Abilities: Special, Extraordinary, Spell Like, Supernatural, Natural, get 'em here.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Honestly, I just don't get why people seem to so badly WANT spells to be a natural ability, especially when NAs are explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature (such as their ability to see and hear, or to walk).

Two things

1) Your argument that my suggested RAI solution can't be right because it isn't RAW is simply not an exceptable argument. The entire theory behind RAI is that RAW is unclear in some points and potentially wrong in other points.

2) NAs are not explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature. Abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature are explicitly NAs. That is very different. RAW never states all NAs are due to physical form. That's like claiming all rectangles are squares because someone said all squares are rectangles.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, allow me to posit this.

1.) Monster Manual stat blocks were standardized for creatures lacking abilities derived from levels in classes. Thus, there is no line for "PHB Class Ability:" or the like, even though a number of monster entries have "Spells." Special Attacks and Special Qualities are the only lines available for these entries, and they probably decided that it had to go somewhere in the statblock for the sake of clarity.

2.) MM itself is not the primary source for defining class features. That's the PHB, and the entry in the glossary of the MM for "Spells" specifically notes that those creatures with "Spells" follow rules for characters (with a few specifically delineated exceptions). So, MM refers us to the PHB for how to approach "Spells" ability, see "such creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules that characters are...."

3.) So now to the PHB, where definitions of class features are a mix of "has tags," "has no tags" and "that doesn't seem like the right tag." (Tag meaning the Ex, Su, Sp, or Na bit.) Specifically, the PHB section on Special Abilities, page 180, seems to contradict itself a couple times

Ex: "These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity."

contrast with the header for the section
"Characters using magic wands, rods, and other enchanted items, as well as certain class features, can also create magical effects. These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural."

It really seems that both of these indicate spells are not Ex, but if you look at the definition of Su and Sp, it's pretty clear they aren't either of those. Which leaves us with Na; I don't see that "Spells" can be Na by any kind of RAI.

4.) So, assuming you are still following this train of thought, RAW in PHB appears to leave us with two options, both of which I think have been mentioned:

Option 1: "Spells" is a special ability of type Na.

Option 2: "Spells" falls into the category of class features that don't operate by rules governing Special Abilities, but which default to specific mechanics introduced in PHB. In other words, not all class features are special abilities. This despite the fact that MM has them listed in statblocks as Special Attacks.

I feel that Option 2 is slightly better supported, as the MM pretty much says "Spells" functions like a thing described in the PHB, and thus we can't reverse-implicate stuff from the formatting in MM and say that also defines the class features in PHB. PHB's own say on the matter on 180 is terribly written, but I have to think that if all class features could be tagged, they would have been tagged (or perhaps, should have been tagged.)

JaronK has already pretty much said that this kind of argument personally doesn't wash, as it assumes that MM kind of shoehorned "Spells" onto the Special Attacks line, which kind of assumes that RAW is inaccurate. I prefer to think that RAW is "inconsistent," but it pretty much results in the same thing: a useless rule that needs to be adjudicated by the DM.

My logic here may be incomplete, as I don't have access to Rules Compendium at the moment. As far as RACSD, I think Ex and Na are both problematic to toss around, and, moreover, it also is problematic to think that the logic for class features was that everything lacking a tag was Na (which is really weird...a druid's bonus languages are Na seems weird, though Na's wording is the epitome of vague).

[Psyren]

Honestly, I just don't get why people seem to so badly WANT spells to be a natural ability, especially when NAs are explicitly abilities that are created by the exact physical form of the creature (such as their ability to see and hear, or to walk).

It's quite simple - they're not tagged anywhere (as Ex, Su or Sp) so they must be in the category explicitly designed for untagged abilities.

Not to mention it makes sense to me that, say, a Planetar's cleric casting is natural to Planetars. It makes sense, something we don't get to say often enough about RAW.

What I don't understand is why, even under your interpretation where everything in the statblock must be Ex, Su or Sp and nothing else, you default to Ex for spellcasting ability when it is the least magical of the three. It's nonsensical.

[JaronK]

What I don't understand is why, even under your interpretation where everything in the statblock must be Ex, Su or Sp and nothing else, you default to Ex for spellcasting ability when it is the least magical of the three. It's nonsensical.

Oh, there's very good reason for that, but we need to establish that all Special Abilities (such as spells) are Ex, Sp, or Su before we even get there. Since people couldn't accept that fact, there's really no point in continuing. The fact that Natural Abilities aren't even a valid category and that the description of Natural Abilities (as listed in many different sources) doesn't even come close to what spells do doesn't seem to bother a lot of folks, so we can't get to the next phase.

It's sort of like trying to prove that .99999... = 1. If people don't understand what a repeating number is, you can't get into the more complex parts of the proof that get you the rest of the way home. And that's where we are right now... a bunch of people arguing that it's impossible for the 9s to go on forever and talking about the last 9 in the series, metaphorically.

JaronK

[Phelix-Mu]

Has someone shown that all class features are special abilities? It seems to me that some are not.

Moreover, there are specific rules on how "Spells" works that defy the rules for how special abilities work. The specific source for how "Spells" works is in the PHB class features, since the MM glossary entry for spells pretty much passes the ball back to the PHB. The mechanics for spellcasting granted by classes specifically do not correspond to rules generally governing each of the Ex, Su, Sp tags (specifically regarding interruption and provoking AoO).

Again, I don't feel that the MM statblock formatting was initially up to the task of incorporating class features into monsters.

[Nettlekid]

Oh, there's very good reason for that, but we need to establish that all Special Abilities (such as spells) are Ex, Sp, or Su before we even get there. Since people couldn't accept that fact, there's really no point in continuing. The fact that Natural Abilities aren't even a valid category and that the description of Natural Abilities (as listed in many different sources) doesn't even come close to what spells do doesn't seem to bother a lot of folks, so we can't get to the next phase.

It's sort of like trying to prove that .99999... = 1. If people don't understand what a repeating number is, you can't get into the more complex parts of the proof that get you the rest of the way home. And that's where we are right now... a bunch of people arguing that it's impossible for the 9s to go on forever and talking about the last 9 in the series, metaphorically.

JaronK

Okay, this makes me really skeptical of your entire argument. When someone goes in the direction of "Ohh, yeah, I totally know, but I'm not going to tell you because you couldn't understand it," that makes me think they don't actually have all that much to go on.

[Temotei]

Okay, this makes me really skeptical of your entire argument. When someone goes in the direction of "Ohh, yeah, I totally know, but I'm not going to tell you because you couldn't understand it," that makes me think they don't actually have all that much to go on.

I feel like it's more of what he says it is than what you're interpreting it as. JaronK says it's because we need to establish a baseline agreement before moving on to more complex deals in the system. Makes sense.

I'm still really curious, though, about these ideas, and I'd like to hear them, since we don't seem to be going anywhere right here. Might as well show all your cards when the game's already over, eh?

[Psyren]

Since people couldn't accept that fact, there's really no point in continuing.

Humor me then - let's assume you're right about the three categories. Why is the "Spells" monster ability Extraordinary?

[NeoPhoenix0]

Humor me then - let's assume you're right about the three categories. Why is the "Spells" monster ability Extraordinary?

You mean spells monster ability acquired through class levels. The other monsters with spells don't really factor into the discussion.

Edit: I too am curious why it defaults to Ex. Also, theoretical debate assuming one side is correct is a very common practice.

[Psyren]

By "Spells" I'm referring to this ability,, possessed by monsters such as the Planetar, Rakshasa, and Couatl. Not spells a monster gains by taking levels in a spellcasting class. It is not designated as Ex anywhere that I can see.

[Nettlekid]

By the way, I know it's a bit late for this, but I want to make a comparison between Spells and Sneak Attack between the PHB and the MM. In the PHB, neither Spells nor Sneak Attack have the Ex, Su, or Sp tag. In the MM, both Spells and Sneak Attack are listed among Special Attacks. But in the MM, monsters that have Sneak Attack have it listed as an Ex ability, while those that have Spells do not have it listed. If Spells were an Ex ability, they would be listed as such, just as Sneak Attack is. Explain that.

[NeoPhoenix0]

By "Spells" I'm referring to this ability,, possessed by monsters such as the Planetar, Rakshasa, and Couatl. Not spells a monster gains by taking levels in a spellcasting class. It is not designated as Ex anywhere that I can see.

Oh i see, what does that have to do with class based spellcasting and the factotum?

[Psyren]

Oh i see, what does that have to do with class based spellcasting and the factotum?

The factotum end of things was settled - monster-based spellcasting is never a class ability and thus cannot be appropriated by Cunning Brilliance. Rather, JaronK is making the argument that Polymorph (which grants a monster's Ex Special Attacks) can grant that monster's spellcasting instead.

[JaronK]

The factotum end of things was settled - monster-based spellcasting is never a class ability and thus cannot be appropriated by Cunning Brilliance. Rather, JaronK is making the argument that Polymorph (which grants a monster's Ex Special Attacks) can grant that monster's spellcasting instead.

No, I'm making the argument that Spells are a Special Attack that are Extraordinary. The implications of that in game in the long run are varied... this is not about doing any one trick.

Saying I'm making the argument that Polymorph grants monster spell casting is like saying you're making the argument that Alter Self does so (and Polymorph as well through inheritance). It's a natural implication of what you're claiming (and I could go into why somewhere else), but that's not really the point.

The point is to know what, in general, various abilities are. For a variety of reasons, it's possible to show that virtually every unmarked class ability is in fact Ex (including Rogue Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, Warblade Maneuvers, and so on). This matters in a lot of ways, some of which are more subtle than others.

@Nettlekid: Some monsters that have the ability to cast spells do in fact have it labeled as Ex, but only in the new style of stat block in some of the last books of 3.5. But the general explanation for why so many abilities are not labeled as Ex (including things like Bonus Feats, even though feats are listed as being Ex abilities by default elsewhere) is simply that in the earlier days of 3.5 the designers just didn't think it mattered very much. The destination between an Na ability and an Ex ability actually doesn't matter much in core... Polymorph grants both (if they're Special Attacks), Factotums don't exist, and so on. They just didn't care. Instead, they labeled all Sp and Su abilities as such (because it mattered for Antimagic and Dispel Magic) and just didn't bother to label the rest. I hinted at this earlier... Su and Sp abilities have always been labeled, while other abilities only rarely were (one semi exception: Su maneuvers are not labeled as such in their entries, but rather elsewhere in ToB).

Later printings started labeling ability types a good bit more, which is why Arcane Talent and such have Ex tags (and why abilities like Sneak Attack started to have Ex labels as well). Note that no class has ever labeled a class ability as Na. The Rules of the Game Polymorph article makes it clear why: Na abilities are only supposed to be those generated by your direct physical form. Learned abilities (such as those from a class) shouldn't ever be Na.

But let's be clear here: lack of a label doesn't make something default to Na unless there's no other way to determine the ability type. A lack of a rule isn't a rule itself... it just means you default to the more general case rules.

JaronK

[Temotei]

Some monsters that have the ability to cast spells do in fact have it labeled as Ex, but only in the new style of stat block in some of the last books of 3.5. But the general explanation for why so many abilities are not labeled as Ex (including things like Bonus Feats, even though feats are listed as being Ex abilities by default elsewhere) is simply that in the earlier days of 3.5 the designers just didn't think it mattered very much.

Wait, I'm not disagreeing here, but the reason spellcasting is extraordinary is because the designers were lazy? That seems like a really weak argument. I'm probably missing something.

But let's be clear here: lack of a label doesn't make something default to Na unless there's no other way to determine the ability type. A lack of a rule isn't a rule itself... it just means you default to the more general case rules.

Does lack of a label make it anything but unlabeled?

Again, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking for clarification.

[Nettlekid]

Wait, I'm not disagreeing here, but the reason spellcasting is extraordinary is because the designers were lazy? That seems like a really weak argument.

Agreed. Especially since this is a RAW argument, which means that we kind of have to take the letters on the page literally, without applying interpretation as to the intention of the writers when they wrote the rules, because of course, that would be RAI. Not RAW. Seeing that PHB-unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack were labeled as Ex in the MM, and that PHB-unlabeled abilities like Spells are left unlabeled in the MM, RAW, Spells are not labeled as Ex, Su, or Sp.

And I'm talking SPELLS and SPELLCASTING. Not some special ability which then grants the ability to cast spells, like Arcane Talent. Arcane Talent is its own ability, which then grants Spellcasting. It isn't spells and spellcasting itself. Also, I reiterate, that nowhere in Alter Self and Polymorph (again, RAW) does it say you gain all Natural Abilities of a creature. You gain many, and those listed, but it never says all.

[Psyren]

The point is to know what, in general, various abilities are. For a variety of reasons, it's possible to show that virtually every unmarked class ability is in fact Ex (including Rogue Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, Warblade Maneuvers, and so on). This matters in a lot of ways, some of which are more subtle than others.

That may apply to those specific examples, but you need a general citation somewhere that unmarked abilities are extraordinary. Otherwise, what you're claiming simply is not RAW, merely an assumption.

And again, that stumbling block exists even if you somehow dismiss Rules Compendium.

[JaronK]

Wait, I'm not disagreeing here, but the reason spellcasting is extraordinary is because the designers were lazy? That seems like a really weak argument. I'm probably missing something.

No, the reason so many abilities are unlabeled is that the designers were lazy.

Does lack of a label make it anything but unlabeled?

Quick, what sort of ability is White Raven Tactics? There's no label on it. There's a general rule that Maneuvers are Ex (except in certain situations) but WRT isn't labeled.

So... is it a Natural Ability, or an Extraordinary one?

The point is, things default to Natural only if there's no other way to determine what they are. If there are other rules out there that tell you what they are, that's not the same as a completely unlabeled ability.

So now, just to drop away from spells for a moment, does anybody here actually think that unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, and other such abilities are Na, or is this only spells that everyone thinks is a super special case?

JaronK

[mattie_p]

It makes you kinda wish the designers designated spells as (Sp), kind of like they designated psionic powers as (Ps).

[NeoPhoenix0]

Just a question, Is there any reason that any ability that isn't defined as a specific type of ability has to be the same type of ability universally?

Edit:

So now, just to drop away from spells for a moment, does anybody here actually think that unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, and other such abilities are Na, or is this only spells that everyone thinks is a super special case?

JaronK

They probably fall under similar rulings, possibly the same ruling.

By the way, feats themselves are defined to default as Ex. Bonus feats, an ability that allows you to take feats, isn't defined.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, is there a definition of "ability" somewhere? As I noted before, I looked and don't see anywhere that tells me that all class features are special abilities.

Special Ability entry in PHB does not assert that all things granted by classes are Special Abilities; rather it seems to say that all Special Abilities are fall into one of four categories, with those not specified being Na (but not saying what Na really constitutes aside from things not otherwise covered, including stuff from physical form).

In fact, while I've been using the term "class feature" I'm now wondering if that is actually a solid term in the rules either. I think there is something to be said here for RAW having little regard for a rigorous and consistent use of specific terms, as things like "ability," "benefit," and "penalty" often got used a lot in a colloquial fashion in addition to having a game definition.

ADDENDUM: Hmm, PHB has some interesting stuff to say under "Class Features" on page 24. Nothing that really clarifies anything, sadly. Some of it might be pertinent, but it doesn't seem to address the matter of are Spells special abilities/is "Spells" Ex.

[JaronK]

Phelix: The Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities. And yes, it defined what a Special Ability is. It also trumps the PHB for this purpose, which is why I haven't really referenced the PHB.

Natural Abilities are somewhat different and less covered by the Monster Manual, since Special Abilities aren't Natural Abilities.

But again, to clarify... if we ignore spells for the moment, do people believe that Special Abilities like Sneak Attack, Bonus Feats, Maneuvers, and the like are Na, or is this Na default thing only for spells?

JaronK

[Nettlekid]

No, the reason so many abilities are unlabeled is that the designers were lazy.

Quick, what sort of ability is White Raven Tactics? There's no label on it. There's a general rule that Maneuvers are Ex (except in certain situations) but WRT isn't labeled.

So... is it a Natural Ability, or an Extraordinary one?

"Martial
maneuvers and stances are never spells or spell-like abilities. Unless the description of the specific maneuver or stance says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability." Taken from ToB. It defines things quite explicitly.

So now, just to drop away from spells for a moment, does anybody here actually think that unlabeled abilities like Sneak Attack, Fighter Bonus Feats, and other such abilities are Na, or is this only spells that everyone thinks is a super special case?

I think spells ARE a super special case. Sneak Attack is technically unlabeled in the PHB, so technically Factotums can't take it, but since there's support of Sneak Attack being Ex in other sources like PrCs and the MM, I think most DMs would allow it. The gaining of Fighter Bonus Feats is not an ability. The feat grant abilities, but the class feature which grants the bonus feats is not an ability. So that's just kind of nothing. Meanwhile, I think spells are actually something totally different. For example, here in the BoED, it mentions under the Saint Template, that "The save DCs of any and all of the saint’s special attacks, including spells as well as spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities, increase by +2." It calls spells something totally separate from the three other categories.

[JaronK]

"Martial
maneuvers and stances are never spells or spell-like abilities. Unless the description of the specific maneuver or stance says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability." Taken from ToB. It defines things quite explicitly.

Ah, so if there's a general rule that covers it, then we don't randomly default to Na? That's actually what I was getting at.

I think spells ARE a super special case. Sneak Attack is technically unlabeled in the PHB, so technically Factotums can't take it, but since there's support of Sneak Attack being Ex in other sources like PrCs and the MM, I think most DMs would allow it. The gaining of Fighter Bonus Feats is not an ability. The feat grant abilities, but the class feature which grants the bonus feats is not an ability. So that's just kind of nothing. Meanwhile, I think spells are actually something totally different. For example, here in the BoED, it mentions under the Saint Template, that "The save DCs of any and all of the saint’s special attacks, including spells as well as spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities, increase by +2." It calls spells something totally separate from the three other categories.

Fighter Bonus Feats is a class ability (you can even trade them for other class features via ACFs). But you think it's a "nothing"? Do you have any support for the existence of a "nothing" option? And you think Sneak Attack is technically not Ex because it has no direct label? I'm just clarifying here.

If there were a general rule that suggests Sneak Attack was Ex, would you still think it's not Ex because it's unlabeled, or would that solve things?

JaronK

[Phelix-Mu]

I dunno.

I'm starting to see the "Spells" issue as a primary source issue. Other sources imply various things, but class features are from the PHB, which should be considered the primary source for how those things work.

Since PHB (and it's errata) says nothing coherent about the matter, we can either

1.) Ascribe it to some kind of error/laziness/poor development

2.) Conclude only what the text tells us (and the RAW in PHB seems to draw a distinction when it tags some class features Ex but leaves other stuff blank).

Now, a broader discussion of special abilities could indicate otherwise. But looking just at the PHB and the MM, it seems to me that both books create gray area.

I think the errata is also a pertinent issue, since errata for several other books did go around and correct the Ex/Su/Sp/Ps tags. Why didn't PHB errata do this? [Possible Answer: Laziness. But I don't see that laziness or lack of initiative on the part of the developers gives us sanction to make logical leaps on behalf of the RAW. RAW is RAW. Logic be damned.]

[Psyren]

Ah, so if there's a general rule that covers it, then we don't randomly default to Na? That's actually what I was getting at.

Defaulting to Ex is even more random, particularly for an explicitly magical ability. If anything you should be defaulting to Sp, or Su - Ex should be last on the list, not first.

(Note that I am still setting aside RC here solely for the sake of argument. I'm pretty convinced that RC's general rule solves this problem easily.)

[JaronK]

Defaulting to Ex is even more random, particularly for an explicitly magical ability. If anything you should be defaulting to Sp, or Su - Ex should be last on the list, not first.

There's actually no "Default to Sp or Su" rule out there. But there is a default to Ex one.

And let's be clear, I originally thought (before I really got into researching this) that spells should be spell like. I mean seriously... why wouldn't they be? Spells are like themselves! I actually started working on figuring out what they were after a CustServ answer said they were Ex and I wanted to figure out what the heck they were talking about.

But check out the FAQ on page 17, which states that

It is reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear supernatural element should be fair play.

It's talking about Cunning Brilliance here, btw, so "fair play" means "is an extraordinary ability." Now, without talking about spells, with this FAQ entry, can everyone agree that Special Abilities (in fact, class abilities in general) that are unlabeled default to Ex if they have no clear supernatural element?

This should at least satisfy anyone wondering about Fighter Bonus Feats, Rogue Sneak Attack, Warblade Manuevers, and so on. It also shows that something being unlabeled is not an argument for it being Na... in fact if it's a class ability, the default is Ex. And you can see from here why I say lack of labeling is just laziness on the part of the developers... and you can see that defaulting to Ex isn't random at all. I'm following the rules on this completely. Because seriously, I really researched the heck out of this.

JaronK

[mattie_p]

But check out the FAQ on page 17, which states that

It is reasonable to assume that sneak attack is an extraordinary ability. When in doubt, the DM should decide if an unmarked ability qualifies. Anything that lacks a clear supernatural element should be fair play.

It's talking about Cunning Brilliance here, btw, so "fair play" means "is an extraordinary ability." Now, without talking about spells, with this FAQ entry, can everyone agree that Special Abilities (in fact, class abilities in general) that are unlabeled default to Ex if they have no clear supernatural element?

This should at least satisfy anyone wondering about Fighter Bonus Feats, Rogue Sneak Attack, Warblade Manuevers, and so on. It also shows that something being unlabeled is not an argument for it being Na... in fact if it's a class ability, the default is Ex. And you can see from here why I say lack of labeling is just laziness on the part of the developers... and you can see that defaulting to Ex isn't random at all. I'm following the rules on this completely. Because seriously, I really researched the heck out of this.

JaronK

Ah, but the FAQ there is not directive, it is subjective. "It is fair to assume..." "When in doubt, the DM should decide..." "... should be fair play."

It leaves it to the DM/reader to determine what is correct. Even when the FAQ is wrong (which we debated earlier in another thread), at least it makes a stand. This is just wishy-washy nonsense. I'm sorry, but when a rules source says "DM: Your call" I can hardly credit it in an argument.

[JaronK]

Ah, but the FAQ there is not directive, it is subjective. "It is fair to assume..." "When in doubt, the DM should decide..." "... should be fair play."

It leaves it to the DM/reader to determine what is correct. Even when the FAQ is wrong (which we debated earlier in another thread), at least it makes a stand. This is just wishy-washy nonsense. I'm sorry, but when a rules source says "DM: Your call" I can hardly credit it in an argument.

It completely kills the notion that Na is supposed to be the default for class abilities, though, because it wouldn't be fair to assume such a thing if it was categorically wrong. Which it would be if Na was a default for class abilities. It would only be fair to assume such a thing if the overwhelming majority of unlabeled class abilities were in fact Ex.

JaronK

[NeoPhoenix0]

You understand that customer service and the FAQ are not RAW, right?

If they fall into any category it is RAI.