Abilities: Special, Extraordinary, Spell Like, Supernatural, Natural, get 'em here. [Archive]

JaronK

2013-07-09, 03:52 AM

I guess we can play with it all here, but I will ask that people who want to debate this at least read the source material before jumping in, as a LOT of people keep repeating arguments that are directly refuted by the source material.

The following things are required reading for this: Monster Manual page 6 and the Special Abilities section of the glossary, plus the earlier section on Special Attacks and Special Qualities, as those are the primary sources for all Special Abilities. Then read Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph and Rules of the Game Antimagic. Check the Rules Compendium section on Special Abilities, and you might want to peak at the SRD entries on the topic while you're at it. Also check MMV in the Hobgoblin section, as well as the Lilitu in IIRC Fiend Folio. From all these sources, you'll find the following:

1. Special Abilities (both Special Attacks and Special Qualities) are always Ex, Sp, or Su. No exceptions. This rule is repeated more than any other rule in the game that isn't specific to a class.

2. Abilities that aren't designated as Ex, Sp, or Su (note that being defined as a Special Ability designates it as such) are Na. That is to say, abilities that aren't Special Abilities are Na abilities. Note that as per the Rules of the Game articles referenced above (Polymorph 3), Alter Self gives you all Na abilities of the creature, so claiming spells are Na means you think Alter Self grants spellcasting.

3. All Su and Sp abilities are labeled as such in every monster entry. This means unlabeled Special Abilities are all Ex.

4. Many abilities are not labeled in class tables (especially in early print books like PHB) but are labeled elsewhere, including things like Ranger monsters having their Ranger granted abilities labeled in their stat block.

5. Since it came up for spells, whenever spells are labeled (only in later printing books), they're always labeled as Ex. No exceptions.

6. The ability to cast spells isn't magical, even if the spells themselves are. See RotG:Antimagic for more on this. If spells were Sp or Su, you couldn't cast long duration spells in an antimagic field and then have them turn up when the field is gone (Factotums, for example, can't do that because their psuedo casting is actually Sp).

7. In 3.0, spells were an Na ability, because Na abilities had different rules then. So be careful if your source is 3.0.

8. Rules Compendium and the SRD both have a confusing way of listing Natural Abilities... they put them in the Special Abilities section, but then say that only Su, Sp, and Ex abilities are Special Abilities while Natural Abilities are just "abilities". Don't get confused by that.

9. Every monster entry that lists spells using the old stat blocks lists them as a Special Attack (which is a subset of Special Abilities). This includes creatures with class levels that give them spell casting (such as the 10th level Cleric Mummy).

10. Monster Manual 1 lists Spells as a type of Special Attack.

11. Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities.

12. Special Abilities are divided into two categories, Special Attacks and Special Qualities.

If any of these points isn't obvious, the source material backs them all up. When I have more time I might put page references and quotes for all of this.

JaronK

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 03:58 AM

1. Special Abilities (both Special Attacks and Special Qualities) are always Ex, Sp, or Su. No exceptions. This rule is repeated more than any other rule in the game that isn't specific to a class.

We'll start with this since as far as I can tell it isn't true. Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not always Special Abilities. The sections you pointed to do NOT claim this.

Jeff the Green

2013-07-09, 04:54 AM

We'll start with this since as far as I can tell it isn't true. Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not always Special Abilities. The sections you pointed to do NOT claim this.

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

In standard English, "either a, b, ... or z" means that a-z are the only options. "I am either alive or dead" means that there is no third state I can be that is neither alive nor dead.

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 05:01 AM

In standard English, "either a, b, ... or z" means that a-z are the only options. "I am either alive or dead" means that there is no third state I can be that is neither alive nor dead.

Yes, Special Abilities are always one of the three.

Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not defined as subsets of Special Abilities. Just because they all have "special" in the name does not mean you are making a valid inference.

Edit: Hmm, perhaps I spoke too soon. I guess I was too sleepy when I read it before. Let me ponder this.

Jeff the Green

2013-07-09, 05:07 AM

Yes, Special Abilities are always one of the three.

Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not defined as subsets of Special Abilities. Just because they all have "special" in the name does not mean you are making a valid inference.

Edit: Hmm, perhaps I spoke too soon. I guess I was too sleepy when I read it before. Let me ponder this.

garagh. jeff's reading comprehension not good now. should sleep.

This is the appropriate passage:

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature’s descriptive text.

When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows:

10 + ½ the attacker’s racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.

The save DC is given in the creature’s description along with the ability on which the DC is based.

While it's not explicit, without Special Attacks and Special Qualities being subsets of Special Abilities this passage is essentially nonsensical.

Edit:
Note, however, that I'm not taking a side on the ultimate issue of this argument. In particular I can't remember anything that says that class abilities are necessarily special abilities. It's possible someone's brought it up, but see my previous comment about my reading comprehension.

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 05:49 AM

While it's not explicit, without Special Attacks and Special Qualities being subsets of Special Abilities this passage is essentially nonsensical.

Agreed. In the throes of weariness I missed that part of the passage.

Edit:
Note, however, that I'm not taking a side on the ultimate issue of this argument. In particular I can't remember anything that says that class abilities are necessarily special abilities. It's possible someone's brought it up, but see my previous comment about my reading comprehension.

I do not have a horse in the race either, so to speak. However, there are several reasons why I don't think what JaronK is saying is valid. I thought it would be easier to go through each one by one. That way points don't get lost in confusion.

However, I cannot entirely agree with
"1. Special Abilities (both Special Attacks and Special Qualities) are always Ex, Sp, or Su. No exceptions. This rule is repeated more than any other rule in the game that isn't specific to a class."

In general, Special Attacks and Special Qualities are Ex, Sp, or Su. This is actually NOT repeated much at all. (And no, JaronK, monster entries don't count, as they are not general rules, but rules specific to that monster alone). Like anything else, specific trumps general, and we have many specific examples where Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not given any such tag.

Some examples:
Spells. Both many entries and the glossary do not give it a tag.
Monster Traits are Special Qualities, but many of these do not have a tag (e.g. Mindless, Blind, Eating/Breathing/Etc or lack thereof, etc, etc, etc).
Vulnerability to Energy has no tag.
Weapon and Armor Proficiencies have no tag.

So while there are two places that state that Special Abilities are either Ex, Sp, or Su, in actual practice there are many that are not.

Psyren

2013-07-09, 08:35 AM

What brought up this entire argument was the Factotum and its ability to pilfer Ex abilities, no? Even if you agree that monster spellcasting is Ex, Factotums are still hosed by RAW. SRD:

A spellcasting creature is not actually a member of a class unless its entry says so, and it does not gain any class abilities.

Therefore a spellcasting creature's spellcasting is not a class ability even if it is Ex, thus the Factotum cannot acquire it via Cunning Brilliance.

The rest of the debate I have no real interest in.

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 08:43 AM

I was going to get there, but I thought I'd start at point 1.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 10:18 AM

However, I cannot entirely agree with
"1. Special Abilities (both Special Attacks and Special Qualities) are always Ex, Sp, or Su. No exceptions. This rule is repeated more than any other rule in the game that isn't specific to a class."

In general, Special Attacks and Special Qualities are Ex, Sp, or Su. This is actually NOT repeated much at all.

Monster Manual 1 page 6. Monster Manual 1 page 315. Fiend Folio page 8. SRD. And more. It is in fact repeated all over the place.

(And no, JaronK, monster entries don't count, as they are not general rules, but rules specific to that monster alone). Like anything else, specific trumps general, and we have many specific examples where Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not given any such tag.

The quote from those three (said in a few ways, here's the SRD one) is: "A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature." That's not from a specific entry... that's a general rule. And let's be clear: lack of something isn't a specific rule, presence is. If a general rule defines something, the lack of a specific contradiction doesn't change that. Frankly, you're just using specific overrides general completely wrong.

There's also a rule that says that feats are always Ex unless otherwise defined. Do you think the fact that no feat says specifically it's Ex changes that?

So while there are two places that state that Special Abilities are either Ex, Sp, or Su, in actual practice there are many that are not.

I just gave you four places that say that, and you gave no places that say they're not (you just showed that a lot of times, there's no specific rule at all, only the general one... which means the general one applies). In fact, here's the four I just mentioned:

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

Monster Manual Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

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

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

It really is the most repeated rule in D&D outside of specific class abilities.

@Psyren: So what? As I already showed, spellcasters that gain their spells via class levels also have spells labeled as a Special Attack. In fact it's always labeled exactly the same way whether you get it from a class or from a race. Nobody cares that a Factotum can't gain, for example, Black Ethergaunt Casting. We're not talking about that. What we're talking about is what type of ability spells is in general, which includes class generated spells. See here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm

Oh, and just in case anyone else was confused about this claim: " Special Attacks and Special Qualities are not always Special Abilities" here's some sourcing for that.

Fiend Folio Page 8

Special Abilities: Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. A monster entry breaks these abilities into Special Attacks and Special Qualities.

Monster Manual Page 6

Special Attacks and Special Qualities: Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities... A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (su).

Notice how the titles of these two otherwise nearly identical sections are laid out. It's very clear that Special Abilities is synonymous with Special Attacks and Special Qualities (in addition to Fiend Folio making it explicit).

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-09, 10:22 AM

@Psyren: So what? As I already showed, spellcasters that gain their spells via class levels also have spells labeled as a Special Attack.

You misunderstood me. It doesn't matter that a mummy lord gets his spells "as a cleric." His spellcasting is specifically not a class ability, even though it is based on an existing class (cleric.) So whether it is Ex, Su, Sp, Ps, Na or N/A, Factotums cannot access it, period.

Spellcasting creatures do not gain class abilities. Categorize their spellcasting however you like, it is off limits to Cunning Brilliance. Done.

Nettlekid

2013-07-09, 12:39 PM

You misunderstood me. It doesn't matter that a mummy lord gets his spells "as a cleric." His spellcasting is specifically not a class ability, even though it is based on an existing class (cleric.) So whether it is Ex, Su, Sp, Ps, Na or N/A, Factotums cannot access it, period.

Spellcasting creatures do not gain class abilities. Categorize their spellcasting however you like, it is off limits to Cunning Brilliance. Done.

I think there are two lines that are being discussed here. The spellcasting ability granted by a class (and what type it is, is it Ex, etc) which opens it up to use by Factotum, and the class-like but racially inherent spellcasting granted by monsters, which is off limits to Factotum of course, but would be open to casters who can use Polymorph and Shapechange.

Now, with regard to JaronK's points, I'd like to reply with:

1. Special Abilities (both Special Attacks and Special Qualities) are always Ex, Sp, or Su. No exceptions. This rule is repeated more than any other rule in the game that isn't specific to a class.
That does indeed seem to be the general rule set forth by the pages in the Monster Manual that you cited, but as we all know, specific trumps general. That says that all abilities are Ex, Su, or Sp, but if a specific instance says that an ability is not one of those three, then specific trumps general.

2. Abilities that aren't designated as Ex, Sp, or Su (note that being defined as a Special Ability designates it as such) are Na. That is to say, abilities that aren't Special Abilities are Na abilities. Note that as per the Rules of the Game articles referenced above (Polymorph 3), Alter Self gives you all Na abilities of the creature, so claiming spells are Na means you think Alter Self grants spellcasting.
The first part of this seems reasonable (I'm still doubtful that designating any ability as a "Special Ability" designates it as one of those three categories, as above), but I don't see where in that Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Three) that it says you gain all Na abilities of the form you take. It lists several Na abilities that you do gain, but it doesn't seem to say you gain all of them.

3. All Su and Sp abilities are labeled as such in every monster entry. This means unlabeled Special Abilities are all Ex.
I can't find anything which directly supports or argues this. I don't see why all non-Su and non-Sp abilities default to Ex. I think that's a fundamentally unsound reasoning, to assign a label to something that, RAW, is unlabeled. Like I said, specific trumps general, so you might say "ALL things have to be labeled...except this specific exception here." But I can't find where this point comes from at all.

4. Many abilities are not labeled in class tables (especially in early print books like PHB) but are labeled elsewhere, including things like Ranger monsters having their Ranger granted abilities labeled in their stat block.
That is true, but if we're operating off of RAW (which it seems like we are, because quite clearly RAI they didn't want shapechangers to get all spells all the time from everything) then it's those early print PHB classes we're looking at, and those are the ones under inspection. It's true that, like you said, the Hobgoblin in MMV has Arcane Talent as an Ex ability, granting it spells as an Xth level Wizard, and that is absolutely unequivocally gained with Shapechange. But the Wizard itself has no such tag, nor does any monster with spells which comes before that. If anything, the presence of that Hobgoblin means that the unlabeled Spells were meant to be unlabeled, because if your argument followed and spellcasting was Ex or Na to begin with, then they wouldn't have had to explicitly describe it as such for the Hobgoblin.

5. Since it came up for spells, whenever spells are labeled (only in later printing books), they're always labeled as Ex. No exceptions.
Not quite. Some kind of ability which grants spells is labeled Ex, no exceptions. Again, that Hobgoblin. It doesn't say "Spells (Ex)," it says "Arcane Talent (Ex)" which grants spells. Because no creature prior to that has Arcane Talent, I don't think a reverse extrapolation is viable.

6. The ability to cast spells isn't magical, even if the spells themselves are. See RotG:Antimagic for more on this. If spells were Sp or Su, you couldn't cast long duration spells in an antimagic field and then have them turn up when the field is gone (Factotums, for example, can't do that because their psuedo casting is actually Sp).
That's true (and I find it rather annoying), which I suppose pushes the suggestion of spellcasting being an Na ability out of anything. But it does suggest that it isn't Ex. Because in the MM, it says that Ex abilities do not become ineffective in an AMF. And the ability to cast spells, even if it does technically function in an AMF, is certainly ineffective in an AMF.

7. In 3.0, spells were an Na ability, because Na abilities had different rules then. So be careful if your source is 3.0.
Noted. I think we've been dealing in 3.5 only, right?

8. Rules Compendium and the SRD both have a confusing way of listing Natural Abilities... they put them in the Special Abilities section, but then say that only Su, Sp, and Ex abilities are Special Abilities while Natural Abilities are just "abilities". Don't get confused by that.
See, if the Rules Compendium puts Natural Abilities in the Special Abilities section but doesn't call them Special Abilities with the categorical restrictions on Special Abilities, then I don't see why the same can't happen in the MM with Spells being listed in the Special Attacks section of a statblock without being a "Special Attack," it's just an attack that isn't ordinary.

9. Every monster entry that lists spells using the old stat blocks lists them as a Special Attack (which is a subset of Special Abilities). This includes creatures with class levels that give them spell casting (such as the 10th level Cleric Mummy).
As above, I just don't think that says much of anything. As a Special Attack, it's an offensive action they can make which is different and special compared to a plain old melee/ranged attack. And I want to use Ability Focus to argue this, because Ability Focus says to choose one of a creature's Special Attacks and it gains +2 DC. You can't choose "Spells" as the Special Attack to get +2 DC to all spells.

10. Monster Manual 1 lists Spells as a type of Special Attack.
It does indeed. I still think specific trumps general with regard to the categorization of these Special Attacks.

11. Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities.
True.

12. Special Abilities are divided into two categories, Special Attacks and Special Qualities.
Again true. But specific trumps general, so general rules for either Special Attacks or Special Qualities may not apply for specific instances of a certain Special Attack or Special Quality.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 12:53 PM

While it's not explicit, without Special Attacks and Special Qualities being subsets of Special Abilities this passage is essentially nonsensical.

Given the RAW intensive nature of the argument i think we have to take it at face value and say the statement is nonsensical. RAW doesn't have to make sense.

Anyway playing catch up, will probably say more after I finish thoroughly reading all the posts in this thread.

Edit: To clarify, first you have to find a sentence that actually says all special attacks are special abilities. And i see jaronk did that.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 01:13 PM

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 01:29 PM

Introduction
The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.

First the Rules Compendium trumps primary source, as the primary source rule is in a preexisting supplement and disagrees with the Rules Compendium. This also applies to the SRD because I believe the SRD was last modified sometime in 2004. So any source that didn't come out after the Rules Compendium must differ to it. The latest premium editions of books also differ to it as they are just the latest printing of already published works and their individual errata.

On special abilities the Rules Compendium has this to say.

Special Abilities
Many creatures can use special abilities that aren’t magical. These abilities are classified as extraordinary or natural. Some creatures can create magical effects without being spellcasters. Characters using particular class features can also create magical effects. These effects come in two types, spell-like and supernatural.
Using a special ability is often a standard action, but whether it’s a standard action, a full-round action, or not an action at all is defined by the ability’s description.

This means there are four types of special abilities Ex, Na, Sp, and Su.

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. A lion uses its claws as an attack, for instance; it doesn’t activate its claws and then attack.

So unless you have a source that states your rule published after the Rules Compendium or can find a source that labels spellcasting granted by class as Ex then spellcasting is Na.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 01:38 PM

That does indeed seem to be the general rule set forth by the pages in the Monster Manual that you cited, but as we all know, specific trumps general. That says that all abilities are Ex, Su, or Sp, but if a specific instance says that an ability is not one of those three, then specific trumps general.

Sure, but there's no case where there's a specific rule that says any Special Ability is Na. I've definitely looked... it doesn't exist. So Specific trumping General doesn't matter here.

The first part of this seems reasonable (I'm still doubtful that designating any ability as a "Special Ability" designates it as one of those three categories, as above), but I don't see where in that Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Three) that it says you gain all Na abilities of the form you take. It lists several Na abilities that you do gain, but it doesn't seem to say you gain all of them.

I've repeatedly quoted the bit that says if it's a Special Ability, it's Ex, Sp, or Su. That's why being designated as a Special Ability designates it as one of those three.

As for Rules of the Game, in all of the examples note how all Na abilities are granted. Furthermore, in part one we get this:

"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, sorry, it was one that did that, not three. So the general case is that you get NAs... it would have to specify any Natural Abilities that you don't get. Which it doesn't.

I can't find anything which directly supports or argues this. I don't see why all non-Su and non-Sp abilities default to Ex. I think that's a fundamentally unsound reasoning, to assign a label to something that, RAW, is unlabeled. Like I said, specific trumps general, so you might say "ALL things have to be labeled...except this specific exception here." But I can't find where this point comes from at all.

It comes from the fact that Sp abilities have to be defined as such because of their specific behavior (they have to have a caster level and generally have to deal with things like durations, for example) and Su abilities have similar issues. I can't find a single magical ability anywhere that isn't labeled (except for the debated one, spells). And I've definitely looked. This is more of a pattern thing.

That is true, but if we're operating off of RAW (which it seems like we are, because quite clearly RAI they didn't want shapechangers to get all spells all the time from everything) then it's those early print PHB classes we're looking at, and those are the ones under inspection. It's true that, like you said, the Hobgoblin in MMV has Arcane Talent as an Ex ability, granting it spells as an Xth level Wizard, and that is absolutely unequivocally gained with Shapechange. But the Wizard itself has no such tag, nor does any monster with spells which comes before that. If anything, the presence of that Hobgoblin means that the unlabeled Spells were meant to be unlabeled, because if your argument followed and spellcasting was Ex or Na to begin with, then they wouldn't have had to explicitly describe it as such for the Hobgoblin.

Again, most early books simply didn't tag anything (except the Monster Manual, and that leaves a lot off). This doesn't mean things were meant to be unassigned or anything. It was in fact meant to be figured out from the descriptions given in the Monster Manual and PHB. Eventually other sources also described how to tell what's what (Rules of the Game: Polymorph and Fiend Folio, for example). Lack of a tag doesn't mean something is unassigned... it means you use the general rules to figure out what something is. But often later books would in fact label things better.

For example, Ranger abilities are never labeled as Special Attacks or Special Qualities, but the Troll Hunter ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm ) clearly shows that Wild Empathy gained from Ranger levels is a Special Quality (and the Ranger Spells are a Special Attack). And that's from MM1, which was printed at the same time as PHB. I doubt that's because the PHB intentionally wanted you to not know... they just thought it didn't matter enough for players, and left this information for the DM (since MM1 is a book mostly for DMs).

Not quite. Some kind of ability which grants spells is labeled Ex, no exceptions. Again, that Hobgoblin. It doesn't say "Spells (Ex)," it says "Arcane Talent (Ex)" which grants spells. Because no creature prior to that has Arcane Talent, I don't think a reverse extrapolation is viable.

The Lilitu (Fiend Folio, IIRC) also has a similar ability that grants Cleric casting. It's Ex too. In any case where spell casting of any time is labeled with an ability type, it's always Ex, no exceptions. Just as we can reverse the Troll Hunter to say that Wild Empathy is a Special Quality, I think we can reverse extrapolate the Lilitu and the various Hobgoblins (there's a few with that ability, btw) to say that spells are Ex. If there were some entry that specifically said spells were something else then those entries would be exceptions... but there isn't, so they're not.

That's true (and I find it rather annoying), which I suppose pushes the suggestion of spellcasting being an Na ability out of anything. But it does suggest that it isn't Ex. Because in the MM, it says that Ex abilities do not become ineffective in an AMF. And the ability to cast spells, even if it does technically function in an AMF, is certainly ineffective in an AMF.

Funny thing: spells do work in an AMF. You can use the Invoke Magic spell (which wouldn't work at all if spell casting ability itself were magical) to then cast spells normally inside an AMF. It's just hard to make them work. So they're not completely ineffective (as they would be if they were Su or Sp).

And again, the one thing we can truly be sure of is that spells aren't Na. They're listed time and time again as Special Abilities, and the rule that Special Abilities are always Ex, Sp, or Su is still the most repeated general rule in the game. Na is simply not an option.

Noted. I think we've been dealing in 3.5 only, right?

That's the plan, but I wanted to head off anything about that at the pass. MMII I think defines spells as Na, but again the rules were different then and there's no 3.5 source that has that language. And Natural Abilities definitely had a different definition then.

See, if the Rules Compendium puts Natural Abilities in the Special Abilities section but doesn't call them Special Abilities with the categorical restrictions on Special Abilities, then I don't see why the same can't happen in the MM with Spells being listed in the Special Attacks section of a statblock without being a "Special Attack," it's just an attack that isn't ordinary.

Rules Compendium specifically leaves Na out of the Special Abilities chart, which suggests they're not Special Abilities (much like SRD does with Natural Abilities being in the Special Abilities overall section but being specifically left out of that category). MM lists spells as a Special Attack not only in specific entries but also near the end of the book where it straight up says all Spells are Special Attacks (this being outside stat blocks). So, no dice there... spells are NEVER listed as something other than a Special Ability, under any circumstances. And the MM (the primary source) explicitly says they're a Special Attack near the end (but before the glossary).

As above, I just don't think that says much of anything. As a Special Attack, it's an offensive action they can make which is different and special compared to a plain old melee/ranged attack. And I want to use Ability Focus to argue this, because Ability Focus says to choose one of a creature's Special Attacks and it gains +2 DC. You can't choose "Spells" as the Special Attack to get +2 DC to all spells.

IIRC there's no rule that says you can't do that with Ability Focus... amusingly enough. Makes that feat a lot better, doesn't it?

But there's no such thing as an attack that's special but not special. Attacks are either Natural Abilities (claws, slams, wielded weapons, and other attacks that are inherent to the physical form of the creature) or Special Attacks (everything else). The latter are always Ex, Sp, or Su, as normal.

It does indeed. I still think specific trumps general with regard to the categorization of these Special Attacks.

Irrelevant, because specific and general are in agreement... spells are Special Abilities (note that I did find one entry that lists spells as Special Qualities, which is interesting... but irrelevant, because Special Attacks and Special Qualities are the same for our purposes).

Again true. But specific trumps general, so general rules for either Special Attacks or Special Qualities may not apply for specific instances of a certain Special Attack or Special Quality.

Agreed. But no such exception exists, except IIRC the Lilitu's casting is a Special Quality for some reason (again, irrelevant for this discussion, but it does matter for Polymorphing into one). Honestly, I'd buy the argument that spells are both Special Attacks and Special Qualities... but they can't be neither.

@NeoPheonix: Please note that we've already been through that a few times. The Rules Compendium itself has that fun little chart where it shows that Sp, Su, and Ex abilities are the only Special Abilities. See that? It's in the same section as the one you just quoted. Na abilities are often listed with Special Abilities, and then every source (except the PHB) that talks about them goes on to list them as abilities (as opposed to Special Abilities) and explicitly leaves them out of the Special Abilities category. This is because Na abilities are the catch all for all abilities that aren't actually Special Abilities.

Remember, any interpretation that creates a contradiction is inherently less correct than an interpretation that does not. Rules Compendium would be contradicting itself to say that Na abilities are Special Abilities when it right after lists all Special Ability types and cuts Na out. It's honestly sloppy writing (similar to what's going on in the SRD Special Abilities section, which I encourage everyone to read as well).

Also note that the last printing of the core books was after Rules Compendium, and the RC rules you just quoted state that the RC only trumps books printed before it. So the MM1 reprint trumps that entire section.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-09, 01:45 PM

And forget about Factotums, they're not even relevant here.

They caused this mess and were the only horse I had in the running, so to speak. As I said, I could care less about the rest of the classification now that I've laid the Cunning Brilliance end of things to rest.

I did misread the Mummy Lord, I thought it was getting cleric casting natively (e.g. like a Planetar does.) So limit my arguments to creatures like that, rather than ones with actual class levels.

Let's be clear... I'm not coming in here saying "OMG I want my Factotum to have access to spells, now watch me justify it!"

That's exactly what Curmudgeon accused you of doing, and reading your posts, I got the same impression. Apologies if I misunderstood.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 01:48 PM

The quote says preexisting. It says nothing about printings. The books already existed and the latest printing is just reprinting what already existed.

Edit: evidence for this can be seen on their credits page which lists the original publishing date of the books.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 01:55 PM

They caused this mess and were the only horse I had in the running, so to speak. As I said, I could care less about the rest of the classification now that I've laid the Cunning Brilliance end of things to rest.

I did misread the Mummy Lord, I thought it was getting cleric casting natively (e.g. like a Planetar does.) So limit my arguments to creatures like that, rather than ones with actual class levels.

I don't think anyone was claiming Factotums can somehow get racial casting abilities (well, they can, but they have to use Polymorph to get them just like everybody else). Cunning Brilliance applies to classes, not creatures. Polymorph is for getting stupidly broken abilities off creatures.

Again, note that claiming spells are Na means even Alter Self grants racial spell casting... which is a bit much!

That's exactly what Curmudgeon accused you of doing, and reading your posts, I got the same impression. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Curmudgeon's just bitter and makes rulings based on how he'd like the game to be. But no, this isn't about Factotums, it's about knowing what these ability types actually are. I'm a fan of knowing the rules properly before house ruling (and yes, I'd house rule away letting the Factotum 19 ability give you Sorcerer or Favored Soul or Beguiler casting because it's too strong, just like I house rule away Polymorph giving you racial spell casting and Truenamers spamming Gate and other such nonsense). This thread is about what the rules say... not what's actually balanced or a good idea to play with. Know the rules, then fix them, that's my motto.

@NeoPheonix: The reprinted core books actually do have some rules changes in them, so they're new books (3.55, if you will). Not enough changes, but changes none the less. They're called "Premium" core books and they actually have their own errata in them.

So yes, the Premium MM1 trumps the RC completely.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-09, 02:00 PM

Again, note that claiming spells are Na means even Alter Self grants racial spell casting... which is a bit much!

Alter Self says nothing about granting all natural abilities. Where are you reading that?

So yes, the Premium MM1 trumps the RC completely.

The Premium Platinum Ultra Delicious MM1 is still MM1. Pre-existing.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 02:01 PM

Do these rule changes just include the preexisting errata or do they have changes outside the preexisting errata? Because the preexisting errata is a preexisting supplement and just printing them together doesn't constitute anything new.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 02:49 PM

Alter Self says nothing about granting all natural abilities. Where are you reading that?

From Alter Self: "You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind."

From the SRD: "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature."

Natural abilities are the physical qualities of the creature... so if spells were Na, then you'd gain them (which makes no sense, because again Natural Abilities are only those gained as a direct result of the physical form of the creature). See also Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph 1 and 2 for more discussion on the exact nature of Natural Abilities as well as a more exact discussion of Alter Self.

The Premium Platinum Ultra Delicious MM1 is still MM1. Pre-existing.

It's a different book. Just like the PHB 3.0 is not the same book as the PHB 3.5, and the 3.0 DMG is not the same as the 3.5 DMG. They're similar (mostly the same in fact) but they have differences and are considered new books. They're even advertised as having the most up to date errata and rules, which is the question we're considering here (which is more up to date, RC or Premium MM1).

See here: https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02430000

Really, the existence of the Premium books pretty much makes RC completely out of date, which is annoying... I really would have preferred if the RC covered more nuanced cases instead of mostly just rehashing basic stuff as it did. Then it might still be relevant.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-09, 02:55 PM

From Alter Self: "You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind."

From the SRD: "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature."

"Includes." Meaning Natural Abilities encompass more than just "physical qualities." The burden is on you to prove that spellcasting is a physical quality.

It's a different book.

Then why does it reference the original printing at all? Clearly WotC considers it the same book, not a different one.

I didn't see an answer to Neo's question either.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 03:06 PM

[QUOTE=JaronK;15584971]On the web page you linked to. Primary source rule. The book itself is overrules web pages talking about it. The book says its publishing date is 2003, not 2012.

Edit: My internet keeps going out on me. It's really hard to post rebuttals in a timely fashion for me at the moment.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 03:06 PM

"Includes." Meaning Natural Abilities encompass more than just "physical qualities." The burden is on you to prove that spellcasting is a physical quality.

Erm, but it's not. If it were it would be natural, and I'm saying it's not. Again, see the references I gave you in the last post for more discussion on exactly what a Natural Ability is. Rules of the Game gets into it in much more depth.

And note that again, spell casting by definition cannot be a Natural Ability, because it's listed repeatedly as a Special Ability. And again, the most reprinted general rule in D&D 3.5 is that Special Abilities can't be Natural Abilities.

Then why does it reference the original printing at all? Clearly WotC considers it the same book, not a different one.

You mean in the same way MM1 3.5 was referenced as a new improved MM1 3.0? Do you think WotC considers those the same book too? Seriously, they're different books with different stuff in them. And despite the weird print date thing, they're still about as different as 3.0 and 3.5 (seriously, the DMG changes between those two editions were incredibly minor, and yet nobody runs around pretending DMG 3.5 was printed originally when the 3.0 one was).

I didn't see an answer to Neo's question either.

I honestly don't know, but it doesn't matter as it's still a different (updated) book. Rules Compendium is honestly mostly just rehashes of old stuff too, so I don't see the relevance here. And again, Rules Compendium is confused on this issue... in one sentence it refers to Natural Abilities in a way that implies they can be Special Abilities, and then on the next page says they can't. Hardly a useful source in this case.

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-09, 03:12 PM

Erm, but it's not. If it were it would be natural, and I'm saying it's not. Again, see the references I gave you in the last post for more discussion on exactly what a Natural Ability is. Rules of the Game gets into it in much more depth.

And note that again, spell casting by definition cannot be a Natural Ability, because it's listed repeatedly as a Special Ability. And again, the most reprinted general rule in D&D 3.5 is that Special Abilities can't be Natural Abilities.

This is what you keep saying, but this seems to be the weakest point of your RAW argument. In the less descriptive stat block for a monster, the "table" as it were, spells are listed as a special attack. But in the text of the monster, the specific description of the attacks and abilities that the monster has, Spells are not listed as Ex, Su, or Sp. Text trumps table, so the description of spells as not being Ex, Su, or Sp trumps the designation of spells as being one of those based on just being in the Special Attacks list. If spells aren't Ex, Su, or Sp, then they must be Na, because by definition, things that aren't Ex, Su, or Sp are Na.

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 03:12 PM

No, it straight up says he's a 10th level Cleric who also happens to be a mummy. That's all he is. That's why he has those 10d8 hit dice, the +7 BAB, and everything. A Mummy Lord is just a Mummy Cleric 10. This is no different from a Halfling Cleric 10 or a Human Cleric 10.

And forget about Factotums, they're not even relevant here.

I would point out that the Errata for the Monster Manual explicitly says you shouldn't treat entries as a primary source for anything. WotC completely acknowledges that there are mistakes in monster stat blocks and the like. So you can't really use an entry as evidence that casting from classes is (Ex) or anything else.

Monster Manual 1 page 6. Monster Manual 1 page 315. Fiend Folio page 8. SRD. And more. It is in fact repeated all over the place.

That's just copy and paste, essentially. The SRD comes from the MM there, so you can't really say that they are different sources saying the same thing. They are the same thing saying the same thing.

The quote from those three (said in a few ways, here's the SRD one) is: "A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature." That's not from a specific entry... that's a general rule. And let's be clear: lack of something isn't a specific rule, presence is. If a general rule defines something, the lack of a specific contradiction doesn't change that. Frankly, you're just using specific overrides general completely wrong.

The MM, the primary source from your examples, then tells you to look at the Glossary for further info. So it TELLS you to find out in the glossary. At that point not having a tag is quite significant. This is especially true when they are tagging many things in there (including a number of type traits).

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 03:14 PM

...I honestly don't know, but it doesn't matter as it's still a different (updated) book. Rules Compendium is honestly mostly just rehashes of old stuff too, so I don't see the relevance here. And again, Rules Compendium is confused on this issue... in one sentence it refers to Natural Abilities in a way that implies they can be Special Abilities, and then on the next page says they can't. Hardly a useful source in this case.

JaronK

Please point out exactly where it says natural abilities can't be special abilities.

Also it doesn't imply natural abilities can be special abilities. It actually comes right out and says it, right there in one of my quotes.

Urpriest

2013-07-09, 03:25 PM

JaronK, the Lilitu and the Warcaster are really blindingly obviously irrelevant. They both explicitly have abilities that are not called spellcasting, and that no other creature gets. In the case of the Lilitu, it is even more obviously supposed to indicate that the Lilitu itself does not have Cleric casting at all, rather it has an ability that mimics Cleric casting. A Lilitu's mimicry of Cleric casting is qualitatively different from a Solar's actual Cleric casting, and a Warcaster's special breeding that grants it spellcasting is qualitatively different from the actual spellcasting of a Dragon.

Basically, in order to support what you are suggesting those abilities would have to be written as Spellcasting (Ex). They are categorically not. It's akin to arguing that Spell-like Abilities are Ex because a creature has "Magical Blood (Ex): This creature gains Mage Hand as a Spell-like Ability, usable at-will" or the like.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 03:26 PM

This is what you keep saying, but this seems to be the weakest point of your RAW argument. In the less descriptive stat block for a monster, the "table" as it were, spells are listed as a special attack. But in the text of the monster, the specific description of the attacks and abilities that the monster has, Spells are not listed as Ex, Su, or Sp. Text trumps table, so the description of spells as not being Ex, Su, or Sp trumps the designation of spells as being one of those based on just being in the Special Attacks list. If spells aren't Ex, Su, or Sp, then they must be Na, because by definition, things that aren't Ex, Su, or Sp are Na.

Again, the Monster Manual explicitly states, not in a state block but in the main section on Special Attacks, that Spells are a type of Special Attack. That is text, not table. It's in the area before the glossary but after the main stat blocks... please check there. This then explicitly sets spells to Sp, Su, or Ex and rules out Na entirely.

@Please point out exactly where it says natural abilities can't be special abilities.

Seriously? I've quoted it four times in this thread already. What are you doing?

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

Monster Manual Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

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

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

Also Rules Compendium, on page IIRC 119, lists the Special Ability types... and it lists Supernatural, Spell Like, and Extraordinary.

The MM, the primary source from your examples, then tells you to look at the Glossary for further info. So it TELLS you to find out in the glossary. At that point not having a tag is quite significant. This is especially true when they are tagging many things in there (including a number of type traits).

The glossary gives the exact same rule. What are you talking about?

@UrPriest: Please show, using ACTUAL RULES QUOTES, what spells are. Remember that, as I've shown repeatedly, they are listed many times as Special Attacks in the primary source for this, which also states Special Attacks are always Sp, Su, or Ex. Remember also that Rules of the Game Antimagic makes it clear that spell casting itself still works in an Antimagic Field (it's just mostly suppressed unless you can cast Invoke Magic or use long duration spells that will be there after the field is gone).

Now, using rule quotes, what are they? Not just statements of idea, not just "I want it to be so", but actual rule quotes. What kind of Special Attack still works in an Antimagic Field?

JaronK

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 03:31 PM

The glossary gives the exact same rule. What are you talking about?

It's telling you to check out the abilities themselves in the glossary as well.

This is further indication, beyond the obvious, the ability entries themselves are the primary source regarding what the abilities are. And note, unlike feats, it is common for the abilities in the glossary to be typed, so not typing some of them is quite significant.

Further, you can't go to Monster entries to find out the types when the errata itself says Monster entries are not to be relied on in this manner. So you cannot use Monster Entries to back up your argument -- it's explicitly not allowed.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 03:31 PM

Urpriest

2013-07-09, 03:36 PM

@UrPriest: Please show, using ACTUAL RULES QUOTES, what spells are. Remember that, as I've shown repeatedly, they are listed many times as Special Attacks in the primary source for this, which also states Special Attacks are always Sp, Su, or Ex. Remember also that Rules of the Game Antimagic makes it clear that spell casting itself still works in an Antimagic Field (it's just mostly suppressed unless you can cast Invoke Magic or use long duration spells that will be there after the field is gone).

Now, using rule quotes, what are they? Not just statements of idea, not just "I want it to be so", but actual rule quotes. What kind of Special Attack still works in an Antimagic Field?

JaronK

I don't disagree. But regardless, neither the Lilitu nor the Hobgoblin Warcaster have "Spells". It's just not one of their abilities, and as such they are completely irrelevant to your argument and should not be brought up, as doing so only muddles the issue.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 03:36 PM

The only place I see a list on 119 in the Rules Compendium is a table describing How each type of ability is affected by certain things. It doesn't say these are the only types of special abilities and even if it did text trumps table and the text on 118 lists all for types as special abilities. As for the rest of your quotes my argument is they are all made irrelevant by the Rules Compendium.

Again, the RC is both contradictory to itself and, due to its own wording, is invalidated by the Premium Edition Monster Manual 1. So why are you hanging on to an obviously invalidated source?

The MM, the primary source from your examples, then tells you to look at the Glossary for further info. So it TELLS you to find out in the glossary. At that point not having a tag is quite significant. This is especially true when they are tagging many things in there (including a number of type traits).

The glossary does not in any way invalidate the earlier sections. Not saying something is not the same as saying something's not so. Nowhere does it say not having a tag is significant. Not only that, but we've got actual designer commentary (in the Rules of the Game Polymorph entries) that straight out tell you that a bunch of the unlabeled things in the glossary are in fact defined with these labels.

If your only source is that it doesn't say anything in some area (but does elsewhere in the book, and contradicts your idea there) then you have no case to make. Specific overrides general only applies when there's actually something specific there.

I don't disagree. But regardless, neither the Lilitu nor the Hobgoblin Warcaster have "Spells". It's just not one of their abilities, and as such they are completely irrelevant to your argument and should not be brought up, as doing so only muddles the issue.

It establishes that the ability to cast spells can be an ex ability, that's all (and that's relevant). We haven't established that that ability can be anything else, after all (in fact, I think it's firmly established that it can't).

Though honestly at this point we're just going around in circles, with various people contradicting the books over and over, for some reason trying desperately to prove that spells are Na despite no actual evidence of that (and plenty of evidence against it). We're now down to "a blank spot on the page is evidence for what I want to see!" as an actual argument. Yeesh.

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-09, 03:41 PM

snip Not saying something is not the same as saying something's not so. snip

This is actually really important, I think, but taken to a larger extent. In that, omission of forbiddance isn't the same as allowance. It's the same thing that exasperating people do when they say "Well, the PHB doesn't say humans can't shoot death rays out of their eyes, so you should totally be able to" when they're losing a RAW argument. The reason you can't do that is because that's not how the rules work. The rules let you do everything they say you can do, not everything they don't forbid. As such, you're going to have to find an example that actively shows that spellcasting ability is obtained by spells such as Polymorph and Shapechange in order to prove that it is, rather than us having to prove that it isn't.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 03:43 PM

Again, the RC is both contradictory to itself and, due to its own wording, is invalidated by the Premium Edition Monster Manual 1. So why are you hanging on to an obviously invalidated source?

1) I have yet to see proof that the premium editions are not just reprintings of preexisting material.

2) You have yet to show evidence that the Rules Compendium is contradictory on the issue.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 03:47 PM

This is actually really important, I think, but taken to a larger extent. In that, omission of forbiddance isn't the same as allowance. It's the same thing that exasperating people do when they say "Well, the PHB doesn't say humans can't shoot death rays out of their eyes, so you should totally be able to" when they're losing a RAW argument. The reason you can't do that is because that's not how the rules work. The rules let you do everything they say you can do, not everything they don't forbid. As such, you're going to have to find an example that actively shows that spellcasting ability is obtained by spells such as Polymorph and Shapechange in order to prove that it is, rather than us having to prove that it isn't.

That's easy. Polymorph: "It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities." Note that it also gives you everything Alter Self gave, and that gave all physical abilities, so if Spellcasting was a Natural Ability (which is the same as a purely physical ability) it would grant that anyway. And Alter Self would have done so too. Shapechange throws in Supernatural Abilities too, btw.

So yes, once you've established that Spells are Special Attacks (by looking in the Special Attacks section of the Monster Manual, or at almost every Monster Entry with spells ever) and have figured out their type, (by looking at the rules for Special Abilities and such) it's clear that Polymorph grants spell casting. Even though it obviously shouldn't due to that being overpowered.

Of course the duration of Polymorph limits the utility of this trick.

@Neopheonix: A reprinting of existing material only would mean it's the same as the old material. Pick up MM1. Now, while only reading that, tell me what's in Premium MM1. If you can't do that, it's not just a reprinting of existing material. You can't. Seriously, MM1 Premium Edition is more different from MM1 than DMG 3.5 was different from DMG 3.0. And remember, the Premium Editions are supposed to be completely up to date on errata... the fact that they haven't changed the section in question means the rules change you advocate is not considered the most recent errata.

And yes, that table in RC is clearly a contradiction.

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-09, 03:50 PM

That's easy. Polymorph: "It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities." Note that it also gives you everything Alter Self gave, and that gave all physical abilities, so if Spellcasting was a Natural Ability (which is the same as a purely physical ability) it would grant that anyway. And Alter Self would have done so too. Shapechange throws in Supernatural Abilities too, btw.

So yes, once you've established that Spells are Special Attacks (by looking in the Special Attacks section of the Monster Manual, or at almost every Monster Entry with spells ever) and have figured out their type, (by looking at the rules for Special Abilities and such) it's clear that Polymorph grants spell casting. Even though it obviously shouldn't due to that being overpowered.

Of course the duration of Polymorph limits the utility of this trick.

JaronK

Two problems I have with that. One is stating that spellcasting is an Ex ability, which has been (pretty soundly) argued against by everyone else in this thread. If it's anything, it looks like Na to me. Which brings me to Two, which is that Alter Self (and thus the spells based on it) grant many things which fall under the category of Natural Abilities, but do not explicitly grant ALL Natural Abilities.

eggynack

2013-07-09, 03:51 PM

1) I have yet to see proof that the premium editions are not just reprintings of preexisting material.

Well, they're certainly not identical to the books they're based on, even if all of the information comes from a preexisting book of some kind. For example, the new PHB's errata contains the polymorph subschool, which was previously contained in the PHB II. Perhaps other folks will have other examples, but I don't actually own the new books, and only know this because of a dumb argument that went around in circles for a bit on this basis.

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 03:51 PM

The glossary does not in any way invalidate the earlier sections. Not saying something is not the same as saying something's not so. Nowhere does it say not having a tag is significant. Not only that, but we've got actual designer commentary (in the Rules of the Game Polymorph entries) that straight out tell you that a bunch of the unlabeled things in the glossary are in fact defined with these labels.

Rules of the Game is not RAW. It's a bad sign when you feel you have to start resorting to stuff that's not in the books.

When the game explicitly doesn't define something, you have to accept that it is at the very least not defined. Trying to force a definition on it and declare it RAW does not work. We can argue back in forth on what exactly that means, but by RAW they have no defined label and that means you can't use abilities with them that require a defined label.

Oh, btw, your Anti-Magic Field arguments don't work, since AMF has explicit rules regarding spell-casting and the like. Ergo, even if casting was a Supernatural ability it would still function as stated in the AMF description.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 03:51 PM

That's easy. Polymorph: "It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities." Note that it also gives you everything Alter Self gave, and that gave all physical abilities, so if Spellcasting was a Natural Ability (which is the same as a purely physical ability) it would grant that anyway. And Alter Self would have done so too. Shapechange throws in Supernatural Abilities too, btw.

So yes, once you've established that Spells are Special Attacks (by looking in the Special Attacks section of the Monster Manual, or at almost every Monster Entry with spells ever) and have figured out their type, (by looking at the rules for Special Abilities and such) it's clear that Polymorph grants spell casting. Even though it obviously shouldn't due to that being overpowered.

Of course the duration of Polymorph limits the utility of this trick.

JaronK

Alter self grants physical qualities not natural abilities. Physical qualities are included in natural abilities. Natural abilities by RAW don't have to be Physical qualities.

Psyren

2013-07-09, 03:54 PM

JaronK

2013-07-09, 04:51 PM

"Spells" in a monster entry are special attacks, I agree. What you have yet to show is that they are Ex and therefore that Polymorph grants them. They are not described as Ex anywhere, nor do they default to being Ex anywhere. The one thing they feasibly default to is Natural.

So, you accept that spells are Special Attacks (not just in Monster Entries, btw... also in the definition of Special Attacks). I assume you also get that Special Attacks are Special Abilities?

Now, knowing that they're Special Abilities, and seeing this:

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

Monster Manual (Including the Premium Edition that's printed after RC and thus trumps it!) Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

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

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

Your conclusion is they must be Natural Abilities.

Do you see the flaw? Should I point it out again? Exactly how many times do the rules have to scream SPECIAL ABILITIES ARE NEVER NATURAL ABILITES before it counts?

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-09, 04:55 PM

Psyren

2013-07-09, 05:07 PM

Do you see the flaw? Should I point it out again?
JaronK

Point out where spellcasting is marked (Ex) and you might have a point. Or better yet, show where they default to Ex among the four (or even three!) if not otherwise stated, and you might have a point.

You won't, because you can't.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 05:12 PM

So, you accept that spells are Special Attacks (not just in Monster Entries, btw... also in the definition of Special Attacks). I assume you also get that Special Attacks are Special Abilities?

Now, knowing that they're Special Abilities, and seeing this:

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

Monster Manual (Including the Premium Edition that's printed after RC and thus trumps it!) Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

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

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

Your conclusion is they must be Natural Abilities.

Do you see the flaw? Should I point it out again? Exactly how many times do the rules have to scream SPECIAL ABILITIES ARE NEVER NATURAL ABILITES before it counts?

JaronK

Doesn't matter how much you scream or how many times the rules say that if the Rules Compendium overrules all of those rules.

Edit: Also i'm not convinced spellcasting from a class is a special ability. Being labeld Ex, Su, Sp, or Na doesn't mean it's a special ability and I think it's just a class feature. I don't see why a class feature has to be a special ability. I think those monster manual tables are just erroneously listing spells under special attacks. Doesn't matter though, if you can't prove they aren't Na if they are special abilities, which you have yet to do.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 05:17 PM

Because specific cases trump general, as we keep saying. The general rule is that all special attacks are Ex, Su, or Sp. Every listed special attack has that label, so that you know which it is. But the specific case of Spells does not have any label. It is a specific case which goes against the general rule, in that it doesn't have an Ex, Su, or Sp label. And in not having those, it defaults to being Na.

No no no. ABILITIES default to Na IF they're not indicated to be anything else. Special Abilities, however, are not... they're always indicated to be Sp, Su, or Ex. That's what those rules say. And there's no specific trumping general... at no point do the rules say "Spells are Na." That would be specific overriding general. No rule ever says that.

"Not a label" is not a specific case. Glitterdust is not specifically labeled as a spell... it's just listed in the spells area so we know it's one. Would you say that the lack of a specific label making it a spell means it is specifically not a spell? Of course not.

And the rules never say "Special Attacks are never Nature Abilities." That is an inference you've assigned, by apparent lack of situations to the contrary. But as you yourself said, not saying something is the case is not the same as saying something is not the case.

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

Monster Manual (Including the Premium Edition that's printed after RC and thus trumps it!) Page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)."

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

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

Do you know what each of those quotes means? They mean Special Abilities can only be Ex, Sp, or Su. There are no other options. Na is not one of those options. Neither is anything else. Special Abilities cannot be Na. Special Abilities cannot be turtles. Special Abilities cannot be ennui. Seriously. That's... just how the English language works.

You can only do what the rules say you can do. The rules say Special Abilities can be Ex, Sp, or Su. That means they can't be anything else.

If I say "a citizen is either born in this country, the child of someone born in this country, or an immigrant who has gone through the immigration process. Anyone not specifically in those categories is an alien." Would you say that someone who's a citizen must be an alien, because I haven't stated which category they're in? Because that's what you're doing here.

Psyren: We can't go further than this point because right now people are claiming that a Special Ability can be Natural despite four (and that's not even all of them!) direct RAW quotes to the contrary. Once we've accepted that's not possible, we can get to why of the three valid options Ex is the answer.

But as long as you're insisting that Spells are a Special Ability that is a Natural Ability in defiance of a massive weight of RAW, we can't really proceed.

Though I did of course point out where spell casting was marked as Ex a while back. Three places, in fact. Might want to go back and check that.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-09, 05:20 PM

Though I did of course point out where spell casting was marked as Ex a while back. Three places, in fact. Might want to go back and check that.

JaronK, I saw all your "sources." Every single outdated, superseded one.

And you still haven't shown me how, even under your interpretation, they default to Ex instead of Su or Sp. Unlabeled = Ex is unsupported even if you go with the "choose from among these three" interpretation.

Drachasor

2013-07-09, 05:27 PM

"Not a label" is not a specific case. Glitterdust is not specifically labeled as a spell... it's just listed in the spells area so we know it's one. Would you say that the lack of a specific label making it a spell means it is specifically not a spell? Of course not.

We've got a spell level, school, and it is in the spell section.

"Spells" in the Monster Manual appears in the GLOSSARY, not the "Special Abilities" section. Further, there if you insist it must be Ex, Sp, or Su there are three options for what it is. With Glitterdust there's only one option; it's a spell.

Suppose Glitterdust had school associated to it. Would you be able to conclude it is an illusion? No.

Suppose it had no spell level or class associated to it. Would you be able to conclude it is a 2nd Level wizard spell? No.

If it appeared in some monster entry and was called a 2nd level wizard spell there, one could not use it as proof. At best it is a hint, but as the MM errata explicitly says, you should not take Monster Entries or Stat Blocks as indicators of what other rules are.

But we don't even have that hint with MM entries that have "Spells" since the body of the entry doesn't have (Ex) in the vast majority of cases (making the ones that do have it more suspect than anything else).

In short, you are assuming the antecedent. The rules do not say what you want them to.

JaronK

2013-07-09, 10:59 PM

JaronK, I saw all your "sources." Every single outdated, superseded one.[quote]

Lilitus and Hobgoblins having Ex casting is not outdated or superceded. You asked about spell casting being Ex, I showed you. You didn't ask specifically about the "Spells" ability, just spell casting, and I showed you where that is labeled as Ex (at no point is any spell casting ability of any type labeled as Natural... nor any other type).

[quote]And you still haven't shown me how, even under your interpretation, they default to Ex instead of Su or Sp. Unlabeled = Ex is unsupported even if you go with the "choose from among these three" interpretation.

Oh, we can get there, but we have to get through the base level first. See, what I've noticed is this pattern: I show the whole argument. Someone grabs some random portion down the line, says they disagree with that one part, and then arbitrarily decides spellcasting is natural. Then we go back and show that it can't be natural. Then they just jump back to that other thing. Over and over, round and round.

That's why I'm stopping at point 1 and seeing if we can get agreement on it... the most repeated general rule in the game, which even the RC can't override due to the later reprint (with the most recent errata!) of the Premium MM1. If you can't understand that part, then you're basically just covering your eyes and saying "I don't want to see!"

So... when swarms of sources say the same thing, including the primary source, is it RAW?

"Spells" in the Monster Manual appears in the GLOSSARY, not the "Special Abilities" section.

Page 299-300, NOT in the Glossary. See that list of Special Attacks? What do we see there? Why yes, it's Spells!

Further, there if you insist it must be Ex, Sp, or Su there are three options for what it is. With Glitterdust there's only one option; it's a spell.

Good. We've gotten that far. Do you accept that there's three options for spells... Ex, Sp, and Su? It sounds like you do but I don't want to have any more moving goalposts.

Suppose Glitterdust had school associated to it. Would you be able to conclude it is an illusion? No.

That depends. Is it listed as an Illusion somewhere else? Is there some general rule for illusions that Glitterdust is subject to? If so, we could conclude it was. If not, we could not. We certainly wouldn't randomly say it must be universal because all spells that aren't divination, evocation, illusion, enchantment, conjuration, transmutation, necromancy, or abjuration are universal. Claiming that would be silly.

Suppose it had no spell level or class associated to it. Would you be able to conclude it is a 2nd Level wizard spell? No.

Depends. Is it listed as a level 2 spell in every stat block that includes it? If so we could assume that, lacking all other evidence. If there's no clues at all, we could not.

If it appeared in some monster entry and was called a 2nd level wizard spell there, one could not use it as proof. At best it is a hint, but as the MM errata explicitly says, you should not take Monster Entries or Stat Blocks as indicators of what other rules are.

Actually, because tables are in fact rules, we could, given no contradiction. We just couldn't have that trump a general rule. Luckily, Spells don't have that... they're explicitly listed as Special Attacks on pages 299 and 300 of the Monster Manual.

So if Glitterdust were always listed as a Conjuration spell (which is what it is) and always second level, and there was a general description of Conjuration spells that described it, and there was a list of conjuration spells that included it, we could in fact conclude it was a second level Wizard spell.

What we could not do is randomly decide it must be a -3 level spell, because spells are never allowed to be level -3. That's what deciding Spells are Na is... it's a completely disallowed category error.

JaronK

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-09, 11:22 PM

I'm done. I don't think this debate is going to advance by any amount.

Summery on Rules Compendium:
1) There are two sides one that says the latest reprintings are still made of preexisting materials and one that says they are new material due to the inclusion of errata. I admit this is an issue that both side have a legitimate claim, but is not likely to ever be resolved.

2) I still can't see how the RC contradicts itself on whether or not natural abilities are a type of special ability. On one hand we have text that explicitly says it is. On the other hand we have a table (tables always differ to text anyway) that list how the other three type of special abilities interact with different game mechanics. Natural abilities don't need to be on that table for any reason.

Psyren

2013-07-09, 11:46 PM

Lilitus and Hobgoblins having Ex casting is not outdated or superceded.

I'm talking about regular spellcasting being Ex, not Mock Divinity or other abilities specific to one creature.

You asked about spell casting being Ex, I showed you.

No, you haven't. The closest you've come is "special abilities are either Ex, Su or Sp" - and even if we ignore RC's obvious precedence over that source, you haven't shown why you chose Ex specifically out of those three. I'm waiting for a justification.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 01:39 AM

Firstly, thanks everyone for such thorough argumentation. This kind of debate is, I think, a good thing, particularly when held to some standard of rigor.

Secondly, I currently lack the extra life that I would need to thoroughly read all of the posts and source material. So, consider this a disclaimer.

And to My Point:
Do we really consider that RAW has been definitive on this point, and that an answer beyond RAI conclusively exists? I find that there is sufficient debate on both sides--not to mention extant language used by the books that is pretty loose for something in which I'd hope to find internal consistency--to suggest that RAI is our only guide here (and a pretty piss-poor one, since both positions have their merits).

Just wondering if you all really feel that your RAW is iron-clad. [You know, in that manner that RAW almost never is.:smallwink:]

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 02:30 AM

It seems as a result of this discussion that no, RAW is not definitive enough to determine what type of abilities Spells are, and if you can acquire them through means like Alter Self, Polymorph, or Shapechange.

The key to the argument is deciding what type of ability the ability to cast spells actually is. There is an argument that it is an Extraordinary ability, because it appears in stat blocks under the header "Special Attacks," which elsewhere are defined as being only Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-Like. Of those three options, if those are the only three options which exist for anything listed as a Special Attack, the ability to cast spells best fits as an Extraordinary ability because you can technically cast spells in an antimagic field. The spell is suppressed immediately, resuming if you leave the field, but your ability to cast spells is technically unhindered. As such, by that argument (which has patches of RAW support, but not throughout and relies on many inferences), spellcasting is Ex.

The other argument is that the ability to cast spells is a Natural Ability, because the descriptive text in front of every monster which can cast spells "as an X level base class" does not contain the Ex, Su, or Sp label that all other Special Attacks and Special Qualities have. As such, by this omission, they should default to being Natural Abilities, which are defined as being those without Ex, Su, or Sp labels. This seems fairly supported by RAW, except that there seems to be a conflict between calling something a Natural Ability when it is listed under Special Abilities, as spells are.

As for the matter of acquiring them, if they are Ex abilities, then spells like Polymorph and Shapechange acquire them explicitly, RAW and RAI. Those spells grant you the Ex attacks and then all Ex abilities of the form you take, respectively. However, if spellcasting is an Na ability, then we return to the realm of ambiguity. Alter Self and its followers list many Natural Abilities of the form you take gained, but at no point say universally "You gain all the Natural Abilities of the form you take," and as such, precludes gaining spellcasting ability, if spellcasting is indeed an Na ability. It could be inferred that you gain all Na abilities, but that is not stated RAW.

So as a result, no, there is not a clear enough RAW ruling on the matter.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 02:48 AM

eggynack

2013-07-10, 03:08 AM

Leaving the realm of RAW. I say the monster manual has no say in the matter and class features don't have to be typed. So I think RAI, spellcasting is a typeless class feature that was never intended to be a special ability as defined by the monster manual.
I don't really understand this. Why wouldn't the monster manual have a say about ability types? It explicitly has all the say about ability types, to the point where other sources that contradict it can probably be considered wrong.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 03:21 AM

I don't really understand this. Why wouldn't the monster manual have a say about ability types? It explicitly has all the say about ability types, to the point where other sources that contradict it can probably be considered wrong.

This is my own non RAW interpretation.

The only places that place class based spellcasting in the special attacks section (and therefore making it a special ability) are the stat blocks on a few monsters. Stat blocks are often wrong. What is spellcasting wasn't a special attack or even a special ability? The rules never say everything has to be a special ability. The rules also don't say class features have to be a special ability. Assuming the monster stat blocks are wrong i see no reason why spellcasting can't be an untyped class feature.

This a possible RAI interpretation that only hinges on monsters with class based spellcasting incorrectly listing their spells as a special attack.

Edit: You know, all in all this has been a relatively polite debate. Its a nice change of pace.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 09:59 AM

This is my own non RAW interpretation.

The only places that place class based spellcasting in the special attacks section (and therefore making it a special ability) are the stat blocks on a few monsters. Stat blocks are often wrong. What is spellcasting wasn't a special attack or even a special ability? The rules never say everything has to be a special ability. The rules also don't say class features have to be a special ability. Assuming the monster stat blocks are wrong i see no reason why spellcasting can't be an untyped class feature.

This is the crux of the issue for me... I consider any interpretation to be wrong if it requires claiming that RAW is wrong, unless there's some contradicting (and better sourced) RAW that trumps it.

It's not just a few stat blocks that say this. It's literally every single stat block for every creature with spells (including those who get it from class abilities) that was ever printed with the old style stat blocks. That one stat block is wrong I'd buy... all of them though? Not a chance. Furthermore, the fact that page 299 of the Monster Manual explicitly states that Spells are a Special Attack outside of a stat block hammers the point home.

And then you've got the fact that there are repeated quotes through the books that state that all abilities of all kinds that are in any way "unusual" must be Special Abilities. It then goes on to use as examples all vulnerabilities, defenses, and so on. So that right there says that indeed all class abilities would be Special Abilities. And we go from there.

Honestly, I just don't get why people seem to so badly WANT spells to be a natural ability, especially when NAs are explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature (such as their ability to see and hear, or to walk).

In conclusion, I don't think literally hundreds of book entries, including all primary source entries and the designer commentary on the subject, are wrong for my interpretation, and to me that means my interpretation must be the correct one.

JaronK

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 02:25 PM

Honestly, I just don't get why people seem to so badly WANT spells to be a natural ability, especially when NAs are explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature (such as their ability to see and hear, or to walk).

Two things

1) Your argument that my suggested RAI solution can't be right because it isn't RAW is simply not an exceptable argument. The entire theory behind RAI is that RAW is unclear in some points and potentially wrong in other points.

2) NAs are not explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature. Abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature are explicitly NAs. That is very different. RAW never states all NAs are due to physical form. That's like claiming all rectangles are squares because someone said all squares are rectangles.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 02:25 PM

Well, allow me to posit this.

1.) Monster Manual stat blocks were standardized for creatures lacking abilities derived from levels in classes. Thus, there is no line for "PHB Class Ability:" or the like, even though a number of monster entries have "Spells." Special Attacks and Special Qualities are the only lines available for these entries, and they probably decided that it had to go somewhere in the statblock for the sake of clarity.

2.) MM itself is not the primary source for defining class features. That's the PHB, and the entry in the glossary of the MM for "Spells" specifically notes that those creatures with "Spells" follow rules for characters (with a few specifically delineated exceptions). So, MM refers us to the PHB for how to approach "Spells" ability, see "such creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules that characters are...."

3.) So now to the PHB, where definitions of class features are a mix of "has tags," "has no tags" and "that doesn't seem like the right tag." (Tag meaning the Ex, Su, Sp, or Na bit.) Specifically, the PHB section on Special Abilities, page 180, seems to contradict itself a couple times

Ex: "These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity."

contrast with the header for the section
"Characters using magic wands, rods, and other enchanted items, as well as certain class features, can also create magical effects. These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural."

It really seems that both of these indicate spells are not Ex, but if you look at the definition of Su and Sp, it's pretty clear they aren't either of those. Which leaves us with Na; I don't see that "Spells" can be Na by any kind of RAI.

4.) So, assuming you are still following this train of thought, RAW in PHB appears to leave us with two options, both of which I think have been mentioned:

Option 1: "Spells" is a special ability of type Na.

Option 2: "Spells" falls into the category of class features that don't operate by rules governing Special Abilities, but which default to specific mechanics introduced in PHB. In other words, not all class features are special abilities. This despite the fact that MM has them listed in statblocks as Special Attacks.

I feel that Option 2 is slightly better supported, as the MM pretty much says "Spells" functions like a thing described in the PHB, and thus we can't reverse-implicate stuff from the formatting in MM and say that also defines the class features in PHB. PHB's own say on the matter on 180 is terribly written, but I have to think that if all class features could be tagged, they would have been tagged (or perhaps, should have been tagged.:smalltongue:)

JaronK has already pretty much said that this kind of argument personally doesn't wash, as it assumes that MM kind of shoehorned "Spells" onto the Special Attacks line, which kind of assumes that RAW is inaccurate. I prefer to think that RAW is "inconsistent," but it pretty much results in the same thing: a useless rule that needs to be adjudicated by the DM.

My logic here may be incomplete, as I don't have access to Rules Compendium at the moment. As far as RACSD, I think Ex and Na are both problematic to toss around, and, moreover, it also is problematic to think that the logic for class features was that everything lacking a tag was Na (which is really weird...a druid's bonus languages are Na seems weird, though Na's wording is the epitome of vague).

Psyren

2013-07-10, 02:39 PM

Honestly, I just don't get why people seem to so badly WANT spells to be a natural ability, especially when NAs are explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature (such as their ability to see and hear, or to walk).

It's quite simple - they're not tagged anywhere (as Ex, Su or Sp) so they must be in the category explicitly designed for untagged abilities.

Not to mention it makes sense to me that, say, a Planetar's cleric casting is natural to Planetars. It makes sense, something we don't get to say often enough about RAW.

What I don't understand is why, even under your interpretation where everything in the statblock must be Ex, Su or Sp and nothing else, you default to Ex for spellcasting ability when it is the least magical of the three. It's nonsensical.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 03:03 PM

What I don't understand is why, even under your interpretation where everything in the statblock must be Ex, Su or Sp and nothing else, you default to Ex for spellcasting ability when it is the least magical of the three. It's nonsensical.

Oh, there's very good reason for that, but we need to establish that all Special Abilities (such as spells) are Ex, Sp, or Su before we even get there. Since people couldn't accept that fact, there's really no point in continuing. The fact that Natural Abilities aren't even a valid category and that the description of Natural Abilities (as listed in many different sources) doesn't even come close to what spells do doesn't seem to bother a lot of folks, so we can't get to the next phase.

It's sort of like trying to prove that .99999... = 1. If people don't understand what a repeating number is, you can't get into the more complex parts of the proof that get you the rest of the way home. And that's where we are right now... a bunch of people arguing that it's impossible for the 9s to go on forever and talking about the last 9 in the series, metaphorically.

JaronK

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 03:23 PM

Has someone shown that all class features are special abilities? It seems to me that some are not.

Moreover, there are specific rules on how "Spells" works that defy the rules for how special abilities work. The specific source for how "Spells" works is in the PHB class features, since the MM glossary entry for spells pretty much passes the ball back to the PHB. The mechanics for spellcasting granted by classes specifically do not correspond to rules generally governing each of the Ex, Su, Sp tags (specifically regarding interruption and provoking AoO).

Again, I don't feel that the MM statblock formatting was initially up to the task of incorporating class features into monsters.

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 03:24 PM

Oh, there's very good reason for that, but we need to establish that all Special Abilities (such as spells) are Ex, Sp, or Su before we even get there. Since people couldn't accept that fact, there's really no point in continuing. The fact that Natural Abilities aren't even a valid category and that the description of Natural Abilities (as listed in many different sources) doesn't even come close to what spells do doesn't seem to bother a lot of folks, so we can't get to the next phase.

It's sort of like trying to prove that .99999... = 1. If people don't understand what a repeating number is, you can't get into the more complex parts of the proof that get you the rest of the way home. And that's where we are right now... a bunch of people arguing that it's impossible for the 9s to go on forever and talking about the last 9 in the series, metaphorically.

JaronK

Okay, this makes me really skeptical of your entire argument. When someone goes in the direction of "Ohh, yeah, I totally know, but I'm not going to tell you because you couldn't understand it," that makes me think they don't actually have all that much to go on.

Temotei

2013-07-10, 03:28 PM

Okay, this makes me really skeptical of your entire argument. When someone goes in the direction of "Ohh, yeah, I totally know, but I'm not going to tell you because you couldn't understand it," that makes me think they don't actually have all that much to go on.

I feel like it's more of what he says it is than what you're interpreting it as. JaronK says it's because we need to establish a baseline agreement before moving on to more complex deals in the system. Makes sense.

I'm still really curious, though, about these ideas, and I'd like to hear them, since we don't seem to be going anywhere right here. Might as well show all your cards when the game's already over, eh?

Psyren

2013-07-10, 03:34 PM

Since people couldn't accept that fact, there's really no point in continuing.

Humor me then - let's assume you're right about the three categories. Why is the "Spells" monster ability Extraordinary?

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 03:37 PM

Humor me then - let's assume you're right about the three categories. Why is the "Spells" monster ability Extraordinary?

You mean spells monster ability acquired through class levels. The other monsters with spells don't really factor into the discussion.

Edit: I too am curious why it defaults to Ex. Also, theoretical debate assuming one side is correct is a very common practice.

Psyren

2013-07-10, 03:50 PM

By "Spells" I'm referring to this ability, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spells), possessed by monsters such as the Planetar, Rakshasa, and Couatl. Not spells a monster gains by taking levels in a spellcasting class. It is not designated as Ex anywhere that I can see.

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 03:57 PM

By the way, I know it's a bit late for this, but I want to make a comparison between Spells and Sneak Attack between the PHB and the MM. In the PHB, neither Spells nor Sneak Attack have the Ex, Su, or Sp tag. In the MM, both Spells and Sneak Attack are listed among Special Attacks. But in the MM, monsters that have Sneak Attack have it listed as an Ex ability, while those that have Spells do not have it listed. If Spells were an Ex ability, they would be listed as such, just as Sneak Attack is. Explain that.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 04:02 PM

Psyren

2013-07-10, 04:04 PM

Oh i see, what does that have to do with class based spellcasting and the factotum?

The factotum end of things was settled - monster-based spellcasting is never a class ability and thus cannot be appropriated by Cunning Brilliance. Rather, JaronK is making the argument that Polymorph (which grants a monster's Ex Special Attacks) can grant that monster's spellcasting instead.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 05:36 PM

The factotum end of things was settled - monster-based spellcasting is never a class ability and thus cannot be appropriated by Cunning Brilliance. Rather, JaronK is making the argument that Polymorph (which grants a monster's Ex Special Attacks) can grant that monster's spellcasting instead.

No, I'm making the argument that Spells are a Special Attack that are Extraordinary. The implications of that in game in the long run are varied... this is not about doing any one trick.

Saying I'm making the argument that Polymorph grants monster spell casting is like saying you're making the argument that Alter Self does so (and Polymorph as well through inheritance). It's a natural implication of what you're claiming (and I could go into why somewhere else), but that's not really the point.

The point is to know what, in general, various abilities are. For a variety of reasons, it's possible to show that virtually every unmarked class ability is in fact Ex (including Rogue Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, Warblade Maneuvers, and so on). This matters in a lot of ways, some of which are more subtle than others.

@Nettlekid: Some monsters that have the ability to cast spells do in fact have it labeled as Ex, but only in the new style of stat block in some of the last books of 3.5. But the general explanation for why so many abilities are not labeled as Ex (including things like Bonus Feats, even though feats are listed as being Ex abilities by default elsewhere) is simply that in the earlier days of 3.5 the designers just didn't think it mattered very much. The destination between an Na ability and an Ex ability actually doesn't matter much in core... Polymorph grants both (if they're Special Attacks), Factotums don't exist, and so on. They just didn't care. Instead, they labeled all Sp and Su abilities as such (because it mattered for Antimagic and Dispel Magic) and just didn't bother to label the rest. I hinted at this earlier... Su and Sp abilities have always been labeled, while other abilities only rarely were (one semi exception: Su maneuvers are not labeled as such in their entries, but rather elsewhere in ToB).

Later printings started labeling ability types a good bit more, which is why Arcane Talent and such have Ex tags (and why abilities like Sneak Attack started to have Ex labels as well). Note that no class has ever labeled a class ability as Na. The Rules of the Game Polymorph article makes it clear why: Na abilities are only supposed to be those generated by your direct physical form. Learned abilities (such as those from a class) shouldn't ever be Na.

But let's be clear here: lack of a label doesn't make something default to Na unless there's no other way to determine the ability type. A lack of a rule isn't a rule itself... it just means you default to the more general case rules.

JaronK

Temotei

2013-07-10, 05:49 PM

Some monsters that have the ability to cast spells do in fact have it labeled as Ex, but only in the new style of stat block in some of the last books of 3.5. But the general explanation for why so many abilities are not labeled as Ex (including things like Bonus Feats, even though feats are listed as being Ex abilities by default elsewhere) is simply that in the earlier days of 3.5 the designers just didn't think it mattered very much.

Wait, I'm not disagreeing here, but the reason spellcasting is extraordinary is because the designers were lazy? That seems like a really weak argument. I'm probably missing something.

But let's be clear here: lack of a label doesn't make something default to Na unless there's no other way to determine the ability type. A lack of a rule isn't a rule itself... it just means you default to the more general case rules.

Does lack of a label make it anything but unlabeled?

Again, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking for clarification.

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 06:00 PM

Wait, I'm not disagreeing here, but the reason spellcasting is extraordinary is because the designers were lazy? That seems like a really weak argument.

Agreed. Especially since this is a RAW argument, which means that we kind of have to take the letters on the page literally, without applying interpretation as to the intention of the writers when they wrote the rules, because of course, that would be RAI. Not RAW. Seeing that PHB-unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack were labeled as Ex in the MM, and that PHB-unlabeled abilities like Spells are left unlabeled in the MM, RAW, Spells are not labeled as Ex, Su, or Sp.

And I'm talking SPELLS and SPELLCASTING. Not some special ability which then grants the ability to cast spells, like Arcane Talent. Arcane Talent is its own ability, which then grants Spellcasting. It isn't spells and spellcasting itself. Also, I reiterate, that nowhere in Alter Self and Polymorph (again, RAW) does it say you gain all Natural Abilities of a creature. You gain many, and those listed, but it never says all.

Psyren

2013-07-10, 06:02 PM

The point is to know what, in general, various abilities are. For a variety of reasons, it's possible to show that virtually every unmarked class ability is in fact Ex (including Rogue Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, Warblade Maneuvers, and so on). This matters in a lot of ways, some of which are more subtle than others.

That may apply to those specific examples, but you need a general citation somewhere that unmarked abilities are extraordinary. Otherwise, what you're claiming simply is not RAW, merely an assumption.

And again, that stumbling block exists even if you somehow dismiss Rules Compendium.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 06:06 PM

Wait, I'm not disagreeing here, but the reason spellcasting is extraordinary is because the designers were lazy? That seems like a really weak argument. I'm probably missing something.

No, the reason so many abilities are unlabeled is that the designers were lazy.

Does lack of a label make it anything but unlabeled?

Quick, what sort of ability is White Raven Tactics? There's no label on it. There's a general rule that Maneuvers are Ex (except in certain situations) but WRT isn't labeled.

So... is it a Natural Ability, or an Extraordinary one?

The point is, things default to Natural only if there's no other way to determine what they are. If there are other rules out there that tell you what they are, that's not the same as a completely unlabeled ability.

So now, just to drop away from spells for a moment, does anybody here actually think that unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, and other such abilities are Na, or is this only spells that everyone thinks is a super special case?

JaronK

mattie_p

2013-07-10, 06:07 PM

It makes you kinda wish the designers designated spells as (Sp), kind of like they designated psionic powers as (Ps) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psiLikeAbilities).

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 06:10 PM

Just a question, Is there any reason that any ability that isn't defined as a specific type of ability has to be the same type of ability universally?

Edit:
So now, just to drop away from spells for a moment, does anybody here actually think that unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, and other such abilities are Na, or is this only spells that everyone thinks is a super special case?

JaronK

They probably fall under similar rulings, possibly the same ruling.

By the way, feats themselves are defined to default as Ex. Bonus feats, an ability that allows you to take feats, isn't defined.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 06:17 PM

Well, is there a definition of "ability" somewhere? As I noted before, I looked and don't see anywhere that tells me that all class features are special abilities.

Special Ability entry in PHB does not assert that all things granted by classes are Special Abilities; rather it seems to say that all Special Abilities are fall into one of four categories, with those not specified being Na (but not saying what Na really constitutes aside from things not otherwise covered, including stuff from physical form).

In fact, while I've been using the term "class feature" I'm now wondering if that is actually a solid term in the rules either. I think there is something to be said here for RAW having little regard for a rigorous and consistent use of specific terms, as things like "ability," "benefit," and "penalty" often got used a lot in a colloquial fashion in addition to having a game definition.

ADDENDUM: Hmm, PHB has some interesting stuff to say under "Class Features" on page 24. Nothing that really clarifies anything, sadly. Some of it might be pertinent, but it doesn't seem to address the matter of are Spells special abilities/is "Spells" Ex.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 06:20 PM

Phelix: The Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities. And yes, it defined what a Special Ability is. It also trumps the PHB for this purpose, which is why I haven't really referenced the PHB.

Natural Abilities are somewhat different and less covered by the Monster Manual, since Special Abilities aren't Natural Abilities.

But again, to clarify... if we ignore spells for the moment, do people believe that Special Abilities like Sneak Attack, Bonus Feats, Maneuvers, and the like are Na, or is this Na default thing only for spells?

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 06:20 PM

No, the reason so many abilities are unlabeled is that the designers were lazy.

Quick, what sort of ability is White Raven Tactics? There's no label on it. There's a general rule that Maneuvers are Ex (except in certain situations) but WRT isn't labeled.

So... is it a Natural Ability, or an Extraordinary one?

"Martial
maneuvers and stances are never spells or spell-like abilities. Unless the description of the specific maneuver or stance says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability." Taken from ToB. It defines things quite explicitly.

So now, just to drop away from spells for a moment, does anybody here actually think that unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, and other such abilities are Na, or is this only spells that everyone thinks is a super special case?

I think spells ARE a super special case. Sneak Attack is technically unlabeled in the PHB, so technically Factotums can't take it, but since there's support of Sneak Attack being Ex in other sources like PrCs and the MM, I think most DMs would allow it. The gaining of Fighter Bonus Feats is not an ability. The feat grant abilities, but the class feature which grants the bonus feats is not an ability. So that's just kind of nothing. Meanwhile, I think spells are actually something totally different. For example, here in the BoED, it mentions under the Saint Template, that "The save DCs of any and all of the saint’s special attacks, including spells as well as spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities, increase by +2." It calls spells something totally separate from the three other categories.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 06:23 PM

"Martial
maneuvers and stances are never spells or spell-like abilities. Unless the description of the specific maneuver or stance says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability." Taken from ToB. It defines things quite explicitly.

Ah, so if there's a general rule that covers it, then we don't randomly default to Na? That's actually what I was getting at.

I think spells ARE a super special case. Sneak Attack is technically unlabeled in the PHB, so technically Factotums can't take it, but since there's support of Sneak Attack being Ex in other sources like PrCs and the MM, I think most DMs would allow it. The gaining of Fighter Bonus Feats is not an ability. The feat grant abilities, but the class feature which grants the bonus feats is not an ability. So that's just kind of nothing. Meanwhile, I think spells are actually something totally different. For example, here in the BoED, it mentions under the Saint Template, that "The save DCs of any and all of the saint’s special attacks, including spells as well as spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities, increase by +2." It calls spells something totally separate from the three other categories.

Fighter Bonus Feats is a class ability (you can even trade them for other class features via ACFs). But you think it's a "nothing"? Do you have any support for the existence of a "nothing" option? And you think Sneak Attack is technically not Ex because it has no direct label? I'm just clarifying here.

If there were a general rule that suggests Sneak Attack was Ex, would you still think it's not Ex because it's unlabeled, or would that solve things?

JaronK

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 06:29 PM

I dunno.

I'm starting to see the "Spells" issue as a primary source issue. Other sources imply various things, but class features are from the PHB, which should be considered the primary source for how those things work.

Since PHB (and it's errata) says nothing coherent about the matter, we can either

1.) Ascribe it to some kind of error/laziness/poor development

2.) Conclude only what the text tells us (and the RAW in PHB seems to draw a distinction when it tags some class features Ex but leaves other stuff blank).

Now, a broader discussion of special abilities could indicate otherwise. But looking just at the PHB and the MM, it seems to me that both books create gray area.

I think the errata is also a pertinent issue, since errata for several other books did go around and correct the Ex/Su/Sp/Ps tags. Why didn't PHB errata do this? [Possible Answer: Laziness. But I don't see that laziness or lack of initiative on the part of the developers gives us sanction to make logical leaps on behalf of the RAW. RAW is RAW. Logic be damned.]

Psyren

2013-07-10, 06:32 PM

Ah, so if there's a general rule that covers it, then we don't randomly default to Na? That's actually what I was getting at.

Defaulting to Ex is even more random, particularly for an explicitly magical ability. If anything you should be defaulting to Sp, or Su - Ex should be last on the list, not first.

(Note that I am still setting aside RC here solely for the sake of argument. I'm pretty convinced that RC's general rule solves this problem easily.)

JaronK

2013-07-10, 06:38 PM

Defaulting to Ex is even more random, particularly for an explicitly magical ability. If anything you should be defaulting to Sp, or Su - Ex should be last on the list, not first.

There's actually no "Default to Sp or Su" rule out there. But there is a default to Ex one.

And let's be clear, I originally thought (before I really got into researching this) that spells should be spell like. I mean seriously... why wouldn't they be? Spells are like themselves! I actually started working on figuring out what they were after a CustServ answer said they were Ex and I wanted to figure out what the heck they were talking about.

But check out the FAQ on page 17, which states that

It is 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.

It's talking about Cunning Brilliance here, btw, so "fair play" means "is an extraordinary ability." Now, without talking about spells, with this FAQ entry, can everyone agree that Special Abilities (in fact, class abilities in general) that are unlabeled default to Ex if they have no clear supernatural element?

This should at least satisfy anyone wondering about Fighter Bonus Feats, Rogue Sneak Attack, Warblade Manuevers, and so on. It also shows that something being unlabeled is not an argument for it being Na... in fact if it's a class ability, the default is Ex. And you can see from here why I say lack of labeling is just laziness on the part of the developers... and you can see that defaulting to Ex isn't random at all. I'm following the rules on this completely. Because seriously, I really researched the heck out of this.

JaronK

mattie_p

2013-07-10, 06:44 PM

But check out the FAQ on page 17, which states that

It is 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.

It's talking about Cunning Brilliance here, btw, so "fair play" means "is an extraordinary ability." Now, without talking about spells, with this FAQ entry, can everyone agree that Special Abilities (in fact, class abilities in general) that are unlabeled default to Ex if they have no clear supernatural element?

This should at least satisfy anyone wondering about Fighter Bonus Feats, Rogue Sneak Attack, Warblade Manuevers, and so on. It also shows that something being unlabeled is not an argument for it being Na... in fact if it's a class ability, the default is Ex. And you can see from here why I say lack of labeling is just laziness on the part of the developers... and you can see that defaulting to Ex isn't random at all. I'm following the rules on this completely. Because seriously, I really researched the heck out of this.

JaronK

Ah, but the FAQ there is not directive, it is subjective. "It is fair to assume..." "When in doubt, the DM should decide..." "... should be fair play."

It leaves it to the DM/reader to determine what is correct. Even when the FAQ is wrong (which we debated earlier in another thread), at least it makes a stand. This is just wishy-washy nonsense. I'm sorry, but when a rules source says "DM: Your call" I can hardly credit it in an argument.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 06:46 PM

Ah, but the FAQ there is not directive, it is subjective. "It is fair to assume..." "When in doubt, the DM should decide..." "... should be fair play."

It leaves it to the DM/reader to determine what is correct. Even when the FAQ is wrong (which we debated earlier in another thread), at least it makes a stand. This is just wishy-washy nonsense. I'm sorry, but when a rules source says "DM: Your call" I can hardly credit it in an argument.

It completely kills the notion that Na is supposed to be the default for class abilities, though, because it wouldn't be fair to assume such a thing if it was categorically wrong. Which it would be if Na was a default for class abilities. It would only be fair to assume such a thing if the overwhelming majority of unlabeled class abilities were in fact Ex.

JaronK

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 06:47 PM

You understand that customer service and the FAQ are not RAW, right?

If they fall into any category it is RAI.

Temotei

2013-07-10, 06:47 PM

No, the reason so many abilities are unlabeled is that the designers were lazy.

Ah. Okay. The way it was worded it seemed like that was the answer to why everything we're talking about is extraordinary by default. Got it.

Quick, what sort of ability is White Raven Tactics? There's no label on it. There's a general rule that Maneuvers are Ex (except in certain situations) but WRT isn't labeled.

So... is it a Natural Ability, or an Extraordinary one?

The point is, things default to Natural only if there's no other way to determine what they are. If there are other rules out there that tell you what they are, that's not the same as a completely unlabeled ability.

It's a maneuver, so it's extraordinary. I meant things like bonus feats, which are completely unlabeled. While the feats themselves are extraordinary, the "bonus feats" class feature is unlabeled everywhere, as far as I know. Wouldn't that just leave it as an unlabeled ability, rather than any of the Na, Ex, Su, or Sp categories, considering it's not a special ability?

I didn't make an argument either way for extraordinary or natural for unlabeled abilities. I'm just wondering.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 06:53 PM

It's a maneuver, so it's extraordinary. I meant things like bonus feats, which are completely unlabeled. While the feats themselves are extraordinary, the "bonus feats" class feature is unlabeled everywhere, as far as I know. Wouldn't that just leave it as an unlabeled ability, rather than any of the Na, Ex, Su, or Sp categories, considering it's not a special ability?

Sneak Attack is unlabeled too, but we've just seen designer commentary that assumes it's Ex (plus it's listed as Ex in numerous places outside the PHB as Ex). Other abilities like some of the Ranger ones aren't labeled but pop up on things like the Troll Hunter clearly labeled as Special Abilities.

Bonus feats are a bit of a special case, because unlike every other class ability in existence they're never listed as Special Abilities, but are rather just jammed into the standard feat list with a little B over them. Still, they are "an unmarked ability [that] lacks a clear supernatural element" which according to the FAQ makes them Extraordinary.

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 06:54 PM

Ah, so if there's a general rule that covers it, then we don't randomly default to Na? That's actually what I was getting at.
Er, no, if there's a thing that says if it's Ex, then it's Ex. If there's no such thing saying it's Ex, then it's not Ex. It would be reasonable to say that something that is entirely unlabeled is Na, because Na is not Ex, Su, or Sp, but frankly, I think it's fairer to say that it's just not any of those. Find me the general rule that states, nearly word for word but perhaps with synonyms if need be, "Unless otherwise stated, the ability to cast spells (as used by several spellcasting monsters) is treated as an Extraordinary ability." Until you find me that phrase, then RAW is treating them as unlabeled.

Fighter Bonus Feats is a class ability (you can even trade them for other class features via ACFs). But you think it's a "nothing"? Do you have any support for the existence of a "nothing" option? And you think Sneak Attack is technically not Ex because it has no direct label? I'm just clarifying here.

If there were a general rule that suggests Sneak Attack was Ex, would you still think it's not Ex because it's unlabeled, or would that solve things?

I support it as a "nothing" because "Bonus Feats" isn't an ability. The feats grant you an ability, but you don't use "Bonus Feats" as a power in battle. "I activate my Bonus Feats!" "Oh, you can't do that in an AMF." "Sure I can, Bonus Feats is an Ex ability!" No. Don't be silly.

And your question is moot, because there is no rule in the PHB stating all Sneak Attack to be Ex. I think Sneak Attack as used by a Rogue with Rogue levels is technically not Ex because it is not labeled as Ex. I think Sneak Attack as used by a Babau who gets it racially to be Ex, because it is labeled as such. Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 06:57 PM

Wouldn't that just leave it as an unlabeled ability, rather than any of the Na, Ex, Su, or Sp categories, considering it's not a special ability?

This is my boat. Some class features have their own special rules that defy those set out by Special Abilities. Such class features shouldn't be lumped in with Special Abilities when Ex is clearly called out sometimes in PHB, other times is not, and where MM also often follows this pattern (until the later manuals).

Anyway, did we ever get to the broader implication or conclusion that JaronK was hinting at?

Psyren

2013-07-10, 06:59 PM

But check out the FAQ on page 17, which states that

So now you're claiming that spellcasting "lacks a clear, supernatural element?" Being supernatural is literally the only point of magic.

mattie_p

2013-07-10, 07:01 PM

So now you're claiming that spellcasting "lacks a clear, supernatural element?" Being supernatural is literally the only point of magic.

May I sig this? It is about time to update anyway...

JaronK

2013-07-10, 07:03 PM

Er, no, if there's a thing that says if it's Ex, then it's Ex. If there's no such thing saying it's Ex, then it's not Ex. It would be reasonable to say that something that is entirely unlabeled is Na, because Na is not Ex, Su, or Sp, but frankly, I think it's fairer to say that it's just not any of those. Find me the general rule that states, nearly word for word but perhaps with synonyms if need be, "Unless otherwise stated, the ability to cast spells (as used by several spellcasting monsters) is treated as an Extraordinary ability." Until you find me that phrase, then RAW is treating them as unlabeled.

So the fact that the FAQ completely contradicts you on your "something that is entirely unlabeled is Na" statement doesn't bother you? I mean, I just showed a clear statement that says that the default for unlabeled class abilities is Ex.

Also, I thought we were assuming that Spells are a Special Attack, and Special Attacks are always Ex, Sp, or Su. Why have we suddenly gone back to the beginning yet again?

I support it as a "nothing" because "Bonus Feats" isn't an ability. The feats grant you an ability, but you don't use "Bonus Feats" as a power in battle. "I activate my Bonus Feats!" "Oh, you can't do that in an AMF." "Sure I can, Bonus Feats is an Ex ability!" No. Don't be silly.

And yet DR 5/- is explicitly an Ex ability, but you don't activate your DR as a power either. DR 5/Magic is explicitly supernatural, so that actually does go away in an AMF. So... you're now nowhere near RAW. You might want to go back and reread the Monster Manual section on Special Attacks and Special Qualities (it starts on page 299). You'll find that most Special Qualities do not get activated, and many do go away in an AMF.

And your question is moot, because there is no rule in the PHB stating all Sneak Attack to be Ex. I think Sneak Attack as used by a Rogue with Rogue levels is technically not Ex because it is not labeled as Ex.

FAQ directly contradicts this, saying "It's reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability."

I think Sneak Attack as used by a Babau who gets it racially to be Ex, because it is labeled as such. Really, it's not that hard to understand.

It's hard to understand when I just quoted you the designer telling you you're wrong, and you're directly contradicting this.

JaronK

JaronK

2013-07-10, 07:05 PM

So now you're claiming that spellcasting "lacks a clear, supernatural element?" Being supernatural is literally the only point of magic.

We'll get there, but we have to accept the ground level stuff first. Notice how we've already got a poster jumping back to "Special Abilities can be Na!" which is exactly what I was talking about before.

If we can get through the "Special Attacks can be Na!" bit AND get through the "unlabeled stuff doesn't' default to Ex!" stuff, THEN we can get to the next part (which answers your question).

Don't get ahead of yourself... we're already losing Nettlekid. Turns out I have to go REALLY SLOW with this or we keep having to retread the same ground over and over again.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-10, 07:12 PM

If we can get through the "Special Attacks can be Na!" bit AND get through the "unlabeled stuff doesn't' default to Ex!" stuff, THEN we can get to the next part (which answers your question).

Oh goody, I'm on the edge of my seat. *rolls eyes*

May I sig this? It is about time to update anyway...

Nothing would make me happier.

mattie_p

2013-07-10, 07:12 PM

We'll get there, but we have to accept the ground level stuff first. Notice how we've already got a poster jumping back to "Special Abilities can be Na!" which is exactly what I was talking about before.

If we can get through the "Special Attacks can be Na!" bit AND get through the "unlabeled stuff doesn't' default to Ex!" stuff, THEN we can get to the next part (which answers your question).

Don't get ahead of yourself... we're already losing Nettlekid. Turns out I have to go REALLY SLOW with this or we keep having to retread the same ground over and over again.

JaronK

Umm, you lost me already. We are talking about the FAQ entry, correct? This one?

2. Can a factotum of 19th level use cunning brilliance to emulate a rogue’s sneak attack ability?

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.

The one that tosses its hands in the air and gives up? The one that says "Help me DM, you're my only hope?" That one? The one that basically says, "When in doubt, it is reasonable to assume in cases of abilities that are unmarked special abilities without supernatural elements, the DM should decide if it is fair play to consider them extraordinary?"

How much more indecisive could it possibly get???

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 07:16 PM

So the fact that the FAQ completely contradicts you on your "something that is entirely unlabeled is Na" statement doesn't bother you? I mean, I just showed a clear statement that says that the default for unlabeled class abilities is Ex.

If the FAQ contradicts you, you should look for a reason why. If no reason is found, ask someone else. If no one can find a reason, it could be a good RAI interpretation. If evidence is found that contradicts the FAQ, ignore the FAQ. The FAQ is just a horrible collection of people trying to sort out what the rules mean and they often ignore or contradict clearly written rules.

Edit: all i'm saying here is the FAQ is a bad source of information.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 07:26 PM

Umm, you lost me already. We are talking about the FAQ entry, correct? This one?

The one that tosses its hands in the air and gives up? The one that says "Help me DM, you're my only hope?" That one? The one that basically says, "When in doubt, it is reasonable to assume in cases of abilities that are unmarked special abilities without supernatural elements, the DM should decide if it is fair play to consider them extraordinary?"

How much more indecisive could it possibly get???

But here's the thing: It would only be reasonable to assume that if that were the most common case. So that tells us right there that by default unlabeled non supernatural (here meaning not magical, as opposed to Su) abilities are Ex.

So actually, it's very helpful. This allows us to drop the whole "all abilities default to Na when there's not a specific label on that ability" argument that people keep making. It also makes perfect sense... class abilities are special abilities (as defined by countless stat blocks), and since Special Abilities must be Su, Sp, or Ex, it makes perfect sense to assume that any class ability that's not extra magicky is in fact Ex. It's a very reasonable answer that actually agrees with all other designer commentary on the topic (and furthers my earlier point that lack of labeling on a specific ability is laziness, not an indication that it's Na, and that furthermore you're supposed to use the guidelines set out elsewhere to determine the ability type of a given ability).

@Neo Pheonix: It's the Official Game Rules FAQ. Whether we like it or not, they're official game rules. So that's it... no need to run off consulting other things. In fact, clarifying something like this is EXACTLY the point of such a document.

JaronK

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 07:26 PM

We'll get there, but we have to accept the ground level stuff first. Notice how we've already got a poster jumping back to "Special Abilities can be Na!" which is exactly what I was talking about before.

If we can get through the "Special Attacks can be Na!" bit AND get through the "unlabeled stuff doesn't' default to Ex!" stuff, THEN we can get to the next part (which answers your question).

Don't get ahead of yourself... we're already losing Nettlekid. Turns out I have to go REALLY SLOW with this or we keep having to retread the same ground over and over again.

JaronK

Considering you're fighting a losing battle against reason, I don't think I'm the one you're losing. For one, you don't seem to know what you're arguing. What do you think the ability cast spells is? Because you're saying it's not Na even though it seems unlabeled things default to Na, and you're saying it's Ex even though it doesn't say Ex.

I don't think you need to go slow, I think we've lapped you and you've yet to realize.

EDIT: By the way, three words that blow up your "Spellcasting is Ex" argument. Attack of Opportunity. Extraordinary abilities don't provoke. Spellcasting does.

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 07:30 PM

I'm reading this with great interest. Good job keeping this civil and interesting. What I can't follow is why FAQ and RotG articles are being used as definitive rules sources?

Temotei

2013-07-10, 07:32 PM

Sneak Attack is unlabeled too, but we've just seen designer commentary that assumes it's Ex (plus it's listed as Ex in numerous places outside the PHB as Ex). Other abilities like some of the Ranger ones aren't labeled but pop up on things like the Troll Hunter clearly labeled as Special Abilities.

Labeled somewhere probably puts them out of the unlabeled category. Good points, though.

Bonus feats are a bit of a special case, because unlike every other class ability in existence they're never listed as Special Abilities, but are rather just jammed into the standard feat list with a little B over them. Still, they are "an unmarked ability [that] lacks a clear supernatural element" which according to the FAQ makes them Extraordinary.

Interesting, though the statement they make there in the FAQ is...really vague. Assumptions and DM decisions don't really feel like RAW to me. Is the FAQ a legitimate source? I think if that's answered with logic/inferences, we could move in a good direction.

It is 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.

Still, though, saying something should be fair play isn't saying it is fair play. They're still leaving it up to the DM. That doesn't seem like RAW to me, regardless of whether the FAQ is a legitimate source.

Considering you're fighting a losing battle against reason, I don't think I'm the one you're losing. For one, you don't seem to know what you're arguing.

He's arguing that spellcasting is an extraordinary special ability, as noted here:

No, I'm making the argument that Spells are a Special Attack that are Extraordinary.

I don't think you need to go slow, I think we've lapped you and you've yet to realize.

This is just unnecessary. This isn't about winning an argument. It's about discussing whether spellcasting is a natural ability, a special ability, or unlabeled (and only unlabeled). There's no winner here.

On the other hand, saying "we're...losing Nettlekid" is unnecessary, too.

Psyren

2013-07-10, 07:41 PM

I'm reading this with great interest. Good job keeping this civil and interesting. What I can't follow is why FAQ and RotG articles are being used as definitive rules sources?

For the record, I have no problem with FAQ as a rules source. But the FAQ clearly states that only non-magical unlabeled special abilities should be Ex. Whatever else you think spellcasting is, attempting to argue that it's non-magical is a dead end.

Arcanist

2013-07-10, 07:50 PM

Is Bardic Music is an Extraordinary ability? It neither provokes an attack of opportunity and is unlabeled so where does it default? Is it a Natural ability?

Better yet, how about Bardic Knowledge? Same circumstances? A Commoner taking their next level as a Bard spontaneously suffers a physical mutation that lets them sing and "knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places"? This is starting to sound like the plot for Heroes where everyone just spontaneously starts to develop super powers :smallamused:

For the record, I have no problem with FAQ as a rules source. But the FAQ clearly states that only non-magical unlabeled special abilities should be Ex. Whatever else you think spellcasting is, attempting to argue that it's non-magical is a dead end.

If Spellcasting should be considered a "magical unlabeled" special ability (A Supernatural ability I suppose?), than Anti-magic field blocks the "Spells" class feature instead of the actual spells. Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra stop being things...

Nettlekid

2013-07-10, 07:57 PM

Is Bardic Music is an Extraordinary ability? It neither provokes an attack of opportunity and is unlabeled so where does it default? Is it a Natural ability?

Better yet, how about Bardic Knowledge? Same circumstances? A Commoner taking their next level as a Bard spontaneously suffers a physical mutation that lets them sing and "knows some relevant information about local notable people, legendary items, or noteworthy places"? This is starting to sound like the plot for Heroes where everyone just spontaneously starts to develop super powers :smallamused:

Bardic Music is yet another of those unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack and Spells, but unlike those, each application has a tag fitting in Ex, Su, or Sp (I don't think there are any Ex Bardic Musics, but I may be wrong). And it does indeed look like Bardic Knowledge is either a Natural Ability, if we agree that not being listed as Ex, Su, or Sp means Natural, or simply unlabeled, if we're going by RAW.

This is just unnecessary. This isn't about winning an argument. It's about discussing whether spellcasting is a natural ability, a special ability, or unlabeled (and only unlabeled). There's no winner here.
No it's not unnecessary, his posts have become increasingly critical and reliant on belittling the opinions of the other people in the conversation rather than substantiating his own claims. I was directly insulted, and I am not about to let that pass without remark.

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 08:00 PM

JaronK

2013-07-10, 08:01 PM

For the record, I have no problem with FAQ as a rules source. But the FAQ clearly states that only non-magical unlabeled special abilities should be Ex. Whatever else you think spellcasting is, attempting to argue that it's non-magical is a dead end.

Interestingly enough, it's not nearly the dead end you'd think it is. Here's why.

A Druid's ability to Wild Shape is Su (explicitly so). However, this ability gives you Na abilities (such as claw attacks). So there exists a precedent for the idea that an ability of one type can give you abilities of another type... in this case a Supernatural Ability that gives you non magical natural attacks. If a creature were immune to all Supernatural Abilities, a Wild Shaped Druid could still claw that creature, correct? Likewise, a creature that was immune to magic could still be harmed by, let's say, a Rogue that was polymorphed into a Hydra. The Hydra transformation was magical, but the bite attacks gained from it are not. In both of these cases, a magical ability allowed for a non magic result. And we can go the other way too... a Rogue's UMD isn't a magical ability. Yet if they use UMD on a wand, they get a spell, which is magical.

So, while spells themselves are obviously magical in nature, is the ability to cast spells itself magical? Interestingly enough, it's conclusively not. Here's why.

First and foremost, let's look at the Antimagic Field spell:

"An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration."

Okay, so any Sp or Su ability disappears (is suppressed and won't function) as long as you're in the field. This means that, for example, Factotums can't cast anything in such a field... their casting is Sp. But what about the ability to cast spells that a Wizard has? If the ability to cast spells is magical, a Wizard can't cast spells in an Antimagic Field (like a Factotum). However, if the ability to cast spells is in fact non magical, then he can still cast the spells... they're just suppressed, because the spells themselves are magical.

And this brings us to something I referenced in the beginning: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a

Here we see this section: "When a spellcaster is inside an antimagic area, any spells she casts are suppressed. Such spells don't actually fail unless their durations are instantaneous. Spells with longer durations are suppressed until the caster somehow leaves the antimagic area (though time spent within the antimagic area counts against the spell's duration). If the caster isn't aware she's in an antimagic area, handle the situation in the same way you'd handle it if the caster has aimed a spell into the antimagic area from outside."

Notice that a spell caster does not lose their ability to cast spells in an anti magic field. If the ability to cast a spell was magical, they would (like a Factotum). But they don't. This means the ability to cast spells is in fact not magical, even though the spells themselves are magical. Just as Druids can Wild Shape into something (magical) to get claw attacks (non magical), or a Rogue can use UMD (a non magic ability) to cast a spell from a wand (magical).

This is also how the Invoke Magic spell works... you still have the ability to cast spells (complete with spell slots, your spell DCs, and everything else) while you're in the field. If you didn't, you wouldn't even have access to Invoke Magic so you couldn't do anything with it. Note that if a Factotum somehow ended up with Invoke Magic, they couldn't use it, because the very ability to cast anything at all for a Factotum is Sp.

And thus we get to the conclusion: if the ability to cast spells were Su or Sp, spell casters couldn't cast in an anti magic field... but they can, so it's not. Since spells are a Special Ability, they must be Su, Sp, or Ex. The only possible result then is that spells are Ex. Any other conclusion leads to impossibilities... use of Su or Sp abilities in an Antimagic Field, or a Special Ability that's Natural. Neither of those can happen. And since the bit on Antimagic does make it clear that the ability to cast spells is non magical (even though the spells are magical), the FAQ applies completely here.

Spells are an Ex Special Attack. QED.

JaronK

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 08:05 PM

For the record, the 3.0-3.5 gray space BoED has the tulani's "Bardic Music" ability untagged and listed under Special Qualities.

The plot thickens!

And let's keep it civil. If we disagree, that's not the end of the world, and if someone is rocking the boat, it's very sensible to not also rock the boat.

Otherwise, high marks. This has been a good discussion.

@JaronK: I think the part I am having trouble with is the assertion the Spells are a Special Ability. I don't see that this is necessarily the case.

mattie_p

2013-07-10, 08:10 PM

Spells are an Ex Special Attack. QED.

Maybe if you said "Spellcasting," or "the ability to cast spells" I could get behind you, but the spells themselves are, as Psyren pointed out, inherently magical.

Arcanist

2013-07-10, 08:10 PM

Bardic Music is yet another of those unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack and Spells, but unlike those, each application has a tag fitting in Ex, Su, or Sp (I don't think there are any Ex Bardic Musics, but I may be wrong). And it does indeed look like Bardic Knowledge is either a Natural Ability, if we agree that not being listed as Ex, Su, or Sp means Natural, or simply unlabeled, if we're going by RAW.

Well this also applies to the Monk's Unarmed Strike and Perfect Self. I can understand the argument for the Monk's Unarmed Strike being an Ex (no support for such an argument), and Perfect Self being Su (again, no support for such an argument), but what specifically defaults them as such? Is it just our interpretation of how we believe it should be or is their any RAW basis for these cases? I sincerely doubt there is any WoTC created stat-block of a Monk 20 so we won't really know. Ultimately this falls down to the point where if the unlabeled Spells class feature is a Natural Ability then every other unlabeled class feature are also a Natural Ability (or default to their nearest RAI state)... Or would this be an improper assumption? :smallconfused:

Something I can just DM fiat away, but won't!
I suppose I should state why I'm asking. I want to do a Heroes game and if all of these class features are Natural abilities I can totally just call it off as that :smallamused:

Temotei

2013-07-10, 08:11 PM

*snip*

That makes your argument so much cleaner and clearer that I wonder why it wasn't brought up first.

This seems sound to me. I'm not a huge rules buff, though, so.

I think the part I am having trouble with is the assertion the Spells are a Special Ability. I don't see that this is necessarily the case.

I believe the evidence given is here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/specialAbilities.htm). Far right column, about three-quarters of the way down the list. The specific entry is here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spells). Of course, this refers to creatures who cast spells, not the class feature, so it's kind of blurry.

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 08:22 PM

That makes your argument so much cleaner and clearer that I wonder why it wasn't brought up first.

This seems sound to me. I'm not a huge rules buff, though, so.

I believe the evidence given is here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/specialAbilities.htm). Far right column, about three-quarters of the way down the list. The specific entry is here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spells). Of course, this refers to creatures who cast spells, not the class feature, so it's kind of blurry.

The problem I see here is that it speaks specifically to a creature's ability as separate from a classed ability to cast spells. I don't think that passage proves the spellcasting class ability is a special attack. It does define it for non-classed casters though.

Edited to change character's to classed casters. The former was inaccurate.

Temotei

2013-07-10, 08:26 PM

The problem I see here is that it speaks specifically to a creature's ability as separate from a character's ability. I don't think that passage proves the spell casting class ability is a special attack. It does define it for non-classed casters though.

Indeed. Now the question is whether spellcasting is the same across the board (in a casting class as opposed to not in a casting class). I don't think I've seen anything to prove it either way, which suggests it's not, but others will likely know more.

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 08:37 PM

Indeed. Now the question is whether spellcasting is the same across the board (in a casting class as opposed to not in a casting class). I don't think I've seen anything to prove it either way, which suggests it's not, but others will likely know more.

I agree, which is why I was trying to stay out of the argument. Ummm... I failed. :)

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 08:56 PM

The problem with the "Spells" entry in the MM Glossary (which is where the bit in the SRD appears to come from), is that it pretty much says "Check out the PHB for how this works." And the PHB says nothing sensible about everything being either Ex/Su/Sp/Na/w/e.

In the organization in the Monster Manual, it seemed totally unclear that "Spells" is actually a special ability, though the SRD organization seems to make this clear. I guess we can figure it out from the definitions given for Special Attacks and such, but I find this kind of connect-the-dots RAW to be poorly conceived at best.

But generally I agree that just because we can determine x or y about "Spells" in the MM doesn't mean we can determine that the "Spells" in PHB works the same way, nor that the systems set up in the MM and later versions of it are retroactively applicable to the class features in the PHB.

Moreover, if they felt strongly that it was an oversight, then they could have errata'd it. They didn't, so I'm left feeling that they thought the PHB's class features were fine as printed.

JaronK

2013-07-10, 09:00 PM

The problem I see here is that it speaks specifically to a creature's ability as separate from a classed ability to cast spells. I don't think that passage proves the spellcasting class ability is a special attack. It does define it for non-classed casters though.

Edited to change character's to classed casters. The former was inaccurate.

Please note the Mummy Lord in MM1. It's just a Mummy with 10 Cleric levels. Its spells are a Special Attack, just like everyone else's. See also the Troll Hunter, a Troll with Ranger levels. Again, Special Attack.

So even for spells gained only by class levels, the ability to cast spells is a Special Attack.

Note that there is one funny exception to this... some later books place spells as a Special Quality. That's a bit strange, but irrelevant for our purposes, because Special Qualities and Special Attacks are just subcategories of Special Abilities. So the same necessary rules apply.

JaronK

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 09:08 PM

Please note the Mummy Lord in MM1. It's just a Mummy with 10 Cleric levels. Its spells are a Special Attack, just like everyone else's. See also the Troll Hunter, a Troll with Ranger levels. Again, Special Attack.

So even for spells gained only by class levels, the ability to cast spells is a Special Attack.

Note that there is one funny exception to this... some later books place spells as a Special Quality. That's a bit strange, but irrelevant for our purposes, because Special Qualities and Special Attacks are just subcategories of Special Abilities. So the same necessary rules apply.

JaronK

I understand your point here. I just don't think it's a definitive statement about class abilities. The PH is the primary source for class abilities, not the MM. It seems to me spellcasting was put in that section because it didn't fit anywhere else. But that's only an opinion of course. I honestly have read the arguments. I just don't agree with your conclusion.

Psyren

2013-07-10, 09:18 PM

And this brings us to something I referenced in the beginning: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a

Here we see this section: "When a spellcaster is inside an antimagic area, any spells she casts are suppressed. Such spells don't actually fail unless their durations are instantaneous. Spells with longer durations are suppressed until the caster somehow leaves the antimagic area (though time spent within the antimagic area counts against the spell's duration). If the caster isn't aware she's in an antimagic area, handle the situation in the same way you'd handle it if the caster has aimed a spell into the antimagic area from outside."

Notice that a spell caster does not lose their ability to cast spells in an anti magic field. If the ability to cast a spell was magical, they would (like a Factotum). But they don't. This means the ability to cast spells is in fact not magical, even though the spells themselves are magical. Just as Druids can Wild Shape into something (magical) to get claw attacks (non magical), or a Rogue can use UMD (a non magic ability) to cast a spell from a wand (magical).

You haven't proven anything here - suppression is not negation. Yes, you can cast spells while in an AMF even if they don't do anything, but that doesn't make spellcasting itself extraordinary. Supernatural and spell-like abilities are treated in exactly the same way - they are not removed or deactivated.

Take Binders for example. The vestige abilities they gain are supernatural - and so too, explicitly, is the very ability they possess that allows them to form and maintain a pact itself (Soul Binding). By your logic, a binder who walks into an AMF should lose all his vestiges, because his very ability to maintain a pact is supernatural and was suppressed, along with whatever individual vestige abilities he gained from those pacts. But they don't - a Binder will explicitly walk into an AMF and back out again with all their pacts intact.

The same is true of the Truenamer - both their utterances, and their ability to utter itself, are spell-like abilities. Following your interpretation, they wouldn't even be allowed to make a check in an AMF - their ability to even attempt an utterance would be gone under this interpretation.

The fact is that none of the "ability abilities" are removed in an AMF. So the mere existence of the rule that you can make the attempt while the powers themselves are being suppressed does not prove that spellcasting is extraordinary.

If Spellcasting should be considered a "magical unlabeled" special ability (A Supernatural ability I suppose?), than Anti-magic field blocks the "Spells" class feature instead of the actual spells. Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra stop being things...

No, they are still things; Specific Trumps General things. They work in AMF because they say they do.

Kornaki

2013-07-10, 09:31 PM

I did some searching through the player's handbook and found the following possibly relevant parts:

This isn't great but is slightly relevant. Underneath caster level of page 171 of the player's handbook:

In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other
special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level

The grammar implies that class features and domain granted powers are special abilities. However the PHB is the one that says special abilities can be natural abilities (and unlabeled ones are) which is contradicted elsewhere so it's hard to say.

When you go to the PHB glossary, a class feature is defined as a special characteristic, Ex and Sp abilities are defined as special abilities, Su abilities are described as magical powers and natural abilities are defined as special capabilities. Someone at WotC got a little thesaurus happy I think.

Special qualities are NOT defined as special abilities in the glossary (special attacks aren't defined at all) but it defers to the monster manual for more information so nothing interesting there.

What's interesting is that the book makes it clear that class features include

The character gains the 1st-level base attack bonuses, base save
bonuses, class skills, weapon proficiency, armor and shield proficiencies, spells, and other class features of the new class

So are things like base attack bonuses extraordinary abilities?

Baleful polymorph is interesting:

It retains any
class features (other than spellcasting) that
aren’t extraordinary, supernatural, or spelllike abilities.

OK, so class features are not always extraordinary, supernatural or spellike. And since we were told explicitly earlier in the spell description that the creature loses all spellcasting abilities, it seems to be implying here that spellcasting is not extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like (since otherwise the caveat would be unnecessary)

Drachasor

2013-07-10, 09:43 PM

You haven't proven anything here - suppression is not negation. Yes, you can cast spells while in an AMF even if they don't do anything, but that doesn't make spellcasting itself extraordinary. Supernatural and spell-like abilities are treated in exactly the same way - they are not removed or deactivated.

Indeed. One of the fundamental problems with JaronK's argument is that he still has provided no reason to think spellcasting is Ex. Even allowing that monster-based spellcasting is a Special Ability (which is quite unclear), that says nothing about class-based abilities.

He's stretching at every point. The Monster Manual Errata Explicitly says not to use Monster Blocks as proof of what the rules are. He's doing that. FAQs are NOT rules, but he's claiming they are. Heck, the FAQ he's using says it is up to the DM's discretion and heavily suggests spellcasting should not be considered. He ignores the part he doesn't like.

JaronK, I'm just not seeing how you're argument is not extremely flimsy at best. You need to show class-based spell-casting is a Special Ability. Monster Stat-blocks are NOT evidence for this -- the Errata explicitly says to not do what you are doing. Further, even if you show they are a special ability, you must further show they are EX. You can't even do that.

Kornaki

2013-07-10, 09:48 PM

Indeed. One of the fundamental problems with JaronK's argument is that he still has provided no reason to think spellcasting is Ex.

I think the AMF is a strong argument for why spellcasting itself is not a spell-like ability (which would be absurd in general) or supernatural. If your ability to cast spells was supernatural, it would be temporarily suppressed in the AMF, and you would be unable to cast the spell that is going to turn back on once the AMF is gone.

However after my PHB perusing I'm not convinced that it's a special ability at all

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 09:48 PM

Indeed. One of the fundamental problems with JaronK's argument is that he still has provided no reason to think spellcasting is Ex.

He's provided plenty of reasons. I think they are flawed though. He's using MM references to provide definitions of class features and it can't do that by RAW. He definitely hasn't proven his argument.
:smallwink:

Psyren

2013-07-10, 09:53 PM

eggynack

2013-07-10, 09:54 PM

I just found a weird thing. On page 11 of the rules compendium, it says, "No supernatural ability or spell-like ability works in an antimagic area. Their effects are affected like spells (see below). Extraordinary abilities work normally." That seems to imply that spells don't directly fit into any of the three categories, because spells are effected in a manner similar to how Sp's and Su's work, which has the implication that they don't fit into either category. If they were just in one of the two categories, it would be utterly unnecessary to say that spells are like these things, because they would just be these things. That leaves Ex, and presumably Na. The thing about Ex abilities working in a manner different from Sp's and Su's, which work like spells, implies that spells aren't Ex either, though this is the one I'm least sure of. As in all cases, Na abilities are a bit of an outlier. I don't know if any of this logic means anything to anyone else, but it seemed interesting enough to post.

eggynack

2013-07-10, 09:56 PM

He's provided plenty of reasons. I think they are flawed though. He's using MM references to provide definitions of class features and it can't do that by RAW. He definitely hasn't proven his argument.
:smallwink:
They can absolutely do that by RAW. I don't think the monster examples work, but if there are any generic rules about Ex, Sp, or Su abilities in the MM, those rules explicitly have primary source super powers.

Kornaki

2013-07-10, 09:57 PM

Arcanist

2013-07-10, 09:58 PM

No, they are still things; Specific Trumps General things. They work in AMF because they say they do.

I'm sorry, please correct me if I am wrong here, but you did write this comment, correct?:

For the record, I have no problem with FAQ as a rules source. But the FAQ clearly states that only non-magical unlabeled special abilities should be Ex. Whatever else you think spellcasting is, attempting to argue that it's non-magical is a dead end.

You stated that the "Spells" class feature is a magical unlabeled special abilities (a Su or Sp) meaning that inside an Anti-magic field they would be suppressed.

Invoke Magic relies upon the user being able to cast 9th level spells and if the ability to even cast spells of any level is being suppressed then you cannot even cast Invoke Magic regardless of what it says since you lack access to the requisite class feature to normally do so. However, I stand corrected on Initiate of Mystra since there is no such dependance (It does not check if you can even cast spells, only if you are doing so in an Anti-magic field or Dead Magic Zone).

Psyren (Not directly remarked at me, but still fairly interesting)

You haven't proven anything here - suppression is not negation. Yes, you can cast spells while in an AMF even if they don't do anything, but that doesn't make spellcasting itself extraordinary. Supernatural and spell-like abilities are treated in exactly the same way - they are not removed or deactivated.

Quite right, they are suppressed. Not removed, not banished into some Far Realm prison of unspeakable nightmares, just momentarily turned off (Suppressed).

Take Binders for example. The vestige abilities they gain are supernatural - and so too, explicitly, is the very ability they possess that allows them to form and maintain a pact itself (Soul Binding). By your logic, a binder who walks into an AMF should lose all his vestiges, because his very ability to maintain a pact is supernatural and was suppressed, along with whatever individual vestige abilities he gained from those pacts. But they don't - a Binder will explicitly walk into an AMF and back out again with all their pacts intact.

Vestiges are bound to your soul by the pact. They cannot be targeted or expelled by any means except the Expel Vestige feat, nor can they be suppressed except by an antimagic field or similar effect.

They're still bound to them, it's the Vestige is just suppressed until the Binder leaves the area.

The same is true of the Truenamer - both their utterances, and their ability to utter itself, are spell-like abilities. Following your interpretation, they wouldn't even be allowed to make a check in an AMF - their ability to even attempt an utterance would be gone under this interpretation.

No, they would be prevented from performing an Utterance, but would be able to make a Truespeak check (Much to no avail).

Drachasor (Not directly remarked at me, but still fairly interesting)

The Monster Manual Errata Explicitly says not to use Monster Blocks as proof of what the rules are. He's doing that. FAQs are NOT rules, but he's claiming they are. Heck, the FAQ he's using says it is up to the DM's discretion and heavily suggests spellcasting should not be considered. He ignores the part he doesn't like.

[...]The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. [...] The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

When the Player's Handbook is not specific as to what specifically a class feature is (Ex/Su/Sp/Na) then you should consult the Monster Manual since it is to be considered the primary source for such things.

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 09:59 PM

:
I think the AMF is a strong argument for why spellcastig itself is not a spell-like ability (which would be absurd in general) or supernatural. If your ability to cast spells was supernatural, it would be temporarily suppressed in the AMF, and you would be unable to cast the spell that is going to turn back on once the AMF is gone.

However after my PHB perusing I'm not convinced that it's a special ability at all

I don't think anyone is claiming that spellcasting as a class feature is Su or Sp. The argument seems to be whether the spellcasting class feature is Ex or Na. I haven't seen any proof that it's Ex. If it is not then it's Na or possibly unlabeled.

eggynack

2013-07-10, 10:01 PM

The spell and the ability to cast that spell are different things so I don't think we have learned much here. A spell in and of itself is not an ability that is granted to you generally, it's something that the Spellcasting ability allows you to do
Yeah, that logic seems to make sense. I just saw a relevant looking majogeldoozits, and figured there might be some reasoning attached. Perhaps not, though. Perhaps it was truly an irrelevant majongoldonzats. It's tragic, really.

Drachasor

2013-07-10, 10:01 PM

I think the AMF is a strong argument for why spellcasting itself is not a spell-like ability (which would be absurd in general) or supernatural. If your ability to cast spells was supernatural, it would be temporarily suppressed in the AMF, and you would be unable to cast the spell that is going to turn back on once the AMF is gone.

However after my PHB perusing I'm not convinced that it's a special ability at all

It's not a strong argument at all.

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects[Most, not all], including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.[Magical Effects are not limited spells. Using a Spell-like is like casting a spell. They can be used in the AMF just like a spell. Supernatural abilities can be used within, but are suppressed] Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field [May be...not guaranteed. Just like spells. This does not imply you cannot USE such abilities in the field. Merely that they MAY have no effect.]. Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.

Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.

So someone explain how the above treats spell-casting, spell-likes, and supernatural abilities any different. I don't see it.

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 10:02 PM

They can absolutely do that by RAW. I don't think the monster examples work, but if there are any generic rules about Ex, Sp, or Su abilities in the MM, those rules explicitly have primary source super powers.

I agree, but that's not applicable to class features. The PH is the primary source for those regardless of any MM claim to the contrary. If there is a PH source stating the spellcasting class feature is Ex then I stand corrected. I have yet to see such a citation.

Drachasor

2013-07-10, 10:03 PM

:smallsigh:

I don't think anyone is claiming that spellcasting as a class feature is Su or Sp. The argument seems to be whether the spellcasting class feature is Ex or Na. I haven't seen any proof that it's Ex. If it is not then it's Na or possibly unlabeled.

I am claiming it could well be a SP or SU. We do not have the information necessary to determine it. More likely SU than SP, of course.

Since it is undefined, it may well not be Na, Sp, Su, or Ex.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Monster Manual Errata, Page 1
[...]The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. [...] The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Hmm. Seems like a bit of bad writing though. "I have a red scarf, hat, and gloves," can mean that all three of the things in the list are red, or it can mean that only the scarf is red. Likewise, I can't tell if "monster" carries over to the other two things in the list, as it might well do, or if it only applies to "descriptions."

If "monster" is a qualifier for "supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities," then it means that MM is only the primary source when those abilities belong to monsters.

Again, and I can hardly say this enough, RAW quite often not written in a rigorous and thorough manner. The aforementioned bits from the PHB glossary pretty much confirms that this is so. "Special characteristic?" Urgh. My head hurts.:smallconfused:

Kornaki

2013-07-10, 10:11 PM

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 10:13 PM

I am claiming it could well be a SP or SU. We do not have the information necessary to determine it. More likely SU than SP, of course.
Since it is undefined, it may well not be Na, Sp, Su, or Ex.

Sorry, I misunderstood. You're pushing the argument further. I somehow missed that. Mea Culpa. Also, that small sigh shouldn't have been there. That sometimes happens when posting from my phone.

Phelix-Mu

2013-07-10, 10:14 PM

Drachasor

2013-07-10, 10:18 PM

Drachasor, if I have a supernatural ability that lets me fly, then when I go into an AMF I can't fly anymore. If I have a supernatural ability that lets me cast spells, when I go into an AMF I can't cast spells anymore. But it's (is it?) RAW that the spell can be cast, they just are suppressed as soon as they are cast.

Now that I've written that I'm not sure where it explicitly says that you can cast spells while in an AMF

Ahh, but can a dragon use its breath weapon in an AMF? Seems quite possible, but the result of using it gets nullified so you don't see anything. The dragon would have to wait before breathing again.

Depends on how the DM rules, as the spell isn't clear.

That last bit seems to be coming from the Rules of the Game article that JaronK was quoting. I believe he's linked it several times, probably starting in his first post.

Of course, the Rules of the Game are not official Game Rules. Something Jaron seems to miss. More like helpful adjudication tools/thoughts/advice for the DM/Players/Groups. Quite a different thing. FAQs are the same way (heck, some of the FAQ answers are flat-out wrong).

Psyren

2013-07-10, 10:18 PM

You stated that the "Spells" class feature is a magical unlabeled special abilities (a Su or Sp) meaning that inside an Anti-magic field they would be suppressed.

This does not follow given the treatment of the game towards Soul Binding (Su), Utterances (Sp) and Psionics (Ps). The subsidiary abilities these grant the user are suppressed, but not the enabler abilities themselves. Ergo, the fact that Invoke Magic still works is not conclusive proof that the ability "spellcasting" is Ex.

They're still bound to them, it's the Vestige is just suppressed until the Binder leaves the area.

Precisely! If suppression worked the way JaronK and you are claiming it does, this would not be the case; the ability to bind itself is supernatural and therefore should be suppressed, no?

No, they would be prevented from performing an Utterance, but would be able to make a Truespeak check (Much to no avail).

Again, exactly right. They can make a check, but even if they succeed nothing would happen, because the utterances are suppressed.

Arcanist

2013-07-10, 10:19 PM

*snip*

I apologize for leaving out entire lines of text from that section, but here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) it is in it's completeness. I snipped out what I deemed relevant to the conversation, but I certainly hope to not appear as if I am taking anything out of context. :smallsmile:

Now that I've written that I'm not sure where it explicitly says that you can cast spells while in an AMF

Ironically enough? Nowhere. Nowhere does it say that you cannot cast spells in an Anti-magic field (to my knowledge), however what happens to those spells while in the field is an entirely different conversation :smallwink:

Kornaki

2013-07-10, 10:24 PM

Again, exactly right. They can make a check, but even if they succeed nothing would happen, because the utterances are suppressed.

Since the ability to use utterances is (apparently) a spell-like ability, my understanding is that when the truenamer walks out of the AMF, their utterance effect will NOT magically appear in front of them.

EDIT: Ack! The errata for baleful polymorph says "the target loses all special abilities, including class features"

Which makes it sound like all class features are special abilities (also directly contradicting the original version in that regard :smallyuk:).

Can a spell description be the defining rule for whether class features are all special abilities if it's never stated one way or the other elsewhere?

Arcanist

2013-07-10, 10:32 PM

This does not follow given the treatment of the game towards Soul Binding (Su), Utterances (Sp) and Psionics (Ps). The subsidiary abilities these grant the user are suppressed, but not the enabler abilities themselves. Ergo, the fact that Invoke Magic still works is not conclusive proof that the ability "spellcasting" is Ex.

I never stated that it was conclusive proof, I merely posited that it would lead to the more logical conclusion that it is not a "magical unlabeled special abilities" (Su/Sp), which you stated that under the scrutiny of JaronK's FAQ would be the more logical conclusion. I'll pardon the fallacy-fallacy if you pardon the slippery slope.

:smallsmile:

Precisely! If suppression worked the way JaronK and you are claiming it does, this would not be the case; the ability to bind itself is supernatural and therefore should be suppressed, no?

No, the ability itself offers the initial binding as exclusionary to the expulsion of a vestige stating that the Vestige is suppressed while inside the Anti-Magic Field meaning that while a Binder (w/ Vestige) is in an Anti-Magic Field they are still bound to that particular Vestige unless they use the Expel Vestige feat or the Binding expires.

Again, exactly right. They can make a check, but even if they succeed nothing would happen, because the utterances are suppressed.

Indeed, the Utterances themselves are suppressed, but not the Truespeech check to activate them. The Truenamer selects the desired Utterance, performs the Truespeech and the Utterance is activated only to be surpressed by the Anti-Magic Field (and resume activity [Provided it's duration is longer than instantaneous] the moment the Truenamer leaves the field). :smallcool:

mattie_p

2013-07-10, 10:46 PM

I never stated that it was conclusive proof, I merely posited that it would lead to the more logical conclusion that it is not a "magical unlabeled special abilities" (Su/Sp), which you stated that under the scrutiny of JaronK's FAQ would be the more logical conclusion. I'll pardon the fallacy-fallacy if you pardon the slippery slope.

You mean this FAQ?

2. Can a factotum of 19th level use cunning brilliance to emulate a rogue’s sneak attack ability?

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.

The one that tosses its hands in the air and gives up? The one that says "Help me DM, you're my only hope?" That one? The one that basically says, "When in doubt, it is reasonable to assume in cases of abilities that are unmarked special abilities without supernatural elements, the DM should decide if it is fair play to consider them extraordinary?"

How much more indecisive could it possibly get???

The FAQ that seems to say, "Look, I just work here. Why don't you ask the 3.5 RAW Q/A thread instead?"

That one? Has no credence in my book.

Arcanist

2013-07-10, 11:15 PM

You mean this FAQ?

Yes, That FAQ.

That one? Has no credence in my book.

As far as I am concerned the Book of mattie_p has little credence in a RAW matter as it is not from a verifiable WoTC source. If I wanted to start making House Rules to improve my home game, I'd consider consulting the Book of mattie_p. :smallsmile:

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 11:37 PM

Since the ability to use utterances is (apparently) a spell-like ability, my understanding is that when the truenamer walks out of the AMF, their utterance effect will NOT magically appear in front of them.

EDIT: Ack! The errata for baleful polymorph says "the target loses all special abilities, including class features"

Which makes it sound like all class features are special abilities (also directly contradicting the original version in that regard :smallyuk:).

Can a spell description be the defining rule for whether class features are all special abilities if it's never stated one way or the other elsewhere?

This seems like a compelling argument. It does however have some serious implications. If all class features are special abilities then the primary source for class features becomes the MM. Errata seems to have the power to overrule the primary source rules.

Originally posted by PH errata:
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. Note: The most
recent updates are shaded like this.

Emphasis added.

Kornaki

2013-07-10, 11:41 PM

nyjastul69

2013-07-10, 11:58 PM

Hmmm.... it says that the MM is the primary source for extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities, but the PHB errata only states that class features are special abilities (and it's not clear who the primary source is for that). This is important because the PHB has natural abilities in it still, so spellcasting could be a natural ability and the MM doesn't get to overrule that?

I hate primary source rules so someone else should figure it out haha

Without citing previous arguments Ex, Sp and Su abilities seem to be a subset of special abilities. The only reason I wasn't buying into JaronK's argument for class based spellcasting being Ex is that he hasn't proven class features are special abilities. I bought into his argument that special abilities are governed by the MM. I just didn't buy that class features were special abilities. I'm getting sleepy though. It's late in my corner of the world and I have to work tomorrow. I'll surely check into this after a night of rest.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-10, 11:58 PM

Just gonna put out the primary argument against using the FAQ as RAW.

The FAQ answers questions about the game. It never tries to make any new rules, although it does put out some suggestions occasionally when it doesn't see any relevant rules.

Anyway since it is an FAQ many people say it is therefore not an actual rules resource it just tries to interpret the rules, and you should find information for RAW arguments elsewhere.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 12:02 AM

mattie_p

2013-07-11, 12:04 AM

Yes, That FAQ.

As far as I am concerned the Book of mattie_p has little credence in a RAW matter as it is not from a verifiable WoTC source. If I wanted to start making House Rules to improve my home game, I'd consider consulting the Book of mattie_p. :smallsmile:

You totally should. All the cool kids are doing it.

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 12:12 AM

@FAQ commentary: The FAQ, while questionable, is the LOWEST level of authority for 3.5 Rulings (Next to CustServ). Everything beneath that is just house rules and opinions. Short of you coming out and revealing yourself as a member on the dev team for the first three core books, it is highly unlikely that anything you say that isn't directly quoting RAW is actually RAW.

You totally should. All the cool kids are doing it.

I'll keep that in mind :smallcool:

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 12:18 AM

Let me also add (from the SRD, not sure where it appears in the books):

Antimagic
An antimagic field spell or effect cancels magic altogether. An antimagic effect has the following powers and characteristics.

No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns. Spells that still have part of their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth.
Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.
Golems and other constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead, still function in an antimagic area (though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally). If such creatures are summoned or conjured, however, see below.
Summoned or conjured creatures of any type, as well as incorporeal creatures, wink out if they enter the area of an antimagic effect. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away.
Magic items with continuous effects do not function in the area of an antimagic effect, but their effects are not canceled (so the contents of a bag of holding are unavailable, but neither spill out nor disappear forever).
Two antimagic areas in the same place do not cancel each other out, nor do they stack. [Bolded because...what the heck would stacking even mean?]
Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

AMF does not seem to distinguish between casting, using a spell-like, spells, and supernatural abilities. They are ALL suppressed. That seems to mean you can still try to use the ability, but it has no effect until you leave the field. Or, alternatively, trying to cast or use an ability simply will fail in the field. Either option is a fair interpretation.

I don't think there's really much of a case to be made for spell-casting working differently than spell-likes.

Though, I suppose we can argue over whats the primary source on what. Is the AMF the primary source on Supernatural abilities in an AMF or are Supernatural abilities the primary source on that? I'd tend to side with the former.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 12:19 AM

@FAQ commentary: The FAQ, while questionable, is the LOWEST level of authority for 3.5 Rulings (Next to CustServ). Everything beneath that is just house rules and opinions. Short of you coming out and revealing yourself as a member on the dev team for the first three core books, it is highly unlikely that anything you say that isn't directly quoting RAW is actually RAW.

Which means...don't take it remotely seriously, because Cust Serv was REALLY hit or miss?

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 12:34 AM

*snip*

Page 11 of the Rule Compendium (the more specific) would be the primary source on "Antimagic" instead of Page 290 of the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Which means...don't take it remotely seriously, because Cust Serv was REALLY hit or miss?

It means it is closer to being RAW than anything a fan/commentator/etc. might say (Short of actually quoting RAW from a greater source). Generally consider anything from a verified WoTC source to be of greater importance than RAI (As Intent can vary from person to person becoming little more than a collection of house rules.)

As the discussion as died down for the night, I'll take it as a hint to rest.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 12:37 AM

It means it is closer to being RAW than anything a fan/commentator/etc. might say (Short of actually quoting RAW from a greater source). Generally consider anything from a verified WoTC source to be of greater importance than RAI (As Intent can vary from person to person becoming little more than a collection of house rules.)

As the discussion as died down for the night, I'll take it as a hint to rest.

I believe that close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.

If I see something where they say it is considered a level of RAW, then I'll believe. Outside of that, it is just the opinion of someone at WotC, which can be wrong -- heck, even devs have been wrong about their own rules from time to time. Opinions, however well-informed they might be, are not RAW.

Anyhow, sleep well.

eggynack

2013-07-11, 12:37 AM

It means it is closer to being RAW than anything a fan/commentator/etc. might say (Short of actually quoting RAW from a greater source). Generally consider anything from a verified WoTC source to be of greater importance than RAI (As Intent can vary from person to person becoming little more than a collection of house rules.)
Is it really? I don't even know what "closer to RAW" means. It's probably accurate, I guess, but it's a claim that doesn't get us anywhere. Either a source is RAW, or it is not RAW. The FAQ falls into the latter category so it's completely unimportant where it fits on the spectrum of un-RAW things.

TuggyNE

2013-07-11, 01:42 AM

Again, exactly right. They can make a check, but even if they succeed nothing would happen, because the utterances are suppressed.

Wait, is there something that tells us specifically that Truenamers can make futile checks within AMFs, or is that merely assumed?

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 01:54 AM

Wait, is there something that tells us specifically that Truenamers can make futile checks within AMFs, or is that merely assumed?

There's nothing that says Spellcasting can make futile casting attempts.

Spell-casting, Spell-like abilities, spells, and Supernatural abilities are all suppressed. Honestly, the rules don't really make a distinction between Spells and Spell-casting as far as AMFs are concerned. Unless you count things that aren't rules like RotG and such, but again, those aren't rules.

There is no particular reason to think Spell-casting is suppressed means that casting is ok, but the spell is suppressed...and then turn around and say the same isn't true of Spell-likes and Supernatural abilities. Indeed, the AMF spell says it suppresses magical EFFECTS, but doesn't really say it suppresses creating the effect. The argument that the latter is allowed for spells works pretty much just as well with Supernatural or Spell-likes.

The best argument against this being the case is the text for Supernatural Abilities:

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.

However, "go away" is not defined as to an exact meaning, and since it is reasonable to say that the AMF texts are the primary source on AMF effects, their explanations take precedence, imho.

So if you allowed spell-casting to work in an AMF and then the effect to be no longer suppressed once you leave, there's no reason not to allow the same for Spell-likes and Supernatural. E.g. a Dragon can breath fire in an AMF, which has no effect except wasting a standard action and forcing it to wait before making another breath attack. Possible there will be a puff of negated magic exiting its maw.

I'd note that Spell-likes say they are largely exactly like spells (except where otherwise noted). So if spells can be cast in an AMF, there's no reason a Spell-like couldn't be cast with similar results.

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 02:20 AM

I believe that close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.

If I see something where they say it is considered a level of RAW, then I'll believe. Outside of that, it is just the opinion of someone at WotC, which can be wrong -- heck, even devs have been wrong about their own rules from time to time. Opinions, however well-informed they might be, are not RAW.

Anyhow, sleep well.

Can't sleep. :smallannoyed:

It's not really a matter of close. I only used the term "close" in a way to establish a chain of priority to make it simpler to imagine. Generally anything that isn't official WoTC isn't RAW and everything by official WoTC is RAW. Contradicting information is directed towards the primary source unless the contradicting information is the more specific.

There's nothing that says Spellcasting can make futile casting attempts.

If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled. (It’s suppressed, and its duration instantaneously expires.)

You can cast Instantaneous spells in an Antimagic field, however they are immediately suppressed and expire. If a Spell with a Duration longer than Instantaneous is cast inside an Antimagic field the spell effect (or "Magical effect") is suppressed and the time spent inside an antimagic field counts against the duration of the spell that was casted inside of it.

You are welcome to quote RAW that states that you cannot use Spellcasting inside an Antimagic field.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 02:25 AM

If an instantaneous spell is entirely suppressed, that spell is effectively canceled. (It’s suppressed, and its duration instantaneously expires.)

You can cast Instantaneous spells in an Antimagic field, however they are immediately suppressed and expire. If a Spell with a Duration longer than Instantaneous is cast inside an Antimagic field the spell effect (or "Magical effect") is suppressed and the time spent inside an antimagic field counts against the duration of the spell that was casted inside of it.

You are welcome to quote RAW that states that you cannot use Spellcasting inside an Antimagic field.

My reading of RAW is that whatever you rule for Spellcasting holds for Spell-likes and Supernatural. If you can cast in an AMF, then you can use a Spell-like or a Supernatural ability -- and the effects are similarly suppressed. However, I don't have the RC with me. Not sure where my copy is atm.

As for the quote, is that about casting Instantaneous spells FROM within an AMF or casting one that's centered in an AMF?

Sorry about the sleep troubles. I work all night in a Data Center...about to go run some cables! (It is exactly as fun as it sounds).

JaronK

2013-07-11, 10:24 AM

Psyren

2013-07-11, 10:51 AM

JaronK

2013-07-11, 11:38 AM

Then why do Binders retain their vestiges in an AMF, even though the soul binding ability that enables them to form and maintain pacts to begin with is itself supernatural?

If it says they do, then that's a specific exemption.

Your interpretation also requires that the Psionics ability possessed by psionic monsters be shut off in an AMF, preventing them from manifesting at all rather than the individual powers being suppressed. This violates the RAW that AMF treats magic and psionics transparently.

I don't know if Psionics have specific exemptions, as I don't generally work with Psionics. If Psionics are supposed to work the same as Spells in AMFs, then that's a specific rule for them and you'd treat them as spells... but that's not a general case then.

Your interpretation that "ability-granting abilities" are affected by AMF the same way that the abilities themselves are does not wash. And without that, your deduction that Spellcasting must be Ex does not hold up.

But they clearly do, because a spell is suppressed (so it does nothing) but the ability to cast it is still in full effect (because you can still cast). The fact that you can cast Invoke Magic at all shows that casting itself isn't suppressed... if it was you wouldn't even have the spell available in the first place.

Btw, as to the argument that spells granted to monsters by race are different from spell granted via class levels, please remember that a Dragon who gets Sorcerer casting via race who then takes Sorcerer levels has them just stack... so they're actually the same thing. This is true for all racial casting monsters who take class levels in the associated casting class... their casting ability is still one ability, even though it's half class/half race. You can even take PrCs that advance casting and advance your racial casting that way.

So Spells as granted to creatures by race is definitely the same as Spells as granted to creatures by class.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-11, 11:58 AM

If it says they do, then that's a specific exemption.

But by approaching it this way you are putting the cart before the horse - assuming your premise is true and then arguing backwards to meet it, rather than arguing from the evidence shown by the game. If every counterexample presented to your premise is simply "a specific exception" then there can be no counterexamples. That's no way to argue.

I don't know if Psionics have specific exemptions, as I don't generally work with Psionics. If Psionics are supposed to work the same as Spells in AMFs, then that's a specific rule for them and you'd treat them as spells... but that's not a general case then.

See above - and also, note that in the monster manual, the monster ability "Psionics" is a SLA, not a PLA. XPH spells out that transparency applies to this ability, but it is still a SLA. For it to be treated differently than spellcasting would be a violation of RAW.

But they clearly do, because a spell is suppressed (so it does nothing) but the ability to cast it is still in full effect (because you can still cast). The fact that you can cast Invoke Magic at all shows that casting itself isn't suppressed... if it was you wouldn't even have the spell available in the first place.

Let me try to be clear.

I am not denying this. Invoke Magic works, I fully agree. My problem is that this does not prove Spellcasting is Ex. The mere fact that other "ability-granting abilities" still work in an AMF shows that AMF does not work the way you think it does.

Let me put it this way - Say a monster with spellcasting, and a monster with the "Psionics (Sp)" ability are both in an AMF together. Both monsters have abilities granted by those abilities, that have limited uses per day. For example, the Witchknife (MM3) has Psionics - 1/day dominate.

The Witchknife is alongside a monster with Spells, like a Dark Naga. Not realizing they are both in an AMF, they activate their abilities inside. What happens?

Under your interpretation, the Naga's spell would be expended (it still has the ability to cast), but nothing would happen, because the spell would be immediately suppressed. Meanwhile, the Witchknife cannot even attempt to activate its ability (since Psionics is Sp, and therefore deactivated under your reading) and therefore he would retain his daily use until he leaves the AMF.

This is a violation of the rules - Transparency requires than an AMF treat both abilities the same way. If one is expending their daily uses and the other is not, they are no longer being affected the same way.

Here's another example - a Phrenic creature. They gain a spell-like ability called "Psi-like Abilities (Sp)." In an AMF, under your interpretation, that base ability would be suppressed - thus they would not have access to the PLAs it grants them. Under your reading, an AMF would prevent a Phrenic creature from wasting its powers - but a creature with the untyped ability "Spells" or even "Spell-Like Abilities" would not have similar protection. Your ruling introduces a general transparency violation where none existed before.

JaronK

2013-07-11, 12:02 PM

Let me try to be clear.

I am not denying this. Invoke Magic works, I fully agree. My problem is that this does not prove Spellcasting is Ex. The mere fact that other "ability-granting abilities" still work in an AMF shows that AMF does not work the way you think it does.

Let me put it this way - Say a monster with spellcasting, and a monster with the "Psionics (Sp)" ability are both in an AMF together. Both monsters have abilities granted by those abilities, that have limited uses per day. For example, the Witchknife (MM3) has Psionics - 1/day dominate.

The Witchknife is alongside a monster with Spells, like a Dark Naga. Not realizing they are both in an AMF, they activate their abilities inside. What happens?

Under your interpretation, the Naga's spell would be expended (it still has the ability to cast), but nothing would happen, because the spell would be immediately suppressed. Meanwhile, the Witchknife cannot even attempt to activate its ability (since Psionics is Sp, and therefore deactivated under your reading) and therefore he would retain his daily use until he leaves the AMF.

This is a violation of the rules - Transparency requires than an AMF treat both abilities the same way. If one is expending their daily uses and the other is not, they are no longer being affected the same way.

Here's another example - a Phrenic creature. They gain a spell-like ability called "Psi-like Abilities (Sp)." In an AMF, under your interpretation, that base ability would be suppressed - thus they would not have access to the PLAs it grants them. Under your reading, an AMF would prevent a Phrenic creature from wasting its powers - but a creature with the untyped ability "Spells" or even "Spell-Like Abilities" would not have similar protection. Your ruling introduces a general transparency violation where none existed before.

Using creatures with psionics that were printed before the psionics books were printed is a bit disingenuous, because they were shoehorned in with Sp abilities that only simulated psionics. This created clunky problems at the time, so yes, monsters printed before then do have issues. The psionics books I believe create their own special rules that only apply to psionics and psi like abilities... these rules do not extend to anything not following these rules.

But let's be clear... my interpretation is just reading what the rules on AMF stay (using a combination of PHB, RC, and Rules of the Game). It's actually very clear.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-11, 12:05 PM

Using creatures with psionics that were printed before the psionics books were printed is a bit disingenuous, because they were shoehorned in with Sp abilities that only simulated psionics.

What? MM3 was printed well after the XPH :smallconfused:

JaronK

2013-07-11, 12:46 PM

What? MM3 was printed well after the XPH :smallconfused:

Remember though that books only assume you have the book itself and the core books. A lot of books have language like "if you're using psionics, these are psi like abilities. Otherwise, they're spell like." That's because they don't assume you use psionic rules. So, if you're not using psionics, then they follow all the normal rules of sp abilities, including an inability to actually use them at all in AMFs. But if you are using psionics, then the special rules of psionics apply. If those rules say psionics act like spells in an AMF, then they do so, but that's a special rule for psionics, not a general case rule.

By comparison, something like "Spells are Special Abilities" is a general case rule, for obvious reasons.

And remember, I don't really use psionics much, so I don't always know what book a psionic creature was printed in!

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-11, 12:49 PM

So, if you're not using psionics, then they follow all the normal rules of sp abilities, including an inability to actually use them at all in AMFs.

Your own Rules of the Game article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a) disagrees with this ruling.

"A spell-like ability is subject to the effects of antimagic. An antimagic field or a beholder's antimagic ray suppresses a spell-like ability so that it has no effect. This suppression does not dispel the ability, however, so if the spell-like ability's duration outlasts the antimagic effect, the spell-like ability resumes functioning when the antimagic effect goes away. An antimagic effect also blocks line of effect (see Chapter 10 in the Player's Handbook) for any magical ability, though a creature always has line of effect to itself. So a creature with a spell-like ability could use the ability on itself, even in an antimagic field. The magic still would be suppressed while the creature remains inside the antimagic effect, and the creature would gain no benefit from the ability until it left the area of antimagic. Time spent inside the antimagic effect still counts against the magic's duration, however."

If you're going to rely on RotG as a source for your argument, you need to follow what it says. SLAs and Psionics can be activated just fine in an AMF.

And remember, I don't really use psionics much, so I don't always know what book a psionic creature was printed in!

Funny then that you declared it to be disingenuous without knowing where it came from :smalltongue:

But I took care to put the source next to it when I made the post. I specifically chose MM3 because it was a post-XPH book that still included the "Psionics (Sp)" monster ability.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 01:46 PM

Sp casting (such as the Factotum casting, or just any creature with an Sp ability) simply doesn't work, because your ability to cast is itself suppressed. So you can't actually use it at all (even if you wanted to cast a long duration buff and then walk out or something). For Spells it's different... the spell is suppressed, but the ability to cast them is not.

JaronK

By that reasoning, spellcasting is stopped as well since AMF suppresses spellcasting.

Again...

An antimagic field spell or effect cancels magic altogether. An antimagic effect has the following powers and characteristics.

No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work).
Antimagic does not dispel magic; it suppresses it. Once a magical effect is no longer affected by the antimagic (the antimagic fades, the center of the effect moves away, and so on), the magic returns. Spells that still have part of their duration left begin functioning again, magic items are once again useful, and so forth.
Spell areas that include both an antimagic area and a normal area, but are not centered in the antimagic area, still function in the normal area. If the spell’s center is in the antimagic area, then the spell is suppressed.
Golems and other constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead, still function in an antimagic area (though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally). If such creatures are summoned or conjured, however, see below.
Summoned or conjured creatures of any type, as well as incorporeal creatures, wink out if they enter the area of an antimagic effect. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away.
Magic items with continuous effects do not function in the area of an antimagic effect, but their effects are not canceled (so the contents of a bag of holding are unavailable, but neither spill out nor disappear forever).
Two antimagic areas in the same place do not cancel each other out, nor do they stack.
Wall of force, prismatic wall, and prismatic sphere are not affected by antimagic. Break enchantment, dispel magic, and greater dispel magic spells do not dispel antimagic. Mage’s disjunction has a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

Frankly, I don't see where RAW is making the distinction you claim it makes. It seems to treat "spell" and "spellcasting" as synonomous.

More significantly, spells don't work in an AMF. It says that above. It also says it in the spell description:

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

Oh, but look, this is the same language used for Supernatural and Spell-likes. So if spells are "supppressed" and "don't work" but you can actually still have spells pop into existence, then there's no reason why a use of a Spell-like or Supernatural Ability can happen in a AMF. Like a spell, you use it and it doesn't "work", but it is still there. It suppresses.

Again though, I don't see AMF making the distinction between casting and the spell. It seems to treat them as part of the same thing.

I'm not impressed by the argument for Spellcasting being EX either. It seems to involve using a lot of non-RAW -- and heck, EVEN THAT DOESN'T WORK. You have to use non-raw and selectively ignore parts that disagree. As such, I'm pretty sure the meaty bits of this debate is over, though I'm sure it will linger for at least another half-dozen pages.

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 02:02 PM

My reading of RAW is that whatever you rule for Spellcasting holds for Spell-likes and Supernatural. If you can cast in an AMF, then you can use a Spell-like or a Supernatural ability -- and the effects are similarly suppressed. However, I don't have the RC with me. Not sure where my copy is atm.

For all intents and purposes, they do per the Rule Compendium on page 11.

No supernatural ability or spell-like ability works in an antimagic area. Their effects are affected like spells.

As for the quote, is that about casting Instantaneous spells FROM within an AMF or casting one that's centered in an AMF?

It's talking about casting Instantaneous spells inside an Antimagic field.

But by approaching it this way you are putting the cart before the horse - assuming your premise is true and then arguing backwards to meet it, rather than arguing from the evidence shown by the game. If every counterexample presented to your premise is simply "a specific exception" then there can be no counterexamples. That's no way to argue.

Precisely! If suppression worked the way JaronK and you are claiming it does, this would not be the case; the ability to bind itself is supernatural and therefore should be suppressed, no?

No, the ability itself offers the initial binding as exclusionary to the expulsion of a vestige stating that the Vestige is suppressed while inside the Anti-Magic Field meaning that while a Binder (w/ Vestige) is in an Anti-Magic Field they are still bound to that particular Vestige unless they use the Expel Vestige feat or the Binding expires.

It list the binding as exclusionary. Effectively you are arguing that because Soul Binding is a Su it, and the entire Vestige binding, is expelled because they no longer have the Soul Binding class feature despite it specifically states that it is exclusively immune to it.

I'd like to point out that Bind Vestige, as a feat, is an Ex ability and therefore immune to Antimagic. Despite this, it still possess the same line of text rendering the binding immune to antimagic.

The vestige is bound to your soul by the pact. It cannot be targeted or expelled by any means except the Expel Vestige feat, nor can it be suppressed except by an antimagic field or similar effect.

Not sure if this means anything, but I found it fairly interesting to say the least.

Psyren

2013-07-11, 02:15 PM

It list the binding as exclusionary. Effectively you are arguing that because Soul Binding is a Su it, and the entire Vestige binding, is expelled because they no longer have the Soul Binding class feature despite it specifically states that it is exclusively immune to it.

This is the problem with your (and JaronK's) argument.

"X works this way."
"But here is an example of X working a different way."
"That's just an exception, X still works this way."

It's fallacious. All the contradictory examples of X not working the way you think it does are arbitrarily dismissed.

And the Rules of the Game article backs me up. All SLAs (not just the ones granted by some "extraordinary SLA" meta-ability) can be activated in AMF. The one with instantaneous effects are suppressed and end, but the ones with durations continue operating - just as intended. If antimagic worked the way you think it does, this rule would fail. If antimagic worked the way you think it does, the transparency rule would also fail. That's three counterexamples.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 02:31 PM

For all intents and purposes, they do per the Rule Compendium on page 11.

So are we in agreement then that you can activate an SU or SP in an AMF? If they are treated like spells, then activating them (like activating a spell) works just fine. The effects just get suppressed.

Again, I'd point out that the rules do not seem to make a strong distinction between spells and spell-casting in an AMF.

JaronK

2013-07-11, 03:03 PM

But remember we have this special thing about how you still have the ability to cast spells in an AMF.

Note that your own quote says "No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work)." So, I'm saying that the ability to cast spells still works (allowing you to cast Invoke Magic, or to cast long duration buffs that will outlast the AMF), but that the spells themselves are suppressed. That's actually completely consistent with spells being Ex.

Your quote then goes on to say "(though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally)." Notice how spell casting is listed as different from supernatural and spell like. And I'm saying that the casting of spells is different from the ability to cast the spells... which is the only actually RAW consistent opinion I've seen.

And while we can easily eliminate the possibility of spells being Su or Sp or Na, we can't eliminate the possibility of them being Ex because we've already found an ability to cast spells as a Wizard that's marked as Ex. So there's a president there.

What it really comes down to is that spells really can't be anything other than Ex, because everything else gets eliminated one way or another as an impossibility.

Drachasor

2013-07-11, 03:07 PM

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 03:15 PM

Psyren

This is the problem with your (and JaronK's) argument.

"X works this way."
"But here is an example of X working a different way."
"That's just an exception, X still works this way."

Incorrect. My logic is that because Soul Binding states that Binding is exclusively immune to Antimagic, that must mean that... Golly gee, Soul Binding is immune to Antimagic (making your previously made example, inherently faulty).

My argument strictly extends to Soul Binding and I am not attempting some logical acrobatics to make it that a singular exception means that it extends to all such examples (that would be silly). I am still a spectator of sorts. If I've made it appear that I support Spells as being one over the other then I apologize.

Non-argument [START]
Sure, I like the idea of Spells being Extraordinary and as a DM I would make the judgement that all class features are Ex unless otherwise noted since making them Na would make it appear that if a Commoner took a level dip in Bard, Monk or Wizard they spontaneously developed a physical mutation that allows them to cast spells, know things that they've no reason to know, and punch stuff really hard (since Natural abilities are defined as being Physical characteristics).
Non-argument [END]

And the Rules of the Game article backs me up. All SLAs (not just the ones granted by some "extraordinary SLA" meta-ability) can be activated in AMF. The one with instantaneous effects are suppressed and end, but the ones with durations continue operating - just as intended. If antimagic worked the way you think it does, this rule would fail. If antimagic worked the way you think it does, the transparency rule would also fail. That's three counterexamples.

Sounds like something another genius (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15595816&postcount=161) said earlier :smallwink:

So are we in agreement then that you can activate an SU or SP in an AMF? If they are treated like spells, then activating them (like activating a spell) works just fine. The effects just get suppressed.

If the RAW fits, but this does not inherently mean that Spells (Class feature) is suppressed by Antimagic, just the effect that it causes (A Magical Effect, dare I say?).

JaronK

Note that your own quote says "No supernatural ability, spell-like ability, or spell works in an area of antimagic (but extraordinary abilities still work)." So, I'm saying that the ability to cast spells still works (allowing you to cast Invoke Magic, or to cast long duration buffs that will outlast the AMF), but that the spells themselves are suppressed. That's actually completely consistent with spells being Ex.

This is also consistent with Spells (Class feature) being Natural abilities. Not an argument, just something I believe we should note.

And while we can easily eliminate the possibility of spells being Su or Sp or Na, we can't eliminate the possibility of them being Ex because we've already found an ability to cast spells as a Wizard that's marked as Ex. So there's a president there.

How did you eliminate Na as a possibility? You've developed a process of elimination without showing your work. Mind filling us in? :smallsmile:

Psyren

2013-07-11, 03:20 PM

Your quote then goes on to say "(though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally)." Notice how spell casting is listed as different from supernatural and spell like. And I'm saying that the casting of spells is different from the ability to cast the spells... which is the only actually RAW consistent opinion I've seen.

"And" implies they are treated the same, not differently. Your conclusion does not follow.

There's a perfectly simple way to explain all this that doesn't result in Ex spells. I can do it one sentence:

An ability granted by another ability is not its "effect."

In other words, Vestiges are not an effect of the Soul Binding ability, psi-like abilities are not an effect of the "Psionics" spell-like ability, and finally, spellcasting is not an effect of the "Spells" ability. This means that the abilities granted by a parent ability are not suppressed by an AMF - only the results of those abilities are. You never lose the ability to activate your abilities in an AMF, they simply don't do anything until you leave it.

It's perfectly consistent with all the RAW, preserves transparency, and doesn't result in spellcasting being Ex.

JaronK

2013-07-11, 03:24 PM

How? They all have "and" between them. They are all being treated the same. We could debate their somewhat lacking grammar, but there's no significant difference in how that sentence treats them.

No, I mean by saying "Spells, Spell Like Abilities, and Supernatural Abilities" they imply that those are three different things.

And you have not eliminated the possibility of spellcasting being Su, Sp, or Untyped, no matter how much you say so. Heck, Sp works in AMFs just likes spellcasting according to the non-RAW source you are trying to use to back up your claims!

...yes we did. Did you actually just list untyped as a possibility? Didn't we go over this over and over a few pages back, as to why untyped could never be an option? See, this is why I said a while ago that I wanted to establish that first and get consensus, because this always happens... we prove one part, then move onto the next, then when showing the next someone always pops in and goes "wait, what about the first part!"

@Arcanist:

Natural Abilities (also untyped!) were eliminated as an option by the most repeated general rule in the game, namely that all Special Abilities must be Ex, Sp, or Su. See Monster Manual page 6, Monster Manual Glossary, SRD, and Fiend Folio for examples of this rule. Rules compendium is very weird on this (they imply in one area that Natural Abilities could be Special Abilities, then list them as not being that a page later). But Monster Manual Premium Edition is the primary source on this topic, and it twice says that all Special Abilities are Sp, Su, or Ex. This was covered a few pages back.

That's why untyped and Na aren't options. So then we have to start narrowing them down to which of Sp, Su, and Ex they actually are.

JaronK

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 03:51 PM

Natural Abilities (also untyped!) were eliminated as an option by the most repeated general rule in the game, namely that all Special Abilities must be Ex, Sp, or Su. See Monster Manual page 6, Monster Manual Glossary, SRD, and Fiend Folio for examples of this rule. Rules compendium is very weird on this (they imply in one area that Natural Abilities could be Special Abilities, then list them as not being that a page later). But Monster Manual Premium Edition is the primary source on this topic, and it twice says that all Special Abilities are Sp, Su, or Ex. This was covered a few pages back.

That's why untyped and Na aren't options. So then we have to start narrowing them down to which of Sp, Su, and Ex they actually are.

JaronK

This would also imply that Na and Untyped aren't actual things (unless you want to try and pick at straws because the Premium MM does not specifically list Natural Abilities). I see how your logic works and I find it very sound.

Hell, this can all be cleared up with the use of two books. The Premium Monster Manual and the Premium Dungeon Master's Guide.

Spells are Special abilities (as detailed by the Monster Manual and DMG).
Special Abilities are limited to being either Ex, Su or Sp.
The class feature "Spells" can be used in an Antimagic field therefore they are not Supernatural or Spell-like.
By process of elimination, Spells (Class feature) is an Extraordinary ability.

Interesting.

Psyren

2013-07-11, 03:56 PM

The class feature "Spells" can be used in an Antimagic field therefore they are not Supernatural or Spell-like.

This is where the logic train derails.

1) The features "Psionics (Sp)" "Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)" and "Psi-Like Abilities (Sp)" are also usable in AMF, despite being typed.
2) An ability being usable in an AMF does not = Ex on its own.

Note that "Spells" is actually a monster ability, not a class feature, but that is incidental to the larger point.

Kornaki

2013-07-11, 04:03 PM

Note that "Spells" is actually a monster ability, not a class feature, but that is incidental to the larger point.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm

The second class feature listed for Sorcerer is in fact "Spells"

Psyren

2013-07-11, 04:05 PM

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm

The second class feature listed for Sorcerer is in fact "Spells"

My mistake, I thought it was labelled "Spellcasting" in a class entry. Still, as I said, the nomenclature is incidental.

JaronK

2013-07-11, 04:24 PM

This would also imply that Na and Untyped aren't actual things (unless you want to try and pick at straws because the Premium MM does not specifically list Natural Abilities). I see how your logic works and I find it very sound.

Natural Abilities are things, they're just not Special Abilities. The ability to make claw attacks is a Natural Ability, for example... but claw attacks aren't Special Abilities. They're just abilities. Na is the default type for all non special abilities. Movement speed (up to certain maximums) if created by physical form, vision modes, and similar abilities are Natural Abilities. They're just not Special Abilities.

Untyped abilities are not things at all, because all abilities that aren't Sp, Su, or Ex are automatically Na. So nothing can ever be untyped no matter what.

Hell, this can all be cleared up with the use of two books. The Premium Monster Manual and the Premium Dungeon Master's Guide.

Mostly, but it helps to read more sources where those are unclear.

@Psyren: Spells is a class ability and monster ability, and the rules for the two are the same (since you can progress dragon racial Sorcerer casting by just taking Sorcerer levels, or progress any racial casting with PrCs). They're completely identical in all ways, so rules that apply to one apply to the other unless specifically noted as not doing so. The people trying to claim the Monster Manual Spells are talking only racial casting are just throwing out red herrings.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-11, 04:26 PM

Again, I'm fine with both forms of "Spells" being identical - it doesn't change my point at all.

JaronK

2013-07-11, 04:40 PM

Psyren

2013-07-11, 04:46 PM

JaronK

2013-07-11, 04:59 PM

Ah, it was Drachasor who was still trying the "but they could be untyped or Na!" thing yet again.

Okay, so we've got it down to Sp, Su, and Ex. Let's talk about why it's not Sp or Su.

First and foremost, the phrase "Spells, Spell Like Abilities, and Supernatural Abilities" is stated countless times throughout the books. The existence of this statement heavily implies that Spells are not Sp or Su. After all, if spells were, for example, Sp, then they'd just say "Spell Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities." They don't do that though. Spells is always separate.

Second, the only places where the ability to cast spells is given a type are the MMV Hobgoblins and the Lilitu. In all such cases, the ability to cast spells is listed as Ex. That's huge... given no other information than that, we can instantly conclude that spells can be Ex, so any argument ruling out that possibility is moot. Furthermore, this suggests that spells in general are Ex, because an ability that's not explicitly shown a type in one spot but does have a type elsewhere is likely that type the whole time.

Third, the FAQ clarifies that Ex is the default type for class features. Yes, it's for class features "that lack a clear supernatural element" and we can go back and forth as to whether ability to cast a spell is magical or if just the spell itself is, but that's the only case where we get a "here's the default for class abilities" statement.

Fourth, on the subject of "is it magical", I think we are all clear that a Rogue using UMD to cast a spell off a wand is not using a magical ability... use of UMD is probably an Ex ability (but it's not a Special Ability, so it could be Na, or it could count as "not an ability"... I have no idea here, but that doesn't matter, what matters is it's not magical). So we at least have precedent for non magic abilities creating spells. That makes it at least possible.

Fifth, Sp and Su abilities are actually defined by how they're not spells. That pretty heavily suggests that spells aren't Sp or Su.

So at this point we lack any evidence that spells could be Sp or Su, with some that they're Ex. We do have direct evidence that Spells shouldn't be Sp or Su, and we also have direct evidence that spells can be Ex. All in all, I think that pushes the weight of evidence heavily in the direction that spells are Ex.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-11, 05:07 PM

First and foremost, the phrase "Spells, Spell Like Abilities, and Supernatural Abilities" is stated countless times throughout the books. The existence of this statement heavily implies that Spells are not Sp or Su. After all, if spells were, for example, Sp, then they'd just say "Spell Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities." They don't do that though. Spells is always separate.

Agreed, they are a separate category. (Ex is separate from the four as well.)

Second, the only places where the ability to cast spells is given a type are the MMV Hobgoblins and the Lilitu. In all such cases, the ability to cast spells is listed as Ex. That's huge...

But Lilitus don't have the ability "Spells." They have the ability "Mock Divinity (Ex)." So this proves nothing. I don't have MMV in front of me to check the hobgoblins you mention but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't an identical situation.

All you have proven is that wherever we see Mock Divinity, it should be (Ex.)

Third, the FAQ clarifies that Ex is the default type for class features. Yes, it's for class features "that lack a clear supernatural element" and we can go back and forth as to whether ability to cast a spell is magical or if just the spell itself is, but that's the only case where we get a "here's the default for class abilities" statement.

Agreed here as well, particularly the "clear supernatural element."

Fourth, on the subject of "is it magical", I think we are all clear that a Rogue using UMD to cast a spell off a wand is not using a magical ability... use of UMD is probably an Ex ability (but it's not a Special Ability, so it could be Na, or it could count as "not an ability"... I have no idea here, but that doesn't matter, what matters is it's not magical). So we at least have precedent for non magic abilities creating spells. That makes it at least possible.

Except the UMD skill is not creating the magical effect. The item is. The rogue's use of UMD is merely fooling it into doing its thing - the magic does not come from the rogue or the skill. So the classification of UMD is irrelevant. If you disjoin that item, the Rogue could have a +100 UMD check and it wouldn't matter.

Fifth, Sp and Su abilities are actually defined by how they're not spells. That pretty heavily suggests that spells aren't Sp or Su.

Ex abilities are defined by how they're not spells too. This line of reasoning proves nothing.

So at this point we lack any evidence that spells could be Sp or Su, with some that they're Ex. We do have direct evidence that Spells shouldn't be Sp or Su, and we also have direct evidence that spells can be Ex. All in all, I think that pushes the weight of evidence heavily in the direction that spells are Ex.

JaronK

As stated above, "Spells" is not shown to be Ex in any monster entry. Mock Divinity and similar abilities that grant spellcasting are, but never the ability "Spells."

JaronK

2013-07-11, 05:24 PM

Agreed, they are a separate category. (Ex is separate from the four as well.)

Wait, that phrase in no way implies that Ex is separate from those three. The phrase in question only implies that Spells are not Sp or Su abilities... it says nothing about Ex. Don't insert stuff that's not there.

But Lilitus don't have the ability "Spells." They have the ability "Mock Divinity (Ex)." So this proves nothing. I don't have MMV in front of me to check the hobgoblins you mention but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't an identical situation.

All you have proven is that wherever we see Mock Divinity, it should be (Ex.)

Irrelevant. What they have is the ability to cast spells. Yes, it's a different name, but the ability functions the same way (they cast as Clerics with some minor differences). The Hobgoblins have "Arcane Talent (Ex)" which lets them cast as Wizards... no differences there. Thus, any claim that the mechanics of casting a spell makes them not Ex is false, because we know that you can cast spells as Ex abilities.

This tells us that it's possible to cast spells via some ability as Ex... which means without a clear supernatural element, really.

Agreed here as well, particularly the "clear supernatural element."

Right, and since Ex abilities don't have clear supernatural elements and we've already established that some creatures cast spells as Ex abilities, now we can say that the casting of spells does not require a clear supernatural element. Sweet.

Except the UMD skill is not creating the magical effect. The item is. The rogue's use of UMD is merely fooling it into doing its thing - the magic does not come from the rogue or the skill. So the classification of UMD is irrelevant. If you disjoin that item, the Rogue could have a +100 UMD check and it wouldn't matter.

It matters because now we can say that the Rogue is doing something non magical and yet the spell still comes out. Technically a Cleric's magic comes from his god, not himself, after all. So the fact that the spell came from a Wand is actually irrelevant to the point. If you separate the Cleric from his god (there are abilities that do this), the Cleric can't cast either.

Ex abilities are defined by how they're not spells too. This line of reasoning proves nothing.

Where? The description of Ex doesn't mention spells. The descriptions of Sp and Su do.

As stated above, "Spells" is not shown to be Ex in any monster entry. Mock Divinity and similar abilities that grant spellcasting are, but never the ability "Spells."

Doesn't matter, because we know that the ability to cast spells can be Ex, so the ability to cast spells can be had without actually being magic. That's all we need to verify with those Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent things. We're showing the possibility.

JaronK

Arcanist

2013-07-11, 06:20 PM

That's between you and Arcanist, I set aside Na and untyped for the sake of argument several pages back.

Why am I still getting bundled up with JaronK? :smallannoyed:

But Lilitus don't have the ability "Spells." They have the ability "Mock Divinity (Ex)." So this proves nothing. I don't have MMV in front of me to check the hobgoblins you mention but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't an identical situation.

It should be worth noting that in the Monster Manual V(5) the Hobgoblin Warcaster and Hobgoblin Warsoul have the same ability simply called "Arcane Talent" which is labeled as an Ex ability. However, despite possessing the exact same ability, they function differently from each other (in the form of granting 4th and 9th level Wizard casting respectively).

The "Arcane Talent" ability manifest precisely as the Spells class feature, offers the Spells special ability and even offers a spellbook.

Just something I thought should be worth knowing for those of us without the MMV in front of us :smallwink:

Psyren

2013-07-11, 07:39 PM

Irrelevant.

Why, because it contradicts your argument?

Right, and since Ex abilities don't have clear supernatural elements and we've already established that some creatures cast spells as Ex abilities, now we can say that the casting of spells does not require a clear supernatural element. Sweet.

1) The "clear supernatural element" line only applies to unlabeled abilities. Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are labeled.

2) I could just as easily paraphrase you from earlier and say "Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are specific exceptions to the general rule." Like Soul Binding was supposed to be. It cuts both ways.

Icewraith

2013-07-11, 08:29 PM

Have we then at least gotten past any possibility that spells are untyped (not a thing) or Na (not applicable to Special Abilities)? Because I really don't want to get thrown back to that again down the line.

JaronK

Sorry, but this thread took a while to catch up on. The phrase "spells, spell-like or supernatural abilities" appears so often that spells are clearly not sp or su. I'm going with spells as an untyped, distinct category of... things... ..called... well, spells!

Mainly, when I see that the MM states that special abilities are sorted into special attacks and special qualities, this does NOT mean that all special attacks and special qualities are special abilities. It does mean that all special abilities ARE special attacks or special qualities. Basically, I'm suggesting that if you draw a venn diagram, you have special abilities in the middle, and special attacks and special qualities encompass 100% of the special abilities bubble without overlapping. However, you can still have special attacks overlap, but not completely, with a different bubble called "spells" that are independant of the special abilities bubble. I might include another bubble called "class abilities" here as well, that overlaps SAtk, spells, and SQ, but not special abiltiies. The primary sources for spells and class abiltiies are not the MM.

Basically while a special abiltiy is clearly defined, and special abilities are sorted into special attacks and special qualities, can someone find me some RAW that says all special attacks and special qualities are special abilities (and only special abilities)? (Blocked from work or I'd do it myself, and I may be making a fool of myself here-if so, I apologize. Been working on this whenever I need a brain break, but gotta finish before I go home. Everything else is done.)

I don't think the MM can be a primary source for adjucating spells, because all the spell descriptions are in other books, and each spell description is its own specific source for trumping general rules. The rules for spellcasting are in the phb and/or dmg. The core spells are all in the phb. Spells aren't special abilities, spells are spells. "Spell, spell-like, or supernatural" is all over the place. Spells are never listed as (ex), but the abilty to cast spells like a character class is (ex). Spells are usually listed under special attacks even though knock does not break invisibility, has no saving throw, and requires no attack roll. Monster stat blocks are specifically not authoritative.

Using (ex) abilities doesn't provoke, but spellcasting does. Spells, sp, and su are suppressed in antimagic fields but not (ex) or (na), or untyped class abilities.

What I've seen from JaronK has generally been solid RAI- but not RAW, and I accepted it as such until I went back and read the special attacks definition and realized that while it sorted, everything I've seen so far fails to define SAtk and SQ as consisting exclusively of special abilities.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 12:30 AM

Mainly, when I see that the MM states that special abilities are sorted into special attacks and special qualities, this does NOT mean that all special attacks and special qualities are special abilities. It does mean that all special abilities ARE special attacks or special qualities.

You missed an earlier part. Read Fiend Folio, page 5, and then look at MM1 page 6. Then check out Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph 1. Once you've done that, I think you'll find that Special Attacks and Special Qualities are the two subcategories of Special Abilities. If you disagree after reading that, let me know.

Basically while a special abiltiy is clearly defined, and special abilities are sorted into special attacks and special qualities, can someone find me some RAW that says all special attacks and special qualities are special abilities (and only special abilities)?

Yup, see the references given above.

Why, because it contradicts your argument?

No, because it doesn't mean anything in this case. See below.

1) The "clear supernatural element" line only applies to unlabeled abilities. Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are labeled.

...no, that's not the point at all. If Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are non magical (which their being Ex means they are) and are exactly rules wise identical to spellcasting (they are, the latter is explicitly just Wizard casting), then we can say that spell casting is considered non magical too. This means that the unlabeled Spells abilities are thus also non magical, and thus qualify as unlabeled abilities with a clear supernatural element.

2) I could just as easily paraphrase you from earlier and say "Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are specific exceptions to the general rule." Like Soul Binding was supposed to be. It cuts both ways.

Ah, but since you have no general rule for certain, they become examples, not exceptions. It's only an exception if it contradicts something, which this does not do.

JaronK

JaronK

Drachasor

2013-07-12, 12:54 AM

No, I mean by saying "Spells, Spell Like Abilities, and Supernatural Abilities" they imply that those are three different things.

The rules are known to repeat things unnecessarily at times. Though it is possible they mention spells because spellcasting is untyped/natural. The above might suggest they are different, but it does not PROVE it.

...yes we did. Did you actually just list untyped as a possibility? Didn't we go over this over and over a few pages back, as to why untyped could never be an option? See, this is why I said a while ago that I wanted to establish that first and get consensus, because this always happens... we prove one part, then move onto the next, then when showing the next someone always pops in and goes "wait, what about the first part!"

There's still a decently strong case for it. Spell-casting is not part of a being's nature, and it obviously is magical. Therefore it should not be Natural or Extra-ordinary. Spell-like doesn't really make sense. It could possibly be Supernatural, but it is hinted that it is not.

This case is AT LEAST as strong as the "it must be extraordinary" case.

But Monster Manual Premium Edition is the primary source on this topic, and it twice says that all Special Abilities are Sp, Su, or Ex. This was covered a few pages back.

It does not say what you think it says. Beyond that though, I don't believe the Monster Manual mentions natural abilities, so it can hardly be considered a primary source on something it doesn't even talk about.

Yup, see the references given above.

Since you seem interested in grammar games, there's only a strong hint that all special attacks and special qualities are special abilities. It is never directly stated that all of them are.

That said, the above might seem facetious of me, but when they go on to repeatedly apply no label to spell-casting and some other abilities, it provides support to the idea they are not "Special Abilities" or are some sort of untyped ability. The case here is just as strong or stronger than you grabbing non-RAW sources and ignoring half of what they say, then also ignoring what RAW says.

...no, that's not the point at all. If Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are non magical (which their being Ex means they are) and are exactly rules wise identical to spellcasting (they are, the latter is explicitly just Wizard casting), then we can say that spell casting is considered non magical too. This means that the unlabeled Spells abilities are thus also non magical, and thus qualify as unlabeled abilities with a clear supernatural element.

You cannot use what could be an exception to the normal rules as evidence that the normal rules don't apply elsewhere. Normally Extraordinary abilities cannot be magical. Spell-casting, is by definition magical, so it cannot be extraordinary. That is why it is affected by an anti-magic field (its effects are suppressed) whereas an extraordinary ability would not be (unless it was an exception to the normal rules like the ones you cite).

Also, there's no evidence that spell-like and supernatural abilities cannot be used in an AMF. Their effects are merely suppressed, just like spell-casting.

AND AGAIN, YOU CANNOT YOU A MONSTER ENTRY TO INDICATE WHAT THE RULES ARE. THIS IS EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED BY THE ERRATA!

JaronK

2013-07-12, 02:50 AM

Psyren

2013-07-12, 09:00 AM

...no, that's not the point at all. If Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are non magical (which their being Ex means they are) and are exactly rules wise identical to spellcasting (they are, the latter is explicitly just Wizard casting), then we can say that spell casting is considered non magical too.

No, all you can conclude from this is that a Lilitu's ability to mimic cleric casting is nonmagical, and a Hobgoblin's ability to mimic wizard casting is nonmagical. You cannot extend this to all instances of spellcasting everywhere.

A Colossus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/colossus.htm) emits a non-magical (Ex) antimagic field. Are all antimagic fields nonmagical? The abilities of a specific monster cannot be used to extrapolate a general rule - which is the same point Drachasor is trying to get across to you.

Ah, but since you have no general rule for certain, they become examples, not exceptions. It's only an exception if it contradicts something, which this does not do.

Putting aside the fact that I have two general rules (1 from RC, and 1 from the MM + XPH), you don't have any yourself. The closest you can manage to come is that unlabeled items should be one of the three - Ex, Su or Sp. You have no general rule that says they should be Ex out of those three.

1) The fact that a casting ability works in AMF doesn't explain this - other "ability-granting abilities" that are typed do still work in AMF as a general rule.
2) The fact that Lilitus and Hobgoblins have an ex ability that lets them mimic spellcasting doesn't work - this ability is specific to those creatures, rather than being a general rule like Psionics (Sp) is.

The more sensible interpretation is that "Spells", "Psionics", "Soul Binding," "Utterances" and all other such base abilities that enable access to another ability, are unaffected by AMF. This is easily explained by RAW by noting that the subsidiary abilities granted by those parent abilities are not "effects" and therefore not suppressed.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 10:37 AM

No, all you can conclude from this is that a Lilitu's ability to mimic cleric casting is nonmagical, and a Hobgoblin's ability to mimic wizard casting is nonmagical. You cannot extend this to all instances of spellcasting everywhere.

A Colossus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/colossus.htm) emits a non-magical (Ex) antimagic field. Are all antimagic fields nonmagical? The abilities of a specific monster cannot be used to extrapolate a general rule - which is the same point Drachasor is trying to get across to you.

But the Hobgoblin ability is just the ability to cast spells as a Wizard. They're not even mimicking it. One of them for example just says "Arcane Talent (Ex) A warsoul casts spells as a 9th level wizard." Now, if there were a general rule that said that Wizard casting was spell like that would be an exception. But there's not. So it's an example... of casting as a Wizard being Ex.

Drachasor meanwhile is trying to claim spells are untyped or natural, which are not even options.

Putting aside the fact that I have two general rules (1 from RC, and 1 from the MM + XPH), you don't have any yourself.

Wait, YOU HAVE A GENERAL RULE THAT SAYS SPELLCASTING IS SU OR SP? You've had this that whole time? That's amazing! What is it? Where is it? That's so cool!

Oh wait, you mean you have rules for things that are not spellcasting, don't you? That's not the sort of general rules we need right now.

The closest you can manage to come is that unlabeled items should be one of the three - Ex, Su or Sp. You have no general rule that says they should be Ex out of those three.

I have very strong suggestions from the rules there, as well as the FAQ stating that the default is Ex as long as it's not magical.

1) The fact that a casting ability works in AMF doesn't explain this - other "ability-granting abilities" that are typed do still work in AMF as a general rule.

I just rechecked RC, and you're wrong. It outright says that Sp abilities don't work at all in an AMF (literally: "No supernatural ability or spell-like ability works in an antimagic area.") That second part about their effects being affected like spells is referring to what happens if an Sp or Su ability is cast from outside the field into it.

So no, spell casting works in an AMF (but the spells are suppressed) while sp and su abilities don't work at all. This is because the ability to cast spells must be non magical, while the other two aren't.

2) The fact that Lilitus and Hobgoblins have an ex ability that lets them mimic spellcasting doesn't work - this ability is specific to those creatures, rather than being a general rule like Psionics (Sp) is.

We have no examples of anything other than Ex casting out there, but the point is that it's possible for the ability to cast spells to be Ex. The Psionics thing is a hack born out of the fact that they couldn't use psilike as an option in non psionic books due to psionics not being part of the core rules. But Rules Compendium itself makes it clear that Sp abilities that simulate Psionics won't work at all in an AMF.

JaronK

NeoPhoenix0

2013-07-12, 10:50 AM

But the Hobgoblin ability is just the ability to cast spells as a Wizard. They're not even mimicking it. One of them for example just says "Arcane Talent (Ex) A warsoul casts spells as a 9th level wizard." Now, if there were a general rule that said that Wizard casting was spell like that would be an exception. But there's not. So it's an example... of casting as a Wizard being Ex.

This might be helpful if wizard casting was called Arcane Talent.

Drachasor meanwhile is trying to claim spells are untyped or natural, which are not even options.

Sure they are options. We just stopped discussing it for the sake of argument so we could delve deeper into this side of the argument.

I have very strong suggestions from the rules there, as well as the FAQ stating that the default is Ex as long as it's not magical.

As I have stated earlier, many if not most people agree that the FAQ cannot make any new rule, becuase it is a document designed to answer people's questions by interpreting the rules.

We have no examples of anything other than Ex casting out there, but the point is that it's possible for the ability to cast spells to be Ex. The Psionics thing is a hack born out of the fact that they couldn't use psilike as an option in non psionic books due to psionics not being part of the core rules. But Rules Compendium itself makes it clear that Sp abilities that simulate Psionics won't work at all in an AMF.

This argument is illogical. Here is another argument of the same form. if your argument form indeed works this must be true.

I broke open this rock in my hand. Inside were crystals. I don't see any other broken rocks so all rocks must contain crystals.

Psyren

2013-07-12, 11:10 AM

But the Hobgoblin ability is just the ability to cast spells as a Wizard. They're not even mimicking it.

And if that ability was called "Spells" then you would have a point. But it's called "Arcane Talent" - an ability specific to that creature, just as "Mock Divinity" is specific to the Lilitu.

Wait, YOU HAVE A GENERAL RULE THAT SAYS SPELLCASTING IS SU OR SP? You've had this that whole time? That's amazing! What is it? Where is it? That's so cool!

Oh wait, you mean you have rules for things that are not spellcasting, don't you? That's not the sort of general rules we need right now.

I have very strong suggestions from the rules there, as well as the FAQ stating that the default is Ex as long as it's not magical.

Wait, YOU HAVE A GENERAL RULE THAT SAYS SPELLCASTING IS EX? You've had this that whole time? That's amazing! What is it? Where is it? That's so cool!

Oh wait, you mean you have a "strong suggestion," don't you? That's not the sort of general rules we need right now.

I just rechecked RC, and you're wrong. It outright says that Sp abilities don't work at all in an AMF (literally: "No supernatural ability or spell-like ability works in an antimagic area.") That second part about their effects being affected like spells is referring to what happens if an Sp or Su ability is cast from outside the field into it.

1) Now you are the one retreading old ground - as I said before, your own Rules of the Game article disagrees with you. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a) It explicitly states SLAs can be used in an AMF, with their effects suppressed, just like spellcasting can.

2) Antimagic Field itself also disagrees with you. "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it." AMF suppresses magical effects, but they are ALL still usable within the field, by RAW. Furthermore, your attempts to treat casting and psionics differently in an AMF are still a violation of transparency RAW.

3) As far as the sources themselves, you are trying to have your cake and eat it. Either the Premium PHB trumps RC, in which case magical effects can be used within (and have their effects suppressed by) an AMF, or RC trumps, in which case untyped abilities are Natural. Both ways disprove your argument.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 12:15 PM

And if that ability was called "Spells" then you would have a point. But it's called "Arcane Talent" - an ability specific to that creature, just as "Mock Divinity" is specific to the Lilitu.

It's still the ability to do exactly the same thing. And that's worth something.

Do you disagree that it proves that it's possible for the ability to cast spells to be Ex?

Wait, YOU HAVE A GENERAL RULE THAT SAYS SPELLCASTING IS EX? You've had this that whole time? That's amazing! What is it? Where is it? That's so cool!

Oh wait, you mean you have a "strong suggestion," don't you? That's not the sort of general rules we need right now.

You claimed that there was a general rule that says they weren't, so the Lilitu and the Hobgoblins were exceptions to that general rule. Either retract that claim, or show it. What I claimed is that we have a bunch of general evidence, the weight of such points to spells being Ex.

1) Now you are the one retreading old ground - as I said before, your own Rules of the Game article disagrees with you. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a) It explicitly states SLAs can be used in an AMF, with their effects suppressed, just like spellcasting can.

RC does trump that article, and it outright says the abilities just don't work. But it agrees with the parts of that article I've been quoting, so that part's not trumped.

2) Antimagic Field itself also disagrees with you. "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it." AMF suppresses magical effects, but they are ALL still usable within the field, by RAW. Furthermore, your attempts to treat casting and psionics differently in an AMF are still a violation of transparency RAW.

RC Clearly states that sp abilities just don't work at all in an AMF. Meanwhile, what you just quoted doesn't contradict that idea at all. Psionics may have a special rule for this (I don't know) but here we do have a specific general rule: Sp and Su abilities simply don't work (but if cast from outside, they're suppressed for the duration of their stay in the field). In other words, if I use Spell Like Eagle's Splendor outside an AMF and then walk in, the spell is suppressed but not dispelled. If I try to use Spell Like Eagle's Splendor inside the AMF, it simply fails because I don't even have access to that ability.

3) As far as the sources themselves, you are trying to have your cake and eat it. Either the Premium PHB trumps RC, in which case magical effects can be used within (and have their effects suppressed by) an AMF, or RC trumps, in which case untyped abilities are Natural. Both ways disprove your argument.

Specific beats general is more important than sources. Here's how it works.

1) If one source is more specific on a topic than another, that source trumps. By extension, if one source says something about a topic and the other simply doesn't, the one that says something trumps.

2) If two equally specific sources disagree, the primary source wins (the primary source on Special Abilities is Premium Monster Manual, followed by RC, followed by original Monster Manual, followed by everything else). Note that the primary source for Antimagic Field is of course the Player's Handbook.

Now, Premium PHB does not say that you can use Sp abilities inside an anti magic field, so the RC's claim that you simply can't stands.

JaronK

Kornaki

2013-07-12, 12:31 PM

JaronK

2013-07-12, 12:50 PM

Ironically in the rules compendium there is a comment by a developer on page 118 about guessing a monster's special ability type (Ex, Su or Sp). He mentions that monsters will often have their special abilities be of a different type than that which a player with the same ability would have (which means Arcane Talent being (Ex) isn't as impressive)

I've never said Arcane Talent alone absolutely proves that Spells are Ex. It only proves that it's possible for them to be Ex, and that lacking any other evidence of any other types being possible, that makes it likely. No more than that though.

I'm a bit confused about why the monster manual is the primary source for special abilities. The errata says that it is the primary source for extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities, but it seems like it could fail to be the primary source for natural abilities

Quite simply, being the primary source for Ex, Sp, and Su abilities makes it the primary source for Special Abilities, because that's what Special Abilities are. It also talks about Special Abilities far more than the other two core books and is the only core book to give a full definition of those. It's not the primary source for Na abilities, which aren't even mentioned in that book IIRC.

JaronK

Kornaki

2013-07-12, 01:43 PM

OK I realize now that I misread a previous post so thought the question was more relevant than it turned out to be.

Lol separately I noticed this gem

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm

Things like grapple, throw splash weapon and trip are considered special attacks. Why is this interesting? Because I cast polymorph

You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.

and lose my grapple and throw splash weapon special attacks! And I don't gain my new form's special attacks except for a very explicit list, so these are definitely gone for good

Drachasor

2013-07-12, 01:55 PM

Drachasor, which part are you confused on? That spells are a Special Attack (defined on page 299 of the Monster Manual, NOT IN A MONSTER ENTRY)? That Special Attacks are always Special Abilities? Or that Special Abilities are always Ex, Sp, or Su according to the Premium Monster Manual on page 6 (and in the glossary of the same), which is the primary source?

Clearly one of these, if you think any ability can be untyped or that any Special Ability can be Natural.

JaronK

First, I'm saying that Spellcasting could be Natural, Untyped, Ex, Sp, or Su. We don't know.

Second, I am saying you can't pull things out of a Monster Entry to explain rules. RAW explicitly tells you not to do this. Your arguments are ignoring RAW when it is inconvenient -- this also ignores RAI represented by that errata.

Third, I am saying that you can't say all Special Attacks are Special Abilities. Look at the passage:

Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

Tell me where that says Special Attacks are Special Abilities? At best it says Special Qualities are Special Abilities, but it quite clearly avoids including Special Attacks in with that.

That is certainly as or more significant than your semantic argument you made with the following:

Golems and other constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead, still function in an antimagic area (though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally). If such creatures are summoned or conjured, however, see below.

You made much ado about how having "and" twice meant something special about Spell-Casting. As if somehow Supernatural and Spell-like abilities were not suppressed in the same manner as Spell-casting, but in some completely different way that didn't allow their use.

It's fair to say my argument above is at least as strong as that, and most likely stronger.

Fourth, you seem to just be picking and choosing whatever bits of evidence support your argument. Rules of the Game disagrees? Oh, THAT part of the article you quoted is just wrong, ignore it! The errata disagrees? Pay it no mind. RAW disagrees? Ignore that too.

I am willing to admit when I am wrong. At first I thought I was quite mistaken about Special Qualities and Special Attacks and what the MM said on page 6. I said as much. Looking it over again though, and it seems to just say Special Qualities are Special Abilities -- though in actual fact we know that's not always the case (e.g. eating and breathing for example).

Frankly, your argument has a shaky foundation, and everything you've built on top of that is equally shaky. Even if you do manage to show one part isn't shaky, that still leaves everything else. You know why the topic jumps around so much? Because every step you've taken in your argument is highly questionable at the bare minimum. It's hard to know what part to focus on, and different people will look at different things.

I'd probably say the idea you can use (Ex) abilities on monsters that aren't even called "Spells" as any sort of evidence as to whether Spells or (Ex) or not is the most ridiculous. It ignores RAW in the Monster Manuals which show many abilities have different types depending on what has them. It ignores RAW in the MM errata which says explicitly not to use the MM like this. Please stop ignoring the RAW here.

Kornaki

2013-07-12, 02:03 PM

Drachasor, baleful polymorph establishes all class features as being special abilities anyway

The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 02:08 PM

First, I'm saying that Spellcasting could be Natural, Untyped, Ex, Sp, or Su. We don't know.

Untyped cannot possibly exist, because all abilities of all types that aren't Ex, Sp, or Su are Na. Logically there can be no untyped then.

Special Abilities, meanwhile, cannot be Na, so that's not a possibility either. You don't know, perhaps, but RAW does.

Second, I am saying you can't pull things out of a Monster Entry to explain rules. RAW explicitly tells you not to do this. Your arguments are ignoring RAW when it is inconvenient -- this also ignores RAI represented by that errata.

Spells are defined on page 299 as a Special Attack. This is not in a Monster Entry. The Monster Entries just give examples that show complete consistency with this general rule.

Third, I am saying that you can't say all Special Attacks are Special Abilities. Look at the passage:

Tell me where that says Special Attacks are Special Abilities? At best it says Special Qualities are Special Abilities, but it quite clearly avoids including Special Attacks in with that.

Please also see Fiend Folio 5, where you can see that the phrase "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" is completely synonymous with "Special Abilities." Note that this is also in complete agreement with the Monster Manual on this topic. Note also that there are three different areas of the Monster Manual that discuss this (pages 6, 299, and the glossary), and reading just one is missing something.

That is certainly as or more significant than your semantic argument you made with the following:

You made much ado about how having "and" twice meant something special about Spell-Casting. As if somehow Supernatural and Spell-like abilities were not suppressed in the same manner as Spell-casting, but in some completely different way that didn't allow their use.

No, I didn't. "though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally". What this phrase tells us is that spell casting is something different from supernatural and spell like abilities. Why? Because if it wasn't, why would the words "their spell casting and" even be involved? Simply saying "though the antimagic area suppresses their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally" would have included spell casting anyway if spells were either supernatural or spell like.

Do you understand this?

Fourth, you seem to just be picking and choosing whatever bits of evidence support your argument. Rules of the Game disagrees? Oh, THAT part of the article you quoted is just wrong, ignore it! The errata disagrees? Pay it no mind. RAW disagrees? Ignore that too.

No, I'm using the basic rules of specific vs general and primary sourcing. Why aren't you?

I am willing to admit when I am wrong. At first I thought I was quite mistaken about Special Qualities and Special Attacks and what the MM said on page 6. I said as much. Looking it over again though, and it seems to just say Special Qualities are Special Abilities -- though in actual fact we know that's not always the case (e.g. eating and breathing for example).

Eating and berthing are not Special Qualities or Special Abilities. They are Natural Abilities, which are simply "abilities" not Special Abilities.

But seriously, between Fiend Folio page 5 and Monster Manual page 6, it's painfully obvious that Special Attacks and Special Qualities are just the two subcategories of Special Abilities. All Special Abilities are divided into those two categories, and those two categories do not exist outside of Special Abilities.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-12, 02:43 PM

I've never said Arcane Talent alone absolutely proves that Spells are Ex. It only proves that it's possible for them to be Ex, and that lacking any other evidence of any other types being possible, that makes it likely. No more than that though.

There is evidence against Ex as well, and not just the fact that nonmagical spellcasting doesn't make sense. For example, Attacks of Opportunity - the act of spellcasting provokes, therefore it cannot be Ex, because Ex abilities don't provoke.

As far as Rules Compendium, if you choose to use it for any of your arguments you are once again opening the door for untyped abilities to be Natural.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 02:51 PM

There is evidence against Ex as well, and not just the fact that nonmagical spellcasting doesn't make sense. For example, Attacks of Opportunity - the act of spellcasting provokes, therefore it cannot be Ex, because Ex abilities don't provoke.

As far as Rules Compendium, if you choose to use it for any of your arguments you are once again opening the door for untyped abilities to be Natural.

Okay, you might have missed this, so let me be clear again. I'm not throwing out the entire Rules Compendium... only the parts that directly contradict a primary source without being more specific that the RC says it can't contradict. This is how rules interpretation works.

The RC is not a completely useless document, it just can't contradict the Premium Monster Manual in cases where it's not more specific. This is not an all or nothing binary. This is also why I can reference Fiend Folio, but only where it doesn't contradict the primary source.

As for Ex abilities not provoking, it could always be a special rule. Using Manyshot (an Ex ability) also provokes, after all. So that's just specific overriding general.

@Kornaki: That's hilarious. But it might not apply, because you only lose Special Attacks that come from your normal form... and everyone can grapple regardless of form, even if they really suck at it or can only do it under very specific circumstances. So the ability to grapple doesn't really come from your normal form.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-12, 02:58 PM

Okay, you might have missed this, so let me be clear again. I'm not throwing out the entire Rules Compendium... only the parts that directly contradict a primary source without being more specific that the RC says it can't contradict. This is how rules interpretation works.

No, it isn't. Let me quote you yourself on the subject:

Specific beats general is more important than sources.

I happen to agree with this, and Rules Compendium's line about untyped abilities being natural is as specific as it gets. If it's untyped, do this.

The RC is not a completely useless document, it just can't contradict the Premium Monster Manual in cases where it's not more specific.

Except it is more specific, because the MM (Premium or otherwise) is silent on the subject of untyped abilities, while RC mentions them specifically. So by invoking it, you are defeating your own argument.

As for Ex abilities not provoking, it could always be a special rule. Using Manyshot (an Ex ability) also provokes, after all. So that's just specific overriding general.

No, Manyshot does not provoke; the ranged attack you perform as part of the Manyshot action is what provokes, and that is not Ex. So this is wrong, you need a new example.

Though here again you are doing the "if it agrees with me it's RAW, if it disagrees it's a specific exception, la la la I can't hear you" song and dance.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 03:08 PM

No, it isn't. Let me quote you yourself on the subject:

I happen to agree with this, and Rules Compendium's line about untyped abilities being natural is as specific as it gets. If it's untyped, do this.

...Except it's typed, because Monster Manual makes it typed. So it's not untyped because it can't be. We already have a type (Ex, Sp, or Su) set up, and it's just a question of picking which one.

Except it is more specific, because the MM (Premium or otherwise) is silent on the subject of untyped abilities, while RC mentions them specifically. So by invoking it, you are defeating your own argument.

MM outright states that all abilities have a type, over and over, so you're not even making sense now.

No, Manyshot does not provoke; the ranged attack you perform as part of the Manyshot action is what provokes, and that is not Ex. So this is wrong, you need a new example.

You mean the ability that Manyshot provides causes you to do something that provokes? Like how the ability that Spells provides causes you to do something that provokes?

Though here again you are doing the "if it agrees with me it's RAW, if it disagrees it's a specific exception, la la la I can't hear you" song and dance.

You mean like what you're doing with the most repeated general rule in the entire game which is repeated multiple times by the primary source on the topic? That?

Seriously though, the fact that something specific overrides something general (like an Ex ability explicitly stating it provokes AOOs) doesn't remove the possibility of the general rule existing or change its categories. For example, Arcane Talent provokes AoOs too, and it's explicitly Ex. Do you see the difference there?

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-12, 03:43 PM

...Except it's typed, because Monster Manual makes it typed.

Except it's not typed, because it isn't designated as any of the three. Designation is what determines whether something is natural or not, and "Spells" wasn't designated. Had they wanted to designate it in the premium MM, they would have.

You mean the ability that Manyshot provides causes you to do something that provokes? Like how the ability that Spells provides causes you to do something that provokes?

Are you saying a ranged attack is extraordinary? That is the provoking action, not Manyshot. Manyshot has no relevance here.

Contrast with Spellcasting - over and over in both MM and the PHB it is shown that the act of casting the spell is what provokes, not the spell itself. Therefore it cannot be Ex.

Seriously though, the fact that something specific overrides something general (like an Ex ability explicitly stating it provokes AOOs) doesn't remove the possibility of the general rule existing or change its categories. For example, Arcane Talent provokes AoOs too, and it's explicitly Ex. Do you see the difference there?

Activating Arcane Talent/Mock Divinity, if indeed they needed to be activated, would not provoke, no. The spells they grant you are another matter however.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 03:55 PM

Except it's not typed, because it isn't designated as any of the three. Designation is what determines whether something is natural or not, and "Spells" wasn't designated. Had they wanted to designate it in the premium MM, they would have.

The fact that they're defined as Special Abilities gives them a designation. It's incomplete, but it exists. You can't ignore that fact and then try to claim they're something that they're explicitly not.

Glitterdust is a spell, even though it's never specifically said to be a spell. It's just in the spell section. Would you call it not a spell because it doesn't explicitly state it's a spell?

Are you saying a ranged attack is extraordinary? That is the provoking action, not Manyshot. Manyshot has no relevance here.

Are you saying the actual casting of a spell is an ability? That is the provoking action, not the Spells ability. It's the same thing. It's an ability that creates a provoking action. Heck, Grapples provoke AoOs too, and they're Special Attacks as well. Does that work as a better example?

Contrast with Spellcasting - over and over in both MM and the PHB it is shown that the act of casting the spell is what provokes, not the spell itself. Therefore it cannot be Ex.

You mean the act of casting the spell, not the ability to cast spells, but whatever. Go with Grappling as an example of an Ex ability that provokes.

Activating Arcane Talent/Mock Divinity, if indeed they needed to be activated, would not provoke, no. The spells they grant you are another matter however.

Arcane Talent, Mock Divinity, and Spells are never "activated" except when you cast the spell in question. All of them are abilities to cast spells, and using those abilities provokes (just like Manyshot, Grapple, and others). Note that much of spell casting, such as memorization of spells, researching new spells, meditating at the beginning of the day, using a spell book, and so on does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Only the actual spell itself being cast does that.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-12, 04:19 PM

The fact that they're defined as Special Abilities gives them a designation. It's incomplete, but it exists. You can't ignore that fact and then try to claim they're something that they're explicitly not.

"Special Abilities" is not a type of Special Ability. The types are Ex, Su, Sp, and Na. "Spells" is not otherwise designated; therefore it is Na.

Are you saying the actual casting of a spell is an ability? That is the provoking action, not the Spells ability.

I was merely saying that Manyshot being Ex (if indeed it is) does not matter, because it is the ranged attack you take as part of using Manyshot that provokes. That is a different rule altogether.

Heck, Grapples provoke AoOs too, and they're Special Attacks as well. Does that work as a better example?

Grappling doesn't work either - it is Na too, because it isn't otherwise designated. That's the key phrase. Where is grappling designated as being Ex?

Arcane Talent, Mock Divinity, and Spells are never "activated" except when you cast the spell in question.

I know they're not activated - that's why I said "if indeed they needed to be."

Note that much of spell casting, such as memorization of spells, researching new spells, meditating at the beginning of the day, using a spell book, and so on does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Only the actual spell itself being cast does that.

Memorization, research etc. are not part of casting the spell. Furthermore, you can conduct research and memorize passages with or without spellcasting ability. It won't do anything much without that ability, but you're never prevented from doing it.

Drachasor

2013-07-12, 04:29 PM

Untyped cannot possibly exist, because all abilities of all types that aren't Ex, Sp, or Su are Na. Logically there can be no untyped then.

Says what? The Rules Compendium? I thought you said the Monster Manual was the primary source here. It leaves things wide open.

Special Abilities, meanwhile, cannot be Na, so that's not a possibility either. You don't know, perhaps, but RAW does.

I never said that Special Abilities were NA.

Spells are defined on page 299 as a Special Attack. This is not in a Monster Entry. The Monster Entries just give examples that show complete consistency with this general rule.

Special Attacks are not defined as Special Abilities. Also, 299 isn't defining categories. It is about designing monsters and fitting things into the existing stat-block.

Please also see Fiend Folio 5, where you can see that the phrase "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" is completely synonymous with "Special Abilities." Note that this is also in complete agreement with the Monster Manual on this topic. Note also that there are three different areas of the Monster Manual that discuss this (pages 6, 299, and the glossary), and reading just one is missing something.

The Monster Manual is the primary source, as you have said many times. The Fiend Folio does not matter. Special Attacks are not defined as Special Abilities in the MM. Indeed, there are many Special Attacks that are untyped in the MM which cements this (and leaves open the possibility of untyped). This also works with Class Features for what it is worth.

I'd also note that monster entries are pretty dang consistent about not putting anything in front of "Spells", but that's side note as Monster entries prove nothing, of course.

No, I didn't. "though the antimagic area suppresses their spellcasting and their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally". What this phrase tells us is that spell casting is something different from supernatural and spell like abilities. Why? Because if it wasn't, why would the words "their spell casting and" even be involved? Simply saying "though the antimagic area suppresses their supernatural and spell-like abilities normally" would have included spell casting anyway if spells were either supernatural or spell like.

It's my personal believe that it is because spellcasting is untyped. That said, it is far from the only time you encounter redundant phrases. So your argument is far from definitive regarding Spellcasting being Supernatural or Spell-like.

No, I'm using the basic rules of specific vs general and primary sourcing. Why aren't you?

No, you aren't. You ignore the MM errata when you don't like it. You use the Fiend Folio when you don't like other sources. Etc, etc.

Eating and berthing are not Special Qualities or Special Abilities. They are Natural Abilities, which are simply "abilities" not Special Abilities.

When you are arguing the Type Traits are Special Qualities they are. Type Traits show up in various places such as the Special Qualities on stat-blocks (since you seem to think that matters), MM 300, etc. According to you that makes breathing a Special Ability.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 04:39 PM

"Special Abilities" is not a type of Special Ability. The types are Ex, Su, Sp, and Na. "Spells" is not otherwise designated; therefore it is Na.

Wait, are you saying Special Abilities aren't Special Abilities? Or that if you have to deduce the type of a special ability, then it has no designation (in which case you must think Glitterdust isn't a spell... it's an easier deduction, but it still requires deduction).

Which is it?

I was merely saying that Manyshot being Ex (if indeed it is) does not matter, because it is the ranged attack you take as part of using Manyshot that provokes. That is a different rule altogether.

Just like I was saying that Spells, Arcane Talent, and Mock Divinity being Ex (if indeed they are) does mater, because it is the casting of the spell you use as part of using Spells that provokes. This is the same rule completely.

Grappling doesn't work either - it is Na too, because it isn't otherwise designated. That's the key phrase. Where is grappling designated as being Ex?

It's a Special Ability (Special Attack, specifically) that lacks a clear supernatural element. As per the FAQ, that means it defaults to Ex. Are you now trying to claim that it's a Na Special Attack, thus showing you've completely forgotten the first part of this discussion?

Memorization, research etc. are not part of casting the spell. Furthermore, you can conduct research and memorize passages with or without spellcasting ability. It won't do anything much without that ability, but you're never prevented from doing it.

Actually, memorizing spells (by which I mean what Wizards do in the morning) is part of the Spells class feature. Also, only certain kinds of spell casters can do research. It's not casting the spell, but it's part of the ability. Because again, the ability to cast a spell is not the same as the casting of the spell. None of these things provoke, because simply using the Spells class ability does not provoke AoOs. It's only the casting of the spell (like the shooting of the arrow for Manyshot) that provokes.

JaronK

Psyren

2013-07-12, 05:16 PM

Wait, are you saying Special Abilities aren't Special Abilities?

No - I'm saying that Special Abilities have 4 types, and "special abilities" is not one of those types.

Just like I was saying that Spells, Arcane Talent, and Mock Divinity being Ex (if indeed they are) does mater, because it is the casting of the spell you use as part of using Spells that provokes. This is the same rule completely.

Even if I go along with that, natural and supernatural abilities don't provoke either. So that doesn't prove that "Spells" is Ex - it still fits with my viewpoint that Spells is natural.

It's a Special Ability (Special Attack, specifically) that lacks a clear supernatural element.

This is highly debatable. Suffice to say I disagree, spellcasting seems to have a pretty clear supernatural element to me.

Actually, memorizing spells (by which I mean what Wizards do in the morning) is part of the Spells class feature. Also, only certain kinds of spell casters can do research. It's not casting the spell, but it's part of the ability. Because again, the ability to cast a spell is not the same as the casting of the spell. None of these things provoke, because simply using the Spells class ability does not provoke AoOs. It's only the casting of the spell (like the shooting of the arrow for Manyshot) that provokes.

You actually can't even prove this much. From the PHB:

"Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.

...

Performing a Distracting Act
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity."

The list in Actions in Combat is not comprehensive - other actions can provoke, so long as they divert your attention from the battle. It would be pretty hard to argue that you could conduct research or study a book in a threatened square without your attention being impacted at all.

JaronK

2013-07-12, 06:07 PM

No - I'm saying that Special Abilities have 4 types, and "special abilities" is not one of those types.

Three types. Three. Not four. Not five. Three. Ex, Sp, Su.

Even if I go along with that, natural and supernatural abilities don't provoke either. So that doesn't prove that "Spells" is Ex - it still fits with my viewpoint that Spells is natural.

That one thing doesn't prove that Spells are Ex, just that they can be. But they still can't be Na, because that's ridiculous due to the number of times it's stated that they're not. And remember, Na abilities are non magical (lacking a supernatural element). And we have an FAQ entry that says unlabeled class abilities that lack a supernatural element are Ex. So if you're saying they're not magical then they have to be Ex... Na is simply not an option. Again, Special Abilities are always Ex, Sp, or Su... no exceptions. Primary source says so. It is in fact a very specific statement, stated multiple times.

This is highly debatable. Suffice to say I disagree, spellcasting seems to have a pretty clear supernatural element to me.

Then why did you just claim it was Na? It can't be Na if it's supernatural. Your position is incoherent. You're claiming it's got to be non magical (because it's Na) but it can't be Ex because it's magical, and it's either not a Special Ability (despite being obviously so) or it's a Special Ability that doesn't follow the primary source rule on Special Abilities despite no specific reason to do so.

You actually can't even prove this much. From the PHB:

"Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.

...

Performing a Distracting Act
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity."

The list in Actions in Combat is not comprehensive - other actions can provoke, so long as they divert your attention from the battle. It would be pretty hard to argue that you could conduct research or study a book in a threatened square without your attention being impacted at all.

Fine, then you can't prove that every action ever doesn't provoke, since the only thing you've got to go on with this statement is that anything could provoke. That makes provoking of AoOs a pretty useless point then, doesn't it? Btw, flight above a certain speed (120', IIRC) is an Ex ability... this also provokes AoOs. Grappling is a non magical special ability, that provokes too.

This whole "if it provokes it can't be Ex" argument is falling apart pretty fast.

JaronK