PDA

View Full Version : Craven Swordsage question



quiet1mi
2011-01-20, 12:23 AM
Can a swordsage using assassin strike qualify for Craven?

Flickerdart
2011-01-20, 12:26 AM
Can a swordsage using assassin strike qualify for Craven?
Requirement: Sneak Attack class feature. Swordsages do not gain Sneak Attack as a class feature.

Draz74
2011-01-20, 02:41 AM
I recently had a big debate with JaronK about this ... the real answer is, it's certainly iffy enough that you should just ask your DM for a ruling.

As far as strict Rules As Written goes, though, I agree with Flickerdart.

Tytalus
2011-01-20, 11:12 AM
I recently had a big debate with JaronK about this ... the real answer is, it's certainly iffy enough that you should just ask your DM for a ruling.

As far as strict Rules As Written goes, though, I agree with Flickerdart.

Yes, he tends to argue that issue quite passionately.

The RAW is clear, though: the swordsage's class features are exactly those things that are listed under "Class Featues" in ToB, pages 15-17. None of those is "sneak attack".

Pechvarry
2011-01-20, 11:29 AM
Just because there are 3 responses in a row saying "nay", I feel the need to point this out:

a) Couldn't Sneak Attack be classified as a Class Feature? It's the type of D&D object that explains what sneak attack is. It's not a feat, it's not a skill. Even if you were to gain it via feat, it would be a feat to gain the class feature known as sneak attack.

b) Maneuvers are class features. If one of those maneuvers explicitly grants you sneak attack (a class feature. see A), then why wouldn't you be considered to have sneak attack?

Talk to your DM.

Flickerdart
2011-01-20, 11:44 AM
Just because there are 3 responses in a row saying "nay", I feel the need to point this out:

a) Couldn't Sneak Attack be classified as a Class Feature? It's the type of D&D object that explains what sneak attack is. It's not a feat, it's not a skill. Even if you were to gain it via feat, it would be a feat to gain the class feature known as sneak attack.

b) Maneuvers are class features. If one of those maneuvers explicitly grants you sneak attack (a class feature. see A), then why wouldn't you be considered to have sneak attack?

Talk to your DM.
Sneak Attack is an Extraordinary ability that some classes happen to gain for class features. Many monsters without class levels also have Sneak Attack.

Pechvarry
2011-01-20, 12:39 PM
Vampires automatically get Lightning Reflexes (among other feats) granted in addition to feats gained by levels. This doesn't make it a racial ability -- it's still classified as a feat. So I don't see why a race granted sneak attack would automatically have it stop being classified as a class feature.

Feats are extraordinary abilities too; the su/sp/ex classification really doesn't play into this.

Cog
2011-01-20, 01:18 PM
Vampires automatically get Lightning Reflexes (among other feats) granted in addition to feats gained by levels. This doesn't make it a racial ability -- it's still classified as a feat.
It's a feat because it's listed under the Vampire's Feats subheader. As pointed out, Sneak Attack isn't under the Swordsage's Class Features header. Also:

While you are in this stance, you gain the sneak attack ability, if you do not already have it, which deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. If you already have the sneak attack class feature...
The stance itself makes a distinction between it being merely an ability and a class feature.

mootoall
2011-01-20, 01:24 PM
But then it shows up again as already having the sneak attack class feature. I'd let them take it for the same reason I'd let factota take craven, i.e. they can sneak attack.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-20, 01:26 PM
Why not just take 1 level of Rogue? Then you expressly have Sneak Attack as a class feature, and stack it with Assassin's Stance while still qualifying for Craven completely RAW. And it's barely a blip in your maneuver progression anyways.

quiet1mi
2011-01-20, 01:49 PM
2 levels or rogue grabs sneak attack and evasion, in addition it does not cause you to lose IL...

Claudius Maximus
2011-01-20, 01:53 PM
2 levels or rogue grabs sneak attack and evasion, in addition it does not cause you to lose IL...

You will lose 1 IL, since rogue counts as half.

The Rabbler
2011-01-20, 01:53 PM
or you could grab the level 2 rogue ACF from dungeonscape, allowing you to sneak attack anything and not put the two levels of rogue to waste if you come up against something immune.

Cog
2011-01-20, 02:09 PM
or you could grab the level 2 rogue ACF from dungeonscape, allowing you to sneak attack anything and not put the two levels of rogue to waste if you come up against something immune.
That comes at level 3. And by then you've got the 2d6 sneak attack anyway. (Which is not bad - it lets you use higher level stances as well, instead of just being tied to the one.)

Draz74
2011-01-20, 03:05 PM
I'd let them take it for the same reason I'd let factota take craven, i.e. they can sneak attack.

I probably would allow that too, but I'd consider it a minor houserule, due to the "as a class feature" wording of Craven's prerequisite. (Same with the Factotum; I agree that the two situations are equivalent, and I'd consider Craven-Factotum a houserule as well.)

Boci
2011-01-20, 03:25 PM
Sneak Attack is an Extraordinary ability that some classes happen to gain for class features. Many monsters without class levels also have Sneak Attack.

I thought sneak attack was unnamed, not Ex.

Flickerdart
2011-01-20, 03:39 PM
I thought sneak attack was unnamed, not Ex.
It's listed as an Ex ability for monsters such as the baatezu.

Stegyre
2011-01-20, 04:02 PM
I thought sneak attack was unnamed, not Ex.


It's listed as an Ex ability for monsters such as the baatezu.
It's whatever its designated as being in the context in which it's being used.

Where it's not explicitly identified as something else, it's technically a "natural" ability (RC at 188), but WotC explicitly prides itself on not being consistent (see the sidebar on that same page of RC).
I'll be one of the first to agree that calling any class feature a "natural" ability is self-contradictory: it's an ability that comes from the class, not from the race.

When it's granted by Assassin's Stance, sneak attack is also ex (ToB at 40), but everyone probably already knew that.

JaronK
2011-01-20, 09:56 PM
Vampires automatically get Lightning Reflexes (among other feats) granted in addition to feats gained by levels. This doesn't make it a racial ability -- it's still classified as a feat. So I don't see why a race granted sneak attack would automatically have it stop being classified as a class feature.

Bad example: They get Lightning Reflexes as a Racial Bonus Feat. This is the term Alter Self uses for it, for example. On a vampire, Lightning Reflexes is a Racial ability, an Ex ability (because feats default to this), and a feat.

Sneak Attack is always an Ex ability unless otherwise noted. Note that Sp and Su abilities are ALWAYS noted as such (check all entries ever), and Natural abilities are never special abilities (see MM1 for that last bit, also note that Natural Abilities must be inherent to the physical form and thus are never granted by classes). Since Sneak Attack is always a special ability, it would have to be specifically defined as Sp or Su to be anything other than Ex. And all abilities must have one of the four types (PHB 180) so Ex is the only option.

And yes, I feel that if you have a class ability that grants sneak attack (such as Cunning Strike or Assassin's Stance via Swordsage levels) then you have sneak attack as a class ability. Craven does not say "class feature named sneak attack" is says "sneak attack as a class ability" and these are two distinct things. This is as opposed to sneak attack gained by using an item (a weapon of Assassination, for example) or a racial ability.

With that said, I think Craven is a horribly overrated feat. Immunity to fear is critical at higher levels, since fear effects often end up with VERY high DCs (for example, Intimidate is based on a skill check) and end up being a glaring weakness. The simple Hero's Feast spell makes you immune... but then you lose Craven. Immunity to Mind Effecting is a very good idea too, and you can't have that either with Craven. Why bother giving yourself such a big Achilles heel in the name of a bit of damage?

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-20, 10:03 PM
It's listed as an Ex ability for monsters such as the baatezu.
It's unnamed (which defaults to natural, for class abilities) for Rogues and most others; it's Extraordinary for most monsters, or really whatever is specified as Stegyre pointed out. The rule (relevant to base classes) is in the Player's Handbook on page 180:
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

JaronK
2011-01-20, 10:17 PM
It's unnamed (which defaults to natural, for class abilities) for Rogues and most others;

This is based on a misreading of page 180. It's not that unnamed stuff defaults to natural, it's that anything which is not one of the other three types must be natural. But nothing states that abilities which are unnamed aren't one of the other three types, and in fact NO class abilities can ever be natural unless they change the physical form of the creature (for example, a class that causes you to shapeshift claws might give natural claw attacks). Furthermore, note that most of the time unnamed abilities are in fact Ex (remember that no special ability in the Monster Manual can be natural as that book states as much, and since most of the special abilities are definitely non magical this leaves only Ex as an option). An ability can be designated as one of the other three types by virtue of matching the page 180 descriptions or the Monster Manual descriptions.

From page 6 of the Monster Manual:


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

The rules of the game article on polymorph goes into this in more depth.

JaronK

Tytalus
2011-01-21, 04:26 AM
And yes, I feel that if you have a class ability that grants sneak attack (such as Cunning Strike or Assassin's Stance via Swordsage levels) then you have sneak attack as a class ability.

That would imply that spellcasters with access to spells granting sneak attack also qualify for craven. That seems ... wrong, IMHO.

It's pretty clear to me that a class feature that (a) is not "sneak attack" and (b) is not the equivalent of sneak attack (all those being discussed have limitations and/or specific conditions that must be met), can not be considered a "sneak attack class feature".


Craven does not say "class feature named sneak attack" is says "sneak attack as a class ability"

No. It actually says "Sneak Attack class feature". There's not much of a difference to "class feature named sneak attack".

Curmudgeon
2011-01-21, 04:44 AM
This is based on a misreading of page 180. It's not that unnamed stuff defaults to natural, it's that anything which is not one of the other three types must be natural. But nothing states that abilities which are unnamed aren't one of the other three types
That page you think I'm "misreading" says exactly that:

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

JaronK
2011-01-21, 08:24 AM
That would imply that spellcasters with access to spells granting sneak attack also qualify for craven. That seems ... wrong, IMHO.

Maybe, but it would work. It would indeed be weird, but that's still what's said right?


No. It actually says "Sneak Attack class feature". There's not much of a difference to "class feature named sneak attack".

Not much, but the difference is there: one requires it to be sneak attack, the other requires it to be called sneak attack. It's like me saying "I'd like a jacket," and having someone else say "here, I brought you a coat." That's fine, they did what I asked, and I'm not going to get upset because they didn't call it a jacket.

The simple fact is, some classes have class features that give you something called "sneak attack." This includes Swordsages with Assassin's Stance, Factotums with Cunning Strike, and even bizarre stuff like Rangers with that spell that gives sneak attack. All of these could be referred to as sneak attack class features... after all, if I said "that sneak attack stance" you'd know I meant Assassin's Stance, right? As such, Assassin's Stance is indeed a sneak attack class feature.

Thus, the only sneak attack abilities that won't qualify you for Craven are racial ones and item based ones (well, and if there's any non personal range spell that gives it, I guess that too, if cast on someone who doesn't have it as a class feature).

Though I have to say, I still think the easiest end to this is simply not to take Craven... it's a serious problem later on in the game.


That page you think I'm "misreading" says exactly that: "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

You're discounting other methods of designation besides putting two little letters in parenthesis. The Monster Manual quote makes it VERY clear that all special abilities MUST be Sp, Su, or Ex. Since the Monster Manual is the primary source on that, clearly your claim is incorrect. Other methods of designation could include, for example, using the page 180 PHB or MM Glossary definitions of Sp, Su, and Ex to determine what each ability is. And again, the rules of the game article on Polymorphing (All About Polymorph parts 1-4) go into great detail on what Natural Abilities are. They make it clear that Natural Abilities are only those abilities which are inherent to the physical form... class abilities, therefor, cannot be natural unless the class changes your physical form (such as giving you wings or claws or something).

Note that one of the implications of trying to claim EVERYTHING which doesn't have an (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) after it is Natural is that the entire polymorph line, all of which grant all natural abilities (even Alter Self does, as per the same Rules of the Game), gives ridiculous stuff. Even Alter Self grants spellcasting by that ruling. Yowch.

JaronK

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-21, 01:40 PM
MMV, the FAQs, and one of the other MMs...possibly MM itself, all state that any abilities not named are Ex. MMV even makes it explicit, naming spellcasting as an Ex ability.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-21, 02:26 PM
You're discounting other methods of designation besides putting two little letters in parenthesis. The Monster Manual quote makes it VERY clear that all special abilities MUST be Sp, Su, or Ex.
Of course I'm disregarding (not just discounting) this reference, because the official rules require me (and you) to do so.
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. In matters relating to base class abilities, what the Player's Handbook says is correct:
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. The primary source trumps any statements in the Monster Manual about the types of base class abilities, and says that those abilities that are undesignated are always natural, overriding this disagreement with the Monster Manual. (So sayeth the Wizards of the Coast.) The Monster Manual can tell you how abilities that are designated as supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like work; it does nothing to override natural base class abilities, because it's not the primary source for those.

Tytalus
2011-01-21, 04:31 PM
Maybe, but it would work. It would indeed be weird, but that's still what's said right?

No, that's merely a non-intuitive consequence of your peculiar interpretation.



Not much, but the difference is there: one requires it to be sneak attack, the other requires it to be called sneak attack. It's like me saying "I'd like a jacket," and having someone else say "here, I brought you a coat." That's fine, they did what I asked, and I'm not going to get upset because they didn't call it a jacket.


That's a terrible analogy, as I have pointed out before: it assumes the very thing it's trying to show, namely that these class features we are discussing are specific forms of sneak attack. I.e., that "Stances" is a specific form of sneak attack. That you bring it up again seems somewhat disingenuous. To properly use the jacket analogy, something like Cunning Strike would be someone telling you "every time you spend $10, you get to use a jacket for 6 seconds." - that's not the same as having a jacket.



The simple fact is, some classes have class features that give you something called "sneak attack." This includes Swordsages with Assassin's Stance, Factotums with Cunning Strike, and even bizarre stuff like Rangers with that spell that gives sneak attack. All of these could be referred to as sneak attack class features... after all, if I said "that sneak attack stance" you'd know I meant Assassin's Stance, right? As such, Assassin's Stance is indeed a sneak attack class feature.


No; the prerequisite for craven is not "any class feature that offers, even if only under certain circumstances, sneak attack". And Assassin's Stance is not a class feature at all.



Though I have to say, I still think the easiest end to this is simply not to take Craven... it's a serious problem later on in the game.


I think you are overestimating the associated penalty, but YMMV.

JaronK
2011-01-21, 04:31 PM
That's a terrible analogy, as I have pointed out before: it assumes the very thing it's trying to show, namely that these class features we are discussing are specific forms of sneak attack. I.e., that "Stances" is a specific form of sneak attack. That you bring it up again seems somewhat disingenuous. To properly use the jacket analogy, something like Cunning Strike would be someone telling you "every time you spend $10, you get to use a jacket for 6 seconds." - that's not the same as having a jacket.

It is the same... for 6 seconds at a time. As such, since you only get to use the feat when you qualify for it, you'd only get your Craven damage when you're actually giving yourself Sneak Attack. At all other times, the feat would have no effect (So a Factotum can't use the Craven bonus damage unless he's using Cunning Strike with that attack).


No; the prerequisite for craven is not "any class feature that offers, even if only under certain circumstances, sneak attack". And Assassin's Stance is not a class feature at all.

Right, it's any sneak attack class feature. That would include ones that give it only under certain circumstances, ones that give it weird names (but eventually do call it "sneak attack") and so on.


I think you are overestimating the associated penalty, but YMMV.

In some games perhaps, but there's a lot of REALLY nasty fear causers. Compare it to Shock Trooper, which penalizes AC (which doesn't really matter anyway at high levels) to give much higher bonuses (twice as big at most levels, even more so if you have Leap Attack) and works on all creatures (Craven is still trumped by anything you can't sneak attack, which becomes a bigger and bigger problem as you level up).

It might be worth taking and retraining, but especially for feat starved Rogues there's just so much else I'd rather have. For example, if I want to be good at stealth (standard for Rogues, Factotums, and pretty much anyone else who would even consider Craven) I'd want to be a Necropolitan and take the Lifesight feat to more easily detect enemies, and also to be immune to that same feat's effects on stealth. But that would make me immune to Mind Effecting, so I can't have it with Craven.


Still, the monster manual itself does not categorize all abilities accordingly (e.g., spellcasting). This is consistently done throughout the Monster Manuals. It stands to reason that this section you keep referring to is not entirely correct.

"Incorrect" isn't really an option. It's what the rule says, and it's the primary source. It may not be clear enough about some abilities (like spellcasting) and thus cause confusion, but the rule can't just be "incorrect." Note that I'm also referring to two agreeing sections, one on page 6 and one on page 315, and that these further then agree with the Rules of the Game article on Polymorphing.


No, spellcasting is not a special ability, as MM5 shows.

Erm, no. Go look at every Monster Manual (and every book that has entries for creatures) ever. "Spells" is always listed as a Special Attack. Special Attacks are a subset of Special Abilities. And MM5 even lists a specialized form of spellcasting (Arcane Talent) as an Ex Special Attack. Not sure what you're trying to claim here.

From what was just quoted:


The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

If the Monster Manual gives a rule on that topic, it trumps. That natural abilities rule is not a specific rule to base classes, it's a rule about abilities in general, so by your reading it's trumped and ignored. What does the Monster Manual say?


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

This is a general rule, not one specific to reading creature entries (it's found in the general glossary).

But trumping's not necessary, because you're still not reading what the word "designated" means. Designated doesn't mean it has to be a specific label within the entry. I could say "I'm designating everything in that blue box to be widgets, while everything in the red box is thingamajigs, and everything in the white box is whatchamacallits." I don't have to actually put a label that says "widgets" on everything in the blue box... I've already designated them by another method. As long as you give some means of identifying which things are what, you've designated stuff.

You're claiming that stuff that doesn't have an (Ex) tag on the entry itself isn't "otherwise designated" but if it fits the definition of Ex, then it HAS been otherwise designated. Its official designation is found in the primary source book for Ex abilities, and it reads


Extraordinary: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, don't become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless otherwise noted.

See? Now they're all designated.

Note that there are MANY Ex abilities that are defined as Ex by a general definition, but not designated as such in their specific entries. All feats, for example, are defined as being Ex (unless the feat says otherwise). Yet no feat specifically says it's Ex. What does that also say about the Fighter Bonus Feats ability? It's Ex too. This is just stock standard here.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-21, 04:46 PM
If the Monster Manual gives a rule on that topic, it trumps.
Not by the rules. We've got two statements here:
Special Abilities: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (su).
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Do these disagree? Yes, they do.
Is there a rule for deciding such disagreements? Yes, there is: the Primary Sources Errata rule.
Is the context base class descriptions? Yes, it is.
Then in that context, the Player's Handbook is correct, and takes precedence over the Monster Manual.

For the Monster Manual to "trump", you would have to create a house rule, for the RAW says otherwise.

JaronK
2011-01-21, 04:51 PM
Error on line 3.

Neither of the two quotes you just gave were in a section about Base Class rules. They were in general sections about special abilities (The Monster Manual quote is from the Glossary, in the "Special Abilities" entry, while the PHB quote is in the "Special Abilities" section and specifically says it's talking about monsters at the beginning of that same section). Guess which one trumps on the topic of Ex, Su, and Sp abilities? That would be the Monster Manual.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-21, 05:15 PM
Error on line 3.

Neither of the two quotes you just gave were in a section about Base Class rules.
Huh? Who said they would need to be? Are you trying to introduce another house rule here?

If you're reading a base class description (and you must be referencing either a base class description or a prestige class description, if you're talking about "Sneak Attack as a class feature") then the primary source is the Player's Handbook. That's all of the PH, not just particular sections (excepting when there's a dispute between table and text in the same book, of course).

With the above-mentioned exception, the Primary Sources Errata rule is by whole books and is not broken down by particular sections of those books. Trying to restrict the Primary Sources Errata rule to book sections would be a house rule, and not the RAW.

Stegyre
2011-01-21, 05:16 PM
While I'm sure it's fun (for certain definitions of "fun") to debate whether a particular ability is extraordinary or natural . . .


I fail to see how it makes any difference!

What it really looks like is a silly distinction that is inconsistently applied. (Now there's a WotC surprise; oh wait, no it isn't.)

FWIW, I agree with Crumudgeon on the RAW, but with JaronK on the RAI. (Really, "natural" abilities should be those that arise from a creature's race, not class, and the RC RAW statement indicating the contrary is just another brain f@rt by our esteemed WotC editors.)

But it doesn't matter:

1. Both natural and extraordinary abilities will function, or not function, in the same situations. If we were taking about ex vs. su vs. sp, the distinction would matter; but this distiction? No.

2. Regardless of whether a particular instance of sneak attack were natural or ex, that does not make or unmake it a "class feature."
FWIW on the OP, I agree with the first three respondsive posts. "Class features" are specifically called out for each class. They're even bolded. If your class features do not include "sneak attack" or have the alternative language,

For the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes, and similar options that require a minimum number of sneak attack extra damage dice, treat [X] ability as the equivalent of sneak attack
You do not have the class feature "sneak attack," not even if one of your class features -- like a maneuver or stance -- may give you sneak attack damage.

That last situation is a close one, and reasonable minds (and DMs) may differ, so Draz gave the first, most pertinent response: ask your own DM. (And hope that his name starts with "J" and ends with "K.")

JaronK
2011-01-21, 05:44 PM
It matters for Alter Self (which gives all Natural Abilities of a creature, but not Ex Special Abilities) and Cunning Brilliance (which gives any Ex ability of a base class, but not Na abilities). I don't believe anyone is saying abilities granted by classes aren't class abilities... those are two separate things. But some people are (completely separately from the Ex/Na thing) saying that class abilities that let you sneak attack aren't the same as sneak attack class abilities.


Huh? Who said they would need to be?

The same rules you quoted. Both sections quoted here are talking about special abilities. The Monster Manual is the primary source on Special Abilities, which it defines as Ex, Su, and Sp. Thus, when two sources are talking about special abilities (as these both are) the primary source trumps. That would be the Monster Manual.

If this were in a section on Base Classes, then the fact that PHB is the primary source on base classes would matter if it actually contradicted... but it isn't, and doesn't. Because Ex abilities ARE designated as such in the two places we're quoting. They're designated here: "Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, don't become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless otherwise noted." Natural abilities
"include abilities a creature has because of it's physical nature, such as a bird's ability to fly." This is expanded in the Rules of the Game article, which states:


Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form.

Note the clarification here that the reference to "otherwise designated" just means it's a catchall for stuff that doesn't fit in the first three categories. If it fits in the others (and stuff like sneak attack does fit in Ex) then it goes there. Thus, the PHB actually agrees with the Monster Manual.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-21, 05:56 PM
I'm in the "No" camp. Class feature is a particular mechanical term, in the same way that ability score is a reference to a particular mechanic and your +15 attack bonus with your sword doesn't count as an "ability" or its "score."

A swordsage who gets sneak attack from his maneuvers does not actually possess sneak attack, in the same way that a warlock with the Walk Unseen invocation cannot meet a requirement of casting 3rd level spells. Their abilities REPLICATE a class feature/3rd level spell, but they ARE NOT that class feature/3rd level spell.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-21, 06:11 PM
The Monster Manual is the primary source on Special Abilities, which it defines as Ex, Su, and Sp.
You're mangling the rules here, changing them from what they say to what you want them to say.
The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. The Monster Manual is the primary source for only some types of abilities, and is not the primary source for natural abilities. The Player's Handbook doesn't cease being the primary source for base class abilities regardless of what some other book says. And the PH says that undesignated abilities are natural, which is outside the scope of the Monster Manual's primary authority.

JaronK
2011-01-21, 06:12 PM
But a Warlock doesn't actually cast 3rd level spells (since spell like abilities are not spells, and vice versa). A Swordsage with Assassin's Stance does actually have sneak attack, and he did actually get it with a class ability. It doesn't say it works "like sneak attack" or anything like that, it says you actually do have 2d6 sneak attack.

So, can you think of a more fitting example that would be relevant?


You're mangling the rules here, changing them from what they say to what you want them to say. The Monster Manual is the primary source for only some types of abilities, and is not the primary source for natural abilities.

It doesn't have to be. It already puts all Special Abilities within its purview when it says that all special abilities are Ex, Su, or Sp. And why would I want them to say any one thing or another? I just want accuracy.


The Player's Handbook doesn't cease being the primary source for base class abilities regardless of what some other book says. And the PH says that undesignated abilities are natural, which is outside the scope of the Monster Manual's primary authority.

Since none of the abilities we're talking about are undesignated, why does this matter? The PHB and MM definitions of Ex, Sp, and Su ARE designations. The Rules of the Game article makes all of this painfully clear. It goes like this:

Start with an ability you'd like to know the type of.
1. Is it a Special Ability? If so it's Ex, Su, or Sp (MM 315 and 6). Follow the designations on MM 315 and 6, and PHB 180, and maybe the Rules of the Game article, to figure out which one it is.

2. Is it "otherwise designated" as Ex, Su, or Sp? If so it's the designated thing (PHB 180).

3. Is it not a Special Ability, and not otherwise designated? It's Natural, because natural is a catch all category (Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph and PHB 180). Note that you should only "catch" abilities that are "of its physical nature" (PHB 180, Rules of the Game: All about polymorph) when hitting this category, so if you put something else here you screwed up somewhere.

See? No contradictions, no throwing out rules you don't like, it all fits quite nicely. So for Sneak Attack, first we see it's a Special Ability, so it must be Ex, Sp, or Su. Next we see that it's non magical, has no caster level, etc, so it must be Ex. Done. Nice and easy. It has been designated. By comparison, take a Halfling's 20' run speed. Is it a Special Ability? No, go to step 2. Is it otherwise designated as Ex, Su, or Sp? No, though there are a few critters with move speeds that are. But it's not. Go to step 3. It's natural. As a check, is it inherent to the physical form of a Halfling? Yes, it's there because of the Halfling's short legs, and all Halflings have it. Cool, it's a Natural Ability, we didn't screw up.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-21, 07:01 PM
There really isn't any official ruling either way that I can find, it boils down to how closely your DM interprets the meaning of certain phrases. As has been obvious, no one can come up with any solid reason for why the ability will or will not count, other than a strict and specific vs. loose and flexible interpretation of the phrase "class feature."

Personally, I fall into the strict camp, along with several others. JaronK is clearly in the looser interpretation. I'd just prefer to shy away from wizards qualifying for rage feats because they can cast Rage... allowing temporary abilities or even permanent abilities gained from magic items to count for feat prerequisites simply seems... abusable, especially with the spell research options.

JaronK
2011-01-21, 07:03 PM
Well, at least remember that if it's not granting you the ability at that point, you don't qualify. Also, if a Wizard player really wanted to improve his rage that he only gets when he casts a specific spell with one of his feat slots, are you really going to stop him? Far better than letting him take Sculpt Spell!

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-21, 07:20 PM
Well, at least remember that if it's not granting you the ability at that point, you don't qualify. Correct, but the question is, can you even take a feat that you only qualify for some of the time? There's nothing really official on how situational or temporary prerequisites work.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-21, 07:28 PM
It's clearly stated that if you no longer qualify for a feat or PrC, etc, you lose its abilities. That would tend to imply heavily that temporary qualification is possible.

After all, people regularly qualify for various things with a stat-boosting item...

JaronK
2011-01-21, 07:28 PM
Correct, but the question is, can you even take a feat that you only qualify for some of the time? There's nothing really official on how situational or temporary prerequisites work.

Well, there sort of is, in that you have to have the prerequisites when you take the feat, and there is a rule saying you can't use the feat at any time when you lack the prerequisites (both of these are in the PHB). One of the best uses for this is the hulk build, where you have a medium sized humanoid with a ring of Enlarge Person who takes War Hulk levels. When you wear the ring, you're big and strong and have all the normal abilities... but you're treated as having no ranks in Int based skills. When you take off the ring you lose the War Hulk abilities (keeping only the saves and hp), but you can use those skills again. It's kinda fun to play with.

With something like Craven it's handy too if you only have the feat while you have sneak attack. That means you don't take the saves penalty when not sneak attacking. Of course, I still think it's far better to just be a Necropolitan (immunity to so much stuff is amazing, D12+at least 4 HD is great for a Rogue or Factotum, ability to dump Con cuts down on MAD, you can take Lifesight and are immune to its effects, and by RAI if not RAW you might be immune to Mindsight too).

JaronK

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-21, 07:39 PM
Hold on, isn't there a Barbarian ACF or PrC where you become Large while raging? If so, you can literally buld the Hulk.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-21, 07:50 PM
Hold on, isn't there a Barbarian ACF or PrC where you become Large while raging? If so, you can literally buld the Hulk.

It's a Goliath Racial substitution level for Barbarian - Mountain Rage.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-21, 08:02 PM
:smallbiggrin:

*Puts in NED*

JaronK
2011-01-21, 08:24 PM
Hold on, isn't there a Barbarian ACF or PrC where you become Large while raging? If so, you can literally buld the Hulk.

Yup. But you'd need to be large at the time you take War Hulk, which could theoretically be tricky if your DM says that leveling up is a slow process in any way. Depends on campaign. That's why the ring is a little easier to pull off.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-21, 09:26 PM
It's clearly stated that if you no longer qualify for a feat or PrC, etc, you lose its abilities. That would tend to imply heavily that temporary qualification is possible.

After all, people regularly qualify for various things with a stat-boosting item... It implies that such things can be taken away, such as ability damage or an alignment-restricted character losing his class features he used to apply.

Again, it doesn't really say one way or another whether or not an item can be allowed, though the ludicrous stat requirements in Epic level feats might hint that such things were intended.

What I mean is, everything we're saying is opinion or extrapolation. No one has actually posted a quote from the books that specifically states one way or another, so this looks like it just falls into Rule 0 territory.

Dralnu
2011-01-22, 03:27 AM
With that said, I think Craven is a horribly overrated feat. Immunity to fear is critical at higher levels, since fear effects often end up with VERY high DCs (for example, Intimidate is based on a skill check) and end up being a glaring weakness. The simple Hero's Feast spell makes you immune... but then you lose Craven. Immunity to Mind Effecting is a very good idea too, and you can't have that either with Craven. Why bother giving yourself such a big Achilles heel in the name of a bit of damage?


Because optimizing a single character to kick butt is much much easier than becoming an opti-fu DM who knows all his PC's strengths, weaknesses and their proper counters? People take these types of things because most of the time they can get away with it without any repercussions. You can apply your same logic to item familiars. They're both "balanced" on the basis that the DM can potentially exploit their weakness.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 06:58 AM
Except that it's easy to protect an Item Familiar... Dwarvencraft Quality Adamantium Dastanas with the Blueshine enchantment are virtually impossible to destroy (since you can't sunder armor, and Blueshine protects against rust monsters). A DM would have to specifically go out of his way to destroy a reasonably protected Item Familiar (I use Quickrazors as item familiars for a similar reason, as it's hard to sunder what you can't see).

But even if a DM just randomly picked monsters of appropriate CR for you to fight, you'd find that pretty regularly they're going to have really nasty attacks that mental immunity would save you from, and often times those attacks are fear based. That's not the DM optimizing to screw you... that's the DM deciding it would be cool if you fought a dragon once in a while, and then your character suddenly running away. At higher levels, as sneak attack immunity becomes a more and more annoying issue (more and more things become hard or impossible to sneak attack, and it starts costing more than you'd like to deal with that), fear based attacks become more and more common. Craven starts actually being completely harmful in some fights, and a serious liability in others. You really want that fear immunity, which a single Hero's Feast spell would grant for the whole party but which a Craven character can't partake in if he still wants to use his feat.

JaronK

Tytalus
2011-01-22, 08:03 AM
It is the same... for 6 seconds at a time.

Not really. Do you own the jacket? Is it yours? No, you can merely hold on to it for a couple of seconds a day.


Right, it's any sneak attack class feature.


Fixed that for you.

No, you have to have "sneak attack class feature" (the "any" was your addition). There is only one: sneak attack.



In some games perhaps, but there's a lot of REALLY nasty fear causers.


We've been over this. Feel free to evaluate it as you like, but please don't present your opinion as the truth. IMHO, it's an excellent low-to-mid-level option for any sneak attacker, vastly increasing their primary source of damage (for a straight rogue, it's +48% SA damage at ECL 5 and +57% at ECL 10. That is huge. Craven even multiplies on a critical hit. A factotum would increase his SA damage by a whopping +286% at ECL10, i.e. almost quadruple it, assuming 1 IP spent. The swordsage would get +143%). That's significant for a single feat. If fear etc. are becoming a hassle at high levels, you can either temporarily become immune (Mind Blank etc., thereby suppressing Craven) for certain occasions or just retrain the feat.



... I'd want to be a Necropolitan and take the Lifesight feat...


Again you are assuming that your extremely high-OP approach is the (only) way to go for character creation. If it were, you might have a point that craven is not an option. I still strongly doubt that the number of Necropolitan PCs with Lifesight is in any way significant enough compared to all other PCs that it would detract from the value of the Craven feat.



"Incorrect" isn't really an option.


Sure it is. There are plenty of examples in the rules where one part directly contradicts another and one of them consequently has to be in error.



Erm, no. Go look at every Monster Manual (and every book that has entries for creatures) ever. "Spells" is always listed as a Special Attack.


MM5 no longer lists spellcasting derived from class levels as a special attack, it received its own section in the stat block.

And every single MM lists "Spells" without a type (Ex, Su, Sp) in its glossary, by the way.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 06:09 PM
MMV is a bad example... it lists Arcane Talent (the ability to cast Wizard spells) as an Ex ability. And every other book other than that lists spells as a special attack, so one way or the other Spells are a Special Ability that's Ex, regardless of which source you look at. MMV's changes to the stat block were to make it easier to read... they were not a rules change, and treating them as such is disingenuous. Furthermore, MM can't be incorrect on the topic of special abilities being Ex, Sp, or Su, since it's the primary source on Ex, Su, and Sp abilities and is echoed by the SRD as well.

There are plenty of abilities throughout the books (such as Fighter Bonus Feats) that don't have a listed ability type. For such abilities, you have to figure it out based on the rules given for ability types. MM6, MM315, PHB180, the SRD (which only echoes the MM), and Rules of the Game: All About Polymorph 1&4 all go over this. And those rules ARE in agreement. All Special Abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su. Sp and Su abilities are magical, so all special abilities that can work in an Antimagic Field are Ex (note that with Invoke Magic, spells in fact can), and furthermore if you check the books you'll find Sp and Su abilities are always labeled as such in their entries (this is done because Sp abilities generally need a listed caster level since they could be dispelled, and because the note must be made so you know that Antimagic fields work on them). This means any unlabeled Special Ability is ALWAYS Ex. Go ahead, look through the books, especially the ones before the new type of monster stat block where it's clearer what a special ability or special attack was, and see if you can find anything that could plausibly be Sp or Su that isn't labeled as such. I have. It's not there.

And of course if it's not a Special Ability, you check to see if it's otherwise designated as Ex, Sp, or Su. Examples of that would include some magical flight modes, a few burrowing modes, and a few really fast run speeds. Maybe there's a high swim speed with it somewhere. If it's not otherwise designated as one of those three, and it's not a special ability, then it's a Natural Ability (which should be an ability inherent to the creature's physical form, like most movement speeds, claw attacks, etc).

Note that MM 6, MM 315, and PHB 180 ALL agree that you can't possibly have a "non ability ability" because the MM says all special abilities have to be one of the three, and PHB 180 and RotG:All About Polymorph say if it's not one of those other three then it defaults to natural automatically.

As to Craven, you've heard my arguments on it. I think "Sneak Attack Class Ability" means "A Class Ability that gives you Sneak Attack." You think it means "The Class Ability named Sneak Attack." Whatever. And I hardly think someone in the party casting Hero's Feast once a day at higher levels counts as extremely high optimization... I consider it just smart playing. Nor is being a Necropolitan. Fear Immunity is just one of those things that's very advisable to have at high levels. If it's not for you, fine, but if you really wanted to be a damage dealer, a sneak attack type is hardly your best option (and a sneak attack dealer who might randomly panic while sneaking around because he got too close to the dragon and failed his test against the fear effect is a very dead sneak attacker). And when you get to higher levels and find that tons of monsters cause fear but are nearly impossible to sneak attack, well, maybe your DM will allow retraining.

Though claiming a Factotum increases his sneak attack by 286% at level 10 with it... just a LITTLE disingenuous, don't you think? It's a variable ability. And if our Factotum friend wanted bonus D6s, he'd be using Iaijutsu Focus, probably for around 7d6 at this level, and ignoring the sneak attack entirely because he'd get even more damage by spending three inspiration points for an extra attack (with an extra 7d6 IF damage plus whatever other damage he's doing) instead of +3d6 sneak attack.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-22, 07:13 PM
Furthermore, MM can't be incorrect on the topic of special abilities being Ex, Sp, or Su, since it's the primary source on Ex, Su, and Sp abilities Of course it can be incorrect. In the context of base class abilities, any disagreement with the Player's Handbook is wrong. That's already been decided by the rules.

and is echoed by the SRD as well. How is that relevant? Naturally the SRD is going to "echo" the MM source material, because the SRD is just the core D&D books stripped of some WotC "product identity" material. You're merely reading the same material twice.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-22, 07:16 PM
Look, You're disagreeing on what the primary source is.

Curmudgeon believes that the primary source is the PHB, because it's a class ability.

JaronK believes the primary source is the MM, because the question is about whether an ability is Ex, Su, Sp, or 'Natural'.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 07:19 PM
Of course it can be incorrect. In the context of base class abilities, any disagreement with the Player's Handbook is wrong. That's already been decided by the rules.

1: It doesn't contradict, you just don't know what "otherwise designated" means and think it means "says it's that thing in the actual entry" as opposed to "is designated that thing by any other means." The Rules of the Game article on polymorphing clarifies this nicely, but you've been ignoring that.

2: We're not in the context of base class abilities, we're in the context of special abilities in general. Base class abilities is a subset of that... but since the PHB never talks about special abilities in terms of base class abilities, but rather ONLY in context of special abilities in general, that doesn't matter. Page 180 is NOT talking about base class abilities, it's talking about special abilities. You know that because it's in a section called "Special Abilities" which is not in a chapter on base class abilities.

3: Your interpretation contradicts both the rules of the game article that covers Natural Abilities AND the PHB's own interpretation, which both state that usually natural abilities are stuff based on the physical form of the creature. If everything that didn't explicitly state in the entry that it was something else was natural, then the VAST majority of abilities would be natural, and the vast majority of those would having nothing to do with the basic physical form of the creature. So you're contradicting the very source you claim is primary with your interpretation.


How is that relevant? Naturally the SRD is going to "echo" the MM source material, because the SRD is just the core D&D books stripped of some WotC "product identity" material. You're merely reading the same material twice.

It's just showing how many sources say exactly the same thing. Note however that the SRD doesn't say the exact same sentence as MM 315, just a very closely related one (that means the same thing).

Look, You're disagreeing on what the primary source is.

Curmudgeon believes that the primary source is the PHB, because it's a class ability.

JaronK believes the primary source is the MM, because the question is about whether an ability is Ex, Su, Sp, or 'Natural'.

The bigger issue here is that Curmudgeon is also disagreeing with the PHB's own definition of Natural Abilities as well, in addition to disagreeing on what "otherwise designated" means and disagreeing with the Rules of the Game article as well.

If there's two interpretations of the rules, one of which creates contradictions between rules sources and one of which does not, the latter is correct and the former is a misinterpretation.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-22, 08:01 PM
The bigger issue here is that Curmudgeon is also disagreeing with the PHB's own definition of Natural Abilities
Here's the definition, from Player's Handbook page 310:

natural ability: A nonmagical capability, such as walking, swimming (for aquatic creatures), and flight (for winged creatures).
In what way am I disagreeing with this definition? Sneak attack is not magical, and the definition does not conflict with the page 180 rule:
Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

as well, in addition to disagreeing on what "otherwise designated" means and disagreeing with the Rules of the Game article as well.
"Rules of the Game" articles are a hodge-podge of actual rules and Skip Williams' house rules. They have no official standing, and so naturally I've ignored them; I'm only concerned with the RAW.

If there's two interpretations of the rules, one of which creates contradictions between rules sources and one of which does not, the latter is correct and the former is a misinterpretation.
That's nonsense, of course. If both you and your friend think it's OK to ignore speed limits because getting to your destination faster will alleviate traffic congestion on the highway, the cop who gives you a ticket is right despite both being in conflict with traffic congestion reduction measures and outnumbered in interpretations of the rules.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-22, 08:05 PM
That's nonsense, of course. If both you and your friend think it's OK to ignore speed limits because getting to your destination faster will alleviate traffic congestion on the highway, the cop who gives you a ticket is right despite being outnumbered in interpretations of the rules.

...what?

If Rule X can be interpreted in 2 different ways, depending on how you read a phrase within Rule X, and Rule X is in the basic rulebook that trumps all others, taking a secondary rulebook and finding that it clarifies things w.r.t Rule X working one way or another means that that secondary rulebook is right.

Just because the primary source is the primary source doesn't mean that you can ignore all other sources and interpret the rule the other way. That's just plain pigheaded. If the Primary source is ambiguous, and another source supports one interpretation over another, then that interpretation is correct. Simples.

Demons_eye
2011-01-22, 08:08 PM
Just because the primary source is the primary source doesn't mean that you can ignore all other sources and interpret the rule the other way. That's just plain pigheaded. If the Primary source is ambiguous, and another source supports one interpretation over another, then that interpretation is correct. Simples.

Even if it supports one viewing that does not make it correct.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-22, 08:14 PM
When you have a choice between:

Primary source + Secondary source support interpretation.

and

Primary source supports interpretation, Secondary source contradicts interpretation.

There's only one right answer. You want another example?

In Legal situations, the laws as written are the primary source. Previous rulings by judges are the secondary source. If you can interpret a law one way, but the judges have interpreted it another way, you're wrong. End of.

Demons_eye
2011-01-22, 08:23 PM
When you have a choice between:

Primary source + Secondary source support interpretation.

and

Primary source supports interpretation, Secondary source contradicts interpretation.

There's only one right answer. You want another example?

In Legal situations, the laws as written are the primary source. Previous rulings by judges are the secondary source. If you can interpret a law one way, but the judges have interpreted it another way, you're wrong. End of.

But in those cases a judge can rule either way he or she see fit. Again other sources do not make it correct, it just helps.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 08:24 PM
Here's the definition, from Player's Handbook page 310:
In what way am I disagreeing with this definition?

Go page to page 180. The part of the rule you keep ignoring. It's two scentences. The fact that you have to omit the other sentence should tell you something.


Sneak attack is not magical, and the definition does not conflict with the page 180 rule:

And again you leave out half the rule. Go ahead, quote the other half. Or do I have to do it for you?


"Rules of the Game" articles are a hodge-podge of actual rules and Skip Williams' house rules. They have no official standing, and so naturally I've ignored them; I'm only concerned with the RAW.

He's one of the primary designers of the PHB... the very book you're trying to misinterpret.


That's nonsense, of course. If both you and your friend think it's OK to ignore speed limits because getting to your destination faster will alleviate traffic congestion on the highway, the cop who gives you a ticket is right despite both being in conflict with traffic congestion reduction measures and outnumbered in interpretations of the rules.

Huh? Here we have two official laws, and you're trying to claim half of one (but not the other half you're ignoring) means you should ignore the other. That's entirely different. The PHB itself makes it VERY clear that natural abilities are those it has solely because of its physical nature. The Rules of the Game article (which is written by one of the guys who wrote that book) clarifies what's meant here, and the Monster Manual has further rulings on the topic. All agree as long as you use "otherwise designated" as it is used in real English, not to mean something it doesn't actually mean.

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-22, 08:30 PM
I don't know if it's official, but we play with the ruling that if the prerequisite is not something you can maintain permanently (Barring ability damage and the like) then you can't take it. Casting resist energy on myself doesn't let me make use of the favored soul's resist energy feats.

Edit:

Tome of battle, page 75:

While you are in this stance you gain the sneak attack ability if you do not already have it ...

Champions of ruin, page 17

Prerequisites: Sneak attack class feature ...

Curmudgeon
2011-01-22, 08:38 PM
Go page to page 180. The part of the rule you keep ignoring. It's two scentences. The fact that you have to omit the other sentence should tell you something. I think it's a waste of time, but if it makes you happy ...

Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary,
supernatural, or spell-like. Natural abilities include (and thus are not strictly limited to) abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. This gives an example of a natural ability (bird flight); it's not a limiting specification. It doesn't say natural abilities are only from a creature's physical nature.

That sentence is just not relevant from a rules perspective, since it's an example rather than a specification. That's why I've been omitting it.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 08:40 PM
Now, look at the description at the end that you just cited. Now look at the Rules of the Game article. Notice anything about how they define Natural Abilities?

They're always talking about things which are inherent to the physical form. ALWAYS. What does that tell you about your interpretation that the majority of natural abilities are in fact class abilities, which are not inherent to the physical form?

Though the fact that you need to ignore the Rules of the Game article written by the same guy who wrote much of the very book you're citing as a primary source should be a warning to you that your interpretation is deeply flawed.

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-22, 08:44 PM
WotC is a being that deals in absolutes. Take a look at magic the gathering and how much of a mess that is. If something requires a class feature, then something that grants an ability that happens to do the same thing that a class feature does is not granting you that class feature. Nowhere in Assassin Stance's description does it tell you that you are getting a class feature - You are getting the sneak attack *ability*.

The ability to use maneuvers and stances is a class feature. Making an orc explode into a fireball through the use of Death Mark is not a class feature, if it matters, but the result of your class feature.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 08:56 PM
Nowhere in Assassin Stance's description does it tell you that you are getting a class feature - You are getting the sneak attack *ability*.

Assassin's Stance itself is a class feature, granted by the Swordsage class, because stances are a class feature. It is a class feature that grants sneak attack. I would call that a "sneak attack class feature." It doesn't tell you you're getting a class feature... the Swordsage class itself tells you that, when it says you get a stance.

If you got Assassin's Stance via the Martial Stance feat, then you would not have it as a class feature. Instead, you'd have a "sneak attack feat" though I doubt that would matter anywhere. If you got it off the Shadow Hands gloves, then it would not be a class feature... you'd have "sneak attack" but it would be from an item, so you'd qualify for stuff that required "+2d6 sneak attack" like Terrifying Strike, but not Craven.

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-22, 08:58 PM
No. The ability to use stances and maneuvers is the class feature. The stance gives you the sneak attack ability, and it itself is not the class feature.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-22, 08:58 PM
Though the fact that you need to ignore the Rules of the Game article written by the same guy who wrote much of the very book you're citing as a primary source should be a warning to you that your interpretation is deeply flawed.
I'm following all of the actual rules, and ignoring material with no RAW standing; that's just being consistent. It's too bad that you find that "deeply flawed", yet that doesn't change the official rules, flawed or not, in the slightest.

JaronK
2011-01-22, 09:03 PM
I'm following all of the actual rules, and ignoring material with no RAW standing; that's just being consistent. It's too bad that you find that "deeply flawed", yet that doesn't change the official rules, flawed or not, in the slightest.

Except you have to ignore the Monster Manual, which is part of the "actual rules" to reach your conclusion. Furthermore, you have to misinterpret "otherwise designated." That phrase has a real life meaning, which is not "designated within the entry." If an ability meets the definition of an Ex ability (which is, using the PHB and Monster Manual definitions, any non magical special ability), then it is indeed designated as Ex. That's why you're so wrong. Furthermore, the material which "has no RAW standing" is actually the designer clarifying what he meant, which proves that you're misinterpreting RAW.

And if you actually use the real world English meaning of "designated" then there is no conflict whatsoever between the Monster Manual and the PHB on this topic. It is only your interpretation which creates this contradiction, which tells you that your interpretation must be wrong.

JaronK

Claudius Maximus
2011-01-22, 09:11 PM
JaronK, your interpretation of the rules might be quite reasonable, but it does not strike me as technically correct.

Assassin's Stance does not count as the Sneak Attack class feature because it is not a class feature named Sneak Attack. It is a stance. You're arguing that having sneak attack dice granted by a stance granted by a class feature is the same as having the sneak attack class feature, and these are not the same thing.

The Rules of the Game articles are not RAW because they consistently introduce rules and rulings not listed in the books. They can be a good way to help determine RAI though.

I don't even know what you guys are arguing about natural abilities for.

dextercorvia
2011-01-22, 09:12 PM
If I understand correctly, JaronK would classify a Meldshaping as Su, even though it doesn't use the letters in the entry. However, I'm not sure how to classify it using Curmudgeon's reading. In the fluff, they are described as magical (go away in Dead Magic zone, and can be turned off by Dispel, like a Magic Item), but they are not Designated as Ex, Su, or Sp.

I have the same trouble classifying spellcasting, except I think that is even weirder, since it is clearly not Su.

@Curmudgeon: Would you classify these as Natural or Supernatural Abilities?

Innis Cabal
2011-01-22, 09:13 PM
Why don't you look in the Rules Compendium about this issue? The Monster Manual has dozens of revisions in other books. The Rules Compendium was made for this exact issue in mind. I don't own it or I'd cite what it says. But you JaronK are using an out dated and thus -incorrect- version of the rules if you want to argue the most recent and thus valid rules of 3.5. Or we can check the SRD. Regardless of what "natural abilities" are. You don't get a class ability out of a single move. That isn't RAW or RAI what so ever. It's what you want. Which is fine in your game, but if you want to actually follow the rules you are dead wrong.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-22, 10:01 PM
Except you have to ignore the Monster Manual, which is part of the "actual rules" to reach your conclusion.
I'm not ignoring the Monster Manual; I'm simply following the Primary Sources Errata rule which says that in the context of base class descriptions, any statement in the MM which disagrees with what the Player's Handbook says is incorrect.

If an ability meets the definition of an Ex ability (which is, using the PHB and Monster Manual definitions, any non magical special ability), then it is indeed designated as Ex.
That's broken logic. You could define "JaronK" as "a GitP forum member with the letters r, o, and n in order". That doesn't us the same person. :smallwink:

--Curmudgeon

Kuma Kode
2011-01-22, 10:43 PM
To the OP... I think the question has been about as answered as it's going to get. There's no clear RAW information on the matter, it seems, but the people in this thread seem to lean towards "Technically no, but iffy so it's up to the DM."

RAW is No: 11 (Flickerdart, Draz74, Tytalus, Cog, Curmudgeon, Stegyre, Kuma Kode, Glyde, Claudius Maximus, term1nally s1ck Innis Cabal) [People who plainly said No]
RAW is Yes: 2 (mootoall, JaronK) [People who plainly said Yes]
Rule 0: 6 (Draz74, Peachvarry, Stegyre, Glyde, Claudius Maximus, Kuma Kode) [People who mentioned it was iffy or could go either way]

Hopefully the summary is useful.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-22, 11:24 PM
Oi, I'd say definitely No to the question about Craven. I don't have a clue why the natural/Ex/whatever of sneak attack matters, but that's all that I took part in. :smalltongue:

Kuma Kode
2011-01-22, 11:26 PM
Oi, I'd say definitely No to the question about Craven. I don't have a clue why the natural/Ex/whatever of sneak attack matters, but that's all that I took part in. :smalltongue: Fixed. I guess I misread something.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 01:41 AM
If I understand correctly, JaronK would classify a Meldshaping as Su, even though it doesn't use the letters in the entry. However, I'm not sure how to classify it using Curmudgeon's reading. In the fluff, they are described as magical (go away in Dead Magic zone, and can be turned off by Dispel, like a Magic Item), but they are not Designated as Ex, Su, or Sp.

I have the same trouble classifying spellcasting, except I think that is even weirder, since it is clearly not Su.

@Curmudgeon: Would you classify these as Natural or Supernatural Abilities?

Well if it helps while the meldshaping ability itself is never designated, the soulmelds and chakra binds are designated as supernatural abilities in the monster section of the book. Notice though that meldshaping itself is still not touched but the individual soulmelds are designated as (Su).

Kuma Kode
2011-01-23, 01:58 AM
Spellcasting is an Extraordinary ability.

Extraordinary Abilities are nonmagical in and of themselves, but they're not something that can be done by normal people without extensive training. Sneak Attack is likewise extraordinary.

Supernatural abilities cannot be interrupted and do not provoke an attack of opportunity, but vanish in an anti-magic field. They are not subject to dispelling.

Spell-Like abilities require a spellcasting action, in that they can be disrupted and provoke attacks of opportunity. They disappear in an anti-magic field and can be dispelled.

Extraordinary abilities cannot be disrupted and do not provoke attacks of opportunity. They cannot be dispelled and remain functional in an anti-magic field.

These ability categories are not particularly relevant as they're categories designed to quickly establish how certain abilities work in anti-magic fields, against dispel magic, and whether or not they can be interrupted. Whether Sneak Attack is extraordinary, natural, supernatural or spell-like doesn't figure in at all to this discussion in regards to its use as a feat prerequisite. If it said "Sneak Attack as a natural ability," then it would.

JaronK
2011-01-23, 04:28 AM
Why don't you look in the Rules Compendium about this issue? The Monster Manual has dozens of revisions in other books. The Rules Compendium was made for this exact issue in mind. I don't own it or I'd cite what it says.

It says nothing on this topic that's different from what's already said, or I'd be citing it already.


But you JaronK are using an out dated and thus -incorrect- version of the rules if you want to argue the most recent and thus valid rules of 3.5. Or we can check the SRD.


SRD says that all special abilities are Su, Sp, or Ex. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)


Regardless of what "natural abilities" are. You don't get a class ability out of a single move. That isn't RAW or RAI what so ever. It's what you want. Which is fine in your game, but if you want to actually follow the rules you are dead wrong.

Note these are two different questions... whether a class ability that gives sneak attack is a "sneak attack class ability" and whether all abilities which are unlabeled count as natural. But I have no idea what "you don't get a class ability out of a single move" means.


I'm not ignoring the Monster Manual; I'm simply following the Primary Sources Errata rule which says that in the context of base class descriptions, any statement in the MM which disagrees with what the Player's Handbook says is incorrect.

You're inventing an interpretation of the words "otherwise designated" which does not follow standard English language, and using that to claim the Monster Manual is wrong. The proper thing to do would be to see if any interpretation follows all given rules before declairing one to be a contradiction of the other... if such an interpretation exists (which it does) then that's the correct one.


That's broken logic. You could define "JaronK" as "a GitP forum member with the letters r, o, and n in order". That doesn't us the same person.

That would not be a correct definition, which is the problem there. If you used that definition, you would be me... because the definition is flawed. If we defined me as "the guy who posts under the name JaronK" then it would be a correct definition, and would only apply to me.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-23, 05:00 AM
Can someone please explain to me how this matters to the OP? Not trying to vigilante mod here, but... ya know... the whole su/sp/ex discussion is highly tangental... it might be better off as its own thread.

JaronK
2011-01-23, 05:08 AM
It is indeed a tangent, it's just that someone claimed you could have non abilities and such, and Curmudgeon has a long standing thing about wanting to claim that all non labeled abilities (even magic ones!) are natural abilities.

It seems to me that the other debate is mostly a "I think it's this, you think it's that, but it's not clear" debate. If you think "Sneak Attack Class Ability" means "a class ability whose label in the class abilities table is sneak attack" then Assassin's Stance won't qualify the Swordsage for Craven. If you think it means "a class ability that gives you sneak attack" then it will.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-23, 05:14 AM
It seems to me that the other debate is mostly a "I think it's this, you think it's that, but it's not clear" debate. If you think "Sneak Attack Class Ability" means "a class ability whose label in the class abilities table is sneak attack" then Assassin's Stance won't qualify the Swordsage for Craven. If you think it means "a class ability that gives you sneak attack" then it will. While browsing through other books, I noticed the phrase "Sneak Attack ability" in feat prerequisites. I suspect the specification of "class feature" in that particular feat may indicate intention to limit it to only certain classes which thematically fit the feat, such as rogue or assassin, that explicitly get sneak attack as an ingrained part of the class, and not as an addon ability like a spell or maneuver or magic item.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 05:18 AM
While browsing through other books, I noticed the phrase "Sneak Attack ability" in feat prerequisites. I suspect the specification of "class feature" in that particular feat may indicate intention to limit it to only certain classes which thematically fit the feat, such as rogue or assassin, that explicitly get sneak attack as an ingrained part of the class, and not as an addon ability like a spell or maneuver or magic item.

It could but it can be also a way of preventing you from using an item to fulfill a prerequisite while still allowing you to use class abilities that grant sneak attack.

It really is a DM call.

JaronK
2011-01-23, 05:25 AM
While browsing through other books, I noticed the phrase "Sneak Attack ability" in feat prerequisites. I suspect the specification of "class feature" in that particular feat may indicate intention to limit it to only certain classes which thematically fit the feat, such as rogue or assassin, that explicitly get sneak attack as an ingrained part of the class, and not as an addon ability like a spell or maneuver or magic item.

Well, yes. But consider the fact that a Shadow Hand focused Swordsage was actually intended to replace classes like the Ninja and Assassin anyway. Craven fits perfectly with a ninja/assassin themed character.

The sorts of characters who couldn't take it would be people who got Assassin's Stance via the Martial Stance feat or via the Shadow Hands gloves. Likewise, Assassination weapons couldn't qualify you either, nor could a spell cast by someone else, nor could racial sneak attack. An Artificer, for example, couldn't just craft his way to qualification.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-23, 05:33 AM
Well, yes. But consider the fact that a Shadow Hand focused Swordsage was actually intended to replace classes like the Ninja and Assassin anyway. Craven fits perfectly with a ninja/assassin themed character. Except that if you use the interpretation that you have the class feature only when in the stance, as I believe was discussed earlier, you would fluctuate between having the feat and not. This isn't a big deal except for a feat that has a built-in balancing penalty. Unlike a rogue or assassin, you would be able to turn your vulnerability on and off, and only be vulnerable to fear when you were actually benefiting from the feat.

While the swordsage may have been intended to replace a ninja or assassin, I doubt the vulnerability was intended to be switched on and off at will as, what, a swift action?

Hence why the feat seems to be expecting something intrinsic and always-on.

JaronK
2011-01-23, 05:48 AM
Except that if you use the interpretation that you have the class feature only when in the stance, as I believe was discussed earlier, you would fluctuate between having the feat and not. This isn't a big deal except for a feat that has a built-in balancing penalty. Unlike a rogue or assassin, you would be able to turn your vulnerability on and off, and only be vulnerable to fear when you were actually benefiting from the feat.

Well, yes. But that trick has already existed for some time, in the form of the War Hulk with a ring of Enlarge Person. With that said, the bigger penalty on Craven isn't the numerical one, it's the fact that you can't be immune to use the feat. Unless you had some form of immunity that you could easily switch on and off at will, the fact that you could turn Craven on and off would be irrelevant. If you want to use Craven at all that day, you couldn't partake in the Cleric's Heroes feast, and you can't have been made into a Necropolitan, nor could you UMD Mind Blank or anything like that. This is no different from a Rogue or Assassin or Ninja in the same position.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-23, 06:35 AM
If you want to use Craven at all that day, you couldn't partake in the Cleric's Heroes feast, and you can't have been made into a Necropolitan, OK so far. You can opt into Greater Heroism (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroismGreater.htm) temporarily, though. That's useful while searching for and disabling traps, unlocking doors, and the like.

nor could you UMD Mind Blank or anything like that.
Well, that's not right.
This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects Mind Blank doesn't make you immune to fear. The spell provides protection from fear spells, but it isn't immunity. There are ways to strike fear into characters that aren't spells and aren't listed as mind-affecting.
Frightful Presence (Ex)

A young adult or older dragon can unsettle foes with its mere presence. The ability takes effect automatically whenever the dragon attacks, charges, or flies overhead. Creatures within a radius of 30 feet × the dragon’s age category are subject to the effect if they have fewer HD than the dragon. A potentially affected creature that succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + ½ dragon’s HD + dragon’s Cha modifier) remains immune to that dragon’s frightful presence for 24 hours. On a failure, creatures with 4 or less HD become panicked for 4d6 rounds and those with 5 or more HD become shaken for 4d6 rounds. Dragons ignore the frightful presence of other dragons. From Becoming Even More Fearful (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 294):
Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers, and can take no actions. So dragon Frightful Presence is definitely a fear effect, but it's not merely mind-affecting. The Frightful Presence feat (Draconomicon) works similarly, and also isn't mind-affecting. Both of these will work on mindless undead as well as characters protected by Mind Blank.

JaronK
2011-01-23, 07:21 AM
First line of Mind Blank:


The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.

Fear is an emotion, and any fear effect is influencing emotion. Unfortunately, the term "devices" is not well defined, but the general ruling I've seen is that anything intended to do any of the things Mind Blank protects against is a "device" for that purpose.

And from the SRD:


All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects

That includes Frightful presence. I believe that's found in the DMG right before the very section you just quoted. There is absolutely no way to cause fear in someone who is immune to mind effecting, save for Turn Undead and the Requiem feat.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-23, 07:57 AM
Fear is an emotion, and any fear effect is influencing emotion. Unfortunately, the term "devices" is not well defined
The term means "invention", "a thing made for a particular purpose", or "contrivance". It's used in D&D to refer to physical apparatus, as in Use Magic Device, Use Psionic Device, and Disable Device. Unless you can find rules citations that include both racial abilities and feats for "devices", that "not well defined" argument isn't going to pass muster.

I believe that's found in the DMG right before the very section you just quoted.
Better check again. That's in the Monster Manual on page 309. It's not relevant to this argument, though.
All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.
Frightful Presence is not an attack, so this does not apply.
attack

Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll. No attack roll is used in Frightful Presence, so it remains a way of engendering fear that Mind Blank cannot prevent.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 08:07 AM
I use ToB as a source since it is the first place I can think of finding this but

"All maneuvers that opponents can resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harms or hamper subjects are considered attacks"

Now that does say maneuvers but it would not surprise me if you can find somewhere something similar in general.

You do not need to roll an attack roll to be an attack anyway. I think we can all agree fireball is an attack and it does not make an attack roll. Though it does allow a saving throw, though so does most fear effects.

Curmudgeon
2011-01-23, 08:23 AM
You do not need to roll an attack roll to be an attack anyway. I think we can all agree fireball is an attack and it does not make an attack roll.
Spells have separate rules for attacks, but those are already covered for Mind Blank. Effects not from spells do need to be listed as either mind-affecting or as an attack. Neither of the two Frightful Presences (the racial ability, or the feat) are either.

MeeposFire
2011-01-23, 08:32 AM
Turn undead is not a spell but is a special attack I am sure more could be found if we look hard enough.

term1nally s1ck
2011-01-23, 02:37 PM
More interestingly, what fear effects need an attack roll?

JaronK
2011-01-23, 03:05 PM
More interestingly, what fear effects need an attack roll?

None. "Attacks" doesn't actually mean "attack roll." It's actually in the base rules... an attack is actually any offensive action, which is why you can break invisibility with a hostile spell that doesn't force an attack roll. From PHB 171:


All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents (such as disarm or bull rush) are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or otherwise harm or hamper subjects are considered attacks.

Thus, fear attacks are any fear based offensive action... including fear auras like Frightful Presence. So yes, Frightful Presence is mind effecting.

As for device, that term is never used to mean magic items as far as I know, nor are there any core methods of causing fear off a magic item that aren't spells already (making it unlikely that Mind Blank is referring to such things, since nothing else was printed at the time). Thus, it's far more likely the word means "A technique or means" which is a valid definition of device. As such, all techniques and means of causing fear count... of which there are plenty in core and out.

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-23, 03:21 PM
As for device, that term is never used to mean magic items as far as I know

Use Magic Device (Cha; Trained Only)

Use this skill to activate magic devices, including scrolls and wands ... And now you know differently. :smallsmile:

Glyde
2011-01-23, 08:29 PM
Fear is it's own descriptor. Just saying. Classifying it as an 'emotion' is not official.

JaronK
2011-01-23, 08:48 PM
And now you know differently. :smallsmile:

Eh, still, a technique is still a device, which qualifies almost everything else. And ALL fear effects are definitely mind effecting (I assume that's now understood by all? No more thoughts of zombies running away in terror from dragons?).

Fear is definitely an emotion, arguing otherwise is completely nonsensical.

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-23, 09:03 PM
RAW, Craven gives you a -2 to saves against "Fear." and you cannot be immune to "Fear."

Immune to a spell due to it's "Mind-Affecting" descriptor does not make you no longer qualify for Craven. Emotion is not a mechanical term.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-24, 12:31 AM
Eh, still, a technique is still a device, which qualifies almost everything else. Which indicates that interpretation of the phrase is utterly useless, just like any sufficiently wide interpretation. If that were the case, I could interpret that "Use Magic Device" could let me cast spells because it lets me use "Devices" or "Techniques" related to magic, so that must include spellcasting.

If a term has a mechanical or more specific usage, it's unlikely that it will spontaneously be used in a different context with a different definition without some kind of clarification, assuming the phrase is not ridiculously common. Device is specifically used in Use Magic Device, and not really anywhere else, indicating the term "devices" is related to magic miscellanea.

Claudius Maximus
2011-01-24, 12:42 AM
I've read a lot of old stuff, and when I first saw "device" in Mind Blank I read it as a general term for just about any ability or effect. That's just based on a definition that has fallen by the wayside as of late.

Mind Blank is clearly supposed to completely protect you from emotional and mind-affecting effects.

Tytalus
2011-01-24, 06:42 AM
MMV is a bad example... it lists Arcane Talent (the ability to cast Wizard spells) as an Ex ability.


It's an excellent example: Arcane Talent, a racial ability, is explicitly (and consistently) treated differently from spellcasting derived by class levels. The former has a type, the latter doesn't. The former is a special ability (quality), the latter isn't. Clearly, there's a huge difference, despite what you are trying to insinuate.



And every other book other than that lists spells as a special attack,


Newer source. One might even say it corrects the inconsistencies of prior versions.

Note also that all MMs consistently don't give a type to spellcasting derived from class levels (see glossaries).


Assassin's Stance itself is a class feature, granted by the Swordsage class, because stances are a class feature.

Interesting, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If we follow that odd interpretation (that things a class feature grants access to are also considered class features), then every feat would also be considered a class feature (for classes with bonus feats). Lo and behold, the fighter now qualifies for Craven (Martial Stance feat). Also, every spell would be a class feature. And, by extension, every ability that can be derived through spellcasting. All of that is neither RAW nor RAI.

The (complete) list of class features are enumerated in each class' description. None of the swordsage's class features is "sneak attack". Even Assassin's Stance (note: not a class feature; the class feature is "Stances") doesn't give the "sneak attack class feature" required (merely a temporary ability).

Glyde summed it up:


No. The ability to use stances and maneuvers is the class feature. The stance gives you the sneak attack ability, and it itself is not the class feature.

---


Well, yes. But consider the fact that a Shadow Hand focused Swordsage was actually intended to replace classes like the Ninja and Assassin anyway.

That's mere conjecture, of course.

JaronK
2011-01-24, 04:08 PM
RAW, Craven gives you a -2 to saves against "Fear." and you cannot be immune to "Fear."

Immune to a spell due to it's "Mind-Affecting" descriptor does not make you no longer qualify for Craven. Emotion is not a mechanical term.

Immunity to everything mind affecting, however, makes you immune to fear. Thus you no longer qualify.


Which indicates that interpretation of the phrase is utterly useless, just like any sufficiently wide interpretation. If that were the case, I could interpret that "Use Magic Device" could let me cast spells because it lets me use "Devices" or "Techniques" related to magic, so that must include spellcasting.

UMD states clearly what things it works on, so no you couldn't. The fact is, "techniques" are devices. A feat is clearly a technique, and a racial ability seems to be as well. The usual reading of Mind Blank is that it's blanket protection from all things Mind Affecting.

Meanwhile, claiming a skill lets you do something because of the name alone (as opposed to the listed uses of the skill) would imply that the "Jump" skill lets you jump start stuff and the "Hide" skill is good for skinning animals. That's hardly what anyone's saying.


Newer source. One might even say it corrects the inconsistencies of prior versions.

"Newer Source" is not a rule. The rule is "primary source" and the primary source on monster entries is the Monster Manual, not MMV. The new monster entries featured in MMV were there for clarity... they're not a rules change, as you're claiming.


Note also that all MMs consistently don't give a type to spellcasting derived from class levels (see glossaries).

And yet they're still a special attack.


Interesting, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If we follow that odd interpretation (that things a class feature grants access to are also considered class features), then every feat would also be considered a class feature (for classes with bonus feats). Lo and behold, the fighter now qualifies for Craven (Martial Stance feat). Also, every spell would be a class feature. And, by extension, every ability that can be derived through spellcasting. All of that is neither RAW nor RAI.

Well, yes, one could indeed argue that Martial Stance taken from Fighter Bonus Feats might count. And yes, every spell is a class feature (but only if it's your class feature, so you couldn't qualify from someone else's spells) but if you can't keep the spell up for very long that won't help you much (you have to have it up at the time you take the feat, which could be very difficult depending on how the DM does leveling up).


The (complete) list of class features are enumerated in each class' description. None of the swordsage's class features is "sneak attack". Even Assassin's Stance (note: not a class feature; the class feature is "Stances") doesn't give the "sneak attack class feature" required (merely a temporary ability).

And yet none of the Ninja's class features is "sneak attack" either but it counts. They get "Sudden Strike" which is evidently close enough, because that's listed as counting. One could call that a specific exception, but it points to the idea that what it does is what's important, not the name.


That's mere conjecture, of course.

Not really. I've seen designer commentary on the subject. They were very clearly replacing certain classes... the Crusader was replacing the Paladin and Knight, the Warblade was replacing the Fighter, Samurai, and Barbarian, and the Swordsage was replacing the Assassin, Ninja and Monk. This is not to say that the other classes were supposed to be removed, but they were being fixed.

JaronK

Pechvarry
2011-01-25, 03:08 PM
Glyde summed it up:

You mean the sentence where he came in and, ignoring all the RAW conjecture, just said "you're wrong 'cuz no"? Here, lemme try:

Yes, craven works with assassin's stance if you got it from class levels. You got the sneak attack ability from a class feature.

---

As far as fear goes: I don't think it's very fruitful to argue whether or not it's an emotion and how that carries any weight, RAW-wise.

We DO know all fear affects are mind-affecting. So, does Mind Blank make you immune to them? I'd say yes, as "protected from" seems like "immunity" to me. But I'm not qualified to argue that point any. Good luck.

Tytalus
2011-01-26, 10:02 AM
"Newer Source" is not a rule. [...] The new monster entries featured in MMV were there for clarity... they're not a rules change, as you're claiming.


Huh? I'm not claiming a rules change. I'm saying this cleared up the inconsistencies of prior versions.

And it's standard procedure for newer publications to revise/update older versions. MM4+ explicitly changed the way combat stats are presented. Spellcasting derived from class levels is no longer listed as a "special attack".

Regarding your "primary source" argument: the fact that spellcasting derived from class levels does not have a type hasn't changed since MM1 (see glossaries), and thus the inconsistency has been there until MM4 stopped listing it as a special attack. In case you want to argue (again) that there's no inconsistency despite the lack of a designator in the glossary, here's a summary: you claim that Spellcasting derived from class levels (SDC) has to be (Ex), since all special abilities are either Ex, Su or Sp, according to the MM. You already ruled out Su and Sp, which leaves Ex. "Spells", however, breaks several constraints on (Ex) abilities. E.g., according to PHB table 8-2, using Ex abilites does not incur attacks of opportunity, which spells do (although the description on p.142 softens that somewhat). And on page 180, it states that Ex abilites "cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, ...". Ergo, spells can't be "Ex".

MM4/5 seem to address that inconsistency by having Spells derived from class levels no longer being listed as a special ability, so this rule shouldn't apply anymore.



And yet they're still a special attack.


Even if that was the case, it doesn't make much of a difference. "Spells" still doesn't have a type (glossaries).

But out of curiosity: In MM5? Spell casting derived from class levels? Where do you get that from?

See the Hobgoblin Duskblade, for example (p. 84). Spellcasting is not listed as a special attack. (Note: other spellcasting is obviously a different issue, see Hobgoblin Warcaster with his "Arcane Talent" ability).



And yet none of the Ninja's class features is "sneak attack" either but it counts.

That's because a ninja's Sudden Strike is explicitly the equivalent for the purpose of qualifying for feats. What is your point again?

Sudden Strike is a bad example for other reasons as well: it's not a class feature other than sneak attack (see above) that gives you access to, under certain circumstances, sneak attack (like the class features in question are).



Not really. I've seen designer commentary on the subject.


Source?

Look, unless you can show a source that confirms it, it remains a non-issue for the sake of any (useful) discussion. I might as well claim that I've seen designer commentary to contrary (in fact, I have, where it was said that the ToB classes were not intended to replace anything - presumably stated to appease angry customers who argued that half their PHB base classes section became useless with ToB) and we'd be none the wiser.

Thus, for the sake of a constructive discussion, let's stick to the RAW (or other verifiable sources). And I'd like to point out that ToB itself contains no indication that its classes are meant to replace anything either. In fact, they obviously put considerable effort into making the new mechanics work with existing classes and assume their existence (fighter feats to acquire maneuvers, feats like Tiger Blooded requiring Rage, most of the sample NPCs, initiator level improvement for non-initiator classes, etc.).


You got the sneak attack ability from a class feature.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the class feature doesn't provide access to sneak attack (albeit in a limited form, i.e., only under certain conditions). The question is whether that is 'the', or even 'a' "sneak attack class feature", as required by Craven's prerequisites. It's certainly not 'the' feature, as it is different in name and function. It's also not 'a' SA feature, IMHO, as it's obviously a lesser form of SA (conditions, etc.) and not explicitly equivalent (as the ninja's Sudden Strike is). To claim that a fighter's Bonus Feats feature / a spellcasters Spells feature is a "sneak attack class feature" seems ludicrous to me. YMMV.

JaronK
2011-01-26, 12:35 PM
Huh? I'm not claiming a rules change. I'm saying this cleared up the inconsistencies of prior versions.

Old versions clearly stated that spells were a special attack. Claiming that they're anything else would be a rules change.


And it's standard procedure for newer publications to revise/update older versions. MM4+ explicitly changed the way combat stats are presented. Spellcasting derived from class levels is no longer listed as a "special attack".

MM4+ just showed material a new way. It doesn't change any rules that way. If you're not sure which is correct, MM is the primary source. The point of the new stat blocks was clarity, not rules changes.


Regarding your "primary source" argument: the fact that spellcasting derived from class levels does not have a type hasn't changed since MM1 (see glossaries),

Where it was listed as a special attack and, by the rules on page 6 and 315, therefor had to be Sp, Su, or Ex. See Mind Flayer Sorcerers below for an example of spells from class levels being mentioned as a special attack.


and thus the inconsistency has been there until MM4 stopped listing it as a special attack. In case you want to argue (again) that there's no inconsistency despite the lack of a designator in the glossary, here's a summary: you claim that Spellcasting derived from class levels (SDC) has to be (Ex), since all special abilities are either Ex, Su or Sp, according to the MM.

And the SRD. And that all abilities must be Ex, Sp, Su, or Na by PHB 180, so no ability can ever be untyped.


You already ruled out Su and Sp, which leaves Ex. "Spells", however, breaks several constraints on (Ex) abilities. E.g., according to PHB table 8-2, using Ex abilites does not incur attacks of opportunity, which spells do (although the description on p.142 softens that somewhat). And on page 180, it states that Ex abilites "cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, ...". Ergo, spells can't be "Ex".

MM4/5 seem to address that inconsistency by having Spells derived from class levels no longer being listed as a special ability, so this rule shouldn't apply anymore.

Then you're left with spells being Na, since all abilities not otherwise designated as the other three are Na, by PHB 180. Na abilities are those inherent to the physical nature of a creature, so that makes far less sense. Plus, how does your logic explain Arcane Talent? It's Ex, but all it is is spellcasting. If your logic claims that it can't be Ex (which it does) and it is (which is explicit) then your logic is wrong.


Even if that was the case, it doesn't make much of a difference. "Spells" still doesn't have a type (glossaries).

No ability may be untyped (PHB 180). Note that a number of other abilities have only implicit types. Fighter Bonus Feats has no listed type, but feats always default to Ex so it's Ex even though it's not labeled as such. This sort of thing is standard, and not limited to spells.


But out of curiosity: In MM5? Spell casting derived from class levels? Where do you get that from?

Page 187 of the Monster Manual lists Mind Flayer Sorcerers, who have spells as a class ability, as having spells as a special attack. Why the obsession with MMV? The primary source for anything in the Monster Manuals will be MM1.


See the Hobgoblin Duskblade, for example (p. 84). Spellcasting is not listed as a special attack. (Note: other spellcasting is obviously a different issue, see Hobgoblin Warcaster with his "Arcane Talent" ability).

Yes, I get it, spells are in a different place in the newer entries. But it's not a rules change to abilities in general... the primary source for Ex, Sp, and Su abilities is MM, not MMV. For Na abilities it would be PHB. It's just an easier to read stat block to make it faster to run critters in games.


That's because a ninja's Sudden Strike is explicitly the equivalent for the purpose of qualifying for feats. What is your point again?

That the name is not what's important, rather what the ability does.


Sudden Strike is a bad example for other reasons as well: it's not a class feature other than sneak attack (see above) that gives you access to, under certain circumstances, sneak attack (like the class features in question are).

It's a class feature that gives you something like sneak attack. And it was made to explicitly count as sneak attack. That suggests a general intent that the name isn't what important, rather what things actually do.


Source?

Look, unless you can show a source that confirms it, it remains a non-issue for the sake of any (useful) discussion. I might as well claim that I've seen designer commentary to contrary (in fact, I have, where it was said that the ToB classes were not intended to replace anything - presumably stated to appease angry customers who argued that half their PHB base classes section became useless with ToB) and we'd be none the wiser.

Thus, for the sake of a constructive discussion, let's stick to the RAW (or other verifiable sources). And I'd like to point out that ToB itself contains no indication that its classes are meant to replace anything either. In fact, they obviously put considerable effort into making the new mechanics work with existing classes and assume their existence (fighter feats to acquire maneuvers, feats like Tiger Blooded requiring Rage, most of the sample NPCs, initiator level improvement for non-initiator classes, etc.).

Not replace as in "remove entirely from existance" but basically making classes that could do the same job better. You weren't expect to stop using Fighters entirely, but rather have a new option to use when you want to play the sort of characters Fighters represent. But I can't find the interview now so I can drop that.


I don't think anyone is arguing that the class feature doesn't provide access to sneak attack (albeit in a limited form, i.e., only under certain conditions). The question is whether that is 'the', or even 'a' "sneak attack class feature", as required by Craven's prerequisites. It's certainly not 'the' feature, as it is different in name and function. It's also not 'a' SA feature, IMHO, as it's obviously a lesser form of SA (conditions, etc.) and not explicitly equivalent (as the ninja's Sudden Strike is). To claim that a fighter's Bonus Feats feature / a spellcasters Spells feature is a "sneak attack class feature" seems ludicrous to me. YMMV.

It's not a sneak attack feature because it's a lesser form of sneak attack? You don't see anything wrong with that claim? When you're talking Assassin's Stance, it's the same sneak attack. Sudden Strike is a lesser form. Assassin's Stance isn't.

Tytalus
2011-01-27, 10:03 AM
Old versions clearly stated that spells were a special attack.

Yes, old versions had that inconsistency. Later versions seem to clear that up; they don't state that any more. That was my point. Rule change or not.



Where it was listed as a special attack and, by the rules on page 6 and 315, therefor had to be Sp, Su, or Ex. See Mind Flayer Sorcerers below for an example of spells from class levels being mentioned as a special attack.

...

And the SRD. And that all abilities must be Ex, Sp, Su, or Na by PHB 180, so no ability can ever be untyped.



You seem to be going in circles. What's your (new) point?

Let me summarize. Obviously:


MM1 states that special abilities have to be either Su, Sp, or Ex.
That is actually clearly wrong, since PHB (p.180) also lists one more type: natural, so we can disregard the MM1 section for the purpose of this discussion. (Primary Source!)
No MM ever gives a type to the "Spells" ability (consistently in all glossary entries). MM1 doesn't do that either (again: Primary Source!).
With the advent of MM4, Spellcasting derived from class levels is no longer even (listed as) a special attack.
The PHB section (p.180) on special abilities is within a chapter on spellcasting and seems to contrast those abilities to the topic of the chapter, i.e., spellcasting derived from class levels (more below). It stands to reason that Spellcasting is not a "Special Ability" at all.
A closer look reveals: spellcasting derived from class levels can't be Su, Sp, Ex, or natural. At all.

Su or Sp: according to your claim.
Natural: according to your claim.
Ex: these abilities (1) aren't magical, (2) cannot be disrupted in combat, (3) generally do not provoke AoOs, (4) are unaffected by effects that negate or disrupt magic, (5) function normally in an antimagic field, etc. (PHB, p.180). While one might argue that spellcasting itself isn't magic (I'd disagree, but that doesn't matter here), it can clearly be disrupted in combat, and it clearly doesn't work in an antimagic field. Ergo, it can't be (Ex).



This all seems to imply that spellcasting has no type at all. And, by extension, that it's not considered a "special ability" as used in the MMs or PHB.



Plus, how does your logic explain Arcane Talent? It's Ex, but all it is is spellcasting.


It's not spellcasting derived from class levels, but obviously (see its treatment in MM5, the very source it's from) something entirely different.

By categorizing this ability as (Ex), it's made clear that it can't be disrupted in combat - setting it apart from Spellcasting derived from class levels.



If your logic claims that it can't be Ex (which it does) and it is (which is explicit) then your logic is wrong.


Lol. I'm not claiming anything about Arcane Talent, but instead about spellcasting derived from class levels.

And it's not "my logic", it's the RAW. If you want to argue constructively, don't attack "my logic" with a vague "that is wrong", but take it out on the RAW I cited.



No ability may be untyped (PHB 180).


That's actually not exactly what's said there.

For what it's worth, it applies to special abilities only. An ability is something like DEX if we go by D&D terms, or basically anything in English. Neither is useful for this discussion. Special Abilities, on the other hand, are clearly defined in the PHB (p.180). It stands to reason that spellcasting doesn't fall under that characterization:

Keep in mind that this is a section on Special Abilities within a chapter on spell casting (derived from class levels). IMHO, it's clearly meant to distinguish spellcasting as presented there from those Special Abilities. That's readily apparent in the text ("Medusas, dryads, harpies, and other magical creatures can create magical effects without being spellcasters." - ah, they have abilities similar to spellcasting but still different. "Characters using magic wands, rods, and other enchanted items, as well as certain class features, can also create magical effects." - again, seems to indicate other methods (besides spellcasting) to create magical effects. Etc.).

Also, SDC doesn't fit any of the categories of Special Abilities listed there - or anywhere else.



That the name is not what's important, rather what the ability does.

...

It's a class feature [...] made to explicitly count as sneak attack.


That's actually one reason why it's such a bad example. There can be no debate as to whether it counts as sneak attack.

Clearly, the Sudden Strike example shows that even if something is similar ("what the ability does"), it still needs explicit RAW to be considered the same for the purpose of qualifying for feats etc.


Sudden Strike is a lesser form. Assassin's Stance isn't.

Lesser as in "with restrictions, and only under certain circumstances", in case that wasn't clear. Sudden Strike is explicitly the same for the purpose being discussed (see RAW), so it's not lesser at all. It's also an entirely different feature from sneak attack, so again, not lesser at all.

Glyde
2011-01-27, 10:36 AM
Immunity to everything mind affecting, however, makes you immune to fear. Thus you no longer qualify.


Once again, D&D 3.0e+, and most everything else made by WotC is drawn in absolutes.

If you are not allowed to be immune to fear, but you are allowed to be immune to mind-affecting, then by a loophole you could be interpreted as being immune to fear (Because all fear effects tend to have mind-affecting in their descriptor as well) but technically you aren't, as you don't have the absolute immunity to the "Fear" descriptor, as outlined as a limitation of the Craven feat.

Assassin's stance is a stance, an ability that you can use due to the class feature "Stances". Quote the Tome of Battle, or anywhere, that says that a spell, stance, maneuver or claw attack from wild shape is a class feature and not an ability whose use is unlocked by one.

As far as the sudden strike thing goes, iirc it says specifically that it can be counted as Sneak Attack for the purposes of feats, prestige classes, and the like, whereas I know for a fact that "Stances" (Heck, even Assassin's stance if it were a class feature) does not. I'm AFB when it comes to Ninja, though.

JaronK
2011-01-27, 04:08 PM
Yes, old versions had that inconsistency. Later versions seem to clear that up; they don't state that any more. That was my point. Rule change or not.

No. Not an inconsistency. You had a straight up rule that said spells are a Special Attack. That's it, end of story, game over. The fact that they're not labeled as such everywhere doesn't change that... do you think it's an inconsistency that feats are outright stated to be Ex abilities, but each individual feat doesn't say it's Ex and the Fighter Bonus Feats ability doesn't say it's Ex either? Of course not... the books don't have to repeat themselves that much.



MM1 states that special abilities have to be either Su, Sp, or Ex.
That is actually clearly wrong, since PHB (p.180) also lists one more type: natural, so we can disregard the MM1 section for the purpose of this discussion. (Primary Source!)

Thanks, this shows where you're confused. Not all abilities are "special abilities." Natural attacks (such as claw attacks, slam attacks, etc) aren't necessarily special abilities, for example. Nor are movement speeds. All of these are natural abilities. Natural abilities are abilities which are not special abilities and are not otherwise designated as one of the other three types.

From Rules of the Game: All about Polymorph (part 1):


Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form.

Note how none of those abilities were special abilities, but they all were indeed abilities. Okay, now do you see the difference here? Do you accept that you can't actually throw out the primary source on Ex, Sp, and Su abilities (which you just tried to do)?


No MM ever gives a type to the "Spells" ability (consistently in all glossary entries). MM1 doesn't do that either (again: Primary Source!).

Nor does it give a type to most abilities directly. It defines categories (sp, su, ex) that all special abilities must be in. The way it's defined, Ex is the only option.


With the advent of MM4, Spellcasting derived from class levels is no longer even (listed as) a special attack.

Doesn't matter, it was in the primary source. Those new stat boxes are just designed to make things easier. They don't show HD type in those boxes either... do you think that means creatures no longer have specific types of HD (like D12s or D8s)? Of course not. It's just leaving unneeded information out.


The PHB section (p.180) on special abilities is within a chapter on spellcasting and seems to contrast those abilities to the topic of the chapter, i.e., spellcasting derived from class levels (more below). It stands to reason that Spellcasting is not a "Special Ability" at all.

No, it doesn't, because I could quote hundreds of creatures that have "Special Attacks: Spells" in their entries. This includes a few that have spellcasting from spells listed there. The fact that you're ignoring this should tell you something.


A closer look reveals: spellcasting derived from class levels can't be Su, Sp, Ex, or natural. At all.

Except it's defined as such, so perhaps you're reading too close. Back away from the page a bit and read all the information instead of myopically reading only what you want and declaring wrong the primary source on special abilities (MM1), and maybe that will help.



Su or Sp: according to your claim.
Natural: according to your claim.
Ex: these abilities (1) aren't magical, (2) cannot be disrupted in combat, (3) generally do not provoke AoOs, (4) are unaffected by effects that negate or disrupt magic, (5) function normally in an antimagic field, etc. (PHB, p.180). While one might argue that spellcasting itself isn't magic (I'd disagree, but that doesn't matter here), it can clearly be disrupted in combat, and it clearly doesn't work in an antimagic field. Ergo, it can't be (Ex).


And yet Invoke Magic means your spellcasting ability itself DOES work normally, it's just the spells it creates do not. Just like how critical hits do work normally against undead, it's just that the damage is ignored (but for some abilities like Blood in the Water this fact matters).



This all seems to imply that spellcasting has no type at all. And, by extension, that it's not considered a "special ability" as used in the MMs or PHB.

You're trying to imply something that is directly refuted by the rules. Here's one of MANY examples of spells being clearly a special attack: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm . Want 100 more? Look for yourself, there's tons. And the Monster Manual clearly states all special abilities must have type. No implication, just fact.


For what it's worth, it applies to special abilities only. An ability is something like DEX if we go by D&D terms, or basically anything in English. Neither is useful for this discussion. Special Abilities, on the other hand, are clearly defined in the PHB (p.180). It stands to reason that spellcasting doesn't fall under that characterization:

All special attacks are special abilities. Spells are defined as such, more times than any other ability is defined as anything. Get over it.

As for the rest, I think I got it with the next guy who's trying to prove that immunity to mind affecting doesn't make you immune to fear, despite the fact that fear is defined as mind affecting.


Once again, D&D 3.0e+, and most everything else made by WotC is drawn in absolutes.

If you are not allowed to be immune to fear, but you are allowed to be immune to mind-affecting, then by a loophole you could be interpreted as being immune to fear (Because all fear effects tend to have mind-affecting in their descriptor as well) but technically you aren't, as you don't have the absolute immunity to the "Fear" descriptor, as outlined as a limitation of the Craven feat.

No. Fear is automatically mind effecting. If you're immune to mind effecting, you're immune to fear. There is no "tend" here, it's in the base fear rules: "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects." (SRD, also echoed in MM) This is an absolute. No matter what nonsense Curmudgeon was trying to argue, Fearful presence CANNOT effect mindless undead or any other such thing. He was just wrong, and so are you.


Assassin's stance is a stance, an ability that you can use due to the class feature "Stances". Quote the Tome of Battle, or anywhere, that says that a spell, stance, maneuver or claw attack from wild shape is a class feature and not an ability whose use is unlocked by one.

You may want to check the PHB. The Glossary says that a "class feature" is "any special characteristic derived from Character Class." Note the word derived there. I believe that's what you asked for, right? That's page 306. It may not say "unlocked by one" but those are your words... derived means precisely that.

I can then quote that Wild Shape is a class feature, by looking at the Druid class and seeing "Wild Shape" marked there in the table of class abilities. Then I can note that a claw attack is derived from your Wild Shape class ability. Thus, the claw attack gained from Wild Shaping into a bear as a Druid is indeed a "class feature" by the PHB glossary definition, and it's an ability (a natural ability, all claw attacks are), so it is indeed a Class Ability. QED.

Now, you go and quote something from anywhere that says abilities gained from class features are not class feature abilities. Go for it. Same challenge. Can't do it, can you? I know you can't, since I actually went and read through all the rules on the topic.


As far as the sudden strike thing goes, iirc it says specifically that it can be counted as Sneak Attack for the purposes of feats, prestige classes, and the like, whereas I know for a fact that "Stances" (Heck, even Assassin's stance if it were a class feature) does not. I'm AFB when it comes to Ninja, though.

It doesn't need to say it because Assassin's Stance actually IS sneak attack, while Sudden Strike isn't.

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-27, 04:48 PM
"class feature" is "any special characteristic derived from Character Class."

You just said it yourself.

Assassin's stance is "derived" from a class feature, which, by your definition, is derived by a character class.

You keep cutting out the necessary middle man. Note that I agree with you by RAI, but you're wrong when it comes to RAW. Class features are listed in the class page and is a defined entity. The objects that a class feature entitles you are not class features themselves. Sneak Attack under the rogue class entry is a class feature. Assassin's Stance is not listed as a class feature under the Swordsage class entry.

I will concede to the Fear issue as being an oversight on WotC's part on making it it's own descriptor rather than a subset of mind-affecting, and that I honestly don't know if there is any errata that expands on it.

JaronK
2011-01-27, 05:04 PM
"class feature" is "any special characteristic derived from Character Class."

You just said it yourself.

Assassin's stance is "derived" from a class feature, which, by your definition, is derived by a character class.

No, by the PHB's definition. And anything Assassin's Stance gives is also derived from a character class. This is what derived means. You can chain it along. Anything derived from a class feature is a class feature, because that's simply what the word means.


You keep cutting out the necessary middle man. Note that I agree with you by RAI, but you're wrong when it comes to RAW. Class features are listed in the class page and is a defined entity. The objects that a class feature entitles you are not class features themselves. Sneak Attack under the rogue class entry is a class feature. Assassin's Stance is not listed as a class feature under the Swordsage class entry.

...you realize what the word derived means, don't you? If Y is derived from X, then that means you can trace back the source of Y until you reach X. Y here is sneak attack. You can trace back your sneak attack to Assassin's Stance, which traces back to stances gained, which traces back to maneuvers , which traces back to Swordsage itself. ...that's just what it means. By the PHB's own definition of class features, Manuevers, Assassin's Stance, and the Sneak Attack gained by Assassin's Stance are all class features, because they're all derived from the class itself.

I mean, in math class, did you tell your teacher that you could derive any proofs because they took more than one step?

Here's the definition of derive by the way:

"1.
to receive or obtain from a source or origin (usually fol. by from ).
2.
to trace from a source or origin.
3.
to reach or obtain by reasoning; deduce; infer.
4.
Chemistry . to produce or obtain (a substance) from another.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to come from a source or origin; originate (often fol. by from )."

As long as the ability can be traced back to a class (Definition 2) it's derived from that class.


I will concede to the Fear issue as being an oversight on WotC's part on making it it's own descriptor rather than a subset of mind-affecting, and that I honestly don't know if there is any errata that expands on it.

How is it an oversight? Just look in the fear entry, it specifically makes itself a subset of mind affecting. It may not be laid out perfectly clearly, but it is defined as such.

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-27, 05:13 PM
So being a dragon is a class feature of Wizards everywhere, gotcha.

That just simply and plain is not how it works. I know what derived means, despite your assumptions that I'm a blithering dolt.

I'll concede on the fact that I really shouldn't have got involved past my first post.If your DM allows it, go ahead. None of mine allowed it on the grounds that it was twisting the rules. I'll leave the validity of a glossary entry being stable enough for a ruling as a thought in the wind, rather than an argument.

Stegyre
2011-01-27, 05:17 PM
Natural abilities are abilities which are not special abilities and are not otherwise designated as one of the other three types.
Saith the RC (which is the primary source for everything contained therein):
Special Abilities
Many creatures can use special abilities that aren’t magical. These abilities are classified as extraordinary or natural. Some creatures can create magical effects without being spellcasters. Characters using particular class features can also create magical effects. These effects come in two types, spell-like and supernatural.

Thus, "natural abilities" are, indeed, one of the four categories of "Special abilities."

quiet1mi
2011-01-27, 05:21 PM
Why is this still going on?

Just take a level or two in rogue or anything that grants a single D6 of sneak attack or its variants... Swordsage is powerful, having to take those levels of multi-classing for Craven (another powerful feat) does not seem like a huge deal... Heck 2 levels of rogue grants evasion along with 1d6 sneak attack, +3 to reflex, and a total of 4 more skill points. Ninja grants +2 will, +3 Ref, 1d6 sudden strike, and the ability to turn invisible for a round.

All at the cost of 1 IL.... I could be wrong but it seems like a fair trade.

JaronK
2011-01-27, 05:27 PM
So being a dragon is a class feature of Wizards everywhere, gotcha.

Only when you're using Shapeshift to become a dragon using your class features.


That just simply and plain is not how it works. I know what derived means, despite your assumptions that I'm a blithering dolt.

Hey, you're the one who claimed even after seeing the rules quote that sneak attack isn't a class feature, which does imply you don't know what derives means. Rules quote that it's not how it works please? I know it's not how you WANT it to work but you've yet to use a single rules quote in this entire time.

And great, the Rules Compendium mucks everything up again. It still maintains the main thing (all abilities must have a type) but does the rules compendium ever list any natural abilities which are special abilities, or does it just throw that statement out there and move on?

JaronK

Glyde
2011-01-27, 05:34 PM
I never said Sneak Attack was not a class feature. I said, a point that you ignored by the way, that Assassin's Stance does not fulfill the need of Craven's requirements even if it were a class feature. The reasoning is that Assassin's stance grants sneak attack as an 'ability' as opposed to the named class 'feature' required.

You can 'derive' things all you want, it doesn't make it true. Unless I get a bonus feat from a class that grants me skill focus in use magic device and now using a wand of wish is a class feature, since I'm deriving enough times. Or, unless Fighter's qualify for Craven through their fighter bonus feat allowing for Martial Stance. Bonus Feat, is, after all, a class feature, and we're just deriving things from something to another thing.

Go ahead and gloat if you wish, for you've changed nothing. Claiming victory over shaky word choice in the glossary is your choice, not mine. I still hold that the differences in what the stance grants and what Craven requires makes Swordsages ineligible. And that is how I, and many others, rule it.

Stegyre
2011-01-27, 05:48 PM
And great, the Rules Compendium mucks everything up again.
Mucks things up more than what, exactly? The RAW of the three core books?? :smallwink:

It still maintains the main thing (all abilities must have a type)
No: all "special abilities" have a type. What are "special abilities"? No one knows, beyond those things that are explicitly identified as such. (The glossary definition is just amusing in this regard: aside from it being superseded by the RC, could one possibly be any less helpful by way of a definition?)

but does the rules compendium ever list any natural abilities which are special abilities, or does it just throw that statement out there and move on?


Quoth the RC:
NATURAL ABILITIES
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. They’re rarely identified as natural—that’s assumed—and they rarely take a distinct action to use. A lion uses its claws as an attack, for instance; it doesn’t activate its claws and then attack.

MeeposFire
2011-01-27, 06:00 PM
So the RC is not very helpful then?

JaronK
2011-01-27, 06:05 PM
I never said Sneak Attack was not a class feature. I said, a point that you ignored by the way, that Assassin's Stance does not fulfill the need of Craven's requirements even if it were a class feature. The reasoning is that Assassin's stance grants sneak attack as an 'ability' as opposed to the named class 'feature' required.

...I don't understand what you're missing here. You just said that we need a class feature, right? And a class feature, according to the PHB, is "any special characteristic derived from Character Class." Which part of that are you not understanding? Do you believe that an ability is not a "special characteristic?" Do you believe that Swordsage->Maneuvers->Assassin's Stance->Sneak Attack is not a correct derivation of the ability? What is it?


You can 'derive' things all you want, it doesn't make it true. Unless I get a bonus feat from a class that grants me skill focus in use magic device and now using a wand of wish is a class feature, since I'm deriving enough times. Or, unless Fighter's qualify for Craven through their fighter bonus feat allowing for Martial Stance. Bonus Feat, is, after all, a class feature, and we're just deriving things from something to another thing.

The ability to use the wand is a special characteristic granted by your class. The wand itself is not granted by your class. So the ability to use the wand would be a class feature, but the wish itself is not, because you didn't get the wand from your class (unless this class just gives you wands of wishing, in which case yes it works). And yes, if a Fighter used one of his class gained bonus feats to take Martial Stance and got Assassin's Stance that way, he'd qualify, though one wonders why he wouldn't just be a sneak attack variant Fighter instead.


Go ahead and gloat if you wish, for you've changed nothing. Claiming victory over shaky word choice in the glossary is your choice, not mine. I still hold that the differences in what the stance grants and what Craven requires makes Swordsages ineligible. And that is how I, and many others, rule it.

How about backing up some of your claims with actual rules instead of what you want to believe?


Mucks things up more than what, exactly? The RAW of the three core books??

In this case, yes. Without that quote, it's actually very easy to tell what each ability is, and there's no contradictions. With that quote, all it does is confuse what non magical special abilities are (since it doesn't actually list any special abilities as natural).


No: all "special abilities" have a type. What are "special abilities"? No one knows, beyond those things that are explicitly identified as such. (The glossary definition is just amusing in this regard: aside from it being superseded by the RC, could one possibly be any less helpful by way of a definition?)

All abilities have a type by PHB 180 (since all abilities which are not one of the other three types are natural abilities). Special Qualities are defined in the PHB as "Characteristics possessed by certain monsters (and sometimes characters) that are distinctive in some way. The Monster Manual has detailed information on all special qualities." Special Abilities, meanwhile, are defined as being "either extraordinary (Ex), Spell Like (Sp), or Supernatural (Su)" and then each of those are defined... which the Rules Compendium screws up entirely by just saying Natural is in there too.

Special Qualities seems to fit "abilities" in this regard, especially considering the Rules of the Game article on the topic, for what that's worth. And "Special Abilities" would be a subset thereof. Meanwhile, RCs definition of natural only indicates things which are NOT special abilities (but rather are the more generic "abilities"). But yes, this is the RC really mucking things up.

Either way, I haven't seen anything contradicting PHB 180s statement that any ability that isn't one of the other three must be Natural, which works well with the Rules of the Game All About Polymorph statement that Natural is a catch all for all otherwise undefined abilities. This still holds the point that all abilities have a type.

JaronK

Stegyre
2011-01-27, 06:08 PM
So the RC is not very helpful then?
For what?

Considering that it's the definitive source for every topic it addresses, as well as a one-volume compilation of a number of rules, I think most would consider it "helpful."

On the question of whether assassin's stance satisfies the class feature requirement for craven? Not so much.

JaronK
2011-01-27, 06:17 PM
For what?

Considering that it's the definitive source for every topic it addresses, as well as a one-volume compilation of a number of rules, I think most would consider it "helpful."

It actually screws up a whole bunch of stuff by being very poorly thought out. Stating that special abilities can be natural, and then giving a definition of natural that doesn't include any possible special ability, when the definition before meant special abilities could never be natural, is just one example of the RC causing confusion without actually helping anything. There is nothing that was unclear before that statement that is clarified now, but a lot that was clear without it is now confusing. Had they indicated any possible special ability that could be natural, it would have been a revision... as it is, it's just muddying the waters uselessly.

Another great example: by the DMG: "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.)." The Rules Compendium, however, restates that second portion without the first. Is this just restating part of a rule, or is it overwriting the original? The RC is completely unclear, and as such it's not known whether a swift action spell takes a standard action (as it did before, clearly), or whether it now takes a Swift Action.

The RC is REALLY badly written for this reason, and creates more confusion than it fixes.

JaronK

Stegyre
2011-01-27, 06:25 PM
All abilities have a type by PHB 180 (since all abilities which are not one of the other three types are natural abilities). . . .

I haven't seen anything contradicting PHB 180s statement that any ability that isn't one of the other three must be Natural, which works well with the Rules of the Game All About Polymorph statement that Natural is a catch all for all otherwise undefined abilities. This still holds the point that all abilities have a type.
Except that there is no such quote on PHB 180. The closest it comes is to say, "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell like." All this means is that every "special ability" is one of these four types.

As already pointed out, 3.5 uses the term "ability" in circumstances outside the context of "special abilities." While special abilities may be abilities, not every ability is a special ability.

It actually screws up a whole bunch of stuff by being very poorly thought out. Stating that special abilities can be natural, and then giving a definition of natural that doesn't include any possible special ability, when the definition before meant special abilities could never be natural, is just one example of the RC causing confusion without actually helping anything.
Actually, this section of the RC really just tracks the PHB language. Go look at PHB 180 again.

Another great example: by the DMG: "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.)." The Rules Compendium, however, restates that second portion without the first. Is this just restating part of a rule, or is it overwriting the original? The RC is completely unclear, and as such it's not known whether a swift action spell takes a standard action (as it did before, clearly), or whether it now takes a Swift Action.
No. Wands are spell trigger items, and what the RC says (pg 85) wrt spell trigger items is,

"Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity."

That rather unambiguously settles any swift action question.

Glyde
2011-01-27, 06:37 PM
How about backing up some of your claims with actual rules instead of what you want to believe?



All you do is twist things to be what you want them to be. I'm not going to acknowledge a glossary entry that contradicts the issues I've brought up that you have STILL ignored. Feature! Craven wants the FEATURE. Not the ability. Assassin's Stance, even if it was a class feature, does not qualify as it grants the ABILITY. Unless you want to twist the word 'derive' again and pull Pun-Pun out of a hat as a class feature, in which case, by all means, continue to arbitrarily chain things together because you can 'derive' them.

I am done. My piece is said, and I honestly could care less if it's sunk in or not.

JaronK
2011-01-27, 06:55 PM
All you do is twist things to be what you want them to be. I'm not going to acknowledge a glossary entry that contradicts the issues I've brought up that you have STILL ignored.

I quoted the entire definition of class features, and you're not going to acknowledge it... and you claim I'm twisting things? And then use that as an excuse for not actually using rules yourself?


Feature! Craven wants the FEATURE. Not the ability.

Yes... that's why I quoted the definition of class FEATURE. Not ability.


Assassin's Stance, even if it was a class feature, does not qualify as it grants the ABILITY.

Do you believe ability and feature are mutually exclusive? Sneak Attack for Rogues is a class feature. Do you believe it's not a class ability as well? Why is the sneak attack ABILITY of Assassin's Stance, which fits the definition of a class FEATURE as well, not both an ABILITY and a class FEATURE?

JaronK

Curmudgeon
2011-01-27, 06:57 PM
What are "special abilities"? No one knows, beyond those things that are explicitly identified as such.
This, at least, has a straightforward answer for class features. Those are the abilities appearing under the heading Special in a class table. (That's where sneak attack shows up on the Rogue class table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#tableTheRogue).) Most classes have a Special column, though some (example: Mystic Theurge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/mysticTheurge.htm)) do not.

Stegyre
2011-01-27, 07:00 PM
This, at least, has a straightforward answer for class features. Those are the abilities appearing under the heading Special in a class table. (That's where sneak attack shows up on the Rogue class table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#tableTheRogue).) Most classes have a Special column, though some (example: Mystic Theurge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/mysticTheurge.htm)) do not.
A fair observation. By this reasoning, however and fwiw, spells are not special abilities, as they have their own section of the table.

In general, the whole special abilities regime seems poorly thought out.

JaronK
2011-01-27, 07:07 PM
Except that there is no such quote on PHB 180. The closest it comes is to say, "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell like." All this means is that every "special ability" is one of these four types.

Why did you just add the word "special" in there? The definition of Natural abilities doesn't use the word "special." It's under the general heading, but plenty of other sources (including the PHB's own glossary) make it clear that Natural isn't actually for "special" abilities.


As already pointed out, 3.5 uses the term "ability" in circumstances outside the context of "special abilities." While special abilities may be abilities, not every ability is a special ability.

Right, and every example of a natural ability is an ability, but not listed as a special ability. Movement speed and claw attacks are both abilities (the ability to move X distance per round, or the ability to make attacks with your claws) but not special abilities, and they're natural.


Actually, this section of the RC really just tracks the PHB language. Go look at PHB 180 again.

PHB Glossary: "Natural Ability: A nonmagical capability, such as walking, swimming (for aquatic creatures), and flight (for winged creatures)."

PHB 180: "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird's ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell like."

Rules of the Game: Polymorphing 1: "Natural Ability: This term is a catch-all for just about anything a creature can do (or characteristic that it has) that is not extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Natural abilities include most speed ratings (some very high speeds are not "natural," see the section on the alter self spell), mode of breathing (lungs, gills), natural armor and weaponry, general appearance, body type, and the presence or absence of the five basic senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, pain). When polymorphing, you generally lose your own natural abilities and gain those of your assumed form."

This is all pretty consistent. All abilities that aren't special abilities (which, via the Monster Manual, are all Ex, Sp, or Su) are natural abilities, unless they're specifically designated one of those three somewhere else. Natural abilities are only those inherent to the physical form of the critter, and cover stuff the creature just naturally does, as opposed to anything that requires any form of training or magic.


No. Wands are spell trigger items, and what the RC says (pg 85) wrt spell trigger items is,

"Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity."

That rather unambiguously settles any swift action question.

Except that's a restatement of half the DMG rule. Since specific overrides general, and the DMG rule about casting shorter than standard spells is more specific (the RC is talking about all spells, while the DMG is talking about spells with a cast time less than standard) the DMG would trump in this situation. If the RC intended that to be a change, it should have stated specifically that it was including swift (or immediate) action spells. But the RC never mentions those, making it a more general source. That's really bad writing for what's supposed to be a clarifying rules text.


A fair observation. By this reasoning, however and fwiw, spells are not special abilities, as they have their own section of the table.

In general, the whole special abilities regime seems poorly thought out.

Note that the MM does have Mind Flayer Sorcerers who have spells as class ability. It's listed in "Special Attacks" so that does put spells from classes in that category. Also, this definition (being in the special table) is not actually in the rules anywhere. It's obviously inclusive (anything that's from a class and found in "special" must be a class feature, and ability, and "special" so it's a special ability), but not exclusive (nothing stops abilities outside the table from being special abilities too). The obvious thing to do is use the only given actual definition of Special Abilities... from the Monster Manual 315.

JaronK

Tytalus
2011-01-28, 11:11 AM
No. Not an inconsistency. [...] The fact that they're not labeled as such everywhere doesn't change that...


Spellcasting derived from class levels is nowhere labeled as "Ex". Consistently.

An inconsistency only appears if you claim that Spellcasting falls under the definition of MM1's special abilities. The inconsistency is that it obviously can't be any of the listed types.



Not all abilities are "special abilities."

Thanks, that's what I pointed out before.



Do you accept that you can't actually throw out the primary source on Ex, Sp, and Su abilities (which you just tried to do)?


The primary source on character abilites is the PHB. The primary source section on spellcasting is in the PHB. That very section talks about categorizing special abilities, so that is the primary source for the purpose of this discussion.

PHB p.180 lists 4 types of special abilites in the context of spellcasting derived from class levels (the only thing I'm discussing - if you want to discuss something else, refer to whatever you want), including Natural Abilities.



The way it's defined, Ex is the only option.


No, the way it's defined Ex is not an option (see my previous post). And Su and Sp are the only options that "create magical effects" - and still both non-options as well.



They don't show HD type in those boxes either... do you think that means creatures no longer have specific types of HD (like D12s or D8s)? Of course not. It's just leaving unneeded information out.


Again, a faulty comparison. HD types are clearly defined in the glossary. In contrast, SDC has consistently not been assigned a type. Including in - what you call the primary source - the MM1.



No, it doesn't, because I could quote hundreds of creatures that have "Special Attacks: Spells" in their entries.


The section still contrasts those abilities to spellcasting derived from class levels, so it seems to follow that it's not captured by any of those abilities.

The second clue is that it doesn't fit any of them.

As an aside: your argument assumes that all special attacks are special abilities. Could you provide a RAW quote for that, please?



Except it's defined as such, so perhaps you're reading too close. Back away from the page a bit and read all the information instead of myopically reading only what you want and declaring wrong the primary source on special abilities (MM1), and maybe that will help.


Whoa! It's clearly not defined as such, otherwise we'd just be done with the discussion.

And your argument really boils down to "back away"? The categories, as defined, don't fit spellcasting. Period. There is no gray area here, the rules are clear as day. Can spellcasting be disrupted in combat? Yes. That's it. The other examples aren't really needed, but further illustrate the point.



And yet Invoke Magic means your spellcasting ability itself DOES work normally, it's just the spells it creates do not.

Not at all. Invoke Magic clearly shows my point: without its special rules, spellcasting is not unaffected by effects that negate or disrupt magic and does not function normally in an antimagic field. Ergo, it can't be (Ex). But again, that is not essential, just further proves the point.



You're trying to imply something that is directly refuted by the rules. Here's one of MANY examples of spells being clearly a special attack: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm.


Why do you keep bringing that up? Clearly, the MM1 still shows SDC as a special attack. I'm not arguing against that, in fact I mentioned it myself (indirectly). It's still not an (Ex) ability.



Get over it.


Please debate civilly, or not at all.



It doesn't need to say it because Assassin's Stance actually IS sneak attack, while Sudden Strike isn't.

To be precise: Assassin's stance is not sneak attack. It is an option for a class feature and grants you sneak attack temporarily.


Only when you're using Shapeshift to become a dragon using your class features.

Not quite. You claimed that the swordsage has the Sneak Attack class feature. Thus, Glyde's conclusion is correct: being a dragon is consequently a class feature of Wizards.





What are "special abilities"?

This, at least, has a straightforward answer for class features. Those are the abilities appearing under the heading Special in a class table. (That's where sneak attack shows up on the Rogue class table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#tableTheRogue).)

Excellent, thank you. Apparently Spellcasting derived from class levels is not a Special Ability.

JaronK
2011-01-28, 05:50 PM
Spellcasting derived from class levels is nowhere labeled as "Ex". Consistently.

An inconsistency only appears if you claim that Spellcasting falls under the definition of MM1's special abilities. The inconsistency is that it obviously can't be any of the listed types.

You're still missing the part where all abilities must have a type and spellcasting derived from class levels is included in this. Plus, the only time we've seen spellcasting have a type, it was Ex, therefor it's logical to assume it's Ex.


The primary source on character abilites is the PHB. The primary source section on spellcasting is in the PHB. That very section talks about categorizing special abilities, so that is the primary source for the purpose of this discussion.

PHB p.180 lists 4 types of special abilites in the context of spellcasting derived from class levels (the only thing I'm discussing - if you want to discuss something else, refer to whatever you want), including Natural Abilities.

Wait, no, it's not in that context. It's in the context of "Special Abilities" not spellcasting. And it too says all abilities must be one of the four types.


No, the way it's defined Ex is not an option (see my previous post). And Su and Sp are the only options that "create magical effects" - and still both non-options as well.

Yeah, your previous post failed to note the fact that spellcasting still works even if spells don't. If I can wildshape freely but not attack, my natural abilities (claw attacks) aren't working but I can still wild shape just fine. Spells are still Ex.


Again, a faulty comparison. HD types are clearly defined in the glossary. In contrast, SDC has consistently not been assigned a type. Including in - what you call the primary source - the MM1.

Spellcasting ALWAYS is a special ability, but like many special abilities you have to use the definitions of special abilities to figure it out. You're the one claiming that a table alteration is a rules change. That is not the case. You're just wrong.


The section still contrasts those abilities to spellcasting derived from class levels, so it seems to follow that it's not captured by any of those abilities.

A) No it doesn't and B ) the rules clearly state that all abilities must be captured by those ability types. You're just ignoring the rules flat out now.


As an aside: your argument assumes that all special attacks are special abilities. Could you provide a RAW quote for that, please?

They're labeled special. They're abilities. Put it together.


Whoa! It's clearly not defined as such, otherwise we'd just be done with the discussion.

And your argument really boils down to "back away"? The categories, as defined, don't fit spellcasting. Period. There is no gray area here, the rules are clear as day. Can spellcasting be disrupted in combat? Yes. That's it. The other examples aren't really needed, but further illustrate the point.

Read page 180 of the PHB. If any ability isn't one of the other three types, it's natural. It says that right there on page 180. If your logic dictates that's wrong, you're wrong.


Not at all. Invoke Magic clearly shows my point: without its special rules, spellcasting is not unaffected by effects that negate or disrupt magic and does not function normally in an antimagic field. Ergo, it can't be (Ex). But again, that is not essential, just further proves the point.

Spellcasting is uneffected, spells are. Invoke Magic only works because you still have your spellcasting ability in an antimagic field, it's just that you can't cast spells. If this wasn't the case, Invoke Magic would give you the ability to cast a spell but you wouldn't have spell slots to cast with.


Why do you keep bringing that up? Clearly, the MM1 still shows SDC as a special attack. I'm not arguing against that, in fact I mentioned it myself (indirectly). It's still not an (Ex) ability.

Then pick which ability type you're claiming it is, because the rules clearly state it must be one of the four.


Please debate civilly, or not at all.

Please use the rules, not your own opinions of what you think they should be.


To be precise: Assassin's stance is not sneak attack. It is an option for a class feature and grants you sneak attack temporarily.

It's a class feature that gives you sneak attack as a class feature (when in that stance). Just like maneuvers are a class feature that gives you Assassin's Stance as a class feature. Class features are any abilities derived from class levels. Derivation works that way.


Not quite. You claimed that the swordsage has the Sneak Attack class feature. Thus, Glyde's conclusion is correct: being a dragon is consequently a class feature of Wizards.

Only when they're being a dragon entirely due to class features. A Wizard who casts Shapechange and becomes a dragon is indeed a dragon as a class feature... at least until the spell wears out.


Excellent, thank you. Apparently Spellcasting derived from class levels is not a Special Ability.

See? You just believe anything you want to. No rule states being in that table is the only way to be a special ability... that was his words, not a rules quote, but you just took it as gospel while you ignored PHB 180s statement that all abilities must be one of the four types. Now you're claiming it's not a special ability that a Wizard can cast spells. Think about that claim for a little bit. Think about the fact that you'd rather take a poster's made up rule than one printed in the books right in front of you.

JaronK

Kuma Kode
2011-01-28, 07:39 PM
Just to weigh in... Spellcasting may very well be extraordinary. "Spells" does not actually refer to any particular spell, it refers to the capability of casting spells, which is in and of itself nonmagical. Otherwise, a spellcaster would lose class features from prestige classes and feats that rely on some ability to cast spells, but are not themselves magical, while in an anti-magic field.

Spellcasting is an extraordinary ability that allows the use of spells, which are magical, in the same way that Use Magic Device is nonmagical, but allows the use of magic (in certain circumstances).

JaronK
2011-01-29, 06:34 AM
@Kuma: Yes. That is all.

JaronK

Tytalus
2011-01-30, 02:27 PM
You're still missing the part where all abilities must have a type and spellcasting derived from class levels is included in this.

Again, indulge me: where does it say that Spellcasting derived from class levels (SDC) falls under "special abilities" as defined in the PHB (and perhaps even in the MM1?

I'll say it again, SDC doesn't match any of the types listed. I showed the RAW for that. So far, you've ignored it.



Plus, the only time we've seen spellcasting have a type, it was Ex, therefor it's logical to assume it's Ex.


Again, that is not the same. The very source it's from makes that clear: it's treated entirely differently from SDC. We've been over this. A lot.



Wait, no, it's not in that context.


Sure it is - it's in the very chapter on that (spellcasting derived from class levels, that is), so it's very much in that context.



And it too says all abilities must be one of the four types.


Not really. It lists four types and implies those are all, but it certainly isn't as clear-cut as the MM1 section (which, looking at the PHB p.180, is obviously too restrictive as it ignores natural abilities).

Also, it refers to special abilities only. That distinction is quite important, as you yourself pointed out before.



Yeah, your previous post failed to note the fact that spellcasting still works even if spells don't.


Can spellcasting be disrupted in combat? Yes. Ergo, Spellcasting can't be (Ex). Clear as day. Nothing to argue.

As for spellcasting "still working", even if spells don't: I said I don't want to argue it, but since you bring it up again: Of course you can claim that spellcasting and the spell are two separate things (since the rules don't explicitly specify they aren't), but that's somewhat ridiculous. You do the spellcasting to get a spell, so if you are doing it but can't create the spell, then the spellcasting doesn't work as usual, i.e., it's affected. That's all that's needed so that spellcasting can't be Ex accordin to the PHB p.180 (actually, it already can't be Ex because of the disruption thing, so it's another reason). A more mundane example: if I tried to build a fire in an area that doesn't allow me to create a fire (e.g., underwater), it would be equally ludicrous to argue that the environment doesn't affect my fire-building ability.



You're the one claiming that a table alteration is a rules change.


No, you are the one claiming I'm claiming that. I've made it clear several times that I don't.



You're just ignoring the rules flat out now.


Not at all, I'm actually looking at the RAW. The RAW clearly dictates that SDC doesn't fit any of the types listed under "special abilities". That allows only 1 interpretation: SDC is not a "special ability" as defined there. The only other option is to postulate that the rules for special abilities are wrong.



They're labeled special. They're abilities. Put it together.


That's not how rules work. Within the context of the rules, words have (occasionally) specific meaning. An ability in English is very different from an "Ability" in D&D, where it's specifically "One of the six basic character qualities: Strength (Str), Dexterity (Dex), Constitution (Con), Intelligence (Int), Wisdom (Wis), and Charisma (Cha)."

So let me ask again: where exactly is Spellcasting derived from class levels said to be a special ability as defined in PHB, p180?



If any ability isn't one of the other three types, it's natural.


Again: special ability. Huge difference.

But what's your point? I clearly stated that SDC can't be any of the types listed. That includes natural abilities. In fact, I've taken your word for it that they can't be that.



Then pick which ability type you're claiming it is, because the rules clearly state it must be one of the four.


Again, it can't be any of them. And the rules only "clearly" state that, if SDC is, equally clearly, defined as a special ability according to that very definition.



Please use the rules, not your own opinions of what you think they should be.


Since you continue to overlook that SDC can't be Ex - despite the relevant RAW being presented multiple times (disruptability in combat, etc.), that is an odd statement coming from you.



It's a class feature that gives you sneak attack as a class feature (when in that stance).


Warmer, but not quite. Assassin's Stance is not a class feature. It's an option for a class feature (called Stances Known) and grants you sneak attack temporarily (when in that stance).



Derivation works that way.


Feel free to rule them to work like that - if you want to play D&D where being a dragon is a class feature of being a wizard (example from before).

I think you are putting too much into the obviously not very well thought-out glossary definition, but YMMV.



See? You just believe anything you want to.

..., but you just took it as gospel while you ignored ... you'd rather take a poster's made up rule than one printed in the books right in front of you.


Again, please debate civilly. You seem to be rather emotionally evolved.

Tytalus
2011-01-30, 02:32 PM
"Spells" does not actually refer to any particular spell, it refers to the capability of casting spells, which is in and of itself nonmagical. Otherwise, a spellcaster would lose class features from prestige classes and feats that rely on some ability to cast spells, but are not themselves magical, while in an anti-magic field.


Strictly speaking, they would anyway - even if spellcasting was Ex (it's not). If the PrC requirement is "Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.", for example, then yes, you can't do that in an AMF. I strongly doubt that's intended, though.

JaronK
2011-01-30, 02:55 PM
Again, indulge me: where does it say that Spellcasting derived from class levels (SDC) falls under "special abilities" as defined in the PHB (and perhaps even in the MM1?

One example I've given repeatedly is the Mind Flayer Sorcerer.


I'll say it again, SDC doesn't match any of the types listed. I showed the RAW for that. So far, you've ignored it.

You haven't proved the point and you had to ignore the rules that state all abilities must have types. That's not me ignoring your point, that's your point being shown completely invalid.


Again, that is not the same. The very source it's from makes that clear: it's treated entirely differently from SDC. We've been over this. A lot.

Unfounded assertion. It is functionally the same as all other instances of "spells" in all books. You're the one who's made up this idea that spells from class levels are different (in terms of ability types) from spells from races. No rule supports this claim.

So here's an obvious challenge: back up this assertion. Show, through rules quotes, that spells from class levels are of a different type than spells from any other source. Since your entire case is built on this assertion, a failure to back up such a claim would invalidate your case.

Furthermore, show why PHB 180's statement, backed up by the rules of the game article, that all abilities must be one of the four types is invalidated by some other direct rule.


Again, please debate civilly. You seem to be rather emotionally evolved.

That was civil. I am pointing out a fact: you have specifically stated you are ignoring written rules (such as MM 315 and 6) and yet just took a poster's statement without any rules backing as gospel. This means you are wrong. It's really quite simple.

And as for the AMF situation... as Invoke Magic proves, they still do have the ability to cast spells in an AMF. It just doesn't do anything useful. This is the same as a Rogue attacking a zombie... he still has the ability to sneak attack, it's just worthless.

JaronK

Tytalus
2011-01-31, 07:19 AM
One example I've given repeatedly is the Mind Flayer Sorcerer.

The Mind Flayer Sorcerer has Spellcasting listed as a Special Attack, not a Special Ability.



You haven't proved the point and you had to ignore the rules that state all abilities must have types. That's not me ignoring your point, that's your point being shown completely invalid.


So to summarize:


I point out that SDC can't be Ex, since it can be disrupted in combat, with reference to the RAW on PHB p.180, where it's explicitly stated that Ex abilities cannot be disrupted in combat.
You recommend that I should "step away from the page", and maintain SDC must be Ex despite the presented RAW evidence.
I point out that you are ignoring the RAW.
Your reply is: "You haven't proved the point and you had to ignore the rules that state all abilities must have types. That's not me ignoring your point, that's your point being shown completely invalid."


That is ... disappointing, to say the least.

I'm not sure where to go from here. If you continue to ignore the RAW, we can't have a meaningful discussion. Feel free to house-rule all you want, but clearly, SDC is not (Ex).

Also note: nowhere does it say that all abilities have to have a type. We are talking about Special Abilities as defined in the PHB, p.180 here. So far we haven't even established that SDC falls into that definition.



Unfounded assertion.


What are you talking about? Of course they are treated drastically differently. Arcane Talent (AT) vs. spellcasting derived from class levels (SDC): (1) with AT, the creature doesn't have levels in a spellcasting class, but merely casts as if did; SDC, by definition is derived from actual class levels, (2) AT explicitly has a type, SDC doesn't (3) since SDC can be disrupted in combat, SDC can not have the same type (3) AT is listed as a special attack - SDC is not.



So here's an obvious challenge: back up this assertion. Show, through rules quotes, that spells from class levels are of a different type than spells from any other source.


Very simple: Arcane Talent is Ex (MM5, p.86). SDC can't be Ex, because Ex abilities "cannot be disrupted in combat" (PHB, p.180).



Furthermore, show why PHB 180's statement, backed up by the rules of the game article, that all abilities must be one of the four types is invalidated by some other direct rule.


Not following what you are trying to achieve here. I'd also prefer to stick to the RAW.

And again: the passage in the PHB is not about abilities, but about Special Abilites. As defined there.



I am pointing out a fact: you have specifically stated you are ignoring written rules (such as MM 315 and 6)


I thought I made that quite clear: MM1 says that special abilities can not be anything else but Ex, Su or Sp. Obviously, this is at odds with the PHB, which clearly lists four possible types (and is not so restrictive about those being all there is). The two sources directly contradict each other, unless they are using different definitions of Special Abilities. Either way, we consequently can't use both in a RAW discussion.

For the purpose of class abilities, the PHB is the primary source. For the purpose of discussing what type (if any!) SDC is, we thus have to refer to the relevant section in the PHB (on SDC). That should be pretty clear. It's somewhat disingenuous for you to claim that that's "ignoring written rules", especially since (1) you are the one who brought the whole "primary source" thing into the discussion and (2) you are the one who keeps ignoring the disruptability issue regarding SDC.



And as for the AMF situation... as Invoke Magic proves, they still do have the ability to cast spells in an AMF.

If you can't successfully use an ability due to some circumstances, then that ability is affected by those circumstances. Clearly, AMF / dead magic zones / etc. affect spellcasting. That's just one more reason SDC can't be Ex. Invoke Magic changes nothing, it's merely a somewhat obscure exception to a general rule.