SR vs. Slaying Arrow

[dcollins]

You know, although this is sure to complete the derailment of this thread, I can't help but notice how reminiscent Infiniti's "you can have a supernatural ability without a supernatural effect" argument is to Patryn's previous "you can be flanking without getting a flanking bonus" line of reasoning...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You know, although this is sure to complete the derailment of this thread, I can't help but notice how reminiscent Infiniti's "you can have a supernatural ability without a supernatural effect" argument is to Patryn's previous "you can be flanking without getting a flanking bonus" line of reasoning...

I disagree entirely (of course, right?).

Flanking *was* a well-defined "condition" in 3.0. They changed the definition in 3.5, making it less well-defined. Furthermore, selective application of bonuses of bonuses and penalties is ingrained in the D&D rules.

There's been no definitional changes of Supernatural, Spell-Like, and Extraordinary between the two editions.

And, hey, it's your own damn thread, derail it however you want.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You know, although this is sure to complete the derailment of this thread, I can't help but notice how reminiscent Infiniti's "you can have a supernatural ability without a supernatural effect" argument is to Patryn's previous "you can be flanking without getting a flanking bonus" line of reasoning...

Egad. Talk about pulling a comment out of thin air. Please read below and I'm doing my best to not be as snarky as the two of you.

Look again at the "Spell Resistance" quote from the DMG I posted above, where precisely that occurs. They are synonymous.

A "spell-like effect" is synonomous, or nearly so, to "magical effect." The only difference is that a spell-like effect specifically resembles an existing spell. It does not, however, have to stem from a spell-like ability of a creature. Anything that produces magic can produce a spell-like effect, but not everthing that produces spell-like effects correspond to creature's spell-like abilities.

The simple proof that the two terms are not synonomous is the fact that spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity. Unless you can say that all magical items provoke attacks of opportunity, your claim of synonomity is obviously false.

You, of course, ignore the glaring error that you have to be a creature to have a spell-like ability.

 

[dcollins]

Any moderator, feel free to close this thread, it's going nowhere. Thank you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thread closed at originator's request.

If someone wants to open a new one on any unresolved issues that might have arisen, that's fine... but make sure to keep it polite

-Hyp.
(Moderator)