List of EX abilities? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JaronK

2011-10-12, 02:41 AM

From the FAQ:
Can a factotum of 19th level use cunning brilliance to emulate a rogue's sneak attack ability?

...

It's reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear, supernatural element should be fair play.

So there you go. Any class ability that lacks a clear supernatural element (i.e. not obviously magic) is Ex and good to go.

Note that FAQ page 37 also says that all feats are always ex, except for exalted feats and other feats that specifically say otherwise. Thus, Fighter bonus feats are Ex.

From Rules of the Game: Polymorph:

Extraordinary Ability: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without natural talent or extensive training. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.

Extraordinary abilities often depend on particular physical adaptations that a creature has. Changing form often strips the recipient of some extraordinary abilities, but grants some extraordinary abilities that the assumed form has. In general, when you assume a new form, you lose any extraordinary special attacks and special qualities you have unless you get them from a character class. You usually gain any extraordinary special attacks your assumed form has, but not the assumed form's extraordinary special qualities. That's because most extraordinary special attacks are based off gross physical features (such a big, nasty claws and teeth) while extraordinary special qualities tend to be subtler and largely derived from a creature's essential nature.

Spell-Like Ability: Spell-like abilities are magical. (They're also the subject of an earlier installment in this series.) A creature usually retains its spell-like abilities when it assumes another form because spell-like abilities are primarily mental in nature. You don't gain an assumed form's spell-like abilities when polymorphing or even when using the very powerful shape change spell.

Supernatural Ability: Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Some supernatural abilities depend on specific parts of the user's body, but most are derived from a creature's essential self. When polymorphing, you retain most of your own supernatural abilities, but you don't gain the assumed form's supernatural abilities unless you're using the shape change spell.

When a supernatural ability depends on part of your body that your assumed form does not have, such as a mouth for a breath weapon or eyes for a gaze attack, you lose that supernatural ability when in the assumed form.

Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form.

So again, Ex abilities are non magic abilities that you learn, while natural abilities are a catch all for stuff that's inherent to the physical form of the creature. This backs up that all non magical class abilities (except perhaps claw attacks gained by shapeshifting, or other abilities that change your physical form) are Ex.

Since all Sp and Su abilities are marked as such, all unmarked class abilities are Ex (many unmarked non magical racial abilities are too, but some are Na).

For further reference, the SRD says basically what the PHB says:

Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Table: Special Ability Types
Extraordinary Spell-Like Supernatural
Dispel: Can dispel magic and similar spells dispel the effects of abilities of that type?

Spell Resistance: Does spell resistance protect a creature from these abilities?
Antimagic Field: Does an antimagic field or similar magic suppress the ability?
Attack of Opportunity: Does using the ability provoke attacks of opportunity the way that casting a spell does?
Dispel No Yes No
Spell resistance No Yes No
Antimagic field No Yes Yes
Attack of opportunity No Yes No
Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature.

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
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 takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:

Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. 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.

A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit.

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.

Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.

Supernatural Abilities (Su)
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:

10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).

For other sources, see also Monster Manual, DMG, and Fiend Folio, all of which discuss this topic.

JaronK

Tytalus

2011-10-12, 08:47 AM

Note that FAQ page 37 also says that all feats are always ex, except for exalted feats and other feats that specifically say otherwise.

That's not true.

A *question* (not an answer) on FAQ page 37 wrongly claims that all non-exalted feats are (Ex), referring to the BoED page 39. There, no such RAW support is given (also, you misrepresent the context of "feats that specifically say otherwise", implying that it applies to all feats instead of only the feats granted by VoP). On the contrary; the BoED (same page) explicitly says that *most* feats are (Ex), which clearly implies that not all of them are. To claim that the non-(Ex) feats are just the exalted feats (and thus claiming all others (Ex)) goes beyond what the RAW provides.

Thus, Fighter bonus feats are Ex.

That doesn't follow from the cited source.

---

Also: for the purpose of determining if a Factotum can duplicate the fighter ability, the question is not whether any/all fighter bonus feats are (Ex), but whether the fighter class ability "Bonus Feats" is (Ex). The latter is - unfortunately - not covered in the ability description.

So again, Ex abilities are non magic abilities that you learn, while natural abilities are a catch all for stuff that's inherent to the physical form of the creature. This backs up that all non magical class abilities (except perhaps claw attacks gained by shapeshifting, or other abilities that change your physical form) are Ex.

Since all Sp and Su abilities are marked as such, all unmarked class abilities are Ex (many unmarked non magical racial abilities are too, but some are Na).

The somewhat loose interpretation aside, this assumes that class abilities have to be either (Ex), (Su), (Sp) or natural, which further assumes that class abilities are not just special abilities, but fall under what D&D defines as "special abilities" (PHB, p.180). That doesn't seem to apply (Example: "Spells", i.e. spellcasting derived from class levels: it's neither Su nor Sp (see definitions), nor Ex (disruptable in combat, for example), and it doesn't make sense as a natural ability).

In terms of D&D defining special abilities, official sources contradict each other. The PHB, p. 180 lists natural abilties as one kind of special ability, while the MM1, p. 6 excludes them: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)". It seems the designers weren't in total agreement what actually is a special ability, and cases like "Spells" above that don't fit any of the categories imply that the argument (paraphrased as: "if it's not (Su) or (Sp) and doesn't fit well as natural, it has to be (Ex)") is flawed.

---

dl;dr/to the OP: unless a class ability is clearly marked as (Ex), it's best to discuss it with your DM.

Morph Bark

2011-10-12, 12:09 PM

dl;dr/to the OP: unless a class ability is clearly marked as (Ex), it's best to discuss it with your DM.

By RAW, this is the way to go. An ability that has no (Ex), (Su), (Sp) or (Ps) next to its name is a natural ability (like Spellcasting), but it is not (Ex), thus making it off-limits.

If this proves limiting though, the FAQ generally gives a fair guideline, but that is up to your DM.

JaronK

2011-10-12, 01:29 PM

By RAW, this is the way to go. An ability that has no (Ex), (Su), (Sp) or (Ps) next to its name is a natural ability (like Spellcasting), but it is not (Ex), thus making it off-limits.

This is completely false. Na abilities are never given by classes. Special Abilities (which is what all class abilities are, see ever monster entry with class abilities) are never Na (see SRD, MM1, DMG, FF, and Rules of the Game). This is a misinterpretation of the PHB, which says that abilities which are not designated as Ex, Sp, or Su is Natural. But many books state that all special abilities ARE designated Ex, Sp, or Su. In other words, abilities which are NOT special abilities are natural. Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph clarifies this, and many books explicitly state this.

The somewhat loose interpretation aside, this assumes that class abilities have to be either (Ex), (Su), (Sp) or natural,

As per the PHB, SRD, DMG, Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and Rules of the Game, all abilities are Ex, Su, Sp, or Na. Furthermore, as per all of those sources except the PHB (note MM1 is the primary source), all Special Abilities are Ex, Su, or Sp. So yes, I assume that because it's probably the single most repeated rule in all of D&D.

Here's one example, from the SRD: "Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

This establishes that all abilities must be Ex, Sp, Su, or Na, because anything that's not one of the first three is in the last category. It also establishes that Na abilities aren't given by training (classes) and are rather always based on physical form.

"Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature."

This establishes that all special abilities (including all class abilities) must be Ex, Sp, or Su. It is the single most repeated rule in all of D&D.

As you can see from that right there, all abilities must be Na, Sp, Su, or Ex, and Na abilities are only those a creature has because of its physical nature (not training, like a class). Special Abilities (which class abilities are) are always Ex, Sp, or Su. Furthermore, Special Abilities are defined on page 299 of the Monster Manual as "anything the creature uses to offensively harm or hinder another creature" (it then lists Spells as an example, by the way). Note that in context, natural weapons are mentioned ahead of this and are not Special Attacks... any OTHER method of offensive harm or hindrance is a Special Attack. Note also that Special Attacks are a sub category of Special Abilities.

which further assumes that class abilities are not just special abilities, but fall under what D&D defines as "special abilities" (PHB, p.180).

Um, what? Yes, special abilities are special abilities. The only abilities which are not special abilities are natural abilities (such as run speed). Those abilities are inherent to the physical form, and thus cannot be granted by classes (except classes that change your physical form, such as the Geomancer).

By the way, every monster entry with class levels has all class abilities listed as Special Abilities. For example:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm

See how all his Ranger abilities are Special Abilities? And yes, as per Monster Manual (page 6), DMG, and Fiend Folio all Special Qualities are Special Abilities... Special Abilities, as a category, is broken down into Special Qualities and Special Attacks. Note that the newer way of listing creatures doesn't specify which abilities are Special Attacks and which are Special Qualities, so those are useless for figuring this out... but all the older entries, which showed this, make it completely clear. I challenge you to find a single counter example in any old monster entry ever.

That doesn't seem to apply (Example: "Spells", i.e. spellcasting derived from class levels: it's neither Su nor Sp (see definitions), nor Ex (disruptable in combat, for example), and it doesn't make sense as a natural ability).

As per MMV and Fiendish Codex, the ability to cast spells as a class ability is explicitly Ex. For example:

Mock Divinity (Ex): A Lilitu casts spells as a 9th level cleric...

MMV has creatures that cast as Wizards... this is also listed as Ex.

Rules of the Game on Antimagic clarifies this as well, pointing out that you CAN use spellcasting in an Antimagic field, but that the spell is simply suppressed until you leave the field. By comparison, a Factotum can't cast at all in an antimagic field, because his ability is Sp. So yes, Spellcasting is non magical, and is Ex, despite having a specific override of the disruption rule. It's also listed as a Special Attack in every old style Monster Entry where the creature has spells (including spells gained from class levels) and is listed as an example of a Special Attack on page 299 of the Monster Manual (the primary source for special ability types).

Again, seriously the rule that all Special Abilities (Spells are a Special Attack) are Sp, Su, or Ex is the single most repeated rule in all of D&D, found in a huge number of books. Trying to argue against it is silly. In the primary source for Sp, Su, and Ex abilities (the Monster Manual) the rule is referenced repeatedly too... for example, page 294 ("Adding Special Abilities. You can add any sort of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to a creature.") and page 315 ("Special Abilities: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)")

Yes, this is a wall of text, but I've been over this one far too many times. I challenge you to find a single rule repeated more times than the typing rules.

JaronK

Tvtyrant

2011-10-12, 02:44 PM

JaronK

2011-10-12, 02:53 PM

The real question is not whether this is true, but how much further damage it does to balance if it is true. For example, under this ruling a wizard could shapechange into a monk at level 20, and gain all of the monks class abilities and feats.

No, the question is what's true. You can chose to house rule it again later as you see fit, but the question is what RAW is.

But no, a Wizard can't Shapechange into a Monk, because "Monk" is a class, not a creature. He could, however, Shapechange into a Solar and thus gain Cleric 20 spellcasting. Of course, he can also just use Gate to get a Solar and have the same thing with extra actions, so it really doesn't change all that much in the long run.

Step 1: Understand RAW.
Step 2: Understand what RAW does to the game.
Step 3: Make house rules.

Skipping straight to 3 without 1&2 often leads to problems. RAW is that all non magical class abilities are Ex (and since Su and Sp abilities are almost always either labeled as such or stated as such elsewhere, this means all unmarked class abilities are Ex). From there, balance accordingly.

JaronK

Tytalus

2011-10-13, 11:57 AM

As per the PHB, SRD, DMG, Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and Rules of the Game, all abilities are Ex, Su, Sp, or Na.

The appropriate sections talk about "special abilities", not abilities. Apparently, "special abilities" do not include all abilities, see the spellcasting example.

This establishes that all abilities must be Ex, Sp, Su, or Na, because anything that's not one of the first three is in the last category. It also establishes that Na abilities aren't given by training (classes) and are rather always based on physical form.

Again, it specifies special abilities, which obviously have a certain D&D rule meaning. Also, a strict reading does not provide the basis for your second claim; all it says it that a natural ability is based on a creature's physical nature. If a class happens to change that, it might provide such abilities.

Case in point: Elemental Savant [CArc] and its signature ability.

This establishes that all special abilities (including all class abilities) must be Ex, Sp, or Su.

Natural abilites are also special abilities.

The question is whether class abilites are "special abilities". That has not been shown (indicated at best with the troll ranger example), and examples showing the opposite (Spellcasting derived from class levels) seem to imply otherwise.

Furthermore, Special Abilities are defined on page 299 of the Monster Manual as "anything the creature uses to offensively harm or hinder another creature" (it then lists Spells as an example, by the way).

To be precise, that section talks about "special attacks", not "special abilities". Both have a distinct rule meaning that goes beyon their natural language equivalents.

Spellcasting derived from class levels actually has consistently not been assigned a type (Ex, Sp, Su, Na) in every single rulebook. Still, it's listed as a special attack.

Um, what? Yes, special abilities are special abilities.

The point is that there's a distinction in the rule definition and the natural language usage.

As per MMV and Fiendish Codex, the ability to cast spells as a class ability is explicitly Ex. For example:

MMV has creatures that cast as Wizards... this is also listed as Ex.

As mentioned above: no single rulebook lists spellcasting derived from class levels with a type, including the ones you mention. The examples shown here are special monster abilities that obviously work (slightly) differently, in particular, as (Ex) abilities, they cannot be disrupted in combat - unlike normal spellcasting.

So yes, Spellcasting is non magical, and is Ex, despite having a specific override of the disruption rule.

There's no "specific override". For that, the RAW would have to explicitly state that despite being Ex, spellcasing does incure AoOs. I'm not aware of such a rule.

The rules for (Ex) abilities and spellcasting are simply not compatible. In fact, the primary source for class abilities (PHB) explicitly excludes spellcasting in the description of Ex abilities (p.180). By RAW, spellcasting (derived from class levels) can't be Ex.

Curious

2011-10-13, 12:02 PM

So, hey, if all unmarked class abilities are Ex, does that mean a Factotum could gain maneuvers known and readied as a 15th level Warblade?

Morph Bark

2011-10-13, 12:13 PM

This is completely false. Na abilities are never given by classes. Special Abilities (which is what all class abilities are, see ever monster entry with class abilities) are never Na (see SRD, MM1, DMG, FF, and Rules of the Game). This is a misinterpretation of the PHB, which says that abilities which are not designated as Ex, Sp, or Su is Natural. But many books state that all special abilities ARE designated Ex, Sp, or Su. In other words, abilities which are NOT special abilities are natural.

I fail to see how this is conflicts with what I said. :smallconfused:

Where do the sources you mentioned specify that special abilities are never natural abilities? (Assuming class abilities = special abilities.)

Gullintanni

2011-10-13, 12:21 PM

-snipped for length, relevance-

MMV has creatures that cast as Wizards... this is also listed as Ex.

Rules of the Game on Antimagic clarifies this as well, pointing out that you CAN use spellcasting in an Antimagic field, but that the spell is simply suppressed until you leave the field. By comparison, a Factotum can't cast at all in an antimagic field, because his ability is Sp. So yes, Spellcasting is non magical, and is Ex, despite having a specific override of the disruption rule. It's also listed as a Special Attack in every old style Monster Entry where the creature has spells (including spells gained from class levels) and is listed as an example of a Special Attack on page 299 of the Monster Manual (the primary source for special ability types).

Again, seriously the rule that all Special Abilities (Spells are a Special Attack) are Sp, Su, or Ex is the single most repeated rule in all of D&D, found in a huge number of books. Trying to argue against it is silly. In the primary source for Sp, Su, and Ex abilities (the Monster Manual) the rule is referenced repeatedly too... for example, page 294 ("Adding Special Abilities. You can add any sort of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to a creature.") and page 315 ("Special Abilities: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)")

Yes, this is a wall of text, but I've been over this one far too many times. I challenge you to find a single rule repeated more times than the typing rules.

JaronK

The problem here is ambiguity among primary sources. What everyone seems to forget when engaging in this debate is that the Rules Compendium is the primary source for game rules, and it explicitly states that any abilities not designated as (Ex.), (Su.) or (Sp.) are Natural Abilities.

The MM and the Rules Compendium conflict here, and again, the RC is the primary source. Regarding the Lilitu and the Hobgoblin spellcaster in MMV, you have specific abilities.

Mock Divinity (Ex.) - This is a monster specific ability, just like Improved Grapple. It is explicitly NOT a class feature, otherwise it would be simply called, "Spells" as in the class entry. Ergo, it follows the rules of any specific ability, and does not trump general game rules. For example, Solars, who also cast Divine Spells, do not have Mock Divinity as a class feature or special ability. Their spellcasting is untyped rather than named, and defaults to the rules contained in the MM1; which are subsequently overruled by the Rules Compendium.

Specific trumps general. Lilitu spellcasting, gained by virtue of Mock Divinity is specifically called out as Ex. Generally, spellcasting defaults to the standard. Which, by Rules Compendium, is a NA ability. As nonsensical as this may seem, that's how it goes.

This changes based on whether you take MMI or Rules Compendium as the primary source; naturally. MMI lists, "Spells" as a special ability in the monster entry; and SRD proclaims that "Special Abilities" are either (Ex.), (Su.) or (Sp.).

JaronK

2011-10-13, 01:56 PM

I fail to see how this is conflicts with what I said. :smallconfused:

Where do the sources you mentioned specify that special abilities are never natural abilities? (Assuming class abilities = special abilities.)

...Every book I mention states precisely this. Here, let me show you:

From SRD: "Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature." Note that Natural Abilities are listed above the main Special Abilities section for clarity.

Monster Manual Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). See the Glossary for definitions of special abilities."

Monster Manual Page 315 (The Glossary): "Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su) in nature."

Fiend Folio Page 8: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

See? And that's not the only ones. It is literally the single most repeated rule in all of D&D. All Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

As to the Rules Compendium, it agrees with all the other sources on Natural Abilities... things which aren't Ex, Sp, or Su are Natural. What you're missing here is that the Special Abilities rules do designate all special abilities as being one of the first three. There's no conflict here. Yes, abilities which are not Special Abilities, nor otherwise designated as Ex, Sp, or Su, are Natural Abilities. But the Special Ability tag itself designates any ability as one of the first three. Here's what the rules say about natural abilities:

Rules of the Game: Polymorph: "Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form."

SRD: "Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

PHB 180 "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird's ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

As you can see, all sources are in agreement. Natural abilities are every ability that's not Ex, Sp, or Su, and represent those abilities which are inherent to the physical form of the creature. All other abilities are Special Abilities, and that tag designates them as Ex, Sp, or Su. There is no disagreement in the rules on this point.

@Curious: He'd get the maneuvers of a 19 Warblade. You can have an Ex ability that's gained before level 15, but you get it as a member of the class of your Factotum level.

The appropriate sections talk about "special abilities", not abilities. Apparently, "special abilities" do not include all abilities, see the spellcasting example.

Spells are explicitly Special Abilities. There are abilities that are not special abilities... those are called natural abilities, and are only things inherent to the physical form (things like most movement speeds). Everything else is a Special Ability and is Ex, Sp, or Su, no exceptions. But spells are explicitly special abilities. See Monster Manual 299, where they're listed as a Special Attack in the "Special Attacks" section. See also every older style monster entry ever. For example:

Solar: "Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells"
Planetar: "Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells"
Trumpet Archon: "Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells, trumpet"

See? Spells are always a Special Attack. Always. And Special Attack is a subsection of Special Abilities. Your example is completely false. Would you like me to find you the quotes showing that Special Abilities is broken into two categories, Special Attacks and Special Qualities? Or would you like to find them yourself in the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and other locations?

Oh, and earlier someone was still trying to claim that feats aren't Ex. I referenced the FAQ earlier, but here's another source:

BoED Page 39, under Exalted Feats: "These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are)."

So yes, the default case is that feats are Ex, unless otherwise specified (as BoED does for Exalted Feats, though as per the FAQ the feats themselves are still Ex, it's just that the abilities they grant are generally Su. This matters because the Ex benefits of Vow of Poverty remain in an Antimagic Field... see FAQ page 37).

JaronK

JackRackham

2011-10-13, 04:28 PM

...Every book I mention states precisely this. Here, let me show you:

From SRD: "Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature." Note that Natural Abilities are listed above the main Special Abilities section for clarity.

Monster Manual Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). See the Glossary for definitions of special abilities."

Monster Manual Page 315 (The Glossary): "Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su) in nature."

Fiend Folio Page 8: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

See? And that's not the only ones. It is literally the single most repeated rule in all of D&D. All Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

As to the Rules Compendium, it agrees with all the other sources on Natural Abilities... things which aren't Ex, Sp, or Su are Natural. What you're missing here is that the Special Abilities rules do designate all special abilities as being one of the first three. There's no conflict here. Yes, abilities which are not Special Abilities, nor otherwise designated as Ex, Sp, or Su, are Natural Abilities. But the Special Ability tag itself designates any ability as one of the first three. Here's what the rules say about natural abilities:

Rules of the Game: Polymorph: "Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form."

SRD: "Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

PHB 180 "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird's ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

As you can see, all sources are in agreement. Natural abilities are every ability that's not Ex, Sp, or Su, and represent those abilities which are inherent to the physical form of the creature. All other abilities are Special Abilities, and that tag designates them as Ex, Sp, or Su. There is no disagreement in the rules on this point.

@Curious: He'd get the maneuvers of a 19 Warblade. You can have an Ex ability that's gained before level 15, but you get it as a member of the class of your Factotum level.

Spells are explicitly Special Abilities. There are abilities that are not special abilities... those are called natural abilities, and are only things inherent to the physical form (things like most movement speeds). Everything else is a Special Ability and is Ex, Sp, or Su, no exceptions. But spells are explicitly special abilities. See Monster Manual 299, where they're listed as a Special Attack in the "Special Attacks" section. See also every older style monster entry ever. For example:

Solar: "Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells"
Planetar: "Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells"
Trumpet Archon: "Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities, spells, trumpet"

See? Spells are always a Special Attack. Always. And Special Attack is a subsection of Special Abilities. Your example is completely false. Would you like me to find you the quotes showing that Special Abilities is broken into two categories, Special Attacks and Special Qualities? Or would you like to find them yourself in the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and other locations?

Oh, and earlier someone was still trying to claim that feats aren't Ex. I referenced the FAQ earlier, but here's another source:

BoED Page 39, under Exalted Feats: "These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are)."

So yes, the default case is that feats are Ex, unless otherwise specified (as BoED does for Exalted Feats, though as per the FAQ the feats themselves are still Ex, it's just that the abilities they grant are generally Su. This matters because the Ex benefits of Vow of Poverty remain in an Antimagic Field... see FAQ page 37).

JaronK
I think JaronK wins the argument insofar as feat, spells, etc. are (Ex). I'm pretty sure the rest of you are (rules) lawyered on that one. I think the point made above, however, that, while the feats themselves may be an (Ex) ability, the fighter's ability to gain them is simply a matter of training, is valid. The same goes for spells, I think (spontaneous casters might be an exception...). Regardless, this is how my DM will rule it (rather conservative on things like this).

So, to change directions a bit, I'll be starting a campaign in ancient greece (East Asia doesn't exist, therefore iajutsu focus doesn't exist) at level 9. I was planning on factotem 8, swordsage 1 to start the campaign, then ten more factotum levels. I'll be taking fonts of inspiration, for sure, and I'm taking leadership and maybe CWI. What other feats help? I've considered mayshot/poison, but that takes more feats tha I'd like and I prefer melee. I just DMed a campaign with a tripper so, needless to say, I've had enough of that. Any other ideas? Also, have to be human, no longsword, rapier, etc (period weapons...), limited races in the campaign world, so no racial exotic weapons, and reserve feats won't work for a factotum. Also, no flaws so human feats plus any factotum feats.

EDIT: also, cunning surge is limited to once around (DM fiat) and my cohort is a cloistered cleric (DMM maximize or Quicken, not sure which). I know what to do with her, though, I'm worried about me :)

Morph Bark

2011-10-13, 05:01 PM

...Every book I mention states precisely this. Here, let me show you:

From SRD: "Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature." Note that Natural Abilities are listed above the main Special Abilities section for clarity.

Monster Manual Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). See the Glossary for definitions of special abilities."

Monster Manual Page 315 (The Glossary): "Special Abilities
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su) in nature."

Fiend Folio Page 8: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

See? And that's not the only ones. It is literally the single most repeated rule in all of D&D. All Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

As to the Rules Compendium, it agrees with all the other sources on Natural Abilities... things which aren't Ex, Sp, or Su are Natural. What you're missing here is that the Special Abilities rules do designate all special abilities as being one of the first three. There's no conflict here. Yes, abilities which are not Special Abilities, nor otherwise designated as Ex, Sp, or Su, are Natural Abilities. But the Special Ability tag itself designates any ability as one of the first three. Here's what the rules say about natural abilities:

Rules of the Game: Polymorph: "Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form."

SRD: "Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

PHB 180 "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird's ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

As you can see, all sources are in agreement. Natural abilities are every ability that's not Ex, Sp, or Su, and represent those abilities which are inherent to the physical form of the creature. All other abilities are Special Abilities, and that tag designates them as Ex, Sp, or Su. There is no disagreement in the rules on this point.

Spells are explicitly Special Abilities. There are abilities that are not special abilities... those are called natural abilities, and are only things inherent to the physical form (things like most movement speeds). Everything else is a Special Ability and is Ex, Sp, or Su, no exceptions. But spells are explicitly special abilities. See Monster Manual 299, where they're listed as a Special Attack in the "Special Attacks" section.

I figured I'd isolate these two parts of your post as the most relevant parts. First off, thank you for providing the quotes and page numbers in response to my asking for the sources. The quotes weren't necessary, the page numbers for each book would have sufficed, but either way. :smallsmile:

Secondly, isn't it so that the rules in a book generally only apply the sources within them (other than the PHB and DMG for PCs and NPCs and the MM for monsters, because they define the groundrules by which the books after them go by)? The parts I quoted seem to rather contradict one another, or call for one to overrule the other at least, but neither rule states it takes precedence over the other.

I agree with you that any special attack is a special ability. However, if that is the case, then special attacks cannot be natural abilities, because natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like and special abilities are those abilities designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

The question is then, what are the special attacks that AREN'T listed as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like? While the "Spells" section that some creatures have is listed as a special attack and is thus a special ability, it is NOT listed as being extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, which would make it a natural ability. But if it is a natural ability, it cannot be a special ability, and if it is not a special ability, why would it be listed as a special attack? Etcetera.

That's primarily my problem with this.

JaronK

2011-10-13, 07:19 PM

I figured I'd isolate these two parts of your post as the most relevant parts. First off, thank you for providing the quotes and page numbers in response to my asking for the sources. The quotes weren't necessary, the page numbers for each book would have sufficed, but either way. :smallsmile:

Sorry, used to dealing with people that don't actually check the sources, so you have to spell everything out for them.

Secondly, isn't it so that the rules in a book generally only apply the sources within them (other than the PHB and DMG for PCs and NPCs and the MM for monsters, because they define the groundrules by which the books after them go by)?

Nope, but section matters. For example, the rule in Complete Warrior that you can disqualify yourself for a PrC after entering it is a general rule, because it's in the general PrCs section. Of course, it's a bad rule that breaks classes like Dragon Disciple, but whatever.

Perhaps you're thinking of the primary source rules, which state that when an equally specific pair of rules contradict, the primary source (which is almost always the PHB, MM, or DMG) trumps?

The parts I quoted seem to rather contradict one another, or call for one to overrule the other at least, but neither rule states it takes precedence over the other.

How do they contradict? You have the "Abilities" category which covers everything a creature can do... these are Na, Sp, Su, and Ex. Within that category is "Special Abilities" which are everything a creature can do that is in any way special (these are Sp, Su, and Ex), and Natural Abilities, which are generic abilities that are inherent to the physical form of the creature (such as claw attacks, ability to see, and so on). "Special Abilities" are then further divided into "Special Attacks", which are "A unique or unusual ability a creature can use to harm or hinder other creatures" (Rules of the Game, Polymorph 1), and "Special Qualities", which are " A unique or unusual ability a creature has that is not offensive in nature" (same).

Spells are listed as a Special Attack, according to the Monster Manual section on Special Attacks, and according to countless monster entries. Interestingly enough, they're also listed as a Special Quality in Fiend Folio and MMV (but theoretically, nothing says the categories are mutually exclusive... and the FAQ does allow for certain abilities to be both Ex and Su. DR 5/Magic and Cold Iron, for example).

I agree with you that any special attack is a special ability. However, if that is the case, then special attacks cannot be natural abilities, because natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like and special abilities are those abilities designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Correct. Special Attacks cannot ever be Natural Abilities. That's exactly what I'm saying.

The question is then, what are the special attacks that AREN'T listed as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like?

Extraordinary. The FAQ says that Ex abilities should include "Anything that lacks a clear, supernatural element" on page 17. In context, note that it's talking about class abilities only, and is giving a guideline. Now, this gets confusing when we're talking about spells... until you remember that spells can indeed be cast in an Antimagic Field (see Rules of the Game: Antimagic). The Spell is suppressed, but the ability to cast spells does remain. This means the ability to cast spells MUST be Ex (since if it were Sp or Su, you wouldn't even have the ability).

Note that this is why a Wizard can cast Fox's Cunning on himself while inside an Antimagic Field. When he leaves the field, he has the spell up on himself. A Factotum can't do this, because his casting abilities are Sp... he simply can't cast the spell in that field.

While the "Spells" section that some creatures have is listed as a special attack and is thus a special ability, it is NOT listed as being extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, which would make it a natural ability.

Incorrect. Just because it doesn't say it in the entry, doesn't mean it's Natural. In fact, the FAQ directly contradicts this when talking about Cunning Brilliance on page 17... it says "When in doubt, the DM should decide if an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear, supernatural element should be fair play." Clearly, being unmarked isn't the same as being undesignated. To be natural it must in no way be otherwise designated (and spells DEFINITELY doesn't fit the definition for natural). But Spells ARE already designated Ex, Sp, or Su via the rules for Special Attacks. It helps that we have a few examples of creatures (in Fiend Folio and MMV) that have spellcasting and it's listed as Ex.

Note that a lot of abilities early on didn't have a defined type, but had that type defined later... for example, Sneak Attack isn't defined as Ex in the PHB (though the FAQ on page 17 clearly states "It is reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability."). But in many later monster entries where the creature has Sneak Attack, sure enough it's listed as Ex. Certainly, that FAQ makes it clear that an ability can be unmarked without being Natural... you're supposed to infer what it is.

Another thing to note is that Su and Sp abilities are almost always labeled as such (Sp because it needs a caster level, Su because you need to know antimagic fields stop it). Ex and Na abilities are the only ones that are often unlisted, and the only way to know the difference for certain is that any ability that's a Special Ability and unmarked is going to be Ex. Note that some abilities may be abilities (not Special Abilities) and still be Ex... for example, types (such as Outsider Type) are not Special Abilities, but their abilities may be Ex.

So, a final run down:

All Abilities are Ex, Sp, Na, or Su. Abilities which are not otherwise designated (such as by explicit typing, or by being Special Abilities, or whatever) are Na, but this category only includes abilities inherent to the physical form of the creature. (PHB, SRD, RotG:P)

Special Abilities are a subset of Abilities (SRD). Special Abilities are always Ex, Sp, or Su... NEVER Natural (SRD, MM1, DMG, FF, RotG:P). In general, Special Abilities that are not otherwise marked and without a clear, supernatural element are assumed to be Ex... this includes all abilities that work in Antimagic Fields (FAQ). Special Abilities are divided into two categories, Special Attacks, and Special Qualities (MM, FF). Spells are a Special Attack (MM, MMII, MM3, FF, etc) that works in Antimagic Fields (RotG:A), and thus are Ex.

Feats, meanwhile, are never defined as being Special Abilities... but they default to Ex unless otherwise stated, as per BoED (and since they're not inherent to the physical form, they'd make no sense as Na abilities). Certainly, page 17 of the FAQ allows for Fighter Bonus Feats to be taken by Cunning Brilliance (as that's an unmarked ability that lacks a clear supernatural element).

Clear as mud, right?

Also note that Alter Self, according to Rules of the Game: Polymorph, gives Natural Abilities. So if you count all unmarked abilities as Natural Abilities, Alter Self grants all of them. Bad idea! As another note, in 3.0 Natural Abilities could be Special Abilities, and IIRC Spells were Natural Abilities. This changed towards the end of 3.0 until the idea of Na abilities being Special Abilities was removed in 3.5. So, watch out for what edition you're looking at with this.

JaronK

Morph Bark

2011-10-14, 11:22 AM

So, a final run down:

All Abilities are Ex, Sp, Na, or Su. Abilities which are not otherwise designated (such as by explicit typing, or by being Special Abilities, or whatever) are Na, but this category only includes abilities inherent to the physical form of the creature. (PHB, SRD, RotG:P)

Special Abilities are a subset of Abilities (SRD). Special Abilities are always Ex, Sp, or Su... NEVER Natural (SRD, MM1, DMG, FF, RotG:P). In general, Special Abilities that are not otherwise marked and without a clear, supernatural element are assumed to be Ex... this includes all abilities that work in Antimagic Fields (FAQ). Special Abilities are divided into two categories, Special Attacks, and Special Qualities (MM, FF). Spells are a Special Attack (MM, MMII, MM3, FF, etc) that works in Antimagic Fields (RotG:A), and thus are Ex.

This is prettymuch the most important part of your post as I see it, best answering my query. You've used a lot of FAQ rulings, which aren't official but can definitely be used as a baseline for rulings in any game. At first I thought that without using those FAQ rulings (or recognizing the FAQ as an official source) you'd still be stuck with figuring out whether or not a non-designated (not designated Ex, Su, Sp or Ps) special ability is a natural ability, but the bolded part solves that.

Clear as mud, right?

So very much... but thanks for explaining it!

Side-question: what is the full title of RotG:P? Never heard that abbreviation before.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-14, 11:40 AM

Rules of The Game: Polymorph.

JaronK

2011-10-14, 12:23 PM

Indeed, it's found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a

It's one of the most in depth discussions by any designer on ability types, which is why I tend to reference it, especially since Skip was one of the lead designers when they made ability types in the first place. But everything he says in that article is found in the books somewhere... he's just clarifying everything there.

RotG:A is Rules of the Game: Antimagic, by the way. That's where they clarify that you do have spellcasting (the ability) when you're in an antimagic field, it's just that the effects of the spells are suppressed temporarily. That's the thing: Spellcasting is a non magical ability (Ex) that creates a magical effect (not an ability). It's much like how Wildshape is an Su ability that grants Na abilities (claw attacks and such).

JaronK

Chess435

2011-10-14, 02:57 PM

JaronK

2011-10-14, 03:14 PM

So since the ability to cast spells is (Ex), you can use the factotum's ability to gain spellcasting as a wizard/sorcerer/whatever as a caster of your factotum level? If so, then :smallbiggrin:

RAW, yes. Note that Wizard casting would be useless (you need an hour to memorize your spells, and the ability will be gone by then). But Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage casting should all be solid.

Many DMs would rightfully balk at this and disallow it (for the same reasons that many DMs don't allow Polymorph to do the same thing). Then again, if you're in a high optimization party, it might be reasonable... getting any Sorcerer spells you want for a minute on the fly might be enough to let a Factotum keep up with a Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mage or Wizard/Incantrix, at least for a short period. But with that said, I doubt the designers of the Factotum realized this might apply.

Fighter Bonus Feats and martial adept Maneuvers, however, are clearly Ex abilities and thus totally legit. And those are reasonably potent.

JaronK

Tytalus

2011-10-16, 12:29 PM

As to the Rules Compendium, it agrees with all the other sources on Natural Abilities... things which aren't Ex, Sp, or Su are Natural. What you're missing here is that the Special Abilities rules do designate all special abilities as being one of the first three. There's no conflict here.

Actually, the PHB lists natural abilities as a subtype of special abilities (p. 180), as does the Rules Compendium ("Many creatures can use special abilities that aren’t magical. These abilities are classified as extraordinary or natural.", emphasis mine), which contradicts the other sources that exclude them.

So, the claim is wrong; natural abilities are indeed "special" (primary source). And there is a conflict between the sources.

Oh, and earlier someone was still trying to claim that feats aren't Ex. I referenced the FAQ earlier, but here's another source:

BoED Page 39, under Exalted Feats: "These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are)."

So yes, the default case is that feats are Ex, unless otherwise specified (as BoED does for Exalted Feats, though as per the FAQ the feats themselves are still Ex, it's just that the abilities they grant are generally Su. This matters because the Ex benefits of Vow of Poverty remain in an Antimagic Field... see FAQ page 37).

The quote is correct, the conclusion isn't.

The rules say nothing about a "default case". If anything, the section you cited clarifies that not all feats are Ex ("most" = "not all").

The section also says nothing about there being a need to "specify otherwise". The FAQ you referenced has such a phrase, but there it's used in a way opposite to what you are claiming (your claim: "the feats themselves are still Ex, it's just that the abilities they grant are generally Su"). The actual RAW was already cited by yourself: "These feats are thus supernatural in nature"

TL;RD: No, not all feats are Ex (see BoED quote), and there's no need that those non-Ex feats have to "specify otherwise". There also no "default case".

Tytalus

2011-10-16, 12:46 PM

This means the ability to cast spells MUST be Ex (since if it were Sp or Su, you wouldn't even have the ability).

Actually, "Spells" can't be Ex, since spellcasting can be disrupted - Ex abilities can't (PHB, p. 180).

Note that a lot of abilities early on didn't have a defined type, but had that type defined later... for example, Sneak Attack ....

Note that "Spells" never had a defined type - in any official book.

Special Abilities are always Ex, Sp, or Su... NEVER Natural (SRD, MM1, DMG, FF, RotG:P).

As shown above, that is not correct.

In general, Special Abilities that are not otherwise marked and without a clear, supernatural element are assumed to be Ex...

That is an overstatement, and not based on RAW.

You are referring to an FAQ entry (i.e., not RAW), which has the main message of "When in doubt, the DM should decide if an unmarked ability qualifies" (i.e., is Ex). The next sentence, "Anything that lacks a clear, supernatural element should be fair play" is merely a recommendation. It can not be construed to support "Spells" should be anything.

The only definite we can get on "Spells" being anything is: ask your DM.

Feats, meanwhile, are never defined as being Special Abilities... but they default to Ex unless otherwise stated, as per BoED

Shown to be false / a misrepresentation of the RAW and FAQ, above.

mohdri

2011-10-16, 01:35 PM

Curmudgeon

2011-10-16, 04:28 PM

This is completely false. Na abilities are never given by classes. Special Abilities (which is what all class abilities are, see ever monster entry with class abilities) are never Na (see SRD, MM1, DMG, FF, and Rules of the Game). (bolding and color coding added)

Can you provide a RAW citation for either bolded statement? I can't find anything in the rules which agrees with you.

For your red claim: trying to make an inference from the Monster Manual Glossary definition of Special Ability (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_specialability&alpha=S) (which MM definition wouldn't be an appropriate application for Player's Handbook class features anyway) isn't relevant here, because in all the PH class descriptions "special ability" is used for class features just twice:

Rogue special abilities chosen starting at level 10
Special abilities granted to the master by a familiar
Other Class Features (the proper term, as specified on PH page 24) are labeled as Special in the class tables, but not as "special abilities". These special class features are only Extraordinary when explicitly labeled as such. Don't mangle the rulebook terms, please; it's not a "special ability" unless the book says so, and thus arguments based on the scope of rules regarding special abilities are irrelevant. You'll need to find some rules citations for Class Features, since that's the topic of discussion here ─ not monster special abilities.

As for your blue claim, here's the relevant quote from Rules Compendium:
NATURAL ABILITIES
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. They’re rarely identified as natural—that’s assumed—and they rarely take a distinct action to use. "Includes" is not at all the same as "is exclusive to". Let's contrast a couple of examples from the Rogue class features. Being good at looking for traps (trapfinding) isn't Extraordinary; it's just the result of special training, which (when not otherwise designated) is assumed to be natural. But being able to reflexively avoid all damage from area spells and magical traps (evasion) is pretty Extraordinary, and is listed as exactly that.

The Fighter Bonus Feats class feature is also not designated as Extraordinary. Each feat is just what you get with more training, through natural, non-extraordinary processes (experience and other opportunities to develop skills by dint of a martial focus). As explained in the class description (PH pages 37-38):
In addition to general fighting prowess, each fighter develops particular specialties of his own. A given fighter may be especially capable with certain weapons, another might be trained to execute specific fancy maneuvers. As fighters gain experience, they get more opportunities to develop their fighting skills. Thanks to their focus on combat maneuvers, they can master the most difficult ones relatively quickly.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-16, 04:40 PM

Being good at looking for traps (trapfinding) isn't Extraordinary; it's just the result of special training, which (when not otherwise designated) is assumed to be natural. But being able to reflexively avoid all damage from area spells and magical traps (evasion) is pretty Extraordinary, and is listed as exactly that.
What? :smallconfused: You're contradicting yourself. An ability can't be trained and natural.
Natural abilities: "This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
Extraordinary abilities: "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

"Just the result of special training." Yup, that's an (Ex) ability.

Curmudgeon

2011-10-16, 05:05 PM

What? :smallconfused: You're contradicting yourself. An ability can't be trained and natural.
Natural abilities: "This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
There's no contradiction. I already made this point, but I guess you overlooked it: "includes" is not an exclusive categorization. "Natural" includes all those physical nature abilities, plus everything not otherwise designated. Most training is perfectly natural; we do that all the time when we pick up a new tool and train ourselves how to use it based on related experience, observation of others, and (occasionally :smallbiggrin:) instruction manuals.

Or maybe you can find a RAW citation which says that training is unnatural? :smallconfused:

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-16, 05:11 PM

"This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
If something is trained it doesn't come from physical nature. Natural abilities are those that you're born with, in simpler words.

Curmudgeon

2011-10-16, 05:40 PM

If something is trained it doesn't come from physical nature. Natural abilities are those that you're born with, in simpler words.
Some natural abilities are those you're born with; that group is included. So are all those abilities you're not born with, when not otherwise designated. That "everything else" group is also included as part of D&D natural abilities.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-16, 05:41 PM

What is natural about a trained ability?
Also note that trained/learned abilities are (Ex) in nature.
"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."

Curmudgeon

2011-10-16, 05:48 PM

What is natural about a trained ability?
What's natural about a natural language? Nobody is born knowing how to speak one, yet nearly everybody pretty naturally picks up one or more languages. That's training at work, and (barring child development laboratory experiments) it's all natural.

Also note that trained/learned abilities are (Ex) in nature. Only when the rulebook says so. As I pointed out, Rogue evasion is Extraordinary, but Rogue trapfinding is natural. Also, D&D skills aren't Extraordinary, yet every rank represents training; that's the RAW.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-16, 05:49 PM

What's natural about a natural language? Nobody is born knowing how to speak one, yet nearly everybody pretty naturally picks up one or more languages. That's training at work, and (barring child development laboratory experiments) it's all natural.
Are you born with it?

Curmudgeon

2011-10-16, 05:54 PM

Are you born with it?
Am I born knowing how to read, write, and speak English? No, of course not. But I didn't need any Extraordinary special ability to learn. It was just natural training.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-16, 06:08 PM

That's not how it works. Knowing a language isn't natural. The ability to speak might be, though.
Also, look up Scout, Ninja, Spellthief or Factotum. Trapfinding is (Ex). You lose.

Look. Extraordinary abilities aren't only those that have an (Ex) somewhere in their description. As you can see Trapfinding wasn't stated as (Ex) (and in SRD it still isn't, don't know why) but they did it later in new books. Natural abilities are those that follow it's description ("This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature.") and don't fit other ability types ("Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.").
Know Language isn't stated as a specific ability because it's irrelevant what ability it is. It doesn't matter for the game. But looking at what Know Language is about and how you aquire it, it is save to say that it's an (Ex) ability.

JaronK

2011-10-16, 11:23 PM

Skill points, by the way, are Ex. This includes speak language, so yeah, that's Ex too. See the FAQ.

As for Curmudgeon... I gave you TONS of quotes, and the ability to find more. But I'm going to give you a challenge, and make you actually look up rules: find ANY old style Monster Entry (the ones that showed what was a special ability in the entry) with class abilities. The Troll Hunter (a Ranger) would be an example, but you can use any. Any of them, in any book. Tell me where the class abilities are found. Go ahead, just try it.

Then, having stated where they ALWAYS are, tell me what sort of ability class abilities are. This requires using rules quotes, not just making something up, and certainly not taking a Rules Compendium quote and failing to recognize the single most common rule ever written (namely, that Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su), which does designate the various abilities.

Furthermore, remember that the Ex abilities description is itself a designation.

While you're at it, can you remember to put a bold "I believe the Official Game Rules FAQ is not an official rules document" above your post, since you've already recognized your position directly contradicts it? It helps other people to remember that you have to directly ignore sources to maintain your position. The quote that straight up says any class ability that isn't obviously magical is Ex destroys your position utterly. So you have to point out that you're ignoring it in your interpretation.

And also remember that you get all the Na abilities of any creature you Alter Self into. Consider what you're implying there.

Meanwhile, I'll leave the definition from RotG:P of Natural Abilities. Note that it continues the idea that it's a catch all... only if something can't be any of the first three is it Natural:

Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain).

See anything that looks like class abilities in there? Now look at Ex abilities:

Extraordinary Ability: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without natural talent or extensive training. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.

And of course from the "Official Game Rules FAQ"

2. It’s reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an
extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if
an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear,
supernatural element should be fair play.

Again, in context it's talking about class abilities. Huh. Funny how the guy who wrote the core books (at least, one of the major ones) says that any class ability that isn't obviously magical is Ex.

JaronK

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-16, 11:41 PM

Where's the applause smilie when you need it?

BTW, Sneak Attack is marked (Ex) in Spellthiefs description.

JaronK

2011-10-16, 11:52 PM

It's also marked Ex in a bunch of creature entries as well. But I'm sure Curmudgeon would claim that means Rogue Sneak Attack is totally different.

JaronK

Curmudgeon

2011-10-17, 02:41 AM

Skill points, by the way, are Ex. This includes speak language, so yeah, that's Ex too. See the FAQ.
...
While you're at it, can you remember to put a bold "I believe the Official Game Rules FAQ is not an official rules document" above your post, since you've already recognized your position directly contradicts it?
If it makes you happy:

I believe the Official Game Rules FAQ is not an official rules document... but then, Wizards of the Coast shares this belief.

D&D® Frequently Asked Questions
Version 3.5: Date Updated 6/30/08
...
About the FAQ
If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ.
...
This product is a work of fiction.
Those frequently asked questions are officially selected from thousands of submissions to illustrate D&D rules issues. The FAQ does not state that its answers are official rules statements. Those are, in fact, the personal opinions of people who were on the WotC payroll, and have the same status as Customer Service responses.

The Primary Sources Errata rule specifies the hierarchy of official rules sources, and Customer Service, the FAQ, and other unofficial sources are ignored. Official rules documents have errata for official changes. The FAQ never had errata; instead, it had revisions which over time have removed (without notice) a number of answers that were wrong. Nonetheless, the last FAQ still includes demonstrably false answers, such as this one:
You might be confusing Quick Draw with the ability of any character with a base attack bonus of +1 or better to draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of movement (PH 142). (Just look up that handily supplied page number to see that sheathing a weapon is a move action.)

Even if the FAQ were an official rules document, the Primary Sources Errata rule would have it be ignored whenever it disagrees with one of the three primary source books. So, ultimately, while the FAQ questions are often informative, the FAQ answers are much less so.

It's also marked Ex in a bunch of creature entries as well. But I'm sure Curmudgeon would claim that means Rogue Sneak Attack is totally different.
Totally? No, of course not; the Spellthief class refers to the Rogue sneak attack description for functional details. But Rogue sneak attack is natural, not Extraordinary. (Rogue is the iconic class for this and other abilities, such as trapfinding. Is it any wonder that the class represents characters for whom such things come naturally?)

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 03:50 AM

olentu

2011-10-17, 03:54 AM

I see that you don't even read what you quote.

Your weak argument is refuted.
Therefore you're wrong. Try again.

Nope, (Ex). It says so in the book. And it still doesn't work like you think it does. Natural abilities are, in the simplest words posibble, abilities you are born with. Extraordinary abilities are those that you learn or train in. End of discussion. Just because you can't understand such simple concepts doesn't mean that you're right.

Also, JaronK didn't just quote FAQ. He was also using quotes from Rules of The Game, which is official.

Sheath not draw.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 04:01 AM

What's the difference? :smallconfused: And why does it even matter? JaronK doesn't need the FAQ. All it's doing is providing explanations and not new rules. Everything that is relevant is in the handbooks. You just have to be capable of understanding it.

Hecuba

2011-10-17, 04:08 AM

What's the difference? :smallconfused:

One takes it out, one puts it in.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 04:14 AM

One takes it out, one puts it in.
My bad. I could sworn that it meant basically the same as draw.
Now I'm wondering why it doesn't do that. Maybe the Sage new something we don't? A secret errata? :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon

2011-10-17, 04:17 AM

Also, JaronK didn't just quote FAQ. He was also using quotes from Rules of The Game, which is official.
The "Rules of the Game" articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) are exactly as official as the FAQ. Since the same guy (Skip Williams) wrote both, you'll find many of the same house rules in both places.

Since I provided the link, you can check for yourself.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 04:19 AM

Where does it say they're not official? You know what? Nevermind. It doesn't matter, because you're still wrong. You said Trapfinding is Natural and not (Ex). I proved you wrong. You said Sneak Attack is Natural and not (Ex), I prove you wrong. And your argumentation is lacking. When an ability is trained or learned it is trained or learned, therefore (Ex), not Natural. The descriptions in MM are pretty clear which is which. Saying that an ability is "naturally trained" and therefore Natural is absurd and nonsensical.

JaronK

2011-10-17, 10:34 AM

I believe the Official Game Rules FAQ is not an official rules document

Thanks, with that mentality clear we can all ignore you. Though your quoting of "this work is fiction" as proof that it's not official is hilarious, since that's from the standard copyright disclaimer found in all products:

Based on the original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and on the new edition of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game designed by
Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, and Peter Adkison.
D&D, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, FORGOTTEN REALMS, PLANESCAPE, and Dungeon Master are registered trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
The d20 System logo is a trademark owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
All Wizards characters, character names, and the distinctive likenesses thereof are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
This material is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the material or artwork contained herein is
prohibited without the express written permission of Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
This product is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual people, organizations, places, or events is purely coincidental.
This Wizards of the Coast game product contains no Open Game Content. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn
more about the Open Gaming License and the d20 System License, please visit www.wizards.com/d20.
©2003–2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All rights reserved. Made in the U.

@Anarchy: Yeah, sheath means put away... it being a move action is why Gnomish Quickrazors are so popular with Iaijutsu Focus based characters. They're the only weapon that gets sheathed as a free action, allowing lots of IF attacks all day long without worries.

JaronK

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 11:43 AM

Gullintanni

2011-10-17, 12:26 PM

Nope, (Ex). It says so in the book. And it still doesn't work like you think it does. Natural abilities are, in the simplest words posibble, abilities you are born with. Extraordinary abilities are those that you learn or train in. End of discussion. Just because you can't understand such simple concepts doesn't mean that you're right.

I want to raise Curmudgeons point here again because you're missing the distinction he's pointing out.

Natural Abilities:

"1. This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature.
2. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

Bolded for Emphasis.

Premise 1. indicates that Natural abilities Include (def: Comprise or contain as part of a whole: "the price includes dinner".) those Natural Abilites that are the result of a creature's physical nature. The word Includes does not exclude a creature from having Natural abilities that don't fit the definition in Premise 1. Therefore, some Natural abilities CAN be the result of things other than physical nature.

Premise 2. indicates that ALL abilities that are not labeled are; in fact, natural abilities. This is an absolute statement, and is supported by the Rules Compendium, which is the primary source for game rules. Period.

Regarding sneak attack and evasion, if they're labeled as Ex. then they're Ex. I don't really care to engage in that debate. The only point I'm trying to make is that Natural abilities Include those granted by a creature's physical nature, but do not Exclude abilities gained by other means.

EDIT: Heck even from the SRD, there's no qualifying statement that says every trained or learned ability must be extraordinary.

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

What the bolded sentence says is, "Every Extraordinary Ability is the result of training/learning." What it doesn't say is, "Every ability that is the result of training MUST be Extraordinary."

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 12:32 PM

Gullintanni

2011-10-17, 12:37 PM

But when an ability follows the description of either of the three others (Ex, Sp or Su) then it is one of them. Even without (Ex) in the description of Trapfinding it follows the description of what an (Ex) ability is to the last letter. Therefore it is an (Ex) ability. Which is indeed proven to be the case thanks to later handbooks stating it as such.

That's a logical fallacy. Some dogs look like wolves, act like wolves and hunt in packs just like wolves, but they are not wolves. Accordingly, trapfinding looks like an Ex. ability, behaves like an Ex. ability, and you gain it via the same means as most people gain Ex. abilities, but if it is unlabeled, then it defaults to the rules for unlabeled abilities.

...Which makes it a Na. ability. Again, if it's labeled later in a book that can be considered a primary source, then trapfinding becomes an Ex. ability. I'm not questioning what later books call out as Ex. or Sp. or Su., but the logic you're applying is somewhat faulty.

But when an ability follows the description of either of the three others (Ex, Sp or Su) then it is one of them. Even without (Ex) in the description of Trapfinding it follows the description of what an (Ex) ability is to the last letter. Therefore it is an (Ex) ability. Which is indeed proven to be the case thanks to later handbooks stating it as such.

Funny. I read it as the opposite. It is a qualifying statement.

Just re-read the sentence I posted in bold.

Extraordinary abilities...are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

This sentence doesn't say that all abilities that require training must be extraordinary. If that's how you're reading it then...I suspect that we'll never agree.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-17, 12:39 PM

Nope. It is right on the mark.

Just re-read the sentence I posted in bold.
Re-reading it won't magically change it's meaning. :smallsigh:

Gullintanni

2011-10-17, 01:00 PM

Nope. It is right on the mark.

Re-reading it won't magically change it's meaning. :smallsigh:

...as a thought exercise, let's dissect the language shall we.

Premise:Extraordinary abilities...are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

Your claim:
(1) The premise above specifies that all Extraordinary abilities must be trained.
(2) The premise above specifies that all abilities that require training must be Extraordinary.

Claim (1) derives support from the following:
"Extraordinary abilities...are not something that...anyone can...learn to do without extensive training." This statement effectively says: 100% of Ex. abilities are trained.
Claim (1) is RAW. Claim (1) is correct.

Claim (2) derives no support from the premise above, because the premise above says, "100% of Ex. abilities are trained." The statement, "100% of trained abilities are Ex." is another statement entirely. In order for the premise to support claim (2), it would have to read, "Extraordinary abilities...are not something that anyone can do without extensive training. Every ability that requires training is Extraordinary". The two sentences in quotations are not synonymous. You'll also notice that that last bolded part of the premise being debated is conspicuously absent. Claim (2) is unsupported.

JaronK

2011-10-17, 02:04 PM

Argh. :smallmad: Isn't there a way to sheath as a free (or at least swift) action? I don't even care about Iaijutsu Focus, there's just this cool character in that one comic that is basically an Iaijutsu Master or some similar build and he draws and sheaths his katana so fast that his cuts are extremely strong and supersonicly (sp?) fast at supersonic speed. :smallbiggrin:

Sadly, no. The Gnomish Quickrazor can do it, but nothing else can (though you can drop weapons as a free action). The advantage is that you can make assassin Factotums and they can always use the artwork from Assassin's Creed for their character portraits. The downside is that katanas are terrible weapons for Iaijutsu Masters, which is just weird.

Gullintanni: Please review the Rules of the Game: Polymorph page, as it goes further into the difference between Natural Abilities and Extraordinary Abilities. Make sure you also have reviewed the FAQ on the topic. Check also PHB's entries on both found on page 180 and the Glossary. The DMG, MM, and Fiend Folio also go over these topics.

You're taking one part of the definition and saying that the rest of what we're saying doesn't follow... and you're right. You need more than that one part of the definition before it all makes sense.

JaronK

Curmudgeon

2011-10-17, 03:43 PM

Gullintanni: Please review the Rules of the Game: Polymorph page, as it goes further into the difference between Natural Abilities and Extraordinary Abilities. Make sure you also have reviewed the FAQ on the topic. Check also PHB's entries on both found on page 180 and the Glossary. The DMG, MM, and Fiend Folio also go over these topics.

You're taking one part of the definition and saying that the rest of what we're saying doesn't follow... and you're right. You need more than that one part of the definition before it all makes sense.
That's a collection of vague references which don't really serve your argument without elaboration. For instance, there are eight "Rules of the Game: Polymorph (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) pages"; which one includes the Skip Williams house rule that you think supports your case? :smalltongue:

But in general, directing Gullintanni to look elsewhere than the Player's Handbook is disingenuous because it's based on the assumption that these other sources can alter the definition of natural abilities as they pertain to class features, when Wizards of the Coast has a rule which says that they cannot.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. If any other "part of the definition" of natural abilities disagrees with what Gullintanni cited from the Player's Handbook, the PH part of the definition is correct, and the part which disagrees is not.

JaronK

2011-10-17, 04:07 PM

That's a collection of vague references which don't really serve your argument without elaboration. For instance, there are eight "Rules of the Game: Polymorph (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) pages"; which one includes the Skip Williams house rule that you think supports your case? :smalltongue:

The one I've been quoting all along, obviously. You HAVE bothered to check that reference and read it in context right? I mean, you haven't just been sitting here arguing away without even bothering to read the pages of quotes I've provided?

But in general, directing Gullintanni to look elsewhere than the Player's Handbook is disingenuous because it's based on the assumption that these other sources can alter the definition of natural abilities as they pertain to class features, when Wizards of the Coast has a rule which says that they cannot.

The primary source for ability types is the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook. The OFFICIAL RULES FAQ, which was written by one of the lead designers of the PHB and which answers frequently asked questions about OFFICIAL RULES, also clarified this point and straight up tells you what the guideline is (and this guideline agrees with the most commonly written rule in all the books, which you disagree with because evidently RAW is irrelevant). And either way, this is irrelevant... other sources can clarify and expand on definitions. Primary source rules only matter to contradictions.

If any other "part of the definition" of natural abilities disagrees with what Gullintanni cited from the Player's Handbook, the PH part of the definition is correct, and the part which disagrees is not.

Since the Rules of the Game articles (also written by one of the lead designers of the PHB) does not contradict, but rather clarifies, the rules in the PHB, primary source rules are irrelevant anyway.

JaronK

Gavinfoxx

2011-10-17, 04:52 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/20080611085922/http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-226959

There's a Su list for Shapechange... does that help any?

Curmudgeon

2011-10-17, 11:25 PM

The one I've been quoting all along, obviously. ... which you quoted from without either linking to the original or specifying by title which one of those eight pages it came from. I believe you're doing a disservice to the forum whenever you require every reader to hunt down a source when it takes just a moment to save everyone the trouble. (I apologize for being too subtle when bringing up this point previously.) Because I have looked it up (and how else would I have known there were eight possibilities?), I'll provide the link you failed to: Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part One) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040511a).

And, rather than quote it en masse again, I'll excerpt just the relevant part ...
Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form. ... so we can see how you've altered that:

So again, Ex abilities are non magic abilities that you learn, while natural abilities are a catch all for stuff that's inherent to the physical form of the creature. The bolded part is not in WotC sources: not the Player's Handbook, and not that "Rules of the Game" article.

Natural abilities include those inherent to the physical form. Natural abilities also include everything else that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. It's the union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_%28set_theory%29) of these two categories, not their intersection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29) (as in your misinterpretation).

The primary source for ability types is the Monster Manual, not the Player's Handbook.
And again, you've altered the original rule statement.
The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. The Monster Manual is only the primary source for those three types of abilities, and is not the primary source for natural abilities, a fourth type. If something pertains to class features (where the Player's Handbook is the primary source) and the PH says that it's a natural ability (as it does on page 180), there is no valid reason to look in some other book having nothing to do with either class features or natural abilities. The same goes for "Rules of the Game" articles, the FAQ, and Customer Service e-mails: none of them are relevant, and none of them are authoritative, when the primary source specifies the rule unambiguously, as it does in this matter.

Your argument appears to be mainly based on three tactics:

Ignore the rules which you don't want to follow.
Obfuscate by bringing up other sources (rendered irrelevant by one of those rules).
Willfully alter/misinterpret those rules which you wish were somewhat different.

olentu

2011-10-17, 11:46 PM

Actually while the PHB or alternatively rules compendium (they say basically the same thing anyway) is the primary source for natural abilities the way in which natural abilities are defined means that for any specific ability should any source ever define it as one of the other 3 types then the ability is that type. So you do need to check all other sources to see if any of them define the ability as having a type.

Of course the later source needs to actually give the ability a type and not just attempt to overrule the rules compendium as that makes it wrong. But depending on the situation it can be done.

JaronK

2011-10-18, 12:24 AM

All of the abilities discussed so far are given a type somewhere. BoED says feats default to Ex (which matches the description of Ex, as a learned non magic ability). The FAQ backs this up.

Spells are Ex according to Feindish Codex (the Lilitu) and MMV (A hobgoblin, IIRC).

Sneak Attack is Ex according to Complete Adventurer (Spellthief) and countless monster entries. And the FAQ specifically calls it out as being an example of an ability that isn't explicitly given a type in the PHB but is in fact Ex (A fact Curmudgeon must ignore, as it destroys his entire claim).

The definitions of Ex all agree that any ability which isn't specifically magical (note: spellcasting works in an antimagic field, so it can't be magical... the ability still works, even if the spells themselves stay suppressed) and is trained or learned in some way is Ex. That is a designation, something Curmudgeon must also ignore. Only things that don't fall into one of the three categories by their definitions fall into the "catch all" category of Natural Abilities... which is to say, non magic untrained abilities that are about the physical form of the creature (such as run speed, claw attacks, and so on).

JaronK

Curmudgeon

2011-10-18, 12:26 AM

the way in which natural abilities are defined means that for any specific ability should any source ever define it as one of the other 3 types then the ability is that type.
This would be the case for an ability specified in the right context, yes. (Example: Devils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) specify Telepathy without a type. But the Monster Manual Glossary (page 316) says Telepathy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#telepathy) is Supernatural, so Devil Telepathy is a (Su) special quality. That's also the case for Dwarf (Player's Handbook, page 14) and Half-Orc (page 19) darkvision; it's not typed where first specified, but the PH Glossary entry (page 307) says darkvision (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_darkvision&alpha=D) is Extraordinary, so Dwarf and Half-Orc darkvision are Extraordinary.) However, it would not be the case for a specific class feature, such as the Fighter Bonus Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm#bonusFeats) class feature, if the specification were in someplace other than the Player's Handbook. If some other source says it's a different type, but that disagrees with the Player's Handbook specification by default ("Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.") then the primary source (Player's Handbook) remains correct. Only an official errata file (not just "any source") is empowered to override that primary source.

olentu

2011-10-18, 12:35 AM

This would be the case for an ability specified in the right context, yes. (Example: Devils (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) specify Telepathy without a type. But the Monster Manual Glossary (page 316) says Telepathy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#telepathy) is Supernatural, so Devil Telepathy is a (Su) special quality. That's also the case for Dwarf (Player's Handbook, page 14) and Half-Orc (page 19) darkvision; it's not typed where first specified, but the PH Glossary entry (page 307) says darkvision (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_darkvision&alpha=D) is Extraordinary, so Dwarf and Half-Orc darkvision are Extraordinary.) However, it would not be the case for a specific class feature, such as the Fighter Bonus Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm#bonusFeats) class feature, if the specification were in someplace other than the Player's Handbook. If some other source says it's a different type, but that disagrees with the Player's Handbook specification by default ("Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.") then the primary source (Player's Handbook) remains correct. Only an official errata file (not just "any source") is empowered to override that primary source.

Er no if another source designates say wizard spellcasting as supernatural then the ability is otherwise designated as supernatural and thus by the very rule that you have quoted it is now no longer natural. The lack of a designation is not a rule that the designation must always be lacking.

Curmudgeon

2011-10-18, 12:50 AM

Er no if another source designates say wizard spellcasting as supernatural then the ability is otherwise designated as supernatural and thus by the very rule that you have quoted it is now no longer natural.
And what if yet another source specifies Wizard spellcasting as natural? Are abilities explicitly stated as natural subject to being overridden? Do you take that first extra source (Supernatural), or the more recent one (explicitly declared to be natural) as correct?

Answer: neither. A lack of designation remains a lack of designation unless an official errata file changes that part of the Player's Handbook. Then you use the rule inside the Player's Handbook to resolve the lack of designation because the primary source is always correct.

olentu

2011-10-18, 12:58 AM

And what if yet another source specifies Wizard spellcasting as natural? Are abilities explicitly stated as natural subject to being overridden? Do you take that first extra source (Supernatural), or the more recent one (explicitly declared to be natural) as correct?

Answer: neither. A lack of designation remains a lack of designation unless an official errata file changes that part of the Player's Handbook. Then you use the rule inside the Player's Handbook to resolve the lack of designation because the primary source is always correct.

I never said that a source does define anything as anything else. What I did say is that should a source define something that the rules are otherwise silent about that definition does count by the very rule that would otherwise handle the situation barring of course some other conflict in phrasing.

Now since I was apparently unclear the first time I shall reiterate. I am not saying that any source does or does not define any ability as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell like. What I am saying is that should a source define something as such this mush be considered due to the phrasing of the rule regarding natural abilities barring of course some other conflict in phrasing.

Hopefully that should clear up any misunderstandings about what point I am attempting to get across.

Curmudgeon

2011-10-18, 01:10 AM

I am not saying that any source does or does not define any ability as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell like. What I am saying is that should a source define something as such this mush be considered due to the phrasing of the rule regarding natural abilities barring of course some other conflict in phrasing.

Hopefully that should clear up any misunderstandings about what point I am attempting to get across.
So what's your take on Spellthief sneak attack being Extraordinary? Does that change anything about Rogue sneak attack?

olentu

2011-10-18, 01:14 AM

So what's your take on Spellthief sneak attack being Extraordinary? Does that change anything about Rogue sneak attack?

I don't see why it would as there are abilities that have the same name but are given different designations and I see no reason why there would be a difference in this case. However I would need to read the spellthief entry to be completely sure as I can not remember the exact wording off the top of my head and so it could presumably say something like "the Rogue sneak attack class ability is a spell like ability." But that seems unlikely.

JaronK

2011-10-18, 01:26 AM

So what's your take on Spellthief sneak attack being Extraordinary? Does that change anything about Rogue sneak attack?

Certainly when we have the guy who wrote the Rogue class (or at least one of the principle designers of it) saying it's Ex, that lends weight to it. Also the fact that every time Sneak Attack is given an ability type, it's always Ex... that adds something too. And the fact that unlike Natural Abilities, Sneak Attack actually fits the definition of an Extraordinary Ability (thus designating it as such)... that lends credence to the idea as well.

In fact, the complete lack of any evidence for Sneak Attack ever being anything else, combined with the massively overwhelming evidence that it's Ex... well that does change things quite a bit.

But again, since you think the Official Game Rules FAQ is not Official Game Rules (because evidently you think primary source rules apply to things other than contradictions), I guess you can believe all that evidence doesn't apply. After all, it doesn't agree with "Rules as Curmudgeon Wants Them To Be." And you'd rather have Alter Self give Sneak Attack (and Spellcasting, and Fighter Bonus Feats).

JaronK

olentu

2011-10-18, 01:39 AM

Certainly when we have the guy who wrote the Rogue class (or at least one of the principle designers of it) saying it's Ex, that lends weight to it. Also the fact that every time Sneak Attack is given an ability type, it's always Ex... that adds something too. And the fact that unlike Natural Abilities, Sneak Attack actually fits the definition of an Extraordinary Ability (thus designating it as such)... that lends credence to the idea as well.

In fact, the complete lack of any evidence for Sneak Attack ever being anything else, combined with the massively overwhelming evidence that it's Ex... well that does change things quite a bit.

But again, since you think the Official Game Rules FAQ is not Official Game Rules (because evidently you think primary source rules apply to things other than contradictions), I guess you can believe all that evidence doesn't apply. After all, it doesn't agree with "Rules as Curmudgeon Wants Them To Be." And you'd rather have Alter Self give Sneak Attack (and Spellcasting, and Fighter Bonus Feats).

JaronK

You mean this

"It’s reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an
extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if
an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear,
supernatural element should be fair play."

This does not seem to me to be saying that sneak attack is actually extraordinary. It says what one might assume, to use DM fiat, and what things should be but never actually comes out and says the ability is extraordinary. So I would have to say that as this says nothing the FAQ status is unimportant.

But perhaps you meant another entry.

JaronK

2011-10-18, 02:06 AM

olentu

2011-10-18, 02:12 AM

That's the guy who wrote the Rogue class saying it's reasonable to assume any class ability that lacks a clear supernatural element (giving the example of Sneak Attack) is Ex.

This would not be reasonable at all if what Curmudgeon was saying was true, namely that all abilities that don't specifically say their type in their entry or in the general rule for that ability are Natural Abilities.

JaronK

It would also be reasonable to assume such a thing if one goes by the advice of use DM fiat whenever anyone has doubts (even if the doubts could be cleared up by reading the appropriate rules) and lets that be guided by how things "should" be (rather then how they are). There is certainly heavy implication but lack of actual statement.

JaronK

2011-10-18, 02:22 AM

olentu

2011-10-18, 02:27 AM

But it's not reasonable if there's a direct rule against it, which is what Curmudgeon is maintaining. And the guy who wrote the rule Curmudgeon is referencing (or at least was part of that writing) certainly doesn't seem to think such a rule exists. So it sure seems like he didn't mean anything like what Curmudgeon is trying to claim.

Skip straight up says when he's intentionally changing rules (like when he invented a new rule for ignoring flankers in the last of the Rules of the Game: Sneak Attack articles). But he's not doing that here... he's suggesting how it should be interpreted. And since this is his rules here, this is one case where we actually know RAI.

Plus, you have to combine it with all the other evidence here.

JaronK

If you are advising use DM fiat instead of use the rules then it is perfectly reasonable that one would think it reasonable.

And as far as I can tell it was noted not all cases of contradiction of the rules are explicitly stated as making stuff up.

Edit: Actually considering other evidence I would have to say that in this case the FAQ writer may have known he had no idea what he was talking about. I mean he presumably wrote the rules of the game article that noted what natural abilities are and should he have written that then advising use DM fiat in all cases of doubt is not such great advice because natural abilities are unlisted and the person asking the question shows doubt about unlisted abilities. So it would seem he is advising use DM fiat in the case of all natural abilities. Furthermore he advises that any ability without an explicit supernatural component should be considered extraordinary it seems. Taking those two together in the context of the question he seems to be advising that all natural abilities should be ruled by DM fiat as extraordinary. So the avoidance of a definite answer would lead me to believe it reasonable to assume that he knew that he did not know the answer and so did not actually answer the question to avoid giving an incorrect ruling.

Well or so it could be said if one had a particular mindset. I would probably default to insufficiently clear to derive intent and leave it at that.

JaronK

2011-10-18, 02:50 AM

If you are advising use DM fiat instead of use the rules then it is perfectly reasonable that one would think it reasonable.

And as far as I can tell it was noted not all cases of contradiction of the rules are explicitly stated as making stuff up.

This doesn't look like advising DM fiat though... I see nothing like that here. He's saying that when trying to judge whether a class ability is Ex or not, it's reasonable to call any non magic ability Ex. There's a difference between DM Fiat ("I my games, all arcane magic doesn't work!") and a DM interpreting the rules ("Since the Dread Necromancer Fear Aura is based on the Lich's ability, I think the duration was supposed to be one round/level"). One is the DM making an arbitrary decision, the other is weighing the evidence and judging intent/rules. This is talking about the latter.

He's saying it's a reasonable judgement of the intent and letter of the rules to say that any non magical class ability is Ex. And he gives Sneak Attack as an example (which does make sense, considering Sneak Attack is always called an Ex ability).

By the way, the rules for Sneak Attack (Ex) in the Spellthief entry say "see the Rogue class feature" for their full rules, so it really is the same ability. Likewise, the Gloom ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/gloom.htm ) has this line: "Sneak Attack (Ex) A gloom is able to sneak attack as a 25th-level rogue, dealing 13d6 extra damage. " So yes, even when it's saying it's just like the Rogue ability, it says it's Ex. How about the Derro?

"Sneak Attack (Ex)

Any time a derro’s opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC, or if a derro flanks his opponent, he deals an extra 1d6 points of damage. This ability is just like the rogue’s sneak attack and subject to the same limitations. "

Huh. The ability is just like the Rogue version... and clearly marked Ex. And what about the Babau?

"Sneak Attack (Ex)

A babau can make a sneak attack like a rogue, dealing an extra 2d6 points of damage whenever a foe is denied his or her Dexterity bonus, or when the babau is flanking. "

You get the idea, right? But let's look at it from another angle. Check out the Frost Giant Jarl, 8th-Level Blackguard in the SRD. See how Sneak Attack is listed as a Special Attack? The Blackguard entry is written just like the Rogue one (no type listed, as it was in the DMG), yet it's a Special Attack, which means it must be Ex, Sp, or Su (note the Jarl was originally in the Monster Manual, which states it must be Ex, Sp, or Su in that very book). So, can't be natural, despite not having a listed type explicitly in the ability. Perhaps we should play the same game as before... look through the books and find an old monster entry of any creature with Rogue levels. Guess where Sneak Attack is going to be listed.

It's quite simple: it's nuts to claim that the guy who wrote the definition of Natural Abilities and Ex abilities didn't know what he wrote, even after he then wrote a follow up clarification. The only way everything he says taken as a whole makes sense is if you accept that what he meant by saying abilities otherwise not designated are natural is that any ability that doesn't fit the definition of Ex, Sp, or Su (that is to say, not designated by those definitions) is natural. Then everything he says makes logical and perfect sense. Special Abilities are already designated as Sp, Su, or Ex, with all non magical Special Abilities (including all non magical class abilities) being Ex. Abilities that fall outside those categories (non magical abilities that don't require any special training at all and are not listed anywhere as Special Abilities) are Natural. This interpretation fits EVERYTHING he's ever written on the topic.

That's the only interpretation that leaves us without any contradictions, and doesn't have Skip advising that you ignore his own rules. I may not think too highly of Skip, but he's very consistent within his own thought processes, at least as far as his writing goes.

Claiming that every ability that's not explicitly type marked is Natural leads to contradictions all over the place, from the Giant with Blackgaurd levels having Special Attack Sneak Attack (which you'd otherwise say has to be Natural), to Skip saying it's reasonable to rule that all unmarked class abilities are Ex despite just having written that undesignated abilities are Na.

JaronK

olentu

2011-10-18, 03:25 AM

Interpretation of the rules is arbitrary due to the differences between people. So even if the DM tries their best to determine the intent of the rules they will likely still have some arbitrariness built into them by their nature as a human.

As to abilities with the same name. First implication is not statement. Second drow of the underdark pages 80 and 81.

According to evidence I have seen presented in this thread the rules compendium does say that special abilities that are not magical are categorized as extraordinary or natural. It would seem that anything saying that special abilities can not be categorized as natural is in contention with the rules compendium and must then be incorrect.

I see no reason to believe that everyone remembers everything they have done with perfect clarity at all times always. I think of skip probably about as highly as most other persons in this relevant sense and by that I mean fallible. But perhaps he has perfect recall and I just don't know that. Additionally due to the collaborative nature of writing of the rules organized by wizards of the coast rules can change and so even if one should have been the original author of the rules that is no guarantee that the rules are the same as when originally conceived.

Finally any "contradiction" not actually based on statement but rather implication is not what I would call an actual contradiction. And even then there are provisions for resolving contradiction in the rules and so in many cases there is not really any contradiction in the end only an apparent contradiction due to lack of knowledge of the parts of the rules that remove the apparent contradiction. So only in the case where there is apparent contradiction without ability to apply those rules that remove these apparent contradictions is there actually contradiction. In such cases of irresolvable contradiction then it may be preferable to avoid contradiction but if the contradiction is already resolved then there is no problem.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 06:54 AM

I see no reason to believe that everyone remembers everything they have done with perfect clarity at all times always. I think of skip probably about as highly as most other persons in this relevant sense and by that I mean fallible. But perhaps he has perfect recall and I just don't know that. Additionally due to the collaborative nature of writing of the rules organized by wizards of the coast rules can change and so even if one should have been the original author of the rules that is no guarantee that the rules are the same as when originally conceived.
What stops Skip from re-reading his own rules? :smallconfused: It's not like the handbooks where all burned or something...

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 07:06 AM

I don't understand this debate. Isn't it quite clear that what is a natural ability for one class (sneak attack for the rogue) can be an extraordinary ability for another (sneak attack for the spellthief)?
If the rogue sneak attack was an extraordinary ability it would be labelled with the (ex) tag.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 07:12 AM

It follows the description of an (Ex) ability to the letter, but is a Natural ability? :smallconfused:
Saying that an ability is Natural just because WotC failed to label it in the Core books (but did it in later books) is nonsensical. :smallsigh:

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 07:16 AM

Maybe, but it's not RAW.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 07:22 AM

Well, yes. That's what I'm taking about. :smallconfused:
An ability is Natural when it's not (Ex), (Sp) or (Su). Then and only then. Trapfinding and Sneak Attack perfectly follows the description of an (Ex) ability, so it's an (Ex) ability (which was proven to be true), not an (Na) ability.
WotC just failed at writing it with sense. doesn't mean you get the right to misinterpret the RAW. Like JaronK already said, this is one of the few instances whre we actually KNOW the RAI.

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 07:39 AM

But it is unlabelled, therefore natural. That's RAW.

There's a ton of errata published and if none points to this, then the original text still stands. If you want to houserule otherwise that's fine.

As I said, there is nothing to say that a class of racial feature is given one label that this is carried over to all other classes or races.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 07:58 AM

But it is unlabelled, therefore natural. That's RAW.
No. It's unlabeled, therefore you have to label it yourself.

There's a ton of errata published and if none points to this, then the original text still stands. If you want to houserule otherwise that's fine.
I have the word of the author of this rules and handbooks that label those abilities as (Ex).

As I said, there is nothing to say that a class of racial feature is given one label that this is carried over to all other classes or races.
If the class or racial feature points to the unlabeled feature for reference, then yes, you can say that the unlabeled feature is the same type as the labeled one. Especially if there isnothing about them being in any way different. If Spellthiefs Sneak Attack would be somehow different from Rogues Sneak Attack, it would be pointed out with "Note that this classes Sneak Attack is an (Ex) ability, but Rogues is unlabeled/(Na)". There's no such thing, so they're the same. Simple.

Do I really have to quote definitions of words? Really? :smallsigh:

Designated: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/designated)
1. To indicate or specify; point out.
2. To give a name or title to; characterize.
3. To select and set aside for a duty, an office, or a purpose. See Synonyms at allocate, appoint.
You're too much focused on the first definition, forgetting that there are more then one. WotC used a more general, ambigious word. Wouldn't be the first time. But here we have words of the author as prove.

I think we are done here.

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 08:59 AM

No. It's unlabeled, therefore you have to label it yourself.

What!? Since when do "we label it ourselves"? From the definition of natural abilities it says:
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

There are no unlabeled abilities.

I'm fine with your houserule, but it's not RAW.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:12 AM

I assume you ignored the rest of my post. Seeing as it's the only way you can be right in this discussion, I don't blame you.

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 09:16 AM

Yes, I do ignore it. The rest of your post didn't address the issue of a class ability that is not (Ex, Sp, or Su) and that hasn't been errata'd (i.e. natural, according to the rules).

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:22 AM

Yes, I do ignore it.
Good to know. Now I can ignore you, because from now on your posts are irrelevant to this discussion.

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 09:28 AM

I don't need to know I'm "right"; I'm just quoting the RAW. If you feel the rules don't make sense or are contradictory, change them as you see fit, but don't try and make convoluted arguments about your houserules being official.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:49 AM

The exact same thing can be said about you.

JaronK

2011-10-18, 10:27 AM

What!? Since when do "we label it ourselves"?

Since the Official Rules FAQ said to do that, obviously. As well as since there are general rules that tell us what the unlabeled rules are.

From the definition of natural abilities it says:

There are no unlabeled abilities.

I'm fine with your houserule, but it's not RAW.

Sure there are unlabeled abilities. They're designated something in places other than their entry. For example, telepathy is designated "Su" in the general rule for telepathy, but it's unlabeled in most monster entries (except when it's specifically Ex, as in the case of one particular Formian). So, even though that's an unlabled ability, we label it ourselves as Su because we have RAW support for that.

Likewise, Sneak Attack is unlabeled, but it's designated as Ex by the definition of Ex abilities. It also so happens that later books started explicitly putting the Ex tag on the ability (making it labeled there) even while specifically saying they were just copies of the Rogue rule entirely.

Let's be clear: RAW NEVER says unlabeled abilities are natural. It says abilities which are not designated as anything else are natural. Designation and directly labeling something are not the same thing. If something is designated by other rules to be a certain ability type, then that's what it is. Feats are generally Ex because BoED says in general that's what they are (unless there's a specific exception, like Exalted Feats). And because they match the description for Ex abilities (non magic trained abilities). The fact that they're unlabeled doesn't make them suddenly Natural Abilities.

Only abilities that don't match the other three types are Natural Abilities. Natural Abilities is just a catch all category for those things that can't be the other three.

JaronK

olentu

2011-10-18, 12:53 PM

What stops Skip from re-reading his own rules? :smallconfused: It's not like the handbooks where all burned or something...

Oh any one of a number of things could. Perhaps laziness, perhaps when re reading it the rules were too confusing, perhaps he thought he remembered correctly and was wrong, and so forth. Who knows what did or did not happen, certainly not me I only know what was written.

Gullintanni

2011-10-18, 01:04 PM

snipped

EDIT: It's not worth it. Good luck all. Play nice. :smallsmile:

JaronK

2011-10-18, 01:06 PM

But since everything he's written is consistent (as long as you don't read "not otherwise designated" as "not labeled within the specific entry"). So why try to go with a reading that makes him sound so inconsistent, especially since he hasn't had a pattern of doing that?

I mean, I criticize Skip for not understanding the implications of the rules he's made (see his Fighters with Class article), but he's never been inconsistent as to what the rules say. And since he outright says that it's a reasonable thing to call all class abilities that aren't obviously magical Ex, clearly he never meant that every unlabeled ability is Natural (especially considering the definitions of Natural Abilities are also consistently talking about abilities that come from the basic physical form of the creature).

This is a fallacious association. The Lilitu has an Ex. ability called Mock Divinity that grants the spellcasting of a 9th level Cleric. The Hobgoblin Warcaster functions in exactly the same way. It has a specific ability called Arcane Talent that grants 4th level Wizard spellcasting.

The abilities Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are abilities distinct from the Spells class feature, and accordingly, do not serve to define the rules for that class feature. Ergo, if Mock Divinity is Ex. and Arcane Talen is Ex., Spells is still undefined.

What's fallacious here? The ability to cast spells as a 4th level Wizard is an Ex ability. So is the ability to cast spells as a 9th level Cleric. So that establishes that the ability to cast spells can be an Ex ability, right? Since we don't have a straight forward "SPELLS ARE AN EX ABILITY" written anywhere, we have to go on the best information we have. The information we do have is as follows:

Spells are a Special Attack, and thus must be Sp, Su, or Ex. There are various reasons for saying they can't be any of those three (I can go over them if you like), but then we have examples of Spells being Ex, which means it's fallacious to say they can't possibly be Ex. Since we've eliminated the other two (much more strongly than we could have eliminated Ex anyway), they must indeed be the only thing they can possibly be... Extraordinary. Plus, we have it from Skip (in his Rules of the Game: Antimagic article) that you CAN cast spells in an antimagic field, which means the ability to cast spells isn't magical (even if the spells themselves are, hence them being suppressed in that field).

So we know that the ability to cast spells is a non magical Special Attack (that alone makes them Ex), and we know that the only places where the ability to cast spells is marked it's Ex. So why would there be any confusion?

JaronK

olentu

2011-10-18, 01:33 PM

But since everything he's written is consistent (as long as you don't read "not otherwise designated" as "not labeled within the specific entry"). So why try to go with a reading that makes him sound so inconsistent, especially since he hasn't had a pattern of doing that?

I mean, I criticize Skip for not understanding the implications of the rules he's made (see his Fighters with Class article), but he's never been inconsistent as to what the rules say. And since he outright says that it's a reasonable thing to call all class abilities that aren't obviously magical Ex, clearly he never meant that every unlabeled ability is Natural (especially considering the definitions of Natural Abilities are also consistently talking about abilities that come from the basic physical form of the creature).

What's fallacious here? The ability to cast spells as a 4th level Wizard is an Ex ability. So is the ability to cast spells as a 9th level Cleric. So that establishes that the ability to cast spells can be an Ex ability, right? Since we don't have a straight forward "SPELLS ARE AN EX ABILITY" written anywhere, we have to go on the best information we have. The information we do have is as follows:

Spells are a Special Attack, and thus must be Sp, Su, or Ex. There are various reasons for saying they can't be any of those three (I can go over them if you like), but then we have examples of Spells being Ex, which means it's fallacious to say they can't possibly be Ex. Since we've eliminated the other two (much more strongly than we could have eliminated Ex anyway), they must indeed be the only thing they can possibly be... Extraordinary. Plus, we have it from Skip (in his Rules of the Game: Antimagic article) that you CAN cast spells in an antimagic field, which means the ability to cast spells isn't magical (even if the spells themselves are, hence them being suppressed in that field).

So we know that the ability to cast spells is a non magical Special Attack (that alone makes them Ex), and we know that the only places where the ability to cast spells is marked it's Ex. So why would there be any confusion?

JaronK

Did you not read my posts. Not otherwise designated can mean that it is designated elsewhere but does require explicit designation not assumption about designer intent.

I don't automatically assume someone is right just because they are experienced since people do make mistakes. What I do if possible is review what they are saying and then compare it to the evidence to see if they are right.

Also as I said rules can chance and if they do then being consistent is actually a mark of failure. So consistency is meaningless as to prove consistency is good you would have to have already demonstrated the correctness of the position making consistency unimportant.

Look if we are going to talk about intent that is fine but say that we are talking about what people meant the rules to say instead of what they do say.

And of course as I said before, according to evidence I have seen presented in this thread the rules compendium does say that special abilities that are not magical are categorized as extraordinary or natural. It would seem that anything saying that special abilities can not be categorized as natural is in contention with the rules compendium and must then be incorrect.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 02:05 PM

Not otherwise designated can mean that it is designated elsewhere but does require explicit designation not assumption about designer intent.
:smallsigh:
"Designated" doesn't mean only one thing. As you said it can mean that it is designated elsewhere. Also it can mean "characterized", because that's the other definition of "designated". I've said before, you've must have missed it (or ignored). Saying "characterized" instead "designated" will make it more clear for you? :smallannoyed: Or are you going to ignore what words mean and stick to your one interpretation?

Gwendol

2011-10-18, 04:03 PM

Honestly, I don't care about designer intent. But the way the rules are written there is no doubt that class features in the PHB, such as the rogue's sneak attack ability does not have either a Ex, Sp, or Su tag.
Furthermore, it is also stated that natural abilities is defined as those abilities that does not fall under the the previous three.
Therefore, by the RAW, there really can't be much room for interpretation here.

I'm not saying you're explicitly wrong, just that as the rules are written I don't see the conflicting interpretations. If this isn't RAI, so be it.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 04:32 PM

Honestly, I don't care about designer intent.
When it proves you wrong?

But the way the rules are written there is no doubt that class features in the PHB, such as the rogue's sneak attack ability does not have either a Ex, Sp, or Su tag.
They have. Sneak Attack is (Ex).

Therefore, by the RAW, there really can't be much room for interpretation here.
Oh, there is. "Designated" doesn't mean "have to be". Check the dictionary.

olentu

2011-10-18, 06:23 PM

:smallsigh:
"Designated" doesn't mean only one thing. As you said it can mean that it is designated elsewhere. Also it can mean "characterized", because that's the other definition of "designated". I've said before, you've must have missed it (or ignored). Saying "characterized" instead "designated" will make it more clear for you? :smallannoyed: Or are you going to ignore what words mean and stick to your one interpretation?

Oh the thing is that if there is more than one valid interpretation then unfortunately they are both valid. It is impossible to say that one is right and so neither can be said to be right. The argument ends in the rules are sufficiently unclear that there is no answer. So yeah you are quite possibly correct in that the argument can never be resolved.

Now I don't care which side is right I am just here for proper procedure but the thing is that up until you came along no one was arguing that there is no answer. That is as far as I could tell each side was arguing only one interpretation being possible to be valid instead of there are two valid ways to read this that produce inconsistent results and thus the argument can have no answer. But if you are here to argue for the there is no answer because English is imprecise side then go ahead.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 06:49 PM

JaronK

2011-10-18, 07:01 PM

Oh the thing is that if there is more than one valid interpretation then unfortunately they are both valid. It is impossible to say that one is right and so neither can be said to be right. The argument ends in the rules are sufficiently unclear that there is no answer. So yeah you are quite possibly correct in that the argument can never be resolved.\

...We have a designer saying what interpretation is correct and what isn't. Thus, we can say what is right and what isn't. He's gone over this multiple times (both in the FAQ where he says it's reasonable to call any class ability that's not obviously magical Ex, and in his polymorph article where he clarifies this issue). So we can absolutely say which is right. The one the designer said is right is valid, the one the designer says is wrong is invalid. Done.

JaronK

olentu

2011-10-18, 07:22 PM

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 07:31 PM

What houserule?

olentu

2011-10-18, 07:42 PM

What houserule?

The house rule of choosing between irreconcilable conflict based upon ones personal opinion.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 07:59 PM

So no houserule then.

olentu

2011-10-18, 08:29 PM

So no houserule then.

You are either arguing that the rules do not resolve the situation or arguing that the rules do resolve the situation. If the rules do not resolve the situation then the use of designer intent to resolve the conflict must by the very nature of the argument not be part of the rules and thus a houserule. Alternatively if the rules do resolve the situation then designer intent is unimportant since we have you know rules.

I suppose if you are not arguing either that the rules do or do not resolve the situation then you are going to need to explain.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 08:44 PM

olentu

2011-10-18, 08:54 PM

It is quite simple if you try to understand: The rules as written are unclear. That's why you use rules as intended. We know what was intended, the author of the rule is saying what was intended. Therefore me and JaronK are right and Cormudgeon is wrong.
Simple.

Er I would think that given the nature of the arguments thus far curmudgeon was arguing about what the rules actually say not what would be the most reasonable method for guiding use of DM fiat. Now sure if you are arguing a completely different thing with different conditions for correctness then perhaps you are right but you are not even talking about the same thing and are attempting to apply arguments to something that they don't apply to.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:03 PM

:smallconfused:
I have proven him that he's wrong. How is that a different thing?

olentu

2011-10-18, 09:08 PM

:smallconfused:
I have proven him that he's wrong. How is that a different thing?

I can make an argument that proves you wrong and then make an argument that proves that argument wrong in turn so long as I am free to define the terms of the arguments however I want. It is rather meaningless.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:12 PM

I can make an argument that proves you wrong
Who's stopping you? :smallconfused: Up until now you where just making silly, irrelevant posts. It's time to provide something of use or bow out from the discussion.

olentu

2011-10-18, 09:21 PM

Who's stopping you? :smallconfused: Up until now you where just making silly, irrelevant posts. It's time to provide something of use or bow out from the discussion.

It would be pointless merely wasting everyone's time. It is much more useful to discuss why it would be pointless to do so then to actually do it. So I am already doing something of more use then providing a pointless construction and so you are clearly wrong in your ranking of the relevance of posts.

Curmudgeon

2011-10-18, 09:21 PM

I see that you don't even read what you quote.

Your weak argument is refuted.
Therefore you're wrong. Try again.
My bad. I could sworn that it meant basically the same as draw.

:smallconfused:
I have proven him that he's wrong. How is that a different thing?
So far I haven't seen you prove anything ─ apart from a lack of attention to details when reading the rules, that is. :smallbiggrin:

You've claimed that Spellthief sneak attack, labeled as Extraordinary, somehow requires the previously written Rogue sneak attack to conform. You haven't shown a rule which allows that change, but you have ignored the one (Primary Sources Errata rule) which says that such a change can only be made by an official errata file.

Skip Williams has set a bad example by offering up his house rules as if they were RAW, and it's depressing to see others follow in those footsteps. If Skip didn't like the way things were written in the published book, he knew full well the proper way to make corrections. (That his ideas didn't make it into the official errata makes me suspect that those changes did not meet with the approval of the editors, directors, and others empowered to overrule Skip's ideas.) :smallsigh:

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:23 PM

olentu

2011-10-18, 09:26 PM

Then your posts are irrelevant, as they ere from the start. Consider youreslf ignored.

Oh don't worry I am not doing this for my own elucidation though perhaps I should have been less subtle.

Edit: And it seems I am still being rather subtle but then again this should be a rather big hint.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-18, 09:48 PM

Okay then, Cormudgeon. One last time. What is your argument?

olentu

2011-10-18, 09:53 PM

Okay then, Cormudgeon. One last time. What is your argument?

By the by you are misspelling the name.

Gwendol

2011-10-19, 01:27 AM

The thing is that the way sneak attack is phrased in the description of the spellthief, it does not appear to be exactly the same as for the rogue. It says explicitly that if you have extra damage dice from the rogue's sneak attack, that damage stacks. It does not say that you can add class levels of rogue to your spellthief levels (or the other way around) to determine how many extra dice of damage you do. In general, stacking means they come from a different source, which is no wonder since the two abilities have different labels.

Again, not trying to guess intent here; just stating the RAW.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-19, 02:49 AM

It says "See the Rogue class feature". That's as much the same as stating that Rogues Sneak Attack is also (Ex).
Also, one last time, this time for real:
"Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
"Designated", also known as "characterized", means in this sentence that if an ability doesn't follow the characteristics of (Ex), (Sp) or (Su) then, and only then, will it be considered an (Na) ability. The author of this rules confirmed that to be the right interpretation. And no, choosing one of multiple valid interpretations of a rule (because the rules wording is unclear) isn't DM fiat, nor is it a houserule. It's following the rules either as intended, or, if even intent is unclear, as interpreted by the DM (because he is the DM, obviously, and the rules have to be used somehow).

Gwendol

2011-10-19, 03:49 AM

No, it also says that. And there is nothing in the context of that sentence that suggests what you are trying to infer.

I don't think designate and characterize are synonymous, and wonder where you got that from?

Your line of reasoning implies several suppositions and interpretations. While not necessarily wrong, the RAW are what they are.

olentu

2011-10-19, 04:57 AM

Ok so I have already gone over how arguing for irreconcilable equally valid contradictory points leads to position being wrong so I will leave it at that for the moment.

Well as to the possible implication about referencing in sneak attacks it is just that possible implication, I mean not even one that everyone agrees on the implication about. On the other hand off the top of my head I can think of one simple example of a class feature referencing a class feature of another type. I believe it was an extraordinary class feature making explicit reference to a supernatural class feature of the same name. That make the implication about ability types even less likely.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-19, 05:41 AM

No, it also says that. And there is nothing in the context of that sentence that suggests what you are trying to infer.
So the rule is vague, unclear. What now?

I don't think designate and characterize are synonymous, and wonder where you got that from?
Uh, a dictionary? :smallconfused: I quoted and even link a definition of "designated". Maybe you ignored it, like you tend to do with parts of my posts that prove you wrong?

Your line of reasoning implies several suppositions and interpretations.
So does yours, but my is supported by both the authors words and Rules of The Game: Polymorph article: "Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural."

Ok so I have already gone over how arguing for irreconcilable equally valid contradictory points leads to position being wrong so I will leave it at that for the moment.
Dude, please. Because a rule is unclear, I can't argue about it? Are you serious? Get it to your head: Rules aren't always perfectly clear, and when they aren't, the DM must make a decision. He must choose one of the interpretations, because otherwise the game will stop. How can you play when you can't use a rule? So in order for the game to continue, the DM must chose the interpretation closest to to the intended one. Please remind me, what was the designers intention? Hint: He said it himself.

On the other hand off the top of my head I can think of one simple example of a class feature referencing a class feature of another type. I believe it was an extraordinary class feature making explicit reference to a supernatural class feature of the same name. That make the implication about ability types even less likely.
Book and page, please.

Oh yeah. About that thing with the Sneak Attack. Let me explain:
Rogues Sneak Attack is 1d6 and +1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter.
Spellthiefs Sneak Attack is +1d6 at 1st level, +2d6 at 5th level, +3d6 at 9th level, +4d6 at 13th level and +5d6 at 17th level.
So it's quite understandable that they say that it stacks, as they don't follow the same progression and normally you don't stack the same class abilities from different classes. This is an exception.
This difference is so minor that it's not even worth wasting time to argue, but I did it anyway for clarities sake.

Let it be known that from now on I'm not responding to posts that do not have arguments proving me wrong. Repeating the same things and insisting that they're right isn't an argument. The same about strawmen.

olentu

2011-10-19, 06:06 AM

So the rule is vague, unclear. What now?

Uh, a dictionary? :smallconfused:

So does yours, but my is supported by both the authors words and Rules of The Game: Polymorph article: "Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural."

Dude, please. Because a rule is unclear, I can't argue about it? Are you serious? Get it to your head: Rules aren't always perfectly clear, and when they aren't, the DM must make a decision. He must choose one of the interpretations, because otherwise the game will stop. How can you play when you can't use a rule? So in order for the game to continue, the DM must chose the interpretation closest to to the intended one. Please remind me, what was the designers intention? Hint: He said it himself.

Book and page, please.

Oh yeah. About that thing with the Sneak Attack. Let me explain:
Rogues Sneak Attack is 1d6 and +1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter.
Spellthiefs Sneak Attack is +1d6 at 1st level, +2d6 at 5th level, +3d6 at 9th level, +4d6 at 13th level and +5d6 at 17th level.
So it's quite understandable that they say that it stacks, as they don't follow the same progression and normally you don't stack the same class abilities from different classes. This is an exception.
This difference is so minor that it's not even worth wasting time to argue, but I did it anyway for clarities sake.

Seriously I went into this already but to summarize the last several posts. If you are arguing that the rules allow for two valid interpretations that are mutually exclusive then neither of them can be said to be correct because both are valid.

Then you brought in intent and I countered with "You are either arguing that the rules do not resolve the situation or arguing that the rules do resolve the situation. If the rules do not resolve the situation then the use of designer intent to resolve the conflict must by the very nature of the argument not be part of the rules and thus a houserule. Alternatively if the rules do resolve the situation then designer intent is unimportant since we have you know rules."

To show that should your argument be correct any resolution is a houserule and as such unimportant with regards to a discussion of what the rules actually say.

Then you countered with well what if I just say that I am not actually arguing what the rules actually say but rather I am arguing my opinion of designer intent.

To which I said well that is great but that is an entirely different subject then what people you are discussing with seem to actually be taking about and so you are just talking past the other side.

To which you said well I can create a consistent argument from my personally chosen premises that being consistent proves itself correct so I am the victor.

To which I said well sure one can create a construction that proves basically anything since one can chose the premises to allow for supporting basically any conclusion. However this is rather unimportant in a discussion with others since if a common ground can not be agreed upon it is just talking past each other and in the end does not resolve anything.

To which you challenged me to make one of those self consistent but also basically useless constructions.

I then replied that since that would as I said do nothing it would be meaningless and a waste of everyone's time while adding some missed subtle bits.

Then you said well if you wont make constructions that are going to be meaningless I am going to ignore you.

Then you decided to renege on your decision to ignore me and here we are.

As I recall drow of the under dark pages 80 and 81. Sure it is meaningless but hey some may consider it an interesting quirk of the rules so there you go. But as I said in the end it just argues intent which is meaningless.