Post/Author/DateTime	Post
spyderfreek 06-18-07, 03:59 PM	So here's the scenario: Our drow rogue has taken mage slayer from the CAr. We have been fighting lots of creatures with spell-like abilities. Does mage slayer affect creatures who cast spell-like abilities? Thus far our DM has ruled no, since the feat describes a person who has studied how casters cast. But the mechanics of the feat say any caster is subject to it, so any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Spyder
Esponer 06-18-07, 04:16 PM	MAGE SLAYER You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time your attacks and defenses against them expertly. Prerequisites: … Benefit: … Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively … Complete Arcane, Page 81 spellcaster: A character capable of casting spells. Player's Handbook 3.5, Page 313 spell: A one-time magical effect. The two primary categories of spells are arcane and divine. Clerics, druids, paladins and rangers cast divine spells, while wizards, sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells. Spells are further grouped into eight schools of magic. Player's Handbook 3.5, Page 312 spell-like ability (Sp): A special ability with effects that resemble those of a spell. In most cases, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of the same name. Player's Handbook 3.5, Page 313
spyderfreek 06-18-07, 04:26 PM	Thank you for defining all the pertinent details, but does this really answer my question or just make the question that much more obvious. Also you forgot one, using a spell like ability DOES provoke an attack of opportunity, just like the afore mentioned spell. Which means you nedd a concetration check to avoid said AoO. So that would tell me that mage-slayer would indeed do its job.
Esponer 06-18-07, 04:29 PM	Thank you for defining all the pertinent details, but does this really answer my question … Yes. Mage Slayer applies to spellcasters. Spellcasters are characters capable of casting spells. Spell-like abilities are not spells. Mage Slayer does not apply to spell-like abilities.
Pentar 06-18-07, 04:35 PM	Thank you for defining all the pertinent details, but does this really answer my question or just make the question that much more obvious. Also you forgot one, using a spell like ability DOES provoke an attack of opportunity, just like the afore mentioned spell. Which means you nedd a concetration check to avoid said AoO. So that would tell me that mage-slayer would indeed do its job. Hmm, I'd argue that it doesn't work on Spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities resemble spells in many ways, but they don't operate under the same mechanic. Any spell, effect or ability that affects both spells and spell-like abilities very often have it explicitly stated in the text (spells like Spell Immunity or Globe of Invulnerability are great examples). Unless it specifically says it works on Spell-like abilities, I would rule that it does not.
spyderfreek 06-18-07, 04:39 PM	Thank you both, that was the answer I was looking for. Sorry about getting sarcastic, but if I go back with a bunch of rules quotes i will get skewered for not getting the right answer.
tui 06-18-07, 05:12 PM	I don't see any reason Mage Slayer can't be used against spell-like abilities. From the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html): Using a Spell-Like Ability on the Defensive: You may attempt to use a spell-like ability on the defensive, just as with casting a spell. And probably most convincingly, from All About Spell-Like Abilities (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a): A spell-like ability can be disrupted. Anything that could disrupt a spellcaster's concentration and ruin a spell can do the same thing to a spell-like ability. And even the PHB excerpt quoted earlier: spell-like ability (Sp): A special ability with effects that resemble those of a spell. In most cases, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of the same name. Sure, a spell-like ability only resembles an actual spell, but it also works just like the spell (unless stated otherwise). Is there anything in Mage Slayer that explicitly tells you it DOESN'T work against SLAs?
Pentar 06-18-07, 05:17 PM	I don't see any reason Mage Slayer can't be used against spell-like abilities. From the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html): And probably most convincingly, from All About Spell-Like Abilities (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a): And even the PHB excerpt quoted earlier: Sure, a spell-like ability only resembles an actual spell, but it also works just like the spell (unless stated otherwise). Is there anything in Mage Slayer that explicitly tells you it DOESN'T work against SLAs? The question isn't how closely a Spell-Like ability resembles a Spell. It's whether or not a creature who utilizes Spell-Like abilities is considered a "Spellcaster". A spell caster casts spells. Period. End of sentence. Spell-Like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells, therefore, arguably, a creature who employs SLA and only SLAs, is not technically a "spellcaster".
tui 06-18-07, 06:24 PM	The question isn't how closely a Spell-Like ability resembles a Spell. It's whether or not a creature who utilizes Spell-Like abilities is considered a "Spellcaster". A spell caster casts spells. Period. End of sentence. Spell-Like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells, therefore, arguably, a creature who employs SLA and only SLAs, is not technically a "spellcaster". I get what you're saying. Mage Slayer says it disrupts Spellcasters. Period. But "anything that could disrupt a spellcaster's concentration and ruin a spell can do the same thing to a spell-like ability." What you're saying is that restricting it to Spellcasters in the feat description is meant to exclude things that do not, strictly speaking, cast Spells. (Such as spell-like abilities or psionics.) What I'm saying is that the line in the RotG (and in the glossary) about how spell-like abilities are disrupted, says that anything that disrupts Spellscasters (including Mage Slayer) works the same on Spell-Like Abilities. Since we're both reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I doubt either one of us is going to change our mind without additional material to consider.... In my research, I read some of the same language about spell-like abilities for psionics. Like in this RotG article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060613a): "Anything that could disrupt a spellcaster's concentration and ruin a spell can do the same thing to a psionic power." I also read several threads debating whether Mage Slayer worked against a manifestor (assuming psionics-magic transparency), without any particularly definitive conclusion either way. What do you think about the psionics issue? [I don't mean to derail this thread, but it seems to me that whatever is decided there should also apply to SLAs.]
Pentar 06-18-07, 06:50 PM	I get what you're saying. Mage Slayer says it disrupts Spellcasters. Period. But "anything that could disrupt a spellcaster's concentration and ruin a spell can do the same thing to a spell-like ability." What you're saying is that restricting it to Spellcasters in the feat description is meant to exclude things that do not, strictly speaking, cast Spells. (Such as spell-like abilities or psionics.) What I'm saying is that the line in the RotG (and in the glossary) about how spell-like abilities are disrupted, says that anything that disrupts Spellscasters (including Mage Slayer) works the same on Spell-Like Abilities. Since we're both reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I doubt either one of us is going to change our mind without additional material to consider.... Well, you could base it off the conceivable training a person with the Mage Slayer feat would have received. A Mage Slayer is probably trained to watch for the tell-tale signs of spell-casting ... hand waving, incantations, components, etc. Spell-Like Abilities are acts of pure will - there is no components, gestures or anything, it just happens. It could be argued that the Mage Slayer feat simply does not work because they can't be taught to watch for something without any tell-tale signs. I also read several threads debating whether Mage Slayer worked against a manifestor (assuming psionics-magic transparency), without any particularly definitive conclusion either way. What do you think about the psionics issue? [I don't mean to derail this thread, but it seems to me that whatever is decided there should also apply to SLAs.] I don't play much with Psionics in my campaigns, so I have very little exposure to them. I'd say that it would apply to Spell-Like abilities in the same way (that is, Mage Slayer would not work). I guess the question is a matter of balance... Should a single Feat allow a character to prevent all forms of spell and spell-like defensive casting? I think that's an incredibly powerful and broad-reaching feat, if that is the case. Simultaneously, there is no such thing as a "Spell-Like Ability Slayer" feat, or "Psionic Slayer" feat (that I'm aware of), so it could be argued that Mage Slayer was meant to encompass them. Consider other implications as well; if you designate all creatures with Spell-Like Abilities as "spellcasters", then that means that designation works in all facets. Take for example, Feeblemind, which says if a creature can cast arcane spells, then they take a penalty to their save. Casting a spell is not the same as activating a spell-like ability - on this we are agreed. But it would be arguable that if you allow Mage Slayer to work on all things that have Spell-Like abilities, then Feeblemind would likewise work on them if the SLAs they can access are Arcane spells. It's one of those distinctions, that once muddied, can be difficult to ... unmuddy :)
Salla 06-18-07, 06:54 PM	The question isn't how closely a Spell-Like ability resembles a Spell. It's whether or not a creature who utilizes Spell-Like abilities is considered a "Spellcaster". A spell caster casts spells. Period. End of sentence. Spell-Like abilities are not the same thing as casting spells, therefore, arguably, a creature who employs SLA and only SLAs, is not technically a "spellcaster". I agree with this. Mage Slayer is useless against psions or warlocks. :)
Cinnamongrl 06-18-07, 07:10 PM	As a DM, I would say YES, it does affect creatures with spell likes. Anything with an innate Caster level would be a spellcaster to me, a creature with a spell-like always has a caster level - hence spellcaster. Things that DON'T count - Manifesters, anything with a "psi-like" (whether it says "casterlevel" or not!), Supernatural abilities, spell-likes granted by items, and Artificers (Eberron - not "casters"). My 2 cents.
tui 06-18-07, 07:31 PM	But it would be arguable that if you allow Mage Slayer to work on all things that have Spell-Like abilities, then Feeblemind would likewise work on them if the SLAs they can access are Arcane spells. Actually, feeblemind already does work on SLA-users. See this Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040504a) article: Anything that disrupts a creature's mental processes or concentration also prevents the use of spell-like abilities, including the feeblemind spell I don't think that necessarily negates your general argument; it's just doesn't apply to that specific example. Can you think of anything similar to compare it to?
TheWhirlingDeathaxe 06-18-07, 07:34 PM	Hmmmm.....I think I'm gonna have to say it would work on spell like abilities. Please understand that this is just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. As a DM I would rule that it would work only because it simply makes more sense. A warlock is a spellcaster if you ask me. They just happen to have spell like abilities instead of slots or spells per day. Given the flavor of the feat and the idea behind it, theres no reason a rogue couldn't disrupt a warlocks invocations in the exact same manner as he would a wizard casting a spell. Psionics, on the other hand, is a whole other can of beans. Even if you assume the magic/psionics transparency, Magic and Psionics are still so different that I don't know if the same feat would allow you to disrupt both. Just in terms of the technique used to disrupt them. Thats a tough question.
Pentar 06-19-07, 12:14 PM	Actually, feeblemind already does work on SLA-users. See this Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040504a) article: Tui, The question was not whether or not Feeblemind worked on SLA-users... THe spell works on everyone. The point was would an SLA user suffer a -4 to their saving throw against Feeblemind? Are they considered "Arcane spell casters", or are they merely a creature with Spell-Like Abilities? My contention is that they would not suffer a penalty to saving throws, because a Spell-Like Ability is not a spell... so they're not "casting" anything. They are subject to the spell - just like a creature with no spell abilities at all is subject to the spell, but they have no modifications to their save that an arcane spell caster would have.
angryscrub 06-19-07, 04:55 PM	heh. there was an argument about just this in a fighter sucks thread a few months ago. two separate people in the thread called customer service because they disagreed with my logic and got the same answer as what i was saying. mage slayer does not affect SLA's, by the RAW. it keys off of spellcasters. that's the first thing it looks for. if you are not a spellcaster, the feat is never activated. even if you are, the second key it looks for is if you are casting a spell. it is actually very clearly worded, and in such a way that it definitely does not affect SLA's or psionics. i'm not saying you shouldn't house rule it to affect anything and everything, but i really don't see how there can be any debate about the language.
tui 06-20-07, 10:47 PM	heh. there was an argument about just this in a fighter sucks thread a few months ago. two separate people in the thread called customer service because they disagreed with my logic and got the same answer as what i was saying. Ok, I'll accept that; thanks for introducing something new; I felt like we just kept going around and around. (I stopped reading fighters-suck threads long ago. :) ) And thanks Pentar for your well-reasoned argument.