Bad News for Shapechange

[Sinfire Titan]

Notice something about the wording? Here, let's compare:

You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form (for example, dragon or magical beast) in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms.

[Garryl]

I don't follow. What's the problem with the wording in RC? Are you implying that it changes Shapechange to not give all of the abilities it used to?

[Solo]

Don't worry, be happy.

[kurashu]

I don't follow. What's the problem with the wording in RC? Are you implying that it changes Shapechange to not give all of the abilities it used to?

I agree. The SRD is adding extra clarification and the rules compendium left it out. All implies all. That's like saying it not longer grants the type change because it left out the extra clarification.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

I don't follow. What's the problem with the wording in RC? Are you implying that it changes Shapechange to not give all of the abilities it used to?

I agree. The SRD is adding extra clarification and the rules compendium left it out. All implies all. That's like saying it not longer grants the type change because it left out the extra clarification.

Yeah, I don't see where the problem is.

[Jopustopin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40&feature=related

[Sinfire Titan]

I don't follow. What's the problem with the wording in RC? Are you implying that it changes Shapechange to not give all of the abilities it used to?

I agree. The SRD is adding extra clarification and the rules compendium left it out. All implies all. That's like saying it not longer grants the type change because it left out the extra clarification.

Yeah, I don't see where the problem is.

The problem is it removes access to attacks and qualities, such as spellcasting (the parenthesis section was the basis for that).

[oslecamo]

The problem is it removes access to attacks and qualities, such as spellcasting (the parenthesis section was the basis for that).

Oh noes one of the most broken spells in existence just became less broken!

Wait, how is that a problem again? Shouldn't it be called an improvement? 

[Sinfire Titan]

The problem is it removes access to attacks and qualities, such as spellcasting (the parenthesis section was the basis for that).

Oh noes one of the most broken spells in existence just became less broken!

Wait, how is that a problem again? Shouldn't it be called an improvement? 

Point.

[JaronK]

Special Abilities is routinely defined as being Special Qualities + Special Attacks.  There's no such thing as a Special Ability that's not a Special Attack or Quality.  Special Attacks are just any Special Abilities that can be used to harm someone, while Special Qualities are any Special Abilities that can't.  See Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and a few other sources (I don't remember them all).

JaronK

[BeholderSlayer]

I don't get it, either. Spellcasting is defined as a special attack, so what's the problem, again?

Okay, I take it back (sortof). "Spells" is defined as a special attack, and that's the entry that your typical spellcasting monster has their spellcasting ability listed under.

JaronK and I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this in a thread a few months ago. The conclusion was pretty clear, at least it was to me.

In fact, it was pretty conclusive that based on the preponderance of evidence, "Spells" is in fact an extraordinary special attack, making them accessible through Polymorph as well.

[Sinfire Titan]

I don't get it, either. Spellcasting is defined as a special attack, so what's the problem, again?

Okay, I take it back (sortof). "Spells" is defined as a special attack, and that's the entry that your typical spellcasting monster has their spellcasting ability listed under.

JaronK and I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this in a thread a few months ago. The conclusion was pretty clear, at least it was to me.

In fact, it was pretty conclusive that based on the preponderance of evidence, "Spells" is in fact an extraordinary special attack, making them accessible through Polymorph as well.

Spells=Ex...

The words "Does Not Compute" come to mind. And yes, I am aware of that argument.

[BeholderSlayer]

I don't get it, either. Spellcasting is defined as a special attack, so what's the problem, again?

Okay, I take it back (sortof). "Spells" is defined as a special attack, and that's the entry that your typical spellcasting monster has their spellcasting ability listed under.

JaronK and I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this in a thread a few months ago. The conclusion was pretty clear, at least it was to me.

In fact, it was pretty conclusive that based on the preponderance of evidence, "Spells" is in fact an extraordinary special attack, making them accessible through Polymorph as well.

Spells=Ex...

The words "Does Not Compute" come to mind. And yes, I am aware of that argument.

Que?

[Sinfire Titan]

I don't get it, either. Spellcasting is defined as a special attack, so what's the problem, again?

Okay, I take it back (sortof). "Spells" is defined as a special attack, and that's the entry that your typical spellcasting monster has their spellcasting ability listed under.

JaronK and I had a fairly lengthy discussion about this in a thread a few months ago. The conclusion was pretty clear, at least it was to me.

In fact, it was pretty conclusive that based on the preponderance of evidence, "Spells" is in fact an extraordinary special attack, making them accessible through Polymorph as well.

Spells=Ex...

The words "Does Not Compute" come to mind. And yes, I am aware of that argument.

Que?

Spells as an Extraordinary Attack, meaning they are Ex...

[JaronK]

Spells=Ex...

The words "Does Not Compute" come to mind. And yes, I am aware of that argument.

Note that Spells were actually an Na Special Ability back in 3.0 (MMII), before becoming Ex in 3.5 (in 3.0 you could have Na Special Abilities, in 3.5 you can't).  But yeah, we've been through it a bunch of times.  Spells is specifically defined as a Special Attack (which is a subset of Special Ability) in the Monster Manual.  All Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su according to the same (which is the primary source on Ex, Sp, and Su abilities), and this statement is echoed in the PHB, DMG, Fiend Folio, SRD, and a bunch of other books, in addition to the Rules of the Game Article on Polymorphing (which goes into types for quite a while).  I can quote a dozen books all listing Spells as being separate from Sp and Su abilities, and the definitions of Sp and Su abilities show how they're not the same as spells.  That leaves only Ex as a possibility.  Furthermore, you still have your Spells ability in an Antimagic field, so the ability to cast spells itself is not magical, even though the spells themselves are (much like how Wildshape is a magical Su ability that grants non magical Na abilities like claw attacks).  And bringing it home, MMV and one of the Fiendish Codexes both list a special ability to cast spells as Ex (though note that they call it a Special Quality there).

So, yes.  Spells are Extraordinary Special Attacks (possibly also Ex Special Qualities... the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).  This is a subset of Special Abilities.  If you think that's broken... well, house rule against it.  I certainly would (I don't tend to allow Polymorph anyway).

JaronK