Spell-Like Ability confusion?

[sledged]

Where do you suppose I figure out what a fireball SLA does? By checking the equipment chapter?

No, by checking the rules pertaining to SLAs, which explicitly states when to and when not to go by the spell discription.

Rushlight does this better than you.

Eh. I suppose I was never really any good at it to begin with.

sledged, I fail to see why you are arguing w/Hong... other then the fact that you like to see him get his back up.

The debate is reason enough. The D&D rules forum exists so that people discuss the rules of D&D, and I generally enjoy such discussions. This is simply an entertaining diversion for me.

The question was... does the SLA take the same amount of time as the spell it mimics? And the answer is .... Yes.

Do you agree, or are you trying to refute this?

Neither. I'm refuting Hong's claim that "ability description" implies "spell description." I admit that I may pulled this thread off topic by debating the issue with him to such an extent. If that bothers anyone, I appologize for it, and if it's the consensus that I pursue issue no further, then I'll stop.

Yeah, for me, and thousands upon thousands of people that have never seen the SRD, don't buy dragon, and don't use the internet as a source of their D&D information. i.e., *most* of the people that play D&D. Or do you just not believe that?

I never said anything contrary to it. However, despite the majority, there are still those that, for whatever reasons, choose not to buy one or more of the three core rule books, and they rely partly, if not entirely, on the SRDs. In addition, there are those who do have all three core rule books, but in addtion use the SRD to clearify things. Everyone that has the core books doesn't always consider them to be the final answer when they run into conflicting official sources.

"House Rule", indeed.

Ok, I admit, it was a bad attempt at a joke. Tough crowd.

 

[Brisk-sg]

D00d.

Hong, you crack me up.
For everyone else, here is very specific information about this, from page 180 of the 3.5 PHB.

"Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it Mentally."

"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell."

In other words, the casting time of of a spell like ability is normally a standard action, unless a different casting time is listed for the spell or unique spell-like ability!

I don't know what it says in the SRD, as I tend to use the actual books for play.

-Josh

 

[Lamoni]

Just out of curiosity... Does anyone know of any spell-like abilities that have a shorter casting time than the spell that it mimics? In other words, the ability description in the monster manual states a standard or full round action while the spell normally takes longer.

 

[hong]

No, by checking the rules pertaining to SLAs, which explicitly states when to and when not to go by the spell discription.

So post the relevant passages, then. Where, exactly, do the rules explicitly state when to go by the spell description?

The debate is reason enough. The D&D rules forum exists so that people discuss the rules of D&D, and I generally enjoy such discussions. This is simply an entertaining diversion for me.

Yes, yes, you're trolling. Which is MY schtick. Please to STOP STEALING MY SCHTICK.

Neither. I'm refuting Hong's claim that "ability description" implies "spell description."

From a random monster out of the MM (Ogre mage):

Spell-Like Abilities: At will -- darkness, invisibility; 1/day -- charm person (DC 14), cone of cold (DC 18), gaseous form, polymorph, sleep (DC 14). Caster level 9th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

You know, I am really failing to see any part of those ability descriptions that actually says _what you do with them_. So where, exactly, do I find what these abilities do? In the equipment chapter, as mentioned previously? Or since that seems to bother you, maybe the classes chapter?

I admit that I may pulled this thread off topic by debating the issue with him to such an extent. If that bothers anyone, I appologize for it, and if it's the consensus that I pursue issue no further, then I'll stop.

Promises, promises.

 

[Brisk-sg]

Just out of curiosity... Does anyone know of any spell-like abilities that have a shorter casting time than the spell that it mimics? In other words, the ability description in the monster manual states a standard or full round action while the spell normally takes longer.

The closest thing I have found so far in the Monster Manual is Cure Serious Wounds and Make Whole for Formian Workers, it requires many workers and is a full round action for each of them to perform.

The vast majority of Spell Like abilities seem to follow the spell description except where noted (such as teleport abilities for most devils has a max carrying capacity of 50lbs).

 

[sledged]

So post the relevant passages, then. Where, exactly, do the rules explicitly state when to go by the spell description?

From the core rule books and the SRD:

a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name.
...
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

- PHB, page 180 and the file MagicOverview.rtf
​

I'd like to note at this point that both the SRD and PHB say the same thing (except that the SRD lacks the examples in the PHB). On page 142 of the PHB (the file CombatI.rtf of the SRD), it says that using a SLA "is 1 standard action, unless the ability description notes otherwise", and the file MagicOverview.rtf of the SRD (page 180 of the PHB) says that using a SLA is "1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description." So the PHB and the SRD don't contradict each other so much as the rules contradicting themselves.

Continuing on:

Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components).
...
A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.

- MM, page 315 and the file TypesSubtypesAbilities.rtf
​

And from Skip's article:

A spell-like ability is a magical trick that works exactly like a spell of the same name.
...
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that are not subject to dispelling; if so, the spell-like ability also is not subject to dispelling.
...
Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that are not subject to spell resistance. If so, the spell-like ability also is not subject to spell resistance.
...
A save DC for a spell-like ability is calculated the same way a save DC for a spell is calculated.
...
The user's Charisma modifier affects the ability's save DC no matter what spell the ability duplicates.
...
To determine the spell level for a spell-like ability, always use the level for the sorcerer/wizard version of the spell. If the spell has no sorcerer/wizard level, use cleric, druid, bard, paladin, or ranger level, in that order. Sometimes a creature's description will specify a kind of caster for the creature's spell-like abilities. If this is so, use the appropriate level for the spell-like ability.

From a random monster out of the MM (Ogre mage):

Spell-Like Abilities: At will -- darkness, invisibility; 1/day -- charm person (DC 14), cone of cold (DC 18), gaseous form, polymorph, sleep (DC 14). Caster level 9th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

You know, I am really failing to see any part of those ability descriptions that actually says _what you do with them_.

Of course not. The ability description doesn’t give all the information you need to know to know on how to use them. That’s what the rules on SLAs are for.

So where, exactly, do I find what these abilities do? In the equipment chapter, as mentioned previously? Or since that seems to bother you, maybe the classes chapter?

If by "what they do," you mean the effects, according to the SLA rules, you look up the spell descriptions for the sorcerer/wizard versions of the spells the SLAs mimic because "A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order." (MM, 135 and TypesSubtypesAbilities.rtf) In terms of DCs, caster level (for level dependant effects and caster level checks for overcoming SR), and how they interact with spells like dispel magic and antimagic field, you use the rules concerning SLAs, which can be found on pages 142 and 180 in the PHG, page 289 in the DMG, page 315 in the MM, in the files CombatI.rtf, MagicOverview.rtf, AbilitiesandConditions.rtf, and TypesSubtypesAbilities.rtf of the SRD, and parts one, two, three, and four of Skip Williams' article All About Spell-Like Abilities.

Now, if by "what they do," you mean how they're activated and what's required (i.e. components, focus, XP cost, time required, etc...), you again use the SLA rules in the locations noted above.

 

[hong]

I'd like to note at this point that both the SRD and PHB say the same thing (except that the SRD lacks the examples in the PHB). On page 142 of the PHB (the file CombatI.rtf of the SRD), it says that using a SLA "is 1 standard action, unless the ability description notes otherwise", and the file MagicOverview.rtf of the SRD (page 180 of the PHB) says that using a SLA is "1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description." So the PHB and the SRD don't contradict each other so much as the rules contradicting themselves.

The rules contradict themselves only to you, and then only because you have a seeming inability to read the context in which they appear. It is clear as day that p.142 of the PHB is using "ability description" as shorthand for exactly the same thing as p.180, and so there is no contradiction.

Unless, of course, you are trolling.

Of course not. The ability description doesn’t give all the information you need to know to know on how to use them. That’s what the rules on SLAs are for.

... and those rules tell you to go to the spell description, do they not? Hence they are using the spell description to describe the ability as well, are they not? Have you always had this much trouble understanding that "ability description" means "ability description"?

If by "what they do," you mean the effects, according to the SLA rules,

(snip babble)

Did you have a point, or were you just happy to see me?

 

[sledged]

The rules contradict themselves only to you, and then only because you have a seeming inability to read the context in which they appear. It is clear as day that p.142 of the PHB is using "ability description" as shorthand for exactly the same thing as p.180, and so there is no contradiction.

Again, I disagree. I've noticed that the rules avoid implying anything in order to cut down on confusion. They usually either include all the relevant information right there or refer the reader elsewhere for the full details. The amount of space required for the phrase "or spell" would not have warranted shorthand.

... and those rules tell you to go to the spell description, do they not?

For some aspects of the abilities, yes. For other aspects, no.

Hence they are using the spell description to describe the ability as well, are they not?

Again, only in part.

Have you always had this much trouble understanding that "ability description" means "ability description"?

That's not it. I just don't see "ability description" implying "spell description" when the rules explicitly state that not everything about a SLA is determined by the spell description.

Did you have a point, or were you just happy to see me?

Well, you did ask the question, "So where, exactly, do I find what these abilities do?" I was merely providing you with an answer...

and I'm always happy to see you.

 

[hong]

Hello again, troll-boy!

Again, I disagree. I've noticed that the rules avoid implying anything in order to cut down on confusion.

Of course, they usually assume a reader with basic comprehension abilities too.

They usually either include all the relevant information right there or refer the reader elsewhere for the full details.

... in other words, the spell description forms part of the ability description. Thank you. Did you have anything else to add, or is the foot stuck firmly enough in the mouth for now?

The amount of space required for the phrase "or spell" would not have warranted shorthand.

D00d. Your entire argument is based on the presence or absence of TWO WORDS. Are we having fun yet, troll-boy?

For some aspects of the abilities, yes.

Exactly.

For other aspects, no.

And this is relevant... how?

Again, only in part.

And this is relevant... how?

That's not it. I just don't see "ability description" implying "spell description"

Your lack of reading skill is your problem, not mine, but I'll help you out anyway because I'm JUST SUCH A NICE GUY. "Ability description" is not a term of art, and neither is "spell description". Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that you can define these phrases narrowly, when all the evidence points to their being simple, plain English terms.

when the rules explicitly state that not everything about a SLA is determined by the spell description.

The rules also explicitly state that unless overruled elsewhere, you go to the spell description to find out what the ability does; that is, it describes the ability. People with a functional command of the English language understand that something that describes an ability is an ability description.

Well, you did ask the question, "So where, exactly, do I find what these abilities do?" I was merely providing you with an answer...

Not, of course, that it had anything to do with the price of tea in China.

and I'm always happy to see you.

Oh good.

Yes, yes, IHBT, IHL.

 

[mikebr99]

Hello again, troll-boy!

People with a functional command of the English language understand that something that describes an ability is an ability description.

Yes, yes, IHBT, IHL.

rotf... hong, you can always be counted on to fill the day with entertaining dialogue.


Mike