What type of ability is Spellcasting? Or Please help parse the Rules Compendium

[kalaskaagathas]

So, as the Rules Compendium states, all Special Abilities without an Ex:, Sla:, or Su: tag are Natural Abilities.  Spellcasting, generally, is not given with an Ex:, Sla; or Su: tag.  However:

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.

Is Spellcasting, as gained from any spellcasting class, covered by the second sentence?  Does a character using that particular class feature create magical effects?

Did WotC accidentally do to Arcane and Divine Magic what they've already done to Psionics?  That is, did WotC make all spellcasting either a Spell-Like Ability, or a Supernatural Ability, as they have made all Manifesting a Psi-Like Ability?  Or does this not apply to spellcasting at all?

[Halinn]

The RAW is unclear on what type of ability spellcasting is. MM5 has some monsters that have their spellcasting as an (Ex) ability, while others have argued that it is a natural ability, because it is not otherwise designated as (Ex), (Su) or (Sp). The usual counterargument against being a natural ability is that it is not something that the caster has because of a physical feature.
The text for Spell-Like Abilities strongly suggests that actual spellcasting is different from it, with this text: "an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer."
Spells being Supernatural would make some things invalid, such as being able to cast Invoke Magic in an antimagic field, which is the whole purpose of the spell. This is because the basic spellcasting ability would go away in an antimagic field, rendering the specific text of the spell meaningless, as you would never be able to get that far in casting it.

Thus, by the RAW, it is either (Ex) or natural.

[kalaskaagathas]

The RAW is unclear on what type of ability spellcasting is. MM5 has some monsters that have their spellcasting as an (Ex) ability, while others have argued that it is a natural ability, because it is not otherwise designated as (Ex), (Su) or (Sp). The usual counterargument against being a natural ability is that it is not something that the caster has because of a physical feature.
The text for Spell-Like Abilities strongly suggests that actual spellcasting is different from it, with this text: "an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer."
Spells being Supernatural would make some things invalid, such as being able to cast Invoke Magic in an antimagic field, which is the whole purpose of the spell. This is because the basic spellcasting ability would go away in an antimagic field, rendering the specific text of the spell meaningless, as you would never be able to get that far in casting it.

Thus, by the RAW, it is either (Ex) or natural.

I'm aware of the arguments for an against spellcasting being either Ex: or Natural, however, I'm wondering if the quote I posted above has anything to do with spellcasting.  The issues you point out are similar to the issues of having all manifesting be Psi-Like, however, it is overcome with specific rules trumping general - the rules for manifesting differentiate it from other Psi-Likes, but it remains a Psi-Like ability.  Similarly here, the rules for spellcasting would trump the rules for Spell-Likes and Supernaturals, but spellcasting overall would be typed as one of the two.

I'm not saying that makes any logical sense, I'm just wondering if the Rules Compendium makes it so.

[Mithril Leaf]

I feel as though it should be pointed out that as an example, in the listing of the Planetar it files it's spellcasting as a special attack. If you simply follow the link of special attack, you can see it is defined as:

Special Attacks and Special Qualities

Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature’s descriptive text.

When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows:

    10 + ½ the attacker’s racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.

The save DC is given in the creature’s description along with the ability on which the DC is based.

Quite clearly the spellcasting of the planetar is a special attack or special quality and special attacks and special qualities are both defined as one of (Ex), (Sp), or (Su). My two CP.

[linklord231]

I'm aware of the arguments for an against spellcasting being either Ex: or Natural, however, I'm wondering if the quote I posted above has anything to do with spellcasting.  The issues you point out are similar to the issues of having all manifesting be Psi-Like, however, it is overcome with specific rules trumping general - the rules for manifesting differentiate it from other Psi-Likes, but it remains a Psi-Like ability.  Similarly here, the rules for spellcasting would trump the rules for Spell-Likes and Supernaturals, but spellcasting overall would be typed as one of the two.

I'm not saying that makes any logical sense, I'm just wondering if the Rules Compendium makes it so.

I'd argue that the quoted rules do not necessarily apply in this case, because 1) Spellcasting was not explicitly called out, and 2) some classes (such as Warlock or Factotum) have abilities that are explicitly not spellcasting, and fit the quoted rule perfectly. 

[Halinn]

The quote from the Rules Compendium only details what type the effects of the ability has. The Spellcasting class feature remains of an unclear type (though if I sat at a table and had to decide, I'd go with natural over (Ex), to prevent factotum abuse).

[sirpercival]

Oh god, this again?

There are at least three discussions of this on the board already.

[Halinn]

Oh god, this again?

There are at least three discussions of this on the board already.

I tried summing them up in the first reply. It appears that I didn't do a good enough job

[sirpercival]

The quote from the Rules Compendium only details what type the effects of the ability has. The Spellcasting class feature remains of an unclear type (though if I sat at a table and had to decide, I'd go with natural over (Ex), to prevent factotum abuse).

The problem with this is that you can get natural abilities with less effort than (Ex) abilities.

The RC quote is completely irrelevant, since it discusses magical effects produced by creatures which are not spellcasters.

To put it behind us, let's all agree that Spellcasting and Psionics are abilities with no type (not natural), okay?  That will prevent all the abuse, and it makes sense.

"But," you argue, "every ability has a type!!  It's either natural, Ex, Su, or Sp (or Ps)!!  It says so right in the rulesss!!1!!1!"

To that, I say: "Shut up.  We've gone over this 3429687802745 times.  Just leave it alone."

[kalaskaagathas]

Oh god, this again?

There are at least three discussions of this on the board already.

I tried summing them up in the first reply. It appears that I didn't do a good enough job

Not at all.  I was simply looking for help parsing that particular quote, and its applicability to spellcasting.  It would seem that it does not, is the consensus (which I frankly think is a relief).

[awaken_D_M_golem]

.
( ... and/or that last Polymorph errata at the end of wotc old TO ... )

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.

maybe Artificers fit in here ?