First off, I want to tell you all to fvck yourselves for making me do this. OK, I'm kidding, first because nobody "made" me do anything, second because I'll survive the trauma.
Well, the actually serious part's that that's why I don't get in the kind of discussion so quoted in "Revenge of Threads ...": it involves lots of quoting text we
know to be stupid already, just for making a point about specific details on D&D crap instead of working on making it better - which'd start by just cutting the retarded crap off the game. There's also the fact that, aside from any rules issues, reading official D&D involves trudging through horrendous writing ...
Warmaster, thanks; JE, you're right ...
---
Original issue raised by Manxome:
The MM sure says what Talisman said (yes, I checked). Meanwhile:
RC wrote:Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time.
Seems to imply that times longer than 1 standard action are specifically reduced, right? Even if it doesn't for you, it at least happens to not be what Manxome's reading in the SRD, at all. So ... find some culprit other than RC text as-is (but note that, while it didn't produce the exact divergence Manxome mentions, it does "pull a 3.5"). I just checked, it doesn't have errata (I do remember seeing people requesting it ...). Back to the SRDs, the lack of highli
ghting (Or is "-lite" just as correct, or should I just consider it slang?) mentioned by Manxome seems to agree with me - someone changed it with basis on their own opinion? LOL, nothing against opinions (or even RAI arguments, in many instances), but passing one's own as rules ...
Warmaster, let me just check whaddya mean with "the community at large": actually everyone, or the community that discusses D&D (the one subset for whom I think that issue would matter as opposed to "whatever houserule we use for it, or not")? Because I'm not even near sure the second has such a non-SRD-using majority.
EDIT (yeah, you may notice I wrote this
before posting - sue me): I re-read the thread while writing; when I arrived at the reference to Magic Overwiew ... lo and behold - it
is there (I'm sure you all know how to use Ctrl+F), in both SRD and book! In any case, as far as Ex/Sp/Su abilities go, MM trumps anything else in case of contradiction - but I happen to think one could made a pretty good case that there's no contradiction, just a spelling-out of what "otherwise" should mean.
---
As for the Sp vs. Su issue, I went through the meaningful differences between the types. And I didn't mean Frank but whoever created the precedent, but there's stuff to point on at least the marshal.
Sources:
My 3.5 books and an old official (
www.wizards.com/d20) SRD copy, from which I pulled just the MM text because I pasted it on WordPad; its text seemed exactly equal to the MM's. The relevant information from the DMG goes thusly:
º The MM text doesn't say but imply that Sp actually are dispellable; the DMG text does - hilarious with the MM being the primary source.
º OTOH, while the DMG just proved kinda sorta awesome (when put in contrast to a crappy MM to begin with, of course), its table right away tells us that Su are dispellable. Fortunately, as the cavalier well knows, text trumps table*, and the DMG text agrees with the MM (hell, it'd lose if it didn't anyway, but that's not really an excuse). So thumbs down.
*: if the gentle (I can only suppose that to be
heavy irony in this forum) reader is of the kind that'd try to pull this in an actual game, I'd like to hear what you'd have to say on "may declare a 'deadly charge' before making his attack roll (thus, a failed attack ruins the attempt)." What's ruined other than what everyone ruins when missing (a.k.a. not hitting)? Why's it so similar to the paladin with its per-day smite evil - might it have to do with the fact it's (actually, "was obviously intended to be and perhaps only balanced if it is", since no, it isn't from a technical PoV, and yeah, I know saying "balanced" without an "un-" prefix in a sentence about WotC helps losing any argument - I don't think that was actually balanced) per day too?
Then I actually went for the ... Rules Compendium. I found the quote above, and this retardation:
Retard wrote:NAME THAT SPECIAL ABILITY TYPE
If you’re ever find yourself waiting for that last player to show up, here’s a quick game you can play. Grab a Monster Manual—it doesn’t matter which one. Open it up to a random spread, and do a quick scan of the special abilities on those two pages. Pick the monster you think has the hardest special ability type to guess, and read its name and the special ability aloud to your friends (leaving out the special ability type designator, of course). As a group, the other players must agree upon one of the special ability types for their answer. If they guess it right, everyone in the group gets the monster’s CR in points. If they don’t, you get the CR in points. Pass the book clockwise and repeat. Whoever has the most points after one circuit of the book wins.
This game is just good geeky silliness. When you start playing it, you’ll get tripped up on things that seem strange at first glance (such as the beholder’s flight—extraordinary!), by effects that are extraordinary for a monster but magical for characters, or traditional spell effects that can be supernatural (such as the pixie’s greater invisibility). Silliness aside, it also increases your familiarity with the game and its exceptions—at least when it comes to monsters and their abilities.
—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, developer
BTW, let me say that not knowing why beholder's flight's Ex shows ignorance of D&D history.
Aside from the quote to Manxome's starting question, no other difference from MM/DMG text.
End result:
Sp have no default caster level, unlike Su that have it equal to HD. That was for better or worse depending on how close you followed HD = CR = ECL. I dare say that, since "really damn close" is the answer that shows the best design, Su > Sp here, flat-out. In the specific case of the 2 base classes, since Sp are set customarily to either class or character level (meaning HD, WotC says "fvck you" if you have a LA, as always), the only difference's for multiclassers, and,
as I pointed out, the Tome pattern of setting to character level should be followed at least in to-be Tome-compatible stuff - unless of course a given ability was Su in the first place and preempted the issue (not that it should always be done - most Sp are ... rightly Sp, duh). I grant that Sp defaulting to HD screws things on ... a lot of monsters, in which case I shall forward the blame to another retarded fvcker: the one who thought exceptions to HD = CR = ECL were a good idea (I just hope nobody manages to find a way to include Frank in
that too, as in that case
I'll start considering killing his family*).
Also, Sp always default to Cha while Su "often" (BTW, why include that information, since anyone making a low-Cha monster can make it different anyway, without even having to call it a proper exception, since it wasn't a rule in the first place?) does; one could say that'd make Su slightly more appropriate for classes due to allowing Cha non-relevance (though, of course: hell, Sp might just've been like Su in that, and have most monstrous stuff default to Cha - sorta hilarious in that people don't associate "monster" and "charismatic" all that often, but that's sorta how (the one true) D&D seems to roll ...), others might disagree, but it's moot with 2 Cha-centric classes.
Up to here, I can safely claim there's no reason for any non-spell-mimicking SLA in either class not to be Su without even needing to read their text.
*: if someone (including himself, but I doubt it) would think Frank's family's too sensitive a issue right now to be joked with, I say - who knows Caedrus' wasn't too, in which case Frank did the same? And in the end, I don't think anyone should care: I know for a fact that
my family's a sensitive issue now, and I won't buy even a ... centimeter into someone saying they'll kill any relative of mine, and if I don't find it funny, it's due to something happening on my side - not because it isn't!
---
That leaves us with the mentioned: SR, dispelling, disrupting, AoOs, to use as criteria on what happens if specific Sp abilities of the classes turn Su.
Fire mage
Fire burst: instantaneous duration -> no dispelling.
Fire bolts, ray of light: instantaneous duration -> no dispelling, ranged attack -> AoOs anyway even with Su.
Ignite: looks like its duration's actually instantaneous (reinforced by it having a crappy seemingly "natural" Reflex DC instead of a real one), which'd mean no dispelling. Someone might also argue that "always hits" means "impossible to disrupt", but I wouldn't do that.
Smokeless flames, beacon: SR? LOL! As for disrupting and AoOs, one could argue they aren't meant for use in pitched battle, but I find that argument crappy myself, as I sure can see uses. The part where things turn worse for me's that beacon seems specifically meant to be dispellable.
Fireballs, mindfire, visions of flames, sending: while all have meaningful differences from spells, all are based on them.
Soul of cinders: am I allowed to just say "typo" here?
Sculpt flames, fire clouds: sculpt flames in part does emulate a spell, but yeah, it's here that my argument goes pretty sour, since the only unused thing's SR - all others make pretty much sense ...
Conflagration: I can't tell for sure if that was supposed to be instantaneous or have unbounded duration. If the former, no dispelling; if the latter, no SR (as it'd be a personal effect). Also, if the duration's unbounded (which I'd think was Frank's idea), AoOs and disrupting turn way less of a concern, since they'd be used likely way before combat in a lot of circumstances (and not at all in others, such as being indoors - actual doors, not a "dungeon"). Also, part of it does emulate a spell.
Firewalk: "walk" - hey, are you telling me that a) you have to walk in and then spend a standard action, b) you have to spend a standard action to move in (hey, that's technically not even possible, and the ability doesn't introduce a specific exception), or c) you just walk in, and the fvcking activation be damned? I think the latter, and in that case disrupting and AoOs (other than by movement, which wouldn't be provoked in the destination flaming square anyway, thus having nothing at all to do with the ability) make precisely no sense. Dispelling? LOL! SR? With it affecting person + willing + objects, who the fvck cares?
Bonds of fire: worse, all 4 make sense (though the unmentioned range might make one assume that RAI was line of sight, which ties in with the abilities below).
Searing light: SR doesn't fit but dispelling might. As for disrupting and AoOs, I feel compelled to say "it targets line of sight, you shouldn't be subject to them anyway", but I have some pretty good reasons for others to disagree, so ...
Rain of fire: SR can well fit and it's instantaneous. As for range, see above.
That was bad, actually.
Marshal
Heal injuries, revive the dead: AoOs? LOL! Dispelling? LOL! SR: depends - would you say it can bring back people against their will (sure, it doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't, but that's not how resurrection works - not that it can't be interesting)? Disrupting: since we're talking 10-100 full-round actions here, "disrupting" them's as simple as denying the marshal a move/standard action, or forcing them to use it to defend themselves. If somehow there's someone interested in disrupting them that's too weak to do either, the chances of them dealing damage at all aren't good and the chances of that causing disruption get even slimmer if the marshal has Concentration (does have it in-class). If the marshal has no Concentration indeed and is attacked continuously: a) if you'd be OK with a marshal with Concentration calmly continuing the ritual while under constant attack, does it change a lot without it? B) with Concentration or not, I think a lot of ... GMs (you're free to declare "GM fiat = suck", especially since I do so all the time, but I find it kind of hard to argue with in that case) are going to allow disruption just by something like "messing with components" if the marshal takes no action to prevent it - if they do ...
Restoration, heal, mass heal: those do emulate spells.
Phew, so much easier.
The last thing I can, more "ask" than "say", is: would it make a lot of difference if the fire mage abilities were (perhaps mostly instead of entirely) Su? What about making some of them be based on spells? Finally, you'll notice that those abilities don't have an activation time, which might tie into Manxome's complaint (but I'm actually fairly sure than Frank considers Magic Overview to contradict the MM and thus cease to matter, having SLAs indeed default to standard); also, if they are supposed to require concentration, they've no effective spell level listed (one might argue RAI and Tome convention as being "half character level rounded up", but that's not stated anywhere, and, as I said, Tome convention has been explicitly ignored in at least the marshal's case); I dare say that's extra support for just making them Su.