Changing spell like abilities to require verbal and somatic components

[VladtheLad]

At some point I had a houserule of spell like abilities requiring the use of somatic and verbal components as normal. The fluff was that the components were simpler in nature but still necessary. The reason for this was that I wanted to stop outsiders shenanigans with hiding and spamming spell likes without making a sound. I remember finding outsiders too powerful in 3.5 especially compared to other monsters in the Core (except dragons), perhaps because they were a bit too low on the hd department in 3.0 the designers went the other way just a tad too much in 3.5.
I didn't hear complaints about this in pathfinder so maybe there is no need for this change or the fact they allowed weapons to ignore DR's acted as a indirect nerf to ousiders.
In any case the basic question is how would the game change if spell like abilities required somatic and verbal components?

[Khedrac]

All warlock invocations have a somatic component (only - including Baleful Utterance so it can be used in a silence effect), but they are different to normal spell-like abilities.

[Remuko]

At some point I had a houserule of spell like abilities requiring the use of somatic and verbal components as normal. The fluff was that the components were simpler in nature but still necessary. The reason for this was that I wanted to stop outsiders shenanigans with hiding and spamming spell likes without making a sound. I remember finding outsiders too powerful in 3.5 especially compared to other monsters in the Core (except dragons), perhaps because they were a bit too low on the hd department in 3.0 the designers went the other way just a tad too much in 3.5.
I didn't hear complaints about this in pathfinder so maybe there is no need for this change or the fact they allowed weapons to ignore DR's acted as a indirect nerf to ousiders.
In any case the basic question is how would the game change if spell like abilities required somatic and verbal components?

if youre going to do this whats the point of spell like abilities? why not just give them casting like sorcerer's and give them the spells from their spell like abilities as their spells known?

[VladtheLad]

if youre going to do this whats the point of spell like abilities? why not just give them casting like sorcerer's and give them the spells from their spell like abilities as their spells known?

Ease of use? Why would I give them sorcerer casting?
I am not sure the whole point of spell like abilities is casting spells without somatic or verbal components. But you know, actually having access to the spell. Adding sorcerer casting would be more time consuming and would propably end up giving the monsters more spells known.

[VladtheLad]

All warlock invocations have a somatic component (only - including Baleful Utterance so it can be used in a silence effect), but they are different to normal spell-like abilities.

Warlock invocations wouldn't be affected by the change.

[Bohandas]

I think the point was that since the warlock's SLAs already have a verbal component then you can just borrow those rules for your outsiders

[Remuko]

Ease of use? Why would I give them sorcerer casting?
I am not sure the whole point of spell like abilities is casting spells without somatic or verbal components. But you know, actually having access to the spell. Adding sorcerer casting would be more time consuming and would propably end up giving the monsters more spells known.

instead of making something new theres already something functional. yeah they might get more known, but you'd be the DM picking which ones they know, so it wouldnt affect their power level unless you wanted it to. but seriously the only real functional difference between a creature that casts spells as if it has sorcerer levels and one with SLA's is that one doesnt need components. Thats literally basically the only difference.

[Thurbane]

It always amused me that by RAW innate SLAs have no verbal or somatic components, yet they provoke AoOs..

How? What exactly is happening that provokes? Is it just the "concentration face" that they are pulling?

[Techwarrior]

It always amused me that by RAW innate SLAs have no verbal or somatic components, yet they provoke AoOs..

How? What exactly is happening that provokes? Is it just the "concentration face" that they are pulling?

It's because you have to "let your guard down" to cast anything with Concentration. Will link SRD shortly.

Edit: Link (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttackofOpport unity)


Performing a Distracting Act
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle.

[VladtheLad]

instead of making something new theres already something functional. yeah they might get more known, but you'd be the DM picking which ones they know, so it wouldnt affect their power level unless you wanted it to. but seriously the only real functional difference between a creature that casts spells as if it has sorcerer levels and one with SLA's is that one doesnt need components. Thats literally basically the only difference.

It just seems extra work, without any gain.

The main worry I have is if there are any weird consequences apart from "facing creatures with spell likes is slightly easier now".

[Thurbane]

It's because you have to "let your guard down" to cast anything with Concentration. Will link SRD shortly.

Edit: Link (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttackofOpport unity)

Thank you - it's something that's always irked me, but that citation makes sesnse.

[Darg]

It just seems extra work, without any gain.

The main worry I have is if there are any weird consequences apart from "facing creatures with spell likes is slightly easier now".

They can't use their SLAs in a grapple now as it requires somatic components. They can't be cast in a silence spell. You can now make spellcraft checks to identify it.

[Bohandas]

It always amused me that by RAW innate SLAs have no verbal or somatic components, yet they provoke AoOs.

Honestly, the Attack of Opportunity rules are pretty silly in general

[Darg]

Honestly, the Attack of Opportunity rules are pretty silly in general

I think defensive casting is silly.

The AoO rules provide nice tactical engagement. Personally, I think the withdraw action is underutilized and under supported by WotC. I also think that spring attack is an underappreciated feat along with the prerequisite feats. I don't play at the high op levels many on these boards claim to play at. So my opinion on the matter is most likely not popular.

[VladtheLad]

They can't use their SLAs in a grapple now as it requires somatic components. They can't be cast in a silence spell. You can now make spellcraft checks to identify it.

Good catches, thank you.

[VladtheLad]

I think defensive casting is silly.


I think the fact it progressively becomes easier as you go in higher levels is silly. I would use the trailblazer version before throwing defensive casting completely out the game.

Also at some point the guy who made the OSR clone Dark dungeons wrote some houserules for 3.0 that removed defensive casting.