The Mystery of the High Arcana SLA ability

[Elves]

Archmage's Spell-Like Ability High Arcana.

First, you sacrifice a 5th level spell slot, in a straightforward way just like all the other High Arcanas. Then:


An archmage who selects this type of high arcana can use one of their arcane spell slots to permanently prepare one of their arcane spells as a spell-like ability that can be used twice per day.

The spell-like ability uses a spell slot of the spell’s level.

Reading closely, the only literal interpretation you can get from this is that you still have the spell slot in question, and this spell slot is in fact filled with the SLA.

So either this is a singular exemption from everything else we know about SLAs, or it does just create a contradiction.

In reality, I think this is just very clunky wording, and that the author either should have said that the spell slot is gone and you gain the SLA, or should have left out the part about it being an SLA altogether.

Even under the literal interpretation, “prepare one of their arcane spells AS a spell-like ability” remains weird. This is not to mention the weird clause that for this High Arcana you can use any slot “other than a slot expended to learn this or any other type of high arcana”, which implies that you *still have* any slots you expended and could, barring that clause, “use” them…in other words that they’re retained but simply set to a permanent “expended” state, but this is hinted in such an inconcrete way that there’s no RAW ruling. That ambiguity is still better than being stuck with a manglement that's technically RAW, like above.

When you write rules, please keep them clear and common sense, think about what you're saying, and don't do stuff like this.

[flappeercraft]

The intention could very well be that they wanted you to still need to prepare spells to be able to use the SLA.

[Elves]

In other words, you think it's to prevent an abuse where you level drain away the level that gave you the spell slots while retaining the SLA? I don't actually think that makes sense as the authorial motive, since with every other High Arcana you could still level drain yourself and retain the benefits of that High Arcana without having the corresponding Archmage level unless it's assumed that the High Arcana comes as part of the Archmage level, rather than being a one-off trade. Moreover, if that was the intent it would be simpler to not phrase it as an SLA.

Similarly, if they wanted your spells from this ability to still be susceptible to spell loss from temporary negative levels, that's another reason to not phrase it as an SLA in the first place.

[Mr Adventurer]

this is a singular exemption from everything else we know about SLAs,

Yes, it's OK for very specific rules to include very specific exemptions. This seems to work fine, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Unless you only mean "it's badly written"? In which case... well, I wouldn't argue against that necessarily, but I don't see that the writing creates any actual problems in gameplay.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, it seems like it works fine AFAICT.

[Elves]

It creates an irreducible weirdness if you're making a statblock. Yes, my point is that it's ugly and awkward: specific trumping general usually doesn't take the form of weird twists in reality like "spell slots can actually hold 2/day spell-like abilities, and SLAs can occupy spell slots" that have implications reaching beyond that specific ruling. Especially when it's a case like this where it's unnecessary, because a different phrasing could easily have the same effect without the weird exemption.

And again even literally, “prepare one of their arcane spells AS a spell-like ability” remains, IMO, bizarre.

[Mike Miller]

The wording is a result of being written early in third edition's lifespan. Had it been created in 2007, it would almost certainly have been different.

[Mr Adventurer]

What sort of implications that actually affect gameplay?

What do you mean "twist in reality" apart from the way any exception rule works?

[Elves]

What do you mean "twist in reality" apart from the way any exception rule works?

"Normally, Fireball requires a Reflex save. When you cast it from this staff, it requires a Will save." Okay, great. Versus "Wait, what?"


What sort of implications that actually affect gameplay?

Caring about how things will "actually affect gameplay" is a reason to keep the rules clean, not the opposite. In this case for example I expect at least half the people who've used this ability simply interpret it in a more common sense way -- lose spell slot, gain SLA -- which is certainly one way its awkward wording affects gameplay, or rather, doesn't affect it because it's so awkward that people are glossing over it.

Among other things it unnecessarily adds another variable into the already somewhat muddy issues of the exact differences and similarities between spells and SLAs. I agree with Mike that the weird wording is a relic of early 3ed, I suspect that the writer just wanted to express "spell slot was 1x, now spell slot is 2x but fixed in place" -- although given how it's actually written, I think the common sense interpretation is just the one that's commonly used, "sacrifice spell slot, gain [normal] SLA".