Arcane/divine and special abilities

[Theo R Cwithin]

Is there ever any need (in the core rules) to distinguish between arcane and divine spell-like abilities?

The default assumption is that abilities based on spells are based on the sor/wiz version. In that case, is the SLA or Su somehow considered "arcane"? If an SLA is based on a clerics-only spell, is it considered "divine"? Is this distinction at all meaningful by RAW?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While i can't think of any class/creature/spell that makes such a distinction, I think its entirely possible for an adventure (or other source) to do so. And if one did, I'd imagine your instincts are correct.

FWIW, I can think of a few feats that create Su abilities, and can only be applied to arcane spells, but I'm still at a loss to find divine analogs to such feats.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Yes, there's so little in the core rules that cares about the distinction in core with respect to full-fledged spells (only magic item use, iirc?) that I didn't think the magic type on special abilities would matter at all in any context in core RAW. I guess I'll go with that assumption for now. Thanks!

 

[Empirate]

Well, the Warlock is obviously considered an arcane spell-like ability user. After all, you can take up prestige classes that continue arcane casting progression, but not ones that explicitly only continue divine casting.

 

[steeldragons]

I think the only need is how you define magic.

I am inclined to say, in the case of SLA, that there is no magic "type." It is a spell-LIKE ability. Nothing is actually being cast.

In other words, the magical effect does not have an arcane or divine origin...but, for lack of a better term, a genetic one. i.e. A drow using their Darkness SLA isn't using arcane or divine magic...they're using DROW magic. Or a ghost has Telekinesis (Su)...the ghost isn't using magic, per se, it's just being a ghost.

In a way, now that you have me thinking about, and your system of play/definition of magical energies allows for it, all SLA can be defined as having a "Primal" magic origin...a natural ability by the creature to wield/mold ambient magical energies to whatever effects their kind is permitted.

Thus, to carry out that line of thinking, spells/items/effects that stipulate working against "Arcane" or "Divine" magics specifically, would not inhibit the use of SLAs.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I thought for SLAs there was an order to apply until you found it on the the respective class's list. Like...Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger. Or something like that, unless told otherwise.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I thought for SLAs there was an order to apply until you found it on the the respective class's list. Like...Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger. Or something like that, unless told otherwise.

Yes, that's right. My question is, if by using that classification system a SLA comes up "sor/wiz", is it considered "arcane" by RAW, and does it matter?

Consider a creature with two specials: tongues (Su, continuous), a sor/wiz3, and cure serious (Sp, 1x/day), a clr3. In the game, the important part seems to be the "3", for determining saves. But does the "sor/wiz" or "clr" part ever come into play at all? For example, suppose there was such a thing as an "arcane magic suppression field" that shuts down only arcane magic, like a selective antimagic field. Would this field suppress the creature's tongues Su because it's sor/wiz-like, while leaving the cleric-like cure ability intact? Or would the specials be unaffected, because they are really just typeless level "3" magic.

Is there anything in the core RAW that makes this kind of distinction between arcane & divine magic, in which there's a mechanical advantage of one over the other in some instance? The only thing I can think of that comes close is feeblemind, which is actually concerned arcane casters, rather than the arcane magic itself.

It seems to be that the arcane/divine distinction actually doesn't matter for any core RAW cases that involve SLAs or Su abilities, and that such abilities can therefore be described with only a level, rather than a casting class and a level.

 

[pawsplay]

SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. Arcane and divine are spellcasting distinctions, and SLAs are not spellcasting. There are plenty of forms of magic that are neither arcane nor divine: soulmelds, core psionics, Eberron artificers.

 

[CuRoi]

I think most SLAs are only described with a caster level (I could be mistaken) so that should tell you the leanings of the RAW. The RAW does state a spell-like ability is to be considered a sorc/wizard version then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, ranger in that order - but I believe that is only for interpreting effects and not applying an Arcane or Divine tag. All of the DCs are Charisma based (unlike most common Divine spellcasters that rely on Wis) so it sticks with the "innate" caster idea of carried with the spontaneous casters. At any rate, I think all this info is just there to provide guidance for interpreting effects, not to tie the SLA to a specific class or Divine/Arcane marker.

However, I think an interesting twist would be make a distinction between the two. I mean, I doubt a Hound Archon's SLAs would source from anything but "Divine" powers for instance. It's more flavor than anything but it also makes IMO a better case for loss of said powers if they are abused. Of course, its tough for creatures native to aligned planes to do anything but what their nature dictates...but the MM gives guidelines for things like Hound Archons as PCs so the theory of being straight-jacketed by their nature goes out the window.

 

[Jhaelen]

SLAs are neither arcane nor divine. Arcane and divine are spellcasting distinctions, and SLAs are not spellcasting.

This.