Mystic Wanderer, Prestige Class, Dragon Familiar (Build help Plz)

[incog64]

Mystic Wanderer, Magic of Faerun p 35, grants access to a familiar at 2nd level. As a result your Mystic Wanderer Caster Level counts towards your levels for familiar related feats and powers. Also, it is full divine spell caster PRC no lost levels.

Prior to becoming a Mystic Wanderer I will be a cleric and that is my primary casting class.

I want to take a Dragon Familiar at some point. If I take another PRC which also is full spell caster, Dweomkeeper for example, can I have Dweomkeeper increase my Mystic Wander Casting level which in turn increases my Cleric caster level? The goal is to get 12 levels of Mystic Wanderer so I can take Silver Dragon familiar.

Also, could I take the Practiced Caster feat to assist in getting those caster levels.

The key here is that Dragon Familiar is driven of Arcane Caster level not class level. In this case, the Mystic Wanderer replaces Arcane level as it is the class that grants. Also the class description explicitly says it stacks.


Familiar: Beginning at 2nd level, a mystic wanderer can obtain a familiar, just as a sorcerer or wizard can. A mystic wanderer with sorcerer or wizard levels can treat her mystic wanderer levels as sorcerer or wizard levels for determining her familiar's natural armor, Intelligence, and special abilities.

My character is a Silverbrow Human so I think that would be very cool in regards to flavor.

Thanks for your feedback.

[NontheistCleric]

RAW, this doesn't work. You need an actual arcane spellcaster level to qualify for the Dragon Familiar feat, not virtual Sorcerer or Wizard levels.

You do need to be able to cast arcane spells to qualify for Dweomerkeeper, so maybe you can use your caster level from however you're doing that to qualify, but you'd probably need a few levels of your arcane casting class in conjunction with Practiced Spellcaster to make it work. Maybe less if you can stomach, say, being an Illumian instead of a Silverbrow Human.

[incog64]

RAW, this doesn't work. You need an actual arcane spellcaster level to qualify for the Dragon Familiar feat, not virtual Sorcerer or Wizard levels.

You do need to be able to cast arcane spells to qualify for Dweomerkeeper, so maybe you can use your caster level from however you're doing that to qualify, but you'd probably need a few levels of your arcane casting class in conjunction with Practiced Spellcaster to make it work. Maybe less if you can stomach, say, being an Illumian instead of a Silverbrow Human.

No by RAW the Mystic Wanderer replaces the Arcane requirement as that the class that grants it.

Familiar: Beginning at 2nd level, a mystic wanderer can obtain a familiar, just as a sorcerer or wizard can. A mystic wanderer with sorcerer or wizard levels can treat her mystic wanderer levels as sorcerer or wizard levels for determining her familiar's natural armor, Intelligence, and special abilities.

[Gorthawar]

Under these circumstances 3 levels of uncanny trickster might be your best bet as you could use it to push the mystic wanderer level to 12.

[NontheistCleric]

No by RAW the Mystic Wanderer replaces the Arcane requirement as that the class that grants it.

Familiar: Beginning at 2nd level, a mystic wanderer can obtain a familiar, just as a sorcerer or wizard can. A mystic wanderer with sorcerer or wizard levels can treat her mystic wanderer levels as sorcerer or wizard levels for determining her familiar's natural armor, Intelligence, and special abilities.

It doesn't replace the arcane requirement. It grants you a familiar and allows Mystic Wanderer levels to count as Sorcerer/Wizard levels for the purpose of familiar advancement, but unless you have levels in an actual arcane spellcasting class, you can't meet the requirement for Dragon Familiar, because Mystic Wanderer levels advancing Cleric casting don't actually give you the power to cast arcane spells, meaning that you will have no arcane spellcaster level.

There is one possible workaround. If you have the Spell domain, the Anyspell spell actually does allow a cleric to cast arcane spells, and arguably, that means you can qualify because it gives you an arcane spellcaster level, at least for that spell if you happen to prepare it. Still, maybe someone more versed in RAW than me can come up with some reason why this doesn't work.

[incog64]

It doesn't replace the arcane requirement. It grants you a familiar and allows Mystic Wanderer levels to count as Sorcerer/Wizard levels for the purpose of familiar advancement, but unless you have levels in an actual arcane spellcasting class, you can't meet the requirement for Dragon Familiar, because Mystic Wanderer levels advancing Cleric casting don't actually give you the power to cast arcane spells, meaning that you will have no arcane spellcaster level.

There is one possible workaround. If you have the Spell domain, the Anyspell spell actually does allow a cleric to cast arcane spells, and arguably, that means you can qualify because it gives you an arcane spellcaster level, at least for that spell if you happen to prepare it. Still, maybe someone more versed in RAW than me can come up with some reason why this doesn't work.

If your issue with the lack of Arcane Casting, I will have it via Dreadnecromancer dip. The build that I am considering is looking like.

L1 - Cleric -Rebuke Dragon ACF (divine)
L2 - Dreadnecromancer Rebuke Undead (arcane)
L3 -5: CLeric
L6-7: Mystic Wander
L-8-12 Dweomkeeper

[NontheistCleric]

In that case, your main issue will probably be getting that arcane caster level high enough to qualify for Dragon Familiar. 1 DN level and Practiced Spellcaster only gets you to 5.

[ciopo]

I must point out that as a silverblood human you have a caster level equal to your HD, for featherfall, and there is some book-support about SLA being arcane/divine.

Do keep in mind that SLA being arcane/divine is contetious at some tables, but if yours is like mine you have that arcane spellcaster level covered with the featherfall SLA

[daremetoidareyo]

Sorry, this specifically keys off levels in sorc or wizard.

“A mystic wanderer with sorcerer or wizard levels….”

No alternative class levels can trigger the stacking effect of mystic wanderer

[incog64]

Sorry, this specifically keys off levels in sorc or wizard.

“A mystic wanderer with sorcerer or wizard levels….”

No alternative class levels can trigger the stacking effect of mystic wanderer

Drgaonn familiar triggers off of arcane caster level not wiz or sorc level.

Dragon Familiar
( Draconomicon, p. 104)

[General]

When you are able to acquire a new familiar, you may select a wyrmling dragon as a familiar.

Prerequisite
CHA 13, ability to acquire a new familiar, arcane spellcaster level 7th, compatible alignment, Speak Language (Draconic),

[incog64]

I must point out that as a silverblood human you have a caster level equal to your HD, for featherfall, and there is some book-support about SLA being arcane/divine.

Do keep in mind that SLA being arcane/divine is contetious at some tables, but if yours is like mine you have that arcane spellcaster level covered with the featherfall SLA

Interesting angle thanks.

[incog64]

I must point out that as a silverblood human you have a caster level equal to your HD, for featherfall, and there is some book-support about SLA being arcane/divine.

Do keep in mind that SLA being arcane/divine is contetious at some tables, but if yours is like mine you have that arcane spellcaster level covered with the featherfall SLA

Its listed in Complete Arcane p 72. The only potential debate is if the caster level is Arcane are not but I think logical it is as feather fall ability comes from the dragon heritage of being silverbrow. Also feather is only for Arcane Casters. Once again thanks.

CASTER LEVEL
In the context of a feat or a prestige class requirement, a caster
level prerequisite (such as “caster level 5th”) measures the
character’s ability to channel a minimum amount of magical
power. For feats or prestige classes requiring a minimum
caster level, creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations
instead of spells use either their fi xed caster level
or their class level to determine qualifi cation.
For example, Craft Wondrous Item has
a requirement of caster level 3rd, so
both a 3rd-level warlock and a
nixie (caster level 4th for its charm
person spell-like ability) meet the
requirement.

[NontheistCleric]

Spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine in nature, except for those derived from warlock class levels. They have caster levels but not arcane caster levels, so by RAW they cannot be used to qualify for things that require arcane caster levels.

[incog64]

Spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine in nature, except for those derived from warlock class levels. They have caster levels but not arcane caster levels, so by RAW they cannot be used to qualify for things that require arcane caster levels.

I have researched this, its definitely unclear and probably up to the DM. Unless you can show me where it affirmatively says that they aren't neither. However, I can definitely show you where is is implied/insuated.

[NontheistCleric]

Here is the relevant quote:


Some creatures are born with the capacity to work genuine magic, just like some creatures have the power of flight or the ability to breathe water. Such creatures have no explainable awareness of how they actually manage their magical talents.

They have no special ability to sense magic, and they don't do anything special to work their magic beyond willing their magical tricks to happen. Such creatures seem to function as self-filling vessels for magical power. They naturally collect magical potential and release it with a thought.

This magical potential doesn't seem to have any clear link either to arcane magic or to divine magic, though it creates results similar or identical to those arising from spells. A glabrezu's dispel magic ability functions like the same spell cast by a wizard or cleric (hence the term “spell-like”).

Also:


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).

As they are not spells, they are also not arcane spells, and thus have no arcane caster level (the warlock is an exception because Complete Mage explicitly says its abilities are arcane in nature).

[incog64]

Here is the relevant quote:

I would file this under inferred logic. Its also weird that you didn't include the next paragraph that suggests sorcerers arent arcane casters.

A few magical theorists even claim that the “spells” of a
sorcerer or a dragon have more in common with the spelllike
abilities of warlocks and various other creatures than
with the spells of a wizard.

Also, the key statement you are using refers to creatures not PCs.

[incog64]

Here is the relevant quote:



Also:



As they are not spells, they are also not arcane spells, and thus have no arcane caster level (the warlock is an exception because Complete Mage explicitly says its abilities are arcane in nature).

Why are you only posting partial statements. Below is literally in the same section.

For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is:

10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature’s Cha modifier.

Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. 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.

[incog64]

Here is the relevant quote:



Also:



As they are not spells, they are also not arcane spells, and thus have no arcane caster level (the warlock is an exception because Complete Mage explicitly says its abilities are arcane in nature).

Also from Complete Arcane Magebane p. 143 directly refer to arcane spell like abilities.

Magebane: Weapons crafted with
the magebane property are rightly
feared by all arcane spellcasters. Against
any creature with arcane spells
currently prepared or spell slots
available to cast arcane spells without
preparation, or against creatures
with the ability to use arcane spell-like
abilities,

[ciopo]

Since I'm the one that brought it up, I'll say that the forum majority consensus seems to be that SLA are not with the "arcane/divine".

Ink on paper that supports them being arcane divine is not much, iirc a couple of prc imply the existence of arcane SLA because their prerequisites explictily call out as arcane SLA being valid for entering. Most other things have already been listed in this thread now, that I remember.

One thing I previously wasn't aware of and that I discovered while researching for the evolution! Villainous competiton, is that there is at least one monster that esplicitly classify its SLA as arcane, but sadly I forgot which one. I think it was in either MM IV or V, or perhabs the book of aberrations.

My personal reading is that SLAs are arcane/divine, but that it's firmly in the "ask your GM" territory, because it's niche enough of a rules interaction that it'sbetter to bring it up as it's possibly contested

[NontheistCleric]

It doesn't matter that they mimic the sorcerer/wizard versions of the spells. Creatures with spell-like abilities do not have the language those classes have that declares their abilities to be arcane:


Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
There is at least some support for the idea that spell lists themselves are not arcane or divine, as some spell lists (including the sorcerer/wizard one if we bring the variant Spellcaster class into the discussion) are drawn on by both arcane and divine spellcasting classes (e.g. bards and divine bards).

Also, look at the text of Arcane Sight:


If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.
It says spell-like abilities 'register' as arcane, something that would not need to be called out if they were arcane–and if they were arcane, there would be no need to say they only 'registered' as such. The spell could simply say they were arcane.

Combined with the quote from Complete Mage, I think this is sufficient support for saying that spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine, and that they mimic the spells from particular lists is not enough to confer upon the arcane/divine status possessed by the spellcasting ability of the classes that draw upon those lists.


Magebane: Weapons crafted with
the magebane property are rightly
feared by all arcane spellcasters. Against
any creature with arcane spells
currently prepared or spell slots
available to cast arcane spells without
preparation, or against creatures
with the ability to use arcane spell-like
abilities,
Warlocks have arcane spell-like abilities, so there is nothing redundant in that statement. Even if there was, it wouldn't have been the first time the 3.5 rules did something useless.

[incog64]

Since I'm the one that brought it up, I'll say that the forum majority consensus seems to be that SLA are not with the "arcane/divine".

Ink on paper that supports them being arcane divine is not much, iirc a couple of prc imply the existence of arcane SLA because their prerequisites explictily call out as arcane SLA being valid for entering. Most other things have already been listed in this thread now, that I remember.

One thing I previously wasn't aware of and that I discovered while researching for the evolution! Villainous competiton, is that there is at least one monster that esplicitly classify its SLA as arcane, but sadly I forgot which one. I think it was in either MM IV or V, or perhabs the book of aberrations.

My personal reading is that SLAs are arcane/divine, but that it's firmly in the "ask your GM" territory, because it's niche enough of a rules interaction that it'sbetter to bring it up as it's possibly contested

I think it is definitely a grey area as many things are in 3.5 and up to the DM but to say they explicitly aren't is incorrect unless someone can point to a source that says so.

IMHO, they count and the original books didn't think about as there are at least two PRC that spefically reference Arcane Spell Like Abilites, Cultist of the Shattered Peak PrC from Lost Empires of Faerun and Sybill PrC from savage species. Also there is there is magebane as referenced prior.

[NontheistCleric]

I think it is definitely a grey area as many things are in 3.5 and up to the DM but to say they explicitly aren't is incorrect unless someone can point to a source that says so.
Here's another quote in support of my position, from the Dragonfire Adept class, which uses spell-like abilities:


Dragonfire adepts have no arcane or divine magic, nor are they masters of martial prowess. Instead, they draw upon a direct link with the nature of draconic existence, infusing their soul with the raw magic of dragons.

So now we have one quote that says they aren't (Dragonfire Adept), one quote that says they don't seem to be (Complete Mage) and one quote that says they are not the arcane (or divine) spells whose effects they duplicate (SRD). I think that's pretty explicit.


IMHO, they count and the original books didn't think about as there are at least two PRC that spefically reference Arcane Spell Like Abilites, Cultist of the Shattered Peak PrC from Lost Empires of Faerun and Sybill PrC from savage species. Also there is there is magebane as referenced prior.
Certain spell-like abilities, like those of the warlock, aboleth savant, and possibly other classes or monsters, are explicitly called arcane and would interact with those PrCs. Especially considering all the evidence in the other direction, that's not enough to claim that any spell-like ability that mimicks a sorcerer/wizard spell is arcane.

[ciopo]

I was editing but since then I got quoted, so I shall reply instead :

aboleth savant prc has a SLA for glyph of warding, and the class feature description esplictly says that normally glyph of warding is a divine spell, but this SLA is arcane, and the adaptation section for making the psionic version of that prc esplictly says those SLA would be PLA instead of arcane SLA. I think this one was the one I was surprised about when researching for the VC


I want to add that I'm usually very nitpicky about "what's the source" for arcane/divine. By which I mean to say that, for example, I consider Sha'ir to be "neither" rather than "both", i also do not agree with southern magician gimmick. I am otherwise about SLA... I'm not sure how to articulate what twigs me differently about this use case

[incog64]

Another quote in support of my position, from the Dragonfire Adept class, which uses spell-like abilities:





Well, we have one quote that says they aren't (Dragonfire Adept), one quote that says they don't seem to be (Complete Mage) and one quote that says they are not the arcane (or divine) spells whose effects they duplicate (SRD). I think that's pretty explicit.


Certain spell-like abilities, like those of the warlock, aboleth savant, and possibly other classes or monsters, are explicitly called arcane and would interact with those PrCs. Especially considering all the evidence in the other direction, that's not enough to claim that any spell-like ability that mimicks a sorcerer/wizard spell is arcane.

Its weird, almost as Dragonfire adepts are an exception because they use invocations.

Dragonfire adepts benefit in a specific way from prestige classes that have a level advancement benefit of "+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class" or "+1 level of existing spellcasting class." A dragonfire adept taking levels in such a prestige class does not gain any other benefits of that level increase, but she does gain an increased caster level when using her invocations and increased damage with her breath weapon. Levels of prestige classes that provide +1 level of spellcasting effectively stack with the dragonfire adept's level to determine her breath weapon damage and save DC. She also gains new invocations at each prestige class level as though she had risen a level in the dragonfire adept class.

A dragonfire adept cannot qualify for prestige classes (or other game options) with spellcasting level requirements, because she never actually learns to cast spells. However, prestige classes with caster level requirements are allowed - her caster level for her invocations fulfills this requirement. Her spell-like abilities do meet requirements for specific spell knowledge if they mimic the required spell.

If anything I belive there is an argument for SLA caster levels to be "untyped" and qualify for either.

[NontheistCleric]

The fact that they are called invocations and require somatic components aside, Dragonfire Adept invocations are like any other spell-like ability.

The fact that they have specific rules allowing to them to be advanced using certain PrCs does nothing to dispel the explicit proclamation that their abilities are neither arcane nor divine, because the rules do not say that.

Warlocks, on the other hand, are identified by Complete Mage as being arcane, and no other source contradicts this, so their abilities are arcane.

[incog64]

The fact that they are called invocations and require somatic components aside, Dragonfire Adept invocations are like any other spell-like ability.

The fact that they have specific rules allowing to them to be advanced using certain PrCs does nothing to dispel the explicit proclamation that their abilities are neither arcane nor divine, because the rules do not say that.

Warlocks, on the other hand, are identified by Complete Mage as being arcane, and no other source contradicts this, so their abilities are arcane.

The moral of this story is that its grey and up to the DM. You have data points and I have data points. I am not a big fan on internet debates. Neither of us can find a clear cut statement to support our belief. Have a nice day.

[NontheistCleric]

The moral of this story is that its grey and up to the DM. You have data points and I have data points. I am not a big fan on internet debates. Neither of us can find a clear cut statement to support our belief. Have a nice day.

I'd say I found some pretty clear-cut statements, some of which directly refute your 'data points', but if you're not going to acknowledge them, oh well.

[incog64]

I was editing but since then I got quoted, so I shall reply instead :

aboleth savant prc has a SLA for glyph of warding, and the class feature description esplictly says that normally glyph of warding is a divine spell, but this SLA is arcane, and the adaptation section for making the psionic version of that prc esplictly says those SLA would be PLA instead of arcane SLA. I think this one was the one I was surprised about when researching for the VC


I want to add that I'm usually very nitpicky about "what's the source" for arcane/divine. By which I mean to say that, for example, I consider Sha'ir to be "neither" rather than "both", i also do not agree with southern magician gimmick. I am otherwise about SLA... I'm not sure how to articulate what twigs me differently about this use case

Can there be untyped caster levels, is there any support for that anywhere? That's the only way they cant be arcane, divine or something.

[incog64]

I'd say I found some pretty clear-cut statements, some of which directly refute your 'data points', but if you're not going to acknowledge them, oh well.

Hard disagree, you have showed nothing that explicitly supports your opinion, just a couple of blurbs here and there. I am fine being proved wrong; however, you are serving a whole bunch of nothing burgers.

[ciopo]

I have a brainfart and might be 100% misremembering, but shadow magic from ToM and eberron artificiers perhabs have a CL but aren't arcane/divine, I'm AFB.

As said, I consider sha'ir to be untyped/other. Mind that it's a "soft" opinion, of the "technically correct" that get promptly ignored in actual play

[NontheistCleric]

Hard disagree, you have showed nothing that explicitly supports your opinion, just a couple of blurbs here and there. I am fine being proved wrong; however, you are serving a whole bunch of nothing burgers.

How does the DFA quote not explicitly support my opinion? It's a class that uses spell-like abilities, and the class entry says its power is not arcane or divine. The logical conclusion is that spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine.

Then you have the fact that spell-like abilities are not actually the arcane spells they duplicate.

Then Complete Mage says that spell-like abilities do not seem to be arcane or divine.

Spells like Arcane Sight feel the need to call out spell-like abilities as 'registering as' arcane, instead of simply being arcane.

I'd say this all constitutes strong evidence that by default, spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine. They are hardly 'blurbs', and they're certainly more than anything you've provided in support of your position.

[incog64]

How does the DFA quote not explicitly support my opinion? It's a class that uses spell-like abilities, and the class entry says its power is not arcane or divine. The logical conclusion is that spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine.

Then you have the fact that spell-like abilities are not actually the arcane spells they duplicate.

Then Complete Mage says that spell-like abilities do not seem to be arcane or divine.

Spells like Arcane Sight feel the need to call out spell-like abilities as 'registering as' arcane, instead of simply being arcane.

I'd say this all constitutes strong evidence that by default, spell-like abilities are neither arcane nor divine. They are hardly 'blurbs', and they're certainly more than anything you've provided in support of your position.

Like I said blurbs, you don't because when you read your points in context they tend to not support your position. AS below. They aren't divine or arcane because they are draconic.

Dragonfire adepts have no arcane or divine magic, nor are
they masters of martial prowess. Instead, they draw upon a
direct link with the nature of draconic existence, infusing
their soul with the raw magic of dragons.

Every other point is interpreting words in a bias manner. You are literally trying to parse the usage of register.

[NontheistCleric]

The whole of that sentence supports my reading. If dragons (which, by the way, use SLAs) can have raw magic, why can't other creatures have raw magic that is neither arcane nor divine? Especially when the text taken from Complete Mage says that other creatures' SLAs are also neither arcane nor divine?

Moreover, if you are justifying it by saying it's neither arcane nor divine only because it is draconic, then your Silverbrow Human still runs into the same problem, because its magical power is certainly draconic in nature.

[daremetoidareyo]

Mystic wanderer only stacks if you have class levels in sorc or wizard. Caster level ain’t enough, you have to set at least on level on fire. Assuming you can get a homebrew handwaive there may be a solution

Southern magician.

[incog64]

The whole of that sentence supports my reading. If dragons (which, by the way, use SLAs) can have raw magic, why can't other creatures have raw magic that is neither arcane nor divine? Especially when the text taken from Complete Mage says that other creatures' SLAs are also neither arcane nor divine?

Moreover, if you are justifying it by saying it's neither arcane nor divine only because it is draconic, then your Silverbrow Human still runs into the same problem, because its magical power is certainly draconic in nature.

1. Sigh. The key word is some which doesn't mean all.

2. Secondly, the key difference is that warlocks and dragonfire adepts use invocations which is a specific kind of special ability, it literally has arcane spell failure where as other spell like abilities don't. Invocations are there own little thing. Invocations are more like making deals for power as opposed to actually having the power. Specifically in Dragon magic p 24 it says Unlike a sorcerer, however, a dragonfire adept manifests this magic not in the form of spells, bur as invocations that emulate draconic powers. Once again not their power.

3. The Silvebrow feather fall ability is more inline with your arguement Arcane vs innate in which the last paragraph states, So far, this theory has gained little traction among traditional sages. Silverbrow's SLA is more like a sorcer ability and its actually them.

[incog64]

Mystic wanderer only stacks if you have class levels in sorc or wizard. Caster level ain’t enough, you have to set at least on level on fire. Assuming you can get a homebrew handwaive there may be a solution

Southern magician.

Fair enough.

[NontheistCleric]

1. Sigh. The key word is some which doesn't mean all.

2. Secondly, the key difference is that warlocks and dragonfire adepts use invocations which is a specific kind of special ability, it literally has arcane spell failure where as other spell like abilities don't. Invocations are there own little thing. Invocations are more like making deals for power as opposed to actually having the power.

3. The Silvebrow feather fall ability is more inline with your arguement Arcane vs innate in which the last paragraph states, So far, this theory has gained little traction among traditional sages.

1. Now who's taking things out of context? The 'some' in that context clearly refers to creatures that have SLAs in general.

2. Apart from the differences stated in their respective classes, invocations are mechanically identical to any other SLAs, subject to the exact same rules. They are not 'making deals for power' unless a player chooses to flavor it that way.

3. Again, you're taking it out of context. That theory is clearly referring to sorcerers, and when it talks about dragons, about the natural sorcerer casting true dragons have. That part is separate from the previous paragraphs about SLAs.

[Anthrowhale]

We discussed this in the other thread, but as a reminder the Spell domain allows you to cast arcane spells at caster level = cleric caster level without any feat requirement and without any loss of spell advancement.

[incog64]

We discussed this in the other thread, but as a reminder the Spell domain allows you to cast arcane spells at caster level = cleric caster level without any feat requirement and without any loss of spell advancement.

Spell domain dont exist in greyhawk but thanks.

[Anthrowhale]

Spell domain dont exist in greyhawk but thanks.

By what criteria? The Spell domain is in Spell Compendium, Io has access to the Spell Domain, and Io is in the Greyhawk setting. The only connection to Faerun here I'm aware of is the Draconomicon listing "(Spell)" under Io's domains invoking:

Domains that appear in parentheses are described in the FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting. If your campaign is set in that world, you can add these domains to the deity’s list (possibly replacing other domains if desired).

However, since the Spell domain was published in Spell Compendium 2 years later, this logic no longer appears applicable---the Spell domain became no longer setting specific.

[incog64]

By what criteria? The Spell domain is in Spell Compendium, Io has access to the Spell Domain, and Io is in the Greyhawk setting. The only connection to Faerun here I'm aware of is the Draconomicon listing "(Spell)" under Io's domains invoking:

However, since the Spell domain was published in Spell Compendium 2 years later, this logic no longer appears applicable---the Spell domain became no longer setting specific.

I will run it by my DM.

[incog64]

The whole of that sentence supports my reading. If dragons (which, by the way, use SLAs) can have raw magic, why can't other creatures have raw magic that is neither arcane nor divine? Especially when the text taken from Complete Mage says that other creatures' SLAs are also neither arcane nor divine?

Moreover, if you are justifying it by saying it's neither arcane nor divine only because it is draconic, then your Silverbrow Human still runs into the same problem, because its magical power is certainly draconic in nature.

Two things, as below.

Invocations
Invocations are so different from SLAs that in Complete Arcane p 72 they are listed separately.

"For feats or prestige classes requiring a minimum caster level, creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations instead of spells use either their fixed caster level or their class level to determine qualification."

Arcane Spell Like Abilites
There are four classes, please see below, that specifically note that spell like abilities qualify as Arcane Spell Like abililites.

Blood Magus p. 26 Spells or Spell-Like Abilities: Arcane caster level 5th.
Enlightened Fist p. 35 Spells or Spell-Like Abilities: Arcane caster level 3rd.
Green Star Dept p. 42 Spells or Spell-Like Abilities: Arcane caster level 1st.
Mindbender p. 54 Spells or Spell-Like Abilities: Arcane caster level 5th.

Once again the area is grey as but saying arcane SLA don't exist is incorrect.

[NontheistCleric]

I never said they don't exist, I said they have to be specifically called out as being arcane–for example, the aboleth savant or warlock's spell-like abilities. They aren't arcane just by virtue of being based on a sorcerer/wizard spell.

Yes, invocations are a specific type of SLA, but they are still SLAs and follow all the rules of SLAs except where it is specified that they are making an exception to them. The fact that Complete Arcane chooses to list them separately does not make them not SLAs, as every rule that governs how they function mechanically defines them as SLAs.

[incog64]

I never said they don't exist, I said they have to be specifically called out as being arcane–for example, the aboleth savant or warlock's spell-like abilities. They aren't arcane just by virtue of being based on a sorcerer/wizard spell.

Yes, invocations are a specific type of SLA, but they are still SLAs and follow all the rules of SLAs except where it is specified that they are making an exception to them. The fact that Complete Arcane chooses to list them separately does not make them not SLAs, as every rule that governs how they function mechanically defines them as SLAs.

Ok, then give me an example for PCs what would be an arcane skill like ability as they clearly exist but you believe Silverbrow's feather fall ability doesn't qualify?

[NontheistCleric]

I just gave you two examples. One, warlocks, who are explicitly called out in Complete Mage as having arcane powers. Two, savant aboleths, who are not your typical PC, but hey, I'm sure there's some convoluted RAW way of getting a playable race into that prestige class.

Or just find yourself a savant aboleth and cast Dominate Monster on it. That's kind of 'for PCs'.

[lylsyly]

Dragonfire Adepts can't use armor because it interferes with thier invocations. There for thier invocations ARE Arcane!!

[NontheistCleric]

Dragonfire Adepts can't use armor because it interferes with thier invocations. There for thier invocations ARE Arcane!!

It literally says in the class description that their powers are not arcane.

[incog64]

I just gave you two examples. One, warlocks, who are explicitly called out in Complete Mage as having arcane powers. Two, savant aboleths, who are not your typical PC, but hey, I'm sure there's some convoluted RAW way of getting a playable race into that prestige class.

Or just find yourself a savant aboleth and cast Dominate Monster on it. That's kind of 'for PCs'.

First I appreciate the discussion as though we disagree its been civil.

After doing my research which includes acknowledging your positions. It seems that it boils down to does one believe in the existence of innate magic as most who share your opinion point to the language in the Arcane vs Innate section of Complete Magic. However, in the same section it is acknowledged that most sages do not agree that innate magic is a thing. If you don't believe is innate magic, then SLAs have to be arcane, divine, psi or some other type of magic. I can not find anything that suggests untyped magic exists.

Therefore, I believe this is just up to DM interoperation. Have a good day.

[NontheistCleric]

You are parsing the section on innate magic incorrectly. The final paragraph is only talking about the theory that the spells of sorcerers (and true dragons with sorcerer casting) are more similar to innate magic than arcane magic. That is what sages don't agree on, not the existence of innate magic itself.

Indeed, if innate magic is not an established thing, no one would even come up with such a theory.

Also, it's not true that untyped magic is not a thing. Even setting aside SLAs, supernatural abilities are magic, and yet neither arcane nor divine. Look at the monk. It has both supernatural and spell-like abilities, and no strong ties to either arcane magic, divine magic, or psionics. Untyped magic. Tons of monsters and PC classes have supernatural abilities. Untyped magic is right there in the core rules.

[ciopo]

It literally says in the class description that their powers are not arcane.

trying to stay neutral, I can see this and aboleth savant being equally used for both sides of the debate.

if SLA are normally not "typed", then :
dragonfire adept is just a reminder
warlock calls out the exception
aboleth savant calls out the exception (but in a different way, because divine blablabla)


if SLA are normally typed, then :
warlock is just a reminder
dragonfire adept calls out the exception
aboleth savant calls out a different kind of exception ( normally glyph would be divine SLA, but their glyph are arcane instead of divine, rather than arcane instead of untyped).


why I lean toward "SLA has arcane/divine typing" as the default instead of untyped: aboleth works as tidebreaker for me: what it says is that his glyph SLA are arcane instead of divine, not arcane instead of nothing. that's significant information to me, the inference about the opinion of abolet savant designer is that his default assumption is that, minus that clarification, he'd have thought that SLA would have been divine.

of course, we shouln't extrapolate that to a general rule that doesn't explictily exist in text(SLA are typed). Same way we shouldn't generalize "SLA are untyped" because that doesn't exist in text just the same.

What's actually actionable:

SLA of glyph of warding are divine, by proof of aboleth savant making an exception of it for that prc
SLA granted by warlock invocations are arcane
SLA granted by dragonfire adept aren't typed.

anything else (modulo things I've missed) are left to the table to make a ruling about, with the various arguments brought forth for one or the other interpretation. With those that are of the "this is a reminder/this is an exception" being "flippable" so kind of moot

[NontheistCleric]

Ciopo, you might be right if there wasn't other evidence that SLAs are generally neither arcane nor divine, like the text in Complete Mage.

What the Savant Aboleth class says is actually:


Although this ability mimics a divine spell, this spell-like ability uses arcane magic.

It does not say 'although this ability would usually use divine magic'.

Also, it wouldn't be the first time a designer misunderstood the rules.

[incog64]

You are parsing the section on innate magic incorrectly. The final paragraph is only talking about the theory that the spells of sorcerers (and true dragons with sorcerer casting) are more similar to innate magic than arcane magic. That is what sages don't agree on, not the existence of innate magic itself.

Indeed, if innate magic is not an established thing, no one would even come up with such a theory.

Also, it's not true that untyped magic is not a thing. Even setting aside SLAs, supernatural abilities are magic, and yet neither arcane nor divine. Look at the monk. It has both supernatural and spell-like abilities, and no strong ties to either arcane magic, divine magic, or psionics. Untyped magic. Tons of monsters and PC classes have supernatural abilities. Untyped magic is right there in the core rules.

I have not researched super natural abilities and I am not.

Key word theory. A theory is not a fact. Any way I am done with this and will let my dm decide.

[NontheistCleric]

You're wrong about what part of the text is a theory. The part about sorcerers' and dragons' spells is referred to as a theory.

The preceding two paragraphs, about SLAs in general, are not presented as a theory.

Obviously your DM has the final say, but this is what the rulebooks say by default.

[incog64]

You're wrong about what part of the text is a theory. The part about sorcerers' and dragons' spells is referred to as a theory.

The preceding two paragraphs, about SLAs in general, are not presented as a theory.

Obviously your DM has the final say, but this is what the rulebooks say by default.

If you want to ignore the parts you don't like, then you are correct. But its pretty clear innate magic is theory where arcane and divine magic are fact.

Also, with regards to untyped magic, I was referring to spells or spell like abilities.

[NontheistCleric]

If you want to ignore the parts you don't like, then you are correct. But its pretty clear innate magic is theory where arcane and divine magic are fact.

No, seriously, just go read page 7 of Complete Mage. It only starts talking about theories in the last paragraph on the section on innate magic. The two preceding paragraphs are not a theory.


Also, with regards to untyped magic, I was referring to spells or spell like abilities.

That untyped supernatural abilities exist is relevant to the point, as just a moment ago you were asserting that untyped magic exists nowhere in the rules, but it clearly does in supernatural abilities, so why could it not in SLAs?

It is obviously difficult to prove to you that untyped SLAs exist when you disregard all the existing evidence that they are, by default, untyped, but I can at least show you that untyped magic is abundant in the system.

[ciopo]

Ciopo, you might be right if there wasn't other evidence that SLAs are generally neither arcane nor divine, like the text in Complete Mage.

What the Savant Aboleth class says is actually:


Although this ability mimics a divine spell, this spell-like ability uses arcane magic.

It does not say 'although this ability would usually use divine magic'.

Also, it wouldn't be the first time a designer misunderstood the rules.

Eh, same way that PHB says that spell-like are (paraphrasing) "just like the spells they mimic, except (list of how they differ from the spells they mimic)" ,
which I take as evidence that they are like the spell they mimic, unless told otherwise. Which is the primary reason I go with the "they are typed", a general "stuff does what it says it does" attitude, if you will. (modulo table and rulings and blablabla)

about aboleth savant: to my parsing, it does say that. It says "unlike the spell it mimics, this SLA uses arcane energy". outside this debate, the "instead of divine energy" is 100% implied, to me.

I can only shrug and smile at designer misunderstanding. the "this thing you designed doesn't do what you thought/wanted it to do" are the most fun things to play with! I'm of the opinion that Obtain familiar do not count casting-advancing PRC, for another random example where I differ greatly from the forum consensus (or said in different words: abjurant champion is not an arcane spellcasting class / doesn't contribute to obtain familiar)

[NontheistCleric]

Eh, same way that PHB says that spell-like are (paraphrasing) "just like the spells they mimic, except (list of how they differ from the spells they mimic)" ,
which I take as evidence that they are like the spell they mimic, unless told otherwise. Which is the primary reason I go with the "they are typed", a general "stuff does what it says it does" attitude, if you will. (modulo table and rulings and blablabla)

There is at least some support for the idea that spell lists themselves are not arcane or divine, as some spell lists (including the sorcerer/wizard one if we bring the variant Spellcaster class into the discussion) are drawn on by both arcane and divine spellcasting classes (e.g. bards and divine bards).

So mimicking a spell from a certain list does not necessarily give a SLA the same arcane/divine typing as any or all of the classes that draw from that list.


I can only shrug and smile at designer misunderstanding. the "this thing you designed doesn't do what you thought/wanted it to do" are the most fun things to play with! I'm of the opinion that Obtain familiar do not count casting-advancing PRC, for another random example where I differ greatly from the forum consensus (or said in different words: abjurant champion is not an arcane spellcasting class / doesn't contribute to obtain familiar)

Might be fun to play with. Still not RAW.

[ciopo]

page 6 of complete mage has always been funny to me, because it basically invalidates everything making a distinction between arcane and divine by stating that after a spell is cast, it stops being either. so if we take that argument to its extreme, no one satisfy the prerequisites of being able to cast this or that level of arcane/divine spells. They're all magic, no type!
Direct quote is : nothing distinguishes an arcane spell effect from a divine spell effect.

it's very funny that divine/arcane is all a mind trick/trappings of tradition

On mimicking: I'm probably one of the few that claims for Sha'ir to be "other" rather than "both arcane and divine", so you don't have to sell me on "spell list access does not define arcane/divine", it's the MM "order of access" that makes me think of SLA as being typed.

to me:
Suel arcanamach is typed because it's "Spells per day" specify "cast as a sorcerer does", and os his caster level is arcane
Sha'ir is untyped (to me) because "use arcane spell" and "use divine spell" to me does not equate to "have an arcane/divine caster level". his spells are neither prepared nor spontaneous, they are retrieved which is a category of its own and blablabla, not the point of the debate. He cast's arcane and divine spells, he has a shair caster level.
SLA to me is typed, because MM tell us "A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions" and blablabla, why I read this more along the line of example Suel arcanamach and not of example Sha'ir on my internal compass, I have difficulties articulating for.

most likely it's a "not the weave, not the divines" that triggers me about sha'ir, but I'm bad at extricating why-the-thing when I get to these dissonances I have in my stances

Yes, I am a massive PITA (pedant in the argument :P)

[NontheistCleric]

page 6 of complete mage has always been funny to me, because it basically invalidates everything making a distinction between arcane and divine by stating that after a spell is cast, it stops being either. so if we take that argument to its extreme, no one satisfy the prerequisites of being able to cast this or that level of arcane/divine spells. They're all magic, no type!
Direct quote is : nothing distinguishes an arcane spell effect from a divine spell effect.

Technically, what it says is:


Once a spell has been cast, it's effectively impossible to tell whether it is arcane or divine. If an observer actually witnesses the casting, the spell's components might give a clue to the spell's nature; for example, divine spells typically employ a holy symbol as a focus for the spell. Otherwise, nothing distinguishes an arcane spell effect from a divine spell effect.
It doesn't say it stops being either. It does say it's impossible to tell which of the two it is, which I suppose is true for most people in most D&D settings, but even at the end, it doesn't claim that arcane spell effects are not arcane or that divine effects are not divine.


On mimicking: I'm probably one of the few that claims for Sha'ir to be "other" rather than "both arcane and divine", so you don't have to sell me on "spell list access does not define arcane/divine", it's the MM "order of access" that makes me think of SLA as being typed.
Even taking this into consideration, I think the order-of-access list can only refer to the lists those classes draw from, as it states that SLAs duplicate spells that function differently when cast by different classes.

Now, SLAs are not cast, and therefore, it cannot be assumed that they benefit from the language that stipulates what kind of spells a certain class casts. They duplicate the spell as it appears on the list, but not necessarily as it is cast.

Supporting this is the fact that the list lists sorcerer/wizard, which is the name of a spell list and not a class (that said, the sentence still makes sense if we interpret it as simply being plain English using a slash as normal, instead of referencing the rules term 'sorcerer/wizard', but if the rules can be interpreted as referring to a strict rules term, I think they should be).

That said, even more support can be found in the fact that in rare cases, the sorcerer (possibly also the wizard, but I haven't checked) can cast spells appearing on the cleric list using the Domain Access ACF. If the order-of-access list actually referred to the spells duplicated by SLAs as they were actually cast by particular classes instead of referencing the spells as they existed on lists, this kind of scenario would render the order-of-access list incoherent and unable to determine what version of a spell some SLAs should be based on.


to me:
Suel arcanamach is typed because it's "Spells per day" specify "cast as a sorcerer does", and os his caster level is arcane
Sha'ir is untyped (to me) because "use arcane spell" and "use divine spell" to me does not equate to "have an arcane/divine caster level". his spells are neither prepared nor spontaneous, they are retrieved which is a category of its own and blablabla, not the point of the debate. He cast's arcane and divine spells, he has a shair caster level.
SLA to me is typed, because MM tell us "A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions" and blablabla, why I read this more along the line of example Suel arcanamach and not of example Sha'ir on my internal compass, I have difficulties articulating for.

most likely it's a "not the weave, not the divines" that triggers me about sha'ir, but I'm bad at extricating why-the-thing when I get to these dissonances I have in my stances

Yes, I am a massive PITA (pedant in the argument :P)
I would disagree with your analysis of the Sha'ir. Note the language:


A sha'ir is capable of extraordinarily versatile spellcasting because he can use arcane spells as well as a limited selection of divine spells.

Arcane Spell Known: To retrieve an arcane spell that the sha'ir can normally cast (that is, one within his Spells Known repertoire), the gen must search for a number of rounds equal to 1d4 + the spell level.

Arcane Spell Unknown: The sha'ir can cast a spell from the sorcerer/wizard list he does not know but has seen the effects of and identified with a successful Spellcraft check. If the sha'ir seeks to cast such an arcane spell, the gen must search for 1d6 minutes + 1 minute per spell level. A spell so retrieved does not become learned or known for the purposes of the gen retrieving it again.

Divine Spell: Retrieving a divine spell, known or not, takes a gen 1d6 hours + 1 hour per spell level. The gen can retrieve only divine spells from the domains indicated above.
Since the Sha'ir is only stated to be able to use arcane and divine spells, and all the spells he has access to are defined as being arcane or divine by way of the mechanism by which the gen retrieves them, all spells cast by the Sha'ir have a clear arcane or divine typing.

This is all it takes to determine whether an arcane or divine caster level is possessed. After all, other arcane or divine casting classes also do not have language specifically saying that they have an 'arcane caster level' or 'divine caster level'. Look at the PHB Sorcerer entry, for example. Nowhere do the words 'caster level' or 'arcane caster level' appear. Caster level is mentioned only in the entries of the half-caster classes, and even then it is not called out as arcane or divine. What gives a class an arcane or divine caster level is the ability to cast arcane or divine spells.

[ciopo]

Now, SLAs are not cast, and therefore, it cannot be assumed that they benefit from the language that stipulates what kind of spells a certain class casts. They duplicate the spell as it appears on the list, but not necessarily as it is cast.
Aren't they? because their description in the PHB qualify their activation action as "a spell-like ability has a casting time of" etcetera. ergo you are casting your SLA ( in my opinion)

Since the Sha'ir is only stated to be able to use arcane and divine spells, and all the spells he has access to are defined as being arcane or divine by way of the mechanism by which the gen retrieves them, all spells cast by the Sha'ir have a clear arcane or divine typing.

This is all it takes to determine whether an arcane or divine caster level is possessed. After all, other arcane or divine casting classes also do not have language specifically saying that they have an 'arcane caster level' or 'divine caster level'. Look at the PHB Sorcerer entry, for example. Nowhere do the words 'caster level' or 'arcane caster level' appear. Caster level is mentioned only in the entries of the half-caster classes, and even then it is not called out as arcane or divine. What gives a class an arcane or divine caster level is the ability to cast arcane or divine spells.

Mostly, my internal rethoric I use to "untype" Sha'ir is the same I use to disallow southern magician trick to early entry double progression classes, I don't feel like having this debate now, for I know my opinion on sha'ir is very odd, and it's ultimately not how I play it at actual tables anyway.

Chiefly, being able to cast an arcane spell does not make a character an arcane spellcaster, and my reasoning for it is related to scrolls/wands being "cast a spell"

I'd add that while in the first partial quote I say that we're casting our SLA, "of course" I don't consider it as casting, in the sense of "does it count as casting"

but then complete mage enters the arena, and goes on to ( page.. 71?) tell us that actually SLA totally count as casting for (some kind of) prerequisites. So nevermind the above opinion of mine that SLA doesn't count of casting, it totally count as casting as far as (some) prerequisites goes, because complete mage clarifies that.

which brings me to my end-of-thought-process of thinking it wouldn't be not-internally-consistent if it's typed spellcasting, so qualifying for arcane casting but not divine casting etcetera.


I'm ok to consider sha'ir as "both arcane/divine", and if it's a "loose" ruling then that specific to the sha'ir, and more of a general "this is a minor fixing of something unclear". but if you make the argument "tight", then also any shmuck with a wand qualify for whatever the wand qualify for


I hope I made sense in explaining myself, but probably not, sorry

[NontheistCleric]

Aren't they? because their description in the PHB qualify their activation action as "a spell-like ability has a casting time of" etcetera. ergo you are casting your SLA ( in my opinion)
Can you provide a direct quote for this? In every instance I can find, 'using a spell-like ability' is referred to as a separate thing from 'casting a spell'.


I'd add that while in the first partial quote I say that we're casting our SLA, "of course" I don't consider it as casting, in the sense of "does it count as casting"

but then complete mage enters the arena, and goes on to ( page.. 71?) tell us that actually SLA totally count as casting for (some kind of) prerequisites. So nevermind the above opinion of mine that SLA doesn't count of casting, it totally count as casting as far as (some) prerequisites goes, because complete mage clarifies that.
The rule in question states spell-like abilities qualify for specific spell prerequisites because what those prerequisites actually measure is the ability to generate the effects in question. It never says that spell-like abilities are cast. At best, they count as casting for the purposes of such prerequisites.

Also, the rule is in Complete Arcane, not Complete Mage.


which brings me to my end-of-thought-process of thinking it wouldn't be not-internally-consistent if it's typed spellcasting, so qualifying for arcane casting but not divine casting etcetera.

I'm ok to consider sha'ir as "both arcane/divine", and if it's a "loose" ruling then that specific to the sha'ir, and more of a general "this is a minor fixing of something unclear". but if you make the argument "tight", then also any shmuck with a wand qualify for whatever the wand qualify for

I hope I made sense in explaining myself, but probably not, sorry
Perhaps you're right about the wands. If so, so be it. It makes more sense to have wands qualify as spellcasting than to say a person who can cast arcane spells is not an arcane spellcaster.

[ciopo]

Can you provide a direct quote for this? In every instance I can find, 'using a spell-like ability' is referred to as a separate thing from 'casting a spell'.


The rule in question states spell-like abilities qualify for specific spell prerequisites because what those prerequisites actually measure is the ability to generate the effects in question. It never says that spell-like abilities are cast. At best, they count as casting for the purposes of such prerequisites.

Also, the rule is in Complete Arcane, not Complete Mage.


Perhaps you're right about the wands. If so, so be it. It makes more sense to have wands qualify as spellcasting than to say a person who can cast arcane spells is not an arcane spellcaster.

PHB page 180, the full paragraph is "Spell-Like Abilities: A dryad’s charm person effect and the greater teleport ability of many devils are spell-like abilities 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 has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted
otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated, such as an antimagic field. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature (such as some dragons) could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.

the bolded part is the one that makes me think "SLA=spells except as noted", both for having a casting time, and therefore being "cast", and for being typed (due to "functions just like a spell")


usually the counterargument on wand is that they aren't "really" casting a spell, but we're quibbling semantic either way, I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm having fun having a debate, hopefully you too!

Tho I'm curious, does SLA being "cast" make a difference to you? wands are unambigously typed, so I woulnd't use it as evidence that since they're cast, and SLA are also cast, therefore SLA are also typed.
But I'm kind of making that argument, I guess? *shrug emoji here*


I know and recognize my position on sha'ir is not much tenable, I don't play sha'ir that way either, it's fun-with-words hour

[animewatcha]

If dragon familiar is still a thing. Then if the character is willing to be a 'version of human', the southern magician feat can account for Dragon Familiar-based requirement. Lesser extent. Dragon Mag's Alternative source spell can do it too but requirement is arcane AND divine spellcasting ability.

[NontheistCleric]

PHB page 180, the full paragraph is "Spell-Like Abilities: A dryad’s charm person effect and the greater teleport ability of many devils are spell-like abilities 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 has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted
otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated, such as an antimagic field. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature (such as some dragons) could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.
Fair enough. I missed that text. Still, my other points on the order-of-access list stand.


usually the counterargument on wand is that they aren't "really" casting a spell, but we're quibbling semantic either way, I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm having fun having a debate, hopefully you too!

Tho I'm curious, does SLA being "cast" make a difference to you? wands are unambigously typed, so I woulnd't use it as evidence that since they're cast, and SLA are also cast, therefore SLA are also typed.
But I'm kind of making that argument, I guess? *shrug emoji here*
It makes some difference to the SLA typing argument, though not much. I don't really care about wands one way or another, but if I had to accept wands counting as casting for creatures that cast arcane spells to count as arcane spellcasters, I would. It is in any event wrong to claim that a Sha'ir is neither an arcane nor divine caster, when it is clearly both.


I know and recognize my position on sha'ir is not much tenable, I don't play sha'ir that way either, it's fun-with-words hour
If it's not tenable, then I honestly don't see the point of bringing it up in a rules discussion.

[Rebel7284]

What if you side-stepped the whole debate by just getting DN Caster level to 7?

Southern Magician -> Anyspell -> Suffer the Flesh -> DMM persist gets you up to +5 Caster level for 24 hours (coincidentally, it takes 24 hours to get a new familiar)

Get yourself another +1 CL boost and you're all set.

Based on the wording of Dragon Familiar, you don't even need to keep qualifying for the feat, at least unless your familiar dies and you want to replace it.

If you can't use regional content, Practiced Spellcaster gets you most of the way there too, just need +2 from items.

[incog64]

What if you side-stepped the whole debate by just getting DN Caster level to 7?

Southern Magician -> Anyspell -> Suffer the Flesh -> DMM persist gets you up to +5 Caster level for 24 hours (coincidentally, it takes 24 hours to get a new familiar)

Get yourself another +1 CL boost and you're all set.

Based on the wording of Dragon Familiar, you don't even need to keep qualifying for the feat, at least unless your familiar dies and you want to replace it.

If you can't use regional content, Practiced Spellcaster gets you most of the way there too, just need +2 from items.

I appreciate the idea but a level 7 dragon familiar isn't really attractive to me but thanks.

[Rebel7284]

I appreciate the idea but a level 7 dragon familiar isn't really attractive to me but thanks.

I don't think it would be a level 7 familiar just because you used arcane caster level 7 to qualify. The feat modifies your familiar options when you select a new familiar, but does not otherwise change the way your familiar ability functions. Caster level is just a requirement!

[incog64]

I don't think it would be a level 7 familiar just because you used arcane caster level 7 to qualify. The feat modifies your familiar options when you select a new familiar, but does not otherwise change the way your familiar ability functions. Caster level is just a requirement!

For dragon familiar caster level determines the type of dragon you can get.

[NontheistCleric]

Why don't you take Dragon Cohort? The dragon you get from that is a hundred times more powerful than any familiar.

[incog64]

Why don't you take Dragon Cohort? The dragon you get from that is a hundred times more powerful than any familiar.

I plan on taking that later.

[ciopo]

If it's not tenable, then I honestly don't see the point of bringing it up in a rules discussion.

Because my reasoning for "untyped shair" seems to me to be samey to the one you have for "untyped SLA", so it's somewhat cogent to the discussion.

The "problem" I have with Sha'ir is "in definition", because the difference between arcane magic and divine magic is mostly a matter of "source", not method, so stuff with the same source being arbitrarily typed differently irks me.

What, the "arcane" spells sha'ir are cast with precise gestures or whatever, while the "divine" are cast by invoking the good name of their elemental patron?

I am very nitpicky about languages at time


What I say when being nitpicking doens't mean I insist on drown healing or whatever when playing, which is what I mean about not being tenable on Sha'ir. In practice at table of course he's an arcane and divine spellcaster, even if I reject that definition in rules discussion because to me the statement "an arcane spellcaster casts arcane spell" does not equal to "those who cast arcane spell are arcane spellcasters". object and actor are not transitive, if you will.

[NontheistCleric]

You must realize, though, that there is no reasonable definition of 'arcane spellcaster' other than 'person who can cast arcane spells'.

Also, the fact that the Sha'ir takes significantly longer to retrieve divine spells implies that they do indeed come from a different source. Not all divine spells need a patron, either. Divine magic exists simply in nature, which is where druids and rangers get it from, and it can be stolen, too, like ur-priests do it.