Darg
2020-08-01, 11:02 PM
I have had a theory for a while now that SLAs benefit from feats or class features that make a general reference to spells. My first bit of evidence is not what first tipped me off, but provides the foundation for a rules legal interpretation.
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. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell
The bolded statement simply tells it how it is. This folds right into my next bit of evidence as sudden metamagic feats specifically only mention spells as being affected.
Sudden Metamagic Feats: These metamagic feats don't require modified spell slots, and so they work as well with spell-like abilities or invocations as they do with spells
This excerpt implies that feats that apply to spells that however lack disqualifiers similar to the spell focus feat which was used as an example of a feat that wouldn't apply to invocations (SLAs aren't spells and therefore don't have a school of magic) apply to spell-like abilities. Another excerpt coroborates this:
Other Metamagic Feats: Except as noted above, metamagic feats can't generally be used to modify spell-like abilities or invocations.
To put it into perspective let's take extend spell and invisible spell as our examples. Extend spell requires a modified spell slot 1 higher than the level of the spell. This makes it disqualified from benefiting SLAs. Invisible spell however does not modify the spell slot of a spell and therefore lacks any disqualifiers. This means that invisible spell can be used with SLAs. This also comes in a different flavor. If one has removed the modification of the used spell slot some how, then any metamagic could be used with an SLA as long as it can't be disqualified. Metamagic school focus feat is one that would provide the benefit, but disqualifies SLAs in the same way spell focus does.
This theme also extends beyond just feats into the realm of class features. Within CArc you have a table of prestige classes that has a "Best for" column with several options for prestige classes that benefit warlocks. I bring this up because most of the classes presented as "best for" a warlock have class features that flat out only mention spells and can't be used with SLAs or invocations as read. This makes the class not actually benefit the base class(es). However, once we take the above evidence and combine it with the recomendations the suggestions make a lot more sense, and the warlock is able now benefit from most of the class features except those with disqualifiers such as requiring spell slots.
Another interpretation based on a pattern of 3 is the warlock's specific qualification for benefitting from spellcasting progression PrCs' +1 level benefit, the above spell-like ability = simple spell, and an obsure line in the CArc under the header of "Spellcasting Level":
Characters or creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations never learn the arcane circumlocutions of logic and mental training necessary for advanced spellcasting.
All three together point to spell-like abilities to being a form of "simple" spellcasting. This means that a feat like mage slayer would affect the defensive casting of an SLA while also qualifying warlock to benefit from practiced spellcaster without a house rule.
So what do you guys think? Is there more evidence for this that I am missing? This heavily relies on certain entries from CArc and CDiv which means this might not apply outside those books or I could quite possibly have missed entries that slam the "NO!" hammer in my singular persuit. Tear my interpretations to shreds. I want to see if the arguments hold up under scrutiny.
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. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell
The bolded statement simply tells it how it is. This folds right into my next bit of evidence as sudden metamagic feats specifically only mention spells as being affected.
Sudden Metamagic Feats: These metamagic feats don't require modified spell slots, and so they work as well with spell-like abilities or invocations as they do with spells
This excerpt implies that feats that apply to spells that however lack disqualifiers similar to the spell focus feat which was used as an example of a feat that wouldn't apply to invocations (SLAs aren't spells and therefore don't have a school of magic) apply to spell-like abilities. Another excerpt coroborates this:
Other Metamagic Feats: Except as noted above, metamagic feats can't generally be used to modify spell-like abilities or invocations.
To put it into perspective let's take extend spell and invisible spell as our examples. Extend spell requires a modified spell slot 1 higher than the level of the spell. This makes it disqualified from benefiting SLAs. Invisible spell however does not modify the spell slot of a spell and therefore lacks any disqualifiers. This means that invisible spell can be used with SLAs. This also comes in a different flavor. If one has removed the modification of the used spell slot some how, then any metamagic could be used with an SLA as long as it can't be disqualified. Metamagic school focus feat is one that would provide the benefit, but disqualifies SLAs in the same way spell focus does.
This theme also extends beyond just feats into the realm of class features. Within CArc you have a table of prestige classes that has a "Best for" column with several options for prestige classes that benefit warlocks. I bring this up because most of the classes presented as "best for" a warlock have class features that flat out only mention spells and can't be used with SLAs or invocations as read. This makes the class not actually benefit the base class(es). However, once we take the above evidence and combine it with the recomendations the suggestions make a lot more sense, and the warlock is able now benefit from most of the class features except those with disqualifiers such as requiring spell slots.
Another interpretation based on a pattern of 3 is the warlock's specific qualification for benefitting from spellcasting progression PrCs' +1 level benefit, the above spell-like ability = simple spell, and an obsure line in the CArc under the header of "Spellcasting Level":
Characters or creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations never learn the arcane circumlocutions of logic and mental training necessary for advanced spellcasting.
All three together point to spell-like abilities to being a form of "simple" spellcasting. This means that a feat like mage slayer would affect the defensive casting of an SLA while also qualifying warlock to benefit from practiced spellcaster without a house rule.
So what do you guys think? Is there more evidence for this that I am missing? This heavily relies on certain entries from CArc and CDiv which means this might not apply outside those books or I could quite possibly have missed entries that slam the "NO!" hammer in my singular persuit. Tear my interpretations to shreds. I want to see if the arguments hold up under scrutiny.