Author Topic: Fuck You to casters.  (Read 60854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #160 on: March 02, 2011, 05:21:17 AM »
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:

Here, try this instead:

Quote
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 in the same way you'd handle it if the caster has aimed a spell into the antimagic area from outside.

Rules of the Game: Magical Oddities 3 is the source for that.  I assume that answers your questions on casting within the field?

Quote
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.

Well, no.  We have one part that's confusing and a HUGE weight of evidence on the other side.  That doesn't make it unresolvable.

Quote
This confused me at first but I moved on :)
Quote from: Complete Mage p.31
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.

Ah, right.  No, that's not what I was talking about.

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

Well, the part about it being Ex isn't a trumping issue, because it's not explicitly defined like that anywhere else (thus it's not a direct conflict and primary source rules are irrelevant).  The part about it being a Special Quality is trumped, because that's in direct conflict with a primary source.  So yes, it's a good source for determining the ability type (though obviously not the best), but not for whether it's an attack vs quality.  I finally found Lilitu in FC1 on page 43 (was confused because Lileth was from the hells, and doesn't have an entry).  That one also has an Ex casting ability listed as a Special Quality... Mock Divinity.  It just lets her cast as a Cleric 9 with Charisma.

I find it strange that the later books (MMV, FC1) with the new stat block type moved spellcasting abilities to SQ while defining them as Ex.  Nice to see the defined type, but why the SQ move?  Such a thing should have been an errata (it's actually quite nice because Polymorph doesn't grant Special Qualities, so if this were an errata it would get the job done).  I went through the entire FC 1 and found no creatures with normal spellcasting (i.e. not listed under some other name like Arcane Talent or Mock Divinity) but I didn't see any.  FC 2 has a Hellbred Paladin... but his spells aren't listed as anything at all (of course, since the new stat blocks don't even have a Special Attacks category, that makes some sense).  It's very strange for them to be different like that.

JaronK
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 06:22:55 AM by JaronK »

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #161 on: March 02, 2011, 05:27:42 AM »
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.

Monster Manual page 6 very clearly puts them together and has them both as Special Abilities.  Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph 1 also puts them both as "abilities."

Quote
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.

The primary link is on the Monster Manual, page 6, which has the definition of Special Attacks and Special Qualities.  In that paragraph (which is just a paragraph on what Special Attacks and Special Qualities are), it starts by saying "Many creatures have unusual abilities" and then says that "a monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities."  It clearly states that Special Qualities "includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack" while it talks about "a special ability" that allows saving throws... which is what Special Attacks do.  Really, that paragraph is quite clear that Special Abilities are broken down into two categories, Special Attacks and Special Qualities.  It also refers you to the glossary definition of Special Abilities in this paragraph.

The RotG:AAP1 article also defines Special Qualities and Special Attacks as being typed abilities.

So yeah, Special Attacks and Special Abilities are defined as being (the only) two categories of Special Abilities.

JaronK

Kaelik

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
    • Email
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #162 on: March 02, 2011, 09:42:16 AM »
Okay, now make that post again, but without talking about State of the Game articles that have no RAW value.

The_Laughing_Man

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #163 on: March 02, 2011, 09:53:52 AM »
...
Quote
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 in the same way you'd handle it if the caster has aimed a spell into the antimagic area from outside.

Rules of the Game: Magical Oddities 3 is the source for that.  I assume that answers your questions on casting within the field?

Unfortunately not. With this additional rule we now a situation where we need to determine what does casting a spell within antimagic field means. I postulate that casting a spell is an action (usually standard) and not a Special Ability. Because Antimagic field description does not say that actions (to cast a spell) are suppressed then they are not. Actions and Special Abilities are quite distinct of each other and not to be confused with each other.

Therefore antimagic cannot be used as a proof that casting a spell is an extraordinary ability.

Quote
Quote
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.

Well, no.  We have one part that's confusing and a HUGE weight of evidence on the other side.  That doesn't make it unresolvable.

Who can abjudicate the conflict that Core Rulebook PHB, which states explicitly that Spells are not extraordinary abilities, and other sources MM5 Special Quality: Arcane Talent (Ex), Core Rulebook MM1 Special Attack: Spells, etc are not fully agreeing with each other? Who can say which part have more weigth than the other? I would call it RAI if one type is chosen instead of the other, when no type is explicitly stated.


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

Well, the part about it being Ex isn't a trumping issue, because it's not explicitly defined like that anywhere else (thus it's not a direct conflict and primary source rules are irrelevant).  The part about it being a Special Quality is trumped, because that's in direct conflict with a primary source.  So yes, it's a good source for determining the ability type (though obviously not the best), but not for whether it's an attack vs quality.  I finally found Lilitu in FC1 on page 43 (was confused because Lileth was from the hells, and doesn't have an entry).  That one also has an Ex casting ability listed as a Special Quality... Mock Divinity.  It just lets her cast as a Cleric 9 with Charisma.

I find it strange that the later books (MMV, FC1) with the new stat block type moved spellcasting abilities to SQ while defining them as Ex.  Nice to see the defined type, but why the SQ move?  Such a thing should have been an errata (it's actually quite nice because Polymorph doesn't grant Special Qualities, so if this were an errata it would get the job done).  I went through the entire FC 1 and found no creatures with normal spellcasting (i.e. not listed under some other name like Arcane Talent or Mock Divinity) but I didn't see any.  FC 2 has a Hellbred Paladin... but his spells aren't listed as anything at all (of course, since the new stat blocks don't even have a Special Attacks category, that makes some sense).  It's very strange for them to be different like that.

JaronK

MM5 and FC1 seems to contain new WotC ideas (Arcane Talent) that were incorporated in to the books. Old versions were left as they were. I wish also that there would be a one big errata to settle all those currently unclear issues. I would be even so bold to say that the Special Quality: Arcane Talent is a somewhat unique Special Ability for those monsters; unfortunately I cannot backup the uniqueness part in any way.

I have not yet looked at all the quotes you provided but here one thing I noticed.

Quote from: 3.5 PHB p.200
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Medusas, dryads, harpies, and other magical creatures can create
magical effects without being spellcasters. Characters using magic
wands, rods, and other enchanted items, as well as certain class
features, can also create magical effects

We have established that e.g. a wizard has a Class Feature: Spells. And that Antimagic Field description states that spells are magical effects. If one were to blindly combine these two then Class Feature: Spells would need to be either spell-like or supernatural.

But we can't really do that. Supernatural and extraordinary are out explicitly for the same reasons. Spell-like clearly makes a distiction between spell-like and spells. So it can't be spell-like either. Spells is not a physical in nature, so it can't be natural either. Ergo, we have ruled out all of the four Special ability types.

Fortunately if you closely read the Specal Ability quote you'll notice that Special Abilites are meant for magical effects without being a spellcaster. So we have way out. Spellcaster's (like wizard) Class Feature: Spells is something different than a Special Ability.

If we now consider that casting a spell is an action that only spellcaster can do, all aligns well. So Spells is an ability to perform an action to cast a spell.


JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #164 on: March 02, 2011, 10:17:42 AM »
Unfortunately not. With this additional rule we now a situation where we need to determine what does casting a spell within antimagic field means. I postulate that casting a spell is an action (usually standard) and not a Special Ability. Because Antimagic field description does not say that actions (to cast a spell) are suppressed then they are not. Actions and Special Abilities are quite distinct of each other and not to be confused with each other.

Therefore antimagic cannot be used as a proof that casting a spell is an extraordinary ability.

Check here again, specifically the table at the top:  http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Note that spell like abilities are suppressed (not just the actions... the abilities).  However, the ability to cast spells is not suppressed (just the action).  Likewise, from the link given:  "Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field."  So again, if spells were a supernatural or spell like ability, you couldn't use them at all.  But the abilities aren't suppressed (as they would be if they were Su or Sp), just the actions... so the abilities must be Na or Ex (and since they're Special Abilities, they can't be Na either, and must be Ex).

Also, don't forget this quote, from the Antimagic spell itself:  "The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."  Spells are clearly separate from Spell Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities.

While we're at it, check out Fiendish Codex II (I've been looking through that one a lot, since it came up).  Many feats in there share similar language with antimagic... they constantly refer to "spell, spell like ability, or supernatural ability."  Clearly, these three things are separate.

Quote
Who can abjudicate the conflict that Core Rulebook PHB, which states explicitly that Spells are not extraordinary abilities, and other sources MM5 Special Quality: Arcane Talent (Ex), Core Rulebook MM1 Special Attack: Spells, etc are not fully agreeing with each other? Who can say which part have more weigth than the other? I would call it RAI if one type is chosen instead of the other, when no type is explicitly stated.

Primary Source rules come into play here.  MM1 is the primary source for Special Abilities.

Quote
MM5 and FC1 seems to contain new WotC ideas (Arcane Talent) that were incorporated in to the books. Old versions were left as they were. I wish also that there would be a one big errata to settle all those currently unclear issues. I would be even so bold to say that the Special Quality: Arcane Talent is a somewhat unique Special Ability for those monsters; unfortunately I cannot backup the uniqueness part in any way.

If the Rules Compendium were actually useful at what it was supposed to do, it would have addressed this.  Sadly, it didn't help at all.

Quote
I have not yet looked at all the quotes you provided but here one thing I noticed.

Quote from: 3.5 PHB p.200
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Medusas, dryads, harpies, and other magical creatures can create
magical effects without being spellcasters.
Characters using magic
wands, rods, and other enchanted items, as well as certain class
features, can also create magical effects

We have established that e.g. a wizard has a Class Feature: Spells. And that Antimagic Field description states that spells are magical effects. If one were to blindly combine these two then Class Feature: Spells would need to be either spell-like or supernatural.

Read your quote again... I bolded the important part.  Note that it's specifically talking about non spellcasters here, so you can't use it to talk about what spellcasters are.  It's saying that magical effects which are not created via spells are Spell Like and Supernatural.  We knew that already.

Quote
But we can't really do that. Supernatural and extraordinary are out explicitly for the same reasons. Spell-like clearly makes a distiction between spell-like and spells. So it can't be spell-like either. Spells is not a physical in nature, so it can't be natural either. Ergo, we have ruled out all of the four Special ability types.

Fortunately if you closely read the Specal Ability quote you'll notice that Special Abilites are meant for magical effects without being a spellcaster. So we have way out. Spellcaster's (like wizard) Class Feature: Spells is something different than a Special Ability.

Right logic, wrong conclusion.  Magical class features which are not spellcasting are Sp or Su... but this whole quote is talking about non spellcasting, so it doesn't apply to spellcasters at all.

Also, Class Feature spellcasting is listed as a Special Ability in multiple places, including the SRD (under Special Abilities) and the Monster Manual (Celestial Chargers, which are under unicorns if you'd like to check and are just Unicorns that are Clerics).  In fact, you'll find that all creatures that get class based spellcasting have their spells listed as Special Attacks, which makes them indeed Special Abilities.

Quote
If we now consider that casting a spell is an action that only spellcaster can do, all aligns well. So Spells is an ability to perform an action to cast a spell.

Well yes.  I think I've been saying that for quite sometime.  But it's the ability type that we're talking about.  All abilities must have a type, and Ex is the only one that fits.

JaronK
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 10:35:32 AM by JaronK »

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #165 on: March 02, 2011, 12:44:44 PM »
Man this thread added a few pages. I'm somewhere on page 4 and skipped the rest. It seems the idea I was trying to explain is understood. Also I learned something new today. For all my rude comments to JaronK, for all my hate towards stupid people. Only Sunic and JaronK got mentioned in the ignore thread. I think I amount to that bad boy dude in a boy band.

I feel dirty now.

Anyway, I may catch up on the thread, I may not. It seems everyone vs JaronK right now and everyone knows JaronK never listens to anything so the thread is dead to me outside of advancing my own rules knowledge.
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #166 on: March 02, 2011, 01:31:15 PM »
Man this thread added a few pages. I'm somewhere on page 4 and skipped the rest. It seems the idea I was trying to explain is understood. Also I learned something new today. For all my rude comments to JaronK, for all my hate towards stupid people. Only Sunic and JaronK got mentioned in the ignore thread. I think I amount to that bad boy dude in a boy band.

I feel dirty now.

Anyway, I may catch up on the thread, I may not. It seems everyone vs JaronK right now and everyone knows JaronK never listens to anything so the thread is dead to me outside of advancing my own rules knowledge.

I actually think JaronK's statement has merit. I would very much like to be told why his logic isn't sound.

Also, I think I'm responsible for naming Jaron and Sunic, which was wrong of me.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #167 on: March 02, 2011, 02:10:29 PM »
I actually think JaronK's statement has merit. I would very much like to be told why his logic isn't sound.
My box comment a half dozen pages ago sizes it up.

1. One box holds grapes.
2. One box holds apples.
3. One box holes oranges.
4. You have a banana and must put it in one of those three boxes.

JaronK's only factual argument is the line about special abilities are classified into either Ex, Su or Sp. Grapes, apples and oranges respectively. Spellcasting it's self, thus the rules them selves, never state which box they go into. What JaronK is ultimately doing is arguing which box they should go in by finding rules quotes that are wide enough to attempt to blanket spellcasting as an Ex affect so his kobold factotum can get free spells. There are a huge number of problems though.

A. As this thread repeated points out the spellcasting trait, it's self noted as untyped, doesn't fit into any of the boxes by each box's full definition.
Result: RAW, spellcasting is untyped. See C what I meant by using any of the boxes rather than the three presented.

B. There are grounds via selective rules quotes to in fact place spellcasting in any of the categories based on the reader's interpretation.
Result: 9 pages of people trying to sort the unsortable. A few even go down the path of validating it as an untyped ability.

C. The very rules them selves state else where there is in fact a box for strawberries (natural abilities).
Result: JaronK's fundamental point, special abilities must be one of these three types, is where this whole must be sorted into one of the listed types line of debate comes from. However there is a forth type and that fourth type exists and is intended to exist where JaronK says there can only be three. His argument becomes illogical and collapses into it's self, we could be talking about the Bonus Feats special ability for all that it matters. this additional 'box' disproves there must be three which immediately anyone to deem there is any number of boxes, Grapes, apples, oranges, strawberries and bananas are just the mentioned ones.

In short. He makes a huge illogical leap to archive his desired outcome (C), makes up house rules (A), and declare him self to be the official representative of the rules and his interpretation is law and there are no others (B). This is normal, it's all he ever does.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 02:15:44 PM by SorO_Lost »
Tiers explained in 8 sentences. With examples!
[spoiler]Tiers break down into who has spellcasting more than anything else due to spells being better than anything else in the game.
6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warrior. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Wizard.
0: Gods. StP Erudite, Illthid Savant, Pun-Pun, Rocks fall & you die.
[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #168 on: March 02, 2011, 02:25:17 PM »
I actually think JaronK's statement has merit. I would very much like to be told why his logic isn't sound.
My box comment a half dozen pages ago sizes it up.

1. One box holds grapes.
2. One box holds apples.
3. One box holes oranges.
4. You have a banana and must put it in one of those three boxes.

And this is why no one's really listened to you.  Your metaphor is pulled out of nowhere and completely misses the point: namely, that there are catch all categories, and requirements that all abilities fit into at least one category.  Your metaphor fails to fit this requirement and thus fails utterly.

Quote
JaronK's only factual argument is the line about special abilities are classified into either Ex, Su or Sp. Grapes, apples and oranges respectively. Spellcasting it's self, thus the rules them selves, never state which box they go into. What JaronK is ultimately doing is arguing which box they should go in by finding rules quotes that are wide enough to attempt to blanket spellcasting as an Ex affect so his kobold factotum can get free spells. There are a huge number of problems though.

You realize in my games I don't even allow Wizards most of the time, let alone allow Factotums to actually get spells with their level 19 ability?  But those are house rules.  It's not about what I want, it's about what the rules actually say.  And yes, the rules repeatedly (from a HUGE number of sources) state abilities must have a type.

Quote
A. As this thread repeated points out the spellcasting trait, it's self noted as untyped, doesn't fit into any of the boxes by each box's full definition.
Result: RAW, spellcasting is untyped. See C what I meant by using any of the boxes rather than the three presented.

The bolded part is factually false.  Nowhere does ANY ability say it's untyped.  This includes spells. 

And since your "Result" hypothesis counteracts the SRD, PHB, Monster Manual, Rules Compendium, and Rules of the Game articles, it may be the single most provably false statement ever created.  In fact, you'd have a tough time coming up with a single rules claim that's got more sources showing it's wrong.

Quote
B. There are grounds via selective rules quotes to in fact place spellcasting in any of the categories based on the reader's interpretation.
Result: 9 pages of people trying to sort the unsortable. A few even go down the path of validating it as an untyped ability.

Considering the HUGE weight of evidence here, this is silly to claim. 

Quote
C. The very rules them selves state else where there is in fact a box for strawberries (natural abilities).

Except that Natural Abilities are a catch all for abilities which are not "special abilities."  And the Rules of the Game article goes over this to clarify it if you need.  It's really not that hard... Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su, and Natural Abilities covers every ability that's not one of those three (so, the non special ones, such as breathing or moving).

Quote
Result: JaronK's fundamental point, special abilities must be one of these three types, is where this whole must be sorted into one of the listed types line of debate comes from. However there is a forth type and that fourth type exists and is intended to exist where JaronK says there can only be three. His argument becomes illogical and collapses into it's self, we could be talking about the Bonus Feats special ability for all that it matters.

My fundamental point?  No, that's just what the SRD and Monster Manual say.  But your flaw here is that you're missing that there are two kinds of abilities... special abilities and non special abilities.  The SRD even makes this perfectly crystal clear.  See how Natural Abilities are listed first as the catch all, and then Special Abilities is defined under that and says everything has to be Ex, Sp, or Su? 

So, just to go over it again (despite the fact that it's been said many times, but you've missed it somehow):  Special Abilities are either Ex, Sp, or Su.  All abilities in general are Sp, Su, Ex, or Na.  There's no contradiction there.  It's just that Special Abilities (which are divided into Special Attacks and Special Qualities) have three possible categories, while abilities in general (which include SAs and SQs, but also include stuff like the flight speed of a winged creature or the claw attacks of a creature with claws) have four possible categories. 

Get it now?

Quote
In short. He makes a huge illogical leap to archive his desired outcome (C), makes up house rules (A), and declare him self to be the official representative of the rules and his interpretation is law and there are no others (B). This is normal, it's all he ever does.

I'm not the official representative of the rules... the rules themselves are.  I just quote them.  You're the one right now trying to claim that "A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature" isn't true despite the fact that it's what the game says.  That's called a house rule.

JaronK

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #169 on: March 02, 2011, 06:13:34 PM »
It's not that Jaron is ignoring anything that disagrees with his point here.  All of the rules texts actually support exactly what he is claiming-a rare thing with WotC, but it does happen.
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #170 on: March 02, 2011, 06:36:26 PM »
Why should JaronK not be stubborn here?

He's right. The rules clearly say so.
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #171 on: March 02, 2011, 07:11:42 PM »
Just to bring home the "Special Attacks are Special Abilities" thing I'll throw in yet one more piece of evidence:  From Fiend Folio, page 8.  Specifically:

Quote
Special Abilities:  Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance of 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 any other special abilities that are not modes of attack...

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

So, add one more source to the pile that state that all special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su.  And one more source backing up the statement that Special Attacks and Special Qualities are just the two subcategories of Special Abilities.

JaronK

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #172 on: March 02, 2011, 07:17:03 PM »
I'm forced to agree, as little weight as some might grant my opinions. It's not a conclusion I particularly want, given the implications of Spellcasting being (Ex) special abilities, but I can't convincingly argue against it with any rules text. On the plus side, this thread has convinced me that I need to add rules explicitly defining what Spellcasting actually is, once I work out wording that's satisfying.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #173 on: March 02, 2011, 07:25:36 PM »
As I said once already, spellcasting is (Ex), but abilities like polymorph don't grant you knowledge of spells, and they (usually!) don't last long enough for you to rest for 8+1 hours to fill your spell slots.

And anyway, summoning/calling is still better, since you get additional spell lists and independent actions to use them with.
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #174 on: March 02, 2011, 07:35:39 PM »
I'm forced to agree, as little weight as some might grant my opinions. It's not a conclusion I particularly want, given the implications of Spellcasting being (Ex) special abilities, but I can't convincingly argue against it with any rules text. On the plus side, this thread has convinced me that I need to add rules explicitly defining what Spellcasting actually is, once I work out wording that's satisfying.

If you want to talk about what Spellcasting should be, that's a whole other issue.  Unfortunately, Ex ends up being the only thing that works... making it Spell Like (the logical choice, I'd say) leads to issues of various feats designed for spell like abilities becoming available to spells, and in some cases you really don't want that (like the feat that says "once per encounter you may use a spell like ability as an immediate action").  Su has similar problems, and Na is granted even by Alter Self so it only makes the issue come up earlier.

However, making spells into Special Qualities works pretty well..  Polymorph grants Ex Special Attacks but not Ex Special Qualities, so that's one problem down, and it makes sense too (Special Attacks are for aggressive things, Special Qualities are for everything else... but spells can be either one, and thus fit in either category logically).  Shapechange would still grant it, of course, as would the Factotum 19 ability, but honestly at level 17+ such nonsense is relatively expected (is it really so bad that a level 19 Factotum can have spell casting equivalent to the Wizards and Clerics in the party for a minute at a time, three times per day?).  And then there's the really simple solution: simply state that the entire polymorph line doesn't grant spells as a flat out exception.  You could do the same for Factotums if you like (honestly, for me I'd rule they can't get spells if there's no T1 casters in the party, and they can if there is, simply because that way you end up with better intra-party balance.  It's DM fiat balancing but I think it's reasonable).

@Lycan:  Unfortunately, knowledge of spells is part of the "spells" ability that Sorcerers, Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, Warmages, and Favored Souls get.  Obviously, you don't want the "Spells" of a Wizard since you'd need to have a book full of them and an hour to meditate, but that's not the issue for the spontaneous casters.  Also, if you've rested for 8 hours last night, you should be good to go... if you check, you'll find that the only restriction is that "he hasn't used up his spells per day of that level" which he obviously hasn't done if he's just gotten them.

And summoning usually gets you creatures with generally lower spell levels to work with, though the action thing is obviously handy.  Gating creatures gets you Solars and such, so at that point it's indeed better, though it does cost some Exp.

In the end, I think the best solution is simply to say "In my games, the Polymorph line doesn't grant spellcasting."

JaronK

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #175 on: March 02, 2011, 07:43:17 PM »
Actually, I think it would be more effective to change the rule about all abilities needing to be Natural, Extraordinary, Spell-like, or Supernatural. I tend to think of things like Spellcasting and Bonus Feats (or other things that aren't marked like this) as attributes your character might have, but not an ability of any kind; using them might constitute an ability, but having access to them doesn't. I'd prefer the rules to reflect this, but I might be missing something.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #176 on: March 02, 2011, 07:43:54 PM »
Actually, I think it would be more effective to change the rule about all abilities needing to be Natural, Extraordinary, Spell-like, or Supernatural. I tend to think of things like Spellcasting and Bonus Feats (or other things that aren't marked like this) as attributes your character might have, but not an ability of any kind; using them might constitute an ability, but having access to them doesn't. I'd prefer the rules to reflect this, but I might be missing something.
Rule Zero is a wonderful thing.
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #177 on: March 02, 2011, 07:49:25 PM »
Actually, I think it would be more effective to change the rule about all abilities needing to be Natural, Extraordinary, Spell-like, or Supernatural. I tend to think of things like Spellcasting and Bonus Feats (or other things that aren't marked like this) as attributes your character might have, but not an ability of any kind; using them might constitute an ability, but having access to them doesn't. I'd prefer the rules to reflect this, but I might be missing something.

I'm not sure if there's anything weird removing all ability types from spellcasting would do (I guess it would remove Pun Puns ability to get spells because they'd be not an ability?) but it seems overkill if your goal is simply to keep Polymorph and high level Factotums from gaining spells.  If that's all you want to do, then you just straight up rule 0 that alone.

Certainly, making everything that's not marked not have a type would be a bad idea.  It's a serious screw over to Factotums (since most Ex abilities are not marked as such... you gotta let their capstone ability do something) and is a strange and counter RAI thing to do (Bonus feats are explicitly Ex because the general rule is that feats are always Ex unless otherwise marked).

JaronK

The_Laughing_Man

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #178 on: March 02, 2011, 08:28:50 PM »
A lot of replies has been posted since I started compiling this :)

TL;DR version at the end.

Unfortunately not. With this additional rule we now a situation where we need to determine what does casting a spell within antimagic field means. I postulate that casting a spell is an action (usually standard) and not a Special Ability. Because Antimagic field description does not say that actions (to cast a spell) are suppressed then they are not. Actions and Special Abilities are quite distinct of each other and not to be confused with each other.

Therefore antimagic cannot be used as a proof that casting a spell is an extraordinary ability.

Check here again, specifically the table at the top:  http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Note that spell like abilities are suppressed (not just the actions... the abilities).  However, the ability to cast spells is not suppressed (just the action).  Likewise, from the link given:  "Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field."  So again, if spells were a supernatural or spell like ability, you couldn't use them at all.  But the abilities aren't suppressed (as they would be if they were Su or Sp), just the actions... so the abilities must be Na or Ex (and since they're Special Abilities, they can't be Na either, and must be Ex).

Also, don't forget this quote, from the Antimagic spell itself:  "The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities."  Spells are clearly separate from Spell Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities.

While we're at it, check out Fiendish Codex II (I've been looking through that one a lot, since it came up).  Many feats in there share similar language with antimagic... they constantly refer to "spell, spell like ability, or supernatural ability."  Clearly, these three things are separate.

The SRD sadly is not a valid source for determining what Spellcasting is nor what Special Attack: Spells is. I maintain that ability to make an action to cast a spell is not a Special Ability. Hence it has no type.

Quote
Quote
Who can abjudicate the conflict that Core Rulebook PHB, which states explicitly that Spells are not extraordinary abilities, and other sources MM5 Special Quality: Arcane Talent (Ex), Core Rulebook MM1 Special Attack: Spells, etc are not fully agreeing with each other? Who can say which part have more weigth than the other? I would call it RAI if one type is chosen instead of the other, when no type is explicitly stated.

Primary Source rules come into play here.  MM1 is the primary source for Special Abilities.

PHB, DMG and MM1 + erratas are imho the best sources for this issue. For Class Feature: Spells the PHB is the primary source. For Special Attack: Spells the PHB is the primary source (for a small portion the MM1 is the primary source).

Quote
...
Quote
But we can't really do that. Supernatural and extraordinary are out explicitly for the same reasons. Spell-like clearly makes a distiction between spell-like and spells. So it can't be spell-like either. Spells is not a physical in nature, so it can't be natural either. Ergo, we have ruled out all of the four Special ability types.

Fortunately if you closely read the Specal Ability quote you'll notice that Special Abilites are meant for magical effects without being a spellcaster. So we have way out. Spellcaster's (like wizard) Class Feature: Spells is something different than a Special Ability.

Right logic, wrong conclusion.  Magical class features which are not spellcasting are Sp or Su... but this whole quote is talking about non spellcasting, so it doesn't apply to spellcasters at all.

Also, Class Feature spellcasting is listed as a Special Ability in multiple places, including the SRD (under Special Abilities) and the Monster Manual (Celestial Chargers, which are under unicorns if you'd like to check and are just Unicorns that are Clerics).  In fact, you'll find that all creatures that get class based spellcasting have their spells listed as Special Attacks, which makes them indeed Special Abilities.

I suppose you mean Class Feature: Spells instead of Class Feature: Spellcasting as there is no such thing. SRD cannot be use as an evidence as it is not a valid source. I checked the Celestial Charger and yes it says that it has Cleric levels and that it has Special Attack: Spells. Is Special Attack: Spells a Special Ability? No it is not. I see the contrary.

Few rules quotes ahead:

Quote from: 3.5 MM1 p.

First sentence says unusual abilities. Now, all those abilities are not necessarily Special Abilities as it is not explicitly stated so.

Then these (unusual) abilities are divided between Special Attacks and Special Qualities.

Then Special Qualities is broken down to defenses, vulnerabilities and other special abilities (not modes of attacks). So Special Quality: [Defense] and Special Quality: [Vulnerability] are not necessarily Special Abilities.

But Special Attacks is not broken down. It is only implied via Special Qualities that special abilities (that are modes of attack) belong here. So there can be (unusual) abilities that are Special Attacks but are not Special Abilities. Special Attack: Spells fits to this category nicely.


Then we have the glossary in the MM1. It separates Special Abilities and Spells from each other as they have their own subchapters. That alone implies that Spells is something different than Special Abilities.

Quote from: 3.5 MM1 p.315, under Chapter 7 Glossary

Special Attack: Spells cannot be extraordinary because they are magical, become suppressed or fail in antimagic field, and can be disrupted (e.g. casting a spell in combat).

Nor it can be spell-like or supernatural. I'll leave out rules quotes as I assume this is not disputed. In fact Special Attack: Spells is not a Special Ability.

Quote from: 3.5 MM1 p.315, under Chapter 7 Glossary

Here it says that "can cast" i.e. the generic ability to make an action to cast a spell. Which is what I maintain that Spellcasting (generic ability) is just an action to cast a spell. And that action is not a Special Ability.

Is making a standard action (to cast a spell) a Special Ability? No it is not. If it were it could not be ex as it can be disrupted, nor it can be sp, su or na for other reasons. Hence it is not a Special Ability.

Also note that Special Attack: Spells use the same rules as the characters with few stated exceptions. So it means that the primary source for Special Attack: Spells is in fact PHB.


So let's do an exercise and take our finely seasoned delicious king-fish the Aboleth Mage (MM1 p.8-9) to the table.

It has the following SQ and SA fields:
Special Attacks: Enslave, psionics, slime, spells
Special Qualities: Aquatic subtype, darkvision 60 ft., mucus cloud, summon familiar

How do we categorize these unusual abilities? Ok, I'll try.

Special Attacks:
Enslave (Ex) - that's easy as the description has the type. Special Ability indeed.
psionics (Ex) - easy, same as above
slime (Ex) - easy, same as above
spells - ouch much harder; I maintain that this is only about performing actions thus do not need a type at all. MM1 provides for a generic term unusual ability.

Special Qualities:
Aquatic subtype - um, not a Special Ability at all; Defensive unusual ability?
darkvision 60 ft. - um, same as above
mucus cloud (Ex) - easy as the description has the type. Special Ability indeed.
summon familiar - huh, 24 hour action that uses 100 gp of magical materials (PHB p.54), not a Special Ability at all and definitely not Ex as this action could easily be disrupted. Defensive unusual ability?

As you can see the categorization based solely on Special Abilities is simply not possible nor a valid way to do it. The Class Feature: Summon Familiar is yet another example where categorization with Special Ability tags does not work.

So Special Attack: Spells is not a Special Ability. It is a Class Feature that only enables specific action (to cast a spell).


I have shown with both MM1 and PHB rules quotes that Special Attack: Spells is not extraordinary nor a Special Ability. I have provided with rules quotes that Spellcasting is only about making actions and is not a Special Ability.


TL;DR
There can be Special Attacks that are not Special Abilities as per MM1 p.6 and PHB p.154.
The same applies for Special Qualities.
Special Abilities and Spells are two distinct terms that are separated from each other MM1 p.315.
Primary source for Special Attack: Spells is PHB p.180 and for small portion MM1 p.315.
Special Attack: Spells cannot be extraordinary MM1 p.315.
Special Attack: Spells is not typed with Special Ability tags MM1 p.315.
Class Feature: Spells cannot be extraordinary PHB p.24 and p.180. More rules quotes.
Class Feature: Spells is not typed with Special Ability tags PHB p.24.
Special Attack: Spells is governed by the same rules as Class Feature: Spells MM1 p.315.
The generic ability to make an action to cast a spell is the Spellcasting-ability PHB p.24.
An action (standard, swift, etc.) is not a Special Ability PHB p.138.
Hence Special Attack: Spells is not a Special Ability thus needs no type.

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #179 on: March 02, 2011, 08:33:50 PM »
Ah, I thought most Ex abilities were marked as such in classes. That must be a convention adopted by homebrewers, who actually have some damn sense. Well, in that case, yeah. I wouldn't see a tremendous problem in disallowing Factotums to pick temporary bonus feats from the list of all non-epic feats, but if there are a lot of abilities that definitely ARE intended to be available, then that's not really a viable route.

Bonus Feats, though, don't seem like an Ex ability. Or rather, the feat itself is an Ex ability, but gaining the feat is not an ability, it's just something that happens. If you see the distinction I'm getting at. I could easily be wrong, though; I've got no rules text available other than the lack of labelling for Bonus Feats, and that's not unique. Were I writing the rules, the class feature "Bonus Feat" would not be an ability, though.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.