Alter Self Dragon

[cartejos]

When a dragon uses Alter Self to change into another dragon it "Retains its casting" But does it gain the innate casting of the second dragon?

Does the casting of the new form count as a supernatural ability since its innate?

Or does the line from alter self mean "It doesn't matter if the new form has its own casting, use your own, previously had casting"?

[Ramza00]

I know you are asking for a RAW question, but spellcasting it can be argued was really not meant to be included in the various shapechanging spells such as Alternate Form, Polymorph, Alter Self, Shapechange rules. Especially since those 4 abilities (and others) were heavily modified after 3.0 and 3.5 and the errata / rework of these abilities still did not consider all the possibilities.

So I think instead of worrying about the rules as they are written you should come to some form of agreement between you and the DM of what shapechanging magic in your world should be about. After all shapechanging magic has allowed such good stories such as this.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0995/2620/files/Sword_in_the_Stone_Dragon_large.png?18410265940598 816120

[InterstellarPro]

When a dragon uses Alter Self to change into another dragon it "Retains its casting" But does it gain the innate casting of the second dragon?

Does the casting of the new form count as a supernatural ability since its innate?

Or does the line from alter self mean "It doesn't matter if the new form has its own casting, use your own, previously had casting"?

The line from Alter Self is:


You retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly (that is, speak a language) to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulation to use somatic or material components.

That says that you only retain the spellcasting ability of your original form. There is no indication anywhere in the spell that you gain the spellcasting of your new form. In fact, the spell specifies you do not even get the physical ability scores of the new form. You keep your own ability scores. You gain a small list of physical qualities, but not any innate spellcasting.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There are certain feats and class abilities that grant Supernatural Abilities when using alter self polymorph, and polymorph any object but otherwise, you don't gain anything innately magical or psionic from forms you take. Shapechange changes that, but until then, no (Su), (Sp), or (Ps) for you.

Oddly enough, however, spellcasting is (Ex), since it's not part of your natural physical abilities, and it's almost never labeled as anything else. However, you'd need the ability for more than 9 hours (8 hours of rest + 1 hour of study or meditation + time to actually use the spells) in order to make use of it. Less, of course, if you use ways of lessening resting time, such as a ring of sustenance or a Heward's fortifying bedroll.

[cartejos]

Oddly enough, however, spellcasting is (Ex), since it's not part of your natural physical abilities, and it's almost never labeled as anything else.

Just for reference, do you know of an example in a book or article that would firmly say that spellcasting is ex.?

[Nifft]

Just for reference, do you know of an example in a book or article that would firmly say that spellcasting is ex.?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities <-- try here

Since (Ex) abilities are not subject to Dispel nor Spell Resistance, therefore spells don't work at all like they are supposed to work... or Maxi is wrong.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities <-- try here

Since (Ex) abilities are not subject to Dispel nor Spell Resistance, therefore spells don't work at all like they are supposed to work... or Maxi is wrong.Or there's always "specific trumps general." That's a thing, right?

[Nifft]

Or there's always "specific trumps general." That's a thing, right?

Do you think that every spell tells you that it can be dispelled? The only ones which specify that are the ones which defy the norm by not being subject to dispel -- which is the opposite of what you'd need for your case to be valid.

Do you think that every spell specifies whether it works in an anti-magic field? A very small number do, and again they do in the opposite direction from what an "(Ex) spell" would need to specify.

So. Do you have anything specific to answer those rather direct contradictions to your thesis?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So. Do you have anything specific to answer those rather direct contradictions to your thesis?Yes: the rules for spellcasting, which are even more specific than the rules for (Ex) abilities. Certain spells override even those, such as the effects that specifically state that they are immune to antimagic field spells.

Spellcasting is (Ex), but it works in a way that's different than most. Just because you're in an AMF doesn't mean you lose the ability to cast spells altogether; you still have spellcasting, it's just that the spells themselves don't work. There are ways to cast spells, even then. Invoke magic, for instance, proves that you don't lose Spellcasting (Ex) when in an AMF.

It's like, spellcasting is a gun, while spells are the ammo. The gun stays with you, but the ammo doesn't always work, and you can run out.

[liquidformat]

Or there's always "specific trumps general." That's a thing, right?

If you are correct and spell casting is an EX ability you have just dramatically increased the power of MoMF, since they specifically gain all (EX) abilities of the form you are changing into...

[Nifft]

Yes: the rules for spellcasting, which are even more specific than the rules for (Ex) abilities. Certain spells override even those, such as the effects that specifically state that they are immune to antimagic field spells.

Spellcasting is (Ex), but it works in a way that's different than most. Just because you're in an AMF doesn't mean you lose the ability to cast spells altogether; you still have spellcasting, it's just that the spells themselves don't work. There are ways to cast spells, even then. Invoke magic, for instance, proves that you don't lose Spellcasting (Ex) when in an AMF.

It's like, spellcasting is a gun, while spells are the ammo. The gun stays with you, but the ammo doesn't always work, and you can run out.

Hmmm... now it sounds like you're saying that you think spellcasting is (Ex) but each specific spell is not (Ex), and therefore gaining spellcasting is technically possible but practically worthless -- since it comes with no "ammo", and you can't get "ammo" by whatever gives you that (Ex) ability.

How do you argue that spells themselves are not (Ex)? I don't see how your argument can apply to spellcasting but not spells themselves.

[DarkSoul]

According to the SRD entries for dragons their spellcasting ability has no Ex, Su, or Sp tag at all, just like the ability for wizards and sorcerers doesn't. Going by that, no, a dragon that casts alter self to become another color would not gain that form's spellcasting ability.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Hmmm... now it sounds like you're saying that you think spellcasting is (Ex) but each specific spell is not (Ex), and therefore gaining spellcasting is technically possible but practically worthless -- since it comes with no "ammo", and you can't get "ammo" by whatever gives you that (Ex) ability.

How do you argue that spells themselves are not (Ex)? I don't see how your argument can apply to spellcasting but not spells themselves.Spellcasting is (Ex) because them's what the rules say. Spells are more effects caused by (Ex) spellcasting, as they don't act like (Ex) abilities at all, instead going by their own rules. Otherwise, spells would function in dead magic zones or planes, which (Ex) abilities explicitly do. So you keep your (Ex) spellcasting in a dead zone, but the spells themselves are suppressed (with very explicit exceptions, such as spells cast through the Initiate of Mystra feat).

[sleepyphoenixx]

Just for reference, do you know of an example in a book or article that would firmly say that spellcasting is ex.?
Some monsters have their spellcasting explicitly labeled as (Ex) in MM5. Most of the time it's unlabeled however.
There's also Dragon Wild Shape which explicitly mentions that it doesn't grant spells. People have tried to argue that that means other abilities like it do, but that's not a RAW statement.

What kind of ability spellcasting is has been debated before. Extensively. There was no consensus.
To make a long story short there is no clear statement anywhere in the official rules that sorts spellcasting into any of the categories of natural, (Ex), (Sp) or (Su) - i've looked myself.
It being unlabelled would usually indicate a natural ability, but that's a pretty flimsy "it doesn't say it's not or that it's any of the others", not a real RAW statement.
I think there were also some things conflicting with that one, but it's been a while. Google the thread if you're interested, it was here on Gitp.
Basically you can squeeze it into any of the categories beside (Sp), but it doesn't really fit into any of them, which let to the interpretation that it's its own thing. But that naturally has no explicit RAW support either.

General consensus was that shapeshifting spells & abilities don't grant spellcasting unless they specifically say otherwise, but more out of a sense of "it'd be too powerful" than because there's actual RAW saying so.

TL:DR? It's a mess with no clear answer. Ask your DM.

[Ramza00]

TL:DR? It's a mess with no clear answer. Ask your DM.

It is a mess ask your DM especially since the SRD has this arguement.


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

Some people argue this is a precise 100% rule that is never ever broken, but I can argue the opposite for there are psi-like abilities that are not Ex, Sp, or Su, and so on.

Whether you get spellcasting via the polymorph type of spells is a debate that is highly debated by some and I think it is clear that it was never intended by any of the designers, and I argue intent is important for the rules as written has been modified half a dozen times for these types of effect with changing form in 3.0 and 3.5.