their stat blocks. Regardless of what appendages they have, it's listed in the stat block so they must be able to use it, it doesn't matter how. The creature could just be a log, as long as it lists that it can cast spells in the stat block, it can cast them.
The problem is like what Gortle is saying; the CRB rules are written with humanoids in mind. With monsters you need to throw all that out the window and look at each stat block as an individual list of rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, this is the logic you guys are using?
Really? That doesn't strike anyone as being a little thin?
Nope. As several have mentioned they have a tail. And I will mention a tongue.
In the novels that I have read written for Pathfinder (admittedly for 1e) they talk about the nagas wiggling their tails, or their tongues, to cast with.
Plus no one is accusing you being xenophobic. They just pointed out that you tend to be looking at this from a specific view point and when someone provides a reasonable explanation (like the rules say NPCs can do what is in their stat blocks), you ignore it and just keep hammer away.
Not sure way you started down this road of "It is my reading and only my reading." In the past you seemed to be much more open to alternatives.
This is a fantasy game. Suspend the belief in our work to enjoy the magical world that Pathfinder (and Starfinder) are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why you would ask this question and then start complaining when people give you an answer.
What's more likely: that monsters can't use their printed abilities, or that the rules are intentionally flexible? Hint: one of these answers is insanely stupid.
There is one thing wrong with this and that's the order: #1 nagas have an appendage [a tail*], #2 nagas can cast spells, #3 ergo, those tails must be enough to cast their spells.
Appendage DOESN'T mean only a limb. Every limb is an appendage but not every appendage is an limb. It's like every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle isn't a square.
* Snakes have a defined tail region which is separate from their main body with the tail area starting at the cloaca.
Appendage DOESN'T mean only a limb. Every limb is an appendage but not everylimbappendage is an appendagelimb. It's like every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle isn't a square.
Fixed, :)
Are we going to start asking how Naga can open doors next?
That's easy: there is a reason they ALL get mage hand.
Are we going to start asking how Naga can open doors next?That's easy: there is a reason they ALL get mage hand.
So if I throw a Naga through a doorway and bar/block the door with a heavy object, do I defeat the encounter because the Naga has been defeated by such an ingenious plan?
|
|
Is this another "NPCs don't have their clothes listed in their gear so they are all naked" pedantry level thread?
Yes. It's similar to the threads that mention when humanoids stat blocks don't list any languages, so obviously they are illiterate.
So if I throw a Naga through a doorway and bar/block the door with a heavy object, do I defeat the encounter because the Naga has been defeated by such an ingenious plan?Are we going to start asking how Naga can open doors next?That's easy: there is a reason they ALL get mage hand.
I would give it to you.
So if I throw a Naga through a doorway and bar/block the door with a heavy object, do I defeat the encounter because the Naga has been defeated by such an ingenious plan?Are we going to start asking how Naga can open doors next?That's easy: there is a reason they ALL get mage hand.
I don't see how: Force Open is an untrained Athletics skill so they can bash down a door as well as a limbed creature. What changes in this if we change naga to goblin? Neither can unbar/unblock the door any other way. As the action only has the attack trait, an ooze could use it. Heck, that naga can cool-aid man through a wall with the action.
I don't see how: Force Open is an untrained Athletics skill so they can bash down a door as well as a limbed creature. What changes in this if we change naga to goblin? Neither can unbar/unblock the door any other way. As the action only has the attack trait, an ooze could use it. Heck, that naga can cool-aid man through a wall with the action.So if I throw a Naga through a doorway and bar/block the door with a heavy object, do I defeat the encounter because the Naga has been defeated by such an ingenious plan?Are we going to start asking how Naga can open doors next?That's easy: there is a reason they ALL get mage hand.
If they have bad Athletics, I don't think they could realistically break through both the door and the barricade, if the DC is high enough.
But it was a sarcastic response anyway. A joke hypothetical that shouldn't have panned out in the most ridiculous of circumstances.