What type of ability is meldshaping?

[eggynack]

I'm doing some research into incarnum, particularly as it applies to druids, and part of determining the potential there is figuring out conclusive answers to what kinda abilities I'm working with. Based on the monster entries, it looks like everything is supernatural, and that'd work for me, except the one monster I actually care about, the incarnum dragon, is irritatingly undefined in this regard. So, the core question is, can a druid, through the awesome magic of dragon wild shape, become an incarnum dragon, shape a necrocarnum circlet, bind that to the incarnum dragon's fancy crown chakra, and then maybe invest some essentia, thus gaining crazy zombie powers? That's just a super cool example, but the goal is that wider variety of awesome stuff, awesome stuff that is hopefully not limited by any of these abilities being, say, spell-likes, or in that same weird middle-ground occupied by spells.

[Psyren]

Meldshaping is a natural ability for them, just as it is for an incarnate or other meldshaping class. The melds themselves are subject to AMF/dead magic due to transparency, but your meldshaping ability itself remains.

Wild Shape inherits from Alternate Form, which does not to my knowledge grant Natural Abilities.

[eggynack]

Meldshaping is a natural ability for them, just as it is for an incarnate or other meldshaping class. The melds themselves are subject to AMF/dead magic due to transparency, but your meldshaping ability itself remains.

Wild Shape inherits from Alternate Form, which does not to my knowledge grant Natural Abilities.
Makes sense, though the natural ability space is always tricky. Ah well.

[eggynack]

New counter-argument: Check out the duskling totemist. Unlike other monster entries, it's just a straight up totemist, and both the essentia pool and the soulmelds are Su abilities. That strongly implies that, if the incarnum dragon is considered to be acting like one of the incarnum classes, the abilities still count as Su. Or at least most of them do, and I'm inclined to think the ones I lack perfect confirmation have the same typing. It's kinda weird that the soul meld ability itself lacks a typing listed, but the overall ability could inherit the typing. And, in any case, it'd be weird in the other direction for the totemist to have most of incarnum be supernatural, and this one element of the ability just happens to be natural. If you're doing all supernatural stuff, then you're fundamentally not doing natural stuff.

Either way, I think I can safely access the essentia for various purposes, and I can probably access the other parts, maybe with a caveat if I can't find a good citation. That, or the incarnum dragon operates on a third separate basis. But I'm doubtful of that last. After all, the argument for that would be that the dragon's capacity is somehow more intrinsic, because the ability of a totemist (or other incarnum class) is gained externally to some extent, but dusklings actually boast the same sort of language with regard to their incarnum capabilities, and yet their main incarnum ability, the essentia, is still classed as Su. And it's still classed that way when it's the only source of essentia.

The one big hole remaining in this claim is that the totem giant, unlike those other creatures, explicitly has the soulmeld ability listed as Su. It's not clear why they would do that if not to distinguish that other-typed soulmelding. On the other hand, the giant also has the essentia pool ability, and without typing at that. Are we to assume that the giant has natural essentia pool and supernatural soulmeld, while the duskling has supernatural essentia and natural soulmeld? That's a really weird assumption to make. It could be that it's typed that way cause cobalt rage is part of the sources for the essentia, and that could be extraordinary or something, but again, kinda weird that the overall essentia pool ability wouldn't be considered separate from the sources of the essentia if the individual soulmelds are considered separate from the soul meld ability.

Anyway, I think the point here is that Wizards was really inconsistent about putting ability typing in, and that a lack of typing shouldn't necessarily lead to the conclusion of natural in this case. There's a lot of evidence for a supernatural typing here. And also, it would make me happy. Just imagine it. Druidic access to basically free necrocarnum zombies. You get to be a druid pretending to be a soulborn, which doesn't sound appealing, but you're also a dragon. It's the best thing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Just remember that you need to rest for 8 hours and spend an hour shaping your soulmelds.

You'll probably also want to shape them on your animal companion, too, to double the HD of zombies you've got. Then you should be able to keep the soulmelds up even after you stop being a dragon. I think. If your DM says no, just eat your soulmelds before your wild shape expires.

[Psyren]

1) The sample Totemist's melds themselves are (Su), but the "Soulmelds" ability they are contained under is still untyped and therefore natural. Without that, you can't actually shape any of them. The melds themselves are supernatural but the class feature that gives them to you is not, just like Spellcasting is not itself a spell.

2) The Totem Giant's "Soulmelds" ability is unique because it doesn't follow any sort of class progression. They get two Totemist melds ever and that's it. So the fact that that is supernatural and the "Meldshaping" ability of the dragon (which also has a different name, to drive the point home) is not, is not an oversight.

[eggynack]

1) The sample Totemist's melds themselves are (Su), but the "Soulmelds" ability they are contained under is still untyped and therefore natural. Without that, you can't actually shape any of them. The melds themselves are supernatural but the class feature that gives them to you is not, just like Spellcasting is not itself a spell.

2) The Totem Giant's "Soulmelds" ability is unique because it doesn't follow any sort of class progression. They get two Totemist melds ever and that's it. So the fact that that is supernatural and the "Meldshaping" ability of the dragon (which also has a different name, to drive the point home) is not, is not an oversight.
That's something of a fair pair of claims, but the main question remains. Why would the essentia pool, a central and innate aspect of incarnum, be supernatural, and meldshaping, an aspect of incarnum that you are arguing is natural based on its innate nature, be natural? If anything, the essentia pool is a more natural component, being apparently based only on the scale of the creature's spirit, where soulmelds are a more magical thing. This isn't like spells, where we largely have only absences to point to, and where we mostly lack really closely associated abilities to look to. We have a lot of strong circumstantial evidence here that meldshaping should not just be automatically slotted into natural.

Edit: Also, it's not the giant with the uniquely named ability. It's the dragon. The classes and such have the same named ability. As for the claim that the ability isn't following a class progression, I don't see how it could. The giant is fundamentally static, given its advancement is by character class. So, I would think your argument would be necessarily predicated on the idea that, while the giant and totemist alike have this supernatural ability, the dragon is distinct. Except it doesn't seem to be.

[Psyren]

It's a natural ability the same way that a wizard's spellcasting is natural. It doesn't mean that it's innate to their very being - it can be learned. But, you can't Alter Self into an archmage and suddenly master magic either.

As for essentia, you can have it without ever being able to shape a single soulmeld; ask any Azurin or Duskling commoner.

[eggynack]

It's a natural ability the same way that a wizard's spellcasting is natural. It doesn't mean that it's innate to their very being - it can be learned. But, you can't Alter Self into an archmage and suddenly master magic either.
I know that's your claim, that they're the same thing. I'm saying that that's what needs more evidence to support it. The ability certainly has room to be natural, if the RAW swings another way, while keeping within the flavor of incarnum. I just don't know that it is natural.


As for essentia, you can have it without ever being able to shape a single soulmeld; ask any Azurin or Duskling commoner.
Sure, they're not mutually inclusive. But they're still very similar sorts of abilities. What is the difference between essentia and meldshaping, within these terms? While it could make sense for both to be either natural or supernatural, does it really make sense for one to be natural and the other supernatural? Aren't they the same sorts of things? Also, separate question, does this mean that you agree that dragon wild shape picks up the essentia pool? Cause I could do some way less cool but still interesting things with that.

[Sapreaver]

This might seem like a derail buy would still answer your question.

If spell casting is a natural ability but spells are magical.
Would using dragon wildshape let you cast spells as a dragon does innately as a sorcerer?

If so than incarnum would work if not than it wouldn't

[eggynack]

For casting, I think the question just comes down to the typing on the spells ability. Everything from there just works or doesn't work. But either way, that problem doesn't have much bearing on this one, except where the logic there can inform some of the logic here. As far as I'm concerned, the typing on spells is ambiguous, and there's a good shot that it's the unusable natural. The typing on meldshaping is also somewhat ambiguous, and I think there's a really good shot that it's the usable supernatural. And I don't see a massive amount of evidence for the notion that it's not supernatural, while I also see some strong evidence for the opposing notion. Still, there's a difference between what makes sense to me and what is handbookable RAW. In the end, I might just wind up putting an initial caveat in that says the usability here is related to typing, and then act under the assumption that it all works. But I'd prefer to just stick it in without caveats, if possible.

[Psyren]

I know that's your claim, that they're the same thing. I'm saying that that's what needs more evidence to support it. The ability certainly has room to be natural, if the RAW swings another way, while keeping within the flavor of incarnum. I just don't know that it is natural.

The dragon's ability is untyped, and thus defaults to natural. Even if it were the same as the another creature like the Giant's (and it's clearly not), the specific creature you're trying to turn into is the dragon, and so the way some other creature treats/types it isn't relevant.



Sure, they're not mutually inclusive. But they're still very similar sorts of abilities. What is the difference between essentia and meldshaping, within these terms? While it could make sense for both to be either natural or supernatural, does it really make sense for one to be natural and the other supernatural?

I can't/won't comment on whether it "makes sense." RAW does and doesn't in near-equal measure. What I can point out is that the dragon's meldshaping ability is not typed.



Aren't they the same sorts of things? Also, separate question, does this mean that you agree that dragon wild shape picks up the essentia pool? Cause I could do some way less cool but still interesting things with that.

Where in their entry does it say the pool is supernatural?

Look eggy, you started the thread asking if you could do this, but it's increasingly clear you've already made up your mind on how it should work and don't actually want to hear any dissenting opinions. So the person you need to talk to isn't me, but your DM - whether they say yes or no, nothing I would have to add would matter at that point anyway.

[eggynack]

The dragon's ability is untyped, and thus defaults to natural. Even if it were the same as the another creature like the Giant's (and it's clearly not), the specific creature you're trying to turn into is the dragon, and so the way some other creature treats/types it isn't relevant.
It's not about what creature you're turning into, but what the ability is.


I can't/won't comment on whether it "makes sense." RAW does and doesn't in near-equal measure. What I can point out is that the dragon's meldshaping ability is not typed.
There, no, it's not. But it seems to be typed elsewhere, and the other elements of the ability set are as well, and that strongly implies that the ability has that type. The ability isn't designated there, but the rules compendium doesn't specify that the ability need be typed literally everywhere. It demands only that the ability be typed at all. And, while the ability has a different name, there doesn't seem to be a substantial difference between the abilities as you claimed. I mean, you said the giant is somehow really different, but it seems identical to the totemist ability, and I can't see a difference between that and the dragon ability. And, if the ability is typed, it's not un-typed, even if it's not explicitly given a type in every spot.



Where in their entry does it say the pool is supernatural?
It doesn't, but I think every other pool is explicitly supernatural, and there's no difference between the dragon pool and every other pool that I can point to.



Look eggy, you started the thread asking if you could do this, but it's increasingly clear you've already made up your mind on how it should work and don't actually want to hear any dissenting opinions. So the person you need to talk to isn't me, but your DM - whether they say yes or no, nothing I would have to add would matter at that point anyway.
This is a handbook thing, actually. So, no DM. Just an idea I'm trying to put through the rigors of argument. And it's not like I came into this with such a strong stance. In the fourth post, I found evidence that I thought was rather convincing, and from there I was of the thinking that it works. Right now, I'm kinda in the state where I'm writing it up with caveats, as I said, but I could theoretically be convinced into either full elimination or elimination of the caveat text. In a sense, I am currently asking my DM, in that I'm including that advice in the entry.

[Psyren]

It's not about what creature you're turning into, but what the ability is.

So are a Zodar's 1/year Wish and a Pit Fiend's 1/year Wish the same type too? By that logic they should be.



There, no, it's not.

Precisely; the dragon's is specifically untyped, and that is the specific creature you're turning into (because you're using dragon wild shape) and thus specific trumps general.



It doesn't, but I think every other pool is explicitly supernatural, and there's no difference between the dragon pool and every other pool that I can point to.

See above.



This is a handbook thing, actually. So, no DM. Just an idea I'm trying to put through the rigors of argument. And it's not like I came into this with such a strong stance. In the fourth post, I found evidence that I thought was rather convincing, and from there I was of the thinking that it works. Right now, I'm kinda in the state where I'm writing it up with caveats, as I said, but I could theoretically be convinced into either full elimination or elimination of the caveat text. In a sense, I am currently asking my DM, in that I'm including that advice in the entry.

The thing is, you can point to all kinds of other creatures all day long and try to say "maybe they meant it to work like this." But by RAW, the only creature that ultimately matters is the dragon itself, and the types (or lack thereof) on its own abilities. Even if you can prove they "meant" to put a Su on those and simply forgot to do so, that doesn't change the printed rules, unless there's an MOI errata out there that addresses this or even a designer statement that I'm unaware of.

[eggynack]

So are a Zodar's 1/year Wish and a Pit Fiend's 1/year Wish the same type too? By that logic they should be.
Bad example. The zodar doesn't actually cast wish. It alters reality as though it had just cast wish, which represents at least some break from the general ability. Also, the ability has all these weird pseudo-caveats on it. This dragon meldshaping ability doesn't seem to have any such break, aside from the name being subtly different.




Precisely; the dragon's is specifically untyped, and that is the specific creature you're turning into (because you're using dragon wild shape) and thus specific trumps general.
But the ability isn't specifically defined in a way that would trump anything. It's just undefined. And, without that specific to trump the general, like you have with the zodar, you just kinda use the general. Returning to the zodar, one other difference there is that there is an explicit piece of specific that'd be overriding the general. Here, you're not actually relying on something specific to trump the general state of meldshaping, but relying on the rule of ability typing to determine, y'know, ability typing. And if the rule of ability typing doesn't type the ability in this way, because the ability has already been typed, then its status as untyped in this case is irrelevant.



See above.

Same, except here there isn't even the justification of name difference to create distance.


The thing is, you can point to all kinds of other creatures all day long and try to say "maybe they meant it to work like this." But by RAW, the only creature that ultimately matters is the dragon itself, and the types (or lack thereof) on its own abilities. Even if you can prove they "meant" to put a Su on those and simply forgot to do so, that doesn't change the printed rules, unless there's an MOI errata out there that addresses this or even a designer statement that I'm unaware of.
My problem with your claim is that I don't see a lack of typing as perfectly deterministic based on the evidence you seem to be using. If it were perfectly deterministic in this way, then you'd be right, but as long as the ability is the same ability, then it looks a lot like the rules you're working with lose their deterministic power. In particular, they can only define abilities that are completely undefined, and this ability is, to some extent, defined.

[Troacctid]

But the ability isn't specifically defined in a way that would trump anything. It's just undefined.
An ability without a listed type is defined as a natural ability.

Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

[eggynack]

An ability without a listed type is defined as a natural ability.
My claim is that it is designated. It’s just not designated there.

[Psyren]

My claim is that it is designed. It’s just not designed there.

Right, but all that matters is the thing you're turning into. A Totem Giant's designation for its (differently-named) ability only matters if you're turning into a Totem Giant, which you're not.

As for the Zodar, plainly we disagree there too.

[eggynack]

Right, but all that matters is the thing you're turning into. A Totem Giant's designation for its (differently-named) ability only matters if you're turning into a Totem Giant, which you're not.
I disagree. What matters, if you're going by the RC, is the ability, not the ability as it stands on individual monsters.


As for the Zodar, plainly we disagree there too.
What? Why? That one seems pretty straightforward. And, even were it not, there actually is specific there to override general.

[Troacctid]

Abilities can have different types for different creatures. Consider the assassin's Hide in Plain Sight (Su) vs. the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight (Ex), for example.

[eggynack]

Abilities can have different types for different creatures. Consider the assassin's Hide in Plain Sight (Su) vs. the ranger's Hide in Plain Sight (Ex), for example.
I'm aware. But, first of all, those two abilities are even more different than these two, differently named or not. That whole class of abilities is, actually, and there tends to be differences of that sort when you get differently typed abilities. Second, there you at least have the precedence, fueled by the presence of those two hide abilities, that this ability isn't just a uniform whole in this regard. With meldshaping, if there were at least one other case where meldshaping had a different type, then that'd be more than sufficient to indicate that the ability isn't typed in general. But there isn't such a case, and any place which could give any indication at all indicates that type. Third, well, those abilities actually have the specific to back it up. Here, you just have an empty space. It's far less potent as an override for the typing than an actual ability type.

Also, here's a place where the flavor kinda fits into things. With spells, while the output is definitely magical, it's not clear that the input, the ability to case spells, is definitely magic. Here though, because of all the supporting information, we know with a reasonably high degree of likelihood that soulmelding is magic. And, if you check the rules compendium, then natural and extraordinary abilities are not magical, by definition. It's not perfect evidence, but it's reasonable circumstantial evidence.

[Troacctid]

Okay, then consider flight, which can be natural, supernatural, or extraordinary.

Natural abilities may themselves be nonmagical while still allowing you access to magic. Most racial spellcasting—nymph, couatl, androsphinx, etc.—is natural. It seems safe enough to assume that the same thing is going on with the dragon's meldshaping here.

[eggynack]

Okay, then consider flight, which can be natural, supernatural, or extraordinary.
Even then, you can still point to a difference, that being the way it actually operates in the real (fake) world, and the source of the abilities. Magical fliers fly magically. Here, I don't think there's any difference of any sort between the giant and the dragon. I mean, okay, there are two differences. First, there's the name, and second, there's the word "innate". The name thing, well, that's a bit problematic, except again, the text is the same. The innate thing though, for that, I think you can safely look to the azurin soulborn. See, there too you're missing the text innate, except there you lack the supernatural text. So, if the lack of tag makes the dragon natural, then it makes the soulborn natural, but that means the innateness isn't the source of the naturalness, which in turn seems to remove that difference.


Natural abilities may themselves be nonmagical while still allowing you access to magic. Most racial spellcasting—nymph, couatl, androsphinx, etc.—is natural. It seems safe enough to assume that the same thing is going on with the dragon's meldshaping here.
Sure, to the non-magic to magic premise. I still haven't touched on the whole natural versus extraordinary thing, that makes the issue of spellcasting and meldshaping alike a horrible mess if you assume pure untaggedness, but you'd be in non-magic territory either way. But, at the same time, just because it's a theoretical possibility that meldshaping is non-magic that makes magic, doesn't mean that meldshaping actually is non-magic. And, in fact, one can point to a solid body of evidence that indicates that meldshaping is magic. First, of course, the giant, clearly marked as magic with the same associated words. Second, the essentia pool, which operates in a similar manner and yet is supernatural. Either way, you're manipulating this underlying universal force with your whatever. Third, the underlying flavor of soulmelding, which seems kinda magically oriented.

[Godskook]

I disagree. What matters, if you're going by the RC, is the ability, not the ability as it stands on individual monsters.

There's not a difference here. The ability as it stands on an individual monster entry IS the ability. There's no special 'thing' about a monster ability that ties various monster abilities of the same name as the same ability.

[eggynack]

There's not a difference here. The ability as it stands on an individual monster entry IS the ability. There's no special 'thing' about a monster ability that ties various monster abilities of the same name as the same ability.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, especially with something like meldshaping which is the fundamental purpose of the entire book. Or, y'know, in general. Can we really say definitively that the soulmeld ability over here is completely and utterly disconnected from the soulmeld ability over there, two abilities utterly identical to each other?

Also, in reference to the magic/not-magic separation, there's one big difference between meldshaping and spells. That difference being, magic is a two step process. With spells, first you prepare them, and then you cast them. There's room there for one to be supernatural, and the other to be... not. With soulmelds, you shape them, and that's the entire process. There's not really any room between the ability and its product.

[Troacctid]

What about sorcerer casting? No preparation there.

[eggynack]

What about sorcerer casting? No preparation there.
True, though there is the whole daily replenishment thing, which is similar. You gaining daily spells and using daily spells are, in either case, different things.

[Troacctid]

Meldshaping requires the resty replenishy thing too, so that's not a significant difference.

[eggynack]

Meldshaping requires the resty replenishy thing too, so that's not a significant difference.
Well, you have the eight hour thing, which is roughly the same as the usual prepared caster pre-spell rest. That isn't really part of the ability, so much as it's a part of the setup for the ability. And then you have the meditation, which is when you simultaneously choose and use your soulmelds, meaning that the resting isn't so much a separating factor as another part of the ability gestalt. Granted, the soulmelds pop in at the end of that time, but they're not separated from it fully. It'd be like if a sorcerer, at the beginning of the day, just cast all of his spells at once, in a manner outside his control.

Overall, I think I have a solid case as regards this point, though I'm unsure if having that solid case means much to the overall argument. Basically, my reasoning underlying this whole thing actually lies within a lot of these "What are spells?" arguments. You have some talk of whether the rules compendium overrides the monster manual with regards to the typing of untyped things (y'know, primary source, the premium core books, and so on), and then you have some loose arguments premised on the typing of spells on various monsters. The thing which makes me think there's a case is that, where the argument based on monster spell typing is loose, the argument for that here is relatively strong. Most of the available information points towards this result, with the only real exception being the lack of explicit typing, while, with spells, there just isn't any information in the first place. And, if something murky and ambiguous gets pushed in a particular direction, I gotta figure that's meaningful with regards to the ultimate position of that thing.

[Godskook]

I'm not sure that's necessarily true, especially with something like meldshaping which is the fundamental purpose of the entire book.

Not a RAW argument, that's RAI.


Can we really say definitively that the soulmeld ability over here is completely and utterly disconnected from the soulmeld ability over there, two abilities utterly identical to each other?

Yes.

The Duskling Totemist gets his meldshaping from having levels in a class, and his entry is merely his PC racial traits plus class levels.

The Totem Giant gets an ability that DOES NOT COUNT as class levels, and therefore doesn't stack with Totemists levels. Unique ability.

The Incarnum Dragon gets an ability with a unique name, unique mechanics for advancement, and, as is traditional for Dragons, its not a Su/Sp ability.

In all 3 cases, the abilities with merely similar use are very VERY explicitly different abilities. They come from different sources(Duskling's from class levels) and mechanically work different. In both the cases where they're monster abilities, they have different names too.

[Bakkan]

Let's suppose that the authors actually did intend to make the Incarnum Dragon's abilities natural rather than supernatural, which they were perfectly capable of doing.

They would have only one way to indicate this, namely by not including an ability type, as they did.

Thus, the lack of typing could indicate either that they forgot to include the (Su) tag, or that they deliberately did not include it because the ability is not supernatural. Since both situations are possible, there doesn't seem to be a way to know for sure which actually happened.

[GrayDeath]

A Blue one :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Not a RAW argument, that's RAI.
What I mean is that it seems like a cohesive ability, but sure. Just the other part then. There really isn't a definition of where an ability stops being a cohesive whole, with regards to the typeless primacy rules.



The Duskling Totemist gets his meldshaping from having levels in a class, and his entry is merely his PC racial traits plus class levels.

The Totem Giant gets an ability that DOES NOT COUNT as class levels, and therefore doesn't stack with Totemists levels. Unique ability.

The Incarnum Dragon gets an ability with a unique name, unique mechanics for advancement, and, as is traditional for Dragons, its not a Su/Sp ability.

In all 3 cases, the abilities with merely similar use are very VERY explicitly different abilities. They come from different sources(Duskling's from class levels) and mechanically work different. In both the cases where they're monster abilities, they have different names too.
But the only underlying difference in their operation is how they advance. I'm not really sure why that would be a major influencing factor on ability type. Yes, they have different sources, but that's frequently true of abilities. How they work, meanwhile, is downright identical. And, while the non-dragons have an ability with a different name from the dragon, the totemist and the giant have a same-named ability, one which operates in the same way, and yet there is still a lacking typing. This strongly implies that name isn't the sole determining feature for type listing. Point here being, the name aspect at least seems inconclusive, and the assertion that we're working with really different things, is lacking.

I'm not sure what you mean in your claim that a lack of magical ability typing is normal for dragons. Dragon abilities are frequently, perhaps even usually, explicitly magical. Just look at the non-global abilities for core dragons as an example. Out of those abilities, only water breathing, sound imitation, ice walking, and spider climb, are untyped, and thus non-magical. Dragons don't do some weird thing where they make the non-magical magical by dint of their intrinsically magical being. They just kinda, y'know, do magic stuff.

[Psyren]

Thus, the lack of typing could indicate either that they forgot to include the (Su) tag, or that they deliberately did not include it because the ability is not supernatural. Since both situations are possible, there doesn't seem to be a way to know for sure which actually happened.

That's RAI, which you're correct, we have no way of knowing. RAW however means "as written," and there is a written rule for how to treat abilities that lack an explicit designation - natural. If they want to fix RAW, there is a mechanism to do that (errata), or the far more likely mechanism of rule zero, by which his DM simply ignores the lack of a type and lets him use the meldshaping ability anyway. But neither of those change the facts as they currently stand.

[Bakkan]

That's RAI, which you're correct, we have no way of knowing. RAW however means "as written," and there is a written rule for how to treat abilities that lack an explicit designation - natural. If they want to fix RAW, there is a mechanism to do that (errata), or the far more likely mechanism of rule zero, by which his DM simply ignores the lack of a type and lets him use the meldshaping ability anyway. But neither of those change the facts as they currently stand.

I completely agree, and I don't see any RAW way to argue it's not natural. I was showing that it could very well also be RAI, and so I see no good reason to even entertain the possibility that the ability is natural without houseruling.

[eggynack]

That's RAI, which you're correct, we have no way of knowing. RAW however means "as written," and there is a written rule for how to treat abilities that lack an explicit designation - natural. If they want to fix RAW, there is a mechanism to do that (errata), or the far more likely mechanism of rule zero, by which his DM simply ignores the lack of a type and lets him use the meldshaping ability anyway. But neither of those change the facts as they currently stand.
No, not an explicit designation. Any designation, explicit or implicit, would be sufficient based on the rules you're working with. And I am arguing that there is an implicit designation, by virtue of the typing of same/similar abilities elsewhere, and a pile of supporting information.

[Troacctid]

The most similar ability is the class ability of the incarnate, totemist, and soulborn—which in all three cases is a natural ability, just like a spellcaster's spells or a warlock's invocations.

[eggynack]

The most similar ability is the class ability of the incarnate, totemist, and soulborn—which in all three cases is a natural ability, just like a spellcaster's spells or a warlock's invocations.
My big problem with that is that I'm not sure their abilities are natural either, particularly owing to the oddly Su nature of the essentia pool, but also cause their ability seems even more similar to the giant's. If we're arranging these in terms of Su likelihood, it'd go giant at definite, classes as less definite, and the dragon at less definite than that.

[Troacctid]

My big problem with that is that I'm not sure their abilities are natural either, particularly owing to the oddly Su nature of the essentia pool, but also cause their ability seems even more similar to the giant's. If we're arranging these in terms of Su likelihood, it'd go giant at definite, classes as less definite, and the dragon at less definite than that.
I'm pretty sure there's like a zero percent chance that a warlock's invocation ability or a wizard's (or dragon's) spellcasting ability is supernatural.

[eggynack]

I'm pretty sure there's like a zero percent chance that a warlock's invocation ability or a wizard's (or dragon's) spellcasting ability is supernatural.
Sure, probably. Not sure if that has bearing on the supernatural or not-supernatural nature of this ability though.

[Troacctid]

Sure, probably. Not sure if that has bearing on the supernatural or not-supernatural nature of this ability though.
It's written the same way, and it's the same general class of ability, so I don't see why you're convinced it has to be different.

[Necroticplague]

The ability isn't labelled as SU, EX, SLA, or Psi. Therefore, by definition, it is a natural ability. However, it is still subject to the rules for incarnum. This makes sense, as it's much like how a normal dragon's casting is a natural ability, but it's still subject to the rules for spells. Note this is also how the classes work for analogues. The classes have incarnum as a natural ability, while casting is a natural ability for the classes that have it. However, both are subject to separate rules beyond the basics of those for natural abilities. RAW of being a natural ability is clear, RAI by comparison to similar things is also clear. The class it shapes as,and the spellcasting of other dragons it replaces, are both natural abilities. It thus follows that the incarnum dragon's meldshaping is intended to be a natural ability).

[eggynack]

It's written the same way, and it's the same general class of ability, so I don't see why you're convinced it has to be different.
Two main things. First, the essentia pool ability. Why would the essentia pool ability, something that seems just as natural as the rest of incarnum, be supernatural, and the shaping be natural? And, along those lines, taking this overall argument the other way, if simple lacking of a label is sufficient for naturalness, then the totem giant's essentia pool is natural? What does that mean? Seriously, what the hell does that even mean? The giant only has soulmelds by dint of some external supernatural effect, but the essentia pool just works for them? How does any of that make sense? Granted, creating inconsistencies isn't a strictly conclusive RAW object, but I think it's a meaningful thing.

Second, the totem giant's soulmelds. I don't think any of those other class abilities have some external creature that has the thing supernaturally. Spells are probably natural on wizards, or theoretically extraordinary, if you go by the monster manual, and I think some creatures have some extraordinary spell stuff, but no creature, to my knowledge, has spells as supernatural. This implies to me, first, that soulmelds are a magic thing, beyond just the things they create, which would preclude their being natural, and second, that there's a typing for the ability in an overall sense that isn't natural.

The ability isn't labelled as SU, EX, SLA, or Psi. Therefore, by definition, it is a natural ability. However, it is still subject to the rules for incarnum. This makes sense, as it's much like how a normal dragon's casting is a natural ability, but it's still subject to the rules for spells. Note this is also how the classes work for analogues. The classes have incarnum as a natural ability, while casting is a natural ability for the classes that have it. However, both are subject to separate rules beyond the basics of those for natural abilities. RAW of being a natural ability is clear, RAI by comparison to similar things is also clear. The class it shapes as,and the spellcasting of other dragons it replaces, are both natural abilities. It thus follows that the incarnum dragon's meldshaping is intended to be a natural ability).
Again, I don't think that pointing to the classes is all that convincing, because the evidence that the totemist's soulmelds ability is natural is lacking more than that the dragon's soulmelds ability is natural. The argument that the class soulmeld thing must be natural seems more based on tradition than anything else, here.

[Troacctid]

Two main things. First, the essentia pool ability. Why would the essentia pool ability, something that seems just as natural as the rest of incarnum, be supernatural, and the shaping be natural?
An incarnum dragon's essentia pool is also natural.


And, along those lines, taking this overall argument the other way, if simple lacking of a label is sufficient for naturalness, then the totem giant's essentia pool is natural? What does that mean? Seriously, what the hell does that even mean? The giant only has soulmelds by dint of some external supernatural effect, but the essentia pool just works for them? How does any of that make sense? Granted, creating inconsistencies isn't a strictly conclusive RAW object, but I think it's a meaningful thing.
The rules for the incarnum subtype (MoI 169) may shed some light on this for you.


Second, the totem giant's soulmelds. I don't think any of those other class abilities have some external creature that has the thing supernaturally. Spells are probably natural on wizards, or theoretically extraordinary, if you go by the monster manual, and I think some creatures have some extraordinary spell stuff, but no creature, to my knowledge, has spells as supernatural. This implies to me, first, that soulmelds are a magic thing, beyond just the things they create, which would preclude their being natural, and second, that there's a typing for the ability in an overall sense that isn't natural.
I don't believe this logic has any basis in the rules. Yes, soulmelds are magical. No, the ability to shape them is not (Su).


Again, I don't think that pointing to the classes is all that convincing, because the evidence that the totemist's soulmelds ability is natural is lacking more than that the dragon's soulmelds ability is natural. The argument that the class soulmeld thing must be natural seems more based on tradition than anything else, here.
It's based on the fact that they're not marked as (Ex), (Su), (Sp), or (Ps), which makes them natural by default. This is a thing that happens very commonly in the rules, so it's not unusual in the least. If it were supernatural, it would be marked as (Su). It's not, so it isn't.

[eggynack]

An incarnum dragon's essentia pool is also natural.
Leaving that claim aside (cause it's in the same bucket as the soulmeld thing, for the most part), I was referring to the essentia pool ability of the duskling, and most other creatures that have one. Let's just leave the dragon alone for a minute, and look only at the giant and one of the class based entries. By your claims and logic, the giant has supernatural soulmelds and natural essentia, while the class has natural soulmelds and supernatural essentia. This, to my thinking at least, makes exactly zero sense. The giant is simultaneously more and less magical in the expression of these abilities. My thinking, from there, is that, because the supernatural typing is immutable, the missing and therefore usually natural typings must be mutable. Which would give the giant supernatural essentia, and the totemist supernatural soulmelds. From there, you have established that soulmelds are supernatural.




The rules for the incarnum subtype (MoI 169) may shed some light on this for you.
Not sure how, exactly.


I don't believe this logic has any basis in the rules. Yes, soulmelds are magical. No, the ability to shape them is not (Su).
The totem giant doesn't have only some automatic soulmelds. They have the ability to shape soulmelds. And that ability to shape soulmelds is supernatural. The thing about them having some soulmelds already on isn't a giant thing, or an incarnum subtype thing, really. After all, the various class based monster descriptions have already on soulmelds also. Notably, had they actually had their soulmelds as just a pair of magic things that were always on, I'd've likely dropped this whole thing right there, cause it'd be a good justification for the difference in typing.


It's based on the fact that they're not marked as (Ex), (Su), (Sp), or (Ps), which makes them natural by default. This is a thing that happens very commonly in the rules, so it's not unusual in the least. If it were supernatural, it would be marked as (Su). It's not, so it isn't.
I understand that that's what your claim is, yes. But I think there's a solid chance here that there's implicit typing from other sources.

[Troacctid]

Leaving that claim aside (cause it's in the same bucket as the soulmeld thing, for the most part), I was referring to the essentia pool ability of the duskling, and most other creatures that have one. Let's just leave the dragon alone for a minute, and look only at the giant and one of the class based entries. By your claims and logic, the giant has supernatural soulmelds and natural essentia, while the class has natural soulmelds and supernatural essentia. This, to my thinking at least, makes exactly zero sense. The giant is simultaneously more and less magical in the expression of these abilities. My thinking, from there, is that, because the supernatural typing is immutable, the missing and therefore usually natural typings must be mutable. Which would give the giant supernatural essentia, and the totemist supernatural soulmelds. From there, you have established that soulmelds are supernatural.
Essentia can come from abilities of all types. You could get it from a spell, a spell-like ability, a supernatural ability, a natural ability, an extraordinary ability, a magic item, whatever. There are examples of all of these in the rules, and there's nothing wrong or unusual about that.


The totem giant doesn't have only some automatic soulmelds. They have the ability to shape soulmelds. And that ability to shape soulmelds is supernatural.
Yes, their ability is tagged as (Su), so it's supernatural. The incarnum dragon's isn't, so it isn't. That's how these things work. The "same" ability can have a different type depending on its source. It happens.

[eggynack]

Essentia can come from abilities of all types. You could get it from a spell, a spell-like ability, a supernatural ability, a natural ability, an extraordinary ability, a magic item, whatever. There are examples of all of these in the rules, and there's nothing wrong or unusual about that.
Is there really support for that notion? Essentia seems to have a single general source, with a number of sub-sources. If we're going by sourcing, then we know the source for three out of six of the essentia points, two from a feat, which would likely be extraordinary but definitely not natural, one for the cobalt rage feat, same deal, and then three intrinsic. And for those last three, I don't really see how they could source from anywhere more natural than, say, the duskling's essentia. Especially when you're claiming that their soulmeld ability is simultaneously less natural.



Yes, their ability is tagged as (Su), so it's supernatural. The incarnum dragon's isn't, so it isn't. That's how these things work. The "same" ability can have a different type depending on its source. It happens.
Yeah, but your underlying claim is that the shaping of soulmelds is a non-magical process. Like the preparation of spells. Except it's apparently sometimes not. It's a thing that makes sense for something like flight, where you can clearly see the underlying working of the ability, but for soulmelds, where there's seemingly only one way that the process operates, it's weird.

Anyway, I decided to ditch the entry, at least for now. I still think the whole setup is super weird, but it seems like I'm the only person in existence who thinks the rules operate in this manner, which would be a good reason to not have it in a handbook even if I were correct.