Angels with protective auras can't use SLAs?

[TKDB]

I've recently stumbled across what appears to be a rather amusing oversight in the rules for celestials with the protective aura ability. This ability states that (among other things) it functions as a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, which of course means that it blocks any spells of 3rd level or lower cast within or into the affected radius.
The thing is, several (perhaps all, though I don't feel like going through and verifying this) creatures with this ability also have SLAs that duplicate touch-range spells of 3rd level or lower. And since there doesn't appear to be anything stating that they can turn their aura off, this means that they can't use those abilities at all unless its aura is dispelled.

So, for instance, an Astral Deva can't actually use its Aid, Continual Flame, Invisibility, Remove Disease, or CLW SLAs, since all of these are touch-range (or in the case of Invisibility, self-only) and 3rd level or lower.

Rather silly, no?

 

[Sekhmet]

You can leave or return to the globe without penalty.

Globes are immobile. Anytime the Angel wants to cast a lower level spell, it can leave the Globe, cast the spell, and then reenter it. Or leave the Globe, cast the spell, and refresh his Globe.

Related to the topic, Golems can ignore their Immunity to Magic when casting spells on themselves

Note that a golem cannot voluntarily lower its magic immunity so that it can receive a harmless spell, but a golem’s magic immunity does not extend to magic the golem uses on itself (just as spell resistance doesn’t apply to such effects).

. Perhaps Angels work the same way.

 

[Dandu]

This ability is one of many that could have been worded better.

 

[TKDB]

Globes are immobile. Anytime the Angel wants to cast a lower level spell, it can leave the Globe, cast the spell, and then reenter it. Or leave the Globe, cast the spell, and refresh his Globe.

It's one thing if it's simply an actual Globe, quite another when it's an always-on aura that imitates a Globe in addition to other (definitely mobile) effects. Pretty sure you can't just say "oh, I'll just leave this effect of my aura back here for a bit".

 

[Greenfield]

Let's look at the spell...

Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius spherical emanation, centered on you
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe. Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.
Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled.
If a given spell has more than one level depending on which character class is casting it, use the level appropriate to the caster to determine whether lesser globe of invulnerability stops it.
Material Component: A glass or crystal bead that shatters at the expiration of the spell.

(emphasis mine)

Looking at the highlighted section, and taking it literally, you could use all the SLAs you wanted, of any level, even against a target inside the Globe. Spells are disrupted as they enter the Globe, so if the caster is already inside it should work normally.

YMMV, of course, but there's a simple solution to the problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd take the Occam's razor approach- if a creature has a power that would seem to negate the creature's ability to use other powers it has, that negating power does not negate the creature's other powers. It may, however, still prevent the powers of other similar or even identical creatures from operating properly.

 

[Noir le Lotus]

The important part of the description is :

However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe

You can cast spells inside a globe to affect targets inside or outside the globe. The globe only suppress spells cast outside to affect its area.

There is no need to houserule anything : Angels with protective aura can use their SLAs without interference with the globe.

 

[TKDB]

The important part of the description is :

You can cast spells inside a globe to affect targets inside or outside the globe. The globe only suppress spells cast outside to affect its area.

There is no need to houserule anything : Angels with protective aura can use their SLAs without interference with the globe.

While I would agree with your ruling, and I absolutely think it's RAI, I don't think it's so clear that it's RAW. "Through" means "in at one side and out the other", which doesn't really apply to effects that both originate and end within the Globe.

 

[Greenfield]

And "enter" means "come from the outside, ending inside". So spells cast from within the globe don't "enter", and are not suppressed.

 

[TKDB]

And "enter" means "come from the outside, ending inside". So spells cast from within the globe don't "enter", and are not suppressed.

On the other hand, "effect" is used in the technical terminology of spell descriptions to refer specifically to things created by a spell, such as a summoned monster or conjured object, in contrast to spells that affect a target or area. Granted, the word is also used less formally to refer to what any given spell does in general, but my point is it's not entirely clear by RAW that the line "spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe" means that spells originating within the Globe are unaffected. Though that would certainly be the most reasonable interpretation, it's still ambiguous.