natural abilities

[Raishoiken]

so i've seen here and there that special abilities that aren't marked as extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural are automatically extraordinary. where is this stated? when i looked i found
Spell-Like Abilities:A dryad’s charm person effect and the greater teleport ability of many devils are spell-like abilities Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component. A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated, such as an antimagic field. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane
spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature (such as some dragons) could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer.

Supernatural Abilities:A dragon’s fiery breath, a medusa’s petrifying gaze, a spectre’s energy drain, and a cleric’s use of positive or negative energy to turn or rebuke undead are supernatural abilities These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic, and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field).

Extraordinary Abilities:A rogue’s evasion ability and a troll’s ability to regenerate are extraordinary abilities. These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

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

[Extra Anchovies]

Many creatures have innate spellcasting, which is by RAW not extraordinary (cuz, ya know, spells and such), but their statblocks/ability descriptions also do not give an (Ex) (Su) or (Sp) tag. It's a good example of a non-extraordinary untyped innate ability.

WotC really should have outright stated that Spellcasting is its own category of ability (perhaps denoted with Sc). It's a major oversight on their part.

[nyjastul69]

so i've seen here and there that special abilities that aren't marked as extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural are automatically extraordinary. where is this stated? when i looked i found

The answer to your query is found within your highlighted quote. Natural abilities are those based upon your form as well as abilities that are not otherwise defined.

[Raishoiken]

The answer to your query is found within your highlighted quote. Natural abilities are those based upon your form as well as abilities that are not otherwise defined.

i guess my question could be better restated as: what has been leading people to say they auto count as (ex) when it the rules clearly state otherwise

[nyjastul69]

i guess my question could be better restated as: what has been leading people to say they auto count as (ex) when it the rules clearly state otherwise

I don't think there is. If not explicitly stated as Su, Sp, or Ex they are explicitly Na.

[Duke of Urrel]

Many creatures have innate spellcasting, which is by RAW not extraordinary (cuz, ya know, spells and such), but their statblocks/ability descriptions also do not give an (Ex) (Su) or (Sp) tag. It's a good example of a non-extraordinary untyped innate ability.

WotC really should have outright stated that Spellcasting is its own category of ability (perhaps denoted with Sc). It's a major oversight on their part.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Indeed, I came to a similar conclusion in a previous thread on a similar topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369536-Shapechange-Spells-and-Spell-like-Abilities/page2). I believe spellcasting ability is a special ability, but one that has no type; in other words, it is not extraordinary, not spell-like, and not supernatural.

The following is what I wrote in that other thread, if you've got the time and the interest to read it all…

***

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.

[Necroticplague]

I've always thought of it this way:

Spells is a natural ability you acquire through training, just like a fighter's bonus feats. However, the Spells ability is not, itself, spellcasting. Thus, the fact spellcasting provokes AoO, can require concentration, ect. is irrelevant to the ability, because that ability doesn't involve any of that. It just lets you prepare or learn spells. So even in an AMF where you cant cast, you can still prepare your spells, because that natural ability is still able to be used.

[Frostthehero]

My favorite example is the pyro/cryo hydra. Also a natural ability.