Frostburn: Frost Giant Spiritspeaker's spell-like ability

[Shin Okada]

This variant of Frost Giant uses several spell-like abilities. But it seems that the list has a typo. It says it uses Door (DC 15) at will. AFAIK there is no such spell. What should be the SLA it meant to have instead? DC of 15 suggests that would be a 2nd-level spell (the giant's CHA bonus is +3).

Here are some random thoughts,

*Detect Secret Doors
The spell has "Doors" in the name. Not "Door", but similar. Weak enough to let that monster have as an at-will ability. No save, though.

*Dimension Door
Another spell in PHB which has "Door" in the name. Maybe too strong as an at-will SLA. It has save (object), but DC does not match.

*Knock

2nd-level spell which is related to door. No save, though.

Any thought?

 

[Cleon]

This variant of Frost Giant uses several spell-like abilities. But it seems that the list has a typo. It says it uses Door (DC 15) at will. AFAIK there is no such spell. What should be the SLA it meant to have instead? DC of 15 suggests that would be a 2nd-level spell (the giant's CHA bonus is +3).

*SNIP*

2nd-level spell which is related to door. No save, though.

Any thought?

My best guess is it's a typo and it's meant to be doom. That's a first-level Necromancy spell and the Spiritspeaker has Spell Focus (Necromancy), so DC 15 would be correct for the monster's stats.

 

[Shin Okada]

My best guess is it's a typo and it's meant to be doom. That's a first-level Necromancy spell and the Spiritspeaker has Spell Focus (Necromancy), so DC 15 would be correct for the monster's stats.

That sounds convincing. Though Spell Focus does not affect spell-like abilities by RAW, the author may thought differently.

 

[Dandu]

Yes, the correct feat would be Ability Focus.

 

[Cleon]

That sounds convincing. Though Spell Focus does not affect spell-like abilities by RAW, the author may thought differently.

I've seen considerable arguments on that point. (i.e. including in our own forums). The main argument for the feat applying under RAW is that the SRD says "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell" which includes feats functioning "just like a spell".

Unfortunately WotC publications have been inconsistent in how Spell Focus works with SLAs. There's official errata saying Spell Focus does not apply to SLAs, but there are a good few examples of officially published creatures that apply the feat to their spell-like abilities.

In the case of the Frost Giant Spiritspeaker there's two pieces of evidence that the author did this:

Firstly, the Spiritspeaker's blindness/deafness SLA has DC 16. As a 2nd level sorcerer spell with a +3 ability modifier this would normally have DC 15 so it is getting another +1 from somewhere, and a +1 from Spell Focus (necromancy) is the only visible candidate as it's another Necromancy spell. The only other alternative is they got their sums wrong!

Secondly, there'd be no point even giving it Spell Focus in the first place. The Spiritwalker doesn't have any actual spells, so it'd be a waste of a feat.

 

[Shin Okada]

Unfortunately WotC publications have been inconsistent in how Spell Focus works with SLAs. There's official errata saying Spell Focus does not apply to SLAs, but there are a good few examples of officially published creatures that apply the feat to their spell-like abilities.

It is rather off-topic but ... there are a lot of errors in monsters' and NPC' stats, especially in feats and skills. So many of them have wrong feats, wrong number of feats, wrong ranks in skills, etc. So IMHO, when arguing about rules, those examples should be just ignored.

Firstly, the Spiritspeaker's blindness/deafness SLA has DC 16. As a 2nd level sorcerer spell with a +3 ability modifier this would normally have DC 15 so it is getting another +1 from somewhere, and a +1 from Spell Focus (necromancy) is the only visible candidate as it's another Necromancy spell. The only other alternative is they got their sums wrong!

Good point. But instead of Spell Focus feat actually works for SLAs by RAW, this is an evidence that the author who created the creature's stats was misunderstanding the rule, I guess.

 

[Cleon]

It is rather off-topic but ... there are a lot of errors in monsters' and NPC' stats, especially in feats and skills. So many of them have wrong feats, wrong number of feats, wrong ranks in skills, etc. So IMHO, when arguing about rules, those examples should be just ignored.

Yes, there are lots of errors in WotC's published monsters - including the SRD.

Skills seem to be the most prone to being miscalculated.

I wouldn't ignore published monsters as evidence for rules interpretation myself, although I'd give it a much lower canoninity than the actual published rules, with errata and official FAQ* being at the top.

*Although when it's my home game and I don't agree with an FAQ I'd probably change it. When statting monsters for the Creature Catalog I try to stick to the official rules as best as I can however.

Good point. But instead of Spell Focus feat actually works for SLAs by RAW, this is an evidence that the author who created the creature's stats was misunderstanding the rule, I guess.

Yes, but the germane point is it indicates the SLA in question could be a mispelled doom.

Out of curiosity I tried to find the official WotC errata on Spell Focus and SLAs and couldn't find it on their website - the closest was a "Rules of the Game" saying metamagic feats can't be used. Which doesn't help since Spell Focus isn't a metamagic feat.

There used to be an entry on Wizard's D&D 3.5 Frequently Asked Questions saying Spell Focus doesn't apply to SLAs but that FAQ doesn't seem to be on their website anymore, although I found it pretty easily as a PDF compilation on http://www.adnd3egame.com.

Wizards seem to have trimmed out more of their 3.5 archive every time I have occasion to check the backstreets of their website.