Who said Class Features are always a Special Ability? Quote please.
That's what? 5th time asking for one?
Nobody said that. Some (you included, IIRC) claimed they weren't, and thus that since Spells on classes were class features, they weren't Special Abilities.
Let it be known you have conceded that class features are not by default special abilities. This is what you keep skipping over.
No, I said they likely ARE Special Abilities (except for BAB, saves, hp, and other things of that nature), but that that fact is irrelevant to the point, as all that matters is that class abilities
can be Special Abilities. There's a difference. In every situation where the question of "are they special abilities" comes up they are always listed as such. This includes every single example of a creature with class abilities being listed in an old stat block (where Special Abilities are always shown as such), where the class abilities are always listed as Special Attacks or Special Qualities. This also follows from the DMG and PHB definitions of Special Abilities, which use Class Abilities as their examples. Not only that, but the 3.5 FAQ on page 38 outright says that every Class Feature that "you can use to hurt or hinder a foe" is a Special Attack. Out of curiosity, do you believe spells can, or cannot, be used to hurt or hinder a foe?
Can you name a single counter example? Surely if what I'm saying is wrong there'd be one.
Spellcasting is defined in the PHB, likewise as the errata states if any discrepancies between the PHB & MM then the MM is ignored, the PHB is primary source. Secondary source states spellcasting is a special ability, primary source does not.
The PHB does not state that Spellcasting is not a Special Ability. It says nothing on the topic whatsoever. Monster Manual does say it's a Special Ability. There is no conflict there. You're not using the Primary Source rules correctly at all. For what you're saying to apply, the PHB would have to specifically state that spellcasting was not a Special Ability.
Furthermore, the primary source for Special Abilities is in fact the Monster Manual, not the PHB. Since the question is "is the Spells ability a Special Ability?" the Monster Manual is in fact the primary source. If the question was "is the Spells ability a Class Feature?" the PHB would be the primary source (and the answer would be yes, for classes).
If you appect only primary sources (which varies by post, see quoting FF1/MMV to back your point) then spellcasting is not a special ability.
No primary source states this. Once again, you're just making stuff up.
If you use additional sources, such as anything published after the DMGII, the updates which provide rule clarification also state spellcasting is not a special ability.
No book after DMGII says that either. You're making this up too. In fact, two books printed after that point (FC 1 and MMV) list the ability to cast spells as Ex, though it's only a similar (not quite identical) ability.
Seriously, try to find one quote, and try to remember that simply not saying something isn't the same as saying something isn't true. I mean heck, if a rule says "A dagger is a light weapon" would you quote that as a source saying daggers aren't throwing weapons?
Those are my points, again.
To summarize, your points are that you think not directly saying spells are special abilities in a random given section is the same as saying they're not special abilities, you think that the Player's Handbook is the primary source on the topic of ability types despite the fact that the Monster Manual is, and you claim that a ton of books say Spells aren't Special Abilities despite having not one single quote to back that up (and a number of quotes which are counter to that). You have absolutely not one single quote to back up any of your points.
You also have to ignore the SRD and every book printed with the older stat block summary, including the primary source for Special Ability types (MM).
Yeah, any wonder no one's buying it?
Fast Movement grants +10 to land speed, it is not interrupted by the choice to move less nor is it interrupted by being tripped or sleeping. You're land speed remains the same and more impotently Fast Movement is never removed from the mathematic formal that decides your land speed.
It's almost like THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING.
Not even close.
RAW: Charm Humanoid on an undead creature causes the spellcasting to fail.
It causes the casting of the spell to fail, but has no effect on the ability to cast spells. You don't suddenly lack the ability to cast spells if you do that... you could still cast a Swift Action spell that round, for example. So... same thing.
RAW: Solid Fog limits you to a movement rate 5ft per round.
RAW: Solid Fog does not set your land speed to anything.
RAW: Solid Fog does not prevent Fast Movement from adding 10 to your base land speed.
Right, just like casting Charm Person (it's not called Charm Humanoid, do you even read the books?) on an undead creature does not change your ability to cast spells, Solid Fog doesn't remove your +10' Fast Movement ability. It's just that the spell you cast failed to work, and the ability to move in the fog fails too.
Made up BS: I Haz think I can haz not move there be my larnd sped haz changed.
Erm, no. That's just you playing at strawmen again. The point I've been saying all along is that the ability to do something is not the same as the action that occurs. The action of running fast can be interrupted or stopped, but the ability to run faster is always there.
Let me ask you this.
1. The Stunned condition prevents you from taking actions.
2. When your initiative count comes up it is your turn and you may take actions.
Does stunning change your initiative modifier? Because that is what you are implying
I'm not implying that. Nobody's implying that. The stunned condition simply stops you from taking actions... why would it change your initiative? I've never said anything like what you're claiming.
Read any book past the DMGII. Poof, your statement about my contradicting every rule book is a lie. those books were of course made by a designer, provides commentary on the topic, and is a huge number of the other sources. Do not say all if all you have is the MM & ignore updates vs PHB.
Quote ONE book past (or before) the DMGII that says Spells aren't a Special Ability. One. Come on, you can do it.
Now listen closely. As you pointed out for me. Class Features are not special abilities. As in simply being a class feature does not state it is a special ability whereas many specific class features do note they are. Only grounds for saying spellcasting is a special ability is the MM1's glossary statement (later rules revoke).
FAIL. The following are grounds for saying the ability to cast spells is a Special Ability: MM1, SRD, Rules of the Game, Fiend Folio, MMII, MMIII, the official 3.5 FAQ, and every single other book with the older stat block (the new block doesn't say one way or the other, despite your false claims otherwise). Also Monster Manual V due to Arcane Talent being listed as an Ex ability.
And newer still doesn't trump older. Primary Source (The Monster Manual is the primary source on ability types) always trumps.
Further you still remain shoving a special ability tag on a by raw unclassified term
If it's by RAW unclassified, then you can show a quote of RAW saying it's unclassified. Produce the quote.
Every damn thing I've said so far I've stuck to,
Yes, but the rules don't stick to what you're saying so who cares?
and of every damn thing, your drifting closer to them. Not even a page ago you were claiming all class features are special abilities.
I said it seemed like that in this very post and the post before it. But where did I ever say it before that (a page ago)? Show the quote, or is this you just making stuff up again.
Okay, you've failed to produce any evidence, summarized your points as all being wrong, and proved you don't know the primary source rules.
So here's what we'll do. You're going to be ignored until you can demonstrate you know the following:
1) The primary source rules.
2) At least 5 sources which list Spells as a Special Ability (or the subheadeding Special Attack or Special Quality)
3) The difference between "evidence of a lack" and "absence of evidence"
For the first two, you must prove you know it using nothing but rules quotes. For the third, consider the fact that the PHB (the primary source on feats) does not state what ability type feats are. But other books (BoED 39, for example, as well as the 3.5 FAQ) make it clear that all feats are Ex. What ability type, then, are feats?
Next, you have to try to use rules quotes (actual quotes, not just random claims) to back up the following false statements you've made in this post alone:
1) Any book after DMGII states that Spells are not a Special Ability
2) Newer rules supercede older rules when they conflict
Failure to use rules quotes (including book and page number) which actually substantiate your claim will be treated as conceding that you were wrong. Since these points are the core of your argument, failure to substantiate both these claims would invalidate everything you've been saying.
JaronK