WotBS (conversion to Pathfinder) OOC

[HolyMan]

will work if everyone before the "bad guys" goes and for slow games. I have posted a round 1.5 recap and even a round 1.9 recap (as I waited on one player) in other games. We could do that here as well.

EDIT: I have now read three versions of what SLA's do (Core: pg 221 & 554; Bestiary pg 304) and a little on paralysed characters provoking AoO when they use their SLA. I now have a headache. Will rule on all this (as it seems they have no errata I can find) tomorrow after I go over it in my head (which aches).

HM

 

[Fangor the Fierce]

I went with 2 options to speed things up. Hopefully nothing outrageous happens that would have altered his actions. But, he's a narrow focused guy when it comes to battle, so I think both choices he would have made are presented.

 

[HolyMan]

Ok are we ready for the Special Abilities debate? Think they need to go over this stuff a little better. Here are my sources if anyone has others please let me know:

Core pg. 221 & 554
Beatiary pg.304
Srd (which reads verbatim like pg. 554 of the Core PF book)
3.5 PHB pg. 142 & 180 (pg. 180 reads like pg. 221 of the Core PF book)
3.5 DMG pg. 289 (which is almost a copy of pg. 554 of the Core PF book with a chart thrown in to help confuse you.)

Point open for debate:

I think that Spell-Like Abilities(SLA), Supernatural Abilities(Su), and Extraordinary Abilities(Ex) should be on a scale of best down. For me that would be - Ex (1st), Su (2nd), and SLA (3rd).

So your Ex ability would allow for no components, no possibliy for dispel or countering, can not be negated, target gets no SR, and no AoO. Action: varies (swiift or reactionary)

Su abilities would have to have at least a verbal component, can be dispelled or negated, but cannot be countered. Target is not allowed SR and AoO not allowed. Action: varies (swift or standard)

SLA's being on the bottom of the 'totem pole" would be just like spells in almost everyway. Components needed, can be dispelled or countered, subject to negation, target gets SR and they provoke AoO. Action: standard or full round.

With the above the only change to the RAW would be SLA's needing components. But it seems strange to me that a "power" that you can use standing stark still would provoke an AoO, so that's one of the reasons I believe you should add them. Also if your SLA is a "Ray" spell you don't need to point?? (somatic).

Let me know what you think guys and if you find out anything else.

HM

 

[HolyMan]

Hey Vertexx my bad on your postion. And those boxes are on the other side of a wall in another room. Did you want to be at the base of the stairs or behind the bar? Please let me know. Great post and rolls don't want to waste them.

Just need to redo Shade's postion before I do a round 1.5 recap.

HM

 

[Dragonwriter]

Ok are we ready for the Special Abilities debate? Think they need to go over this stuff a little better. Here are my sources if anyone has others please let me know:

Core pg. 221 & 554
Beatiary pg.304
Srd (which reads verbatim like pg. 554 of the Core PF book)
3.5 PHB pg. 142 & 180 (pg. 180 reads like pg. 221 of the Core PF book)
3.5 DMG pg. 289 (which is almost a copy of pg. 554 of the Core PF book with a chart thrown in to help confuse you.)

There's a reason they sound like each other... They are each other.
3.5 PHB/SRD also says: A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost.
3.5 SRD Special Abilities
Pathfinder SRD Special Abilities

Point open for debate:

I think that Spell-Like Abilities(SLA), Supernatural Abilities(Su), and Extraordinary Abilities(Ex) should be on a scale of best down. For me that would be - Ex (1st), Su (2nd), and SLA (3rd).

So your Ex ability would allow for no components, no possibliy for dispel or countering, can not be negated, target gets no SR, and no AoO. Action: varies (swiift or reactionary)

That's all well and good by me. Extraordinary abilities are non-magical, anyway, like Improved Grab for a Dire Ape or Trip for a Wolf.

Su abilities would have to have at least a verbal component, can be dispelled or negated, but cannot be countered.

I feel the need to point out any Dragon's Breath Weapon. All are Su, but the only action is breathing, and none can be dispelled. Antimagic Field negates them, but that is rather high-power.

SLA's being on the bottom of the 'totem pole" would be just like spells in almost everyway. Components needed, can be dispelled or countered, subject to negation, target gets SR and they provoke AoO. Action: standard or full round.

With the above the only change to the RAW would be SLA's needing components. But it seems strange to me that a "power" that you can use standing stark still would provoke an AoO, so that's one of the reasons I believe you should add them. Also if your SLA is a "Ray" spell you don't need to point?? (somatic).

Let me know what you think guys and if you find out anything else.

HM

Then would the SLA take Arcane Spell Failure chance? Would an SLA-user have to use material components? The rules say they have no components, so why can't they just have no components (says this in PF and 3.5)? I can see justification in getting AoO'd because you have to focus on it, like on a spell. Your focus is elsewhere, your opponents take a swing at you while you are open. I don't mind that.
Supernatural abilities don't face that because they don't take focus, they are second nature.

I mean, it was balanced enough in 3.5 that they left it as such in PF. Why can't we just leave it as is, as it doesn't need to be HR'd. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as the saying goes.

Components, also, are only backed up by the Vancian casting system, and remain largely a flavor point. I have never bothered with typing or saying some kind of incantation in play, and I doubt I ever will. And the Metamagic feats Still/Silent Spell negate the need for them anyway. And neither of those feats say they negate any AoO.

As I see it, the AoO is for being focused on something other than the guy standing in front of you, waving a sword at you. If you can make the Concentration check, you keep your focus, don't get smacked, and keep the spell. If you get smacked or are too focused on dodging the guy, you lose the spell/SLA.

I'm going to say it again: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Please, HM.

 

[HolyMan]

AoO aren't my major concern it is being able to use this "spell-like" abilty will paraylzed(or tied up etc.) but you can't cast spells while paraylzed(tied up etc.). So that seems "unspell-like".

So point two:

Without components of any kind you give the oppurtinity to cast while impaired. I say that is "inspell-like", and shouldn't be allowed.

And that they can be countered but how does someone know a spell is being cast. You say "I use my SLA to summon a monster to put a dire wolf behind the enemy." and I say " Your ablity is countered by one of the inquisitors." We all know the next thing will be "How did he know I was casting anything?" (Although the Bestiary says they can't be countered but the Core book says they can.)

That is what I really wish to address and if we simply say, SLA's can't be countered then they become a little more powerful than their intention. I know they book states that the have no components but it also says that they are like spells and spells do have at least a verbal component.

If we even add just that (V component) we give reason for counterspelling, and the inability to use it if you are incapacited and can't speak.

Sure spell like abilites have been around a while and never "fixed". They work to the players benefits when used or to the DM's when used agianst players, balanced ok, sure. But they are still sitting their contradicting themselves.

So point three:

Do we allow counterspelling of SLAs or not?

If they can than they will need some component to allow for how the counterer knew a spell was being cast. If they can't be then are they really "spell-like".

 

[Vertexx69]

Yah Shade would have been hiding at the base of the stairs, as a counter ambush doesn't work when you aren't in the thick of things.

 

[Walking Dad]

Just a few seconds between the "attack" on the door and the order. If they wouldn't have succeed the first time they would try again every round.

Fantalass stil needs some work, saw the following

- To many languages and Should have Elf and Common +4 more.
- weapon is still example
- Can't tell if he is a conjurer or illusionist as both are listed in different areas and no Arcane School powers listed
- Don't see favored class bonus in either hp or skills

NP with buying an item with the "broken" condition just figure it cost a 1/4 of the regular price.
...

- languages include the ones he got from the linguistics skill.
- weapon fixed
- he is a conjurer. acid dart is listed in the IC thread.
- alternate racial favored class bonus. listed in the racial traits section.

AoO aren't my major concern it is being able to use this "spell-like" abilty will paraylzed(or tied up etc.) but you can't cast spells while paraylzed(tied up etc.). So that seems "unspell-like".

...

So point three:

Do we allow counterspelling of SLAs or not?

If they can than they will need some component to allow for how the counterer knew a spell was being cast. If they can't be then are they really "spell-like".

HM, I see your points. But I would prefer the more recent rule in the Bestiary. But I also always hated counter magic...

 

[rangerjohn]

No opinion on the question, but WD did you read the player's guide? The campaign is steeped with counter-magic, with duels, spells and feats(?), for
it. I think even the new class inquisiator is based on it.

 

[Walking Dad]

I know, and the counterspellers are the evil guys.

And the creators of the adventure knew the 'spell-ilike' ability rules as they wrote it.