Fuck You to casters.

[Sunic_Flames]

Since when have me and Jaron agreed on anything? Sure it's happened before...etc

I hope you guys never agree.  Over the last 2 weeks we got an interesting scouting handbook out of your disagreement.

Of course, it's for tier 3 classes, but alot of us play at those levels.

Unfortunately we lost another handbook at the same time.  Probably the better one of the two for the optimizer.

You got something full of lies and fail, and lost something useful. Yeah, I'd say that's a net loss.

[Kajhera]

Casting a spell, at least according to Lycanthromancer, involves speaking nonsensical words, doing the macarena, and eating a live spider. Sounds like an extraordinary ability to me.

Spells themselves, on the other hand, function exactly like spells of the same name, and the verbal, somatic, material, and so forth components are tied up in the spellcasting, not the spell. Therefore spells are themselves spell-like. And countering a spell is part of the extraordinary portion of spellcasting. And what ability modifies the saving throw is often overridden.

Does this make sense? No?

Yea, I didn't think so.

[BeholderSlayer]

True, but Spells aren't listed explicitly as Extraordinary.

God, the shifting goalposts here is kinda silly.  Prove that them being Special Abilities means they're Ex?  "They're not abilities!"  Prove that they're Special Attacks and that Special Attacks are defined as being abilities?  "They're untyped abilities!"  Prove that all abilities must have a type?  "They're Natural!"  Prove that the definition of natural says it's only things which are inherent to the physical form, and that Special abilities are never natural?  "You can't prove they're Ex!"  Prove that them being Special Abilities means they're Ex?  "They're not abilities!"  It could make a person's head spin.

You're right, they're only explicitly listed as Extraordinary in a few places (Arcane Talent, and evidently this Lilith entry that I still haven't found).  Sneak Attack and its cousins are like that too.  But since they're implicitly listed all over the place, and must be one of the four, and can't possibly be the other three, it works pretty well.  I mean, I've laid it all out so many times it's silly.  Things don't have to be explicitly listed as one ability type everywhere to be that ability type.  Each individual feat is never explicitly listed as Ex... but feats in general are, so they are.   Same deal here, only just slightly more complex. But not that much more so.

JaronK

Well, I'm not the one claiming that an implicit interpretation is an explicit fact, you are, so all I did was point out that you were *explicitly* wrong to assert so.

[lans]

Since when have me and Jaron agreed on anything? Sure it's happened before...etc

I hope you guys never agree.  Over the last 2 weeks we got an interesting scouting handbook out of your disagreement.

Of course, it's for tier 3 classes, but alot of us play at those levels.

Unfortunately we lost another handbook at the same time.  Probably the better one of the two for the optimizer.

You got something full of lies and fail, and lost something useful. Yeah, I'd say that's a net loss.

Well we didn't actually lose anything, its just in a harder to access location. You didn't put anything into your  handbook that you didn't post elsewhere.

[JaronK]

By the way, Would you post a source of the "rules of the game" article you are referring to Jaron? That would help.

Sure.  It's from here:  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a

When a spellcaster is inside an antimagic area, any spells she casts are suppressed. Such spells don't actually fail unless their durations are instantaneous. Spells with longer durations are suppressed until the caster somehow leaves the antimagic area (though time spent within the antimagic area counts against the spell's duration). If the caster isn't aware she's in an antimagic area, handle the situation

Clearly, the line about how you can cast spells, and they don't fail (unless they wouldn't do anything at all due to being instantaneous) but are just suppressed instead indicates you still have the ability to cast spells in an Antimagic field (unlike Sp abilities... you can't even try to use those).  

@Kajhera:  Spells themselves are not spell-like.  When we're talking about the spell itself (as opposed to the ability) it's not an ability at all and thus doesn't need a type.  Also, we know they're not spell-like because the description of spell-like abilities specifically talks about how Sp abilities are different from spells, and we have lines like this thing from the Antimagic Field spell:  "including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."  So, while the ability to cast a spell is Ex, the spell itself isn't an ability at all and thus doesn't need any type.

@TLM:  Special Attack: Spells includes class feature spells, as there are a few monster entries where a critter has class levels... and their spells are indeed listed as a Special Attack.  Check out the Celestial Charger (under Unicorns) in the Monster Manual for example.  So, all Spells are special attacks, even if they're class features.  And spells are also listed under Special Abilities in the SRD, which makes sense... because all Special Attacks are a subset of Special Abilities.

So, the "Spells" ability is always a Special Attack, and always a Special Ability.  Depending on the creature in question, it might be a class feature/class ability (those are synonymous), a racial ability, or even an ability gained from an item (that shield that lets you cast spells as a Paladin... though of course that one wouldn't work in an AM field, because the item would stop working entirely).

Though really, the fact that we've got multiple creatures with the ability to cast spells as a labeled Ex ability ought to be relevant to this discussion.  Those ones can get disrupted in combat (since they're just like the class version) too.

@Beholder: I said that spells were only occasionally explicitly declared to be Ex.  That's true, in the form of Arcane Talent (and evidently Lilith).  Mostly they're only implicitly declared as such.

@Bester:  I'll be including T1 scouts in that guide as well at some point, when I get around to it.  Lord knows Artificers can pull it off just fine.  So can Psions (Psicrystals can take Lifesight straight off, and Telepaths can take Mindsight easy), any class that can dip Mindbender, and a bunch of others too.  But, you know, life gets in the way sometimes and I do get distracted easily.

JaronK

[Kajhera]

Don't worry, I wasn't being serious.

[snakeman830]

The shield is an artifact, so it would keep functioning fine in an AMF.  Just saying...

[Mixster]

...
So, in light of this evidence, if there is nothing to dispute the above claims. It seems spells are Ex abilities.

Are you now referring to Special Attack: Spells? Or Class Feature: Spells? Or just spells in general?

Yeah I should have said spellcasting. That would have made it simpler.

So I assume you are disputing what I would call argument #A1?

Now that is claiming that spells aren't special abilities, which means they can't be special attacks. If this is true, why does monsters with class levels (and thus the class feature spells) list spells as special attacks?

[BeholderSlayer]

Where is the quote that Special Attacks must be Special Abilities? I can't find it.

[wotmaniac]

Where is the quote that Special Attacks must be Special Abilities? I can't find it.

Introduction chapter of MM ..... it's really more of an implication.

[JaronK]

Don't worry, I wasn't being serious.

You know, people seriously say such weird things that it becomes so hard to tell when someone's messing about...

@Snakeman:  So it is.  Well, no matter.

@BeholderSlayer:  The same place I keep mentioning over and over, which is an in depth write up by a designer on what the various ability types are.  Specifically, it says

Special Attack: A unique or unusual ability a creature can use to harm or hinder other creatures.

Then take a look at the Monster Manual, page 6, in the "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" section:

Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others.  A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities.  The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack.  A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).   See the Glossary for the definitions of special abilities.

So, to be clear, "Special Abilities" are divided into two categories, "Special Attacks" and "Special Qualities."  The former is just any Special Ability you can attack with, while the latter is any Special Ability that's not generally used to attack.  And by the way, the definition in the Glossary that's referred to in the above section is just the quote that says that all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

Also, if you're trying to dispute that spells are Special Abilities, please read the Special Abilities section of the SRD.  Note that Spells is listed in that section.

JaronK

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Just to be clear, the argument here is that spellcasting is (ex).  The argument is not that any sensible DM would or should allow you to gain spellcasting with the various form-changing spells. 

Much like the grandpa dragon racial substitution trick, practically nobody is going to allow it for a "serious" campaign. 

[JaronK]

Just to be clear, the argument here is that spellcasting is (ex).  The argument is not that any sensible DM would or should allow you to gain spellcasting with the various form-changing spells. 

Much like the grandpa dragon racial substitution trick, practically nobody is going to allow it for a "serious" campaign. 

Quite so.  It's what the rules actually say, not what you should be using in game.  Planar Binding by RAW totally allows endless wish loops, but I definitely wouldn't recommend actually trying that in game without express DM permission (I've used it before, with the agreement that we as a party would only wish for things that were cool, not powerful.  The result was a very sexy animated battlewagon that we all loved).

JaronK

[The_Laughing_Man]

...
So, in light of this evidence, if there is nothing to dispute the above claims. It seems spells are Ex abilities.

Are you now referring to Special Attack: Spells? Or Class Feature: Spells? Or just spells in general?

Yeah I should have said spellcasting. That would have made it simpler.

So I assume you are disputing what I would call argument #A1?

Now that is claiming that spells aren't special abilities, which means they can't be special attacks. If this is true, why does monsters with class levels (and thus the class feature spells) list spells as special attacks?

My original stance was that Spells (whether Special Attack or Class Feature) cannot be an extraordinary ability. The rules quotes I provided are quite clear on this. Spells is a generic ability no doubt as per Class Feature rules. I've yet to determine what kind of ability it is.

Ok so lets do a proper recap, I'm pretty sure of JaronKs argument, but the other argument I'm sort of confused about, could somebody recap it?:

Argument #A1 & #A2

Spellcasting is a Special Ability (SRD says so) which can as you say be a Class Feature... but it can also be racial.  Heck, you can even get it from items (that one artifact).  Note that no ability ever lacks a type (PHB 180, Monster Manual, SRD, Rules of the Game, and Rules Compendium all state this).

If you want to dispute the above. That every ability has a type, and that spellcasting is an ability. Please write so.

I'll dispute the part about no ability lacks a type. I looked at the PHB, MM, SRD, Rules of the Game and RC; none of them explicitly state an ability must have a type. But I may have missed something so I would appreciate exact rules quotes.


The ability to be able to use Spells is gained, so Spellcasting is an ability. But casting a spell is an action; it is usually a standard action but can also be free, swift, immediate, full-round, etc. Now, is making a standard action (to cast a spell) an extraordinary ability? Or could it even be a natural ability? Or is it just an action separate from an ability?

...

When a spellcaster is inside an antimagic area, any spells she casts are suppressed. Such spells don't actually fail unless their durations are instantaneous. Spells with longer durations are suppressed until the caster somehow leaves the antimagic area (though time spent within the antimagic area counts against the spell's duration). If the caster isn't aware she's in an antimagic area, handle the situation

Clearly, the line about how you can cast spells, and they don't fail (unless they wouldn't do anything at all due to being instantaneous) but are just suppressed instead indicates you still have the ability to cast spells in an Antimagic field (unlike Sp abilities... you can't even try to use those). 
...

The act of casting a spell is an action (usually standard); it is not an ability. Antimagic field does not suppress standard actions. So Antimagic field cannot be used as an evidence that Spellcasting-ability can only be extraordinary.

So where does it leave us? The Spellcasting-ability is just an ability cast spells with standard actions. A wizard can use a standard action to cast a spell whereas a fighter cannot (that is without the Magical Training feat).

Special Attack: Spells is not an extraordinary ability. Please see the rules quotes.

I also searched the term Arcane Talent and I was really confused when I found Complete Mage p.31, which does not seem to have any connection to the issue at hand. Then I found this: Special Quality: Arcane Talent (see e.g. MM5 p.86, p.87, p.184). It is interesting that it is a Special Quality. Each of those monsters also have Special Attack: Spells. What to make of it?

[JaronK]

I'll dispute the part about no ability lacks a type. I looked at the PHB, MM, SRD, Rules of the Game and RC; none of them explicitly state an ability must have a type. But I may have missed something so I would appreciate exact rules quotes.

Okay.  First, Monster Manual page 6 (which I just quoted):

A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (sp), or supernatural (Su).

Next, Monster Manual page 315 has the glossary definition of special ability:

Special Abilities:  A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

It then goes on to describe those three things... and to be clear that's the definition of Special Ability!  It says so right after that page 6 quote.

Next, the Players Handbook on page 180:

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

It's a catch all category for all abilities that aren't the first three.  Note that the first three types are "special abilities" while natural abilities just covers "abilities."  This is clarified further by the Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph article on the subject, which states:

Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural

So, is that explicit enough for you?  The very definition of special abilities is that they must all have one of the three types, while natural abilities is the catch all category for any ability that's not special (such as the ability to breathe air or walk... read that rules of the game article if you're unsure about this point).

The ability to be able to use Spells is gained, so Spellcasting is an ability.

Correct, and it can't be natural because, as you say, it's gained.  Natural abilities must be inherent to the physical form, not something you learn or gain or that is ever listed as a special ability (see Rules of the Game on Polymorph and the PHB for sources).

But casting a spell is an action; it is usually a standard action but can also be free, swift, immediate, full-round, etc. Now, is making a standard action (to cast a spell) an extraordinary ability? Or could it even be a natural ability? Or is it just an action separate from an ability?

Abilities are indeed separate from actions.  You have an ability to do an action.  If the action is "I fly 90' as a move action" the ability is "fly 90 (good)" or whatever.  If the action is "I trip him and then get a free attack" the ability is "Improved Trip."

The act of casting a spell is an action (usually standard); it is not an ability. Antimagic field does not suppress standard actions. So Antimagic field cannot be used as an evidence that Spellcasting-ability can only be extraordinary.

If the ability was suppressed then you couldn't do the action.  But you can do the action (casting the spell).  It's just that the action is suppressed, so it isn't useful.  Antimagic fields are a rare case where an ability is not suppressed by the action is.  A similar case would be an underwater Solar... he still has his fly 90' ability, but he can't fly because flying doesn't do anything here.  By comparison, you don't even have Sp abilities to use in an antimagic field.

So where does it leave us? The Spellcasting-ability is just an ability cast spells with standard actions. A wizard can use a standard action to cast a spell whereas a fighter cannot (that is without the Magical Training feat).

I'm really not sure what standard actions have to do with anything.  Antimagic fields say nothing about standard actions... why is that relevant?

Special Attack: Spells is not an extraordinary ability. Please see the rules quotes.

That's the only confusing bit at this point, as everything else is really explicit... and it doesn't fit with Arcane Talent at all.

I also searched the term Arcane Talent and I was really confused when I found Complete Mage p.31, which does not seem to have any connection to the issue at hand. Then I found this: Special Quality: Arcane Talent (see e.g. MM5 p.86, p.87, p.184). It is interesting that it is a Special Quality. Each of those monsters also have Special Attack: Spells. What to make of it?

I didn't see anything about Arcane Talent in CM31.  It's MMV that has two creatures with Arcane Talent, an Ex ability that just lets you cast spells.  The fact that it's a Special Quality is strange... As per the rules on Special Qualities and Attacks, the two are both basically the same (they're special abilities, but attacks are offensive and qualities are not).  Spells are of course weird because they're both offensive and passive.  However, it creates the bizarre confusion here that Special Qualities are not gained by Polymorph, but Special Attacks are.  But note that MM is the primary source on Special Abilities, so it trumps in the case of a direct contradiction (which this would be a case of, since MM says spells are a Special Attack and MMV is saying they're a Special Quality).

JaronK

[The_Laughing_Man]

Thanks for the quotes, I'll check them out.

...

But casting a spell is an action; it is usually a standard action but can also be free, swift, immediate, full-round, etc. Now, is making a standard action (to cast a spell) an extraordinary ability? Or could it even be a natural ability? Or is it just an action separate from an ability?

Abilities are indeed separate from actions.  You have an ability to do an action.  If the action is "I fly 90' as a move action" the ability is "fly 90 (good)" or whatever.  If the action is "I trip him and then get a free attack" the ability is "Improved Trip."

The act of casting a spell is an action (usually standard); it is not an ability. Antimagic field does not suppress standard actions. So Antimagic field cannot be used as an evidence that Spellcasting-ability can only be extraordinary.

If the ability was suppressed then you couldn't do the action.  But you can do the action (casting the spell).  It's just that the action is suppressed, so it isn't useful.  Antimagic fields are a rare case where an ability is not suppressed by the action is.  A similar case would be an underwater Solar... he still has his fly 90' ability, but he can't fly because flying doesn't do anything here.  By comparison, you don't even have Sp abilities to use in an antimagic field.

So where does it leave us? The Spellcasting-ability is just an ability cast spells with standard actions. A wizard can use a standard action to cast a spell whereas a fighter cannot (that is without the Magical Training feat).

I'm really not sure what standard actions have to do with anything.  Antimagic fields say nothing about standard actions... why is that relevant?

Hmm.. I was replying to your antimagic description. I should have checked the spell in question in more detail. In fact nowhere in the description does it state that it is possible to cast in the field! The closes t thing I found was this:

That quote clearly states only that casting into (not within) is suppressed. The using of spell or magical effect within the field means that e.g. bulls strength or light is suppressed.

Anyway the relevance of the standard action was that the action of casting is an action (standard, swift, etc). And if it would be used within the field then we would need to figure out whether making an action is a special ability. I have equated the Spellcasting-ability to making an action (usually standard).

But that does not matter because it is left open whether casting within the field is possible.

Special Attack: Spells is not an extraordinary ability. Please see the rules quotes.

That's the only confusing bit at this point, as everything else is really explicit... and it doesn't fit with Arcane Talent at all.

So I suppose it is safe to assume that with this conflict the Special Attack: Spells is not gained from polymorphing. I.e. unresolvable conflict means no RAW is possible only RAI.

I also searched the term Arcane Talent and I was really confused when I found Complete Mage p.31, which does not seem to have any connection to the issue at hand. Then I found this: Special Quality: Arcane Talent (see e.g. MM5 p.86, p.87, p.184). It is interesting that it is a Special Quality. Each of those monsters also have Special Attack: Spells. What to make of it?

I didn't see anything about Arcane Talent in CM31.  It's MMV that has two creatures with Arcane Talent, an Ex ability that just lets you cast spells.  The fact that it's a Special Quality is strange... As per the rules on Special Qualities and Attacks, the two are both basically the same (they're special abilities, but attacks are offensive and qualities are not).  Spells are of course weird because they're both offensive and passive.  However, it creates the bizarre confusion here that Special Qualities are not gained by Polymorph, but Special Attacks are.  But note that MM is the primary source on Special Abilities, so it trumps in the case of a direct contradiction (which this would be a case of, since MM says spells are a Special Attack and MMV is saying they're a Special Quality).

JaronK

This confused me at first but I moved on

This section provides alternative class feature options
for the eleven classes from the Player's Handbook, as
well as some classes from supplements. Many of these
alternative class features grant a minor arcane talent
or twist to a character, while others provide some
protection against the tactics commonly used by
arcane spellcasters.

So Special Quality: Arcane Talent is also not good for determining the type for Special Attack: Spells. I agree on the trumping part.

[BeholderSlayer]

Don't worry, I wasn't being serious.

You know, people seriously say such weird things that it becomes so hard to tell when someone's messing about...

@Snakeman:  So it is.  Well, no matter.

@BeholderSlayer:  The same place I keep mentioning over and over, which is an in depth write up by a designer on what the various ability types are.  Specifically, it says

Special Attack: A unique or unusual ability a creature can use to harm or hinder other creatures.

Then take a look at the Monster Manual, page 6, in the "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" section:

Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others.  A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities.  The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack.  A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).   See the Glossary for the definitions of special abilities.

So, to be clear, "Special Abilities" are divided into two categories, "Special Attacks" and "Special Qualities."  The former is just any Special Ability you can attack with, while the latter is any Special Ability that's not generally used to attack.  And by the way, the definition in the Glossary that's referred to in the above section is just the quote that says that all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

Also, if you're trying to dispute that spells are Special Abilities, please read the Special Abilities section of the SRD.  Note that Spells is listed in that section.

JaronK

Touchy touchy. I wasn't disputing anything. Somebody needs to stop wearing twisted panties.

[Bauglir]

Touchy touchy. I wasn't disputing anything. Somebody needs to stop wearing twisted panties.

Quite aside from anything else, I agree because that just sounds uncomfortable. No opinion given on the actual matters some other people are getting into fits about here. I'm just saying anyone wearing twisted panties needs to rethink their taste in undergarment-donning procedures.

[Kaelik]

FYI, since I don't see it mentioned anywhere, Lilith or Lilitu, can't remember which, is in  Fiendish Codex I or II, can't remember, sorry for the laziness.

Also, can anyone present any definition of ability that would actually prove that spellcasting can't be a not-ability?

[wotmaniac]

So, to be clear, "Special Abilities" are divided into two categories, "Special Attacks" and "Special Qualities."  The former is just any Special Ability you can attack with, while the latter is any Special Ability that's not generally used to attack.  And by the way, the definition in the Glossary that's referred to in the above section is just the quote that says that all Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.

see, this is the only thing I have an issue with; though, only on a semantic level.
there's nothing that I know of that makes these 2 things inextricably linked -- let me explain .... it's basically an issue of something akin to this (yes, another fruit analogy): all apples and all oranges are fruits; but not all fruits are apples and oranges.

Now for the actual semantics:
the terms "special attacks" and "special qualities" are simply stat block identifiers.  it's everything that doesn't fall in to the basic chassis info.
the fact that "special attacks" and "special qualities" are made up of various types of "special abilities" does not mean that "special abilities" are automatically broken down in to "special attacks" and "special qualities".
Is there a link between the 2 concepts? of course; but they are still 2 different things (even though they happen to often be used together)

like I said, it's just a semantics issue with the terminology.