ya i wonder though because sla's work just like the spells they mimic, but they dont have verbal, somatic, or material components, they dont require foci, and they dont have xp costs...BUT, plane shift says that the plane traveled to is dictated by the size and type of fork, so, wouldnt that mean that no fork = no plane? and it would just fail? like a druid casting magic stone when there arent pebbles to turn into grenades? i feel like maybe that's why they worded it differently: sla's dont HAVE v, s, m, or xp comps, sla's dont REQUIRE foci (in other words, the fact that it's an sla means u no longer are required to have a focus, but since it doesnt say they dont HAVE foci, that means that it COULD still use/depend/function/be dictated by one. of course, the problem then would be simulacrum, since it's a mat comp not a foci...lots of ???????????????? from where im sittin..also, powers dont hav mat comps, but nowhere does it say that every single one must be like that. psionic plane shift says it works just like the spell except where noted, and nowhere does it note that the manifester/caster - instead of the size and type of fork - dictates the plane traveled to. and another thing is this: there's that quote out of monster manual 1 that says somethin about creatures without hands (aboleth) being able to cast spells that have mat comps..(it's worded twice in contradictory ways which raise a lot of other questions, but no matter which of the two consecutive sentences you go by, there would still be a problem with spells that use a focus)...so, either aboleths (even though it would be a higher level aboleth mage than the one presented in the book) (and dragons (things that actually cast spells)) wouldnt be able to cast plane shift (since the clause allows a certain way of dealing with mat comps (and doesnt say anything about foci), which means it would only work with foci too if foci were assumed to be a type of mat comp. it's kind of like the turbo argument..a lot of people dont realize that a turbocharger is actually a type of supercharger (just one that's driven by exhaust pressure), but most of the time they're referred to differently. maybe that's the deal with mat comps and foci (of course, then eschew mats would apply to foci (although not to planar forks either way, since that little "f" is noted after the spell name in the spell lists that it's in))...so, it can only be explained 2 different ways: 1. gith carry planar forks (at least the ones for the mat and ast planes), and some coatls, demons, and nightshades also do (also, if a dragon with a high enough sorcerer caster level knows plane shift, it too would carry forks (at least which ever ones it needed to use). this would also mean that psions definitely still needed the right fork for wherever it was they wanted to go (NONE of this, however, would allow someone to plane shift to a layer aside from the 1st (like the 2nd or 9th layer of baator), since the manual of the planes (and the dmg1) state that plane shift always brings you to the first layer of the plane. 2. now this i think would be more rai (vs raw), but if gith, nightshades, aboleth, dragons, etc dont need forks, then that would mean that the spell was poorly worded and should really be interpreted as something like "the focus for plane shift to the ethereal plane is this fork, and the focus for plane shift to limbo is that fork, and....", in other words, plane shift would b several spells in one (like magic circle against chaos, law, evil, or good (one spell, you choose which u cast when u cast it), but with each "version" of it having a different focus. but if that were the case, then the name of the spell shouldve been plane shift to astral, ethereal, shadow, celestia, etc (and i could c y they would want an alternative way of typing it all up), and the description shouldve been worded very differently. of course, there's already a problem: you land 5-500 miles from your destination, which means if your destination is on the second layer of the abyss, then no matter what, you'd land on the second layer of the abyss. and this is why i would rather go with the first explanation that ive given: because the only way that last bit doesnt contradict both the manual of the planes (which IS 3.5 legal) AND the 3.5 version of the dmg, is if the spell REALLY IS DEPENDENT on the fork, which REALLY DOES DICTATE the destination plane (the fork is tuned to the top layer of the plane you want to shift to). (this would explain why it's mentioned under "layered planes" that other layers are IN WAYS different planes (like maybe in the eyes of the planar forks?
) also, the problem with the idea that someone could plane shift without a rare object to anywhere they wanted would contradict the fact that sigil has a huge business in the trade of portal locations and keys. who needs a portal if they dont need a planar fork? and THAT, is a REALLY BIG DEAL. i mean, that's WHY sigil is such a BIG DEAL. the city of doors! if any old 9th level psion or gyanki (among half a dozen other creatures (and that's just in the FIRST monster manual) could completely negate the need for portals, then why would a woman more powerful than gods run a place like that?! so that's the end all for me. ive been working on this nonstop for weeks, and the fact that the 2nd interpretation seems possible kept me trying to figure it out, but the fact the 2nd interpretation doesn't work with a clause found identically in TWO different 3.5 legal books means that what i perceive to be the only way for every gith and psion not to need planar forks is disproved. and im happy about it, since i find planar forks, portal keys, and gatecrashers to be interesting. and i dont like the idea that a player could just say "im plane shifting us all to mechanus right now. then what? the dm would just be there to roll dice for monsters! hell. no. for the sake of keeping a game a game and not just playin make believe when ur all grown up, plane shift, DEPENDS on planar forks, and it doesn't matter who, or what, you are
