I think some priority rule like the UMR probably better captures it.Īlso, it would be nice to have a single rule that explains 'which version of the spell' rather than two close but not the same rules. Would an SLA of the spell be considered Arcane? I find that difficult to believe. The difference: cure light wounds is on the Bard spell list. (6) And even if you don't think there's a huge value to it in this particular case, it's so little effort to click the FAQ flag, and so little effort for the PDT to either tweak the wording or just flag this thread 'answered in FAQ,' it seems that the benefit–however small–is worth the tiny cost.īenn Roe wrote: That could still possibly lead to corner cases where a spell appears on the witch list as well as a few divine lists and end up being 'arcane' for spell-like abilities, but I imagine those cases will be rare, and I'm certainly not going looking for them. (5) And even if we all agree on what the intent probably was, it's worthwhile to have an FAQ that says what it means, and it's worthwhile to clear up rules text. Even though it seems obvious to us, maybe we're wrong! (4) And given how the recent FAQs about SLAs have surprised a lot of folks, I think it's very much worth asking to make sure. And you've seen the arguments we can get up to. (3) 'Most reasonable people will agree.' Maybe.

But sure, we're basically in agreement about what is probably intended here. (1) I think the intent is probably something like the UMR for determining which 'version' of a spell an SLA uses, not 'if it only appears on divine spell lists.' More on the distinction below. I realize that's what you're asking them to clarify, but I think most reasonable people will agree that's the intent. But since Sean K Reynolds has made it clear that a single, concise question in its own thread is most likely to get treated in an FAQ, here we are.īenn Roe wrote: It's pretty clear the intent of the ruling is that it's arcane unless it only appears on divine lists. on the standard cleric or druid spell list').Ĭredit where credit is due: Rogue Eidolon was the first to ask this question. Some more examples (though I don't know anywhere that these actually come up as SLAs): an SLA of cure light wounds would be Arcane, since it's on the Bard list an SLA of bless weapon would be Arcane, since it's on the Paladin list (not 'only. the standard cleric or druid spell list,' the current FAQ would count that SLA as Arcane. Corruption resistance appears only on the Antipaladin, Inquisitor, and Paladin spell lists. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.Īnother example of the same question is the Incorruptible alternate racial trait for Aasimars, which grants corruption resistance in place of daylight. PRD wrote: A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions.

But given the language of the current FAQ and the PDT's consistent stance that SLAs should default to Arcane, maybe the rule is different. I assume that something like the Universal Monster Rules on SLAs should operate to determine whether the SLA is Arcane or Divine. So please click the FAQ flag on this post to request a clarification or re-affirmation from the Pathfinder Design Team.

But recognizing dumbness if the first step to fixing dumbness.' As Quandary put it, 'So by the RAW of the FAQ, the SNA spells that are also on the Ranger list would be arcane since they are also on the Ranger list. Since summon nature's ally appears on the Ranger list as well as the Druid list, taking the FAQ strictly would result in an Arcane SLA. FAQ wrote: Most spell-like abilities should be considered arcane, unless the spell in question only appears on the standard cleric or druid spell list (such as holy smite) or something about the creature strongly indicates its spell-like abilities should be considered divine (such as a solar's spell-like abilities, as a solar usually directly serves a deity).

Carcassonne rules clarification