SKR: Ex, Su, and Martial Characters

[Squirrel_Dude]

http://seankreynolds.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/ex-su-and-martial-characters/

A post he put up yesterday, talking about how the Ex vs Su difference in abilities could be helping to generate the perception that being non-magical is equivalent to being mundane. He proposes that by simply combining Ex and Su abilities, designers and players could begin to decouple martial characters from realism.


Just a surprising post for a guy normally pigeonholed as a part of the "casters rule, martials drool" camp.

[LordBlades]

Is AMF radically different in PF? He seems to act like it's a big deal while in 3.5 it barely makes it past 'minor inconvenience', and it hurts non-casters way more than casters in any case.

[Psyren]

This is a nice quote:


By getting rid of the idea that you have to define special abilities as either “magic” or “not magic,” you also get rid of the idea that “martial characters don’t have magic, and therefore can’t do amazing things because they’re limited to what nonmagical people can do in the real world.”

In other words, if you decide that a level 5 fighter with a shield can deflect a spell back on the caster if he succeeds at his saving throw, that would be okay, for the same reason, because you don’t have to decide “is this something a real, exceptional person could do in the real world?” If you decide that a level 10 fighter is so eager for battle that he can jump 30 feet and still make a full attack, that would be okay, for the same reason. If you decide a level 15 fighter is such a badass combatant that all allies within 30 feet of him deal +25% melee and ranged damage, that would be okay, for the same reason. It wouldn’t matter that the fighter is a “mundane” character who “doesn’t have any magic;” he could still do incredible things that bend Earth’s laws of reality or are even impossible according to Earth’s physics.

These all sound like reasonable Ex abilities for a Fighter in a high-powered game to have if you ask me; however, I'm not sure quite what he's getting at, because you don't have to remove the Ex/Su separation to impart abilities like these. These all could quite comfortably fall under either Ex or Su.

I think it's still helpful to keep Ex and Su separate. While he's right that the distinction between Ex and Su largely exists due to AMF, there are still other reasons for it. For example, effects that give you the abilities of another form (e.g. polymorph or Cunning Brilliance) are often balanced by this separation. It also allows you design space to create abilities like Supernatural Opportunist/Supernatural Slayer that otherwise wouldn't make sense if used vs. an Ex ability.

[Elderand]

This is a nice quote:



These all sound like reasonable Ex abilities for a Fighter in a high-powered game to have if you ask me; however, I'm not sure quite what he's getting at, because you don't have to remove the Ex/Su separation to impart abilities like these. These all could quite comfortably fall under either Ex or Su.

I think it's still helpful to keep Ex and Su separate. While he's right that the distinction between Ex and Su largely exists due to AMF, there are still other reasons for it. For example, effects that give you the abilities of another form (e.g. polymorph or Cunning Brilliance) are often balanced by this separation. It also allows you design space to create abilities like Supernatural Opportunist/Supernatural Slayer that otherwise wouldn't make sense if used vs. an Ex ability.

I believe the idea is that if "mundane can't have nice things" attitude then removing mundane entirely allow fighter type to get stronger whitout people raising a storm because a fighter is mundane and therefore can't do anything special.

In essence if EX and SU where the same thing people wouldn't fight on the whole ToB is magic/not magic.

[Psyren]

I believe the idea is that if "mundane can't have nice things" attitude then removing mundane entirely allow fighter type to get stronger whitout people raising a storm because a fighter is mundane and therefore can't do anything special.

I agree that attitude is wrong as well, but it largely comes from taking things to extremes. I do believe Fighters should be able to do special things, and the three items SKR listed in that quote are indeed special things that a fighter could reasonably do (reflecting spells, aerial pouncing, inspiring allies etc.)

I don't think, however, that they should be able to do everything that casters can do. For example, I don't think fighters should be resurrecting the dead, summoning angels, bringing trees to life, creating objects from the ether, flying indefinitely, spying on targets across the globe etc. And that is where the Ex/Su separation can be useful, particularly when it comes to designing monsters rather than classes.


In essence if EX and SU where the same thing people wouldn't fight on the whole ToB is magic/not magic.

This fight in general I see as pointless. Why does it matter that some ToB abilities are Ex and some are Su? These fighting styles were developed in a world where magic exists. Having some of the maneuvers able to tap into that dweomer and some be purely extensions of the initiator's innate ability are both reasonable to me.

[squiggit]

I think the general point he was making wasn't really that Fighters should be able to act like wizards, more trying to shake the ingrained mentality that there's two types of characters: magic and not magic and that the two are held to wildly different design standards.

Essentially saying people see Extraordinary and get hung up on the bolded part and the idea that it's not magical and has to be "realistic". Instead focus on the fact that we're dealing with high fantasy, epic heroes and that even though they may be "mundane" they're still vastly beyond the scope of what's normal in our real world and still defy physics and logic with their ability.

[Psyren]

I think the general point he was making wasn't really that Fighters should be able to act like wizards, more trying to shake the ingrained mentality that there's two types of characters: magic and not magic and that the two are held to wildly different design standards.

Essentially saying people see Extraordinary and get hung up on the bolded part and the idea that it's not magical and has to be "realistic". Instead focus on the fact that we're dealing with high fantasy, epic heroes and that even though they may be "mundane" they're still vastly beyond the scope of what's normal in our real world and still defy physics and logic with their ability.

And I'm fine with that - but no matter how far out of the bounds of "ordinary" a Fighter gets, there should still be a limit somewhere. The question is where.

And actually, I don't see the problem with everybody having at least a little magic at high levels. It works fine for high-CR monsters. "Magic" doesn't have to mean "spells."

[Ssalarn]

I think the general point he was making wasn't really that Fighters should be able to act like wizards, more trying to shake the ingrained mentality that there's two types of characters: magic and not magic and that the two are held to wildly different design standards.

Essentially saying people see Extraordinary and get hung up on the bolded part and the idea that it's not magical and has to be "realistic". Instead focus on the fact that we're dealing with high fantasy, epic heroes and that even though they may be "mundane" they're still vastly beyond the scope of what's normal in our real world and still defy physics and logic with their ability.

This was what I got out of it as well. He's addressing the fact that there's this ingrained mindset that "Ex = somehow physically possible" and "Su = doesn't give a crap about physics", when really, the only difference in them mechanically is that one is shut down in an anti-magic field.

If you remove that divider between "amazing stuff that requires magic" and "amazing stuff that doesn't require magic", you're left with "amazing stuff". This lets you explore the world in a whole new way and helps clean out that mentality that the restrictions that apply to martials at levels 1-7 should continue to apply to them throughout the rest of the game, even if that's inconsistent with the game's own internal framework. It's silly that a high-level Fighter can benchpress a dump-truck, but can't jump 10 feet straight up (at least, not without magical assistance).

[Psyren]

It's silly that a high-level Fighter can benchpress a dump-truck, but can't jump 10 feet straight up (at least, not without magical assistance).

I agree, but giving them that ability doesn't mean dismantling the entire Ex/Su framework. This is yet another ability that could easily be Ex using the existing conventions.

[Ssalarn]

I agree, but giving them that ability doesn't mean dismantling the entire Ex/Su framework. This is yet another ability that could easily be Ex using the existing conventions.

The point is that you don't need the Ex framework. It accomplishes almost nothing, other than creating a separation between amazing stuff that is explicitly magic, and slightly less amazing stuff that isn't. The anti-magic field and maybe one other ability in the game are the only things that care about this, but for many people, Ex carries thematic baggage with it that just isn't necessary.

For example, he talks about a high level Rogue teleporting behind an enemy. That pretty much has to be an Su ability in the game's current framework, which means the Rogue has access to magic. But why does it have to be magic? Why can't the high level Rogue be so fast and so skilled that he slips through reality itself, even if only in a very limited manner?

Similarly, there are very strict rules about high and how far you can jump, and one of the "unwritten" design rules of Ex abilities is that they can bend, but not break, the laws of reality. If you flick through your collection of materials you'll see this throughout. Even in ToB, there were abilities that weren't allowed to be Ex because they seemed to Su, though at the end of the day the distinction is unnecessary and only serves to limit the game instead of enhancing it. Why does slicing a sword through the air so fast that it briefly catches fire have to be Su? Why do I have to be pulling off some kind of magic instead of just being so bad ass that I just know how to do that?

[squiggit]

and one of the "unwritten" design rules of Ex abilities is that they can bend, but not break, the laws of reality.
Which I've always found a bit silly since the written rule is that Ex abilities can freely defy physics.

But yeah, especially in Pathfinder, there's only a few effects where Ex and Su matter to a significant degree. The problem though isn't with the mechanics themselves, Ex and Su are fine on their own. It's more what the expectations those ability types have created among players and devs that's the concern here and since that mindset is harmful and the actual ability types don't mean that much...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The point is that you don't need the Ex framework. It accomplishes almost nothing, other than creating a separation between amazing stuff that is explicitly magic, and slightly less amazing stuff that isn't. The anti-magic field and maybe one other ability in the game are the only things that care about this, but for many people, Ex carries thematic baggage with it that just isn't necessary.

For example, he talks about a high level Rogue teleporting behind an enemy. That pretty much has to be an Su ability in the game's current framework, which means the Rogue has access to magic. But why does it have to be magic? Why can't the high level Rogue be so fast and so skilled that he slips through reality itself, even if only in a very limited manner?

Similarly, there are very strict rules about high and how far you can jump, and one of the "unwritten" design rules of Ex abilities is that they can bend, but not break, the laws of reality. If you flick through your collection of materials you'll see this throughout. Even in ToB, there were abilities that weren't allowed to be Ex because they seemed to Su, though at the end of the day the distinction is unnecessary and only serves to limit the game instead of enhancing it. Why does slicing a sword through the air so fast that it briefly catches fire have to be Su? Why do I have to be pulling off some kind of magic instead of just being so bad ass that I just know how to do that?

But if you don't have the Ex framework then everything is magic. If everything is magic then just swinging a sword is magic... And that leads down to a bad place. I never understood why Spells, Sp, and Su weren't placed under the title of Supernatural and then have Extraordinary be the counterpart.

Supernatural: "magic" in some way.
Extraordinary: non-magical.

Sure the lines may blur a bit but we can allow rules to function differently for each type.

Also I need to ask, what happened to SKR? This seems like a huge 180 on how he used to think... I mean... I came here expecting to laugh at his quotes but, this may shock my younger self, I agree with a lot of what he is saying...

I've always argued that in a fantasy game a Ex person or Non-Caster doesn't have to represent a real life person or actually probably shouldn't since it is a fantasy game.

[Psyren]

The point is that you don't need the Ex framework. It accomplishes almost nothing, other than creating a separation between amazing stuff that is explicitly magic, and slightly less amazing stuff that isn't. The anti-magic field and maybe one other ability in the game are the only things that care about this, but for many people, Ex carries thematic baggage with it that just isn't necessary.

I listed a number of abilities besides AMF that care about the distinction, and I'll even add more: Polymorph/Metamorposis, Cunning Brilliance, Supernatural Opportunist, Druid oaths, Mind Switch, the Dispel Seed etc. If you remove the distinction a lot of these function drastically differently. You could, for instance, put iron manacles on a druid and his animal companion will shun him until he atones. He'll also become vulnerable to poison and forget how to walk through the woods.



For example, he talks about a high level Rogue teleporting behind an enemy. That pretty much has to be an Su ability in the game's current framework, which means the Rogue has access to magic. But why does it have to be magic? Why can't the high level Rogue be so fast and so skilled that he slips through reality itself, even if only in a very limited manner?

I'll pose you the reverse question - what's wrong with it being magic? Why can't a high-level rogue have accessed the magic underlying his world on an instinctive level?



Similarly, there are very strict rules about high and how far you can jump, and one of the "unwritten" design rules of Ex abilities is that they can bend, but not break, the laws of reality. If you flick through your collection of materials you'll see this throughout. Even in ToB, there were abilities that weren't allowed to be Ex because they seemed to Su, though at the end of the day the distinction is unnecessary and only serves to limit the game instead of enhancing it. Why does slicing a sword through the air so fast that it briefly catches fire have to be Su? Why do I have to be pulling off some kind of magic instead of just being so bad ass that I just know how to do that?

Swinging a sword so fast it catches on fire is fine as Ex. Creating a snake made of fire that attacks enemies on its own (Firesnake) or even just a cone of fire (Hatchling's Flame) however I think should be Supernatural.

Which actually brings to mind yet another difference - if Desert Wind maneuvers were Ex, it would mean that even a cone-shaped blast of flame from a Desert Wind maneuver cannot set off a Necklace of Fireballs if the target fails its save. So again, there is far more going on here interaction-wise than simply AMF.

[Xerlith]

Also I need to ask, what happened to SKR? This seems like a huge 180 on how he used to think... I mean... I came here expecting to laugh at his quotes but, this may shock my younger self, I agree with a lot of what he is saying...


I don't know what happened, but I like him more this way. Hope it stays.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't know what happened, but I like him more this way. Hope it stays.

From his site...

"Hey, Felix! I’m not sure if I’m
* a “reality martial guy who changed his mind,”
* a “low-level martials should be ‘reality martials’” guy who is clarifying his stance on higher-level martials, or
* if I’ve just been misunderstood this whole time.
I think it’s probably the second one, with a hint of the first. ;)"

Ok, so we need to make sure SKR's site didn't get hacked... I mean... Damn... Even I can get behind quadratic martial.

Low level = reality martial
Mid to high level = non- reality martial

Sounds like a quadratic martial to me.

[Vedhin]

I'll pose you the reverse question - what's wrong with it being magic? Why can't a high-level rogue have accessed the magic underlying his world on an instinctive level?

Some people want characters that don't rely on magic?

[Ssalarn]

But if you don't have the Ex framework then everything is magic. If everything is magic then just swinging a sword is magic....

Why? Why in a fantasy world does everything that doesn't conform to our laws of physics have to be magic? Why can't the stuff explicitly listed as magic be magic and the rest just be the stuff that creatures in a fantasy world do because that's what is in their nature to do?




I listed a number of abilities besides AMF that care about the distinction, and I'll even add more: Polymorph/Metamorposis, Cunning Brilliance, Supernatural Opportunist, Druid oaths, Mind Switch, the Dispel Seed etc.
***
You could, for instance, put iron manacles on a druid and his animal companion will shun him until he atones. He'll also become vulnerable to poison and forget how to walk through the woods.



Polymorph spells don't distinguish between Su and Ex, they affect them both equally. The others don't appear to be PF core stuff, so I can't reference them to speak to them right now, and I'm not sure what you mean by the druid thing.

SKR isn't saying "make it all Su", he's saying **** that terminology alll together, get rid of Su and Ex completely. Druid restrictions would then read "A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."

By the way, manacles aren't armor and they don't take away a druid's abilities, and whoever told you so is a liar.


From his site...

"Hey, Felix! I’m not sure if I’m
* a “reality martial guy who changed his mind,”
* a “low-level martials should be ‘reality martials’” guy who is clarifying his stance on higher-level martials, or
* if I’ve just been misunderstood this whole time.
I think it’s probably the second one, with a hint of the first. ;)"

Ok, so we need to make sure SKR's site didn't get hacked... I mean... Damn... Even I can get behind quadratic martial.

Low level = reality martial
Mid to high level = non- reality martial

Sounds like a quadratic martial to me.

Word yo. Sean is actually a pretty cool guy with neat ideas when left to his own devices. A lot of the stuff people get hate boners going for has actually just been him passing on the final decisions of the entire design team, and then getting snarky after the 50th "You guys hate the game for making this decision" comment. I can tell you, for a fact, that a lot of the decisions Sean passed down that people thought were stupid (I'm looking at you Flurry fiasco) were things he really didn't make the decisions on.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Why? Why in a fantasy world does everything that doesn't conform to our laws of physics have to be magic? Why can't the stuff explicitly listed as magic be magic and the rest just be the stuff that creatures in a fantasy world do because that's what is in their nature to do?



Polymorph spells don't distinguish between Su and Ex, they affect them both equally. The others don't appear to be PF core stuff, so I can't reference them to speak to them right now, and I'm not sure what you mean by the druid thing.

SKR isn't saying "make it all Su", he's saying **** that terminology alll together, get rid of Su and Ex completely. Druid restrictions would then read "A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."

By the way, manacles aren't armor and they don't take away a druid's abilities, and whoever told you so is a liar.


I'm not saying that everything must be magic. But if you have spells/magic and all these terminology that you can't get rid of...

Then when explaining anything else it would default to magic.

We as a species need everything explained. Either directly or indirectly we need everything explained in some way.

So if all we have is magic but no explanation for swinging a sword or jumping... Then we default to it being magic or unwxplianed non-rule.

I would like to see... Explained very well...

Natural: Real world realistic (or very close). This is like swinging weapons or breathing... Walking or flying under ones own racial abilities. These are things you can do with just racial abilities that aren't Ex or Sp.

Extraordinary: Break physics without spells.

Spells: Break physics by using *mojo* (arcane or divine energy) from *insert location* (the weave perhaps).

Then very specifically define what can be Natural, Ex, and Sp. You can be flexible but I shouldn't have to take more than 10 minutes to understand the difference.

Edit: about SKR

Well then he is doubly at fault for allowing it to happen. If he is in any sort of position of power he needs to man up and make sure things get done. (If he was a woman I would have said woman up btw :p )

I've read his personal stuff from before (feat points...omg feat points) and couldn't stand that crap. However I can get behind his new view points.

[Thiyr]

If everything is magic then just swinging a sword is magic...

I would actually like to pose the opposite idea. If everything is mundane, then then shooting lasers from every orifice is mundane. Haven't looked at the link, bit the jist of it seems to be him admitting that the presence of a divider is tainting our view of classes, leading to an artificially inflated disparity which could be smaller if we broke ourselves of the mindset.

Perhaps less "get rid of the distinctions" on the micro scale, more get rid of them on the macro. Fighters and their buddies can get things which are supernatural because by nature of being so good at their job, they -are- supernatural. It means changing how we think about things, specifically the broad strokes of "this MUST be constrained to the normal because its supposed to be an Ex class!"

The ToB comparison made earlier is an apt one, actually. ToB is basically the expression of the interpretation I posed. On the individual level some are Su or Ex, but on a broad scale, its all "Ex", in a thematic sense.

Now, personally I think the distinction could be better served by having just the tag " spell effect" for abilities, and then tacking it onto any ability which would be hit by an AMF or Dispell or something, but that's less important than the shift in mindset implied by "removing" the distinction.

[Psyren]

For the record I had few to no problems with SKR's rulings either before or since leaving. I think he's a very talented designer, but I disagree with him that Ex and Su are not necessary constructs.



Polymorph spells don't distinguish between Su and Ex, they affect them both equally. The others don't appear to be PF core stuff, so I can't reference them to speak to them right now, and I'm not sure what you mean by the druid thing.

His article starts with PF quotes, but it references both 3.5 and PF. It is 3.5 Polymorph I'm referring to in that instance, which imparts Ex but not Su abilities.



SKR isn't saying "make it all Su", he's saying **** that terminology alll together, get rid of Su and Ex completely. Druid restrictions would then read "A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."

I know what he's saying. I disagree. It is creating more problems/cans of worms than simply saying "let's delete AMF, remove the distinction and the game will be better."

Take the druid example - your proposed wording would still allow them to wildshape and disguise themselves, which currently is an ability that would be taken away by a vow violation. So already you're changing the rules, which was my point - AMF is not the only rule impacted by this change. SKR is well-meaning here, but he is wrong.

In addition, AMF can be interesting/useful from a worldbuilding standpoint. Yes, taking the wizard's powers away leaves him with nothing to do - that means "use it sparingly," not "throw it out completely." Their antimagic eye makes fighting a beholder extremely different from a tactical standpoint than most other monsters. AMF is also extremely useful to a narrative with magical incarceration. Take that away, and your "reality-slipping thief" becomes impossible to put in prison and must be executed instead. Obviously that has severe implications for any society with no other options.

Also, you brought up ToB, not me - can you address the fire point?


By the way, manacles aren't armor and they don't take away a druid's abilities, and whoever told you so is a liar.

A metal helmet or chain shirt then; semantic argument is semantic.

[Elderand]

I've read his personal stuff from before (feat points...omg feat points) and couldn't stand that crap. However I can get behind his new view points.

Feat point isn't a bad idea on it's own. Not every feats are equal. But the value of feats is in large part based on specific build. Complexifying the issue to an extent.

Hiw own personal metric for feats points assignment was bad though.

I think the point here is that, yes the EX/su framework influence more things than just whether or not stuff shuts down in AMF but it also come with a large amount of toxic expectation that conspire to keep the non casters down.

At some point a concept is so perverted by expectations that it's easier to throw it away and replace it with something else than trying to explain to people how things should work.

Once one doesn't subscribe to an attitude of "mundane can't have nice thing" and is surrounded by people who share this view that the whole "mundane can't have nice thing" is silly, it's easy to underestimate how deeply ingrained and widespread this attitude is.

Let us not scoff at the idea of changing Ex/Su simply because it's already there and we don't have an issue with the mental image it conjures.
There are real benefits to be had by changing it. Even if it's as simple as renaming Ex to something less loaded.

[Person_Man]

Starting all the way back in 1st edition, the D&D rules established that sufficiently high level magic or fantastic monsters could do basically anything. And so the rules also contained Dispel Magic and Anti-Magic so that the DM had some mechanism to shut down casters, and magic users had a mechanism to counter each other. This is important from a balance perspective for a variety of reasons, but it's also important from a narrative perspective, because it allows the DM a wider variety of story options. "You try to cast Wish to solve all of your problems, but discover that the ancient hidden McGuffin artifact is actually being kept within a permanent anti-magic field. So I guess you're actually going to have to go on the quest, and not just resolve everything with one spell."

I'm totally supportive with "mundane" classes doing fantastic and/or equally useful things when compared to magical classes. But if you're going to give them fantastic things, then there needs to be some clear mechanism to end and counter those things.

Alternatively, you could remove all of the Rube Goldberg machinations (Concentration, Dispel Magic, Anti-Magic, Spell Resistance, Spell Books, Silence, material components, etc) that are supposed to keep magic in check but rarely do, and just create a more balanced system where plot destroying spells like Wish or Polymorph. That way every class can do fantastic things, and no one can break the game. But if you go overboard with that design philosophy, you can end up with boring repetitive 4E style Powers (#W + Ability bonus + status effect Save ends, for everyone!), which I hated.

Or instead of removing Su, you could just write Ex class abilities that don't suck, but also don't break the plot. That's the simpler solution. What SKR is proposing is just psychology - hey DM's, please get over your hangups about Ex being weak.

[Ssalarn]

Also, you brought up ToB, not me - can you address the fire point?



Yeah. Why does it make sense that I can throw someone in a vat of lava or douse them in alchemist's fire without setting off a necklace of fireballs, but somehow if I spark my blades together to send a blast of flame that thing's going up like the 4th of July?

Answer: It doesn't.




Take the druid example - your proposed wording would still allow them to wildshape and disguise themselves, which currently is an ability that would be taken away by a vow violation. So already you're changing the rules, which was my point - AMF is not the only rule impacted by this change. SKR is well-meaning here, but he is wrong.




Wildshape copies a spell, as does A Thousand Faces. Things that copy spells should be SLA's, it's weird that they're not to begin with. Everything else shouldn't have to be restricted so tightly.



Or instead of removing Su, you could just write Ex class abilities that don't suck, but also don't break the plot. That's the simpler solution. What SKR is proposing is just psychology - hey DM's, please get over your hangups about Ex being weak.

This would be the way to go, I think the problem lies in the baggage that those terms have come to carry amongst the "old timers", and which are constantly transmitted to newer members of the design and play communities. Like I pointed out earlier, nothing in the description of Ex abilities says they can't break the laws of physics instead of just bending them, but you'll almost never find an Ex ability that encroaches on supernatural turf. If the ability would be described in the real world as supernatural, it gets the "Su" tag, even if, like some of the abilities in ToB, it doesn't really make sense that magic is happening because they aren't characters who practice magic and an explanation that leans more toward skill and discipline would be more thematically appropriate.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would actually like to pose the opposite idea. If everything is mundane, then then shooting lasers from every orifice is mundane. Haven't looked at the link, bit the jist of it seems to be him admitting that the presence of a divider is tainting our view of classes, leading to an artificially inflated disparity which could be smaller if we broke ourselves of the mindset.

Perhaps less "get rid of the distinctions" on the micro scale, more get rid of them on the macro. Fighters and their buddies can get things which are supernatural because by nature of being so good at their job, they -are- supernatural. It means changing how we think about things, specifically the broad strokes of "this MUST be constrained to the normal because its supposed to be an Ex class!"

The ToB comparison made earlier is an apt one, actually. ToB is basically the expression of the interpretation I posed. On the individual level some are Su or Ex, but on a broad scale, its all "Ex", in a thematic sense.

Now, personally I think the distinction could be better served by having just the tag " spell effect" for abilities, and then tacking it onto any ability which would be hit by an AMF or Dispell or something, but that's less important than the shift in mindset implied by "removing" the distinction.

Well shooting heat ray lasers out of your eyes can be Ex Su or Spells. Someone once explained superman as an Ex person and not a Su because all of his abilities are based on genetics but push the extemes of physics. Though technically when first made superman couldn't fly, he could only jump really well.

I think the rest you are agreeing with me in a different way.

I want all things to be Natural, Extraordinary, and Spells. On a macro scope. Then when people make classes or abilities they can fluff it however they want to make it Natural, Extrordinary, or Spells.


Feat point isn't a bad idea on it's own. Not every feats are equal. But the value of feats is in large part based on specific build. Complexifying the issue to an extent.

Hiw own personal metric for feats points assignment was bad though.

I think the point here is that, yes the EX/su framework influence more things than just whether or not stuff shuts down in AMF but it also come with a large amount of toxic expectation that conspire to keep the non casters down.

At some point a concept is so perverted by expectations that it's easier to throw it away and replace it with something else than trying to explain to people how things should work.

Once one doesn't subscribe to an attitude of "mundane can't have nice thing" and is surrounded by people who share this view that the whole "mundane can't have nice thing" is silly, it's easy to underestimate how deeply ingrained and widespread this attitude is.

Let us not scoff at the idea of changing Ex/Su simply because it's already there and we don't have an issue with the mental image it conjures.
There are real benefits to be had by changing it. Even if it's as simple as renaming Ex to something less loaded.

Oh yeah, that's what I was referring to with his feat points. Terrible allocation of points, not the general idea of the system.

I'm not sure if you think I'm scoffing at the idea to get rid of the Ex/Su lines. I'm all in favored for it, however I want new battle lines to be drawn.

Natural: Every PC has these, every race or creature.

Classes then give Ex and Sp abilities based on their fluff.

Those abilities are then given mechanics that are balanced with each other. I do like pathfinders way of giving people a ability/mechanic where they get 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels, 3 + Mod times per day. They just didn't balance this out at all though :/.

[Elderand]

I'm not sure if you think I'm scoffing at the idea to get rid of the Ex/Su lines. I'm all in favored for it, however I want new battle lines to be drawn.

The scoffing comment was more general and not aimed directly at you. I apologise for the lack of clarity on this.

[Larkas]

For once, Sean's heart seems to be in the right place, but I think he's attacking the point from the wrong angle. The Ex/Su division isn't the root of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. Or rather, what people got to expect from that division is. The core rules themselves are quick to explain that Ex abilities can break our rules of physics, but it seems like the designers themselves forgot about that during the developing of the game (mind, during the development of the core rules themselves!).

My main issue with all of this is people assuming that a fantasy game (any, really, from Dark Sun to d20 Modern to Star Wars SAGA) MUST conform to our world's rules of physics. I mean, it makes sense for the most part, but it's obvious that magic (or psionics, the occult or the Force) is an integral part of said fantasy world as much as, say, gravity is part of ours. And you can use gravity to drop a heavy object, to have fun skating in a half-pipe and to sling a deep space probe to the desired celestial body conserving fuel in the process. Heck, you can even defy its pull by using large amounts of energy. Why shouldn't guys that aren't engineers (read: wizards) be able to tap the magical force instinctively the same way we tap the gravity? Using magic isn't defying the fantasy world's rules of physics, it's defying OURS. A wizard can probably play with magic on a level that might seem impossible to that world's commoners. But wouldn't splitting the atom seem just as inconceivable to someone some 150 years ago? Ehm, that is, if he even grasped what an atom was? That same someone would be able to conceive and manipulate matter without problems, though, I assure you.


There are real benefits to be had by changing it. Even if it's as simple as renaming Ex to something less loaded.

My thoughts exactly.

[Psyren]

Yeah. Why does it make sense that I can throw someone in a vat of lava or douse them in alchemist's fire without setting off a necklace of fireballs, but somehow if I spark my blades together to send a blast of flame that thing's going up like the 4th of July?

Answer: It doesn't.

Why does "sparking your blades together" produce more fire than an alchemical reaction? (And how do you even "spark your blades together" if you're only using one blade?) Why does "sparking your blades together" produce a living snake made of more fire than a Young Adult Red Dragon can breathe?

Answer - it doesn't.


Wildshape copies a spell, as does A Thousand Faces. Things that copy spells should be SLA's, it's weird that they're not to begin with. Everything else shouldn't have to be restricted so tightly.

But then you run into wildshape provoking and being dispellable. No wildshaping out of a grapple - they can hit you and disrupt it. Need to wildshape underwater, you're making a concentration check. No point in Thousand Faces, a simple detect + dispel counters a 19th-level ability. It's changing a whole bunch of rules for no gain.




Or instead of removing Su, you could just write Ex class abilities that don't suck, but also don't break the plot. That's the simpler solution. What SKR is proposing is just psychology - hey DM's, please get over your hangups about Ex being weak.

This I'm fine with - leave the separation in place but make better Ex abilities. There still needs to be a line (again, I don't want a fighter that can make trees sapient) but stuff like the abilities SKR lists can all easily be Ex, as can Ssalarn's jumping.

[Ssalarn]

Why does "sparking your blades together" produce more fire than an alchemical reaction? (And how do you even "spark your blades together" if you're only using one blade?) Why does "sparking your blades together" produce a living snake made of more fire than a Young Adult Red Dragon can breathe?

Answer - it doesn't.



The point is that necklace of fireballs restriction is stupid and nonsensical. It should be something more akin to "If the wearer takes more than x amount of fire damage...". It shouldn't be descriminating against magical and non-magical fire to begin with.

[Psyren]

The point is that necklace of fireballs restriction is stupid and nonsensical. It should be something more akin to "If the wearer takes more than x amount of fire damage...". It shouldn't be descriminating against magical and non-magical fire to begin with.

Putting aside that lava isn't actually fire (though it deals fire damage), magic is the only explanation you'd have for encountering that much fire to begin with. A torch does a single point while a campire is 1d6. When you're getting into multiple d6s of fire your only comparison is going to be dragon's breath, fireball and the like.

Control Flames is another instance where the distinction matters, because otherwise you end up with being able to possess fire elementals or move entire walls of flame with a 1st-level power. Or a Flame Extinguishing Rod, should it be able to take out an Incendiary Cloud with a touch?

Incorporeal is another one. Without supernatural abilities being distinct from extraordinary ones, when can you hit a ghost, and with what? Going back to ToB again, you can currently hit one with Dragon's Flame but never with Steely Strike or Finishing Move. Without a ghost touch weapon, should all have a chance of hitting?

Scent is Ex - should any random dog be able to follow a Druid/Ranger who is using Pass Without Trace?

Would Symbol of Sleep deserve its high level if you could simply slap the targets awake?

etc. etc. SKR has not put as much thought into this proposal as he should have.


EDIT: You also haven't addressed the magical incarceration/worldbuilding uses for AMF. It's not simply a cudgel to enforce artificial parity between magic-users and mundanes in combat, it's also vital from a plot standpoint. The Giant for instance has used antimagic on numerous occasions to further his own story, as have many other D&D writers before and since.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

For once, Sean's heart seems to be in the right place, but I think he's attacking the point from the wrong angle. The Ex/Su division isn't the root of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. Or rather, what people got to expect from that division is. The core rules themselves are quick to explain that Ex abilities can break our rules of physics, but it seems like the designers themselves forgot about that during the developing of the game (mind, during the development of the core rules themselves!).

My main issue with all of this is people assuming that a fantasy game (any, really, from Dark Sun to d20 Modern to Star Wars SAGA) MUST conform to our world's rules of physics. I mean, it makes sense for the most part, but it's obvious that magic (or psionics, the occult or the Force) is an integral part of said fantasy world as much as, say, gravity is part of ours. And you can use gravity to drop a heavy object, to have fun skating in a half-pipe and to sling a deep space probe to the desired celestial body conserving fuel in the process. Heck, you can even defy its pull by using large amounts of energy. Why shouldn't guys that aren't engineers (read: wizards) be able to tap the magical force instinctively the same way we tap the gravity? Using magic isn't defying the fantasy world's rules of physics, it's defying OURS. A wizard can probably play with magic on a level that might seem impossible to that world's commoners. But wouldn't splitting the atom seem just as inconceivable to someone some 150 years ago? Ehm, that is, if he even grasped what an atom was? That same someone would be able to conceive and manipulate matter without problems, though, I assure you.



My thoughts exactly.

Yeah, you're right, it does seem like they put a rule into a game and then forgot about it.

I mean, what abilities do we have that are Ex that really push the class beyond normal physics?

Rage? All rage does is make you stronger, adrenaline already does this.

Sneak attack? No not even close.

Hell does the fighter even have any Ex abilities? Even his precious feats don't grant him anything that pushes the boundary on real world physics.

At least nothing off the top of my head at least.

[Seerow]

My main issue with all of this is people assuming that a fantasy game (any, really, from Dark Sun to d20 Modern to Star Wars SAGA) MUST conform to our world's rules of physics. I mean, it makes sense for the most part, but it's obvious that magic (or psionics, the occult or the Force) is an integral part of said fantasy world as much as, say, gravity is part of ours. And you can use gravity to drop a heavy object, to have fun skating in a half-pipe and to sling a deep space probe to the desired celestial body conserving fuel in the process. Heck, you can even defy its pull by using large amounts of energy. Why shouldn't guys that aren't engineers (read: wizards) be able to tap the magical force instinctively the same way we tap the gravity? Using magic isn't defying the fantasy world's rules of physics, it's defying OURS. A wizard can probably play with magic on a level that might seem impossible to that world's commoners. But wouldn't splitting the atom seem just as inconceivable to someone some 150 years ago? Ehm, that is, if he even grasped what an atom was? That same someone would be able to conceive and manipulate matter without problems, though, I assure you.


I agree with this rant in its entirety. Magic is something that everyone should be able to tap into, even if they are not a spellcaster. I especially like your analogy here. If the Wizard is an engineer who works with magic, that does not mean magic should be invisible and untouchable to a Fighter. It just means he should have a completely different way of working with it. A more raw, intuitive grasp of the same concepts.

Or for a different analogy, a Football player may not be able to calculate exactly where a throw will land given starting trajectory, velocity, etc, but if he sees someone throw that ball, he intuitively knows exactly where it's going to land, and can react to it long before the physicist who could spend several minutes working out the details to determine the same result. That is the kind of difference we should be seeing between a Fighter and a Wizard. The Fighter being someone who intuitively understands the workings of magic and can react to and interact with it on an instinctive level. While it might not be as educated or structured as what a Wizard can do, it is still clearly interacting with magic, and is something that a Wizard will need to invest more time and energy to do, and likely cannot do reactively on the fly the same way the Fighter does.

(And yes, I am a fan of the Kingkiller Chronicals and loved Elodin's discussions on the sleeping mind throughout the series. Why do you ask?)



*Disclaimer: Every instance of "Fighter" and "Wizard" in this discussion by me is referencing "Caster types" and "Martial types". They are a convenient shorthand that is familiar. I stand by my general distaste for "Fighter" as a base class standing alongside more specialized classes.

[Psyren]

^ Thirding Larkas - magic is just another physical law in all D&D settings. There is nothing wrong with a high-level fighter or high-level rogue unlocking supernatural abilities through training and nothing at all wrong with some ToB disciplines containing Su abilities.

Just because you are not a spellcaster, doesn't mean you have to be totally mundane.

[137beth]

I'm actually more encouraged by his responses in the corresponding thread on the Paizo forums (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r4q4?Ex-Su-and-Martial-Characters). It could well be that now that he has left Paizo he is able to say what he really thinks--and what he thinks is better than what he had to say as a marketing line.

[TheIronGolem]

^ Thirding Larkas - magic is just another physical law in all D&D settings. There is nothing wrong with a high-level fighter or high-level rogue unlocking supernatural abilities through training and nothing at all wrong with some ToB disciplines containing Su abilities.

Just because you are not a spellcaster, doesn't mean you have to be totally mundane.

Quite true, but I would add a corrolary: Just because a character can do something a real person could never do, that doesn't mean that magic has to be the reason they can do it.

There's plenty of room for martial characters who can do the "impossible" because they subconsciously access magical forces as well as for ones who can do it because they're Just That Good or enjoy narrative favor.

[Kudaku]

In the discussion thread he also made a post (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r4q4&page=4?Ex-Su-and-Martial-Characters#157) on the differences between bows and crossbows that I found quite interesting:


(...) if the designers can set aside the idea that a "nonmagical" fighter can't do amazing things without using overt magic, maybe they need to set aside the idea that self bows and crossbows need to work differently from each other (for example, in 13th Age self bows and crossbows work identically).

In other words, just because it's physically impossible for someone in the real world to fire a heavy crossbow five times in six seconds doesn't mean a powerful fighter in a fantasy game shouldn't be able to do so.(...)

Personally I think bows and crossbows should be different approaches to ranged combat (in the same way that TWF and THF are different approaches to melee combat) but it would be nice if the gap between the two was closer.

[Psyren]

Quite true, but I would add a corrolary: Just because a character can do something a real person could never do, that doesn't mean that magic has to be the reason they can do it.

There's plenty of room for martial characters who can do the "impossible" because they subconsciously access magical forces as well as for ones who can do it because they're Just That Good or enjoy narrative favor.

I'm okay with this too. Again, all three of the examples he raised in the blog post are things I would comfortably see as Ex/nonmagic.

[137beth]

Which is somewhat ironic, given that after they released an FAQ limiting free actions for gunslingers, SKR justified it by saying that it was unrealistic to fire a musket five times in six seconds.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Also I need to ask, what happened to SKR? This seems like a huge 180 on how he used to think... I mean... I came here expecting to laugh at his quotes but, this may shock my younger self, I agree with a lot of what he is saying...Most likely nothing. His post reads more as something about class design being limited by overly complex balance than the issues of class balance he is often metaphorically strung up for. I would suspect he's just reflecting on his time spent at Paizo designing the game, and things they could have done differently.


Let's not forget that, he's making an argument for changing something in a game, that he was a lead (or at least very publicly vocal) designer of for many years.

[icefractal]

Personally, I think the entire magic/non-magic distinction is kind of ridiculous in a setting like D&D. They've got dragons that shouldn't be able to fly with wings that size, and house-sized bugs that shouldn't be able to breathe, and walking skeletons, but they're still trying to sort of claim that it's a normal world with magic being "tacked on" and "unnatural"? Incoherent.

I would say that magic is simply part of the world, as inseparable from the rest of it as something like electromagnetism. The sun really is being pushed across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. Diseases actually are caused by evil spirits. If you go down deep enough underground, you can find the underworld and try to lead someone back from it. So yes, someone skilled enough could slip inside a shadow, or outrun death, or grab a river and change its course. That's just a thing that people can do - a few of them, at least.

Which is not to say you couldn't have spellcasters as a distinct thing. Spells aren't the same as magic in general, they're a specific thing you can learn or be born with the ability to do. But they're also not the only way to do stuff that would be considered wondrous in our world.

[Ssalarn]

Most likely nothing. His post reads more as something about class design being limited by overly complex balance than the issues of class balance he is often metaphorically strung up for. I would suspect he's just reflecting on his time spent at Paizo designing the game, and things they could have done differently.


Let's not forget that, he's making an argument for changing something in a game, that he was a lead (or at least very publicly vocal) designer of for many years.
If you look at "SKR, dude on the street" as opposed to "SKR, voice of Paizo" you'll see that Sean isn't quite the gaming neanderthal he's made out to be. I think it was Swords into Plowshares where he had multi-elemental weapon effects, and he helped with the rules for Numenera which is very much a "rule of cool" system. A lot of things people wanted to string him up for were really just kill the messenger reactions. Buhlman is the lead designer and had final say on every FAQ or ruling SKR wrote.

[Seerow]

If you look at "SKR, dude on the street" as opposed to "SKR, voice of Paizo" you'll see that Sean isn't quite the gaming neanderthal he's made out to be. I think it was Swords into Plowshares where he had multi-elemental weapon effects, and he helped with the rules for Numenera which is very much a "rule of cool" system. A lot of things people wanted to string him up for were really just kill the messenger reactions. Buhlman is the lead designer and had final say on every FAQ or ruling SKR wrote.

Nah.

SKR was never forced by anyone to make the arguments he did. If he quietly supported Buhlman's decisions that'd be one thing. But he was the guy actively on the forums vocally defending really bad decisions, and making them himself. Saying that the stuff people hates him for wasn't his fault to begin with is being revisionist on a whole new level.

[137beth]

I don't think he should be cutting ghosts in half with an Ex ability and mundane sword. Ghosts are magical enough that I think defeating them with magic is reasonable.
By stating that something can be "magical enough" that you're then required to use magic to defeat it, you've just admitted that you want magic to be inherently superior to non-magic.
I just agree with this so much that I am quoting it in a different thread (this was on the corresponding thread on the Paizo forums).




Nah.

SKR was never forced by anyone to make the arguments he did. If he quietly supported Buhlman's decisions that'd be one thing. But he was the guy actively on the forums vocally defending really bad decisions, and making them himself. Saying that the stuff people hates him for wasn't his fault to begin with is being revisionist on a whole new level.
I think it might be a combination of the two. A lot of the things he defended were stuff in the core rules that were the exact same since 3.0. It could well be that he didn't feel comfortable changing some of those things, and felt he 'had' to defend them.
I do think it is naive to suggest that all of the poor choices SKR defended were ones he disagreed with. I just thing some of them might have been.

[Kudaku]

It's been interesting to read some of SKR's posts before and after he left Paizo. He's always been, how can I put this nicely, direct. That said, I find that he's both more brutally honest (one horrific thread in particular springs to mind) and paradoxically much more reflected and friendly since he quit.

[Psyren]

I just agree with this so much that I am quoting it in a different thread (this was on the corresponding thread on the Paizo forums).

As a matter of fact, I do, what of it? I want the gap to be smaller but not nonexistent. I consider, for example, reviving the dead and creating life to be a pretty big deal and things that nonmagic should not be able to do.


It's been interesting to read some of SKR's posts before and after he left Paizo. He's always been, how can I put this nicely, direct. That said, I find that he's both more brutally honest (one horrific thread in particular springs to mind) and paradoxically much more reflected and friendly since he quit.

Ooh, you got me all curious, what horrific thread?

[squiggit]

It's honestly a bit strange to read. When he was at Paizo I always had the impression that he was one of the leaders of the pro-caster status quo and now he's gone and suddenly... this. Makes one wonder.

As a matter of fact, I do, what of it? I want the gap to be smaller but not nonexistent. I consider, for example, reviving the dead and creating life to be a pretty big deal and things that nonmagic should not be able to do.
I wouldn't mind alchemists doing the latter (which are only kinda sorta mages in PF. Speaking of, did Alchemists ever get that fix to let them make golems?)... and something like a DC*really high* heal check to revive the dead might be kinda cool.

More on point. I don't think anyone really wants wizards to become fighters and fighters to become wizards... but I still don't like the "It's magical enough to squish mundanes" line of thought.

[Kudaku]

Ooh, you got me all curious, what horrific thread?

I don't recall the name of the thread, but a recently unchained SKR, Prince of Knives and a few other regulars were really going at it. After a fair bit of mutual yelling it turned into a surprisingly productive debate on the Paizo messageboard rules, but unfortunately the thread was cleaned up and all the good discussion on Paizo moderation practices was wiped as well since it referenced the original argument.

Edit: Ah, found it! It was the "Are the ACG classes going to marginalize standard classes (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r1dz?Are-the-ACG-classes-going-to-marginalize)" thread. It was scrubbed pretty thoroughly, but you can still see the occasional reference to the blowout. The argument started around #240.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind alchemists doing the latter (which are only kinda sorta mages in PF. Speaking of, did Alchemists ever get that fix to let them make golems?)... and something like a DC*really high* heal check to revive the dead might be kinda cool.

But see, Alchemy is magic, or at least "magic enough" that that could be reasonable. It's not like any commoner can mix elfroot and stranglekelp and pull a soul back from the great beyond.


More on point. I don't think anyone really wants wizards to become fighters and fighters to become wizards... but I still don't like the "It's magical enough to squish mundanes" line of thought.

I don't want mundanes "squished." And if they can do things like jump onto a dragon's back, reflect a lightning bolt or slice through a fireball, I think they can at least hold their own.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So has anyone ever explained why the wizard can take a discovery and gain immortality (Ex ability) and yet a Fighter or Barbarian can't?

The Wizard, master of spells gets one of the greatest (in game world) Ex abilities out there.

[da_chicken]

I agree with the assertion that the Ex and Su distinction exists only to support antimagic field. Being required to categorize every ability in the game is a lot of design weight for one extra mechanic. I'd rather ditch antimagic field and then remove both Ex and Su entirely instead of making everything Su. Why? Because if there's only one category and everything goes in it, just cut the category out entirely. It doesn't mean anything anymore. You also have to consider the fact that the Ex/Su distinction is merely one of narrative context. Making something magical or nonmagical but with identical mechanics otherwise is not exactly a balancing condition. So the decision is made purely for flavor. This creature breathes out a cloud of poison gas and it's magical. That one does it and it's not magical. This one punches you and you get burned by magical fire for 2d6. That one punches you and you get burned by nonmagical fire for 2d6. This creature heals unnaturally fast and it's magical. That creature heals unnaturally fast and it's nonmagical. Why? Just because it makes sense according to the creature's description.

The vast majority of antimagic field is duplicated by other abjurations (magic circle against evil, dispel magic, dimension lock, globe of invulnerability), so it's general effects aren't unique or lost. I think the only situations it's been used in games I've been in, antimagic field has been used as a means by the DM or players to cheese the situation. That's not a very compelling reason to keep it around. There's also things that antimagic field just arbitrarily doesn't work on or arbitrarily works differently with. Conjuration is supposed to be good against creatures that resist magic, but the vast majority of conjuration spells don't work in antimagic because they have durations longer than instantaneous. Mordenkainen's disjunction is worse in a lot of ways, but as a level 9 spell it's far less common, and the fact that it's not a continuous effect removes many of the issues.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's been interesting to read some of SKR's posts before and after he left Paizo. He's always been, how can I put this nicely, direct. That said, I find that he's both more brutally honest (one horrific thread in particular springs to mind) and paradoxically much more reflected and friendly since he quit.It's probably easier to be reflective of your work when you are no longer under pressure to produce it.

[Psyren]

I agree with the assertion that the Ex and Su distinction exists only to support antimagic field.

I gave like a dozen examples of other things that care about the distinction besides AMF.


The vast majority of antimagic field is duplicated by other abjurations (magic circle against evil, dispel magic, dimension lock, globe of invulnerability), so it's general effects aren't unique or lost.

None of those stop someone from shapeshifting, transmuting their surroundings, turning invisible/insubstantial or affecting things telekinetically. And you would need the right one to stop teleportation, mind control or summoning. AMF is a nice catch-all so that you don't have to play Calvinball every time you want to lock a powerful mage up.

[Person_Man]

I agree with this rant in its entirety. Magic is something that everyone should be able to tap into, even if they are not a spellcaster. I especially like your analogy here. If the Wizard is an engineer who works with magic, that does not mean magic should be invisible and untouchable to a Fighter. It just means he should have a completely different way of working with it. A more raw, intuitive grasp of the same concepts.

I agree.

But I would quibble with this a bit to say that from a narrative perspective, there are a metric ton of fantasy characters out there where the hero(s) don't have any access to magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal) (however it's defined in that world), and not having access to magic is a central part of their character. Conan, Batman, Boba Fett, Ajax, etc.

The trick is that you need to give such characters the option to be awesome in a different way somehow - technology, training, more fate points, etc. Each class should get the same amount of resources per level, and just have different ways of allocating and using those resources. Magic should be just one of several useful options within the rules. That way players and DMs can do "high fantasy" or "low fantasy" or anything in between, without significantly altering the balance of the game mechanics.

[Psyren]

But I would quibble with this a bit to say that from a narrative perspective, there are a metric ton of fantasy characters out there where the hero(s) don't have any access to magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal) (however it's defined in that world), and not having access to magic is a central part of their character. Conan, Batman, Boba Fett, Ajax, etc.

None of those count except possibly Conan though. Batman and Fett's technology would be accomplished by magic items rather than science in a traditional fantasy setting, and Ajax/Hercules/et al. are descended from deities. Thus, while they may not have access to spells, saying they don't have access to magic is disingenuous.

Conan's own badass normal status is diminished somewhat because he inhabits a relatively low-magic setting. Thulsa Doom is presumably one of the most powerful spellcasters in the setting but he can't light a candle compared to D&D standards.

[Thiyr]

But see, Alchemy is magic, or at least "magic enough" that that could be reasonable. It's not like any commoner can mix elfroot and stranglekelp and pull a soul back from the great beyond

See, personally I prefer the idea of alchemy being nonmagical. I understand that it requires spellcasting in 3.5, but the idea of someone needing to spend 3 days making the excessively precise preparations with obscure ingredients to raise the dead (as represented by an extremely high modifier)? Seems fitting in fantasy to me, regardless of class or magical aptitude. And ridiculous heal checks bringing people back to life sounds great for high-level play. Just make it have some time limit based on check result, so its not just "res+". Of course, this assumes that DCs don't just get gamed like always in 3.5, but I like it conceptually at least.

[Ssalarn]

I agree.

But I would quibble with this a bit to say that from a narrative perspective, there are a metric ton of fantasy characters out there where the hero(s) don't have any access to magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal) (however it's defined in that world), and not having access to magic is a central part of their character. Conan, Batman, Boba Fett, Ajax, etc.


Psyren covered a lot of what I was going to say in regards to this (despite the fact that he and I have come to different conclusions about where we stand on the idea), so instead of reiterating those, I'll say:

I don't want every class to have "magic" in the traditional sense, but every class should be able to do things that would seem magical to the real world, particularly by the time they're hitting 8th level and up. Magic is part of the physics of their world. Barbarians already have abilities that are pretty blatantly magical in nature (any totem power for instance), and a Rogue with no magic at all can still figure out how to disperse and/or manipulate magical energy enough to disarm a trap or activate a wand. A high enough level Fighter should probably be able to cut through a magic wall without having to be a dwarf.


Nah.

SKR was never forced by anyone to make the arguments he did. If he quietly supported Buhlman's decisions that'd be one thing. But he was the guy actively on the forums vocally defending really bad decisions, and making them himself. Saying that the stuff people hates him for wasn't his fault to begin with is being revisionist on a whole new level.

You may not be aware of this, but it was literally part of Sean's job description to be the guy to pass on developer rulings to the internet community. Things like the monk Flurry fiasco were Sean turning to the guy who wrote the new TWF parallels into Flurry for PF and saying "Hey, what did you intend to accomplish when you wrote this?". If you've spent any time on the Paizo forums, you should have also seen Sean, JJ, JB, and other members of the Paizo staff all chiming in that every (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8e5&page=3?Can-I-fire-my-longbow-six-times-in-a-round-ever#133) official (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvhc?Warslinger-alternate-racial-trait-Slings-only#11) decision (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q375?Possible-Mythic-Adventures-errata#46) communicated (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mer7&page=6?Alchemist-Vestigial-Arm-discovery-question#292) was one they all discussed and agreed on.
Now, Sean's attitude was 100% his own, but the active revisionism is being done by the people who want to blame every decision they've ever disagreed with on Sean when they were always discussed by the entire Paizo design team.

[Psyren]

I don't want every class to have "magic" in the traditional sense, but every class should be able to do things that would seem magical to the real world, particularly by the time they're hitting 8th level and up. Magic is part of the physics of their world. Barbarians already have abilities that are pretty blatantly magical in nature (any totem power for instance), and a Rogue with no magic at all can still figure out how to disperse and/or manipulate magical energy enough to disarm a trap or activate a wand. A high enough level Fighter should probably be able to cut through a magic wall without having to be a dwarf.


We're in total agreement here - which is why I'm confused why we disagree on the conclusion, i.e. whether the divide between Su and Ex should be maintained. If some of these high-level non-spellcaster abilities are truly tapping into the "weave" that underlies that world on an instinctive level, then those abilities that do so more overtly (Su) should be capable of disruption. Not as easily as a spell of course - this is why Su abilities don't require concentration and ignore dispel magic - but it can still be done by targeting that weave itself, which is precisely what antimagic and dead magic do.

So, say your Barbarian has a totem animal that grants him a number of scaling bonuses - a lion for instance that gives him the ability to pounce, inspire others around him, and even roar defiance to demoralize his foes. All of those abilities could be Ex and unimpeachable. But even further along his journey to unity with the spirit, he gains supernatural abilities like being able to manifest his lion spirit in the real world (as an intangible, divinatory guide or as a overt physical protector), or even transform into a lion/werelion/leonal himself. Those last two I would expect that a savvy mage or deity could interfere with (or even just a localized planar disturbance like a tear in the weave), while leaving the former suite of abilities intact. And maybe at the very end of his path to oneness with his spirit (read: capstone), that Barbarian becomes able to call upon the last two abilities even in an AMF/dead magic zone, perhaps after passing a check of some kind. It becomes something meaningful to work toward.

[Ssalarn]

I think some of our disagreement is largely academic. Most of the abilities I think martials should have to interact with magic, like Spell Sunder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/barbarian.html#_spell-sunder), wouldn't be used in an AMF or similar circumstances anyways.
My agreement with Sean stems from the fact that I think the Ex descriptor has become a restrictor instead of an enabler, and it might be hard to move past that. I think that an ability that allows someone to jump 30+ feet in the air is something a designer will look at and say "Oh, like the jump spell, so this should be Su", when I don't think it should. It's more a matter of precedent and perception than what's on paper.

I think removing that restriction actually opens more design space as well, allowing for those things that are "in between". Take the Akashic Mysteries project. Veils are basically pseudo magic items enforced with life energy, right? What if instead of being primarily Su, they were Ex, but occasionally granting SLA's? So those skill-boosting Veils which are basically you reinforcing your natural talents with your own life energy wouldn't be subject to blinking out whenever you were subject to an AMF or similar effect, but when you did overtly magical stuff that could be countered.

Under the current design paradigm, that could be done, but it's clunky, and weird, and requires all sorts of ancillary rules to facilitate, and it also doesn't jive well with the fluff. If that dividing line were erased though, suddenly you've removed the "**** you" buttons from the world and we go from black and white to delicious shades of gray.

[Person_Man]

None of those count except possibly Conan though. Batman and Fett's technology would be accomplished by magic items rather than science in a traditional fantasy setting, and Ajax/Hercules/et al. are descended from deities. Thus, while they may not have access to spells, saying they don't have access to magic is disingenuous.

So I cited Ajax specifically because within the study of classics, he's iconic for not being descended from a god, not having a patron god who protected or helped him, not having any magic, and never getting possession of any magic items. He's the avatar of human strength and fortitude who is unfairly screwed by the gods. Ajax is an explicit contrast to Achilles, who had all sorts of divine protections and magical things going on.



Conan's own badass normal status is diminished somewhat because he inhabits a relatively low-magic setting. Thulsa Doom is presumably one of the most powerful spellcasters in the setting but he can't light a candle compared to D&D standards.

That's true. But that's also part of the point I was trying to make. Some players and DMs want a low magic or no magic world. D&D should support that option, just as it should support the "everyone's magical in some way" option. But you can't have the low/no magic option if every class is magical in some way. Again, I fully support mundane classes that are just as awesome as magical classes. I just think that having some mundane classes should be a default core option.

I think the Dresdon Files RPG (based off of the FATE system, which in turn is based off of FUDGE, which is based off the OGL) does a pretty good job of handling this. You can purchase Stunts and Supernatural Powers by reducing your Refresh level, which in turn determines the starting number of Fate points you get at the start of each session. You can be a "Pure Mortal" with absolutely no Supernatural powers. But this gives you more Refresh level to spend on mundane Stunts, or you can just have a ton of Fate points. Pure Mortals still have the resources to do plenty of awesome things, but they stay within the mundane character narrative.

[squiggit]

That's true. But that's also part of the point I was trying to make. Some players and DMs want a low magic or no magic world. D&D should support that option, just as it should support the "everyone's magical in some way" option.That's what level progression is for. Low level characters are very much suited for a lower magic, lower powered setting. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should be able to Cu Chulainn at level 2.

[Psyren]

So I cited Ajax specifically because within the study of classics, he's iconic for not being descended from a god, not having a patron god who protected or helped him, not having any magic, and never getting possession of any magic items. He's the avatar of human strength and fortitude who is unfairly screwed by the gods. Ajax is an explicit contrast to Achilles, who had all sorts of divine protections and magical things going on.

Unfortunately no, he's still descended from Zeus. He's a few generations removed but still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(mythology)


I think some of our disagreement is largely academic. Most of the abilities I think martials should have to interact with magic, like Spell Sunder (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classArchetypes/barbarian.html#_spell-sunder), wouldn't be used in an AMF or similar circumstances anyways.
My agreement with Sean stems from the fact that I think the Ex descriptor has become a restrictor instead of an enabler, and it might be hard to move past that. I think that an ability that allows someone to jump 30+ feet in the air is something a designer will look at and say "Oh, like the jump spell, so this should be Su", when I don't think it should. It's more a matter of precedent and perception than what's on paper.

I think removing that restriction actually opens more design space as well, allowing for those things that are "in between". Take the Akashic Mysteries project. Veils are basically pseudo magic items enforced with life energy, right? What if instead of being primarily Su, they were Ex, but occasionally granting SLA's? So those skill-boosting Veils which are basically you reinforcing your natural talents with your own life energy wouldn't be subject to blinking out whenever you were subject to an AMF or similar effect, but when you did overtly magical stuff that could be countered.

Under the current design paradigm, that could be done, but it's clunky, and weird, and requires all sorts of ancillary rules to facilitate, and it also doesn't jive well with the fluff. If that dividing line were erased though, suddenly you've removed the "**** you" buttons from the world and we go from black and white to delicious shades of gray.

Whereas I think removing that distinction is the far clunkier option. By following his suggestion and removing the distinction between Ex/Su and axing AMF, you're effectively just removing Su - for most (note: not all) scenarios, Ex would be the only non-spell special ability type left.

I'll try to sum up the problems I have with that approach:

Ability Plausibility: The biggest reason they have not done this is that there's still a sizable portion of the playerbase (myself included) who see some abilities as being magical. I am definitely in favor of raising the "Ex ceiling" and creating more design space for Ex abilities, but some abilities I will never see as being acceptable for Ex that would nevertheless be cool for noncasters to have. For example, the spirit animal totem I mentioned above for the Barbarian could provide a mixture of Ex and Su abilities, with the Su abilities being the more external/overt things. Or a high-level rogue who can peel off his shadow to be a flanking buddy/partner in crime, I would expect that to be Su as well.

Antimagic is Useful: I mentioned this to Sean in his article's thread but I'll repeat it here; antimagic is useful because it is a narrative catch-all for restricting the options of a magic-user. There are individual counters for many individual magical abilities but none are so elegant or easy to use as simply turning off the magic. Consider Sabine from OotS - she is an accomplished rogue in her own right, and she can also teleport, turn ethereal, shapeshift, charm, compel, speak any language, summon a bruiser to break her out in a pinch, and she is just one particular foe you might want locked up.

Rewriting Abilities: As I mentioned previously there are a number of other abilities that care whether a given source is magical or not (and all of those sources would of course become nonmagical if Su was removed.) For example, Druid vows would have to list every individual ability that is kept (like Trackless Step and Animal Companion) or lost (e.g. Wildshape, Thousand Faces) if the vows were broken, rather than the much more helpful "Su vs. Ex" shorthand, and the same would go for every single archetype. It would be a real pain.
I raised others, such as the need to reword druid vows (now you have to state everything that is kept and lost, rather than using the catchall that Su abilities go and Ex abilities stay.)

[Thiyr]

I think the biggest issue I have with antimagic, like a lot of other abilities, is the auto-fail nature of it, coupled with its relative ease of access. While I haven't personally seen it used in game terribly often, its a viable option for most high-level casters to just...have. I'm down with zones where there is no magic for purposes of plot, that can be fun. But it should be something hard to just -have- without proper setup. As it stands now, its more fun as plot device, and as a random "somebody cast the no-magic spell", I'd prefer something more similar to the Catapsi power, where casters can still cast, but it's just -harder-. That means things that bypass antimagic can be harder to come by (if they exist at all), so you don't have silly things like shrunken lead hats and magic which only has the purpose of letting you magic despite the anti-magic.

And frankly, the higher levels go, the less likely I expect prisons to come into play. After a certain point, I kinda expect that prisons will all just turn to cardboard. Off the top of my head, just think about superhero prisons. They just plain never work for long. And the stereotypical "legendary rogue" story that comes to my mind is the guy who does the absurd, laughs in the face of the law, and escapes any prison that holds him until they get tricked and killed. Antimagic could work, but unless I'm casting Imprisonment, the only escape-proof prison is death (and getting rid of any means of resurrection).

As far as rewriting the druid, it could actually be pretty dang easy. They lose a whopping three abilities. Spellcasting, Wild shape, and A Thousand Faces. Either make the two non-casting abilities spell-like ('cause they pretty much are), or reword the armor-restriction to "A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells, or use the Wild Shape or A Thousand Faces abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter." This actually takes LESS space than the original wording. Then put in a note on appropriate ACFs, and you're good (and making sure people remember that restriction as well). Shorthand here may save you a little bit of writing time across multiple books, but not more than the minute of time and line of space it takes to write "A druid cannot use this ability while wearing metal armor or 24 hours after removing such armor". Most places where Su makes a difference like that (barring AMF issues) can be handled similarly as well, as they're already specific notes. Because other than for AMF, counterspells, and dispelling, its just a bunch of specific things that reference the Su tag. And the more special cases there are, the more likely people will forget those fiddly little details and screw themselves up. I'm looking at you, Divine Impetus.

As far as the plausibility point...well, i'll grant you that. But that's the point of removing the distinction overall. It is a step in shifting general public perception of the expected world being built. I'd agree with you in general, making fire out of nothing, animating your shadow, things like that DO seem magical. But that's because that distinction has been burned into my head after years of D&D saying "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS." But when I think about it, it feels more and more silly making that distinction. A goliath can spontaneously generate a foot of height and 30-40% more mass on a whim as an Ex ability, but making a fire or having my shadow do something has to be magical? I end up asking myself why just now, and I can't think of a good reason other than "Because it just is". And if that's my only reason, it just doesn't fly for me anymore.

[Firechanter]

While the thought of granting Mundanes more awesome stuff is commendable (and certainly seems to be a new tone coming from SKR), I think removing the distinction between Ex and Su is not only unnecessary, but may be counterproductive.

First off, people need to get into their heads that Ex stuff can be awesome, too. Aside, those examples SKR fall fair and square into Ex already (in 3.5 powerlevel). We're talking about a universe here where jumping 50' far isn't even extraordinary, but actually _ordinary_ -- any idiot with a +40 Jump mod can do it. Extraordinary is stuff like "you can never be flanked" or "you can dodge fireballs". Or, according to ToB, even "You can teleport 50'" (although the lack of a Su tag might be a clerical error). Now we're talking!

Secondly, removing the tags of Ex and Su may lead to people thinking more in terms of "realism". It would be "A Fighter shouldn't be able to do this, it's not realistic" all over again.

Last not least, there's friggin nothing wrong with giving non-casters Supernatural abilities, either. So even if no PC class is "mundane" -- so what? In a universe where Wizards can so thoroughly tell reality to sit down and shut up, the magic must be so pervasive that pretty much anyone can use it for a trick or two.
(Here I'd like to point to Earthdawn, where all PC classes are "adepts" of some kind that use innate magic to boost regular mundane abilities. Yes, even the Fighter and the Thief.)

[Psyren]

While the thought of granting Mundanes more awesome stuff is commendable (and certainly seems to be a new tone coming from SKR), I think removing the distinction between Ex and Su is not only unnecessary, but may be counterproductive.

First off, people need to get into their heads that Ex stuff can be awesome, too. Aside, those examples SKR fall fair and square into Ex already (in 3.5 powerlevel). We're talking about a universe here where jumping 50' far isn't even extraordinary, but actually _ordinary_ -- any idiot with a +40 Jump mod can do it. Extraordinary is stuff like "you can never be flanked" or "you can dodge fireballs". Or, according to ToB, even "You can teleport 50'" (although the lack of a Su tag might be a clerical error). Now we're talking!

Secondly, removing the tags of Ex and Su may lead to people thinking more in terms of "realism". It would be "A Fighter shouldn't be able to do this, it's not realistic" all over again.

Last not least, there's friggin nothing wrong with giving non-casters Supernatural abilities, either. So even if no PC class is "mundane" -- so what? In a universe where Wizards can so thoroughly tell reality to sit down and shut up, the magic must be so pervasive that pretty much anyone can use it for a trick or two.
(Here I'd like to point to Earthdawn, where all PC classes are "adepts" of some kind that use innate magic to boost regular mundane abilities. Yes, even the Fighter and the Thief.)

Agreed with all of this 100%.


I think the biggest issue I have with antimagic, like a lot of other abilities, is the auto-fail nature of it, coupled with its relative ease of access. While I haven't personally seen it used in game terribly often, its a viable option for most high-level casters to just...have. I'm down with zones where there is no magic for purposes of plot, that can be fun. But it should be something hard to just -have- without proper setup. As it stands now, its more fun as plot device, and as a random "somebody cast the no-magic spell", I'd prefer something more similar to the Catapsi power, where casters can still cast, but it's just -harder-. That means things that bypass antimagic can be harder to come by (if they exist at all), so you don't have silly things like shrunken lead hats and magic which only has the purpose of letting you magic despite the anti-magic.

Well, do note that unless you're a monster who is radiating the stuff it's a bad idea to even use AMF because very few spellcasters/gishes can stay mobile enough without magic to actually get the bubble over someone. The better use for it is to run through zones of bad (wall of fire, cloudkill, blade barrier etc.) or run past some nasty summons without getting hurt, not to cast it and then try to fall on top of enemy spellcasters somehow. AMF the spell is meant to be defensive.

But if you take it away we lose useful things like antimagic shackles and jail cells.

For the record, I agree with you that Catapsi is a much more interesting effect from a gameplay standpoint.


And frankly, the higher levels go, the less likely I expect prisons to come into play. After a certain point, I kinda expect that prisons will all just turn to cardboard.

Which means your "heroes" are now forced to slit throats. I know we joke about the murderhobo thing a lot but some parties actually do want to try and be good, and part of that is showing mercy/accepting surrender.


As far as rewriting the druid, it could actually be pretty dang easy. They lose a whopping three abilities. Spellcasting, Wild shape, and A Thousand Faces.

You know archetypes are a thing, right?

Place Magic, Walk the Lines, Empty Body, A Thousand Voices, Wolfsbane, Path of Trees, Totem Transformation, Sky's Embrace, Augmented Form, etc., and not to mention any archetypes that may be written in the future - are you going to dig through every last one of those to pick out which ones are lost to vows and which aren't, when instead you can just look at the ability for its Su tag and be done with it?


As far as the plausibility point...well, i'll grant you that. But that's the point of removing the distinction overall. It is a step in shifting general public perception of the expected world being built.

I think it is far too drastic/excessive a step to accomplish that end. People are already accepting that non-spellcasting classes can use magic - just look at the Monk and Ninja, and even some rage powers for the Barbarian. That is the cultural shift we need - convincing people that, say, a high-level Cavalier or Gunslinger can have a Su ability or two, not enforcing homogeneity across the existing classes and losing the in-game and narrative benefits to both Su and AMF among others in the process.

[Seerow]

Or, according to ToB, even "You can teleport 50'" (although the lack of a Su tag might be a clerical error). Now we're talking!

The teleport 50ft maneuvers are in Shadow Hand, which are supernatural. Same thing for Devoted Spirit with its healing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The teleport 50ft maneuvers are in Shadow Hand, which are supernatural. Same thing for Devoted Spirit with its healing.

Which could easily get the Ex tag, moving really really fast can simulate or duplicate a teleportation effect. Even over great distances, it could be like shutting your eyes (wind + eyes = not good), moving super fast, so fast that you pass harmlessly through other material. There is a chance that you under shoot or overshoot your destination by a mile or two (teleport)... Up until you get good enough to know how far you have exactly traveled (greater teleport).

Extraordinary needs to have less limits, needs to break the bonds of physics, and needs to stop being called magic. If 3.5 didn't essentially call Su abilities magic it wouldn't be such a problem.

[Psyren]

I'm not against Ex teleportation but not over long distances. Running from one side of the room to another before anyone can react is one thing, but running across a city or continent without passing over the intervening space is quite another. That strains my suspension of disbelief just a little too far.

[Techwarrior]

The teleport 50ft maneuvers are in Shadow Hand, which are supernatural. Same thing for Devoted Spirit with its healing.

Whohoa there.

Only maneuvers explicitly called out as (Su) are supernatural. Shadow X is not one of those, nor is most of the healing.

[Harrow]

I'm not against Ex teleportation but not over long distances. Running from one side of the room to another before anyone can react is one thing, but running across a city or continent without passing over the intervening space is quite another. That strains my suspension of disbelief just a little too far.

I could see (Ex) long distance teleportation. You're just so good at pathfinding, you find paths that don't actually exist.

[Spuddles]

This is a nice quote:



These all sound like reasonable Ex abilities for a Fighter in a high-powered game to have if you ask me; however, I'm not sure quite what he's getting at, because you don't have to remove the Ex/Su separation to impart abilities like these. These all could quite comfortably fall under either Ex or Su.

I think it's still helpful to keep Ex and Su separate. While he's right that the distinction between Ex and Su largely exists due to AMF, there are still other reasons for it. For example, effects that give you the abilities of another form (e.g. polymorph or Cunning Brilliance) are often balanced by this separation. It also allows you design space to create abilities like Supernatural Opportunist/Supernatural Slayer that otherwise wouldn't make sense if used vs. an Ex ability.

PF got rid of annoying stuff like overbroken polymorph and theres no cunning brilliance.

[Gemini476]

For people who are interested (for whatever reason), here's some Anti-magic Throughout the Ages:
Anti-Magic Shell
Range: 0 (Caster only)
Duration: 12 turns
Effect: Personal barrier which blocks magic
This spell creates an invisible barrier around the spellcaster's body (less than an inch away). The barrier stops all spells or spell effects, including the caster's. The caster may destroy the shell at will; otherwise, it lasts for the duration. Except for a wish, no magic (including a dispel magic spell) can cancel the barrier.


Anti-Magic Effects
Magic can sometimes be weakened or altered so that it is canceled or only partially functions. This phenomenon is called anti-magic (A-M). Anti-magic is stated as a percentage chance that magic will not work within a given area.
The first encounter with anti-magic for most PCs occurs when they confront a beholder, whose central eye projects an anti-magic ray.
This ray's A-M value is 100%; magic will not work within the ray.
Some very rare creatures (notably Immortals) possess partial or total anti-magic.

Why A-M Exists
Anti-Magic results from differences between lifeforms native to different planes of existence. Magic native to the inner planes of existence (the Prime, Ethereal, and elemental planes) functions best when used on creatures and things native to those planes. Creatures from other planes are not made the same way.
All creatures native to the inner planes are made of components of the four Spheres of Power (Matter, Energy, Time, and Thought) and are all affected by the Sphere of Entropy. But creatures of the Astral and outer planes lack one or more of the four components, and may avoid most of the effects of Entropy as well.

Magic Affected
When A-M is used as an attack form (such as the beholder's ray), it is powerful enough to cancel the effects of all forms of magic, including permanent items. The instant a magical item is moved out of the ray, it regains normal power. Anti-magic radiated by a creature such as an Immortal is slightly different; it is sporadic (there is a percentage chance for it to affect each spell or item), and it only affects temporary magic.
Temporary magic includes all spells, potions, scrolls, wands, staves, and rods. All spell-like effects produced by permanent magical items (such as the haste effect that a sword of speeding can produce) are also temporary effects, subject to dampening by anti-magic, but the magical items themselves are unharmed.
If no percentage is given for the A-M effect, it is 100% and affects all magic within the area noted. Otherwise, each temporary magical item or effect must be individually checked for cancellation of its power as soon as it enters the A-M area. A-M is checked each round by rolling d100. A magic effect is canceled if the d100 result is equal to or less than the given A-M percentage. Once an effect is negated, it remains canceled for the entire encounter.

A-M Duration
It is important to note that A-M is not a dispel magic effect. Canceled magic may return once it leaves the range of the A-M effect. Magic canceled by radiated A-M remains canceled for one turn after it leaves the A-M area.
The time during which a magical effect is negated does count as part of the duration of the spell or effect. Magical effects described as instantaneous (fireball, lightning bolt, etc.) are destroyed by the A-M and do not reappear later.
Anti-Magic Shell
Arcane Abjuration
Level: Magic user 6
Range: Caster
Duration: 1 turn/ level
Area of Effect: 5 ft radius/ level globe
Components: V,S
Casting Time: 1 segment
Saving Throw: None
An anti-magic shell is a bubble of space around the magic user that completely prevents all magic from operating within its confines. Spell effects do not enter or function within the shell, providing the caster with complete protection from gaze attacks, hostile spells, and even the entrance of conjured or summoned creatures into his or her vicinity. The drawback of an anti-magic shell, of course, is that the caster him- or herself cannot cast spells or avail him- or herself of magic items while inside. Magic weapons, armour, and the like do not gain their bonuses or abilities while inside the shell, but would still function as non-magical weapons or armour.
Antimagic Shell
(Abjuration)

Range: 0
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 turn/level
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 1 ft./level diameter
Saving Throw: None

By means of this spell, the wizard surrounds himself with an invisible barrier that moves with him. The space within this barrier is totally impervious to all magic and magical spell effects, thus preventing the passage of spells or their effects. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magical items or spells within its confines. The area is also impervious to breath weapons, gaze or voice attacks, and similar special attack forms.

The antimagic shell also hedges out charmed, summoned, or conjured creatures. It cannot, however, be forced against any creature that it would keep at bay; any attempt to do so creates a discernible pressure against the barrier, and continued pressure will break the spell. Normal creatures (a normally encountered troll rather than a conjured one, for instance) can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magical sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword. Note that creatures on their home plane are normal creatures there. Thus, on the Elemental Plane of Fire, a randomly encountered fire elemental cannot be kept at bay by this spell. Artifacts, relics, and creatures of demigod or higher status are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Should the caster be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, parts of his person may be considered exposed, at the DM's option. A dispel magic spell does not remove the spell; the caster can end it upon command.

Antimagic Shell: This spell temporarily suppresses magic within its area of effect, but it does not destroy or dispel enchantments or kill magical creatures. The spell has no effect on golems, simulacrums, clones, or other constructs which are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting. Most undead creatures are likewise unaffected. Some of these creatures’ special abilities may be temporarily nullified, however (see below). Any creature, including a golem or other construct, that is conjured, summoned or from another plane of existence is hedged out of an antimagic shell.

An antimagic shell suppresses any spell or spell effect brought into or cast into the area of effect. A hasted character, for example, is not hasted while he remains in the area of effect. Permanent spells are not removed, but cannot be used to produce magical effects within the area of effect. For example, a character who has been resurrected is not harmed by an antimagic shell, but a character with a permanent tongues spell loses the ability to converse in an unknown language while within the area of effect.

An antimagic shell suppresses special attacks and innate abilities that function over a distance, including breath weapons, gaze attacks, sonic attacks, and psionics, but not touch-delivered special attacks such as energy draining or the corrosive effects of green slime. A lich, for example, cannot employ spells within an antimagic shell and its ability to cause fear is suppressed, but its paralyzing touch is still effective. Note that holy water is not magical and is fully effective within an antimagic shell.

An antimagic shell suppresses most potions and their effects; see the note at potions for details.
Antimagic Field
Abjuration
Level: Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft.
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you
Duration: 10 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: See text

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

Summoned creatures of any type and incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature’s spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.)

A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, corporeal undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures’ spell-like or supernatural abilities, however, may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field, though Mage's Disjunction might.

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

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

Arcane Material Component
A pinch of powdered iron or iron filings.

Pathfinder is mostly identical to 3.5.

4th Edition did away with Antimagic. I'm not too sure why, but I think it might have to do with how magic in general is less game-breaking and also how Wizards aren't very fun to play at all if you can't use any of your class features. Not to mention how Martials are already powerful enough and don't need the buff.

[Psyren]

PF got rid of annoying stuff like overbroken polymorph and theres no cunning brilliance.

I brought them up because his blog post refers to both 3e and PF. In addition, even in PF incarcerating druids would also be a problem without antimagic as they can simply transform into a dormouse and wriggle through the bars. So the worldbuilding issue would remain.

[avr]

Practically speaking though - 3.5 will have no direct successor. PF very likely will have a 2nd edition. This would focus minds in a useful way when writing a new edition of PF IMO.

[Vedhin]

Which could easily get the Ex tag, moving really really fast can simulate or duplicate a teleportation effect. Even over great distances, it could be like shutting your eyes (wind + eyes = not good), moving super fast, so fast that you pass harmlessly through other material. There is a chance that you under shoot or overshoot your destination by a mile or two (teleport)... Up until you get good enough to know how far you have exactly traveled (greater teleport).

This ability actually exists in 3.5. Granted, it's a SLA because it duplicates teleport without error, but running at insane speed and phasing through objects is an ability of Kezef the Chaos Hound.



Extraordinary needs to have less limits, needs to break the bonds of physics, and needs to stop being called magic. If 3.5 didn't essentially call Su abilities magic it wouldn't be such a problem.

Agreed. My preferred solution is more things like the Shadow hand teleports-- you're just so *whatever* you can ignore the normal rules of physics. I prefer to veiw (Ex) and (Su) through of framework of "for balance, should this be affected by antimagic field/etc.?"

[Thiyr]

Well, do note that unless you're a monster who is radiating the stuff it's a bad idea to even use AMF because very few spellcasters/gishes can stay mobile enough without magic to actually get the bubble over someone. The better use for it is to run through zones of bad (wall of fire, cloudkill, blade barrier etc.) or run past some nasty summons without getting hurt, not to cast it and then try to fall on top of enemy spellcasters somehow. AMF the spell is meant to be defensive.

Personally, I'm okay with that. Even as a defensive tool, I don't really like the flat Nope that AMF provides. Same reason I don't like Mind Blank or Freedom of Movement, just on a larger scale.


But if you take it away we lose useful things like antimagic shackles and jail cells.

For the record, I agree with you that Catapsi is a much more interesting effect from a gameplay standpoint.

See, that's why I said I like AMF for plot things. Its not something the players can just go "tee hee up yours" on a moments notice, but it is something that can impact the game world. Plus, it gives a reason why every prison ISN'T an inescapable hole, in case the players need to break out of one. Open prisons/purely mundane prisons for low-risk prisoners, prisons with Catapsi type effects for mid-risk prisoners, and That Pit In The Ground Built In The Wasteland Of A Dead Magic Zone Five Thousand Miles From Anything Living for your high-risk, high power prisoners. I admit, I wasn't clear on that earlier, but that was my intent: AMF as presented now should be something that is a plot device, something that is part of the setting. I think AMF shackles are the closest I would accept as a player-available option for just straight turning off magic, partly because at that point...it's kinda a plot device. Unless you're playing a Justicar, but that's a corner case I'm willing to live with.



Which means your "heroes" are now forced to slit throats. I know we joke about the murderhobo thing a lot but some parties actually do want to try and be good, and part of that is showing mercy/accepting surrender.

Oh, I'm aware, and I play like that as well. But I find that the higher levels go, it's hard to "show mercy". It stops being "slitting throats" and ends up "They died outright white fighting". I've not yet seen a person take the merciful enchantment in our group, and unless we're explicitly capturing people, we don't hobble ourselves by trying to do nonlethal usually. And while I admit that such a thing is possible, and even likely in some groups, the higher you are, the harder it is to pull that off.

And even on a narrative level....well, as my perennial source of examples, do you read the Dresden Files? I'm talking evil people like the Denarians. They know they're up against the more morally upstanding people possible. Paladins of the highest moral caliber. And it is frequent that they "give up", let themselves be "captured", and then just escape shortly thereafter. And the good guys know it and do it anyway. While it is a mercy to that individual, it is also something that villains WILL play early and often as soon as the option arises. Hence my point, the higher in level you get, the more often the only true prison is gonna be death, or things that could be arguably worse.




You know archetypes are a thing, right?

Place Magic, Walk the Lines, Empty Body, A Thousand Voices, Wolfsbane, Path of Trees, Totem Transformation, Sky's Embrace, Augmented Form, etc., and not to mention any archetypes that may be written in the future - are you going to dig through every last one of those to pick out which ones are lost to vows and which aren't, when instead you can just look at the ability for its Su tag and be done with it?

Yes, I know they're a thing. I'm a 3.5 player more than a PF player, though, so I think in terms of ACFs (which i mentioned) more than archetypes, which I just lump into the same general header as archetypes. Are there a lot of the two of those things at this point? Yes, of course! The system as a whole has been around for 14 years, of course there's a lot of them. But EVEN THEN, we're looking at that distinction for a single class. Through the magic of CTRL+C CTRL+V, I could probably get that job of adding explicit verbiage done in a day and have time to spare. And I argue that it can make it easier on a player end as well. Because Idunno about you, but I tend to think of it more in terms of "Hey, the druid loses stuff when they put armor on", and would have to find and reference the line to remember exactly what is lost. Assuming I'm looking at an ACF/Archetype, first I need to find the line in the first place (which unlike the paladin is put in a logical but not-immediately-apparent place, the proficiency section), at which point I can go back and check the Su tag that honestly, I probably skipped over in the first place because it normally -doesn't much matter-. Alternatively, I read the ability and it's right there, explicitly part of the ability. It helps take out the element of "oops, missed that".


I think it is far too drastic/excessive a step to accomplish that end. People are already accepting that non-spellcasting classes can use magic - just look at the Monk and Ninja, and even some rage powers for the Barbarian. That is the cultural shift we need - convincing people that, say, a high-level Cavalier or Gunslinger can have a Su ability or two, not enforcing homogeneity across the existing classes and losing the in-game and narrative benefits to both Su and AMF among others in the process.

I shall agree to disagree then. I think we both accept the problem, near as I can tell, but I feel more drastic measures need be taken overall, as I don't see the homogeneity being a thing, as I don't find it to be a huge impact once things hit the table. Its a low cost for playability, but a high benefit to help designers get the feel of what they can do better. (Perhaps that's a point I need to clarify better as well. The people we need to convince are design and development. Convincing the players that its acceptable doesn't improve the content put out, while convincing devs and design means new content follows new design quicker, at which point the players start to adjust by acclimation. Of course there will be people that don't like it, but you can't please everyone).

Still, honest thanks for helping me collect my thoughts into something slightly more coherent than previous.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This ability actually exists in 3.5. Granted, it's a SLA because it duplicates teleport without error, but running at insane speed and phasing through objects is an ability of Kezef the Chaos Hound.



Agreed. My preferred solution is more things like the Shadow hand teleports-- you're just so *whatever* you can ignore the normal rules of physics. I prefer to veiw (Ex) and (Su) through of framework of "for balance, should this be affected by antimagic field/etc.?"

For balance sake, antimagic fields needs to be turned into "ability damper". This effects physics on all levels. So unless you pass a X Save each round or have your ability dampered. Give mages a way to cast a spell this way and then give non-casters a way to hit/strike others to dampen the abilities of others.

Null magic could work the same way, essentially our earth is a null magic zone where magic, Su, and Ex just doesn't work.


Edit: Physics Amplifier could be the actual effect name but you could call each spell or ability different.

[Kudaku]

While we're on the topic of SKR - there was an interesting post made on the Paizo forum not 10 minutes ago. I'll quote it for convenience, the original post can be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r4ky&page=3?Monks-unarmed-strike-damage-and-Brass#119).


What's especially ironic (to me, at least) is the timeline goes like this:

* At the time Adventurer's Armory and the APG were being developed, I was the developer on the Player Companions line, and the sole developer of the AA
* back then, Jason was the only person on the design "team"
* the original brass knuckles that appeared the Adventurer's Armory didn't explicitly say whether a monk got his special unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles
* AA went to print
* Paizo needed additional equipment content for the APG, and decided to pick up a bunch of stuff from the AA
* the brass knuckles were one of the items they picked up for the APG
* AA lands in the hands of customers
* customers with AA started asking whether a monk could use his better unarmed damage with BK
* I said in this post, "Monks use their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles"
* someone (I honestly don't know who, could have been me, could have been someone else) made changes to the BK text for the APG, clarifying that "[monks] can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with [brass knuckles]"
* the APG went to print
* Jason and I had a discussion about BK in the AA; I'm sure that discussion included Jason being concerned about how monk unarmed strikes could kicks or elbows or whatever, and allowing monks to use BK with their increased monk damage, even when the attack might be from a body part other than the hands would be really strange (obviously this is long before the 2013 errata allowing monks to flurry with one body part instead of multiple ones)
* in that discussion, Jason either convinced me we shouldn't allow monks to get their increased unarmed damage with BK, or he decided that's how he wanted it to work in PF
* as a result of that discussion, BK in the AA errata were changed to what they are now (moving them out of the unarmed category, not mentioning unarmed strikes, still not calling out that monks should get unarmed strike damage with them, because not getting that is the default for any weapon)
* because the APG had already gone to the printer, that book still had different wording for BK (which, as far as I can tell, is the same in the 1st and 2nd APG printings, "[monks] an use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them").
* years later, Ultimate Equipment went into development
* knowing the change to BK in AA, I (the developer for the weapons section of UE) updated the BK text as per the years-old discussion with Jason, so the BK entry doesn't include the APG text allowing monks to use their unarmed damage with BK
* UE went to print, APG still has the old text, controversy ensues

Everyone assumes I hate monks and don't think monks should get their unarmed strike damage with brass knuckles. But I linked above a 2010 post where I said they should get their monk unarmed damage with brass knuckles. And although I argue against unarmed+BK in later discussions, I also say things like "the monk needs a revision, not a bandage to fix its problems, and brass knuckles are a bandage, not a revision." Would allowing monks to use unarmed damage with BKs help monks become competitive? Yes. Is it the best solution? No, because the monk really needs a fix, not a patch-with-equipment.*

Looking back from today's perspective, and knowing that I'm much more liberal in my rule interpretations**, and perhaps influenced by my time playing World of Warcraft and seeing its monk class in action***, I think monks should get their unarmed damage with brass knuckles. And given the FAQ/errata to the core rules about monks being able to use a single weapon for all of their flurry attacks, there are other questions about BK that should be addressed (like if flaming on brass knuckles should add to your monk unarmed strike damage).

So perhaps the question isn't, "Hey, design team, can you post an official FAQ/errata about the conflicting brass knuckles rules text between APG and UE?," it's "Hey, design team, with errata changes to flurry of blows and using one body part for making a flurry, do you still want monks to not get their unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles?"

But I don't know if the second question is something players are interested in.
And, in any case, I am no longer on the design team, so my opinion probably doesn't carry any weight in this.

* Even though we did it again with the bodywraps in Ultimate Equipment... ah, well.
** Even though that's not what you're used to seeing from me in many rules discussions about the FAQs, which come about as a group decision by the design team with lead designer Jason having the option of overruling SRM and SKR.
*** They can equip weapons, but when they make unarmed attacks the weapons aren't visible in the animations, and any special abilities the weapons have (like flaming) simply apply to their unarmed attacks. In other words, what weapon they have equipped is purely for stats, magic, and flavor; WOW monks are still as unarmed as they want to be, and as effective as a weapon-armed character.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While we're on the topic of SKR - there was an interesting post made on the Paizo forum not 10 minutes ago. I'll quote it for convenience, the original post can be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r4ky&page=3?Monks-unarmed-strike-damage-and-Brass#119).

Well if there is one thing that needs to be done, the monk needs to be recreated.

I would suggest that the Monk be created in the image of the 4e monk. The 4e monk is by far the best version I've seen of the monk. Mobility and attacks? Hell yeah!

And really it wouldn't take a whole hell of a lot to insert a 4e monk into 3.P setting.

Make flurry an additional attack whenever you hit with an unarmed strike or monk weapon... Hmm... Give different actions for move actions and different actions that replace standard action strikes or whatever... Would need to be worded so to be used anytime you would attack.

Anyways...

SKR really seems like he is getting a lot off his chest, like... When you have a bad breakup and you need to tell everyone what happened so you don't look like the bad guy.

[Psyren]

I shall agree to disagree then. I think we both accept the problem, near as I can tell, but I feel more drastic measures need be taken overall, as I don't see the homogeneity being a thing, as I don't find it to be a huge impact once things hit the table.

Agree to disagree it is. There is too much benefit to the game to keep a magical separation intact, and your/SKR's solution will only enforce the outmoded notion that non-spellcasters can't have magical abilities. It's counterproductive.

[Morty]

That was an interesting read, and not something I'd expect from the man either. I agree with the premise, more or less, but not necessarily with the conclusion. The line between magic and non-magic in a high-fantasy setting like D&D and PF by default simulate - and in my opinion, should stick to simulating without pretending they work for anything else - is going to be blurry, at some point. Is it really worth it to get hung up on the difference? I don't think so. In a magical fantasyland, it's a law of nature that people who are good enough at something will be able to perform epic feats, and the upper limits which exist for people of the real world simply don't exist there. If it is magic, it's internalized enough that anti-magic fields, dispel magic, disjunction and such can't get a hold of it - much in the same way they don't shut down a bear-sized spider, which has no business existing according to the laws of science either. Or maybe it's not magic. In contrast, spell-casting basically grabs whatever magic field powers the world and makes it do whatever the spell-caster wants. But in doing so, it's susceptible to being shut down. Which is why completely stripping down the distinction between Su and Ex abilities is an overkill.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That was an interesting read, and not something I'd expect from the man either. I agree with the premise, more or less, but not necessarily with the conclusion. The line between magic and non-magic in a high-fantasy setting like D&D and PF by default simulate - and in my opinion, should stick to simulating without pretending they work for anything else - is going to be blurry, at some point. Is it really worth it to get hung up on the difference? I don't think so. In a magical fantasyland, it's a law of nature that people who are good enough at something will be able to perform epic feats, and the upper limits which exist for people of the real world simply don't exist there. If it is magic, it's internalized enough that anti-magic fields, dispel magic, disjunction and such can't get a hold of it - much in the same way they don't shut down a bear-sized spider, which has no business existing according to the laws of science either. Or maybe it's not magic. In contrast, spell-casting basically grabs whatever magic field powers the world and makes it do whatever the spell-caster wants. But in doing so, it's susceptible to being shut down. Which is why completely stripping down the distinction between Su and Ex abilities is an overkill.

While I don't think it is overkill, I do think that Spells should just be called supernatural and then have non-spell abilities to be extraordinary.

Two specific groups, magical and non-magical. I would hate to get rid of a cool word like supernatural you know? So let's keep that and just redefine the term.

Ex: Bending the laws of physics and nature under ones own power without pulling from an external power source.

Su: bending the laws of physics and nature by use of some sort of external magical force. Supernatural would encompass divine, arcane, Incarnum, invocations, and other magical abilities (including current spell like abilities). Pull power from an external power source (the weave or deities).

Then set up the mechanics of what each level can do. If you are a level 4 Fighter you can only do certain things to push/break the laws of physics. If you are a level 4 magic user then you can only do certain things to push/break the laws of physics. Make each one balanced with its counter part... And blamo.

[Morty]

Perhaps. Magic-users countering, dispelling, nullifying and disrupting each other's spells is a staple of the genre, and as such needs to be possible. But it wouldn't look good if the same measures worked against a warrior's nigh-immunity to pain or a ranger's ability to track a quarry for miles across barren, rain-washed rock.

Another thing the proposed change might solve is the one-way nature of interaction between magic and non-magic. But as above, there are better ways of going about it. Still, at least SKR acknowledges it's a problem.

[Metahuman1]

Regarding and earlier point in the thread about mundanes shouldn't be able to raise the dead or create life:

Um, I know this is gonna sound nit picky and semantics bashing, which isn't really my goal, but if find it somewhat amusing that if you read it as is, it sounds like you think the fighter should not be able to have sex with a member of it's race and opposite it's gender that results in a pregnancy (creating life.) or learn enough CPR to be able to do Chest compressions and/or mouth to mouth to force someone who just went down to start breathing/having a heart rate again. Even though these things are both things you can learn to do with some degree of variability in the real world,

I realize this wasn't likely what was on your mind when you wrote that, but it sorta amused me.

That said, if we assume that magic is just as much a part of the world as cells for organic creatures, gravity and atomic structures for matter, then I think it's entirely plausible that over the course of eons, people would develop fighting techniques that would learn to harness that, in the same way they've learned to harness and exploit every possible combo of leverage, body mechanics, laws of momentum and energy, gravity, anatomy and even psychology in combat and warfare, and have in some rarer cases (which admittedly not everyone put's stock in.) learned to exploit there spiritual energy to accomplish things that should be physically impossible. (I'm talking like the quasi-mystical things you sometimes see Shou-lin monk's sometimes give displays of, stuff like running there hands through iron rollers that should crush them instantly with out injury, or being lifted up on the tips of sharpened spears and having there weights supported while remaining unharmed, or being able to throw a punch form one inch away that in one test I saw on TV was able to hit with more force then some car crashes.).

And no, it doesn't have to be a basic technique. It doesn't have to be a thing you can do for level one. I think it should however start coming online by levels 5-7 and just grow from there.




Anyway, I honestly think that after years of being hollered at endlessly, SKR is finally, finally starting to re-evaluate his position, take in new information, and as a result of that new information, is deciding that he's been acting in error in the past, and is now attempting to correct that. And I think that's a good thing, though it would have been better if it happened sooner, this is still a good thing.

[Psyren]

^ That claim was mine - and without getting into forbidden topics, there is arguably more to creating life than simple physical procreation. If that weren't the case then there would be no barren couples or stillbirths. Or to put it another way, there is a point of the process that is beyond both parents' control, particularly in D&D settings where souls explicitly exist.

Besides which, my usage of the term "creating life" referred specifically to (a) granting sentience to something previously inanimate like an object, or (b) to granting sapience to something previously insensate, like a tree.

The rest of your post I agree with.

[Metahuman1]

True, and I know again it's not what you meant and you were specifically calling out turning a rock into a living tiger or letting the tomato plants get up and make and informed decision to aid you in battle because you gave them the free will to do that type stuff, but ironically, you can't deny that in standard D&D, it's generally assumed for anything that would be considered normal like humanoid races and animals that procreation does require a male and female who are of compatible species and ages doing privet things with one another that result in starting the procreation process, even if after that other factors that don't, or at least can't be concrete proven with science, factor in in our world, like the whims of the gods and so on, come into play.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Perhaps. Magic-users countering, dispelling, nullifying and disrupting each other's spells is a staple of the genre, and as such needs to be possible. But it wouldn't look good if the same measures worked against a warrior's nigh-immunity to pain or a ranger's ability to track a quarry for miles across barren, rain-washed rock.

Another thing the proposed change might solve is the one-way nature of interaction between magic and non-magic. But as above, there are better ways of going about it. Still, at least SKR acknowledges it's a problem.

Well there are some abilities that are Ex, that aren't really Extraordinary. I wouldn't call leap attack or shock trooper Ex abilities. These feats are pretty in line with physics and such. However, if the fighter has an ability to multiply his jump checks by his strength modifier as an Ex ability (and to not take penalties for jumping straight up) then that part of the ability could be dampened. A ranger could still track, for miles even, because that ability really doesn't push the bonds of physics.

Mu: Mundane abilities that follow the laws of physics. Racial abilities (non-su/ex) such as base speed, racial hatred, or even physical flight are all examples of mundane abilities. Every creature (except perhaps living spells and the like) has some form of mundane abilities. Most feats should fall under this title and allow class features to be Ex/Su.

Ex: Extraordinary abilities that break the laws of physics without outside aid (such as magic).

Su: Supernatural abilities break the laws of physics by using magic or another outside fuel (the weave/gods/vestige).

Then dispel magic and anti-magic can be "Physics Enhancer" type spells and abilities that can screw up class features that are SU and EX but not MU.

[Slithery D]

Mu: Mundane abilities that follow the laws of physics. Racial abilities (non-su/ex) such as base speed, racial hatred, or even physical flight are all examples of mundane abilities.
I disagree about physical flight in most creatures of interest in 3.X being mundane. If it's much bigger than a bird, or has a radically different physiology, like humanoid with wings tacked on, it shouldn't be able to fly.

[Psyren]

The "Mu" category will just cause arguments about whether something should be Ex or Mu, like an ability that grants physical flight or natural armor. Plus we already have the right number of ability types imo.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I disagree about physical flight in most creatures of interest in 3.X being mundane. If it's much bigger than a bird, or has a radically different physiology, like humanoid with wings tacked on, it shouldn't be able to fly.

In game physics and real world physics are two different things. You can have a fantasy world where dragons fly without the aid of magic. If you take everything by real world physics then why can people cast spells or why do monsters exist (owlbear?), or how can someone fall from terminal velocity and live?


The "Mu" category will just cause arguments about whether something should be Ex or Mu, like an ability that grants physical flight or natural armor. Plus we already have the right number of ability types imo.

No matter what you make you will have fights. People now argue that Ex abilities are magical (ToB). If you are going to make a game and don't want to make something new because people will fight over it... Well you won't get very far.

Just set up concrete rules for what is Mu, Ex, and Su. Actually giving players and DMs specific rules for such in the PHB could help and only change it when you reprint the PHB, don't throw them into random books.

Right now in 3.5 we have Natural, Ex, Su, Sp.

I'm just saying we have Mundane (or Natural if you like name better), Extraordinary, and Supernatural (spells/spell like abilities) as the big three type of abilities.

It doesn't really add anything, just organizes the mess we have now and redifines Su to incorporate all magical abilities.

MuExSu or NaExSu (might use one of these for a couple projects later hmm..)


Edit

Quick little definitions that need a bit of sprucing up.

Natural/Mundane: Abilities that any creature or race could do without adding class levels. Abilities in the race/creature stat block with (Mu or Na). Some abilities from class features can be Na/Mu but they will specifically say. A ranger getting Track as a bonus feat would still be a mundane ability because any creature could take the feat track. However not just any creature can take the Ranger's spell casting, you must actually have levels in Ranger to get that Su ability.

Any creature can attack/defend/use maneuvers. These abilities also would be mundane. However a Fighter who gains the ability to throw a creature a number of feat equal to his Strength Mod x level after making a maneuver check... Well that would be an Ex ability because you must be a fighter (or a specific monster?) to perform this feat of strength that breaks the laws of physics.

We would also need to actually give non-casters abilities that breaks the in game physics instead of crappy little abilities... But that is a problem for another day haha.

[Psyren]

It's Na, Su, Ex, Sp, and actual spells (which are similar to Sp but face additional restrictions such as needing components and being counterable.) And then you can add Ps and powers. I think these are plenty.

In the ToB case, people are more arguing that they should be. Specifically the teleportation and healing-other maneuvers that aren't labelled as Su but nevertheless feel magical (at least to some), and possibly a handful of others as well.

Su and Sp should definitely not be combined. A number of powerful abilities are balanced by being Sp (and thus provoking/being subject to SR/not scaling their DC with level/etc.)

[Metahuman1]

Addendum: Have them in the PHB. Repeat them several times in the PHB, several more in both the DMG and the MM, and then at least once or twice in every supplement that comes out so that it's impossible to say you have even basic working knowledge of the rules but don't know that facet of the game.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's Na, Su, Ex, Sp, and actual spells (which are similar to Sp but face additional restrictions such as needing components and being counterable.) And then you can add Ps and powers. I think these are plenty.

In the ToB case, people are more arguing that they should be. Specifically the teleportation and healing-other maneuvers that aren't labelled as Su but nevertheless feel magical (at least to some), and possibly a handful of others as well.

Su and Sp should definitely not be combined. A number of powerful abilities are balanced by being Sp (and thus provoking/being subject to SR/not scaling their DC with level/etc.)

You don't need a separate Su Sp and Spells though. You are just adding more rules than needed. They all pretty much do the same thing and yet we have different rules for each? Why? That is troublesome as holy hell.

They are still arguing, and that's my point. No matter what you do they (and people like me included) will argue. I'm just looking for a simpler solution that works.

Keeping Su/Sp/Spells separate doesn't help at all if you balance spells correctly or the classes and monsters that use those spells. If you want some Su abilities to not provoke and some to provoke, then add in rules for the classes.

Whenever the Dragon Fire Adept uses their class Supernatural abilities (Invocations) they do not provoke an AoO.

Whenever a Wizard uses their class Supernatural abilities (Spells) they do provoke AoO.

Make provoking or not a product of class feature, not a product of the type of magical abilitily. Same with SR and components, and whatever else. This way you have all the rules within the class instead of needing to go search for them.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Addendum: Have them in the PHB. Repeat them several times in the PHB, several more in both the DMG and the MM, and then at least once or twice in every supplement that comes out so that it's impossible to say you have even basic working knowledge of the rules but don't know that facet of the game.

I'm game with this.

Send a monthly email to players and even mail it to them.

Twice a month actually...

[Morty]

All this strikes me as being seriously too complicated and defining things that don't need definition. The important part is deciding how different abilities interact with the rules. Let players and DMs figure out how they want to describe them. If an ability isn't stopped by anti-magic fields, magic resistance or other such effects, further nailing down the difference between extraordinary and mundane abilities is pointless. Maybe it's internalized magic, maybe it's just the way the fictional fantasyland works, who cares.

[Metahuman1]

The mail/Email thing might be a bit much, but if you have something akin to dragon/dungeon mag, run it at least once or twice in different segments in those as well, and slap in your SRD and make sure you link it all over the place at every possible opportunity.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

All this strikes me as being seriously too complicated and defining things that don't need definition. The important part is deciding how different abilities interact with the rules. Let players and DMs figure out how they want to describe them. If an ability isn't stopped by anti-magic fields, magic resistance or other such effects, further nailing down the difference between extraordinary and mundane abilities is pointless. Maybe it's internalized magic, maybe it's just the way the fictional fantasyland works, who cares.

See, then you have the problem of joining a game or running a game where no one really knows the rules and it becomes Calvin ball.

Oh I cast a spell that ignores SR/Saves/Components/Doesn't provoke!

Well my SR (from a spell) does count toward to your spell because that is how I'M playing it...

Not all groups come in knowing each other and have played together for years. Having a base line rules for the game allows people from wherever and whatever background to play the same game.

Edit: Because there is no real push for a definition between mundane and Extraordinary is why Non-Caster can't have nice things. When even the most basic ability is called Ex, you make a ceiling for what Ex really can be. If the ceiling is using the feat "Track" then non-casters will never get anything good. Relabeling track as a Natural or Mundane ability allows people to separate base abilities that anything can do with Extraordinary things only special PCs/Creatures/Things can do.


The mail/Email thing might be a bit much, but if you have something akin to dragon/dungeon mag, run it at least once or twice in different segments in those as well, and slap in your SRD and make sure you link it all over the place at every possible opportunity.

Nothing is to much! Haha

Hire interns to hang flyers on players doors, like those Chinese takeout flyers.

[Metahuman1]

Hire ninja's to toss shuriken at them with cards tied to them that have it written on them!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Hire ninja's to toss shuriken at them with cards tied to them that have it written on them!

Ok ok that may be a little overboard, I mean, the people would never see them coming and each throw would be a kill shot :/

[Metahuman1]

Not true, shuriken were historically a distraction tool. You tossed them to give you an extra couple of seconds to get your real weapon out and get into a fighting stance or to force the other guy to move out of position as a knee jerk reaction, thus giving you an opening to nail them with your real weapon.

XD!

Hire giant pacific Rim Robots to stand along the shore posing as individual letters forming the entire explanation all across the coast!!!!!

[Person_Man]

Practically speaking though - 3.5 will have no direct successor. PF very likely will have a 2nd edition. This would focus minds in a useful way when writing a new edition of PF IMO.

So far 5E has been a mixed bag for me. So I, for one, would be very interested in a 2nd edition Pathfinder. I think you could easily take the best parts of Pathfinder (OGL, huge variety of options, basis in 3.5 rules which most gamers know) and the best parts of 5E (Advantage/Disadvantage, Bounded Accuracy, lack of fiddly-ness) and make a great game.

Honestly, just re-booting PF with all Tier 3 classes, dramatically consolidated Feats, and Advantage/Disadvantage would ensure a million dollars of sales.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So far 5E has been a mixed bag for me. So I, for one, would be very interested in a 2nd edition Pathfinder. I think you could easily take the best parts of Pathfinder (OGL, huge variety of options, basis in 3.5 rules which most gamers know) and the best parts of 5E (Advantage/Disadvantage, Bounded Accuracy, lack of fiddly-ness) and make a great game.

Honestly, just re-booting PF with all Tier 3 classes, dramatically consolidated Feats, and Advantage/Disadvantage would ensure a million dollars of sales.

That and fixed math and even I would buy into it.

Well, it doesn't have to be tier 3 classes. Tier 3 and tier 2 classes would be fun for a low power/high power game where low powered doesn't mean inept... You would still be tier 3 after all.

[Metahuman1]

All I know is that in the next year or two i'm gonna be running one of three systems.

5th Edition D&D.

Pathfinder (Pendent on when Path of War get's a full release.)

Fantasy Craft.


For everything else, there's M&M 3rd edition, and maybe if I get the time to learn it, shadow run at some point down the line.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

All I know is that in the next year or two i'm gonna be running one of three systems.

5th Edition D&D.

Pathfinder (Pendent on when Path of War get's a full release.)

Fantasy Craft.


For everything else, there's M&M 3rd edition, and maybe if I get the time to learn it, shadow run at some point down the line.

You should try Corporation, think shadow run except you work for the overlording corporations that took over the world.

[Morty]

See, then you have the problem of joining a game or running a game where no one really knows the rules and it becomes Calvin ball.

Oh I cast a spell that ignores SR/Saves/Components/Doesn't provoke!

Well my SR (from a spell) does count toward to your spell because that is how I'M playing it...

Not all groups come in knowing each other and have played together for years. Having a base line rules for the game allows people from wherever and whatever background to play the same game.


...did you even read what I wrote?


All this strikes me as being seriously too complicated and defining things that don't need definition. The important part is deciding how different abilities interact with the rules. Let players and DMs figure out how they want to describe them. If an ability isn't stopped by anti-magic fields, magic resistance or other such effects, further nailing down the difference between extraordinary and mundane abilities is pointless. Maybe it's internalized magic, maybe it's just the way the fictional fantasyland works, who cares.

There. The situation you're describing wouldn't happen, because there would be a clear ruling as to whether something provokes an AoO, is negated by SR and so on. But once we've established that, further definitions are needless busywork. And if there's anything 3.x and PF don't need, it's more fiddly definitions and categories. The system already has that in abundance.

[Metahuman1]

You should try Corporation, think shadow run except you work for the overlording corporations that took over the world.

En, sounds a lot like my day job. I game to play the hero and get an escape, not continue the work day.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

En, sounds a lot like my day job. I game to play the hero and get an escape, not continue the work day.

You can be the hero or a bad guy, it doesn't restrict you on that. Heroes have to feed their family too you know.

Plus there is an anti-establishment faction within the game.

[Metahuman1]

I might look it up when I get around to looking for a system for that nitch. And get some money.

[Larkas]

If you don’t have to put an ability into an Ex or Su box, it’s just a level-appropriate, class-appropriate ability. The name and the Ex/Su label don’t matter.
Did you know that many designers for TCG companies use fake names for individual cards rather than the final names those cards have in the set? For example, a 10/10 beater monster in Magic: The Gathering playtests might be called “the Hulk” or “Iron Man,” but is finally renamed to “Adamantine Juggernaut” later in the process. They design the mechanics, and may let the flavor inform the mechanics (like “we know this set is about traveling to a steampunk plane, so feel free to loot steampunk concepts for things cards should do”), but they don’t let the future flavor constrain the mechanics (as in “existing examples of steampunk literature won’t allow teleportation, so we can’t have any teleportation effects in this set”).

So if you forget about whether an ability is Ex or Su, and whether a class is nonmagical or magical, it frees you up to design cool stuff that’s thematic for the class. Games like Numenera already do this—your shoot-lasers-from-eyes powers might be from nanobots in your system, or bizarre surgical alterations, or you have cybernetic eyes, or because you’re actually a hard light hologram, or you’re an extraterrestrial, or you were experimented on with weird drugs, but the net effect is the same: you can shoot lasers out of your eyes.

So if I’m designing a level 10 ability for a class, it should be
* an appropriate power level for character level 10, and
* appropriate to the theme of the class,

whether that class’s theme is
* “great power from amazing martial training” (fighter)
* “parent is a deity and genetics are awesome” (fighter)
* “near-precognitive intuition for tasks” (rogue)
* “ridiculously lucky or cool like Fonzie” (rogue)
* “mutual pact with a supernatural entity” (cleric)
* “chosen evangelist of a transdimensional being” (cleric)
* “uncanny knowledge of physics that lets me exploit loopholes in reality” (wizard)
* “catalysis of fantastic reactions using apparently-ordinary combinations of materials” (wizard)
* or any other explanation you think is appropriate for your interpretation of your class, race, and archetype.

Don’t let the flavor (and the difference between Ex and Su is mostly flavor) limit the options for design.

And yes, I’m drawing a line between “flavor” and “theme of the class.” “Rogues are martials and can’t have magical abilities” is limiting design based on flavor. “Rogues can teleport a short distance to get behind an enemy, but not across the continent” is limiting a design based on a class’s theme. (And that technically doesn’t mean that “the greatest escape artist ever” as a rogue theme couldn’t have “I get away from my heists by teleporting a mile away.”)

There was some discussion about Captain America and Thor being examples of characters with the fighter class, as both are known for their fighting ability (Thor has superior endurance and strength for being an Asgardian, but Cap is considered a superior combatant and tactician), and those abilities aren’t magical (Thor does have magic, but it’s “magic weapon” and “magic strength,” not “make me better at knowing how to fight”). Continuing the comic book analogy, would you say Nightcrawler from the X-Men is best represented as a cleric, fighter, rogue, or wizard? I’d say fighter or rogue, leaning toward rogue (stealth, swashbuckling, personable)… with the ability to teleport. In other words, he’s a martial, a nonmagical character, who can teleport at will (normally considered a magical ability).

The guy is onto something here... Ultimately, Ex and Su doesn't matter... At least while you're designing the ability. IMO, you can set the status when the ability is done, but not before. Before, it's just "ability X".

EDIT: And the philosophy behind E6 rings true... :smallwink:


I think it would be helpful if the game explicitly told you in the rules, “the best-trained human person on Earth would be level X, and anything beyond that is superhuman beyond what any real person in Earth’s history has attained.” And in the case of 3E and Pathfinder, “X” is probably about 6.

[Morty]

Having thought about it some more, I think that while getting rid of the Supernatural tag might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, getting rid of the Extraordinary tag isn't. If something isn't magical enough for magic-denying measures to affect it, what's the point of muddying things?

[Psyren]

You mean rolling Ex and Na into one?

I think there is value in maintaining that separation. It creates design space for things that affect Ex, like Trait Removal or Cunning Brilliance, without subjecting every nonmagical ability a target has to those creations and making them exponentially more difficult to balance. Ex abilities also, like Su abilities, are easier to envision affecting external targets (e.g. Ranger Traps) than Na abilities.

[Morty]

You could put it that way, I suppose. In general, I'm in favour of reducing the number of labels and categories if possible.

[Segev]

Honestly, I like the (Ex) and (Su) categories as they exist in the rules; I agree that the (ex) ceiling should be raised. I do not think there is necessarily anything (Su) can do that (Ex) shouldn't, but that it should be valued as "more powerful" (higher CR, higher level, whatever you need to do to balance it) when it's (Ex), because (Ex) is never shut down.

Pysren, I respect your position overall, but I will have to say... while perhaps a "fighter" shouldn't have a sword technique for raising the dead, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be anything with (ex) abilities to do so. I admit, I have a hard time thinking of one, though.

One I do see: "animate trees" might not be something a class can allow you to do without magic - i.e. without (Su) tags or (Sp) or spells - but certain monsters might. Perhaps the Treant can animate other trees not because it's using magical powers, but because its roots and fibers are entwined with theirs, and it has injected its own sap, and now it has a limited time it can move and control them before the injection is burned out and used up.

As a very, very general rule, I think the existing status is a good one for determining ultimately whether something should be (Ex) or (Su), in the end: If magic is shut down, should this still work?

Though perhaps we need to divorce the "magic is magic, always" idea entirely. Go beyond approaching it as "Psionics and Magic are different" and treat Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Elemental, Incarnum, Binding, etc. as their own things. Maybe "Binding" is "Divine," or maybe it gives combinations of "divine" and "arcane" powers, or maybe it's its own thing. This would have to be carefully considered for every power source, whether it's an enabler to tap a font of supernatural energy, or it's actually a kind of energy in and of itself.

Incarnum, Arcane, Divine, and Psionic energy each have some pretty definite "this is its own power source" vibes to them. Spells and Powers are enablers to access Arcane, Divine, and Psionic energies, but "spell-like abilities" and "psi-like abilities" also tap them. "Supernatural" abilities could cover just about the whole gamut.

Incarnum is tapped pretty exclusively, as written, by soulmelds, but other things could work with it if designers wanted them to. Binding...probably is best as an enabler to tap various power sources. THis lets us have "divine" and "arcane" and "psionic" and even "incarnum" vestiges.

Now, an Anti-Magic Field is actually an "Anti-Arcane" field, or an "Anti-Divine" field. Or maybe an anti-incarnum field.

Things shut down based on power source they cut off.

It's much more complex, but it also allows weaving it into the various "mundane" classes in more intricate and interactive ways. If all "high-level" capabilities need some force-we-don't-have-in-the-real-world to power them, then they should have that defined, at least roughly, in the mechanics.


This does not quite answer some of the problems with spellcasting and AMFs, particularly conjuration and whether conjuring a ball of fire and hurling it is "magic" or not once it reaches the AMF. That's a balance and fluff issue, really, though. Maybe better handled by adding "elemental" sources of power - perhaps Evocation spells tap those more than "arcane" at times?

I'm getting a little lost in the weeds here, sorry.


The point is, I think we'd be better off by keeping a "magic" vs. "not magic" divide, but by not allowing anything to be blanket "anti-magic," nor to restrict "magic" to "not-mundane classes." Expand the various "magical" sub-systems into things that all "high-level" types start to tap, because they're learning to use the forces of the world. Some of the physical feats martial artists (western and eastern) can perform seem "magical" even in the real world. They're mostly strength and balance-related, but they're amazing. It's because they learn to tap physics and their own body's strengths - particularly how a body enhances itself with exercise and training and the "magic" of muscle memory - that they can perform these feats. If chi, incarnum, arcane and divine magic, psionic energy, and alchemical science all existed in our world, "mundane" people who achieve high "level" in their fields would exploit them, too.

Classes then become about WHAT you do and WHERE you focus; what "energies" they tap would be based on what seems most flavorful for that class and its methods and foci. Spellcasters tap their sources with spells. Binders use vestiges. Martial types might favor incarnum or psionics, or maybe they favor arcane for its agnostic availability. Or maybe they're the jacks of all trades - most options for what sources to tap, but less supreme flexibility and power within them.


Don't remove the (Ex) and (Su) labels, though, unless you're replacing it with something wholly new. IF you are, the (Na)tural tag might apply to what is now the overly-restricted (Ex) category, and (Su) vanishes to be replaced by (Ar), (Di), (In), (Ps), (El), (Sh)adow, or the like.

[Psyren]

One I do see: "animate trees" might not be something a class can allow you to do without magic - i.e. without (Su) tags or (Sp) or spells - but certain monsters might. Perhaps the Treant can animate other trees not because it's using magical powers, but because its roots and fibers are entwined with theirs, and it has injected its own sap, and now it has a limited time it can move and control them before the injection is burned out and used up.

I would only be okay with that if the treant's ex animation was more limited than its SLA. If it's using its own sap to animate a tree for example, it seems obvious to me that it wouldn't have that same sap available for its own use; without magic as an external power source, I would expect that treant to have a drawback of some kind, like being slowed or immobilized.

I'm also uncertain about the term "without magic" in this context. To me, a treant is an inherently magical entity, every bit as much as a dragon, construct or elemental - while they can exist and perform certain actions in an AMF, like a construct this has more to do with their magic being a self-contained/independent system than to having no magic at all.

[Segev]

I'm also uncertain about the term "without magic" in this context. To me, a treant is an inherently magical entity, every bit as much as a dragon, construct or elemental - while they can exist and perform certain actions in an AMF, like a construct this has more to do with their magic being a self-contained/independent system than to having no magic at all.

I think you're actually making a point closer to the "remove the divide" argument, here: if innately magical creatures can act within an AMF, is it really magic?

It is better, I think, to accept that magic is a thing, but that not everything that operates differently than it could under real-world physics is magic. Or, if it is, then "magic" is a very loose term that probably shouldn't be a system term at all. If a dragon, a treant, and a fireball spell are all "magic," maybe we really do need to use it only as a "it's a magical world, so all sorts of things that don't work in reality work there" fluff sense. Fireballs are shut down in an Anti-Arcane Field, and healing is (usually) shut down in an andi-Divine field. Dragons and treants work just fine in either, as they're happy to demonstrate to the cheeky wizard who is taunting them from within one.



But if a Fighter can non-magically leap 30 feet into the air (or 30 feet down from a roof) onto an enemy, but no real-world human muscles have the tensile strength to pull that off IRL, why is there a problem with a treant being able to non-magically inject sap without going all woozy from sap loss?

[Psyren]

I think you're actually making a point closer to the "remove the divide" argument, here: if innately magical creatures can act within an AMF, is it really magic?

I explained that - they are magical in nature, but do not require any underlying weave/source to function, similar to a completed golem. You need access to magic to create a golem but, once made, it can operate in an AMF. That internal source is powerful enough to maintain their own existence and any Ex abilities they possess, but not to power their truly supernatural abilities.

This is another reason why external abilities (like healing others, resurrection, or teleporting others) should be Su - without a "weave" as a vector, there is no way to extend those abilities outside of the self to affect anyone else. Self-healing and self-teleportation however can be Ex.



But if a Fighter can non-magically leap 30 feet into the air (or 30 feet down from a roof) onto an enemy, but no real-world human muscles have the tensile strength to pull that off IRL, why is there a problem with a treant being able to non-magically inject sap without going all woozy from sap loss?

Because the fighter's leap is an internal/self ability - he is acting on himself. The Treant is bringing other things to life and so should either be Su or very limited compared to magic that does the same thing.

[Segev]

I explained that - they are magical in nature, but do not require any underlying weave/source to function, similar to a completed golem. That internal source is powerful enough to maintain their own existence and any Ex abilities they possess, but not to power their truly supernatural abilities.

This is another reason why external abilities (like healing others, resurrection, or teleporting others) should be Su - without a "weave" as a vector, there is no way to extend those abilities outside of the self to affect anyone else. Self-healing and self-teleportation however can be Ex.

Maybe. I think we're getting, perhaps, too deep into "the fluff of why it works." From a mechanical standpoint, even if the explanation is "it's a world where magical creatures exist," these things are not magical in their function. They're non-magical creatures. THey don't ping on Detect Magic (well, golems do, but they're magic items on top of being creatures), they don't shut down in an AMF, etc. etc.

Which of course also brings us back around to Conjuration's evocation-ripoffs that are just plain better because "not magic once cast, honest."

[Psyren]

Which of course also brings us back around to Conjuration's evocation-ripoffs that are just plain better because "not magic once cast, honest."

Orbs specifically may have been badly explained, but the concept itself is sound. If I can magically cause an earthquake that causes you to be buried in nonmagical rubble, or tip a wall of iron over onto your head, why can't I use magic to create something nonmagical and simply throw it at you? Something like Crystal Shard makes perfect sense to me.

[Larkas]

This is another reason why external abilities (like healing others, resurrection, or teleporting others) should be Su - without a "weave" as a vector, there is no way to extend those abilities outside of the self to affect anyone else. Self-healing and self-teleportation however can be Ex.

Eh, resurrecting someone who has just died might just be possible in Ex, maybe even in Na. Think CPR. Maybe DC 25 for a person who died in the same round, +5 for every round passed. A high DC check for recovering HP fast (I.e.: minutes) also wouldn't be out of place.


Orbs specifically may have been badly explained, but the concept itself is sound. If I can magically cause an earthquake that causes you to be buried in nonmagical rubble, or tip a wall of iron over onto your head, why can't I use magic to create something nonmagical and simply throw it at you? Something like Crystal Shard makes perfect sense to me.

Eh, Crystal Shards might make sense, but an orb of "pure force"? You're materializing pure force, that sounds pretty magical to me. Same for sonic and fire orbs, less so for the rest of them. Still, I like my magic stopped by AMF.