Shapechange, Spells and Spell-like Abilities

[.Zero]

Does Shapechange grant spell-like abilities and spellcasting of the assumed form? I'm asking here because i saw various interpretations of the spell, and while i know that heavy-optimizers tend to hold the line that the spell grants everything, i often saw people saying it does not grant spellcasting ('cause spellcasting is a "Natural Ability"... which 99% of the times derives from class levels, kind of wierd...), but it only grants spell-like abilities instead, and sometimes i saw someone arguing that it does not grant magical stuff at all.

I made my researches and i found that in the Shapechange text in the SRD, it says

You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form
The real issue with that is that if you search for Supernatural Abilities in the SRD, you'll find that they are a separate voice from Spell-like Abilities and not the former nor the latter seem to have something to share, apart that both are magical stuff.

So, if we stop here, it seems pretty straight forward that Shapechange does not grant spell-like abilities or spellcasting, but i think the whole issue comes from that line in the spell's text that is "(both attacks and qualities)". What does this mean?
Let's go to the Solar sheet on the SRD. On the voice Special Attacks we clearly see "spell-like abilities" AND "spellcasting". And the fun fact is that Shapechange seem to grant the user all of the new form's attacks and qualities, thus including spell-like abilities and spellcasting.

I'd really like to know which is the forum opinion nowadays, and which kind of interpretation of the text seems to be more popular.
Thanks.

[Urpriest]

There is nobody in the world who thinks that Shapechange grants spell-like abilities, so there's no point in discussing that.

Spellcasting might be Natural, they might be Ex, they certainly aren't Spell-Like or Supernatural. So whether you can get spellcasting depends entirely on how that is ruled.

"Both attacks and qualities" has a clear meaning given the sentence it's in. It's a clause modifying "Extraordinary and Supernatural abilities". Again, there really aren't any other plausible interpretations.

[Karnith]

Spellcasting might be Natural, they might be Ex, they certainly aren't Spell-Like or Supernatural. So whether you can get spellcasting depends entirely on how that is ruled.
Piggybacking off of this, there are a few monsters whose spellcasting abilities are clearly called out with an ability type (and that you would therefore gain via Shapechange), such as the Lilitu in FCII.

[Sir Garanok]

Well i believe its clear enough that if it is Ex or Su you get it.
If itis s Sp you don't,so spell like abilities are cut out.

[.Zero]

There is nobody in the world who thinks that Shapechange grants spell-like abilities, so there's no point in discussing that.



What the heck?!? Im pretty sure i read about people like Tippy (and please, god, forgive me if I'm wrong) writing something like shapechanging into a Solar might grant you spell line abilities, if not spellcasting. Sure i can't remember the thread in wich i read ssuch a thing and i can't quote anything, I'm sorry.

So, am i totally wrong? Did i misread something?

[Urpriest]

What the heck?!? Im pretty sure i read about people like Tippy (and please, god, forgive me if I'm wrong) writing something like shapechanging into a Solar might grant you spell line abilities, if not spellcasting. Sure i can't remember the thread in wich i read ssuch a thing and i can't quote anything, I'm sorry.

So, am i totally wrong? Did i misread something?

Probably you misremembered. Tippy might have been saying that you could get spells, if not spell-like abilities, so perhaps you just exchanged those two in your memory?

[Chronos]

The point of interest for Tippy-level optimization is that there are some creatures who have abilities that really ought to be spell-like, but which, for some reason, are instead supernatural. In particular, there's a creature called a Zodar which can produce the effect of a Wish spell as a supernatural ability. Shapechange definitely does grant supernatural abilities, so if you shapechange into a zodar, you can get its Wish.

Some DMs would respond to this by prohibiting zodars entirely in their game. Some would respond to it by including zodars, but changing their Wish ability into a spell-like ability. And some, like Tippy, respond to it by saying "OK, sure, that works".

[Fax Celestis]

Spellcasting might be Natural, they might be Ex, they certainly aren't Spell-Like or Supernatural. So whether you can get spellcasting depends entirely on how that is ruled. If they're Ex or natural, why don't they work in an AMF?

[dextercorvia]

If they're Ex or natural, why don't they work in an AMF?

Specific vs. General. AMF says they don't. If it also said jumping was prohibited, that would be weird, but it wouldn't mean jumping was supernatural.

[Kraken]

If they're Ex or natural, why don't they work in an AMF?

The ability to cast spells is a natural/extraordinary ability. The spells themselves are not natural/extraordinary.

Also, for what it's worth, spellcasting, when not labeled as (EX), should probably be viewed as a natural ability in my opinion, and thus not received when you shapechange into a solar, for instance. Though even if you do receive the spellcasting ability, you would then still need to prepare spells by praying, using a spellbook, etc. There are valid arguments for shapechange granting the spellcasting ability of creatures such as solars, but the text that gives rise to said arguments honestly makes me feel like it's simply taking advantage of 3.5's poor editing. To me, the intent seems fairly clear in trying to not grant you a creature's spellcasting ability by not making monster spellcasting (EX) or SU) outside of a couple books (MM5 and FC1 I think are the only ones?).

[Fax Celestis]

I just think it's odd that everyone jumps to "natural" when an ability is untyped, despite that never being a defined ability type. It's not a natural ability, it's an untyped ability, and shapechange doesn't grant untyped abilities, just those typed EX and SU.

[Ketiara]

Planar Shepards wild shape grants SU EX and SLA so ws into a solar or any other planar beings will grant you SLA. Maybe it's that you've heard about

[Kraken]

I just think it's odd that everyone jumps to "natural" when an ability is untyped, despite that never being a defined ability type. It's not a natural ability, it's an untyped ability, and shapechange doesn't grant untyped abilities, just those typed EX and SU.

Natural abilities are defined in the PHB on pages 180 and 310, and in the Rules Compendium on 118. From the RC: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." The issue is that the primary rules source on monsters, the Monster Manual, doesn't make mention of natural abilities, and further, says on page 6: "A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)." Yet in their individual entries, spellcasting, just like racial skill bonuses, are not labeled as (EX), (SU), or (SP). So either you choose to categorize them as (EX), (SU), or (SP) yourself, or use the PHB/RC text to make them natural, and treat the conflict with the MM text on page 6 as being a case of the specific monster ability entry trumping the general rule on page 6.

[Karnith]

I just think it's odd that everyone jumps to "natural" when an ability is untyped, despite that never being a defined ability type. It's not a natural ability, it's an untyped ability, and shapechange doesn't grant untyped abilities, just those typed EX and SU.
Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying. Natural abilities are defined (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities) as those abilities that are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like in nature. Which is why it is argued that spellcasting, as an ability whose type is not specified, is a natural ability.

[Dalebert]

Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying. Natural abilities are defined (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities) as those abilities that are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like in nature. Which is why it is argued that spellcasting, as an ability whose type is not specified, is a natural ability.

Is this really complicated to understand? It's not a natural ability because it's something people learn to do and learn to get better at over time. If it were a natural ability, then it would be something inherent in the form of the creature. Their spells are learned and in their minds. Can you shapechange into a level 20 human cleric? For that matter, can you shapechange into a person and remember their childhood? No.

[Urpriest]

If they're Ex or natural, why don't they work in an AMF?

It's not immediately obvious that spellcasting doesn't work in an AMF. The spells themselves are suppressed, yes, but nothing says that they can't be cast from within the AMF, ceasing to be suppressed once they exit the field.

It's not an interpretation I would argue for with any particular vigor, but it's certainly consistent with the text.

[Karnith]

Is this really complicated to understand? It's not a natural ability because it's something people learn to do and learn to get better at over time. If it were a natural ability, then it would be something inherent in the form of the creature. Their spells are learned and in their minds. Can you shapechange into a level 20 human cleric? For that matter, can you shapechange into a person and remember their childhood? No.
Again, "natural ability" is a catch-all term for those abilities not called out as Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-like. Spellcasting fits the definition (in most cases; a few creatures have typed spellcasting abilities), even if it doesn't really make fluff sense as a natural ability. A lot of class features are similarly untyped, but for one reason or another spellcasting is basically the only one that didn't get typed when applied to monsters.

[Piggy Knowles]

Except there are specific instances of spellcasting being called out as (Ex), such as the lilitu. Whether this makes it the exception or the rule, however, is anyone's guess.

[Karnith]

Except there are specific instances of spellcasting being called out as (Ex), such as the lilitu. Whether this makes it the exception or the rule, however, is anyone's guess.
One (possibly important) thing that bears mentioning is that a lilitu's Mock Divnity ability isn't actually called "spellcasting," even though it grants the ability to cast spells. To my knowledge none of the MMV monster's typed spellcasting abilities are actually called "spellcasting," either. They're "Arcane Knack" or somesuch.

[Kraken]

Is this really complicated to understand? It's not a natural ability because it's something people learn to do and learn to get better at over time. If it were a natural ability, then it would be something inherent in the form of the creature. Their spells are learned and in their minds. Can you shapechange into a level 20 human cleric? For that matter, can you shapechange into a person and remember their childhood? No.

The ability to learn and cast spells is inherent creatures. It makes plenty of sense for it to be natural, even if the effects themselves are not. Regardless of whether this makes sense in anyone's mind, it's very clear in the rules.


Except there are specific instances of spellcasting being called out as (Ex), such as the lilitu. Whether this makes it the exception or the rule, however, is anyone's guess.

Just about every common monster ability shows up in multiple different ways. One creature having (EX) spellcasting has no bearing on any other creature, just like one creature having (SU) poison has no bearing on any other creature's poison.

[Duke of Urrel]

The notion that the Shapechange spell confers, or ought to confer, spellcasting ability, for the simple reason that this is a natural ability, is not very well-founded. I have three objections to it.

(1) The text used to justify the notion that spellcasting ability can only be a natural ability is the following passage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities):


Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

There's one word missing from this passage that I would find more persuasive: the word "all." If natural abilities included all those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, then maybe you could argue that everything that is not labeled "Ex," "Sp," or "Su" must be a natural ability. But the word "all" is absent from this sentence. Moreover, the sentence is immediately preceded by the following:


This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature.

(The Player's Handbook, on page 180, adds the clarifying phrase "such as a bird's ability to fly.")

I interpret this as a limiting clause. Is the ability to cast spells really part of one's own "physical nature"? I'm with Dalebert; I don't think so. I think it would be more accurate to say that the ability to cast spells is part of one's mental nature.

The claim that spellcasting ability is "natural" gets even weaker when you look at the glossary on page 310 of the Player's Handbook, which defines a natural ability as a "nonmagical capability, such as walking, swimming (for aquatic creatures), and flight (for winged creatures)." How can spellcasting ability be "nonmagical"?

(2) Secondly, the phrase "natural ability" does not appear in the appendix under the heading "Polymorph Subschool" on page 320 of the Player's Handbook (in its 2012 printing). (I'll say a little more about this text further below.) More importantly, the phrase "natural ability" does not appear in the description of the Alter Self spell, the Polymorph spell, or the Shapechange spell. None of these spells explicitly confers all the natural abilities of the target form. The closest thing I can find to this claim is this sentence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm) in the Alter Self spell's description:


You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind.

But this is a far cry from "all natural abilities," and besides, the text itself explains in detail what the category of "physical qualities" includes, which would not be necessary if it were all-inclusive.

(3) Thirdly and lastly, one might try again to claim that the Shapechange spell implicitly confers spellcasting ability as a statistic, referring to the following passage from page 320 of the Player's Handbook (2012 printing), concerning the "Polymorph Subschool":


Unless otherwise noted in the spell's description, the subject of a polymorph spell takes on all the statistics and special abilities of an average member of the assumed form in place of its own except as follows.

But the only place where "spells" can appear in a creature's statistics block is either next to "Special Attacks" or next to "Special Qualities." In either case, if spells are "special," then they can't also be "natural." Unfortunately, it is nowhere specified in what way spellcasting ability is "special." Is it extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural?

We don't know, and we have no way of knowing. I personally think it would make the most sense to consider spellcasting ability to be spell-like. This would of course make spellcasting ability impossible to acquire by means of any spell of the Polymorph subschool that I know.

If spellcasting ability isn't a "natural ability," then what is it? I consider it to be in any case a special ability and in most cases also a class feature. But generally, I think it wrong to expect that you can acquire spellcasting ability by means of the Shapechange spell.

[Emperor Tippy]

What the heck?!? Im pretty sure i read about people like Tippy (and please, god, forgive me if I'm wrong) writing something like shapechanging into a Solar might grant you spell line abilities, if not spellcasting. Sure i can't remember the thread in wich i read ssuch a thing and i can't quote anything, I'm sorry.

So, am i totally wrong? Did i misread something?

No, I have never claimed that vanilla Shapechange gives casting abilities that aren't specifically called out in the creatures entry as (Ex) or (Su).

Some people make the argument but I find it, at best, to be barely on the side of "It's RAW if you make these assumptions that the rules are silent on, squint, and do a jig on a full moon."

---
That being said, you can find a significant percentage of the games total spells (and especially ones that you actually want) on a creature that is a valid Shapechange target as an (Su) ability. And those that you can't find directly can be achieved through Zodar Wish to replicate the effect for virtually all of the rest.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Shapechange definitely doesn't grant SLAs. Spellcasting is more complicated, because of the line

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

Some creatures have their spellcasting defined as an (Ex) ability, but they're in the minority. For most it's left undefined.

The question now is, what kind of ability is it? If it's (Ex) or (Su), Shapechange grants it. If spellcasting is itself a SLA (similar to how manifesting psionic powers is considered a psi-like ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#specialAbilities)), it is not granted by Shapechange (but by the Planar Shepherd PrC).
On the other hand the feat Dragon Wild Shape (Drac) mentions SLA and spellcasting as seperate abilities, so it could be neither (Ex), (Su) or SLA. But that conflicts with the general statement above that a special ability is "either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature".

As you can see there's a lot of room for interpretation and no definite ruling. So it's been argued. A lot.

For what it's worth, most DMs i know of don't let Shapechange or other form changers grant spellcasting, simply because these things are already powerful enough.
There's no need to let a single spell make even more classes useless. There's certainly no need to give Planar Shepherds easy access to 9th level spellcasting off 3 lists in addition to all the stuff they already get.

[Fax Celestis]

Shapechange definitely doesn't grant SLAs. Spellcasting is more complicated, because of the line


Some creatures have their spellcasting defined as an (Ex) ability, but they're in the minority. For most it's left undefined.

The question now is, what kind of ability is it? If it's (Ex) or (Su), Shapechange grants it. If spellcasting is itself a SLA (similar to how manifesting psionic powers is considered a psi-like ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#specialAbilities)), it is not granted by Shapechange (but by the Planar Shepherd PrC).
On the other hand the feat Dragon Wild Shape (Drac) mentions SLA and spellcasting as seperate abilities, so it could be neither (Ex), (Su) or SLA. But that conflicts with the general statement above that a special ability is "either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature".

As you can see there's a lot of room for interpretation and no definite ruling. So it's been argued. A lot.

For what it's worth, most DMs i know of don't let Shapechange or other form changers grant spellcasting, simply because these things are already powerful enough.
There's no need to let a single spell make even more classes useless. There's certainly no need to give Planar Shepherds easy access to 9th level spellcasting off 3 lists in addition to all the stuff they already get.

It is none of those things. See also:


Spells

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.

Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.

Compare to:


Evasion (Ex)

At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.

You will note the lack of qualifier on spellcasting.

[sleepyphoenixx]

We're not talking about wizards, we're talking about using shapechange to take the form of a creature that has innate spellcasting ability from its racial HD.

[Fax Celestis]

And you will note in most instances, it is still untyped.


Spells

A dragon knows and casts arcane spells as a sorcerer of the level indicated in its variety description, gaining bonus spells for a high Charisma score. Some dragons can also cast spells from the cleric list or cleric domain lists as arcane spells.

[sleepyphoenixx]

And you will note in most instances, it is still untyped.

Yes. Which is the source of the argument, since spellcasting is listed as a special ability. And "A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature".

[Karnith]

Yes. Which is the source of the argument, since spellcasting is listed as a special ability. And "A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature".
Which is, of course, contradicted by PHB and RC, as pointed out upthread, and which gets us into primary source rules and into the reason why not a lot of people like debates about this topic and its ilk.

[Kraken]

For those wondering why there's even a question about the RC not trumping things based on this text in its introduction: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence." The problem is the reissues of the core books, that would not be subject to that RC statement. Huzzah for confusion!

[bekeleven]

Previous Discussions

Ability Type of Spellcasting: The most comprehensive debate on this topic can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291625). In it:

Proponents (chiefly led by JaronK) state that spellcasting is an extraordinary ability and thus, RAW, granted by Shapechange (although he houserules this away). His chief argument is that monster abilities must be Ex, Su, or Sp (or Natural), and A) spellcasting is presented in a way as to preclude Natural, B) Of the remaining choices, Ex is the rules-appropriate default answer, and although unrelated to the argument, notes that C) making them natural causes even more problems and D) there are multiple examples of extraordinary spellcasting in first-party works.
Others (notably Psyren and Nettlekid, among many others) hold that spellcasting is either a fifth, unmentioned ability type, or a natural ability that is not granted by any of the spells that grant natural abilties. As I think JaronK refuted everything they said multiple times, I wouldn't do a good job of summarizing their points. That said, their arguments are supported by game balance, and RAI (including sample stats in the books).


Casting Spells in an Antimagic Field is discussed in the above thread, but a more extensive debate is held in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?353503). In it:

Proponents (chiefly led by me) argue that spellcasting is allowed in an antimagic field, with restrictions, but spells such as orb of force and teleport still work. The supports include: A) Spellcasting is explicitly allowed, but suppressed, B) Some spell effects are explicitly allowed (not suppressed).
Others (notably Esgath) argue that although spellcasting and spell effects may be allowed in an AMF, there is a RAW-ambiguous intermediate step - the spell - that AMF blocks. Thus you can cast a spell, but the spell effect never happens because the spell doesn't go off.


I recommend people try at least a couple of pages of these threads if they wish to continue the debate.

[Jeff the Green]

For those wondering why there's even a question about the RC not trumping things based on this text in its introduction: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence." The problem is the reissues of the core books, that would not be subject to that RC statement. Huzzah for confusion!

I've been wondering about this. Even though core has been reissued, isn't it still pre-existing? I mean, they're the same title with the same content just accommodating errata.

[Emperor Tippy]

I've been wondering about this. Even though core has been reissued, isn't it still pre-existing? I mean, they're the same title with the same content just accommodating errata.

The bigger issue is that the D&D 3.5 primary source rules specifically state that nothing but official errata can override stuff in the core books. Anything RC says that contradicts any of the core books (as opposed to just clarifying or filling in an area that core was silent on) isn't technically RAW relevant.

[Jeff the Green]

The bigger issue is that the D&D 3.5 primary source rules specifically state that nothing but official errata can override stuff in the core books. Anything RC says that contradicts any of the core books (as opposed to just clarifying or filling in an area that core was silent on) isn't technically RAW relevant.

I'm aware, but obviously some disagree. People bring up the reissue fairly frequently, and I was wondering what the reasoning is.

[Duke of Urrel]

Thank you, Belekleven, for your information about that earlier thread and for your concise summary. Alas, I still have one more comment.

In my previous, not-very-brief posting, one of the many things I suggested was that spellcasting ability should be considered a spell-like ability. I would like now to retract this ill-considered notion. In fact, I would like to go beyond that.

In order to gain clear, unambiguous answers to two burning questions, people have tried to place spellcasting ability in some category of ability: either natural, extraordinary, or in my case, spell-like. The burning questions are these:

1. Does the Shapechange spell give you the spellcasting ability of the target form?

2. Can you cast a spell inside an Antimagic Field?

But here's the problem. In all likelihood, the game designers never anticipated these questions. They surely have never bothered to assign spellcasting ability explicitly to any category of ability. It's not like they haven't had numerous opportunities to do so. There have been several printings of all the rule books, and there has been a Rules Compendium, which was supposed to summarize them all. Nowhere do we find that spellcasting ability is categorized as anything other than "special," and its "specialness" is something that we can deduce only from where the word "spells" sometimes appears in statistics blocks in the Monster Manual, namely next to "Special Attacks" or "Special Qualities."

In all that I have written, I think the point that I want to stress the most is that some rules that seem to be universal and that seem to cover all cases are actually fragmentary and fail to cover all cases, many of which the game designers never thought of. One of these rules is the infamous description of "Natural Abilities."


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

I believe this statement was never intended to refer to all attributes of a creature, but merely those that are physical, that is, attributes that it has merely because of the shape of its body. This statement was never intended to refer to attributes that are more mental than physical, which are not only the products of nature but also the products of culture, i.e., education, training, or experience. Specifically, this statement was never intended to refer to class features such as skills, feats, and spells.

If the game designers had intended to apply this statement to skills, feats, or spells, they would have done so explicitly somewhere, at some time. But they never have, not in the most recent editions of the core rule books, not in the Rules Compendium, not in the "Rules of the Game," and not even in the FAQs.* I think we are most faithful to the rules when we refrain from assigning these attributes to any category of ability, but leave them all type-less.

The upshot of all this is that in order to answer those two burning questions, we must do some house-ruling on the basis of nothing more than our notion of the RAI, which in this case is all that we have. The RAW simply aren't complete or explicit enough do this work for us. Actually, this seems to be what many critics have independently concluded for themselves already.
______________________________
*I have noticed that the answers given in the FAQs (most recently updated in 2008) are often revisions of the ones given in the "Rules of the Game" (which appeared earlier). For example, according to the "Rules of the Game," any equipment that a polymorphed creature can still use adjusts its size as the creature grows or shrinks. But according to the FAQs, only magic devices (rings, rods, staffs, wands, and wondrous items) and magic articles of clothing can do this; mundane and magical arms and armor cannot. Similarly, whereas in the "Rules of the Game," polymorphed creatures always retain their own racial skill bonuses (for reasons unclear to me), the FAQs consider these to be extraordinary qualities, which a polymorphed creature must lose. It seems that the rule designers, like us, can't avoid making up new rules in response to unanticipated questions, nor can they avoid changing their minds.

[Psyren]

Except there are specific instances of spellcasting being called out as (Ex), such as the lilitu. Whether this makes it the exception or the rule, however, is anyone's guess.

I wish this meme would die a thousand deaths. Lilitu do not have Ex spellcasting - they have a specifically tagged Ex ability called "Mock Divinity" which has the effect of granting them a specific form of spellcasting. You cannot rationally extrapolate this one ability to every spellcaster in the game.


Others (notably Psyren and Nettlekid, among many others) hold that spellcasting is either a fifth, unmentioned ability type, or a natural ability that is not granted by any of the spells that grant natural abilties.

Neither of these is my position, and considering that you thought I was "refuted," you're probably not the person I'd choose to be summarizing me anyway.

[bekeleven]

Others (notably Psyren and Nettlekid, among many others) hold that spellcasting is either a fifth, unmentioned ability type, or a natural ability that is not granted by any of the spells that grant natural abilties.

Neither of these is my position.



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 [...] it is more specific, because the MM (Premium or otherwise) is silent on the subject of untyped abilities, while RC mentions them specifically.

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.

"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.


You're the one who reopened the door to RC by invoking it against AMF's text. RC 118 clearly lists "Natural Abilities" under the heading "Special Abilities."
[...]
And with Na reintroduced as a special ability, the "not designated otherwise" clause kicks in again too.
[...]
The FAQ only states Ex abilities lack a supernatural element - it says nothing about natural ones.
So you at least think that spellcasting is Na.

Alter Self says nothing about granting all natural abilities. Where are you reading that?
So you hold that spells are not granted by spells that arguably grant natural abilities.

[Psyren]

So you at least think that spellcasting is Na.

That part is accurate. This part:

"...hold that spellcasting is either a fifth, unmentioned ability type..."

And this part:

"a natural ability that is not granted by any of the spells that grant natural abilties."

Are not accurate.

The really funny part is that you actually DID quote the line where I explained my position - the last one. None of the polymorph spells say anything about granting natural abilities. JaronK's entire argument in that age-old thread was a giant "the rules don't say I can't," mixed in with some attempts at saying RC isn't RAW to boot.

See? It's really quite simple.

[Vogonjeltz]

I just think it's odd that everyone jumps to "natural" when an ability is untyped, despite that never being a defined ability type. It's not a natural ability, it's an untyped ability, and shapechange doesn't grant untyped abilities, just those typed EX and SU.

This.


Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying. Natural abilities are defined as those abilities that are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like in nature. Which is why it is argued that spellcasting, as an ability whose type is not specified, is a natural ability.

They're actually defined as the abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Birds can fly because they physically have wings, and so forth. Nothing that casts spells does so because they have a physical attribute that casts spells.

[bekeleven]

Psyren, I didn't say that you thought spells were a 5th ability type. I said that others thought natural or a 5th ability type. The really funny part is that you actually DID quote the line where I said "Or."

To reiterate what JaronK said in the previous thread:

All abilities listed in a stat block as "Special Attacks" or "Special Qualities" (such as spellcasting for half the outsiders in the MM, as well as half of all sample characters in all books ever) are Ex, Su, or Sp - in other words, they can't be Na. Cite: MM1 p6, p315.
RC, frequently cited in that discussion, doesn't actually contradict that at any point (RC 118). It even says that some specials undefined in the MM1 are explicitly extraordinary, like constrict, disease, improved grab, pounce, powerful charge, poison, swallow whole, trample, etc. (RC 100-101), which certainly seem closer to coming from a creature's "physical nature" than its spells.
There are a number of reasons why spellcasting isn't Su or Sp, but that's not the current discussion.


Then there's various supporting arguments, which aren't part of the main thesis:

According to Rules of the Game: Polymorph, polymorph grants all natural abilities. This is a clarification on the RAW, which states "you aquire the physical qualities" of your new form. Obviously not a core support, because, well, RotG. But it's an indication that natural abiltiies are extremely basic things.
Spells can be cast in an AMF, although they are suppressed. This is because spellcasting isn't blocked/messed with by antimagic, but spells themselves are. Although I'm sure some are sick of seeing it, this idea is reinforced both in RC: Antimagic (RC 11) and in various creature abilities such as the Ushemoi Armakoi from MM5, which demonstrates a number of things, such as that it's possible for spells to be Ex, that the designers thought it was the best special attack-level designation form them (as oposed to Su or Sp, or even Na if you want to argue it).


Here are a few objections:

If RC is a primary source over books published later claiming primary source, it lists natural abilities under the "Special Abilities" header. However, consider how the SRD shows this information (http://i.imgur.com/c7NMQ8Y.png), which is synthesized from the RC (the text in the SRD never appears in the monster manual, nor does that chart, which is taken from RC 119). As you can see, Natural Abilities are listed in the special abilites section, presumably because there was no bettter section, but are exempted from the special abilities header, which says the same thing as the MM: that there are only three choices.
Various confusions that come from conflating Spells with Spellcasting, or Natural Abilities with Abilities. Yes, we all agree that AMF generally suppresses spells.
Even after the Ex/Su/Sp listing was rigorously enforced, stat blocks don't list class-based spellcasting as an ability type - such as the Arcane Guard or Priestess in MMIV 56-57. This is because spellcasting had a separate format by this time; it's not a reflection of a changed rule, because no rule at this point was changed.
That specific beats general, and no type was listed: I've been informed that not saying something has no rules bearing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17971133&postcount=29) if it's covered by a more general rule.

[Karnith]

They're actually defined as the abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Birds can fly because they physically have wings, and so forth. Nothing that casts spells does so because they have a physical attribute that casts spells.
Natural abilities include abilities that are part of a creature's physical nature. Natural abilities are also the catch-all for abilities that are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

[Psyren]

1) "Physical qualities" != "natural abilities." All owls are birds, not all birds are owls. Spellcasting is not a physical quality.
2) Rules of the Game is not RAW and even has several blatant errors, such as Skip's belief that AMF blocks line of effect (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a) - so even if it was saying what you think it's saying it's not a reliable source.
3) For the umpteenth time, I agree that untyped abilities are natural. Repeatedly fishing for my own posts to erroneously quote at me is a waste of your time and mine. Instead, show me the rule that says "polymorph grants you natural abilities of your chosen form." Go on, I'll wait. All you and he have ever been able to point to is the vague "physical qualities" line, and spellcasting does not qualify.

[Karnith]

3) For the umpteenth time, I agree that untyped abilities are natural. Repeatedly fishing for my own posts to erroneously quote at me is a waste of your time and mine. Instead, show me the rule that says "polymorph grants you natural abilities of your chosen form." Go on, I'll wait. All you and he have ever been able to point to is the vague "physical qualities" line, and spellcasting does not qualify.
Isn't the argument that Polymorph (etc.) grants natural abilities based on the "in all other ways, the target's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the new form" line in the Polymorph subschool rules and its interaction with previously published spells (that naturally don't say anything about natural abilities)?
i.e. tortured rules interactions that were never intended
Don't mind me, I'm just missing a huge post in this very thread.

[Psyren]

Spellcasting is an ability, not a statistic. This is demonstrated in the Alternate Form ability where they are specifically listed on separate lines.

No, the argument he was trying to use before is that untyped abilities are Ex and therefore Spellcasting is "an extraordinary special attack." Neither of these are true.

[Optimator]

I always assumed one doesn't get the spellcasting abilities for the same reason one doesn't get the BAB of the creature.

[Urpriest]

I always assumed one doesn't get the spellcasting abilities for the same reason one doesn't get the BAB of the creature.

Most polymorph-esque abilities explicitly say you don't get the BAB, though. Also, BAB is tied to RHD, racial casting is not.

[Psyren]

The rules are explicit as opposed to implicit; they have to say what you get, not what you don't.

Spellcasting is not a physical quality, as evidenced by the fact that it goes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm) with (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/astralProjection.htm) you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) when you're not in your physical body.

Ruling this way would allow you to polymorph the fighter into a human druid 15.

[bekeleven]

The rules are explicit as opposed to implicit; they have to say what you get, not what you don't.

Spellcasting is not a physical quality, as evidenced by the fact that it goes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm) with (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/astralProjection.htm) you (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm) when you're not in your physical body.

Ruling this way would allow you to polymorph the fighter into a human druid 15.

Well, no, it wouldn't. You can't polymorph, or alternate form*, into anything with class levels.

I agree that spellcasting is no a physical quality. So when you're saying that natural abilities are described as, "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly," that it also includes other things that it never explains? And spellcasting is a natural ability because it feels right there, Monster Manual's special abilities sections be damned? But I thought the rules are explicit, as opposed to implicit.

Not that alternate form is relevant to the polymorph line, but alternate form doesn't give up any class abilities. Alternate Form says you retain spellcasting, incidentally, but says nothing about gaining spellcasting or not from your new form. Honestly speaking, the largest dysfunction related to alternate form and polymorph is that spells are generally special attacks, but I think I remember them being in the SQ line in some books. Both are given by shapechange, but polymorph (and wild shape) grants only special attacks.

*I don't think this is a strict rule, but it's RAI at least. Master of Many Forms has a small number of insidious dysfunctions associated with it, and I assume neither of us is claiming that you can turn into creatures with class levels.

[Psyren]

And spellcasting is a natural ability because it feels right there, Monster Manual's special abilities sections be damned?

No, it's natural because it is not specified otherwise, per the rules. Do you see (Ex), (Sp) or (Su) next to it anywhere? Or explanatory text like "this is a supernatural ability" anywhere?


Both are given by shapechange, but polymorph (and wild shape) grants only special attacks.

They only give extraordinary special attacks. (And supernatural abilities, in the case of the former.) Spellcasting has neither tag, therefore it is neither of these, per the rules.

[Urpriest]

They only give extraordinary special attacks. (And supernatural abilities, in the case of the former.) Spellcasting has neither tag, therefore it is neither of these, per the rules.

bekeleven's point is that, if they were extraordinary, then whether they were special attacks or special qualities would matter. And since they're not consistently treated as one or the other...

[Psyren]

bekeleven's point is that, if they were extraordinary, then whether they were special attacks or special qualities would matter. And since they're not consistently treated as one or the other...

They are consistently natural abilities. There is not a single class in the game whose spellcasting is tagged differently.

Which brings us back to the Lilitu. Its ability is not "Spellcasting (Ex)" - it is "Mock Divinity (Ex)" - an Ex ability which grants that creature natural cleric spellcasting as one of its effects.

[Kraken]

Which brings us back to the Lilitu. Its ability is not "Spellcasting (Ex)" - it is "Mock Divinity (Ex)" - an Ex ability which grants that creature natural cleric spellcasting as one of its effects.

This is true of the MM5 EX spellcasters too, though I forget off the top of my head what it's called for those particular creatures.

[Karnith]

This is true of the MM5 EX spellcasters too, though I forget off the top of my head what it's called for those particular creatures.
Hobgoblin Warcasters and War Souls have Arcane Talent, which allows them to cast as Wizards, and Kuo-Toa Exalted Whips have Divine Talent, which allows them to cast as Clerics and grants them Rebuke Undead.

[Urpriest]

They are consistently natural abilities. There is not a single class in the game whose spellcasting is tagged differently.

Which brings us back to the Lilitu. Its ability is not "Spellcasting (Ex)" - it is "Mock Divinity (Ex)" - an Ex ability which grants that creature natural cleric spellcasting as one of its effects.

Are they natural special qualities, or natural special attacks?

[Psyren]

Are they natural special qualities, or natural special attacks?

I don't see why it matters - even if such a distinction exists for natural abilities, polymorph grants neither.

[bekeleven]

Frankly, I think we're in agreement with regards to the evidence. So I can safely say that:


If you think the Rules Compendium is the primary RAW source, overriding the primary source distinction and publication date to override the later-released, errata-incorporating premium core,
and you can read "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." and think, yes, that sounds like the category most base class abilities fall into, such as the ability to pray and receive various divine powers, despite that it's too basic for things like "venom" or "stepping on people" or "swallowing,"
And you assume that books that present rules for reading the specific entries in the book don't actually mean it, so you can lose qualifications of complete warrior PCs because the DMG is the primary source for PrCs and lacks that line,
And you ignore that spot in RC 113 where it references that special attacks can only be Ex, Su or Sp,

then you can say that spellcasting is Na.

Otherwise, I think spellcasting is Ex.

[Fax Celestis]

Frankly, I think we're in agreement with regards to the evidence. So I can safely say that:


If you think the Rules Compendium is the primary RAW source, overriding the primary source distinction and publication date to override the later-released, errata-incorporating premium core,
and you can read "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." and think, yes, that sounds like the category most base class abilities fall into, such as the ability to pray and receive various divine powers, despite that it's too basic for things like "venom" or "stepping on people" or "swallowing,"
And you assume that books that present rules for reading the specific entries in the book don't actually mean it, so you can lose qualifications of complete warrior PCs because the DMG is the primary source for PrCs and lacks that line,
And you ignore that spot in RC 113 where it references that special attacks can only be Ex, Su or Sp,

then you can say that spellcasting is Na.

Otherwise, I think spellcasting is Ex.

Class features are explicitly parenthetically typed in their class descriptions. Spellcasting does not have one listed. That does not mean it defaults to EX, it means it defaults to N/A.

[bekeleven]

Class features are explicitly parenthetically typed in their class descriptions. Spellcasting does not have one listed. That does not mean it defaults to EX, it means it defaults to N/A.
Come on, you know that the PHB didn't type a bunch of things in it, and tons of them later got typed. Bonus feats, for instance, are an Ex SQ (meaning you retain them in wild shape, polymorph and shapechange).

All special attacks are Ex, Su or Sp according to the latest published primary source (and RC 113), and spells are a special attack according to the same source (example (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm)). Ergo spells are Ex, Su or Sp.

[sleepyphoenixx]

All special attacks are Ex, Su or Sp according to the latest published primary source (and RC 113), and spells are a special attack according to the same source (example (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm)). Ergo spells are Ex, Su or Sp.

If you go with that ruling the easiest way to handle it is to classify them as Sp abilities (similar to how Psionics are classified as a Ps ability). That means the only means of shapechanging that would actually grant spellcasting is the druids Elemental Wild Shape and the Planar Shepherds Outsider Wild Shape.

Elemental Wild Shape is only a problem if you go for the more liberal interpretation that it allows any elemental with the [Fire], [Water], [Air] or [Earth] subtype, instead of just the elementals with those names. Otherwise any druid can get casting as an 18th level sorcerer at level 16, in addition to all the crap they already get from Elemental Weirds without question.

Planar Shepherds are so broken that it honestly doesn't make much of a difference. So you get actual cleric or wizard/sorcerer casting in addition to getting nearly any spell you'd want as a SLA anyway. Not that big a deal, the game is already broken to pieces anyway.

Make it (Ex) or (Su) and any spellcaster becomes all spellcasters at level 17 at the latest. The only upside with this is that druids aren't the only ones getting (even more) godlike power.
Or you could actually go with a more reasonable ruling and not turn any spellcaster into all spellcasters as soon as they get access to Wild Shape/a polymorph spell and Assume Supernatural Ability/Metamorphic Transfer/Enhance Wild Shape. Because nobody needs potentially triple 9th casting without giving up anything, at least not in any game i've ever been in.

[Psyren]

Otherwise, I think spellcasting is Ex.

PHB 180 and RC 118 say the exact same thing. If it's not otherwise tagged, it defaults to natural - not Ex.

[bekeleven]

PHB 180 and RC 118 say the exact same thing. If it's not otherwise tagged, it defaults to natural - not Ex.

Even working by RC alone, only special qualities at most could be Na because all special attacks are Ex, Su or Sp.


Any sort of special ability - extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural, might allow a saving throw.


If you go with that ruling the easiest way to handle it is to classify them as Sp abilities (similar to how Psionics are classified as a Ps ability).
This is 100% not what the designers intended, and creates a number of rules issues. Issues with components and casting times and te like can be specific vs general, but then there are the absolutes: Spell-like abilities have no ASF, can't counterspell, and can't be used in Antimagic Fields.

We're not debating what the rules should be - If you ask me, spells should be a 5th category of ability separate from everything else. We're just talking about what spells are, by RAW.

[Psyren]

Even working by RC alone, only special qualities at most could be Na because all special attacks are Ex, Su or Sp.

You keep trying to narrow the scope to "attacks" for some reason when the page I referenced clearly says "abilities."


Special Abilities
...
NATURAL ABILITIES
...
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

This exact sentence is quoted verbatim in both sources. Whether you believe RC trumps or the new PHB does is irrelevant, they both say it.

[bekeleven]

The reason is that inherent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar) and class-based (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm) spellcasting are both special attacks, so the rules compendium agrees that all special attacks are extraordinary. I mean, the ability to eat food is designated extraordinary because it's a special attack. As is the ability to... be venomous? The ability to step on people?

But let's put that aside for a moment, and let me put the book conflict into terms you understand. This argument is ignoring RC 113 and also ignoring the premium MM. Let's say that the player's handbook (non-premium 2003 edition) said that all enchantment spells are mind-effecting (it did). Then let's say it didn't print the [Mind-Affecting] tag next to Charm Person and the rest. Are they required to say something? The absence of a rule is not more specific than a rule. Because there is a general rule, they are not. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17972286&postcount=31)

Now let's say that the rules compendium comes out and, for whatever reason, has rules relating to a class of spells called AntiMindAffecting and has a line stating that spells are AntiMindAffecting unless they are mind-affecting. Can I Freezing Glance a mind blanked person yet? Maybe I'm intended to be able to, but for something to be specific, they have to specify (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17967759&postcount=7). And general rules in the RC don't overrule more specific rules elsewhere, otherwise the antimagic rules on page 11 disallow invoke magic and initiate of mystra.

Now switch PHB to MM, Mind-Affecting to Ex (or even the superset of Ex, Su and Sp) and spells to special attacks.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This is 100% not what the designers intended, and creates a number of rules issues. Issues with components and casting times and te like can be specific vs general, but then there are the absolutes: Spell-like abilities have no ASF, can't counterspell, and can't be used in Antimagic Fields.


Psionics don't work exactly like Psi-likes either. The specific rules for spellcasting would override the general rules for Sp abilities in case of conflict.

And if you're talking about what the designers intended i seriously doubt they intended for Shapechange and similar effects to grant spellcasting.
You're hanging your entire argument on a single line when it's well known that D&D is hardly free of mistakes, vagueness and conflicting rules. If you want to force spellcasting into one of Ex, Su, and Sp then Sp is the least broken option, by a long shot.

Or we could go strictly by RAW.
1. RAW: Special Qualities are Ex, Su, or Sp.
2. RAW: Spells as a monster ability are not classified as Ex, Su, or Sp. Consistently so, in all of the MMs.
3. RAW: Specific trumps general.
4. The entry on spells is specific. The entry on special abilities is general.
5. Spells are neither Ex, Su or Sp.

[Psyren]

The reason is that inherent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar) and class-based (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mummy.htm) spellcasting are both special attacks, so the rules compendium agrees that all special attacks are extraordinary.

Where is the Ex tag on those abilties? I'm not seeing it anywhere.


But let's put that aside for a moment, and let me put the book conflict into terms you understand. This argument is ignoring RC 113 and also ignoring the premium MM.

Premium PHB page 180 is the same as the normal one, so no, I'm not ignoring it - it agrees with me. RC 113 is talking about saving throw DCs while RC 118 is actually talking about the topic.

There is a rule - on PHB 180 and RC 118, and quoted in bold at the top of this page - so repeatedly and wrongly linking my earlier post isn't helping you.

[bekeleven]

Where is the Ex tag on those abilties? I'm not seeing it anywhere.



Premium PHB page 180 is the same as the normal one, so no, I'm not ignoring it - it agrees with me. RC 113 is talking about saving throw DCs while RC 118 is actually talking about the topic.

There is a rule - on PHB 180 and RC 118, and quoted in bold at the top of this page - so repeatedly and wrongly linking my earlier post isn't helping you.

Please explain whether my AntiMindAffecting gedanken means that enchantment spells would be mind-affecting.

Please explain how that example differs from this one.

Please explain how "All special abilities are Ex, Su or Sp" does not indicate that a special ability - in the same book, no less - is Ex, Su or Sp.



And if you're talking about what the designers intended i seriously doubt they intended for Shapechange and similar effects to grant spellcasting.
You're hanging your entire argument on a single line when it's well known that D&D is hardly free of mistakes, vagueness and conflicting rules. If you want to force spellcasting into one of Ex, Su, and Sp then Sp is the least broken option, by a long shot.Did I say that I was arguing what the most balanced option was? I said literally the opposite of this.


Or we could go strictly by RAW.
1. RAW: Special Qualities are Ex, Su, or Sp.
2. RAW: Spells as a monster ability are not classified as Ex, Su, or Sp. Consistently so, in all of the MMs.
3. RAW: Specific trumps general.
Sleepy, I'll let the experts field this one.

spellcasting is listed as a special ability. And "A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature".

General means general. Whether they intended it to be a default state or merely a guideline, the fact remains that it is a "general rule."

For something to be "specific" it has to specify. Not stating anything is not specifying - in fact, it is the opposite.

[Gullintanni]

Did I say that I was arguing what the most balanced option was? I said literally the opposite of this.


Sleepy, I'll let the experts field this one.

The PHB says "All things that are not labelled Ex, Su, or Sp are Na".

MM states that "All Special Attacks are Ex, Su or Sp".

PHB therefore implicitly labels spells (which are unlabelled) as Na, and the MM as either Ex, Su, or Sp. The problem is...the MM doesn't define which of these three categories "Spells" fit into. It makes the most sense in the "Ex" category, based on the definitions of Ex, Su, and Sp, but you must make that inference yourself.

Unlike this situation, the PHB specifies the rules for determining what type of ability "Spells" are.

The PHB specifies that "Spells" are natural. The MM states that all Special Attacks are Ex, Su, or Sp, but leaves you no mechanism for determining which in the event that you encounter an unlabelled special attack.

The most specific rule takes precedence according to the rule of Specific trumps General. Therefore, the PHB ruling, providing a more specific result, takes primacy.

In addition, applying the MM rules in a vacuum is impossible. While it is the primary source for special attacks, the rules that govern spells and spellcasting are all found within the PHB, where "Spells" are considered a class feature. The debate then moves to whether or not spells are even a Special Attack at all.

PHB - the primary source for class features, calls them class features.
MM - the primary source for Special Attacks, calls them special attacks.

I'm inclined to resolve this conflict by deferring to whichever source includes the most complete rules governing the utilization of the ability in question. In this case, the PHB. You can not use the "Spells" class feature at all without first consuming the background literature (and spell definitions for that matter) found within the PHB, ergo, once again the PHB trumps MM and spells remain Na.

[Psyren]

Please explain how "All special abilities are Ex, Su or Sp" does not indicate that a special ability - in the same book, no less - is Ex, Su or Sp.

Neither RC 113, 118 nor PHB 180 say this.

There is a specific rule on this subject - the rules are not silent. You are simply choosing to ignore it because... you want to polymorph into a spellcaster? Why not just houserule it then?



The most specific rule takes precedence according to the rule of Specific trumps General. Therefore, the PHB ruling, providing a more specific result, takes primacy.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[Urpriest]

I don't see why it matters - even if such a distinction exists for natural abilities, polymorph grants neither.

It doesn't need to. As long as the possibility exists for some spell or class ability that does, the question needs to have an answer.

[Kraken]

RC page 6: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendiumis
meant to take precedence." It is for this reason that in my mind it doesn't matter that the MM doesn't mention natural abilities, the RC forcibly injects it them there, thus causing untagged abilities to override the text on MM's page 6 via the whole specific versus general thing. The problem is that not everyone considers the RC to be valid for various reasons that have already been mentioned (I think?), though none of them I personally take seriously.

[Psyren]

It doesn't need to. As long as the possibility exists for some spell or class ability that does, the question needs to have an answer.

Then it would most likely be a quality (since spellcasting can do many things besides attack.)

Until there is a polymorph spell that grants "natural special qualities" however, the question is purely academic.


RC page 6: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendiumis
meant to take precedence." It is for this reason that in my mind it doesn't matter that the MM doesn't mention natural abilities, the RC forcibly injects it them there, thus causing untagged abilities to override the text on MM's page 6 via the whole specific versus general thing. The problem is that not everyone considers the RC to be valid for various reasons that have already been mentioned (I think?), though none of them I personally take seriously.

Yep - and even if we go with "premium core books trump RC" - that sword cuts both ways, because the PHB was reprinted too and includes the "untyped abilities are natural" rule.

[bekeleven]

The PHB specifies that "Spells" are natural. The MM states that all Special Attacks are Ex, Su, or Sp, but leaves you no mechanism for determining which in the event that you encounter an unlabelled special attack.

The most specific rule takes precedence according to the rule of Specific trumps General. Therefore, the PHB ruling, providing a more specific result, takes primacy.

Yep - and even if we go with "premium core books trump RC" - that sword cuts both ways, because the PHB was reprinted too and includes the "untyped abilities are natural" rule.
Spells can not be supernatural or spell-like. Me and psyren are working under this assumption because it was discussed in the past and rejected.

Your claim is that:

If I say that all shapes that aren't squares, triangles, or hexagons are circles, and then I say that all green shapes are squares, hexagons, or triangles, then I show you a green shape and you say that because you can't immediately determine which one of those it is, then it's a circle? Because that rule is "more specific?" And never mind that it can't be a hexagon or a triangle.

To rephrase: If all abilities that aren't Ex, Su or Sp are Na. All special attacks are Ex, Su or Sp. Because you can't determine which of these spells are (you can't, at first glance) they are therefore Na? And this is because it's a more specific? How is "here's the catch-all when there's absolutely no other way to resolve things" more specific than "Special attacks have only three choices?"



Please explain how "All special abilities are Ex, Su or Sp" does not indicate that a special ability - in the same book, no less - is Ex, Su or Sp.Neither RC 113, 118 nor PHB 180 say this.

There is a specific rule on this subject - the rules are not silent. You are simply choosing to ignore it because... you want to polymorph into a spellcaster? Why not just houserule it then?
There is a specific rule:
http://i.imgur.com/Dvdv5OW.png

And for the last time, those are not my intentions. I even said that in the post you quoted.


RC page 6: "When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendiumis
meant to take precedence." It is for this reason that in my mind it doesn't matter that the MM doesn't mention natural abilities, the RC forcibly injects it them there, thus causing untagged abilities to override the text on MM's page 6 via the whole specific versus general thing. The problem is that not everyone considers the RC to be valid for various reasons that have already been mentioned (I think?), though none of them I personally take seriously.Ignoring that the RC mentions special attacks are all Ex, Su or Sp, there is the premium monster manual, which was not preexisting when the RC was printed.


But let's put that aside for a moment, and let me put the book conflict into terms you understand. This argument is ignoring RC 113 and also ignoring the premium MM. Let's say that the player's handbook (non-premium 2003 edition) said that all enchantment spells are mind-effecting (it did). Then let's say it didn't print the [Mind-Affecting] tag next to Charm Person and the rest. Are they required to say something? The absence of a rule is not more specific than a rule. Because there is a general rule, they are not. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17972286&postcount=31)

Now let's say that the rules compendium comes out and, for whatever reason, has rules relating to a class of spells called AntiMindAffecting and has a line stating that spells are AntiMindAffecting unless they are mind-affecting. Can I Freezing Glance a mind blanked person yet? Maybe I'm intended to be able to, but for something to be specific, they have to specify (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17967759&postcount=7). And general rules in the RC don't overrule more specific rules elsewhere, otherwise the antimagic rules on page 11 disallow invoke magic and initiate of mystra.

Now switch PHB to MM, Mind-Affecting to Ex (or even the superset of Ex, Su and Sp) and spells to special attacks.
Please explain whether my AntiMindAffecting gedanken means that enchantment spells would be mind-affecting.

Please explain how that example differs from this one.

[Gullintanni]

Spells can not be supernatural or spell-like. Me and psyren are working under this assumption because it was discussed in the past and rejected.

Your claim is that:

If I say that all shapes that aren't squares, triangles, or hexagons are circles, and then I say that all green shapes are squares, hexagons, or triangles, then I show you a green shape and you say that because you can't immediately determine which one of those it is, then it's a circle? Because that rule is "more specific?" And never mind that it can't be a hexagon or a triangle.

To rephrase: If all abilities that aren't Ex, Su or Sp are Na. All special attacks are Ex, Su or Sp. Because you can't determine which of these spells are (you can't, at first glance) they are therefore Na? And this is because it's a more specific? How is "here's the catch-all when there's absolutely no other way to resolve things" more specific than "Special attacks have only three choices?"


Let us proceed through the analogy as you phrased it, my dear friend.

The players handbook says that all things that aren't squares (ex), triangles (su) or hexagons (sp) are circles (Na) and in addition, assumes that Spells are class features, which we will call Red shapes, and the Monster Manual says that all green shapes (special abilities) are squares, triangles or hexagons. These are two clauses.

The players handbook asserts that Spells are neither square nor triangle nor hex, ergo, by process of elimination, they must be circles. Since they are also class features, they are Red Circles (Class feature, Natural).
The monster manual asserts that all green shapes (Special Attacks - in this case, Spells) must either be squares, triangles or circles. The monster manual also asserts that Spells are green shapes, which in fact would require that they are either squares, triangles or hexes, in keeping with the analogy.

The problem is that we have two clauses which assert mutually exclusive claims. If the PHB is correct, Spells can not be a Square, Triangle or Hex. If the Monster Manual is correct, Spells can not be a Circle. Resolving from here using the general rules of logic returns an error - the equation simply can not be solved. However; 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons present a number of conventions that allow us to resolve conflicts where they arise. These conventions do not function as logic would typically dictate. They are game rules, designed to supersede logic. When parsed, the outcome of processing conflict via those conventions and game rules is the only acceptable outcome, regardless of any apparent absurdity or perversion of logic in the result.

One of those conventions it that the game of 3.5 D&D assigns higher value to outcomes with greater specificity. In this case, following the rules per the PHB, Spells are Red Circles. Following the rules of the Monster Manual demands that the Spells be either Green Squares, Triangles or Hexagons. One of these two outcomes is more specific. The Monster Manual doesn't call out Spells as specifically Squares, Triangles or Hexagons. Ergo, the least ambiguous primary source describing "Spells" is the Players Handbook, therefore "Spells" are Red Circles.

While I agree with you that "Spells" fit more neatly into the category of Ex, rather than into the the category of Su, or Sp, I also understand that this is an inference on my part, rather than an explicit statement made within the game rules. The game rules found within the players hand book are exactingly precise. All things not labelled Ex, Su, or Sp are Na. Period. No logical inferences, no debates, no qualifiers, no questions. Specific trumps general -- given the PHB's higher degree of specificity concerning "Spells" and Natural Abilities, all writings within the MM are subordinate to it.


To address your final question:

There is no "If all abilities that aren't Ex, Su or Sp are Na..."
There is only, "Abilities that aren't Ex, Su, or Sp ARE Na".

The issue is not what we can or can't determine, but rather, with the fact that the PHB makes a single determination -- Those things not labelled are Natural Abilities. Spells aren't labelled in the Players Handbook. They are, by that explicit rule presented therein, Natural Abilities.

And finally, yes, the catch all is more specific. The Monster Manual says spells must be any one of These Three Things. The Players Handbook "catch all" says Spells must be Exactly This Thing. Both instances are general rules, and therefore, the prevailing rule is the one that produces the most specific result.

[Psyren]

There is a specific rule:
http://i.imgur.com/Dvdv5OW.png

Indeed there is:

http://i.imgur.com/tYJv9OU.png

No designation = natural. Specific.


Ignoring that the RC mentions special attacks are all Ex, Su or Sp, there is the premium monster manual, which was not preexisting when the RC was printed.

Premium MM says nothing, Premium PHB says something. Specific trumps general.

[bekeleven]

Let us proceed through the analogy as you phrased it, my dear friend.

The players handbook says that all things that aren't squares (ex), triangles (su) or hexagons (sp) are circles (Na) and in addition, assumes that Spells are class features, which we will call Red shapes, and the Monster Manual says that all green shapes (special abilities) are squares, triangles or hexagons. These are two clauses.

The players handbook asserts that Spells are neither square nor triangle nor hex, ergo, by process of elimination, they must be circles. Since they are also class features, they are Red Circles (Class feature, Natural).Incorrect. It does not assert that anywhere. There is no "Red" shape designation at all.

The monster manual asserts that all green shapes (Special Attacks - in this case, Spells) must either be squares, triangles or circles. The monster manual also asserts that Spells are green shapes, which in fact would require that they are either squares, triangles or hexes, in keeping with the analogy.

The problem is that we have two clauses which assert mutually exclusive claims.There is no exclusive claim. The PHB never says that spells are NOT special attacks. The core 3 books are meant to be a complete document in combination, which is why summon monster doesn't include monster statistics. You can't, from this, get that my summoned fiendish badger dies immediately because it has no stated hit points. No, you go to where it's explained further, even if PHB CH11 is the primary source for summon monster.

If the PHB is correct, Spells can not be a Square, Triangle or Hex.Wrong. The PHB never states that spells are not Ex, Su, or Sp. It fails to state that they are these things, which is why it's good we have other books. Nowhere does it state that they are not these things.
If the Monster Manual is correct, Spells can not be a Circle. Resolving from here using the general rules of logic returns an error - the equation simply can not be solved. However; 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons present a number of conventions that allow us to resolve conflicts where they arise. These conventions do not function as logic would typically dictate. They are game rules, designed to supersede logic. When parsed, the outcome of processing conflict via those conventions and game rules is the only acceptable outcome, regardless of any apparent absurdity or perversion of logic in the result.

One of those conventions it that the game of 3.5 D&D assigns higher value to outcomes with greater specificity. In this case, following the rules per the PHB, Spells are Red Circles. Following the rules of the Monster Manual demands that the Spells be either Green Squares, Triangles or Hexagons. One of these two outcomes is more specific. The Monster Manual doesn't call out Spells as specifically Squares, Triangles or Hexagons. Ergo, the least ambiguous primary source describing "Spells" is the Players Handbook, therefore "Spells" are Red Circles.Are you saying that placing something in a class where it can choose from a few options is less specific than saying nothing at all?

Seriously? "Abilities that are never stated to be something else are natural" and "this ability is ex, su or sp" and you think the first one is more specific? I just don't understand. Your argument is that things in a subgroup are not part of the subgroup if it's not clearly stated next to their designation where in the subgroup they are.

While I agree with you that "Spells" fit more neatly into the category of Ex, rather than into the the category of Su, or Sp, I also understand that this is an inference on my part, rather than an explicit statement made within the game rules. The game rules found within the players hand book are exactingly precise. All things not labelled Ex, Su, or Sp are Na. Period. No logical inferences, no debates, no qualifiers, no questions. Specific trumps general -- given the PHB's higher degree of specificity concerning "Spells" and Natural Abilities, all writings within the MM are subordinate to it.
As a final note, your argument doesn't address something like the solar's casting, which isn't a class ability.


To address your final question:

There is no "If all abilities that aren't Ex, Su or Sp are Na..."
There is only, "Abilities that aren't Ex, Su, or Sp ARE Na".Those... aren't the same? Am I this tired?

Check ability type
If ability type is Ex, Su, or Sp, not Na
otherwise Na
That's what both say, right?

Check Spells
Spells are Ex, Su, or Sp
Spells are not Na

It literally says that special attacks - a superset of spellcasting - are "either extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." Compare the phrasing: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." THAT'S EVEN CLOSER TO THE EXACT WORDING THAN HAD IT BEEN SPECIFIC. Is your objection because they reordered Su and Sp? If it said "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as Ex, Su or Sp" and that all special attacks are "Either Ex, Su or Sp" - in other words, literally the exact same phrase - would that be enough?

Seriously, let me replace "Ex, Su or Sp" with "widgets". "Natural Abilities are those not otherwise designated widgets." "A special ability is a widget." Conflict where?

The issue is not what we can or can't determine, but rather, with the fact that the PHB makes a single determination -- Those things not labelled are Natural Abilities.I agree!
Spells aren't labelled in the Players Handbook.I agree!
They are, by that explicit rule presented therein, Natural Abilities.NO.

Fighter's bonus feats are also not labeled. They are Ex. In fact, all feats are Ex (except exalted, vile, maybe one or two others). This isn't anywhere in the PHB either. Hey, the PHB even says that Clairaudience/Clairvoyance is the only scrying spell that doesn't let detect spells through, which is an extremely specific phrase to appear in the primary source for spells.

Fun fact: "The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities." There's your primary source rule. If you want to know if something is Ex, Su or Sp, I'll tell you where to check.

And finally, yes, the catch all is more specific. The Monster Manual says spells must be any one of These Three Things. The Players Handbook "catch all" says Spells must be Exactly This Thing.Ok, show me the one location where it says spells are natural. Not a place where it says "Things that aren't anything else are natural." A place where it says spells are natural, which you're telling me it explicitly says. Here, I'll help:

Spells aren't labelled in the Players Handbook.

Both instances are general rules, and therefore, the prevailing rule is the one that produces the most specific result.This is a non-sequitor and I don't know how you came up with it.

Psyren, I'm done arguing with you, as you aren't arguing constructively. You ignore 90% of my posts because... well, it would be rude to speculate. But suffice to say that since you're not actually discussing anything with me, I feel no need to speak back.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Is it possible that Natural Abilities may be simultaneously Natural and Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-Like? This seems to be a possible solution for the "All As are x, y, or z; all As not designated x, y, or z are θs," issue.

[Psyren]

Psyren, I'm done arguing with you, as you aren't arguing constructively. You ignore 90% of my posts because... well, it would be rude to speculate. But suffice to say that since you're not actually discussing anything with me, I feel no need to speak back.

There's nothing left to argue until you find "Spellcasting (Ex)" or even "Spells (Ex)" somewhere.

At least you're done posting links at me in lieu of making a point, so there's that.


Is it possible that Natural Abilities may be simultaneously Natural and Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-Like? This seems to be a possible solution for the "All As are x, y, or z; all As not designated x, y, or z are θs," issue.

Possibly, but they would still have to be designated as x, y or z to be x, y or z. The "not otherwise designated" is crystal clear. Otherwise, they're "θ" by RAW and out of reach of any shapeshifting spell currently printed.

[.Zero]

Which is, of course, contradicted by PHB and RC, as pointed out upthread, and which gets us into primary source rules and into the reason why not a lot of people like debates about this topic and its ilk.

Well, if this thread has gone three pages-long i think there's a reasonable number of people that like to talk about these things. And if YOU don't like this, you could just skip this thread and not posting, thus avoiding to contribute to its lenghness.

Tippy, I'm sorry, i was really sure i read about you saying that Shapechange grants spellcasting or spell-like's, it was surely a misreading of mine.

Now, this thread is going into a direction i don't like, i mean rules stretching. I started this just because i was really sure Shapechange would grant spellcasting and spell-like's, but i was even aware of such a thing being a controversial argument, and wanted to see why.
Now I'm satisfied. That primary sources vs RC stuff is so annoying to me, and i can clearly see the RAI intent here. I was simply confused by that line in the spell's text and by the fact that spellcastiing and spell like's are in the voice Special Attacks.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Possibly, but they would still have to be designated as x, y or z to be x, y or z. The "not otherwise designated" is crystal clear. Otherwise, they're "θ" by RAW and out of reach of any shapeshifting spell currently printed.

Equally clear is the "All Special Abilities are Ex:, Su:, or Sp: in nature." This is the source of the issue, is it not?

[Psyren]

Equally clear is the "All Special Abilities are Ex:, Su:, or Sp: in nature." This is the source of the issue, is it not?

There is no rule that says how to treat untyped abilities in the MM.
There is one in the PHB.
Specific trumps general.

[Gullintanni]

-snip-

Per SRD:

Class Features
All of the following are class features of the cleric.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, with all types of armor (light, medium, and heavy), and with shields (except tower shields).

A cleric who chooses the War domain receives the Weapon Focus feat related to his deity’s weapon as a bonus feat. He also receives the appropriate Martial Weapon Proficiency feat as a bonus feat, if the weapon falls into that category.

Aura (Ex)
A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity’s alignment (see the detect evil spell for details). Clerics who don’t worship a specific deity but choose the Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law domain have a similarly powerful aura of the corresponding alignment.

Spells
A cleric casts divine spells, which are drawn from the cleric spell list. However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).

etc...

Per the fact that Spells are listed under the class features heading, Spells are a Class Feature according to PHB. They are a Special Attack according to the Monster Manual.

Spells are unlabelled in the PHB, and given that ALL unlabelled class features are Natural Abilities, Spells are Natural Abilities.
The Monster Manual lists Special Attacks as either Sp, Su, or Ex. This does not override the PHB. The PHB says that Spells are specifically Natural Abilities. The Monster Manual says that Spells are Special Attacks, which are either Sp, Su or Ex. Both cases can not be true. The Players Handbook is the primary source for Class Features, while the Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities.

Both books assert contradictory designations for "Spells", and due to primary source rules, neither is capable of subordinating the other. Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force. The tie breaker is that following the Monster Manuals definition of Special Abilities shunts Spells into one of three categories, whereas following the PHB definition of Unlabelled things shunts Spells into one of one categories. Given that the assertions "All unlabelled things are Natural", and "All Special Attacks are Ex, Su, or Sp" apply generally across unlabelled things and special attacks, they are both general rules. Therefore, the most specific result must be used to determine which rule is more specific. Again I say, one of one possible outcome is more specific than one of three possible outcomes.

Your widget analysis misrepresents the facts. I'll rephrase so things follow logically.

"Natural Abilities are those not otherwise designated widgets A, B, or C." "A special ability is a widget. Refer to the description of the ability to determine whether or not it is an A, B, or C."

The description of Spells does not label them as an A, B, or C. Therefore, the most specific the Monster Manual can be is to say that spells are a Widget, but since they aren't labelled, there is ambiguity as to which category, A, B, or C, that they belong. The PHB asserts that because Spells are unlabelled, they are not Widgets A, B, or C at all, but are instead, Natural Abilities. The fact that there is a specific superset called Special Attacks to which Spells belong does not absolve the MM of the fact that it fails to call out Spells as having a subset other than Na.

One specific result to rule them all.

If you're not willing to cede the logic, then we will continue to disagree endlessly, and I'll move that we agree to disagree.

Edit: And I suppose for posterity, the reason nobody likes this debate is because regardless of which position you take, the road to you take to your conclusion is so dirty. Its a bitter, brutal and ugly slog through the trenches of bad RAW and poorly thought out game conventions that every time leaves me thinking, "3.5 is clearly still in Beta, I wonder when we're getting a final release". Then it hits me that NEXT is here, and I have no choice but to weep for the state of my most beloved edition of the game. Thanks a lot Butchers of the Coast. :smallmad: :smalltongue:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

There is no rule that says how to treat untyped abilities in the MM.
There is one in the PHB.
Specific trumps general.

And the primary source on Monster Special Abilities either contradicts or supplements the description given in the Player's Handbook. Primary sources trump secondary sources. And specific trumps general. But does a specific secondary source trump a general primary source? Or, again, is it possible that Natural Abilities may simultaneously also be Extraordinary, Spell Like, or Supernatural, satisfying both the PHB's rule and the rule in the Monster Manual?

I don't think this one is ever likely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The rules are contradictory, unclear, or both.

As an aside, what do we make of the presence of a Dragon's spellcasting under the Spell Like Abilities heading, on page 180 of the PHB?

Edit:

And if I may return to an earlier thread in the conversation:


Possibly, but they would still have to be designated as x, y or z to be x, y or z.

I don't think this is the case. The rule is that Special Abilities (As, in my description), must be x, y, or z. Their being designated Special Abilities is enough to necessitate that, by the rule in the MM. That the MM fails to tell us how to determine which of those three applies for any given ability with unlisted type, does not negate the rule that they must be one of the three.

[Psyren]

Edit: And I suppose for posterity, the reason nobody likes this debate is because regardless of which position you take, the road to you take to your conclusion is so dirty. Its a bitter, brutal and ugly slog through the trenches of bad RAW and poorly thought out game conventions that every time leaves me thinking, "3.5 is clearly still in Beta, I wonder when we're getting a final release". Then it hits me that NEXT is here, and I have no choice but to weep for the state of my most beloved edition of the game. Thanks a lot Butchers of the Coast. :smallmad: :smalltongue:

I commend you for going down that road even as I anticipate how pointless others will try to make the trek seem shortly.


But does a specific secondary source trump a general primary source?

First off, as the post above you shows, the status of the PHB as "secondary source" in this debate is not settled. While the MM is Primary for monster statblocks. the PHB is Primary for class features, and also Primary for spellcasting.

Second, yes, specific trumps general is in fact a higher order of magnitude than the primary source rule. If it were not, then there would be only 11 base classes in 3.5.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I commend you for going down that road even as I anticipate how pointless others will try to make the trek seem shortly.



First off, as the post above you shows, the status of the PHB as "secondary source" in this debate is not settled. While the MM is Primary for monster statblocks. the PHB is Primary for class features, and also Primary for spellcasting.

PHB is Primary for class features, but not Monster Special Abilities. Since it is Monster Special Abilities we're discussing, the PHB must be a secondary source, with respect to them. Spells can be either a class feature or a Special Ability. Could it be that, depending on their source, they may be in one case Natural and in another Ex:, Sp:, or Su:? Would that resolve the issue, satisfying both the rules in the PHB and in the MM?


Second, yes, specific trumps general is in fact a higher order of magnitude than the primary source rule. If it were not, then there would be only 11 base classes in 3.5.

Could I get a source on that? Not because I don't believe you, but because that's an important piece of information to be able to refer to which I do not recall the location of.

[Psyren]

PHB is Primary for class features, but not Monster Special Abilities. Since it is Monster Special Abilities we're discussing, the PHB must be a secondary source, with respect to them. Spells can be either a class feature or a Special Ability. Could it be that, depending on their source, they may be in one case Natural and in another Ex:, Sp:, or Su:? Would that resolve the issue, satisfying both the rules in the PHB and in the MM?

No it wouldn't, because that section of the MM tags everything that is Ex as Ex. If it is not, we have to default to the source that tags untagged abilities.



Could I get a source on that? Not because I don't believe you, but because that's an important piece of information to be able to refer to which I do not recall the location of.

PHB 21 says there are 11 classes. If specific did not trump general, that is all there would ever be.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

No it wouldn't, because that section of the MM tags everything that is Ex as Ex. If it is not, we have to default to the source that tags untagged abilities.

That section of the MM, if I understand which one you mean, tags everything that is a Special Ability as Ex:, Sp:, or Su:. Full stop. They must be one of those three. But due to a failure in cross editing the core books, we end up with contradictory rules. I happen to agree with you, spellcasting is a Natural Ability according to the PHB and RC, but I'm not entirely certain how to integrate that with the MM. Hence my proposal that the possibility exists that Na: abilities are simultaneously Na: and Ex:, Su:, or Sp:. Of course, I'm not sure I buy it, but it seems a possibility. Rather than reading the rules as contradictory, reading them as supplementing one another, as it were. Still leaves us with the problem of determining which of the three other types unlisted Na: abilities are, of course.


PHB 21 says there are 11 classes. If specific did not trump general, that is all there would ever be.

I meant the order of precedence for which rules apply, as it were. Such that a Specific Secondary Source would trump a General Primary Source.

[Fax Celestis]

I'd like to bring a new point to the fore:


Spells
A rakshasa casts spells as a 7th-level sorcerer.

Typical Sorcerer Spells Known (6/7/7/5; save DC 13 + spell level)
0—detect magic, light, mage hand, message, read magic, resistance, touch of fatigue; 1st—charm person, mage armor, magic missile, shield, silent image; 2nd—bear’s endurance, invisibility, acid arrow; 3rd—haste, suggestion.

Do you see that bit there where it says "as a 7th level sorcerer"? That means you treat it exactly like the sorcerer class feature, which is untyped, and uses the PHB's definition of abilities, which means it is a natural ability, which means that a rakshasa's spellcasting is also a natural ability, which means polymorph and similar effects don't grant it.

Also note how it doesn't say "as a 7th level sorcerer except as noted here". If it said that, I'd be agreeing that it had to be ex/sp/su. But guess what? It doesn't.

[bekeleven]

Per the fact that Spells are listed under the class features heading, Spells are a Class Feature according to PHB. They are a Special Attack according to the Monster Manual.Ok, I'm with you so far.


Spells are unlabelled in the PHB, and given that ALL unlabelled class features are Natural Abilities, Spells are Natural Abilities.You lost me again. As I've said in my last post: Natural abilities are those not designated as Ex, Su, or Sp. Nothing says that natural abilities are those that the PHB fails to label. The core 3 books are a unit.

The Monster Manual lists Special Attacks as either Sp, Su, or Ex. This does not override the PHB.Yep.
The PHB says that Spells are specifically Natural Abilities.Didn't we literally just go over how this was false? Here, I'll help:

Spells aren't labelled in the Players Handbook.

Spells are unlabelled in the PHB
I'm just going to expand this quote section every time you claim that there is a "specific" or "exact" statement.

The Monster Manual says that Spells are Special Attacks, which are either Sp, Su or Ex. Both cases can not be true.Yes, I agree. "Special abilities are A, B, or C" and "Things that aren't A, B, or C are D" mean that an item cannot be D and something else. In fact, it also means that a special ability can't be D at all.

The Players Handbook is the primary source for Class Features, while the Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities.
Even better:
The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.Now you can choose to read this as stating that the MM is the primary source for every item that's not natural, including, for instance, every (or nearly every) class feature. I'll take the more conservative reading, which is that it's the primary source for determining where items are categorized with respect to the Ex, Su, and Sp label.

Unless you think that the monster manual is the primary source for trap sense and slow fall, you'll take my interpretation as well. I don't know what, if any, dysfunctions would arise if you assumed it was the primary source for those, but either way I doubt it was intended.

Both books assert contradictory designations for "Spells", and due to primary source rules, neither is capable of subordinating the other. Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force.As a summation to your previous statement, I don't have to rebut this one directly.

The tie breaker is that following the Monster Manuals definition of Special Abilities shunts Spells into one of three categories, whereas following the PHB definition of Unlabelled things shunts Spells into one of one categories.Or, you know, that one of them is labeled.
Given that the assertions "All unlabelled things are Natural", and "All Special Attacks are Ex, Su, or Sp" apply generally across unlabelled things and special attacks, they are both general rules. Therefore, the most specific result must be used to determine which rule is more specific. Again I say, one of one possible outcome is more specific than one of three possible outcomes.I tried to rebut this by looking for the explicit "general vs specific" rule written down, to show that a rule that says "Literally anything that is mentioned nowhere else" is less specific than "All items of X are Y," but lo and behold, it never is. I checked my PHB, MM and DMG, and erratas thereto. So, go figure. General Vs. Specific is in the mind of be beholder, which isn't helping either of us right now.

I guess I'll fall back on "One third of something is better than all of nothing." Once again: Narrowing it down to 3 is better than "We don't know which of those three, so it's a fourth." Yes, I've said it a few times now.

Although given your reliance on primary sourcedom, I'm glad that you agree Solar spellcasting - not a class feature - is (Ex), and therefore RAW granted by shapechange.


Your widget analysis misrepresents the facts. I'll rephrase so things follow logically.

"Natural Abilities are those not otherwise designated widgets A, B, or C." "A special ability is a widget. Refer to the description of the ability to determine whether or not it is an A, B, or C."Sorry for the confusion: I was quoting the book.
http://i.imgur.com/Dvdv5OW.png
I looked through the MM's introduction and glossary. "Refer to" appears under natural weapons, treasure, and space/reach.

You're accusing me of misrepresenting what, exactly? "Refer to the description of the ability" only appears once on the entire internet (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Refer+to+the+description+of+the+abilit y%22) as of my writing.

The description of Spells does not label them as an A, B, or C. Therefore, the most specific the Monster Manual can be is to say that spells are a Widget, but since they aren't labelled, there is ambiguity as to which category, A, B, or C, that they belong.Some, although it helps that, you know, it doesn't belong to two of them.
The PHB asserts that because Spells are unlabelled, they are not Widgets A, B, or C at all, but are instead, Natural Abilities.Show me "Spells" and "Natural abilities" in the same paragraph, even. PHB asserts that anything that's not in any of the other categories is natural. NOT that spells are natural.
The fact that there is a specific superset called Special Attacks to which Spells belong does not absolve the MM of the fact that it fails to call out Spells as having a subset other than Na.

One specific result to rule them all.We are now having several discussions, it seems. We are arguing various primary source rules, which sources override the others, what wording is more specific (MM btw), the "primary" definition of spells, and more. At least we've established that racial casting isn't Na, since MM's primary sourcedom unambiguously wins out when something isn't a class ability (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15583541&postcount=13); funny that there's even a slight chance a wizard's casting could be more natural than a dragon's, but then, this is RAW and even the ability to eat things is designated (Ex) by the monster manual and RC.

Edit: And I suppose for posterity, the reason nobody likes this debate is because regardless of which position you take, the road to you take to your conclusion is so dirty. Its a bitter, brutal and ugly slog through the trenches of bad RAW and poorly thought out game conventions that every time leaves me thinking, "3.5 is clearly still in Beta, I wonder when we're getting a final release". Then it hits me that NEXT is here, and I have no choice but to weep for the state of my most beloved edition of the game. Thanks a lot Butchers of the Coast. :smallmad: :smalltongue:Oh boy, yeah. The problem is that AD&D wasn't ever really comprehensive; it left tons of "you know, or whatever makes sense at the time" in the rules. Moving to 3E, WotC decided to build an exhaustive simulation, they thought, then assumed they had done so when "finished."

I mean, consider that I didn't even realize the ability type of spells mattered until I read JaronK and Psyren's thread from last year. I'd never really worked with shapechange, sure, but I'd done a ton of work with wild shape as background to my MoMF rebuild. By RAW (as I see it), MoMF granting Ex SQ at level 7 means that they'd get a dragon's racial casting. It just never occurred to me back then to check that! Because who would honestly check that! Spells were magic, you could cast in AMF, and my thinking never really went further.

There are all sorts of crazy rules interactions that they never intended, both those that make the game not work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5) and others that just wreck game balance. Notice that in 4E, the designers backed off and made more things "use common sense" again.


I'd like to bring a new point to the fore:

Do you see that bit there where it says "as a 7th level sorcerer"? That means you treat it exactly like the sorcerer class feature, which is untyped, and uses the PHB's definition of abilities, which means it is a natural ability, which means that a rakshasa's spellcasting is also a natural ability, which means polymorph and similar effects don't grant it.

Also note how it doesn't say "as a 7th level sorcerer except as noted here". If it said that, I'd be agreeing that it had to be ex/sp/su. But guess what? It doesn't.
Aah, but it does. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15583078&postcount=10) I wouldn't have found that on on my own.

[Fax Celestis]

Your link goes nowhere. What are you vagueposting at?

[bekeleven]

Your link goes nowhere. What are you vagueposting at?

Your argument was that racial casting is exactly like the class feature. I was pointing out how Psyren separated those two through the note that no racial class features are... well, class features.

I am of the opinion that both are (Ex), as both are listed as special attacks, and RE: all that stuff, see my previous post. But if Psyren is correct, you can draw a line, which might make a difference in RAW interpretation, if for no reason other than that class descriptions and monster abilities have different primary sources.

[Fax Celestis]

You still didn't address my point. Psyren said whatever, I don't care. The rakshasa's feature says "as sorcerer." The sorcerer says "this isn't ex, su, or sp," which means it's natural. Since they're identical, the rakshasa's ability is also natural. What the MM says doesn't matter, because the rakshasa says to use the PHB.

In addition, the MM says to use it as primary for Ex, Su, and Sp, of which spellcasting, as demonstrated above, is none of those things, which means you should use the PHB as primary source for it as PHB discusses natural abilities.

[bekeleven]

You still didn't address my point. Psyren said whatever, I don't care. The rakshasa's feature says "as sorcerer." The sorcerer says "this isn't ex, su, or sp," which means it's natural. Since they're identical, the rakshasa's ability is also natural. What the MM says doesn't matter, because the rakshasa says to use the PHB.

In addition, the MM says to use it as primary for Ex, Su, and Sp, of which spellcasting, as demonstrated above, is none of those things, which means you should use the PHB as primary source for it as PHB discusses natural abilities.

So your argument is that the monster manual says that spellcasting isn't Na, because the monster manual isn't a primary source, because spells are Na. Do I have that right?

And I addressed your point above. Even if the PHB is the primary source, you can still resolve all text in the PHB, MM and RC with no conflicts as long as spellcasting is Ex. This is because the PHB doesn't say that spells are natural. It says that abilities not designated as anything else are natural. It's an extremely general rule, and designating an ability as a widget - see above - supersedes it immediately.

[Fax Celestis]

No, that's not right. I'm saying the MM says "look at what the PHB says", because it says "as sorcerer". And the PHB says "untyped abilities are natural."

[Psyren]

So your argument is that the monster manual says that spellcasting isn't Na, because the monster manual isn't a primary source, because spells are Na. Do I have that right?

And I addressed your point above. Even if the PHB is the primary source, you can still resolve all text in the PHB, MM and RC with no conflicts as long as spellcasting is Ex. This is because the PHB doesn't say that spells are natural. It says that abilities not designated as anything else are natural. It's an extremely general rule, and designating an ability as a widget - see above - supersedes it immediately.

If the MM were truly designating it, it would have the (Ex) tag, just like Swallow Whole, Spell Resistance and Spell Immunity do on the same page. It's right there on MM 315. They specifically did not, therefore the clause kicks in.

[JaronK]

The primary source for Special Abilities is the Monster Manual, because that's what the rules say.

The Monster Manual says Spells are a Special Ability (specifically a Special Attack, which is a subset of Special Ability) at least 10 times, including in the section in the end on Special Attacks and in countless monster entries (namely every monster with Spellcasting).

The Monster Manual says all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. This rule is in fact one of the most repeated general rules in the game (see also Fiend Folio and IIRC the DMG, for example). Natural abilities are the catch all for abilities which are NOT Special Abilities.

The only times spell casting is given a type, it's Ex.

Spellcasting does work in an Antimagic Field (which is why Invoke Magic works… the spells are suppressed, but the ability to cast spells in the first place is not, see All About Antimagic for details).

Why are we still having this argument again? Why do people still exist on ignoring the single most quoted rule in existence over and over by trying to claim that a Special Attack can be a Na ability?

JaronK

[Psyren]

Why are we still having this argument again? Why do people still exist on ignoring the single most quoted rule in existence over and over by trying to claim that a Special Attack can be a Na ability?


Because they put "natural abilities" under the "special abilities" heading in the PHB and RC. If they had not done so (twice) I would be right there with you, but they did.

STG trumps PS has been and always will be my stance.

[JaronK]

Luckily, neither of those is the primary source. The primary source is in fact the Premium Monster Manual (because the RC only trumps books printed before it, and officially the premiums are fully up to date on all errata). So… that one clearly says Natural Abilities aren't Special Abilities.

And let's face it, far more than just two books say all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. It really is the most commonly restated rule in the game. Even the designer commentary on the topic says that natural abilities are only those abilities that come from your physical form (such as run speed caused by legs, claw attacks from your claws, and so on).

Combine all that with the fact that in a few places (the latest books) spell casting is explicitly Ex, and it's just become downright silly.

JaronK

[.Zero]

OMG, i can't believe this thread is still on!

Anyways i'd really like to be ok with jaronk, but, really, this is all about rules stretching/interpretation. Premium Core books trumping RC is just "unfair". I mean, how doesn't like to shapechange and get insane spellcasting boosts?
At least premium core is just a reprint of old books with erratas in, which is the same thing of online SRD, and online SRD is yet full of erratas and it supports spellcasting being Na.

I hold the line that spellcasting are Na just because fairplay and balance reasons.

And spellcasting being Ex seems to be only a rule extrapolation. Some people bring the issue that a lilithu spellcasting is Ex, but its entry is not like "spellcasting (ex)", but it's just "mock divinity (ex)" which i think is a rather different thing.

If you jaronk can quote a single entry of spellcasting being Ex, then this whole thing will take a new different direction.

[Fax Celestis]

Luckily, neither of those is the primary source. The primary source is in fact the Premium Monster Manual (because the RC only trumps books printed before it, and officially the premiums are fully up to date on all errata). So… that one clearly says Natural Abilities aren't Special Abilities.

And let's face it, far more than just two books say all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. It really is the most commonly restated rule in the game. Even the designer commentary on the topic says that natural abilities are only those abilities that come from your physical form (such as run speed caused by legs, claw attacks from your claws, and so on).

Combine all that with the fact that in a few places (the latest books) spell casting is explicitly Ex, and it's just become downright silly.

JaronK


No, that's not right. I'm saying the MM says "look at what the PHB says", because it says "as sorcerer". And the PHB says "untyped abilities are natural."

Would you care to refute this? Because no one's done it so far.

[JaronK]

OMG, i can't believe this thread is still on!

Anyways i'd really like to be ok with jaronk, but, really, this is all about rules stretching/interpretation. Premium Core books trumping RC is just "unfair".

We discuss RAW here. If something feels unfair, house rule it in your games. Let's face it, Monks being non proficient with Unarmed Strikes is unfair, but RAW… so we all house rule that one. Same thing goes here, really. If you find it unfair, house rule it, but it being unfair does not make it not RAW. The RC says what it says. Let's face it, it's a pretty terrible book. I say that as someone who had high hopes for it. The fact that it voids itself (and the fact that the Premium books claim to be up to date and yet don't seem to have made even the basic errata changes) is a stupid aspect of that book.


I mean, how doesn't like to shapechange and get insane spellcasting boosts?

On the one hand, I find it silly and overpowered. On the other hand, Gate gets you a level 20 Cleric easily (Solar), so it's not like it's out of line with other silly spells of that level.


At least premium core is just a reprint of old books with erratas in, which is the same thing of online SRD, and online SRD is yet full of erratas and it supports spellcasting being Na.

Nope, the SRD places Natural Abilities outside of Special Abilities, and it says the same thing as so many other sources: that all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

Specifically:

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

That's right at the top of the Special Abilities section. Note how it mentions Natural Abilities, then Special Abilities below that.


I hold the line that spellcasting are Na just because fairplay and balance reasons.

But neither of those are RAW reasons, so they hold no place here. I just nerf the crap out of the entire polymorph line if I allow it at all, personally, but my house rules aren't terribly relevant.


And spellcasting being Ex seems to be only a rule extrapolation.

Tons of Ex abilities are unlabeled, so that's unsurprising. Sneak Attack is mentioned in the FAQ as Ex, but it's not in the books. Really, pretty much any unlabeled special ability is Ex. In fact, I can't think of a single exception to that (though there might be one).


Some people bring the issue that a lilithu spellcasting is Ex, but its entry is not like "spellcasting (ex)", but it's just "mock divinity (ex)" which i think is a rather different thing.

If you jaronk can quote a single entry of spellcasting being Ex, then this whole thing will take a new different direction.

How about that Hobgoblin from MMV that gets Spellcasting as a Wizard, which is marked Ex? Does that count?

@Fax

As for the bit about Sorcerers, the MM actually does type Spells, calling them a Special Attack and claiming they have to be Ex, Sp, or Su. It's just the rest of the rules that are taken from the PHB. Also, the PHB doesn't say untyped abilities are natural (in fact, "untyped abilities" don't even exist). It says that abilities which are not Ex, Su, or Sp are natural. But that means nothing here… it doesn't say those abilities must be explicitly typed. We already know that Sneak Attack is implicitly Ex, for example, and that's straight out of the PHB. We also know that everything labeled as a Special Ability is Ex, Su, or Sp. So yes, if Spells weren't Ex and weren't Special Abilities, they'd be Na. But, you know, they are.

JaronK

[Vogonjeltz]

The primary source for Special Abilities is the Monster Manual, because that's what the rules say.

The Monster Manual says Spells are a Special Ability (specifically a Special Attack, which is a subset of Special Ability) at least 10 times, including in the section in the end on Special Attacks and in countless monster entries (namely every monster with Spellcasting).

The Monster Manual says all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. This rule is in fact one of the most repeated general rules in the game (see also Fiend Folio and IIRC the DMG, for example). Natural abilities are the catch all for abilities which are NOT Special Abilities.

The only times spell casting is given a type, it's Ex.

Spellcasting does work in an Antimagic Field (which is why Invoke Magic works… the spells are suppressed, but the ability to cast spells in the first place is not, see All About Antimagic for details).

Why are we still having this argument again? Why do people still exist on ignoring the single most quoted rule in existence over and over by trying to claim that a Special Attack can be a Na ability?

JaronK

I believe there was a quote earlier from the MM description on spells. It, unlike all the other abilities therein, is untyped. It also states they cast as a member of a particular class, with some variance.

That lead me to look at the PHB, chapter 10: Magic. If anywhere is going to resolve this, it would be the chapter on magic right?

So, most of the chapter is about spellcasting, then we get to the very last section: Special Abilities.

This section as we all probably know by now talks about the differences between Spell-Like Abilities, Supernatural Abilities, Extraordinary Abilities, and Natural Abilities, in that order. But what is not being said is that it also mentions spells.


...and other magical creatures can create magical effects without being spellcasters.... These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural.

So that sentence, preceding the actual descriptions, clearly denotes that spellcasting isn't a special ability.

[Psyren]

Even the designer commentary on the topic says that natural abilities are only those abilities that come from your physical form.

Nope - it says natural abilities include those that come from your physical form. Nowhere is it limited to just that subset.

And again, primary source takes a backseat to specific trumps general. It has to if you want non-core books to mean anything.

[bekeleven]

I've said this before, but you can resolve all rules mentioned in this thread with no conflicts if you assume spells are Ex. It's only when you assume that spells are Na that you're breaking rules. Nothing contradicts spells being Ex. "Things in no other category are Na" in no way contradicts "Spells are in this category" - It's only when the former overrides the latter that you get issues.

[Psyren]

you can resolve all rules mentioned in this thread with no conflicts if you assume spells are Ex.

Rules Compendium and the PHB disagree, and specifically at that.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Rules Compendium and the PHB disagree, and specifically at that.

That depends on whether or not you read


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

to satisfy the "otherwise designated" part of the description of Natural Abilities:


Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

If that general rule qualifies as "otherwise designating" special abilities, they are not Natural Abilities, per the rules on Natural Abilities themselves.

[Psyren]

to satisfy the "otherwise designated" part of the description of Natural Abilities:



If that general rule qualifies as "otherwise designating" special abilities, they are not Natural Abilities, per the rules on Natural Abilities themselves.
l
It doesn't, because Extraordinary abilities have a designation (i.e. "(Ex).") It is used all throughout the same glossary being cited, and even on the very same page as the "Spells" entry. The two immediately preceding entries, "Spell Resistance (Ex)" and "Spell Immunity (Ex)", both have it, as does the subsequent entry "Swallow Whole (Ex)". All on the same page of the regular and premium MM.

If they had wanted to "otherwise designate" the spells ability, they would have - it's that simple.

[JaronK]

l
It doesn't, because Extraordinary abilities have a designation (i.e. "(Ex).")

Actually, that's not true. While all Sp and Su abilities are specifically marked, Ex abilities often aren't. See Sneak Attack as an example… it's not explicitly typed, but the FAQ gives it as an example. The fact is, many Ex abilities are implicitly typed, not explicitly typed.


If they had wanted to "otherwise designate" the spells ability, they would have - it's that simple.

That's not true for a wide variety of abilities, so why would it be true for Spells? Fighter Bonus feats are implicitly typed as Ex too. So are a host of other class abilities. Generally speaking, Ex abilities gained from class levels are implicitly typed, not explicitly typed.

Later on, they started adding the "Ex" tag to more class abilities, but in the beginning they were quite lazy about this.

JaronK

[Fax Celestis]

t's not explicitly typed, but the FAQ gives it as an example. The fact is, many Ex abilities are implicitly typed, not explicitly typed.

You can't have it both ways. Is the FAQ RAW or not?


Are racial traits considered extraordinary abilities for the purpose of alter self, polymorph, and similar effects? That is, do I lose my racial traits or keep them when I change my form?

Unless a racial trait is specifically referred to elsewhere as an extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability (such as blindsense or damage reduction), it isn’t any of those.

Unfortunately, the spells in question are silent in indicating whether racial traits are kept or lost. For alter self and the alternate form and change shape special abilities, it’s reasonable to conclude that they are retained (and new ones aren’t gained), since your type and subtype(s) remain the same regardless of the new form.

However, the polymorph spell (and any other spell that specifically refers to it) does change your type and subtype(s) to match the new form. Thus, your existing racial traits should be lost (and new ones gained) when using such an effect. (It’s perfectly fine, as a house rule, to have the character retain his own racial traits in place of those of the new form, if the DM and players find that easier to track.)

Other spells of the polymorph subschool replace the character’s existing racial traits (as well as virtually all other game statistics) with those of the new form, which makes the switch easier to adjudicate. See the polymorph subschool in PH2 for details.

Any racial trait specifically designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability follows the normal rules for the spell used.

[Psyren]

Actually, that's not true. While all Sp and Su abilities are specifically marked, Ex abilities often aren't. See Sneak Attack as an example… it's not explicitly typed, but the FAQ gives it as an example. The fact is, many Ex abilities are implicitly typed, not explicitly typed.

Sneak Attack is explicitly typed in multiple locations; the generic expert in UA (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) for example, and the Dark Hunter PrC in Complete Warrior. Therefore it is "otherwise designated."

The abilities "spellcasting" and "spells" are never designated as Ex anywhere. Not a single book does this.



That's not true for a wide variety of abilities, so why would it be true for Spells? Fighter Bonus feats are implicitly typed as Ex too. So are a host of other class abilities. Generally speaking, Ex abilities gained from class levels are implicitly typed, not explicitly typed.

See Fax's comment.

[Gullintanni]

The abilities "spellcasting" and "spells" are never designated as Ex anywhere. Not a single book does this.

For the record, that Hobgoblin from MMV, like the Lilitu, does not have "Spells", but rather, an ability called "Arcane Talent", which is tagged (Ex).

Neither the Hobgoblin in question nor the Lilitu are evidence of "Spells" being (Ex). They are evidence of "Arcane Talent" and "Mock Divinity" being (Ex), respectively.

I don't really care to answer the rest, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't missed.

[JaronK]

For the record, that Hobgoblin from MMV, like the Lilitu, does not have "Spells", but rather, an ability called "Arcane Talent", which is tagged (Ex).

But that ability is the ability to cast as a Wizard. Earlier in the thread it was claimed that Spellcasting referencing Sorcerer rules might make it Na, so here we see that is not true.


Neither the Hobgoblin in question nor the Lilitu are evidence of "Spells" being (Ex). They are evidence of "Arcane Talent" and "Mock Divinity" being (Ex), respectively.

So, the ability to cast as a Cleric or a Wizard, but as a racial ability, is Ex. That's… just fine.


I don't really care to answer the rest, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't missed.

Sure, more data is always good.

@Psyren:


Sneak Attack is explicitly typed in multiple locations; the generic expert in UA for example, and the Dark Hunter PrC in Complete Warrior. Therefore it is "otherwise designated."

But in the PHB it's not. Meanwhile, Spellcasting is tagged as Ex in MMV, but not in the PHB. Same deal, really. Point being, sometimes they just leave off the tag.

Hmm, that FAQ entry is bizarre since it's explicitly contradicting a lot of designer commentary. How annoying. But Sneak Attack, like Spellcasting, is explicitly typed in some places and not in others.

JaronK

[Fax Celestis]

But in the PHB it's not. Meanwhile, Spellcasting is tagged as Ex in MMV, but not in the PHB. Same deal, really. Point being, sometimes they just leave off the tag.

Nnnno, an ability that grants spellcasting is tagged as EX. Mock Divinity != Spellcasting. A feature that mimics another feature is not that feature.

[Psyren]

Fax is right again.

JaronK, if you can cite a page anywhere that says "Spells (Ex)" or "Spellcasting (Ex)" - those specific phrases, not as a granted subsidiary of a different Ex ability - I will cede the point right this second and never bring it up again.

[bekeleven]

Funny that racial spells are too extraordinary to fall under natural abilities, yet class abilities are supposed to.

Well, one class ability, anyway.

The justification for spells being Na - a category whose example is a bird's ability to fly - is that The justification being it-doesn't-say-I-can'tism from "This category includes abilities a creature has due to its physical nature." You know, the same way you can tie fireball to hallow because it's not forbidden, the spell just lists some effects that include, aid, bane, bless, etc. Or the way healing myself breaks invisibility, since invisibility only specifies that attacks include spells targeting enemies or including enemies in their area, that don't target unattended objects (explicitly allowed), summon monsters (allowed), or target only allies (also allowed). Cure line? hits creatures, not a summon, doesn't explicitly target allies.

Or maybe we're supposed to exercise common sense, and throwing a bunch of random stuff into the category "Natural" doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter - The books resolve without conflict only when spells are (Ex) - but I just don't like that argument in particular.

[Fax Celestis]

You just keep repeating yourself over and over and it is starting to wear on my nerves.

[JaronK]

Nnnno, an ability that grants spellcasting is tagged as EX. Mock Divinity != Spellcasting. A feature that mimics another feature is not that feature.

The Hobgoblin ability is literally just the ability to cast as a Wizard. That one's Ex too. I mean, hell, the actual ability is "Spellcasting" and yet Wizards only get "Spells" which is an ability that grants spell casting, so isn't that the same?

Look, I know it's really fun to try and power game this by claiming casting is Na (since according to the All About Polymorph articles Alter Self grants Na abilities, and that ability is then grandfathered in to the rest of the polymorph line), but let's be reasonable here. Every spell casting ability in the game that's tagged at all is tagged Ex. The rule about how Special Attacks are always Ex, Sp, or Su is literally the most repeated rule in existence, and the primary source for Special Abilities (as well as the source that first talks about Spell Casting in general) makes it very clear that Spells are a Special Ability. Na is simply not an option. We know there's implicit typing of abilities (Fighter Feats), we know that we can type abilities if they're untyped in one place and typed elsewhere (Sneak Attack), we know that Na isn't even an option for any Special Attack (MM1, Fiend Folio, DMG, and a host of other abilities), and the only book that makes it sound possible (Rules Compendium) obsoletes itself with its own writing. PHB just says things that aren't typed at all are Na… but Special Abilities are already typed, so even the PHB doesn't agree with this nonsense.

JaronK

[Psyren]

The Hobgoblin ability is literally just the ability to cast as a Wizard.

That's the effect, but the ability itself is still "Arcane Talent" not "Spells." It's an Ex ability that grants access to natural spellcasting. The spellcasting itself is not Ex, only the gateway ability is.



Look, I know it's really fun to try and power game this by claiming casting is Na...

Er, pot meet kettle? Shapechange grants Ex abilities, so you're the one with an agenda here, not us.

Also, still waiting on that cite.

[JaronK]

That's the effect, but the ability itself is still "Arcane Talent" not "Spells." It's an Ex ability that grants access to natural spellcasting. The spellcasting itself is not Ex, only the gateway ability is.

Yes, Arcane Talent is the name for having the racial ability to cast as a Wizard. So, it's the same ability, just with a different name. All the questions of "what kind of ability is it" still apply, except that it's racial instead of class based. But since with Shapechange it's giving you racial abilities, it answers the question.


Er, pot meet kettle? Shapechange grants Ex abilities, so you're the one with an agenda here, not us.

Also, still waiting on that cite.

Shapechange also grants everything Alter Self grants. So if it's Na, Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, etc all grant spells. If it's Ex, the effect is at least delayed. The power gaming claim is that Na grants spell casting. Or did you miss that part of this? If you're just trying to chose the weaker option, Ex is the weaker one.

Personally, I just nerf polymorph spells while still recognizing RAW. Problem solved.

And cite for what? Cite for the fact that Special Attacks can't be Na ever? MM1, Fiend Folio, and DMG all say this, in addition to a bunch of others. Cite for spell casting shown as Ex? Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are both examples. Cite for the idea that abilities can be implicitly typed? Tons of abilities were unmarked in earlier booked and marked later (like Sneak Attack), plus the FAQ actually straight up talks about implicit typing in that bit about what abilities Factotums can use with their level 19 ability. The data's all there.

JaronK

[eggynack]

Shapechange also grants everything Alter Self grants. So if it's Na, Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange, etc all grant spells. If it's Ex, the effect is at least delayed. The power gaming claim is that Na grants spell casting. Or did you miss that part of this? If you're just trying to chose the weaker option, Ex is the weaker one.

Wild shape also has the ability to grant extraordinary abilities, through enhance wild shape or normal doings, depending on how you categorize it. Usually irrelevant, but it can become relevant with some aberration forms (ethergaunts, anyone?). Long story short, it's kinda irrelevant. Both paths have weird power gaming tricks attached to them, and the one I'm proposing only relies on rules presented in the books, rather than some odd web-rule.

[Psyren]

Yes, Arcane Talent is the name for having the racial ability to cast as a Wizard. So, it's the same ability, just with a different name. All the questions of "what kind of ability is it" still apply, except that it's racial instead of class based. But since with Shapechange it's giving you racial abilities, it answers the question.

No, it's not the same at all. It is an ability, that then gives you an ability. Your argument is like saying Claws of the Beast, a psionic power that gives you a natural weapon, cannot be dispelled because claws from a power are equivalent to natural claws from race.

Your argument has no basis in actual RAW - it hinges entirely on one sentence from a Rules of the Game article, a sentence which says "When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form." None of the sourcebooks have this line or anything even close to it - not the polymorph spell itself, not alter self, not shapechange, not alternate form or wild shape, nor the subtype in PHB2. None of them have it.

Even if you take the above to mean you get every single natural ability ever - Skip is not RAW, nor would it be the first time he was wrong (again I point to his blatantly erroneous AMF article.)



And cite for what? Cite for the fact that Special Attacks can't be Na ever?

No, cite an entry called "Spells (Ex)" or "Spellcasting (Ex)." I can't state it any more plainly than that. Go ahead, I'll wait.

And no, neither "Arcane Talent (Ex)" nor "Mock Divinity (Ex)" are examples of this. They created different abilities to grant spellcasting by proxy for a reason. (Also, Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are both Ex Special Qualities - you get neither of these from Shapechange or anything else.)

[JaronK]

No, it's not the same at all. It is an ability, that then gives you an ability.

You mean like how the Wizard ability "Spells" gives you the ability to use Spellcasting? Just like that? They're literally the same.

The entire entry is "Arcane Talent (Ex): A war caster casts spells as a 4th level wizard."

Or for the other one, it's "Arcane Talent (Ex): A war soul casts spells as a 9th level Wizard."

By comparison:

"Spells: Planetars can cast divine spells as 17th-level clerics."

"Spells: A red ether gaunt can cast arcane spells as a 9th level wizard"

Seriously, it's the same thing.


Your argument is like saying Claws of the Beast, a psionic power that gives you a natural weapon, cannot be dispelled because claws from a power are equivalent to natural claws from race.

No, my argument is like saying that "casts as a [class]" is the same as "casts as a [class]".


No, cite an entry called "Spells (Ex)" or "Spellcasting (Ex)." I can't state it any more plainly than that. Go ahead, I'll wait.

As you can see above, I basically did. Now you cite one that says "Spells (Na)." In fact, name any Special Ability anywhere in the game that's listed as Na. Go for it. Find any. You can't, can you? You know why? Because the most quoted rule in all of RAW (that you keep trying to ignore) says that's not a thing.


And no, neither "Arcane Talent (Ex)" nor "Mock Divinity (Ex)" are examples of this. They created different abilities to grant spellcasting by proxy for a reason. (Also, Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent are both Ex Special Qualities - you get neither of these from Shapechange or anything else.)

Luckily, the others are Special Attacks. You can't just claim "It doesn't count la la la" and call that an argument. Spells are actually both Special Qualities and Special Attacks (since the latter are any Special Ability that harms others, and the former are any Special Ability that doesn't). Weird, yes, but both are in the category of Special Abilities and thus can't be Na.

JaronK

[Psyren]

You mean like how the Wizard ability "Spells" gives you the ability to use Spellcasting? Just like that? They're literally the same.

"Spells" is the spellcasting ability, not a gateway like MD or AT are. There is no entry for those two in the glossary.



As you can see above, I basically did. Now you cite one that says "Spells (Na)." In fact, name any Special Ability anywhere in the game that's listed as Na. Go for it. Find any. You can't, can you? You know why? Because the most quoted rule in all of RAW (that you keep trying to ignore) says that's not a thing.

I don't have to, remember?

PHB 180: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
RC 118: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

It even says they aren't identified as natural ("that's assumed.")

You're the one who has to show that they have the (Ex) tag. I don't need to show they have a tag at all.


Luckily, the others are Special Attacks.

Right, but they're not Ex.

[JaronK]

"Spells" is the spellcasting ability, not a gateway like MD or AT are. There is no entry for those two in the glossary.

They're literally identical abilities.


I don't have to, remember?

PHB 180: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
RC 118: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."


Special Abilities are designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. Remember that rule? The most quoted rule ever? That one designates them as such. Spells are a Special Ability.

Natural Abilities, thus, are abilities that are not Special Abilities.

So now go back and find any Special Ability ever that contradicts this.


You're the one who has to show that they have the (Ex) tag. I don't need to show they have a tag at all.

There is literally no rule that says Spells are Na, since as you just showed Na abilities are only the default for things that aren't designated as Ex, Sp, or Su… which all Special Abilities are. So find the rule already!


Right, but they're not Ex.

Then you're saying they're Sp or Su, since all Special Abilities are designated as Ex, Sp, or Su. Pick one. You can't ignore the most quoted rule in the game.

Jaronk

[Psyren]

They're literally identical abilities.

Except for their names, tags, and even their placement in the statblocks. So in other words, not identical at all.



Special Abilities are designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. Remember that rule? The most quoted rule ever? That one designates them as such. Spells are a Special Ability.

Natural Abilities, thus, are abilities that are not Special Abilities.

So now go back and find any Special Ability ever that contradicts this.

The PHB and RC put "natural abilities" under the "special abilities" header, not me. Take it up with them.

If they were not there, I would absolutely agree with you on this, but they are. so I can't.



There is literally no rule that says Spells are Na, since as you just showed Na abilities are only the default for things that aren't designated as Ex, Sp, or Su… which all Special Abilities are.

See above, there is a 4th category under special abilities in those two books.



Then you're saying they're Sp or Su, since all Special Abilities are designated as Ex, Sp, or Su. Pick one. You can't ignore the most quoted rule in the game.

Jaronk

You keep saying "most quoted rule" like it means something. The PHB and RC are more specific than the MM in this regard.

How often something is repeated (and where is it besides the monster manual, anyway?) has no bearing on the rules. All that matters is the progression: general to specific to exception (RC 5.)

[bekeleven]

You just keep repeating yourself over and over and it is starting to wear on my nerves.

Me? Because I hadn't said what I said in that post at all before. In fact, it hadn't been said at all in this thread, which is why I said it.

Anyway Fax, that's still not the main thrust of my argument. The main thrust is:
Seriously, let me replace "Ex, Su or Sp" with "widgets". "Natural Abilities are those not otherwise designated widgets." "A special ability is a widget."

The absence of a rule is not more specific than a rule.

General means general. Whether they intended it to be a default state or merely a guideline, the fact remains that it is a "general rule."

For something to be "specific" it has to specify. Not stating anything is not specifying - in fact, it is the opposite.

Basically, "All coins that aren't nickels, dimes, or quarters, are pennies... I'm holding a coin that's a nickel, dime, or quarter."

"It's a penny, isn't it?"

"I'll give you a hint: It can't be a dime or a quarter."

"CALLED IT! PENNY RULE WAS MORE SPECIFIC!"

The fact that the remainder of coins are pennies continues to not conflict with spells being Ex. There is no conflict (although if there were, they would still be Ex due to a number of other reasons).

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, you know what? I'm done arguing with a brick wall who doesn't address any point I bring up directly and instead spouts the same rhetorical argument phrased slightly differently over and over. Y'all play nice: I'm out.

[Psyren]

Basically, "All coins that aren't nickels, dimes, or quarters, are pennies... I'm holding a coin that's a nickel, dime, or quarter."


Indeed there is:

http://i.imgur.com/tYJv9OU.png

No designation = natural. Specific.



Premium MM says nothing, Premium PHB says something. Specific trumps general.

And round and round we go..

[bekeleven]

Okay, you know what? I'm done arguing with a brick wall who doesn't address any point I bring up directly and instead spouts the same rhetorical argument phrased slightly differently over and over. Y'all play nice: I'm out.
The last point I can see you possibly referring to is here, on september 5th:

No, that's not right. I'm saying the MM says "look at what the PHB says", because it says "as sorcerer". And the PHB says "untyped abilities are natural."
I didn't respond to it at the time because I didn't check this thread for a few days, and before I had JaronK had responded. But my above post is on exactly the same topic: Whether the PHB or the MM specifies the ability type, and how to reconcile the two wordings that appear, at first glance, to conflict.

Feel free to leave if you like, I won't hold you.

[.Zero]

Originally posted by JaronK

We discuss RAW here.

-Snip-

The point is: how much RAW stretching is required to let RAI go to hell?

I say this because the RAI intent here is much more than obvious and insisting in "what is written here contradicts what is written there", "specific trumps general", "FAQ is not RAW", "this book was edited before that one but then they reprinted it with erratas so it now is the primary source for this thing" and "X is the primary source for Y, not Z" not only is far beyond the intent of the game and game designers, but also is boring like an extremely long lasting masturbation.

I'm ok with the polymorph line at all, but working hard to convince the rest of the world that powerful spells are even more powerful by rules stretching is beyond me.

We all know that game designers used *a lot* of drugs when they wrote and published the books, because the never took in account some combos or trick or similar things. The worst thing they did is the game's wording, which was apparently written with the ass, and that in most cases brings up never-ending issues based on an inconsistent language.

In this case you are taking advantage of what they define as Su, Sp, Ex and that catch-all that is Na. Na things were not explicitly defined, so we all must agree that game designers made a mistake in describing those, because they created a controversy: all special abilities are Sp, Su or Ex and untyped abilities are Na. So spells are a special ability per the monster's sheet entry and they must be Sp, Su or Ex. Spells are untyped so they must be Na. And here comes the problem. What kind of ability are spells? We simply cannot say which one is, because rules text is not exhaustive on this, and the best thing we can do is apply the most problem-less, balance-ness thing, i.e. D&D community agree in houseruling that spells are Na.

It's not even a question of demonstrating that spells are Na or else, it's simply that we cannot demonstrate anything, because ****ty wording and bad thinking.

As for Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent, it seem pretty straight forward to ne that these abilities and spells or spellcasting granted by classes are very different thing. The (Ex) there is not the ability to cast spells, but is the ability to mimic the arecane and divine spells class feature, so Hobgoblin and Lilitu have an Ex ability that mimic a Na ability.
This could not be the correct interpretation of Arcane Talent and Mock Divinity, but i think is the simplest and most obvious one.

[JaronK]

The point is: how much RAW stretching is required to let RAI go to hell?

I say this because the RAI intent here is much more than obvious and insisting in "what is written here contradicts what is written there", "specific trumps general", "FAQ is not RAW", "this book was edited before that one but then they reprinted it with erratas so it now is the primary source for this thing" and "X is the primary source for Y, not Z" not only is far beyond the intent of the game and game designers, but also is boring like an extremely long lasting masturbation.

I'm ok with the polymorph line at all, but working hard to convince the rest of the world that powerful spells are even more powerful by rules stretching is beyond me.

Again, making spells Na means all the polymorph line, including Alter Self, grants spells. If they're Ex, at least this is delayed. So if you're thinking of this in power gaming terms, the power gaming move is to try to make them Na. But again, this ignores the primary source rule that says that Special Abilities are NEVER Na, so it's rediculous.

With that said, how powerful something is has no effect on what RAW is… it just tells you where you might want to house rule things to avoid problems.


In this case you are taking advantage of what they define as Su, Sp, Ex and that catch-all that is Na. Na things were not explicitly defined, so we all must agree that game designers made a mistake in describing those, because they created a controversy: all special abilities are Sp, Su or Ex and untyped abilities are Na.

Note that Na is a catch all for abilities which are not Special Abilities. It is NOT a catch all for Special Abilities.


So spells are a special ability per the monster's sheet entry and they must be Sp, Su or Ex.

Right, they are designated as one of these. We can figure out that they're Ex through a variety of means.


Spells are untyped so they must be Na.

Wrong. They're implicitly typed, but they're not untyped, and they have to be Sp, Su, or Ex. They cannot be Na.


And here comes the problem. What kind of ability are spells? We simply cannot say which one is, because rules text is not exhaustive on this, and the best thing we can do is apply the most problem-less, balance-ness thing, i.e. D&D community agree in houseruling that spells are Na.

No, the most balanced thing is that they're Ex. The unbalanced thing is they're Na. Again, Alter Self gives you Na abilities, and that is grandfathered in to the rest of the polymorph line.


As for Mock Divinity and Arcane Talent, it seem pretty straight forward to ne that these abilities and spells or spellcasting granted by classes are very different thing. The (Ex) there is not the ability to cast spells, but is the ability to mimic the arecane and divine spells class feature, so Hobgoblin and Lilitu have an Ex ability that mimic a Na ability.

It's written exactly like the other spell casting abilities. Only the name and the fact that they finally tag it is different.


This could not be the correct interpretation of Arcane Talent and Mock Divinity, but i think is the simplest and most obvious one.

It ignores the rules, and thus is wrong.

JaronK

[Psyren]

Note that Na is a catch all for abilities which are not Special Abilities. It is NOT a catch all for Special Abilities.
....
Wrong. They're implicitly typed, but they're not untyped, and they have to be Sp, Su, or Ex. They cannot be Na.

Then why are Natural Abilities listed as a category of Special Abilities in the PHB and Rules Compendium? Answer me that.



No, the most balanced thing is that they're Ex. The unbalanced thing is they're Na. Again, Alter Self gives you Na abilities, and that is grandfathered in to the rest of the polymorph line.

Where does Alter Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm) say that? The actual spell, or even the subtype, not a Skip article.

[eggynack]

No, the most balanced thing is that they're Ex. The unbalanced thing is they're Na. Again, Alter Self gives you Na abilities, and that is grandfathered in to the rest of the polymorph line.

Again, really depends on how you're accessing monster abilities. Your interpretation would absolutely lead to a druid buff.

[Psyren]

Again, really depends on how you're accessing monster abilities. Your interpretation would absolutely lead to a druid buff.

And anyone with polymorph could become a 7th-level cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lammasu.htm) or 9th-level sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm) right off the bat, while anyone with shapechange could become a 17th level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelPlanetar) or 22nd-level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar) cleric etc. And that's just in core. His is the far more unbalanced reading, I don't know why he doesn't see that.

[eggynack]

And anyone with polymorph could become a 7th-level cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lammasu.htm) or 9th-level sorcerer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm) right off the bat, while anyone with shapechange could become a 17th level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelPlanetar) or 22nd-level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar) cleric etc. And that's just in core. His is the far more unbalanced reading, I don't know why he doesn't see that.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to argue that spells are extraordinary special qualities, as opposed to extraordinary special attacks, when they're explicitly listed in the attack category.

[JaronK]

Then why are Natural Abilities listed as a category of Special Abilities in the PHB and Rules Compendium? Answer me that.

First of all, the primary source is the Premium Monster Manual, not either of those. So that doesn't matter.

Second of all, from designer commentary we get that Natural Abilities are under those, and yet were intended as a "if it doesn't fit as a Special Ability, it's that other kind of ability". The SRD shows this quite clearly. Even the Rules Compendium says that Na abilities are just the base physical qualities of the creature, as opposed to the other actual "Special" Special Abilities. Na is the catch all for abilities that are not Special Abilities, which is why it's in the Special Abilities section.

But the important part is the primary source here… which is the Premium Monster Manual.


Where does Alter Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm) say that? The actual spell, or even the subtype, not a Skip article.

"You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth)."

Remember, as per commentary all over the place, base physical qualities means Na abilities. And yes, designer commentary clarifies that fact, but here we have it in the spell. The physical qualities are the Na abilities.

JaronK

[Psyren]

First of all, the primary source is the Premium Monster Manual, not either of those. So that doesn't matter.

Primary source only comes into play if there is a contradiction. Otherwise specific trumps general.

If I tell you "Honda, Toyota and Ford are car companies," and eggynack then tells you "Honda, Toyota, Ford, and Chevrolet are car companies," which of us is wrong?

The answer is - neither, because eggynack's statement doesn't contradict mine. It is simply more specific. Thus the question about which of us is a more "primary source" does not even come into play.



Second of all, from designer commentary we get that Natural Abilities are under those, and yet were intended as a "if it doesn't fit as a Special Ability, it's that other kind of ability".

Skip's "designer commentary" is neither RAW nor correct, as has been proven multiple times before. In addition, I provided the quote from his article that your argument hinges on and it is vague at best.

Meanwhile, the spells themselves say nothing about granting natural abilities. Not a single sentence.



"You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth)."

Nothing in that quote says "natural abilities." It only says "physical qualities," and spellcasting is not a physical quality. Developer commentary all over the place states that spellcasting comes as much from the soul and mind as it does from the body.

[JaronK]

Primary source only comes into play if there is a contradiction. Otherwise specific trumps general.

If I tell you "Honda, Toyota and Ford are car companies," and eggynack then tells you "Honda, Toyota, Ford, and Chevrolet are car companies," which of us is wrong?

But that's not how it's phrased. It's more like "all foreign cars are made in Italy, Japan, or Germany. Cars that aren't from Italy, Japan, or Germany are made in the US" in one place and "all foreign cars are made in Italy, Japan, or Germany." And then when you don't get told directly that a specific foreign car company is from one of those three, you assume it must be made in the US, even though it's explicitly foreign.


The answer is - neither, because eggynack's statement doesn't contradict mine. It is simply more specific. Thus the question about which of us is a more "primary source" does not even come into play.

Too bad they explicitly contradict.
.

Nothing in that quote says "natural abilities." It only says "physical qualities," and spellcasting is not a physical quality. Developer commentary all over the place states that spellcasting comes as much from the soul and mind as it does from the body.

You're absolutely right. Spellcasting isn't a physical quality. But Na abilities, as stated in developer commentary and the RC, are physical qualities. Spellcasting is a Special Ability, not a Na ability.

JaronK

[Psyren]

But that's not how it's phrased. It's more like "all foreign cars are made in Italy, Japan, or Germany. Cars that aren't from Italy, Japan, or Germany are made in the US" in one place and "all foreign cars are made in Italy, Japan, or Germany." And then when you don't get told directly that a specific foreign car company is from one of those three, you assume it must be made in the US, even though it's explicitly foreign.

Where does it say "all" in any of the three books?


Too bad they explicitly contradict.

It would only do so if you had a source that says "natural abilities are not special abilities." Not only do you not have such a source, the PHB and RC explicitly state the opposite.
.



You're absolutely right. Spellcasting isn't a physical quality. But Na abilities, as stated in developer commentary and the RC, are physical qualities.

No, RC states that natural abilities include physical qualities. Thus there are non-physical qualities - like spellcasting - that are also natural. And because it is not physical, it is out of reach of any polymorph effect currently printed.

As eggynack and I pointed out to you earlier, yours is the more unbalanced reading - and end run around the shapeshifting system to pick up any monster spellcasting that you want.

[JaronK]

Where does it say "all" in any of the three books?

…It says that Special Abilities are Sp, Su, or Ex. That's it, no exceptions. Literally the most copied rule in the game. Also, it's more than three books.


It would only do so if you had a source that says "natural abilities are not special abilities." Not only do you not have such a source, the PHB and RC explicitly state the opposite.

DMG, Monster Manual 1, Fiend Folio, SRD, and a bunch of others. Including the primary source.
.

No, RC states that natural abilities include physical qualities. Thus there are non-physical qualities - like spellcasting - that are also natural. And because it is not physical, it is out of reach of any polymorph effect currently printed.

As eggynack and I pointed out to you earlier, yours is the more unbalanced reading - and end run around the shapeshifting system to pick up any monster spellcasting that you want.

Either way allows for that. Forget balance, because Na makes it worse.

But fine, you want to play the "my house rules are RAW" game, be my guest. There's no real point to this anymore.

JaronK

[Psyren]

…It says that Special Abilities are Sp, Su, or Ex. That's it, no exceptions. Literally the most copied rule in the game. Also, it's more than three books.

That those three are special abilities is indeed the most copied rule in the game. What you have not been able to source, however, is the exclusion of Na from that heading.



Either way allows for that. Forget balance, because Na makes it worse.

But fine, you want to play the "my house rules are RAW" game, be my guest. There's no real point to this anymore.

JaronK

My houserules are in the PHB and Rules Compendium? Where's my check, WotC?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

That those three are special abilities is indeed the most copied rule in the game. What you have not been able to source, however, is the exclusion of Na from that heading.


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

Given that "natural" is not one of the abilities therein listed, it is excluded.

[Psyren]

Given that "natural" is not one of the abilities therein listed, it is excluded.

This was addressed several pages ago KA. It is included in the PHB and RC, and that quoted list is not exhaustive.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

This was addressed several pages ago KA. It is included in the PHB and RC, and that quoted list is not exhaustive.

That it was not addressed sufficiently to end the debate is clear. To argue that the list, as presented in the Monster Manual and SRD, is not exhaustive is absurd; there is no qualifying language in it to indicate otherwise. This conflicts with the PHB and RC, which conflict with other sources, then Primary Source, Specific Trumps General, intermission (http://youtu.be/4yYX3Ra9vbI), JaronK says this, Psyren says that, other posters (myself included) weigh in, disagreements are had, sources are posted, someone posts a summation of the thread (in a weak attempt at humor)...And round and round we go.

[eggynack]

Either way allows for that. Forget balance, because Na makes it worse.

I'm just not sure why you think that. There's a list of things that would be allowed if spells are natural abilities. There's another list of things that would be allowed if they're extraordinary. I'm pretty sure that the former list is pretty much a subset of the latter, and even if there are things allowed under the Na interpretation and not under the Ex interpretation, the inverse absolutely holds true.

By my way of reasoning, if you think that Na abilities allow a bunch of crap, then there is just no interpretation, aside from the kinda wonky and unsupported "fifth type" interpretation, that doesn't lead to a bunch of crap. Point is, whether you're right or not, you're definitely not acting against a stalwart defender against hoards of powergamers. It's just a screwed up situation, with no un-crappy outcomes.

Almost makes me inclined towards apathy on the entire issue, if I wasn't before. I mean, your interpretation lets you use casting off of polymorph, shapechange, and aberration wild shape (maybe some MoMF stuff too. Wild shape is the main idea here). Psyren's lets you use casting off of polymorph, shape change, and maybe alter self, if I understand your position properly. Is that it? Is that the difference we're fighting about? It's important, don't get me wrong, particularly because this ability stuff is just generally a big deal, but I don't see this having extreme ramifications.

If anything, I would say that your interpretation, which doesn't grant access at low levels, but which spreads the damage across more classes (and handing more casting to druids seems more relevant than handing it to wizards), is the one that opens the way to more crap. Just my feeling on the thing, especially because there's some separate interpretation that leads to Psyren's interpretation causing problems. I don't think this balance stuff especially effects the RAW, but you were acting like it's relevant for some reason.

[Psyren]

That it was not addressed sufficiently to end the debate is clear.

"Ending" a debate, as I'm demonstrating to you simply by posting this, requires both sides to back down (or get so fed up with one another that they stop posting, only for the discussion to resurface years later.) No amount of evidence will matter if these two conditions are not met.


To argue that the list, as presented in the Monster Manual and SRD, is not exhaustive is absurd; there is no qualifying language in it to indicate otherwise.

The language you need for me to buy that is quite simple: "natural abilities are not special abilities." If either he or bekeleven found that in even one place, I would have ceded the point years ago.


Psyren's lets you use casting off of polymorph, shape change, and maybe alter self, if I understand your position properly. Is that it? Is that the difference we're fighting about?

My interpretation doesn't do that at all - literally the only link he's found between natural abilities and polymorph is a vague sentence at the end of a Skip article. In short, nothing RAW.

Whereas his interpretation makes "Spells" Ex, they are listed in dozens of statblocks as special attacks, and polymorph et al. get even more broken than they already are.

[eggynack]

My interpretation doesn't do that at all - literally the only link he's found between natural abilities and polymorph is a vague sentence at the end of a Skip article. In short, nothing RAW.

Well, it at least potentially does after a theoretical second argument about the potentially RAW nature of web articles, maybe segueing into something involving primary source rules if we want to get frisky. It is indeed an advantage of your position, however, that it would require a second rules majig to act in a certain manner to lead to borkedness, while the other path is just borked out of the box.

[Psyren]

Well, it at least potentially does after a theoretical second argument about the potentially RAW nature of web articles, maybe segueing into something involving primary source rules if we want to get frisky. It is indeed an advantage of your position, however, that it would require a second rules majig to act in a certain manner to lead to borkedness, while the other path is just borked out of the box.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[Fax Celestis]

You can't have it both ways. Is the FAQ RAW or not?


Are racial traits considered extraordinary abilities for the purpose of alter self, polymorph, and similar effects? That is, do I lose my racial traits or keep them when I change my form?

Unless a racial trait is specifically referred to elsewhere as an extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability (such as blindsense or damage reduction), it isn’t any of those.

Unfortunately, the spells in question are silent in indicating whether racial traits are kept or lost. For alter self and the alternate form and change shape special abilities, it’s reasonable to conclude that they are retained (and new ones aren’t gained), since your type and subtype(s) remain the same regardless of the new form.

However, the polymorph spell (and any other spell that specifically refers to it) does change your type and subtype(s) to match the new form. Thus, your existing racial traits should be lost (and new ones gained) when using such an effect. (It’s perfectly fine, as a house rule, to have the character retain his own racial traits in place of those of the new form, if the DM and players find that easier to track.)

Other spells of the polymorph subschool replace the character’s existing racial traits (as well as virtually all other game statistics) with those of the new form, which makes the switch easier to adjudicate. See the polymorph subschool in PH2 for details.

Any racial trait specifically designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability follows the normal rules for the spell used.
Just to reiterate.

[eggynack]

Just to reiterate.
I'm kinda confused now. Was the thing in the big quote supposed to answer the thing in the little quote? It didn't really seem like it did, unless you're indicating a place in the FAQ which directly contradicts RAW somehow, indicating that the FAQ is not RAW. That'd make sense, I suppose, but it could stand to be more explicit.

[Fax Celestis]

It's from earlier in the thread, wasn't addressed with anything other than a "that's annoying and it contradicts the Rules of the Game article, oh bother" and then promptly forgotten apparently.

Is the faq raw, or isn't it? Because if it is, there's the answer right there. And if it isn't, why isn't it but RotG is?

[Psyren]

I'm kinda confused now. Was the thing in the big quote supposed to answer the thing in the little quote? It didn't really seem like it did, unless you're indicating a place in the FAQ which directly contradicts RAW somehow, indicating that the FAQ is not RAW. That'd make sense, I suppose, but it could stand to be more explicit.

Basically, Fax quoted the FAQ entry spelling out that racial abilities (like monster spellcasting) must have the Ex tag in order to be Ex. JaronK cannot rely on "designer intent" sources like Skip while throwing out "designer intent" sources like the 3.5 FAQ. Either you stick with only the books (as I've been doing) or you allow all the tertiary material - you can't say "the website FAQ doesn't count but the website articles do."

[eggynack]

Ah, I suppose that makes more sense. Still, I think there's some argument for the FAQ being not-RAW, with the rules of the game articles being RAW, under the assumption that the FAQ is a source of information about the RAW, or rulings, while the rules of the game articles seem to definitively be a direct rules source, and thus capable of creating RAW itself. It's definitely more ambiguous than most web stuff. Like, I can definitely see an argument for discounting the rules of the game articles under the same claim against the FAQ, while maintaining the web enhancements as a more direct rules source. The point, I suppose, is that there are arguments against the FAQ that are more about the FAQ's nature than about the FAQ's online location.

[Psyren]

There are just as many against the articles, like Skip simply being wrong, as he has been before. Other examples include his belief that unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and that AMF blocks line of effect.

[eggynack]

There are just as many against the articles, like Skip simply being wrong, as he has been before. Other examples include his belief that unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and that AMF blocks line of effect.
I think those are issues held constant between the FAQ and the web articles, as I seem to recall some odd discrepancies between RAW and the FAQ, the most notable being the idea that arcane thesis applies once per spell rather than once per metamagic. Meanwhile, the idea of FAQ as a not rules source seems to be unique to that source.