PDA

View Full Version : Rules Q&A [3.5] Are spells with the sonic descriptor considered sonic attacks?



Arael666
2021-04-22, 01:25 PM
I posted this question in the Simple RAW Thread for 3.5. But since this seems more complex than I first imagined I'm creating a separate topic


Q284

Are spells with the sonic descriptor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm) that deal damage (sonic or not) considered sonic attacks (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#sonicAttacks)?


A 284 Yes.

A 283 clarification

I am not aware of one. If I were, I would have cited it. I looked in the sections on chargen in the phb and dmg (some of the non-ogl stuff not on the srd) and didn't find anything useful aside from the citations you have helpfully provided.

In addition to the points you've raised, while I know sample characters are not good citations to prove RAW or even RAI matters, the complete absence (to my knowledge) of any monster with class levels in an encounter or monster book seems to back up the fact that horses or dogs cannot take class levels.


A 284 Contention
The sonic attacks entry is for special attacks, which are "either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature", not for actual spells. Because an SLA imitates the spell, it therefore wouldn't apply to them either.


While you are correct, I gathered based on context that Arael666 wanted to know if say, the sound lance spell counted as a "sonic attack" to determine whether it dealt extra damage to a creature who had vulnerability to "sonic attacks," since I could not think of any other reason to ask this question. Things are have sonic immunity, like the destruchan are similarly immune to both, so while the distinction between the two exists, I can't think of a case where it makes much difference.


I actually asked because the silence spell and the bardic music coutersong offer protection from sonic attacs.

I still think that spells with the sonic descriptor are considered sonic attacks, first and foremost it is never stated that the "sonic attack" description in the link is exclusive to special attacks, and if that were to be true we would also have to assume "paralysis" and "poison" to be exclusively special attacks, since they both are covered in the same section, and we know that is not true.

My understanding is that while there are special attacks that utilise poison, inflict paralysis or are sonic in nature, the descripitive text in this section doesn't limit it to special attacks only, but actually explains the rules by which such ability operates, whether it is a special attack, a spell or some other effect. Such as is the case with the poison (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm) spell, we would follow the rules described in the "Poison" entry listed under "Special abilities", and someone immune to poison would be immune to both the spell or any kind of special attack that inflicts poison.

Furthermore, both the silence spell (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silence.htm) and the sonic descriptor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#[Descriptor]) in the SRD directly link to the sonic attacks entry.

That being said, even if spells with the sonic descriptor are not considered sonic attacks per se, would the countersong or the silence spell offer protection against them? since each one states:


A bard with 3 or more ranks in a Perform skill can use his music or poetics to counter magical effects that depend on sound (but not spells that simply have verbal components).


This spell provides a defense against sonic or language-based attacks.

Duke of Urrel
2021-04-22, 04:01 PM
I think it should be uncontroversial to assert that spells can be special attacks. The word "spells" appears in the "Special Attacks" line of the statistics blocks of many creatures listed in the MONSTER MANUAL v. 3.5. Here are just a few examples.

Monsters for which "spells" are listed as "Special Attacks":

Aboleth Mage
Angel, Planetar
Angel, Solar
Aranea
Archon, Hound, Hero
Archon, Trumpet

And these are only the ones that appear under the letter 'A'.

Some commenters seem to regard the following passage (from page 315 of the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE) as a universal and inviolable law.

A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).
Since the word "spells" does not appear in this list, these commenters conclude, spells are not and can never be "special abilities." But these commenters can maintain this only by interpreting every entry in the MONSTER MANUAL that I referred to above (among many others) as some kind of mistake.

I prefer to fall back on the general and broadly accepted interpretive principle that "specific rules may make valid exceptions to general ones," a.k.a. the "Specific trumps general" rule.

If we accept that the MONSTER MANUAL does not commit an error every time it identifies "spells" as "Special Attacks," which it does frequently, then we should confidently assert that a spell that deals Sonic damage is indeed a special attack that deals Sonic damage. A special ability that grants immunity to Sonic attacks should make you immune to the damage inflicted by spells with the Sonic descriptor as well.

InvisibleBison
2021-04-22, 04:28 PM
No, spells with the [sonic] descriptor are not sonic attacks. It got left out of the SRD for some reason, but the Monster Manual clearly says that all sonic attacks are supernatural abilities.

Tzardok
2021-04-22, 05:15 PM
That being said, even if spells with the sonic descriptor are not considered sonic attacks per se, would the countersong or the silence spell offer protection against them? since each one states:

I'll stay out of the debate and focus on this part:

Yes, countersong and silence work against them. Magic silence is explicitely an area where no sounds are possible. Sound attacks can't go in, [Sound] spells can't go in, sound damage can't go in. Nothing.
Countersong is not quite as absolute, but, well, any [Sound] spell evidently is a magic effect based on sound. So sountersong should work.

Arael666
2021-04-22, 05:44 PM
No, spells with the [sonic] descriptor are not sonic attacks. It got left out of the SRD for some reason, but the Monster Manual clearly says that all sonic attacks are supernatural abilities.

I went to the monster manual I glossary and that is not the case, the text in the SRD is exactly the same, granted it has the "Su" tag, which would indicate that it is always a supernatural ability so I see your point. But then again, the poison entry in the MMI has the "Ex" and Paralysis has the "Ex or Su", and both are different from the SRD entry.

I argue that the SRD entries are not taken directly from the MM, thus the MM entry is adressing specifically special abilities from monsters, while the SRD expands on the matter, as we can see per the poison and paralysis entries.

Furthermore, we have spells like Blasphemy, Enthrall, Shout, Song of Discord, etc, which we are sure (at least I am) can be blocked by the silence spell. Entrall and Song of discord both have the [mind afffecting] and [sonic] descriptors, so they we should be able to use countersong or block our ears to avoid making saving throws. The shout spell even outright says "A shout spell cannot penetrate a silence spell"

Arael666
2021-04-22, 05:53 PM
I'll stay out of the debate and focus on this part:

Yes, countersong and silence work against them. Magic silence is explicitely an area where no sounds are possible. Sound attacks can't go in, [Sound] spells can't go in, sound damage can't go in. Nothing.
Countersong is not quite as absolute, but, well, any [Sound] spell evidently is a magic effect based on sound. So sountersong should work.

That is my understanding also, good, at least I got something right :smallbiggrin:

Arael666
2021-04-22, 06:32 PM
I think it should be uncontroversial to assert that spells can be special attacks. The word "spells" appears in the "Special Attacks" line of the statistics blocks of many creatures listed in the MONSTER MANUAL v. 3.5. Here are just a few examples.

Monsters for which "spells" are listed as "Special Attacks":

Aboleth Mage
Angel, Planetar
Angel, Solar
Aranea
Archon, Hound, Hero
Archon, Trumpet

And these are only the ones that appear under the letter 'A'.

Some commenters seem to regard the following passage (from page 315 of the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE) as a universal and inviolable law.

Since the word "spells" does not appear in this list, these commenters conclude, spells are not and can never be "special abilities." But these commenters can maintain this only by interpreting every entry in the MONSTER MANUAL that I referred to above (among many others) as some kind of mistake.

I prefer to fall back on the general and broadly accepted interpretive principle that "specific rules may make valid exceptions to general ones," a.k.a. the "Specific trumps general" rule.

If we accept that the MONSTER MANUAL does not commit an error every time it identifies "spells" as "Special Attacks," which it does frequently, then we should confidently assert that a spell that deals Sonic damage is indeed a special attack that deals Sonic damage. A special ability that grants immunity to Sonic attacks should make you immune to the damage inflicted by spells with the Sonic descriptor as well.

Sorry I missed your post before. That is precisely what I wanted to say but wasn't able to, thank you.

Elves
2021-04-22, 07:07 PM
@OP: I don't think the bardic music ability is referring to the sonic attack SA when it says magical sonic attacks; I read that as a more general term for offensive effects (similar to how the mettle ability applies against "attacks").


I think it should be uncontroversial to assert that spells can be special attacks. The word "spells" appears in the "Special Attacks" line of the statistics blocks of many creatures listed in the MONSTER MANUAL v. 3.5.
That seems to indicate racial spellcasting; NPC spellcasters who get their spellcasting from class levels don't have their spells classified as a SA.
But that doesn't mean sonic spells from racial casting qualify under the sonic attack SA: the racial casting itself seems to be the SA, but the actual spells you cast with it are still spells and not SLAs or supernatural abilities (and therefore can't be SAs).

Darg
2021-04-22, 08:22 PM
SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks)


Attacks

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

I would say yes, if they fit the definition above. They aren't an attack in the sense of needing an attack roll, but they are an attack in the general sense.

Calthropstu
2021-04-23, 09:54 AM
If a spell breaks invisibility, it is an attack. If a spell has the sonic dezcripter it is of the sonic type. An attack spell of the sonic type is a sonic attack.

Elves
2021-04-23, 01:03 PM
I would say yes, if they fit the definition above. They aren't an attack in the sense of needing an attack roll, but they are an attack in the general sense.
Right, they count for the bardic music and silence, but they don't count as a sonic attack SA.