Hypersmurf's Rules of the Game Thread

[PaulGreystoke]

I guess HS has been too busy being a Moderator to give us loyal denizens of the Rules Forum our weekly dose of RotG critiquing. So to help him out I'll start with "looks good so far..."

 

[Trainz]

I guess HS has been too busy being a Moderator to give us loyal denizens of the Rules Forum our weekly dose of RotG critiquing. So to help him out I'll start with "looks good so far..."

You should have posted a link the the RotG in question:

All About Spell-Like Abilities (Part One)

All in all, I'm not impressed. Skip only repeats what's already obvious in the DMG and MM. The only thing that is "somewhat" of note is this:

Using a spell-like ability is a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Sometimes using a spell-like ability can be a free action or a full-round action, or it can have an even longer activation time. However, it's a standard action unless the ability description specifically says otherwise. A creature using a spell-like ability can use all the tricks that a spellcaster can use to avoid that nasty attack of opportunity. The creature can take a 5-foot step before using the ability (so as to get out of a threatened area). The creature also can make a Concentration check to use the ability defensively.

But even then, that's obvious.

I hope part 2 will bring perspective about the non-obvious parameters and possibilities that spell-like abilities have.

 

[shilsen]

All in all, I'm not impressed. Skip only repeats what's already obvious in the DMG and MM.

I'm not necessarily impressed, but I don't think there's a problem if he repeats what's "obvious", considering the amount of discussion, arguments and name-calling I see daily on this board about things a particular poster thinks is obvious and something someone else doesn't. But that being said...

I hope part 2 will bring perspective about the non-obvious parameters and possibilities that spell-like abilities have.

I agree.

 

[PaulGreystoke]

You should have posted a link the the RotG in question:

Doh!

I hope part 2 will bring perspective about the non-obvious parameters and possibilities that spell-like abilities have.

Agreed. But this is good technique by the Sage - to draw together the obvious aspects first, before delving into the exotica of the subject.

 

[jgsugden]

A spell-like ability is subject to the effects of antimagic. An antimagic field or a beholder's antimagic ray suppresses a spell-like ability so that it has no effect. This suppression does not dispel the ability, however, so if the spell-like ability's duration outlasts the antimagic effect, the spell-like ability resumes functioning when the antimagic effect goes away. An antimagic effect also blocks line of effect (see Chapter 10 in the Player's Handbook) for any magical ability, though a creature always has line of effect to itself. So a creature with a spell-like ability could use the ability on itself, even in an antimagic field. The magic still would be suppressed while the creature remains inside the antimagic effect, and the creature would gain no benefit from the ability until it left the area of antimagic. Time spent inside the antimagic effect still counts against the magic's duration, however.

I never noticed that little bit in any of the books and don't have too much time to look for it now. I always assumed a spell-like could not be activated in an anti-magic zone.

The SRD says: • No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).

That seems to contradict the Sage. To me, a spell-like ability would need to work in an anti-magic zone for it to be 'cast'.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That seems to contradict the Sage. To me, a spell-like ability would need to work in an anti-magic zone for it to be 'cast'.

Actually, that does fit with one interpretation of AMF, for exactly the reson the Sage described.

AMF doesn't prevent you casting a spell. But it does block line of effect, and it suppresses the effect of spells. So an instantaneous spell is always wasted (since it's suppressed for the entire duration). A spell with a range greater than touch is always wasted (since line of effect is blocked).

But a spell with a non-instantaneous duration, and a range of Personal or Touch, can be cast... though it is immediately suppressed.

If I cast Shield on myself, and them step out of the Antimagic Field, the spell is no longer suppressed.

If I cast Bestow Curse on someone inside the field, they feel no effect until they exit... and then, since the curse is no longer suppressed, they suffer the penalty.

If I cast Hold Person on someone inside the field, nothing happens, since the field blocks the line of effect.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

Actually, that does fit with one interpretation of AMF, for exactly the reson the Sage described.

-Hyp.

Where does that interpretation come from? Is there a specific foundation in the rules? Something I'm missing?

This seems pretty clear to me:

• No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).

If it doesn't work, it should have no effect, not a suppressed effect. If I said that using a gimlit to open my door wouldn't work, you wouldn't be thinking that it would eventually have an effect. You'd think that it would not have any effect. The interpretation you describe would better be described as working, but suppressed.

The AMF spell itself mentions that it nullifies the spell-like abilities of creatures (although only refering to a few select creature types specifically, there seems to be no logical reason not to apply it to all creatures). Nullifies is pretty strong language to be used to describe suppression. To me, nullifies signifies nothing remaining.

The interpretation you mention seems to indicate a belief that an AMF dulls magic in the air, blocking all line of effect, but doesn't have an effect on magic generated within the body of the caster/user. That doesn't mesh well with the idea that magical effects inside the caster are suppressed. It is sort of like saying that generating magic is not magical. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[AGGEMAM]

The AMF spell itself mentions that it nullifies the spell-like abilities of creatures (although only refering to a few select creature types specifically, there seems to be no logical reason not to apply it to all creatures). Nullifies is pretty strong language to be used to describe suppression. To me, nullifies signifies nothing remaining.

1st, it says: 'temporarily nullifies'. Meaning that the abilities of the creatures in question cannot be used at all.

2nd, it says: 'these creatures' '. Meaning the creatures mentioned, not any creature.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The interpretation you describe would better be described as working, but suppressed.

Which is almost exactly what the spell description states.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

1st, it says: 'temporarily nullifies'. Meaning that the abilities of the creatures in question cannot be used at all.

2nd, it says: 'these creatures' '. Meaning the creatures mentioned, not any creature.

Right, those creatures can not use the nullified abilities at all for the time they are in the effect. That would be the point of not allowing them to be used for personal or touch spell-like effects.

And though it does refer to a subset of creatures (elementals, corporeal undead and outsiders) with regards to this notation, it seems like this is a clarification, not a new concept added to the rules for the spell. In other words, it is confirming that these creatures, though not forced off the plane, have their abilities nullified like everyone else. At least, that is how I read it. It is possible to read it another way, but that was the first thing that came to my mind when read in context.