Author Topic: Fuck You to casters.  (Read 60858 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wotmaniac

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Emperor's Enforcer
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #320 on: March 14, 2011, 08:12:04 PM »
I think the sorcerer definition in the glossary does contain mechanics. I.e. it is a class and characters belong to it. Both class and character are defined in the glossary. For example only a creature as opposed to an object can be a character.

Drawing the line where the mechanics end and fluff begins is nigh impossible in the glossary, I think. Yet another rabbit-hole.. Also this opens up the MM glossary as well, which part is fluff and which part is mechanics. Dare we venture forward? Please say no ;)
no.  ;)

[spoiler]
If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.

Greenbound Summoning RAI
Expanded Gestalt
More Savage Progressions[/spoiler]
Report any wrongs I have done here.

Dan2

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Wizicist
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #321 on: March 14, 2011, 08:39:24 PM »
Let's keep this thread on topic.  It's getting a little too hot in here.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #322 on: March 14, 2011, 09:28:05 PM »
Let's look at the Glossary and intro descriptions of the other classes, and see whether they work as rules or fluff.

Quote
Rogue:  A class made up of characters who primarily rely on stealth rather than brute force or magical ability.

So, is that fluff or rules?  I'd say fluff.  A Rogue who relies on UMD entirely is still a Rogue, after all, and a Rogue who uses his skill points more for social abilities and trap detection while fighting with a big weapon and ignoring stealth entirely is still a Rogue too.  Certainly, there's no actual rules here... it's just saying how you're expected to play a Rogue.  Heck, even the starting description Rogues says they can be "silver-tongued tricksters" and "diplomats or thugs."  Plus it says they "have little in common with one another."  So, it's not a rule that Rogues must rely on stealth rather than brute force or magical ability... just an expectation of what a normal Rogue does.

Quote
Wizard:  A class made up of characters who are schooled in the arcane arts.

This one is pretty darn correct for any Wizard you like... but is it a rule?  I don't see actual rules here, just a description of what a the Wizard class is expected to be like in play.

Quote
Fighter:  A class made up of characters who have exceptional combat capability and unequaled skill with weapons.

...except they don't really have exceptional combat capability, do they?  I guess in core they had the potential to have unequaled skill with a particular weapon, but this is clearly saying what Fighters were intended to be.  It's quite inaccurate though, and this isn't rules text at all.  It's not like you could use this rules text to say "hey, by the rules Fighters have exceptional combat capability and unequaled skill with weapons, so I get bonuses over Warblades, Exotic Weapon Masters, and all the other weapon specialists.  Gimme bonuses!"

Quote
Barbarian:  A class made up of ferocious warriors who use inborn fury and instinct to bring down foes.

This one's pretty accurate, but again, it's fluff, not rules.  You couldn't use this definition to claim your Barbarian automatically trips or pins or kills people (since it says "bring down").  There's no rule here.

Basically, all of these definitions work like that... they're descriptions of how the class is expected to behave in play, not actual rules by any stretch of the imagination.  You can't claim that because the glossary says Barbarians bring down enemies that everyone near by is automatically tripped.  You can't claim any bonuses to the Fighter because the glossary says he's supposed to be excellent in combat.  Some of the descriptions are quite accurate, some are not, but all function the same.  So, the Sorcerer's description is just saying how it's supposed to be played... it's not really a rules text thing.  It's just fluff.

And as for the descriptions at the beginning of the class... well those are mission statements for how the class was supposed to be, but they often don't line up at all with the rules of the class.  For example, the Sorcerer starting description says "Since a sorcerer often has a powerful presence that gives him a way with people, he may serve as the 'face' for an adventuring party, negotiating, bargaining, and speaking for others."  Except that while they obviously mean charisma there, the skill for negotiating, bargaining, and speaking for others is Diplomacy... which Sorcerers don't have.  In fact, they don't have any social skills at all except Bluff.  Whoops.

Heck, the Fighter one is downright comical.  "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king- all are fighters... Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers."  Except the rules for Fighters are totally different from this fluff.  While Fighters could be questing knights, plenty of classes do that better (even the Paladin is more of a questing knight than a Fighter).  Fighters lack all the leadership and military leadership skills (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge History, or any leadership based class ability really) to be an overlord or bandit king.  They don't have the basic military skills (Knowledge: History and Profession Siege Engineer being obvious) to represent being an experienced mercenary or elite soldier.  They don't have the detection abilities to make decent guards or bodyguards.   And when it goes on to say "Of all the classes, the fighter has the best all around fighting capabilities" you know this was written independently of the rules.  It's fluff, and it's what Fighters were supposed to be... but it's not rules.

So, same deal with the Sorcerer there, I'd say.  None of the classes have any rules in their intro fluff or glossary entries, so how can we look to the Sorcerer intro or glossary and expect to find rules there too?  Most of the glossary is rules, but I just see no justification for the class glossary entries to be rules, because otherwise it just makes no sense at all.

More important of course is the fact that Sorcerers explicitly can use their Spells ability in an Antimagic Field... which stops all magical abilities from working.  Yet the field just stops the spell itself, not the ability to cast the spells.  That's RAW, and it says clearly that the ability isn't magical even if the result is.  If the conflict is between something so obviously "crunch" as a direct statement that you can cast spells in an antimagic field vs something that seems so like fluff, I have to go with option A.

-------

An interesting thought here: if spells are a magical ability (which does go away in an antimagic field), what happens?  Well first of all, your ability to cast spells is the only thing giving you, for example "ability to cast third level spells."  This means if you went into any arcane casting PrC you'd immediately be disqualified from the class by RAW and lose all its abilities besides hit dice, BAB, and saves... even the non magical ones.  Ouchie.  Luckily, the ability doesn't go away, so you're safe.

-------

And if anyone else is confused, the Chameleon's Bonus Feat is an Ex ability.  That Ex ability can give you an Su ability (a feat that's Su).  Just like Wild Shape is an Su ability that can give Na abilities (claw attacks).  This is very different from something that just gives you the ability to cast spells as an Ex ability... that would be an Ex ability to cast spells, which lets you create a magical effect (the spell itself) just like any other spell casting ability.  This is of course irrelevant to the fact that the newer stat blocks don't explicitly say whether every ability in them is a Special Attack or Special Quality as the old stat blocks did.  We know that racial skill boosts are Ex (because the FAQ on the human skill boost says so) yet the Reth Dekala in ToB (new stat block) doesn't list a type for them... and it doesn't list whether any of its special abilities are special abilities at all (it just lists each ability with a type).  It also doesn't list a type for "Martial Maneuvers" just like other entries don't list a type for spells... even though Martial Maneuvers are defined as Ex in that very book.  I'm sure SorO thinks the Reth Dekala doesn't have Special Abilities and that its Martial Maneuvers are untyped, because it doesn't say it right there.

JaronK
« Last Edit: March 14, 2011, 09:42:25 PM by JaronK »

awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #323 on: March 15, 2011, 08:06:34 PM »

minor historical note (iirc)

K from gamingden posted the first declaration about
the (then) latest Polymorph errata, yanking in the spellcasting too.
This was on the old T.O. Board.
I'd bet that original post, is available somewhere in the wayback.
Perhaps the assumptions made in that thread provide
a different or better foundation, to figuring this out ?!

I haven't the time (or the inclination).

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #324 on: March 16, 2011, 01:02:34 AM »
Both of you have admitted new sources1, changed your arguments2, generally had a modicum of sense3, (and both convinced me of a portion of your argument)4.

Stop claiming otherwise.
1. I always admit new official sources. It's opinions I don't value.

2. Really? My point and 90% of the way I've reached it is unchanged.
A. Spells Special Abilities in every other instance than the one quote JaronK has is treated and remarked as a separate entity from Special Abilities.
A1. He bitches about the lack of text doesn't prove anything, I bitch the the lack of text doesn't mean he can invent his own.
For reference, I point out it's not a lack of rules at all. The entry rules states all SA's are relisted, the entry rules states all special abilities are explained in the last block, and "Spells" is never listed in either. Also there are countless Spells or Special Abilities notations (rather than treatign them as one and the same) though out every book and the FAQ. To him that is a lack of text.

B. Spellcasting is unmarked, to sort it at all is a house rule. Especially when arguments to and against multiple traits exist.
As mentioned, Natural Ability is the only one with an absolute direct claim via RAW. It lays claim on all unmarked traits. JaronK ignores this based entirely on it's opening statement about being an ability granted via your form. Akin to saying Powerful Build makes you a large creature by ignoring the rules following that line. so his other line of defense was Na doesn't not exist in an area with Special Abilities are, quoting Class Features as his source since all Class Features are a Special Ability. Later he conceded that but hasn't budged on Na. More on this in C & D.

C. We had a huge breakdown as JaronK invented more fallacies to play in.
J: Spellcasting is uninterruptible.
Other: While casting your AoO can cause it to fail.
J: Spellcasting is uninterruptible. That's concentration failing.
Me: Spell failing to conform states spellcasting fails.
J: Spellcasting is interruptible. That was the action of spellcasting.
Me: WTF? You just said everything is uninterruptible. You can't fail to use a Sp ability because to you the action failed and not the Sp.
J: Spellcasting is uninterruptible.
Me: You do realize by classifying everything interruptible to be the action thereof which in turn made everything uninterruptible you have completely invalidated the extraordinary ability entry?
J: Spellcasting is uninterruptible.

D. If you can cast Summon Monster I in an antimagic field.
J: Your spellcasting isn't blocked in antimagic  it is Ex!
Me: Your spellcasting resolves and Summon Monster I's effect takes place.
J: Your spellcasting isn't blocked in antimagic  it is Ex!
Me: Summon Monster I's effect resolves (unblocked by antimagic) and a creature is summoned.
J: Your spellcasting isn't blocked in antimagic  it is Ex!
Me: The creature is there but suppressed.
J: Your spellcasting isn't blocked in antimagic it is Ex!
Me: Technically speaking, antimagic isn't a valid reason to say spellcasting is Ex, it can just as easily be Su or Sp or Spells, since they all resolved just fine.
J: Your spellcasting isn't blocked in antimagic it is Ex!

E. Specific replaces general is against the rules and structure of D&D.
J: Arcane Talent is Ex, a case of Ex spellcasting exists, screw general. It is Ex.
Me: Lern2Read, we've been over this again and again ever since BG opened.

3. We had are bumps along the way haven't we?
Me quoting the wrong page or misquoting, which I admit and correct as they come.
J not quoting anything and not admitting to such.
Me wanting to use updated rules.
J thinking new rules would undo him and so they must be ignored.
Me with rules quotes and rebuttals.
J with name calling, "Oh god, it's you Aelrynth?  No wonder." instead of a real point.
Me with more rules quotes and rephased rebuttals.
J with "I'm sure SorO thinks the Reth Dekala doesn't have Special Abilities and that its Martial Maneuvers are untyped, because it doesn't say it right there." instead of a real point.
But hey, I agree, I really should acquire nonimage only PDFs to quote from to fix my reading problem.

4. I'd hope so. Hell when I thought this was over and resolved I let it slip out about Spells being ambiguous. Thing is, there is no "spellcasting" != "spells you cast". It's Spells in classes, it's Spells in the MM's glossary, it's Spells in the MM's SA list, it's Spells in the MMV, it's Spells or Special Abilities that get referenced apart. this entire topic is based on Spells being split into spellcasting & spells you cast despite our rules quotes naming them the one and the same. JaronK is ultimately trying to say the magical effects of spells are extraordinary abilities. I've let that continue for 17 pages and found it hilarious that even with my hint no one else seen it. Is it trollish to accept one's fallacy and prove him wrong within it? I think not.

***

I really feel the need to highlight this.
Lost your wrong! Arcane/Divine Talent are the new way to express monster spellcasting, if we replicate the effect as the MMV/FF1 has set up all previous monsters have those traits thus all monster granted spellcasting is Ex!
That would be a very excellent point and one I would not truly argue against if you could show case an example of Arcane/Divine Talent being used like that. Let's prove it!
MMIV-152: Redspawn Arcaniss. Doesn't have class levels & has spellcasting. No SQ/SA entry at all, special ability area doesn't note anything useful.
Dragons of Eberron-60: Rakshasa half-green dragon rogue 10, Same thing again. You can also scroll down for a half-fiend old gold dragon.
Elder Evils-130: The Worm That Walks(ce huge aberration), ooh it has sorcerer spells... Oh nm not in SA/SQ/or notation of spellcasting in the last block.
Well I give up already, Heck, given DoE provides updated state blocks of monsters whom previously had a Spells entry and now that such entry is removed. The same italic text above can be reprinted to say no such monster has a Spells entry anymore, which I already commented was a deprecated term but not I have examples proving it.
And his counter claim
And if anyone else is confused, the Chameleon's Bonus Feat is an Ex ability.  That Ex ability can give you an Su ability (a feat that's Su).  Just like Wild Shape is an Su ability that can give Na abilities (claw attacks).  This is very different from something that just gives you the ability to cast spells as an Ex ability... that would be an Ex ability to cast spells, which lets you create a magical effect (the spell itself) just like any other spell casting ability.  This is of course irrelevant to the fact that the newer stat blocks don't explicitly say whether every ability in them is a Special Attack or Special Quality as the old stat blocks did.  We know that racial skill boosts are Ex (because the FAQ on the human skill boost says so) yet the Reth Dekala in ToB (new stat block) doesn't list a type for them... and it doesn't list whether any of its special abilities are special abilities at all (it just lists each ability with a type).  It also doesn't list a type for "Martial Maneuvers" just like other entries don't list a type for spells... even though Martial Maneuvers are defined as Ex in that very book.  I'm sure SorO thinks the Reth Dekala doesn't have Special Abilities and that its Martial Maneuvers are untyped, because it doesn't say it right there.
A quick pass to say Arcane Talent does replace general rules followed by him agreeing new rules doesn't say Spells is a Special Ability anyway and what?
Rakshasa: Has spellcasting, spellcasting isn't a special ability.
Reth Dekala: Has maneuvers...

Well since I know what I'm talking about I know maneuvers are considered Ex or Su so I think I know what he means. The problem is, Maneuvers - the ones you can learn - and even; Maneuver Known, Maneuvers Ready, and Stances Known, are unmarked Class Features, just like Spells. The difference between them is Spells - the magical effect, example fireball - is magical. And Maneuvers - the martial effect, example searing blade - is Ex or Su. So JaronK's point is Maneuvers - which one? - is untyped but listed in the Special Abilities area. It's not even a counter or rebuttal. It's him at the end of his rope asking how I'd classify that so he can hope I'd give him something to whine about.

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]

Kajhera

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #325 on: March 16, 2011, 01:08:56 AM »
Ah... I feel semiobliged to read your post since you're replying to me and addressing my points and using footnotes...

But after reading King Lear today footnotes and long text that I don't quite parse are making my eyes glaze over.

Sorry.  :(

AleksanderTheGreat

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
  • Dumbass. o_o
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #326 on: March 16, 2011, 10:13:52 AM »
Soro, after you read Jarons post, THINK for a moment before you post your nonsense.
Quote from: Sephirothsword117
Quote from: Solo
Optimizing is the antithesis of roleplaying because it takes focus away from the important parts of the game.
I'm inclined to disagree. People work hard on there characters, there personality, back ground, appearance, so forth. No one wants there character that they have invested time, energy, thought, and probably emotion in to be killed because they didn't take strong enough feats or skills or spells or what have you.

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #327 on: March 16, 2011, 11:29:53 AM »
Soro, after you read Jarons post, THINK for a moment before you post your nonsense.
I did. Oh what I paid attention to and quoted at least.

That Ex ability can give you an Su ability (a feat that's Su).  Just like Wild Shape is an Su ability that can give Na abilities (claw attacks).  This is very different from something that just gives you the ability to cast spells as an Ex ability... that would be an Ex ability to cast spells,
He says Ex giving Su, Su giving Na, doesn't answer my posed question about them and then declares Ex giving Spells is a totally different case. Why? Because he simply says so. And then what? Find another untyped thing in special abilities section to declare the entire entry rules system to be ignroed? Hell he mentioned Racial Skills bonuses, Natural Abilities, which backs my point pages ago Na can exist in what is supposed to be Ex/Su/Sp only area, he has gained more ground in saying spellcasting is Na in one post than saying spellcasting is Ex in several pages and answered his own question about maneuvers.

And what is the rest of his post? The first part highlights fluff of the game are not rules. Fluff that no one is quoting, fluff no one is talking about, and fluff no one cares about. A huge block of text to say nothing except perhaps the glossary is inaccurate and I guess ignore the Spells entry in the MMV. If you run with that, "Spells" is a full deprecated term in the new entry style. As I've already mentioned (but used anyway because why not?).
« Last Edit: March 16, 2011, 11:33:02 AM 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]

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #328 on: March 16, 2011, 01:09:17 PM »
And what is the rest of his post? The first part highlights fluff of the game are not rules. Fluff that no one is quoting, fluff no one is talking about, and fluff no one cares about.

Are PHB p.21 and p.312 fluff? I don't think they are..
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #329 on: March 16, 2011, 01:12:28 PM »
And what is the rest of his post? The first part highlights fluff of the game are not rules. Fluff that no one is quoting, fluff no one is talking about, and fluff no one cares about.

Are PHB p.21 and p.312 fluff? I don't think they are..
In other words, just because he wasn't responding to you doesn't mean he wasn't responding to a critique and showing the counterpoint false.
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.

The_Laughing_Man

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #330 on: March 16, 2011, 07:56:29 PM »
While I agree that class descriptions and glossary are not the best material for mechanics, they cannot be ignored altogether. To me it feels too arbitrary to dismiss some part of the glossary and not the other.

Btw, I have always wondered the use of fluff. Is it somehow supported by RAW that something can be disregarded as "fluff"? Or is it something that people are telling to each other without even knowing why?

...
So, same deal with the Sorcerer there, I'd say.  None of the classes have any rules in their intro fluff or glossary entries, so how can we look to the Sorcerer intro or glossary and expect to find rules there too?  Most of the glossary is rules, but I just see no justification for the class glossary entries to be rules, because otherwise it just makes no sense at all.

I suppose you mean rules other than being a class that consists of characters. Those at least seem like mechanics to me.

For barbarian the inborn fury does resemble the Rage (Ex) ability. It gives a descriptor inborn to the the ability, whatever that means.

For sorcerer the inborn magical ability resembles the Spells ability. Here we have two descriptors inborn and magical. So far I think that is the only description of this ability (magical).

And yes, it is an uphill battle to convince everybody with this. :) Too many interpretations..

Quote
More important of course is the fact that Sorcerers explicitly can use their Spells ability in an Antimagic Field... which stops all magical abilities from working.  Yet the field just stops the spell itself, not the ability to cast the spells.  That's RAW, and it says clearly that the ability isn't magical even if the result is.  If the conflict is between something so obviously "crunch" as a direct statement that you can cast spells in an antimagic field vs something that seems so like fluff, I have to go with option A.

I think that only the Rules of the Game states that you can cast in antimagic field, that's not in PHB at least. I suppose you mean that antimagic field is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

Spellcasting is an ability, no doubt, and seems to be different than the Spells ability. Whether it is a special ability is inconclusive from the arguments so far.

Quote
An interesting thought here: if spells are a magical ability (which does go away in an antimagic field), what happens?  Well first of all, your ability to cast spells is the only thing giving you, for example "ability to cast third level spells."  This means if you went into any arcane casting PrC you'd immediately be disqualified from the class by RAW and lose all its abilities besides hit dice, BAB, and saves... even the non magical ones.  Ouchie.  Luckily, the ability doesn't go away, so you're safe.

Actually Antimagic Field says that within it most magical effects are non-functional. I.e. there are some magical effects that are functional. They may be the ones individually described so.

Quote from: Antimagic Field
An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.

Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.

Also creatures' Sp or Su abilities may be nullified by the field. So there are some Sp or Su abilities that are not nullified. Interesting.. What could they be?

SorO_Lost

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #331 on: March 16, 2011, 08:53:35 PM »
And what is the rest of his post? The first part highlights fluff of the game are not rules. Fluff that no one is quoting, fluff no one is talking about, and fluff no one cares about.

Are PHB p.21 and p.312 fluff? I don't think they are..
Oh I entirely missed that lolz. you can honestly tell how much attention I warrant for this thread eh? Maybe Laughing can follow up with a nice spellcasting is Na thread next week and see if it hits 19 pages.

Spellcasting is an ability, no doubt, and seems to be different than the Spells ability. Whether it is a special ability is inconclusive from the arguments so far.

Also creatures' Sp or Su abilities may be nullified by the field. So there are some Sp or Su abilities that are not nullified. Interesting.. What could they be?
It is different yes, but most the quotes we've been using are all Spells.

Total random guess but maybe Invisible Stalker's Natural Invisibility?
Natural Invisibility (Su): This ability is constant, allowing a stalker to remain invisible even when attacking. This ability is inherent and not subject to the invisibility purge spell.
&
Invisibility Purge
Evocation
Level: Clr 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D)
You surround yourself with a sphere of power with a radius of 5 feet per caster level that negates all forms of invisibility.
Anything invisible becomes visible while in the area.

Intent wise, it's there.

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 #332 on: March 17, 2011, 01:29:16 AM »
For barbarian the inborn fury does resemble the Rage (Ex) ability. It gives a descriptor inborn to the the ability, whatever that means.

See, that right there is what I'm talking about.  Rage isn't inborn... it's class based.  "Inborn" implies a racial ability but that's not the case at all.  If you were using such stuff for rules, you'd have to call the Barbarian's Rage a racial ability because it's inborn, but that's completely wrong, because nice crunchy RAW (the Barbarian class entry, descriptions of what classes are, etc) all make it clear that nothing about the Barbarian class is "inborn."  Rather, it's a learned or trained thing (as all classes are, at least as RAW treats them, even if the class is supposed to represent a natural talent).

Quote
For sorcerer the inborn magical ability resembles the Spells ability. Here we have two descriptors inborn and magical. So far I think that is the only description of this ability (magical).

Same thing here... despite the fluff description of Sorcerer casting being inborn, by RAW anyone can dip a level of Sorcerer and have it.  That's a class ability, not a racial ability.  And likewise, we know that Sorcerers can cast their spells in Antimagic Fields (even if the spell is suppressed) so the ability isn't magical.

Quote
I think that only the Rules of the Game states that you can cast in antimagic field, that's not in PHB at least. I suppose you mean that antimagic field is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

I mean that spell like abilities and supernatural abilities are entirely lost in an antimagic field... you can't cast them at all.  A Factotum can't cast Summon Monster in an antimagic field, but a Sorcerer (or any other spell caster) can.  And while Rules of the Game specifically states you can still cast, PHB never says you can't (the default is, of course, that you can).  So, this does line up fine.

Quote
Spellcasting is an ability, no doubt, and seems to be different than the Spells ability.

No, there's no actual ability called "Spellcasting."  It's called "Spells" and that ability is the ability to cast spells.  I may use "Spellcasting" as a shorthand for "the ability to cast spells, as opposed to the spells themselves" but that's just use of language... nothing in the game has an ability called "spellcasting."  Though in the glossary, a "Spellcaster" is defined simply as someone capable of casting spells.  So, no difference.

Quote
Whether it is a special ability is inconclusive from the arguments so far.

The primary source for special abilities (MM1) lists it as a Special Ability on page 300.  So does every stat block in every book for a creature that casts spells, if the block clearly shows what abilities are special abilities and what aren't (the new blocks don't show this at all, so they're rather useless for this discussion).  So does the SRD.  Furthermore, the definition of Special Attacks perfectly fits Spells, both in Rules of the Game and in the Monster Manual (any unique ability that can harm or hinder something). 

So, that's about as conclusive as something can get.  I mean really, how could something be more conclusive?  The fact that a longsword does 1d8 damage for a medium creature is less supported than this (that's only supported by a single entry in the PHB and by monster entries that happen to have a medium longsword!).

Quote
Actually Antimagic Field says that within it most magical effects are non-functional. I.e. there are some magical effects that are functional. They may be the ones individually described so.

Spell like abilities are specifically nullified.  So are Supernatural abilities.  Those are the only types of magical abilities that are special abilities.

Quote
Also creatures' Sp or Su abilities may be nullified by the field. So there are some Sp or Su abilities that are not nullified. Interesting.. What could they be?

Earlier it says all spell like abilities and Su abilities are nullified, so the only possibility is that means such abilities will be nullified if they exist, not if they don't.  That would be the "might."  Otherwise the interpretation is contradictory.

JaronK

The_Laughing_Man

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #333 on: March 17, 2011, 05:07:42 AM »
Maybe Laughing can follow up with a nice spellcasting is Na thread next week and see if it hits 19 pages.
top:
The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fuck You to casters.
« Reply #334 on: March 17, 2011, 01:26:53 PM »
Right, "Spellcasting" is just referring to the "Spells" ability that some classes have.  No class has "Spellcasting" they have "Spells" and classes with the ability "Spells" are referred to as "Spellcasters."  All your quotes clearly show this... every time it says "Spellcaster" it means "someone who has the Spells ability" and when it says a class or race has "Spellcasting" it means that class or race has the "Spells" ability.

There's still no creature with an ability called "Spellcasting."  So I think those examples all do a great job of showing that "Spellcasting" can't possibly be anything different than "having the 'Spells' ability."  

A thread to claim spells were Na would be destroyed pretty quickly by the 10+ sources that all specifically say they can't be Na.  Spells were Na in early 3.0 (MMII makes this extremely obvious of course) but that's back when Special Abilities could be Na and any ability that wasn't explicitly typed was automatically Na.  The Na category shrank dramatically  in 3.5.  I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that during the port over from 3.0 to 3.5 many designers didn't consider the effects of that switch (though strangely, Low Light Vision was still Ex even in 3.0, despite the fact that it makes far more sense as an Na ability even in 3.5.  The same is true of Darkvision and Scent).

JaronK
« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 01:29:38 PM by JaronK »