SLAs versus spells for magic items

[Daisy]

There was recently a question asked in the Simple RAW thread about SLAs and Spells:

"Q 548
Does Chronocharm of the Uncaring Archmage (MIC), or other items that give this or that quality to your next spell of X level, work on SLAs?"

It spawned a little debate, and as I'm about to play a Warlock for the first time in a mid-tier campaign it is of some interest to me to fully understand both sides of the argument to see if it's worthwhile trying to persuade my DM to allow me to use items that affect "next spell cast" with my invocations.

I know the default for SLAs is the classic, "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell" line, which implies that items that affect "next spell cast" also work with SLAs. And normally I would simply read the forum's responses to the question and accept the ruling of those more experienced than myself. Unfortunately for me, two very well-respected members posted contradictory answers, leaving me a little unsure which way to lean, hence hoping this "SLA-vs-spells" thread will be able to thrash a definitive answer out (I never like it when the Simple RAW thread gets taken over by a single question - it can stop other questions from getting attention).

As an aside, it's even trickier with Warlocks because invocations, whilst SLAs, trump the general, "A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component...Armor never affects a spell-like abilityÂ’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component." with the specific, "Finally, unlike other spell-like abilities, invocations are subject to arcane spell failure chance as described under Weapon and Armor Proficiency" as they all have somatic components. However, to me that only says that Warlock invocations are closer to spells than other SLAs due to this somatic component, and thus should be eligible for item-usage. But maybe that's just me.

Are my esteemed fellow members able to come to a conclusion on this?

[Gruftzwerg]

If we go by strict RAW, SLA are base on Spell rules and sole make specific changes. The way the SLA rules are written, they always refer to the general SLA rules. Since their rules thrive from the general spell rules, using SLA/invocations becomes a specific exception to casting spells normally. Neither the SLA rules, nor the Invocation rules changed that they are still effectively "Spell Casts".
As you said, they literary call out to work as Spells unless otherwise noted.

We have examples where when something refers to spells, where the rules need to exclude SLA with an explicit call out:
see familiar , special mount and animal companion "Share Spells" ability

The Chronoarm would work for (full-round action) SLAs since the sole requirement is to "cast a spell". The general SLA rules have never changed that. It would be something else if it would refer to verbal or material components used while casting, since those are things that SLA explicitly don't have. Or if it you specify prepared casting or otherwise narrow down the options. But in this case it should work.

The question is just how are you gonna get full round action SLA/Invocations?

I assume you intent to use Eldritch Disciple or Eldritch Theurge? Or what is the intend here?

[Crake]

I mean, regardless of whether it would work or not on a technical level is largely irrelevant, because, as per the rules compendium, SLAs have a cast time of one standard action, or the spell's normal cast time, whichever is lower, so there's never a case where the chronocharm would actually be usable on the SLA.

[Gruftzwerg]

I mean, regardless of whether it would work or not on a technical level is largely irrelevant, because, as per the rules compendium, SLAs have a cast time of one standard action, or the spell's normal cast time, whichever is lower, so there's never a case where the chronocharm would actually be usable on the SLA.

There are specific exceptions to this. This is why I asked if the OP intends to play a Eldritch Theurge. The prc can load a spell onto an Eldritch Blast changing the casting time to 1 full round action.

[Crake]

There are specific exceptions to this. This is why I asked if the OP intends to play a Eldritch Theurge. The prc can load a spell onto an Eldritch Blast changing the casting time to 1 full round action.

Right, but that affects the SPELL, not the invocation, it applies the essence to the spell, not the spell to the essence, meaning you're still casting a spell, not using an SLA, ergo there would be 0 contest in whether you could use the chronocharm in that instance.

Edit: For clarity, eldritch spellweave is the ability I'm talking about, as the other two invocations which allow your eldritch blasts to interact with spells are both higher than 3rd level, and thus cannot be used with the chronocharm regardless.

As a side note, it's also worth noting that the chronocharm specifies spells with a casting time of 1 full round, not a full round action, which is what the eldritch theurge abilities are, so actually, eldritch spellweave is NOT compatible with the chronocharm.

[Gruftzwerg]

Right, but that affects the SPELL, not the invocation, it applies the essence to the spell, not the spell to the essence, meaning you're still casting a spell, not using an SLA, ergo there would be 0 contest in whether you could use the chronocharm in that instance.

Edit: For clarity, eldritch spellweave is the ability I'm talking about, as the other two invocations which allow your eldritch blasts to interact with spells are both higher than 3rd level, and thus cannot be used with the chronocharm regardless.

As a side note, it's also worth noting that the chronocharm specifies spells with a casting time of 1 full round, not a full round action, which is what the eldritch theurge abilities are, so actually, eldritch spellweave is NOT compatible with the chronocharm.

Oh I missed the lvl cap. But Spellbast (4th) could be lowered to 3rd lvl via Sanctum Spell.

__

But "1 full round" ain't the same thing as "1 round".

To give a quote from the PHB regarding metamagic to prove the difference:

Casting a Metamagic Spell: Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell.

Imho "1 full round" is just shortened and should mean "1 full round action" and not "1 round" here.

The Eldritch Theurge doesn't need to wait until next round to unleash the effect of his Spellblast. It still happens on his/her turn.

[pabelfly]

Oh I missed the lvl cap. But Spellbast (4th) could be lowered to 3rd lvl via Sanctum Spell.



Your sanctum is an area you have previously designated within a 10-foot/level radius from the center. This area can be a particular site, building, or structure. A sanctum can be designated within a larger structure, but its special advantages cut off beyond the maximum area. The designated area must be a site where you have spent a cumulative period of at least three months. Once designated, it takes seven days for the site to become a sanctum. If you designate a new area to be your sanctum, the benefits of the old one immediately fade. You may have only a single sanctum at one time.

This seems more like a feat for dungeon-bound enemies rather than characters. Like, you can use it, but there needs to be a really specific set of circumstances to make sanctum spell actually work that I would not expect for the average adventurer.

[Gruftzwerg]

This seems more like a feat for dungeon-bound enemies rather than characters. Like, you can use it, but there needs to be a really specific set of circumstances to make sanctum spell actually work that I would not expect for the average adventurer.

The intend was to use Sanctum Spell to lower the spell level (to fit the lvl cap) outside of the sanctum, not to further increase it..^^




But if you should be looking for options to abuse Sanctum Spell to actually increase a spell's level, then there is the spell:
Acorn of Far Travel (https://web.archive.org/web/20140805174007/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a)

It can be put on a wand and be used with UMD. It allows you to count as standing under the tree where you did cast the spell (you make the area around the tree your sanctum beforehand).

[Crake]

Oh I missed the lvl cap. But Spellbast (4th) could be lowered to 3rd lvl via Sanctum Spell.

__

But "1 full round" ain't the same thing as "1 round".

To give a quote from the PHB regarding metamagic to prove the difference:


Imho "1 full round" is just shortened and should mean "1 full round action" and not "1 round" here.

The Eldritch Theurge doesn't need to wait until next round to unleash the effect of his Spellblast. It still happens on his/her turn.

So 3 points here: first you got it the wrong way around, eldritch theurge IS a full round action, and thus does activate in the same round, it is the chronocharm that only affects 1 full round casting.

Second, spellblast cannot be affected by sanctum spell, because it is a spell like ability, not a spell, and thus cannot have metamagic applied to it.

Thirdly, the chronocharm’s wording of 1 full round is more consistent with spells that have a 1 round cast time, as a full round action is never written as “1 full round action” it is written as “A full round action” with an “a”, not a 1, nothing is ever written as “1 full round action”. This is further supported by the fact that spells with a cast time of 1 round are the norm, wheras there are only a handful of spells with a full round action cast time, and thats usually due to an optional choice to extend cast time, so if the chronocharm only worked on spells with full round action cast times, it would be rather useless for the majority of casters, wheras if it is usable on 1 round cast times, it suddenly becomes quite useful for say, summoner types.

[Darg]

Second, spellblast cannot be affected by sanctum spell, because it is a spell like ability, not a spell, and thus cannot have metamagic applied to it.

Two things are wrong here. First, there is no rule that precludes metamagic from SLAs. Second, CArc has the sudden metamagics that are metamagic feats and has text to support other metamagics working with SLAs if they don't adjust the spell level/slot.


Thirdly, the chronocharm’s wording of 1 full round is more consistent with spells that have a 1 round cast time, as a full round action is never written as “1 full round action” it is written as “A full round action” with an “a”, not a 1, nothing is ever written as “1 full round action”. This is further supported by the fact that spells with a cast time of 1 round are the norm, wheras there are only a handful of spells with a full round action cast time, and thats usually due to an optional choice to extend cast time, so if the chronocharm only worked on spells with full round action cast times, it would be rather useless for the majority of casters, wheras if it is usable on 1 round cast times, it suddenly becomes quite useful for say, summoner types.


When it is activated, the next spell of 3rd level or lower you cast that has a casting time of 1 full round can be cast as a standard action instead.


If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a spontaneous spellcaster. This isn’t the same as a casting time of 1 full round—the spell takes effect during the same turn that the spellcaster begins casting it.

The RC has text to corroborate the terminology here.

[Crake]

Two things are wrong here. First, there is no rule that precludes metamagic from SLAs. Second, CArc has the sudden metamagics that are metamagic feats and has text to support other metamagics working with SLAs if they don't adjust the spell level/slot.

Im not aware of any wording in the sudden metamagics that allow them to be applied to SLAs, perhaps you are confusing/conflating them with the actual SLA metamagic feats, like “empower spell like ability”, which have specific rules on how they work and how they can be applied, and have a daily limit? They are also not actually classified as metamagic feats, but rather as general feats

[Gruftzwerg]

So 3 points here: first you got it the wrong way around, eldritch theurge IS a full round action, and thus does activate in the same round, it is the chronocharm that only affects 1 full round casting.

Second, spellblast cannot be affected by sanctum spell, because it is a spell like ability, not a spell, and thus cannot have metamagic applied to it.

Thirdly, the chronocharm’s wording of 1 full round is more consistent with spells that have a 1 round cast time, as a full round action is never written as “1 full round action” it is written as “A full round action” with an “a”, not a 1, nothing is ever written as “1 full round action”. This is further supported by the fact that spells with a cast time of 1 round are the norm, wheras there are only a handful of spells with a full round action cast time, and thats usually due to an optional choice to extend cast time, so if the chronocharm only worked on spells with full round action cast times, it would be rather useless for the majority of casters, wheras if it is usable on 1 round cast times, it suddenly becomes quite useful for say, summoner types.
&

Im not aware of any wording in the sudden metamagics that allow them to be applied to SLAs, perhaps you are confusing/conflating them with the actual SLA metamagic feats, like “empower spell like ability”, which have specific rules on how they work and how they can be applied, and have a daily limit? They are also not actually classified as metamagic feats, but rather as general feats

1) A "Full Attack" is also a "Full Round Action" and is the evidence that a "Full Round Action" does happen during the current turn and not the turn after that.

2) SLA rules "work like spell" unless noted otherwise (in the general SLA rules or the specific rules of an effect/ability).
Nowhere in the general metamagic or SLA rules is a statement that would deny the interaction with SLAs.

It's just that some metamagic ain't compatible with SLA since they require a spell slot level change which SLA can't provide. But in any other case they should work as expected.
Complete Arcane explains why Sudden XXX feats work with SLA (reason: no spell slot change). And that while the Sudden XXX feats expect you to "cast a spell" explicitly.

Neither the SLA rules nor the invocation rules stopped using the "Casting Spells" rules. Those are altered, thus it is a specific trump general situation. And that means that they still count as "casting a spell", since no contrary statement was made.

This is the reason why "Share Spell" (familiar, animal companion, special mounts..) needs to explicitly call out that SLA don't work (which they otherwise could do).

And regarding the usefulness if it sole affects a "full-round action":
What about spontaneous metamagic users? Imho much more common than a summoning focused build.




The RC has text to corroborate the terminology here.

And PHB uses it like this:

QUICKEN SPELL [METAMAGIC]

You can cast a spell with a moment’s thought.

Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a free action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity.

Special: This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.
Here we have evidence that "1 full-round action" is used interchangeably with "a full-round action" in the PHB.

[Crake]

2) SLA rules "work like spell" unless noted otherwise (in the general SLA rules or the specific rules of an effect/ability).
Nowhere in the general metamagic or SLA rules is a statement that would deny the interaction with SLAs.

It's just that some metamagic ain't compatible with SLA since they require a spell slot level change which SLA can't provide. But in any other case they should work as expected.
Complete Arcane explains why Sudden XXX feats work with SLA (reason: no spell slot change). And that while the Sudden XXX feats expect you to "cast a spell" explicitly.

Neither the SLA rules nor the invocation rules stopped using the "Casting Spells" rules. Those are altered, thus it is a specific trump general situation. And that means that they still count as "casting a spell", since no contrary statement was made.

Seems you conveniently forgot the literal next section in complete arcane that says in general, other metamagic feats do not work with SLAs, so sudden metamagic feats are an explicit exception, and a metamagic feat would require its own exception to the general rule to be usable with SLAs.


And PHB uses it like this:

Here we have evidence that "1 full-round action" is used interchangeably with "a full-round action" in the PHB.

Sure, so we have 1 full round action, a full round action both meaning the same thing, whilst 1 round and 1 full round both meaning the same thing. The exclusion of the word action means that it takes the whole round all the way back to your turn, whilst inclusion of the word action refers to the use of actions that begin and conclude on your turn. Since the chronocharm omits the word action, it is refering to the former.

[loky1109]

Here we have evidence that "1 full-round action" is used interchangeably with "a full-round action" in the PHB.
No, we don't. "1 full-round action" here is used because here talking about amount of full-round actions and number was really needed.

[Daisy]

Without straying too far into what constitutes a full-round action...

Another reason I get confused is that some items call out SLAs as being eligible in their descriptions, which might imply that those that don't call this out aren't eligible. For example, MIC has Bracers of Arcane Freedom:

"When you activate these bracers, you omit the somatic component of the next arcane spell you cast before the end of your turn (as if applying the Still Spell feat to it, but without altering the spell’s level or casting time)"

and conveniently immediately after it, Bracers of the Blast Barrier:

"When you activate these bracers, the next spell you cast or spell-like ability you use before the end of your turn instead appears as a 10-foot-long, 10-foot-high opaque wall that lasts for 1 round per level of the spell".

(all emphasis mine). Does this alter anyone's perception of what is and is not allowed for items?

[Gruftzwerg]

Seems you conveniently forgot the literal next section in complete arcane that says in general, other metamagic feats do not work with SLAs, so sudden metamagic feats are an explicit exception, and a metamagic feat would require its own exception to the general rule to be usable with SLAs.



Sure, so we have 1 full round action, a full round action both meaning the same thing, whilst 1 round and 1 full round both meaning the same thing. The exclusion of the word action means that it takes the whole round all the way back to your turn, whilst inclusion of the word action refers to the use of actions that begin and conclude on your turn. Since the chronocharm omits the word action, it is refering to the former.
My quote was from the PHB, the primary source when it comes to Metamagic rules.

The way Complete Arcane is worded it makes wrong assumptions (!) about general SLA rules, just like Complete Warrior does regarding PRC. The general rules for SLA doesn't back up that statement.

"In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell" contradicts the statement made in Complete Arcane.
Thus the Primary Source Rule favors the general rules here (just like in the case about PRC in Complete Warrior).

Complete Arcane is neither the primary source for SLA, nor for metamagic.
Nor does it try to establish supremacy over those topics.
And it ain't creating a new specific topic, since it talks about assumed general SLA rules.

The way Complete Arcane is worded it has no permission to trump the general rule that "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell".

__

And if I would follow your interpretation of "1 full round" I could quicken Summon X spells. Sorry but I doubt that.

Strict RAW "1 full round" ain't a defined term and thus needs context to get the intention of the author.

As related question: are these maybe older 3.0 terms? I mean, the PHB makes use of "1 action" occasionally which is a 3.0 term that got changed into a standard action with 3.5. Maybe this is something similar. I've never actually played 3.0 so I dunno if that is the case here maybe. ?



No, we don't. "1 full-round action" here is used because here talking about amount of full-round actions and number was really needed.
I don't see why there should be a difference between the "benefit" and "special" sections of Quicken Spell. Both talk about the same thing and use "1 full-round action" and "a full round action" interchangeably for that.

[loky1109]

I don't see why there should be a difference between the "benefit" and "special" sections of Quicken Spell. Both talk about the same thing and use "1 full-round action" and "a full round action" interchangeably for that.

Do you know word "grammar"? Writing "more than a full-round action" is illiterate, you need a number after "more than". That's all. It isn't about "benefit" and "special" sections, it's about speaking English.

[Crake]

My quote was from the PHB, the primary source when it comes to Metamagic rules.

The way Complete Arcane is worded it makes wrong assumptions (!) about general SLA rules, just like Complete Warrior does regarding PRC. The general rules for SLA doesn't back up that statement.

"In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell" contradicts the statement made in Complete Arcane.
Thus the Primary Source Rule favors the general rules here (just like in the case about PRC in Complete Warrior).

Complete Arcane is neither the primary source for SLA, nor for metamagic.
Nor does it try to establish supremacy over those topics.
And it ain't creating a new specific topic, since it talks about assumed general SLA rules.

The way Complete Arcane is worded it has no permission to trump the general rule that "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell".

Actually, complete arcane is the primary source on invocations, and as such, it's ruling on how they, as spell-like abilities, interact with metamagic, does in fact take precedence.

And even with that fact aside, the PHB's lack of rules on the topic does not take predecence over complete arcane's clarification of omitted rules. It is not conflicting with anything the PHB says, it is clarifying a dark spot in the rules that aren't properly covered.

If you choose to play without complete arcane's ruling by omitting the book, then so be it, but then you also cannot use warlock.


And if I would follow your interpretation of "1 full round" I could quicken Summon X spells. Sorry but I doubt that.

Strict RAW "1 full round" ain't a defined term and thus needs context to get the intention of the author.

As related question: are these maybe older 3.0 terms? I mean, the PHB makes use of "1 action" occasionally which is a 3.0 term that got changed into a standard action with 3.5. Maybe this is something similar. I've never actually played 3.0 so I dunno if that is the case here maybe. ?

A round is like a circle right? It loops around? So saying 1 round, vs 1 full round, is like saying one cirlce, or one full circle. It's a bit redundant, but it's effectively synonymous.

Also, no, according to my interpretation, 1 full round is longer than 1 full-round action, so I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Let me make it suuuper clear for you:

Casting time of "1 round" = starts on your turn, ends at the start of your next turn. Is used interchangably in the rules with "1 full round".

Casting time of "a full-round action" = starts and ends on your turn, and consumes your move and standard action. Is used interchangably in the rules with "1 full-round action".

The discerning factor between whether the spell comes into effect on your current turn, or on your next turn is entirely down to whether it refers to the action type, or whether it is referring to a duration of rounds.


I don't see why there should be a difference between the "benefit" and "special" sections of Quicken Spell. Both talk about the same thing and use "1 full-round action" and "a full round action" interchangeably for that.

Yup, and as stated, the chronocharm in question uses neither "1 full-round action" or "a full-round action" as it's verbiage, so neither of those apply.

[Chronos]

While spell-like abilities do act like spells, unless otherwise noted, they do not necessarily act like "a spell of a certain level", which appears to be what the chronocharm requires.

[Crake]

While spell-like abilities do act like spells, unless otherwise noted, they do not necessarily act like "a spell of a certain level", which appears to be what the chronocharm requires.

I'm not sure what you mean? They have an explicit priority list of which class lists to take the spell level of the spell at, and the spell level determines the DC of the SLA.

[Darg]

Seems you conveniently forgot the literal next section in complete arcane that says in general, other metamagic feats do not work with SLAs, so sudden metamagic feats are an explicit exception, and a metamagic feat would require its own exception to the general rule to be usable with SLAs.

"In general" does not mean "unless otherwise noted." It means that it's usually the case that metamagic doesn't work with SLAs, which is true because of the spell slot/level adjustment. CArc gives the reason why sudden metamagics do work with SLAs and that is because they do not adjust the spell slot/level. So unless you find text that that explicitly bans metamagics from affecting SLAs and the entry in CArc is an explicit exception, your argument doesn't hold water with RAW.

[Crake]

"In general" does not mean "unless otherwise noted." It means that it's usually the case that metamagic doesn't work with SLAs, which is true because of the spell slot/level adjustment. CArc gives the reason why sudden metamagics do work with SLAs and that is because they do not adjust the spell slot/level. So unless you find text that that explicitly bans metamagics from affecting SLAs and the entry in CArc is an explicit exception, your argument doesn't hold water with RAW.

Complete Arcane contains MANY +0 adjustment metamagics, you don't think it would have brought that up if that was the case?

[Darg]

Without straying too far into what constitutes a full-round action...

Another reason I get confused is that some items call out SLAs as being eligible in their descriptions, which might imply that those that don't call this out aren't eligible. For example, MIC has Bracers of Arcane Freedom:

"When you activate these bracers, you omit the somatic component of the next arcane spell you cast before the end of your turn (as if applying the Still Spell feat to it, but without altering the spell’s level or casting time)"

and conveniently immediately after it, Bracers of the Blast Barrier:

"When you activate these bracers, the next spell you cast or spell-like ability you use before the end of your turn instead appears as a 10-foot-long, 10-foot-high opaque wall that lasts for 1 round per level of the spell".

(all emphasis mine). Does this alter anyone's perception of what is and is not allowed for items?

All things considered, there are a plethora of writers who created classes, feats, items, etc. There are many places where the rules simply don't line up, or where rules assumptions are made that are incorrect. SLAs aren't spells, they simply aren't. So making a statement about the item being compatible with SLAs is a breath of fresh air. Honestly, it would make everybody happy if the rules did a better job of delineating instead of relying on a short bit of text that say SLAs work as spells do. It's extremely obvious to anyone that some of the authors thought that SLAs are more incompatible with spell rules than they actually are. You only have to look at warlock to see it where they don't even delineate for you as to how these specific exceptions are made. You can't just say, "because it's not a spell." That easily makes about 80-90% of the book incompatible with warlock where the book says they should actually benefit; along with other rules dysfunctions it creates.


Complete Arcane contains MANY +0 adjustment metamagics, you don't think it would have brought that up if that was the case?

And eldritch blast says it can't be used with metamagic because it isn't a spell, and yet the sudden metamagic feats exist in the same book. You don't think they would have brought that up? The books are created with multiple authors. It's not surprising things simply don't line up. Especially when the only actual rule on the subject is a single one liner that just says SLAs function just like spells. We can talk about RAI all day. The written rules themselves, however, do not delineate between SLAs and spells unless explicitly stated. Otherwise they simply stop functioning in their entirety because there is no structured division between them.

[Crake]

And eldritch blast says it can't be used with metamagic because it isn't a spell, and yet the sudden metamagic feats exist in the same book. You don't think they would have brought that up?

They… DID bring it up? In the feat rules in complete arcane it states that sudden metamagics CAN be used with slas like invocations. This is carved out as an explicit exception. Other +0 adjustment metamagics are not extended the same exception. If the intention was +0 metamagic (which the book is rife with) = can be used with SLAs, then they would have said THAT, rather than only giving sudden metamagics that exception?

[Darg]

They… DID bring it up? In the feat rules in complete arcane it states that sudden metamagics CAN be used with slas like invocations. This is carved out as an explicit exception. Other +0 adjustment metamagics are not extended the same exception. If the intention was +0 metamagic (which the book is rife with) = can be used with SLAs, then they would have said THAT, rather than only giving sudden metamagics that exception?

Eldritch blast is a class feature. As such is more specific than the general rule.

On the other hand, why would they have to restate something that is already assumed? SLAs function just like spells. Sudden metamagics on the otherhand is a new kind of metamagic introduced by the book. Of course it would expand on them.

I don't think anyone doesn't think that at the very least some of the writers thought that SLAs are more delineated than they actually were. The problem is that the rules outside of specific class features do not specify where or how "spell" and "SLA" aren't interchangeable with the rules. We can't just assume that metamagic says "spell" and that means it can't work with SLAs. Even if you wanted to say that spell slot and spell level were the differentiating factor, the PHB rules on metamagic uses the two terms interchangeably. If sudden metamagic works with SLAs, there's no mechanical reason even metamagic rods wouldn't work with SLAs as they don't increase the spell slot/level either. +0 metamagics follow in the same footsteps of logic.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, complete arcane is the primary source on invocations, and as such, it's ruling on how they, as spell-like abilities, interact with metamagic, does in fact take precedence.

But Complete Arcane doesn't try to establish new metamagic rules for Invocations.

I repeat it again. It is worded in a way where it makes assumptions about general SLA rules that aren't true.
That is the same problem that Complete Warrrior has with its statement about PRC.
Both make wrong assumptions about general rules and don't try to establish new rules. Thus the Primary Source rule simply ignores those statements.

Have a look at the text and look out for the intend there.
Do they create a rule for a more specific (sub-) topic?
- No, because Complete Arcane doesn't try to establish rules specific for invocations here (the new SLA subtopic) from its wording. It makes assumptions about general SLA rules and thrives conclusions from that. They explain how the assumed general rules have to applied here.
Those assumptions who are correct get a pass for the explanation that thrives from them. But those who rely on wrong assumptions get ignored.
As said this is the same problem as with Complete Warrior and its statement about PRC.




And even with that fact aside, the PHB's lack of rules on the topic does not take predecence over complete arcane's clarification of omitted rules. It is not conflicting with anything the PHB says, it is clarifying a dark spot in the rules that aren't properly covered.

If you choose to play without complete arcane's ruling by omitting the book, then so be it, but then you also cannot use warlock.
It sole makes assumptions about the general rules. Most are correct but not all. They try to explain why some meta feats work and why some don't. But assumptions and explanations aren't new rules. They simply tried to explain how the general rules apply here.


And what would we do without Complete Arcane's specific text?
We would do the same thing as CA did. We would try to apply the general rules as good as we can.
Thus unless the effect that relies on "(casting) spells" requires something that SLA/invocations explicitly don't have (e.g verbal and material components, spellslots, preparation..), SLA/Invocation will work just like a/the spell.

Complete Arcane is still helpful for those cases where it makes correct assumptions, like with the Sudden XXX feats. Even while those require you to "cast a spell", their reasoning is that nothing in the general rules stop you from doing so since no spell slot change is required here.

[Crake]

But Complete Arcane doesn't try to establish new metamagic rules for Invocations.

I repeat it again. It is worded in a way where it makes assumptions about general SLA rules that aren't true.
That is the same problem that Complete Warrrior has with its statement about PRC.
Both make wrong assumptions about general rules and don't try to establish new rules. Thus the Primary Source rule simply ignores those statements.

Have a look at the text and look out for the intend there.
Do they create a rule for a more specific (sub-) topic?
- No, because Complete Arcane doesn't try to establish rules specific for invocations here (the new SLA subtopic) from its wording. It makes assumptions about general SLA rules and thrives conclusions from that. They explain how the assumed general rules have to applied here.
Those assumptions who are correct get a pass for the explanation that thrives from them. But those who rely on wrong assumptions get ignored.
As said this is the same problem as with Complete Warrior and its statement about PRC.



It sole makes assumptions about the general rules. Most are correct but not all. They try to explain why some meta feats work and why some don't. But assumptions and explanations aren't new rules. They simply tried to explain how the general rules apply here.


And what would we do without Complete Arcane's specific text?
We would do the same thing as CA did. We would try to apply the general rules as good as we can.
Thus unless the effect that relies on "(casting) spells" requires something that SLA/invocations explicitly don't have (e.g verbal and material components, spellslots, preparation..), SLA/Invocation will work just like a/the spell.

Complete Arcane is still helpful for those cases where it makes correct assumptions, like with the Sudden XXX feats. Even while those require you to "cast a spell", their reasoning is that nothing in the general rules stop you from doing so since no spell slot change is required here.

How you so consistently arrive at erroneous conclusions despite calling yourself a RAW rules lawyer is beyond me. SLAs, while functioning like spells, are not spells. Show me the line that says “anything that affects spellcasting also affects SLAs” thanks. Until you produce that line, everything you’re stating is based on an assumption, and I’m not gonna engage with it.

I know youre gonna complain about it, but the FAQ also agrees with me. You cannot apply metamagic to SLAs, “because they are not spells”, the same wording as CA uses in the warlock description.

SLAs are not spells, get it in your head.

[Kaleph]

I'm not sure what you mean? They have an explicit priority list of which class lists to take the spell level of the spell at, and the spell level determines the DC of the SLA.

Can you point me to this explicitly priority list? I feel it should exist somewhere, but I have no idea where.

[Crake]

Can you point me to this explicitly priority list? I feel it should exist somewhere, but I have no idea where.

Monster Manual, page 315 under special abilities -> spell-like abilities:


Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes—for example, true seeing. 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.

[Darg]

How you so consistently arrive at erroneous conclusions despite calling yourself a RAW rules lawyer is beyond me. SLAs, while functioning like spells, are not spells. Show me the line that says “anything that affects spellcasting also affects SLAs” thanks. Until you produce that line, everything you’re stating is based on an assumption, and I’m not gonna engage with it.

I know youre gonna complain about it, but the FAQ also agrees with me. You cannot apply metamagic to SLAs, “because they are not spells”, the same wording as CA uses in the warlock description.

SLAs are not spells, get it in your head.


In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.


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.)

They aren't spells, but in all ways other than those stated they function like spells. The core rules make assumptions and so do supplementary rules that SLAs are included when they state "spell" or "spells." Bringing up the warlock feature descriptions or the FAQ doesn’t support your argument in a RAW debate. Specific trumps general, but is not a general rule itself. The FAQ is simply not RAW.

I don't agree with Gruftzwerg's train of logic here, but the conclusion is sound.

You argue how in the specific case of +0 metamagic SLAs can't benefit. Your understanding of "in general" is not the only way to read that line. The argument of "because they are not spells" falls apart when you realize the entire game is based on the assumption that they interchangeable except as stated otherwise. If that assumption goes away, many of the rules we take for granted such as spell immunity just wouldn't work right. It allows you to specify a spell and gives unbeatable spell resistance specifically for that specified spell, but protects against the SLA. It wouldn't do that if the SLA wasn't presumed to function as the spell as it doesn't actually state that it protects against SLAs that duplicate the spell. The weapon-like spell feat rules would not apply to SLAs even though they are assumed to work with SLAs as stated in CArc.

[Kaleph]

Monster Manual, page 315 under special abilities -> spell-like abilities:

Super, thank you!

[Crake]

They aren't spells, but in all ways other than those stated they function like spells. The core rules make assumptions and so do supplementary rules that SLAs are included when they state "spell" or "spells." Bringing up the warlock feature descriptions or the FAQ doesn’t support your argument in a RAW debate. Specific trumps general, but is not a general rule itself. The FAQ is simply not RAW.

I don't agree with Gruftzwerg's train of logic here, but the conclusion is sound.

You argue how in the specific case of +0 metamagic SLAs can't benefit. Your understanding of "in general" is not the only way to read that line. The argument of "because they are not spells" falls apart when you realize the entire game is based on the assumption that they interchangeable except as stated otherwise. If that assumption goes away, many of the rules we take for granted such as spell immunity just wouldn't work right. It allows you to specify a spell and gives unbeatable spell resistance specifically for that specified spell, but protects against the SLA. It wouldn't do that if the SLA wasn't presumed to function as the spell as it doesn't actually state that it protects against SLAs that duplicate the spell. The weapon-like spell feat rules would not apply to SLAs even though they are assumed to work with SLAs as stated in CArc.

How you think the conclusion is sound when the rules literally state that you cant use feats that affect spells with invocations “because they arent spells”, which is corroborated by the faq, is beyond me

As an aside, your logic of “spells can be metamagicked, and SLAs function as spells, ergo SLAs can be metamagicked” is erroneous, because metamagic is not a function of spells, its a function of metamagic feats

Hell, a warlock cant even benefit from spell focus.

[Darg]

How you think the conclusion is sound when the rules literally state that you cant use feats that affect spells with invocations “because they arent spells”, which is corroborated by the faq, is beyond me

Where do the rules actually state this then? Warlock class features don't count because the specific can't be the source of the general. Why you think the FAQ is a valid source for RAW is beyond me.


As an aside, your logic of “spells can be metamagicked, and SLAs function as spells, ergo SLAs can be metamagicked” is erroneous, because metamagic is not a function of spells, its a function of metamagic feats

Hell, a warlock cant even benefit from spell focus.

That's not the logic at all. The logic is that the rules use the terms "spell" and "spell-like ability" interchangeably when it comes to the mechanics of the game unless specified otherwise; and if one doesn't apply that assumption to the rest of the game, SLAs all of a sudden are cut off from a lot of content/rules they are heavily, heavily implied to work with.

A warlock's invocations not benefiting from spell focus is the exception, not the rule. It's a class feature. I don't know what else to tell you at this point. I didn't realize that invocations being subject to spell failure made all SLAs subject to spell failure.

[Crake]

Where do the rules actually state this then? Warlock class features don't count because the specific can't be the source of the general. Why you think the FAQ is a valid source for RAW is beyond me.

“Rules that disagree with me dont count”. Show me the rule that says “you can use metamagic with SLAs, despite them not being spells”


That's not the logic at all. The logic is that the rules use the terms "spell" and "spell-like ability" interchangeably when it comes to the mechanics of the game unless specified otherwise; and if one doesn't apply that assumption to the rest of the game, SLAs all of a sudden are cut off from a lot of content/rules they are heavily, heavily implied to work with.

Where in the rules does it say “spells and spell like abilities can be used interchangably”? Or are you applying your assumptions to the rules.

I guess, with your logic, we can take empower spell-like ability and apply that to our spells, since spells and spell-like abilities are interchangable. Oh, Ill also grab supernatural transformation so i can turn one of my spells into a supernatural ability while im at it.


A warlock's invocations not benefiting from spell focus is the exception, not the rule. It's a class feature. I don't know what else to tell you at this point. I didn't realize that invocations being subject to spell failure made all SLAs subject to spell failure.

Invocations being subject to spell failure is preceeded by “unlike other spell-like abilities”, while the other rules are not.

I suppose in your mind then, we can also grab arcane thesis, and stack on a bunch of metamagic, as long as it all adds up to +0 in the end, and just have at-will spammable metamagic pumped SLAs?

[Darg]

“Rules that disagree with me dont count”. Show me the rule that says “you can use metamagic with SLAs, despite them not being spells”

I've quoted both the PHB and the MM already. The general sets the rule and the specific can change it only under its umbrella.


Where in the rules does it say “spells and spell like abilities can be used interchangably”? Or are you applying your assumptions to the rules.

I guess, with your logic, we can take empower spell-like ability and apply that to our spells, since spells and spell-like abilities are interchangable. Oh, Ill also grab supernatural transformation so i can turn one of my spells into a supernatural ability while im at it.

Invocations being subject to spell failure is preceeded by “unlike other spell-like abilities”, while the other rules are not.

I'm just stating how the rules work and the assumptions made by the text itself. If a rule is unstated, it isn't RAW. The point of the ridiculous comparison between invocation ASF and the thought that a class feature can set a general rule for those without the feature is that it's ridiculous. Honestly, how serious would you take it if it said that invocations aren't subject to spell resistance because SLAs aren't spells? You'd think it was a mistake because the rules already say they are subject to spell resistance. Well the rules already say that SLAs work and function just like spells and assume that is the case in a multitude of areas. How do you know what spell level an SLA is to be reflected with spell turning or excluded by a globe of invulnerability? There's no rule that actually says SLAs inherit the spell level of the spell they duplicate. It's assumed to be the case, because they function just like spells. If SLAs are allowed to inherit qualities of spells they aren't stated to actually have, why wouldn't they inherit all of them? Including mechanics such as weaponlike spell feats and metamagics. Both of which happen to only work with spells if SLAs don't inherit the function of working like spells:


Weaponlike Spell Feats: A character who uses invocations or spell-like abilities might be able to take advantage of feats such as Weapon Focus or Precise Shot, as described under Feats and Weaponlike Spells, below. (The warlock’s eldritch blast is weaponlike.)


Notice how eldritch blast is weaponlike?


Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects. As such, several feats that improve weapon performance can be used to enhance weaponlike spells.

WEAPONLIKE SPELLS
For the purpose of taking combat-enhancing feats, weaponlike spells fall into two categories—ranged spells and touch spells.


Point Blank Shot: You get a +1 bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls with ranged spells that deal hit point damage at ranges of up to 30 feet. Spells that deal only ability damage, bestow penalties on ability scores, or deal energy drain gain a +1 bonus on their attack rolls but get no bonus on damage.

Huh, where is that text that mentions weaponlike spell-like abilities? These are saying they only work with spells? But they said I might be able to benefit, not be left out in the cold.


I suppose in your mind then, we can also grab arcane thesis, and stack on a bunch of metamagic, as long as it all adds up to +0 in the end, and just have at-will spammable metamagic pumped SLAs?

And? How many +0/+1 metamagics are you going to pump into those SLAs? I'm quaking in my boots at an invisible, still, electric hellrime blast. If you're thinking that the cheesy interpretation of the feat is an actually valid argument then your question must have been rhetorical.

[Troacctid]

"Cast a spell" and "Use spell-like ability" are considered two separate actions by the rules. That's one of the ways spells and SLAs are explicitly differentiated. So even if you take a pretty broad stance toward that bit about SLAs otherwise functioning just like the spell except where noted, there's still a decent RAW basis for saying that things that care about the action of actually casting a spell—such as the OP's Chronocharm—would not apply to SLAs.

I would also argue that one of the biggest ways that SLAs are not like spells is that they are not spells. They're a separate category of ability that merely happens to function like spells—hence the name. So, an effect that cares about when you cast a spell would not work with SLAs for the same reason why an effect that cares about when you cast a Light spell would not work on a spell that generates light, but does not have the [Light] descriptor (e.g. produce flame): because "spell," in the rules, refers to a category of abilities that SLAs do not belong to.

[Crake]

I've quoted both the PHB and the MM already. The general sets the rule and the specific can change it only under its umbrella.

You have not quoted the rules text that explicitly gives metamagic feats the capability to be applied to spell-like abilities.


I'm just stating how the rules work and the assumptions made by the text itself. If a rule is unstated, it isn't RAW. The point of the ridiculous comparison between invocation ASF and the thought that a class feature can set a general rule for those without the feature is that it's ridiculous. Honestly, how serious would you take it if it said that invocations aren't subject to spell resistance because SLAs aren't spells? You'd think it was a mistake because the rules already say they are subject to spell resistance. Well the rules already say that SLAs work and function just like spells and assume that is the case in a multitude of areas. How do you know what spell level an SLA is to be reflected with spell turning or excluded by a globe of invulnerability? There's no rule that actually says SLAs inherit the spell level of the spell they duplicate. It's assumed to be the case, because they function just like spells. If SLAs are allowed to inherit qualities of spells they aren't stated to actually have, why wouldn't they inherit all of them? Including mechanics such as weaponlike spell feats and metamagics. Both of which happen to only work with spells if SLAs don't inherit the function of working like spells:

Two things can "function" the same, while still being distinct, and not be equally compatible with all things. An electric and petrol powered car function the same with some differences, but you cannot alter an electric car's engine in the same way you can a petrol car's engine, because, while functioning the same, they are not the same. You yourself have even stated as such. There's a reason why some things say "spell or spell-like ability", while others say "spell" and others say "spell-like ability". Just because they function the same, doesn't give them carte blanche cross compatibility with all things.

You yourself stated:


If a rule is unstated, it isn't RAW.

And there is no rule that states that metamagic feats can be used on spell-like abilities. Meanwhile, there are multiple instances where it actually states the opposite.

But again, you decided to conveniently ignore the fact that metamagics being appliccable to spells is not a function of spells, ergo spell-like abilities cannot inherit it.

Your logic is tantamount to having red apples and green apples. Functionally they are the same. There is a person who wants a red apple. You give him a green apple because "they're functionally the same, so it doesn't matter which apple I give him".


Notice how eldritch blast is weaponlike?


Huh, where is that text that mentions weaponlike spell-like abilities? These are saying they only work with spells? But they said I might be able to benefit, not be left out in the cold.

So you're agreeing that the text specifically has to cater for spell-like abilities to be included under the term weapon-like spells, and even then specifically says "might" be able to benefit, as in, your DM might allow it, but it is not itself the default? And that's supposed to support your argument how?


And? How many +0/+1 metamagics are you going to pump into those SLAs? I'm quaking in my boots at an invisible, still, electric hellrime blast. If you're thinking that the cheesy interpretation of the feat is an actually valid argument then your question must have been rhetorical.

Cheesy interpretation? You mean using +0s to cancel out +2s and higher? I wouldn't consider it cheesy, but even if you don't account for that, you can still use easy and practical metamagic to get a +3 down to +0. How does an invisible, easy metamagic fel drain magic missile hitting the party every round from 170ft away applying a negative level while you struggle to even tell what on earth is going on, and then you're dead sound? If you've got some available feats, or wanna slap on some flaws on there, add on repeat as well.

There's a reason why the SLA metamagic feats exist, and why they're limited in daily uses, and also capped on what spell level they can affect by the user's caster level. At best, I would homebrew a "<metamagic> spell-like ability" feat, and follow the same conventions as the others, where you cap the feat's usage by half caster level(rounded up) -(spell level + normal metamagic adjustment) >= 0, and give it 3 daily uses like all the others, or a 1/day sudden metamagic without any caveats.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, it's getting cyclical, and I'm not interested in repeating my points ad nauseum.

[Daisy]

I always thought the main difference between a spell and an SLA is that spells always require a slot. SLAs appear (to my mind at least) identical to spells in all ways except:

The way they are "cast", i.e. SLAs typically don't require components.
Are at will or a certain number of times/day.


I really get the feeling that this is what the designers were thinking of when they created SLAs as an alternative way to get non-Vancian spells into the game. But of course my guess at what the original RAI is has no bearing on the RAW. :smallsmile:

Is a magic missile cast as a spell different from one "cast" as an SLA? It has the same effects, the same ability to be disrupted, the same counters. The only differences I can see are that the SLA, having no components, can't be identified by spellcraft skill, and not having a slot means (to me) it's not eligible for slot-alteration, be that meta-magic or a magic item that affects the slot-level used.

However, I am perfectly willing to accept that my interpretation may be wrong!

[Crake]

I always thought the main difference between a spell and an SLA is that spells always require a slot. SLAs appear (to my mind at least) identical to spells in all ways except:

The way they are "cast", i.e. SLAs typically don't require components.
Are at will or a certain number of times/day.


I really get the feeling that this is what the designers were thinking of when they created SLAs as an alternative way to get non-Vancian spells into the game. But of course my guess at what the original RAI is has no bearing on the RAW. :smallsmile:

Is a magic missile cast as a spell different from one "cast" as an SLA? It has the same effects, the same ability to be disrupted, the same counters. The only differences I can see are that the SLA, having no components, can't be identified by spellcraft skill, and not having a slot means (to me) it's not eligible for slot-alteration, be that meta-magic or a magic item that affects the slot-level used.

However, I am perfectly willing to accept that my interpretation may be wrong!

That's certainly a reasonable take, though I'll correct one thing, SLAs don't have all the same counters, namely, they cannot be counterspelled. Even if you have arcane sight or detect magic up, and are thus able to use them to identify the spell by it's magical signature as it's being cast, you simply CANNOT counterspell them, even with something like a ring of counterspells. It's one of the things that makes SLA dispels so powerful in particular, because one of the most common and readily available protections against having your buffs stripped is a ring of counterspells with dispel magic inside, but SLAs completely bypass that.

[Darg]

You have not quoted the rules text that explicitly gives metamagic feats the capability to be applied to spell-like abilities.

Two things can "function" the same, while still being distinct, and not be equally compatible with all things.

As this is the crux of the argument I'll address it. SLAs function just like spells, ergo the assumption that SLAs have spell levels and work with weaponlike spell feats is a given and the rules work. They must work one way under the same rules or it breaks portions of the rule sets. I've already shown you how. Just like how you argue that the FAQ shows intent from an outside source, the text in CArc shows intent from the primary source.


"Cast a spell" and "Use spell-like ability" are considered two separate actions by the rules. That's one of the ways spells and SLAs are explicitly differentiated. So even if you take a pretty broad stance toward that bit about SLAs otherwise functioning just like the spell except where noted, there's still a decent RAW basis for saying that things that care about the action of actually casting a spell—such as the OP's Chronocharm—would not apply to SLAs.

I would also argue that one of the biggest ways that SLAs are not like spells is that they are not spells. They're a separate category of ability that merely happens to function like spells—hence the name. So, an effect that cares about when you cast a spell would not work with SLAs for the same reason why an effect that cares about when you cast a Light spell would not work on a spell that generates light, but does not have the [Light] descriptor (e.g. produce flame): because "spell," in the rules, refers to a category of abilities that SLAs do not belong to.

This is a good argument, but I don't think it fully fills the void left by not having SLAs function in all ways as a spell. Sudden metamagic works on a casting spell and it works on SLAs for a stated reason that is generally applicable, not just because it says it simply does. It also doesn't explain weaponlike spell feats where SLAs aren't categorized as ranged spells or why touch SLAs should function under touch spell rules. You aren't "casting a spell" and thus wouldn't fall under the "cast a spell" combat rules umbrella. Even if you said that holding a charge is a function of its duration quality being a duplicate of a touch spell, it wouldn't let you make unarmed attacks like a normal touch spell would.

[Crake]

This is a good argument, but I don't think it fully fills the void left by not having SLAs function in all ways as a spell. Sudden metamagic works on a casting spell and it works on SLAs for a stated reason that is generally applicable, not just because it says it simply does. It also doesn't explain weaponlike spell feats where SLAs aren't categorized as ranged spells or why touch SLAs should function under touch spell rules. You aren't "casting a spell" and thus wouldn't fall under the "cast a spell" combat rules umbrella. Even if you said that holding a charge is a function of its duration quality being a duplicate of a touch spell, it wouldn't let you make unarmed attacks like a normal touch spell would.

Alright, because this new argument just occured to me, I'll respond to this; The reason why sudden metamagic works, while +0 metamagic doesn't, with SLAs is because of this: Sudden metamagic does not interact with spell slots or spell levels in any way, meanwhile, +0 metamagic feats say the following: "A [metamagicked spell] uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level." So, in this case an SLA would need a spell slot to be used, but since you can't cast SLAs from spontaneous casters' spell slots, nor can you prepare one into a prepared spell slot, you have no way of utilizing a spell slot to cast a metamagicked SLA.

[Darg]

Alright, because this new argument just occured to me, I'll respond to this; The reason why sudden metamagic works, while +0 metamagic doesn't, with SLAs is because of this: Sudden metamagic does not interact with spell slots or spell levels in any way, meanwhile, +0 metamagic feats say the following: "A [metamagicked spell] uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level." So, in this case an SLA would need a spell slot to be used, but since you can't cast SLAs from spontaneous casters' spell slots, nor can you prepare one into a prepared spell slot, you have no way of utilizing a spell slot to cast a metamagicked SLA.

That's a fair reading. I don't agree with it, but it's not like there aren't multiple ways to interpret RAW anyways. It would also still allow metamagic rods (limited uses per day) to be used with SLAs.


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


Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell.

[Crake]

That's a fair reading. I don't agree with it, but it's not like there aren't multiple ways to interpret RAW anyways. It would also still allow metamagic rods (limited uses per day) to be used with SLAs.

I wouldnt be averse to metamagic rods either, even though they do only state spells, they are similar enough in function to sudden metamagic feats, and written pre CA, that I think its a reasonable ask

[Gruftzwerg]

(Sorry, been very busy the last days.. I read all the post and sole picked some quotes as point of reference)


They aren't spells, but in all ways other than those stated they function like spells. The core rules make assumptions and so do supplementary rules that SLAs are included when they state "spell" or "spells." Bringing up the warlock feature descriptions or the FAQ doesn’t support your argument in a RAW debate. Specific trumps general, but is not a general rule itself. The FAQ is simply not RAW.

I don't agree with Gruftzwerg's train of logic here, but the conclusion is sound.

You argue how in the specific case of +0 metamagic SLAs can't benefit. Your understanding of "in general" is not the only way to read that line. The argument of "because they are not spells" falls apart when you realize the entire game is based on the assumption that they interchangeable except as stated otherwise. If that assumption goes away, many of the rules we take for granted such as spell immunity just wouldn't work right. It allows you to specify a spell and gives unbeatable spell resistance specifically for that specified spell, but protects against the SLA. It wouldn't do that if the SLA wasn't presumed to function as the spell as it doesn't actually state that it protects against SLAs that duplicate the spell. The weapon-like spell feat rules would not apply to SLAs even though they are assumed to work with SLAs as stated in CArc.

I agree that a big part of the rules rely on the assumption that SLA count as Spells unless stated otherwise.
Or does True Sight stop working against Illusion based SLA?... - I hope not...^^


But we have to admit at the same time that the some authors seem to have struggled with this logical construct. Otherwise you can't explain the contradicting statements in Complete Arcane.
Why should Sudden XXX meta work and Spell Focus not? Both rely on you "casting as spell"...

Thus, we should expect that RAI may differ from RAW on this topic in some edge cases. There is also a chance that that RAI maybe even dysfunctional here, if the specific author has failed to grasp the base concept between Spells & SLA.

What I want to say here is, that there may be not a single answer to this question that solves all edge cases.


How you think the conclusion is sound when the rules literally state that you cant use feats that affect spells with invocations “because they arent spells”, which is corroborated by the faq, is beyond me

As an aside, your logic of “spells can be metamagicked, and SLAs function as spells, ergo SLAs can be metamagicked” is erroneous, because metamagic is not a function of spells, its a function of metamagic feats

Hell, a warlock cant even benefit from spell focus.
Take a seat and a deep breath, because I'm afraid that this rabbit hole explanation maybe a lil upsetting.. sorry..)

"because they aren't spells" is the root of the problem here...
"because" indicates that an explanation based on (general) rules follows.

This turn it into an "explanation of assumed (!) general rules" and not into a "specific trumps general situation".

Warlock's invocation rules have some parts where they are "specific" and trump the general SLA rules. Like having a somatic component and thus arcane spell failure chance.

But Complete Arcane doesn't try to trump the general spell/meta rules with more specific Invocation rules here.
It makes assumptions about general Spell and SLA rules. And some of em aren't true. (As said, the same problem as with Complete Warrior's statement about PRC rules).



"Cast a spell" and "Use spell-like ability" are considered two separate actions by the rules. That's one of the ways spells and SLAs are explicitly differentiated. So even if you take a pretty broad stance toward that bit about SLAs otherwise functioning just like the spell except where noted, there's still a decent RAW basis for saying that things that care about the action of actually casting a spell—such as the OP's Chronocharm—would not apply to SLAs.

I would also argue that one of the biggest ways that SLAs are not like spells is that they are not spells. They're a separate category of ability that merely happens to function like spells—hence the name. So, an effect that cares about when you cast a spell would not work with SLAs for the same reason why an effect that cares about when you cast a Light spell would not work on a spell that generates light, but does not have the [Light] descriptor (e.g. produce flame): because "spell," in the rules, refers to a category of abilities that SLAs do not belong to.

SLA rules are specific to general Spell Casting rules and trump them on multiple occasions. And these rules never say that you don't count as "casting a spell" anymore. We can't nitpick general "Casting Spell" rules and then pretend that it ain't count as casting a spell anymore. SLA are based on those rules.



Alright, because this new argument just occured to me, I'll respond to this; The reason why sudden metamagic works, while +0 metamagic doesn't, with SLAs is because of this: Sudden metamagic does not interact with spell slots or spell levels in any way, meanwhile, +0 metamagic feats say the following: "A [metamagicked spell] uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level." So, in this case an SLA would need a spell slot to be used, but since you can't cast SLAs from spontaneous casters' spell slots, nor can you prepare one into a prepared spell slot, you have no way of utilizing a spell slot to cast a metamagicked SLA.

Good catch. But imho we could bypass this with cheesing the order of application.

When an SLA is referring to any spell, it always includes a spell level and slot level by default (general Spell rules). But those are always trumped by the more specific SLA rules. Same here. As long as we don't have to deal with a spell slot level change, we can apply the the general SLA rules to use it.
I mean, how else do SLA make use of Spells which have a spell slot level by default?

While I get your point and you get all the credits for your keen eyes here, imho the base assumptions to make SLA work in the first place bypasses this otherwise very good argument by default.

edit: I just realized that no matter the order the outcome stays the same.
What is the Spell Slot Level of an SLA? Answer: "(doesn't have any)"
And "normal" indicates "no changes".

Really, no matter how I look at it, it ends the same. SLA don't care unless "there is a spell slot change".

[Crake]

I agree that a big part of the rules rely on the assumption that SLA count as Spells unless stated otherwise.
Or does True Sight stop working against Illusion based SLA?... - I hope not...^^

I know you said it as a joke, but true seeing actually makes no mention of spells of any kind, merely effects that are illusory or transmutive in nature, so the nature of SLAs vs spells actually has no bearing whatsoever on the spell

[Gruftzwerg]

I know you said it as a joke, but true seeing actually makes no mention of spells of any kind, merely effects that are illusory or transmutive in nature, so the nature of SLAs vs spells actually has no bearing whatsoever on the spell

The problem is that the SLA would still lose the [Illusion] tag which would cause all kinds of problems.

And since Illusions are defined, this would imho indeed stop True Seeing from recognizing such "SLA pseudo-illusions".

Immunities against Illusions would simply fail against SLA if we would go for such an interpretation.

[Crake]

The problem is that the SLA would still lose the [Illusion] tag which would cause all kinds of problems.

And since Illusions are defined, this would imho indeed stop True Seeing from recognizing such "SLA pseudo-illusions".

Immunities against Illusions would simply fail against SLA if we would go for such an interpretation.

Tags are not limited to spells. Anything can have a tag, there are supernatural abilities with mind-affecting, or death, or illusion, it's entirely based on the effect, so that's a bad take.

[Gruftzwerg]

Tags are not limited to spells. Anything can have a tag, there are supernatural abilities with mind-affecting, or death, or illusion, it's entirely based on the effect, so that's a bad take.


SCHOOL (SUBSCHOOL)

Beneath the spell name is a line giving the school of magic (and the subschool, if appropriate) that the spell belongs to.
Almost every spell belongs to one of eight schools of magic. A school of magic is a group of related spells that work in similar ways.
A small number of spells (arcane mark, limited wish, permanency, prestidigitation, and wish) are universal, belonging to no school.

By default (RAW) only spells have schools/tags. Anything else either needs to refer to "spells" (as in SLA) or to explicitly call out the school/tag (as most SU abilities do).

[Crake]

By default (RAW) only spells have schools/tags. Anything else either needs to refer to "spells" (as in SLA) or to explicitly call out the school/tag (as most SU abilities do).

Trying to follow you as you try to logic this is like watching someone trying to stop water from flowing through a collander. As you move your hand to plug one hole, another hole opens up, and you just keep shifting and changing your logic.

Something can function as a spell, without actually being a spell. Hell, there are supernatural abilities that also function 'as <spell>', so I guess by your logic, we can also apply metamagic to those as well.

[Gruftzwerg]

Something can function as a spell, without actually being a spell. Hell, there are supernatural abilities that also function 'as <spell>', so I guess by your logic, we can also apply metamagic to those as well.

As long as the metamagic doesn't require anything that the SU can't provide, it should work as normal.

But you have to be careful with the wording of each SU separately. IIRC some refer "to work similar to spell XXX" which doesn't have the same mechanical impact as " to work like the spell XXX".

Because "similar to XXX" starts to call out each of the matching points.

Contrary, "work like XXX" needs explicit call outs where they differ.

One calls out each matching point, the other expect everything to match except as noted.

Thus "similar to XXX" doesn't grant compatibility by default (unless noted otherwise), whereas "work like XXX" does grant compatibility by default (unless noted otherwise).

edit:

Trying to follow you as you try to logic this is like watching someone trying to stop water from flowing through a collander. As you move your hand to plug one hole, another hole opens up, and you just keep shifting and changing your logic.


sadly this is to be expected...

Because in 3.5 it's your duty to remind yourself to all rules that interact with a specific ability or effect. Thus you need to be aware of all the rules at the same time which can be big struggle as I know from my own experience. We all tend to forget this rule and that rule.. It happens all the time. Being good at RAW interpretations is mostly about how good you are at recalling the more general rules that interact with the any given situation.
And for those who aren't as good in recalling all relevant rules in the rule hierarchy, it does indeed feel like the other is constantly switching arguments and pulling rules outta nowhere. (I was in the same position more often than I like in my early years in the forum..^^)
Sorry but this is the struggle we all have to face. I forget about rules and misremember them too. But thankfully the community is here to correct me in such cases.