Ex. vs. Su.

[RNightstalker]

I'm looking for a list that can be a go-to for quickly checking if an ability is extraordinary or supernatural. Does anyone in the playground know of one that already exists or would be interested in helping create one?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Here's a good start: https://www.d20srd.org/indexes/specialAbilities.htm

If something's a class feature, the feature itself should say what it is.

If it can reasonably function in an AMF, it's probably Ex. If not, it's probably Su, unless it's emulating the casting of a spell, which is probably Sp.

[Crake]

Any given ability should state right next to it's name if it's Ex, Su or Sp

[ShurikVch]

RAW for special ability itself should say it - because Ex/Su may vary case-by-case: I seen Breath Weapon (Ex) and Death Attack (Su) (and Poison can be Ex, Su, or even Sp!)
The "default" presumption (unless said otherwise) is Ex
Some people insisting about "natural", but it's a mistake - no such thing as "Na" special abilities
("Natural", in game terms, is reserved for such cases as "natural armor", "natural weapon", usual movement modes, etc)

[Darg]

Some people insisting about "natural", but it's a mistake - no such thing as "Na" special abilities
("Natural", in game terms, is reserved for such cases as "natural armor", "natural weapon", usual movement modes, etc)

Instead they are simply called "natural abilities."


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

The only exception to this are class special abilities without designation, but are generally learned by training already natural capability such as spellcasting.

What's really interesting is that spellcasting, although a special attack, is not ex, sp, or su. By RAW, there isn't really a rule that requires special attacks or special qualities to be a special ability:


Special Attacks and Special Qualities

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

This actually allows fantastical outcomes from natural abilities such as spellcasting because the source of the capability is natural. As such, it doesn't conflict with the general rule for the classification of natural abilities: if it isn't ex, sp, or su then it is natural.

[RNightstalker]

Any given ability should state right next to it's name if it's Ex, Su or Sp

I believe you are right, but I'm hoping to find a list for simplicity's sake instead of diving for books or the internet.

[ShurikVch]

As such, it doesn't conflict with the general rule for the classification of natural abilities: if it isn't ex, sp, or su then it is natural.
You say so, yet your own quote disproving it:

A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).
See that "either"?
It's mean "no other categories there at all"
And no - it didn't contradicted your first quote: you may have natural abilities, but not natural special abilities
Spellcasting, being SA, is (Ex) by default

[RNightstalker]

Spellcasting, being SA, is (Ex) by default

Not to sidetrack the thread, but if spellcasting was ex, it wouldn't be suppressed in an AMF. So it has to be something else, right?

[ShurikVch]

Not to sidetrack the thread, but if spellcasting was ex, it wouldn't be suppressed in an AMF. So it has to be something else, right?
And it isn't suppressed - you can cast in AMF just fine
It's spells themselves which are suppressed: in case of non-instant spells, you can walk out of AMF - and spell would work; you just can't target stuff outside of the AMF with your spells while being inside it (and vice versa), unless instant conjuration or telekinesis

[Darg]

You say so, yet your own quote disproving it:

See that "either"?
It's mean "no other categories there at all"
And no - it didn't contradicted your first quote: you may have natural abilities, but not natural special abilities
Spellcasting, being SA, is (Ex) by default

The spellcasting of a dragon is a natural ability. The spellcasting of a wizard is a natural ability. Class special abilities are not required to only be ex, sp, or su. So no, I did not.


Not to sidetrack the thread, but if spellcasting was ex, it wouldn't be suppressed in an AMF. So it has to be something else, right?

Spellcasting is a natural ability. Nearly any creature with the mental capability has the ability to cast spells by virtue of simply existing. All they need is some training in wizardry. It's like learning how to fly. A bird doesn't know how to fly until they are kicked out of the nest. Even then, many of them die on the ground because they couldn't learn.

Likewise, AMF does not prevent casting. It only suppresses the effect while within the area.

[ShurikVch]

The spellcasting of a dragon is a natural ability. The spellcasting of a wizard is a natural ability.
1) Any proof?
2) It contradicts the quote: only "non-special" abilities can be "natural"


Class special abilities are not required to only be ex, sp, or su. So no, I did not.
By the RAW, there are no difference between the class and non-class SA
When prerequisite says "as class feature" - it says so only because otherwise non-class variants would be viable too


Spellcasting is a natural ability. Nearly any creature with the mental capability has the ability to cast spells by virtue of simply existing. All they need is some training in wizardry. It's like learning how to fly. A bird doesn't know how to fly until they are kicked out of the nest. Even then, many of them die on the ground because they couldn't learn.
Incorrect - according to the FRCS, you need a magical aptitude in order to become a wizard:

The old Harrans do not trust wizards or other practitioners of the Art, and the younger generation lacks magical aptitude - few Harrans possess the basic talents required for successful study of the Art.
What is this mysterious "magical aptitude" which young Harrans so lacking?
Is it the reason why every single Human(/Gnome/Elf/etc) in existence is not a wizard?

Also, according to your, magic of Dragons is "natural" too - but they, apparently, neither got nor need "some training" in order to master it...

[Darg]

1) Any proof?

I quoted the SRD already, but I can do it again. "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalAbilities)"



2) It contradicts the quote: only "non-special" abilities can be "natural"

By the RAW, there are no difference between the class and non-class SA
When prerequisite says "as class feature" - it says so only because otherwise non-class variants would be viable too

Class special abilities are a separate classification beyond "special abilities." Just like how armor and weapon special abilities do not fall under the umbrella that is "special abilities." That means that class special abilities can indeed be natural abilities as long as they are not designated otherwise. "As a class feature" is simply a way to also require a source and not just an ability.



Incorrect - according to the FRCS, you need a magical aptitude in order to become a wizard:

What is this mysterious "magical aptitude" which young Harrans so lacking?
Is it the reason why every single Human(/Gnome/Elf/etc) in existence is not a wizard?

Also, according to your, magic of Dragons is "natural" too - but they, apparently, neither got nor need "some training" in order to master it...

Just because one lacks aptitude in something doesn't mean the possibility isn't there. Take my bird example. Birds are born with the ability to fly. They have all the physical requirements for flight. They have the natural instinct necessary to fly. It doesn't mean that they will ever learn how to fly. Aptitude can also be impeded by cultural stigma. As not all harrans lack talent for magic, this is the likely culprit for the lack of aptitude.

One can lack the aptitude for combat. One can lack the aptitude for cooking. One can lack the aptitude for art. The physical ability is there, but it just doesn't click.

[Gruftzwerg]

The Special abilities (https://www.d20srd.org/indexes/specialAbilities.htm)section defines the categories. It is ordered as stairway for the reader, but the wording is not the best and can be misleading for some people. The page defines each category and thus provides a guideline (for the DM) "to designate" all untyped abilities. Just because an ability is untyped, it doesn't mean it can't be designated into the categories if they fit the describtion. Untyped abilities don't default to "undesignated". The DM needs to use the guideline to designate em.


Natural Abilities:
Despite being on the Special Abilities "page", they are not in the Special Abilities "paragraph" and are excluded from them. Anything that can't be designated into the other categories is a Natural Ability. If you exclude all other categories, the sole things left are:
- non magical
- non special (may not break the laws of physics; things that almost anyone can do)
E.g.: Ability Scores, mundane senses, nonmagical movement..

Extraordinary Abilities
- non magical
- special (may break the laws of physics / something that not anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.)
The "without extensive training" limitation to "learn" em are imho referring to some kind of "requirements" (e.g. feats, class level, abilities...).

Spell Like Abilities
- magical
- resembles a spell and thus has to follow or alter the general spell rules
Examples for the general Spell rules presented in the PHB are the "Casting Spells" rule and the restricted rules how spell effects stack ("Combining Magical Effects (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects)" despite the title, the 2nd sentence makes clear that it talks about how Spells interact).

Supernatural Abilities
- magical
- doesn't resemble a spell and thus doesn't need to follow the general spell rules
Since these magical abilities don't resemble spells, they offer the most freedom.


Now let me explain what I meant earlier with the stairway progress within the category order.
0. NA resembles the base/ground and thus is not part of the stairway (NA are not Special Abilities)
1. EX are the first step and allows to break the law of physics and are things that not anyone can do or learn(requirements of some kind: feats, class level, ability scores..).
2. SLA are the 2nd step and add the magical component, but still have the limitation that they have to resemble a spell and thus follow the general spell rules/limitations.
3. SU are the last step and get rid of the remaining limitations (to resemble a spell) that SLA have. Anything goes from here.

We have 4 clearly distinct defined categories where the DM can easily designate each untyped ability into the fitting category. With a few simple questions (Special? Magical? Resembles a Spell?) you will have a clear result for anything.

Even homebrew stuff can be designated without any error at all.

You first ask if an ability is magical?

a) No: Is it "Special"?
a1) No: Natural Ability --- Yes: Extraordinary Ability

b) Yes: Does it resemble a spell?
b1) No: Supernatural Ability --- Yes: Spell Like Ability

[RNightstalker]

And it isn't suppressed - you can cast in AMF just fine
It's spells themselves which are suppressed: in case of non-instant spells, you can walk out of AMF - and spell would work; you just can't target stuff outside of the AMF with your spells while being inside it (and vice versa), unless instant conjuration or telekinesis

I'm starting to understand a little more but want to follow up with another question: wizard casts fireball while inside an AMF. Did the wizard waste the casting or is the exploding bead suppressed until it leaves the field and then goes boom once it reaches its destination?


The spellcasting of a dragon is a natural ability. The spellcasting of a wizard is a natural ability. Class special abilities are not required to only be ex, sp, or su. So no, I did not.

Spellcasting is a natural ability. Nearly any creature with the mental capability has the ability to cast spells by virtue of simply existing. All they need is some training in wizardry. It's like learning how to fly. A bird doesn't know how to fly until they are kicked out of the nest. Even then, many of them die on the ground because they couldn't learn.

Likewise, AMF does not prevent casting. It only suppresses the effect while within the area.

Ok spellcasting is a natural ability. Got it, though if I were writing that section I'd do it differently. But what do you think about the question above as well?

[Gruftzwerg]

Spellcasting can't be a Natural Ability since it is magical. There aren't any magical Natural Abilities by default (unless it is explicitly called out as such, which would make it an exception).

Spellcasting is magical and thus has to be designated either into SLA or SU. It can't be an SLA since it doesn't refer to "a spell" (singlular). As such only SU is left as sole possible category. Note that most general rules for SU get trumped by more specific Spell rules. So, for 99,9% of the game it doesn't make any difference that spells are SU since all relevant parts are dictated by the more specific spell rules.

[Asmotherion]

If it's not magical in Nature, it's Ex. Dragon breath attacks for example, rely on their physiology, not magic. So does their Flight. If no Magic is mentioned, it's usually Ex.

Sp./SLAs always are mentioned as such in the description. In the rare case it's not, look if it's replicating a spell; If it is, it's an SLA, unless mentioned Otherwise in the description.

SU are all abilities that rely on some form of supernatural ability and go away in an AMF, but are not based on Spells, or alter how a spell works significantly. For example, the Vampire's Gaze Attack references Dominate Person, but alters how it works significantly, to the point of it not being the same spell any more. SU would be the default for Magical Abilities that are not directly copies of a Spell.

This is a quick rule of thumb. Hope it helps.

As for a List of all abilities, with or without a filter, there is none to my knowlage.


I'm starting to understand a little more but want to follow up with another question: wizard casts fireball while inside an AMF. Did the wizard waste the casting or is the exploding bead suppressed until it leaves the field and then goes boom once it reaches its destination?

In your example, the fireball would stay supressed. Since it is instantaneus, it would not explode latter, as "the time spent in the field counts towards the spell's duration".

An instantaneus conjuration such as an Orb spell penetrates the field normally, as long as the caster has cover from the effect of the field, or is outside of it. That is because, the magic that creates the conjuration is instantaneus, and the spell is "spell resistance: No".

[Crake]

And it isn't suppressed - you can cast in AMF just fine
It's spells themselves which are suppressed: in case of non-instant spells, you can walk out of AMF - and spell would work; you just can't target stuff outside of the AMF with your spells while being inside it (and vice versa), unless instant conjuration or telekinesis

Is it your assertion that I could, for example, while inside an AMF, cast a spell (charm person for example) on someone OUTSIDE of the AMF? I find that to be a rather dubious assertion in all honesty.


Spellcasting is magical and thus has to be designated either into SLA or SU. It can't be an SLA since it doesn't refer to "a spell" (singlular). As such only SU is left as sole possible category. Note that most general rules for SU get trumped by more specific Spell rules. So, for 99,9% of the game it doesn't make any difference that spells are SU since all relevant parts are dictated by the more specific spell rules.

Considering one of the types of abilities is Spell-like, I've always considered spells as their own separate category of ability, because they clearly don't fall into the category of Ex, Su, or Sp. Ex and Su don't provoke for example, and don't require concentration to use and maintain, neither do natural abilities, and spell-like are, by their very definition, not spells, despite the similarities. They also aren't an ability inherent to a creature with a small handful of exceptions of creatures who have innate casting, so natural abilities don't fit, so I think it's pretty safe to just call spellcasting it's own category of ability, and all its rules are fairly clear and well defined, most of which clash or outright contradict the standard rules for the other three kinds of special abilities, to the point that they're more different than similar to any one of them.

[Remuko]

If it's not magical in Nature, it's Ex. Dragon breath attacks for example, rely on their physiology, not magic. So does their Flight. If no Magic is mentioned, it's usually Ex.

Just FYI, Dragon Breath is SU not EX. All breath weapons are unless noted otherwise.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#breathWeapon

[ShurikVch]

Just because one lacks aptitude in something doesn't mean the possibility isn't there. Take my bird example. Birds are born with the ability to fly. They have all the physical requirements for flight. They have the natural instinct necessary to fly. It doesn't mean that they will ever learn how to fly.
Penguins
Ostriches
Kiwi
Emu
Dodo
Cassowaries
...
:smallamused:


Aptitude can also be impeded by cultural stigma. As not all harrans lack talent for magic, this is the likely culprit for the lack of aptitude.
Actually, quote says it's only young Harrans who're lacking in magical aptitude - old Harrans are distrustful to mages...



Spellcasting is magical and thus has to be designated either into SLA or SU. It can't be an SLA since it doesn't refer to "a spell" (singlular). As such only SU is left as sole possible category. Note that most general rules for SU get trumped by more specific Spell rules. So, for 99,9% of the game it doesn't make any difference that spells are SU since all relevant parts are dictated by the more specific spell rules.
Magical Training (Player's Guide to Faerûn) and Minor Divine Spellcaster (Dragon #305) feats grant certain spellcasting ability; feats are (Ex) unless said differently
Warcaster and Warsoul hobgoblins (Monster Manual V) have Arcane Talent SA which allow them to cast arcane spells; Arcane Talent is (Ex)
Lilitu (Fiendish Codex I) have Mock Divinity SA, which allow her to cast divine spells; Mock Divinity is (Ex)Looks like spellcasting is (Ex)...


Is it your assertion that I could, for example, while inside an AMF, cast a spell (charm person for example) on someone OUTSIDE of the AMF? I find that to be a rather dubious assertion in all honesty.
You're missed the "can't target stuff outside of the AMF with your spells while being inside" line?

[Asmotherion]

Just FYI, Dragon Breath is SU not EX. All breath weapons are unless noted otherwise.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#breathWeapon

True. Which is weird, since in Dragonomicon they made a whole point to explain how Dragon Breaths come from some organ in their stomach or something like that. Or am I confusing lores? Been playing a lot of diferent systems latelly, and I'm having trouble keeping track what is true in which system.

[Darg]

The Special abilities (https://www.d20srd.org/indexes/specialAbilities.htm)section defines the categories. It is ordered as stairway for the reader, but the wording is not the best and can be misleading for some people. The page defines each category and thus provides a guideline (for the DM) "to designate" all untyped abilities. Just because an ability is untyped, it doesn't mean it can't be designated into the categories if they fit the describtion. Untyped abilities don't default to "undesignated". The DM needs to use the guideline to designate em.


Natural Abilities:
Despite being on the Special Abilities "page", they are not in the Special Abilities "paragraph" and are excluded from them. Anything that can't be designated into the other categories is a Natural Ability. If you exclude all other categories, the sole things left are:
- non magical
- non special (may not break the laws of physics; things that almost anyone can do)
E.g.: Ability Scores, mundane senses, nonmagical movement..

Extraordinary Abilities
- non magical
- special (may break the laws of physics / something that not anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.)
The "without extensive training" limitation to "learn" em are imho referring to some kind of "requirements" (e.g. feats, class level, abilities...).

Spell Like Abilities
- magical
- resembles a spell and thus has to follow or alter the general spell rules
Examples for the general Spell rules presented in the PHB are the "Casting Spells" rule and the restricted rules how spell effects stack ("Combining Magical Effects (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects)" despite the title, the 2nd sentence makes clear that it talks about how Spells interact).

Supernatural Abilities
- magical
- doesn't resemble a spell and thus doesn't need to follow the general spell rules
Since these magical abilities don't resemble spells, they offer the most freedom.


Now let me explain what I meant earlier with the stairway progress within the category order.
0. NA resembles the base/ground and thus is not part of the stairway (NA are not Special Abilities)
1. EX are the first step and allows to break the law of physics and are things that not anyone can do or learn(requirements of some kind: feats, class level, ability scores..).
2. SLA are the 2nd step and add the magical component, but still have the limitation that they have to resemble a spell and thus follow the general spell rules/limitations.
3. SU are the last step and get rid of the remaining limitations (to resemble a spell) that SLA have. Anything goes from here.

We have 4 clearly distinct defined categories where the DM can easily designate each untyped ability into the fitting category. With a few simple questions (Special? Magical? Resembles a Spell?) you will have a clear result for anything.

Even homebrew stuff can be designated without any error at all.

You first ask if an ability is magical?

a) No: Is it "Special"?
a1) No: Natural Ability --- Yes: Extraordinary Ability

b) Yes: Does it resemble a spell?
b1) No: Supernatural Ability --- Yes: Spell Like Ability

Where on a stat block does it state that undesignated abilities are only special abilities? Special attacks/qualities are not required to be special abilities and can be natural abilities. You like to use the word untyped to sidestep the vocabulary used when in the same context would mean the same as undesignated.

Unlike how the SRD organized the special abilities page, the PHB where the text for natural abilities comes from does classify natural abilities under the header "Special Abilities" on page 180. At the very least, the primary source rule says that the PHB is the authority on natural abilities. That means it's description is the rule for defining natural abilities. This makes spellcasting without designation (or type) a natural ability.


Ok spellcasting is a natural ability. Got it, though if I were writing that section I'd do it differently. But what do you think about the question above as well?

The effect is instantaneous. Think of an AMF like bubble of stopped time. Now, imagine that while time is stopped within the bubble time outside is still moving just fine. Now imagine that the time to be in effect for magic is tied to the time outside the bubble instead of inside the bubble. The fireball may be activated, but would ultimately have no effect. Of course, this is simply based on the text of the spell itself: "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." It doesn't prevent the effects. If we take the Faerun Campaign Setting book into account for its description of the weave and the interaction with AMFs then logically one can't even cast within the AMF. Both rulings are fine, and ultimately come down to how you want to play.


Penguins
Ostriches
Kiwi
Emu
Dodo
Cassowaries
...
:smallamused:


Actually, quote says it's only young Harrans who're lacking in magical aptitude - old Harrans are distrustful to mages...

Good thing I refrained from saying "all birds" huh? :smallwink:

So you are saying that nothing inherent as a racial type or regional quality prevents them from casting spells?


[LIST] feats are (Ex) unless said differently

Nothing actually says this. Their benefit might be Ex, but the feat itself is not. Otherwise you get into the issue of being able to also benefit from a creatures feats when you gain access to their Ex abilities, which is wrong.

As for your examples of spellcasting being Ex, nothing says that everything has to be one designation and only one designation. Flight can be NA, Ex, Sp, or Su. You can't say that a single ability has different rules when you haven't provided the rules which say this is the case.

[Gruftzwerg]

Considering one of the types of abilities is Spell-like, I've always considered spells as their own separate category of ability, because they clearly don't fall into the category of Ex, Su, or Sp. Ex and Su don't provoke for example, and don't require concentration to use and maintain, neither do natural abilities, and spell-like are, by their very definition, not spells, despite the similarities. They also aren't an ability inherent to a creature with a small handful of exceptions of creatures who have innate casting, so natural abilities don't fit, so I think it's pretty safe to just call spellcasting it's own category of ability, and all its rules are fairly clear and well defined, most of which clash or outright contradict the standard rules for the other three kinds of special abilities, to the point that they're more different than similar to any one of them.
I was under the same assumption for a long time. But my point changed due to the following thoughts. Special Abilities and Natural Abilities are defined terms. Just because most abilities have "friendly reminder" for the reader, doesn't stop the rules from applying on those untyped abilities left. As soon as you have some kind of "ability", the DM is enforced to apply the general rules associated with it, unless specific exceptions are called out.

As said, imho given the definition/rules of each category, Spells seem to fit best into SU. Note that any relevant rule is trumped by more specific spell rules (Casting Spell/causing AoO, Combining Spell effects,AMF...). It won't matter that they are SU at all. Only maybe for some silly TO builds, but for normal actual play the spell rules will trump anything of importance.



Magical Training (Player's Guide to Faerûn) and Minor Divine Spellcaster (Dragon #305) feats grant certain spellcasting ability; feats are (Ex) unless said differently
Warcaster and Warsoul hobgoblins (Monster Manual V) have Arcane Talent SA which allow them to cast arcane spells; Arcane Talent is (Ex)
Lilitu (Fiendish Codex I) have Mock Divinity SA, which allow her to cast divine spells; Mock Divinity is (Ex)Looks like spellcasting is (Ex)...

Specific Exceptions. Everything may call out specific exceptions to general rules as those things that you mentioned. That doesn't disprove or prove anything.


Where on a stat block does it state that undesignated abilities are only special abilities? Special attacks/qualities are not required to be special abilities and can be natural abilities. You like to use the word untyped to sidestep the vocabulary used when in the same context would mean the same as undesignated.

Unlike how the SRD organized the special abilities page, the PHB where the text for natural abilities comes from does classify natural abilities under the header "Special Abilities" on page 180. At the very least, the primary source rule says that the PHB is the authority on natural abilities. That means it's description is the rule for defining natural abilities. This makes spellcasting without designation (or type) a natural ability.

Point for you that the PHB lists em as special abilities. But still doesn't change much on the rest of my interpretation.
Natural Abilities is still what is left, if something can't be designated into one of the other categories by their definitions.
As such a natural ability has to be:
- non magical (because these are either SLA or SU)
- non special ("special" as described in the EX category)

To explain the non special part further:

...they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
As such we have to assume that by default (general, can still be trumped by more specific callouts) NA may not break the laws of physics and are things that anyone has or can learn due to their physical appearance.
e.g. Ability Scores, Skills (since anybody can invest points into it without special requirements), mundane/natural movement modes, some racial bonuses...

And regarding your concerns about most feats (not all!) being EX, yeah this is the chase. BoED confirms this in the Exalted Feats section where it states that most (not all!) feats are normally EX but the exalted ones are SU. This confirms that most feats would be designated into the EX category, since most are non-magical but special (due to feats having a general requirement rule). And yeah, this leads to a much more powerful Master of Many Forms 7th lvl ability. The MoMF gets all (EX) feats and can shape into specific target form if it wants (due to ERRATA, which has shifted Wild Shapes rules from relying on the Alter Self/Polymorph rules to Alternate Form. AF doesn't have a limitation for only generic target forms). Strong (especially with humanoid shape) but not more game breaking than a T1 caster. The DM still has full control due to setting the rules for what it requires to be familiar with a target form (especially if a player wants a specific target form/person). Compared to a T1 caster that just gets/pics the spells needed to become gamebreaking, with Wild Shape the DM is still in full control. He can choose what enemies he uses enough to become valid target forms. As such not as game breaking as you might assume. But I'll admit that it is a very powerful option where some DMs might have problems handling it (as it can happen with any optimized/strong builds).

Sorry for going a lil offtopic, but my fortune telling crystal ball told me that the MoMF issue would come up next anyway...^^

[Darg]

Point for you that the PHB lists em as special abilities. But still doesn't change much on the rest of my interpretation.
Natural Abilities is still what is left, if something can't be designated into one of the other categories by their definitions.
As such a natural ability has to be:
- non magical (because these are either SLA or SU)
- non special ("special" as described in the EX category)

To explain the non special part further:

As such we have to assume that by default (general, can still be trumped by more specific callouts) NA may not break the laws of physics and are things that anyone has or can learn due to their physical appearance.
e.g. Ability Scores, Skills (since anybody can invest points into it without special requirements), mundane/natural movement modes, some racial bonuses...

This is where your argument starts to fall apart. You are making an assumption that has no basis. Nothing says that natural abilities can't be magical in origin. An example of this in action are animated undead or objects which receive their natural abilities through magical origin.

Your theory hinges on the premise that natural abilities are not special abilities which is clearly not the case. The PHB and the SRD actually support this. The page name where natural abilities are found is "Special Abilities". While I can't convince you, I just don't believe natural abilities not being special abilities holds any water.

As for feats being Ex, I don't think a comment from a splat book holds great weight when it isn't being directly mentioned. It isn't even part of the sentence being in parenthesis and all. However this isn't the thread to argue this point any further. I shouldn't have have even tried to argue my point in my last post. Based on the dedicated thread we had awhile ago it ended up going nowhere.

[Raishoiken]

I was under the same assumption for a long time. But my point changed due to the following thoughts. Special Abilities and Natural Abilities are defined terms. Just because most abilities have "friendly reminder" for the reader, doesn't stop the rules from applying on those untyped abilities left. As soon as you have some kind of "ability", the DM is enforced to apply the general rules associated with it, unless specific exceptions are called out.

As said, imho given the definition/rules of each category, Spells seem to fit best into SU. Note that any relevant rule is trumped by more specific spell rules (Casting Spell/causing AoO, Combining Spell effects,AMF...). It won't matter that they are SU at all. Only maybe for some silly TO builds, but for normal actual play the spell rules will trump anything of importance.


Specific Exceptions. Everything may call out specific exceptions to general rules as those things that you mentioned. That doesn't disprove or prove anything.


Point for you that the PHB lists em as special abilities. But still doesn't change much on the rest of my interpretation.
Natural Abilities is still what is left, if something can't be designated into one of the other categories by their definitions.
As such a natural ability has to be:
- non magical (because these are either SLA or SU)
- non special ("special" as described in the EX category)

To explain the non special part further:

As such we have to assume that by default (general, can still be trumped by more specific callouts) NA may not break the laws of physics and are things that anyone has or can learn due to their physical appearance.
e.g. Ability Scores, Skills (since anybody can invest points into it without special requirements), mundane/natural movement modes, some racial bonuses...

And regarding your concerns about most feats (not all!) being EX, yeah this is the chase. BoED confirms this in the Exalted Feats section where it states that most (not all!) feats are normally EX but the exalted ones are SU. This confirms that most feats would be designated into the EX category, since most are non-magical but special (due to feats having a general requirement rule). And yeah, this leads to a much more powerful Master of Many Forms 7th lvl ability. The MoMF gets all (EX) feats and can shape into specific target form if it wants (due to ERRATA, which has shifted Wild Shapes rules from relying on the Alter Self/Polymorph rules to Alternate Form. AF doesn't have a limitation for only generic target forms). Strong (especially with humanoid shape) but not more game breaking than a T1 caster. The DM still has full control due to setting the rules for what it requires to be familiar with a target form (especially if a player wants a specific target form/person). Compared to a T1 caster that just gets/pics the spells needed to become gamebreaking, with Wild Shape the DM is still in full control. He can choose what enemies he uses enough to become valid target forms. As such not as game breaking as you might assume. But I'll admit that it is a very powerful option where some DMs might have problems handling it (as it can happen with any optimized/strong builds).

Sorry for going a lil offtopic, but my fortune telling crystal ball told me that the MoMF issue would come up next anyway...^^

We've been through this before, you're misinterpreting the english in order to reach this conclusion.


The description for different abilities (ex,sp,su) isnt a guidline for assigning an ability that isnt marked one of the ability types.
All abilities that have an ex,sp or su descriptor are already given one, and the rules say that any ability that is not designated already , which in this context means by the author of the book you're reading, is a natural ability.

It doesnt matter what the ability does, if it doesnt have an ex,sp,su tag on it it's a natural ability. If you say otherwise.

Because yes, all abilities that aren't natural abilities explicitly by the rules do come with a friendly reminder as to what they are. And, to repeat ad nauseum, if they dont: they default to natural

[Gruftzwerg]

This is where your argument starts to fall apart. You are making an assumption that has no basis. Nothing says that natural abilities can't be magical in origin. An example of this in action are animated undead or objects which receive their natural abilities through magical origin.

Your theory hinges on the premise that natural abilities are not special abilities which is clearly not the case. The PHB and the SRD actually support this. The page name where natural abilities are found is "Special Abilities". While I can't convince you, I just don't believe natural abilities not being special abilities holds any water.

As for feats being Ex, I don't think a comment from a splat book holds great weight when it isn't being directly mentioned. It isn't even part of the sentence being in parenthesis and all. However this isn't the thread to argue this point any further. I shouldn't have have even tried to argue my point in my last post. Based on the dedicated thread we had awhile ago it ended up going nowhere.
My assumption wasn't sole based on the argument that NA aren't Special Abilities. Even with this new information my assumption still stands:

PHB 180

Medusas, dryads, harpies, and other magical creatures can create magical effects without being spellcasters. Characters using magic wands, rods, and other enchanted items, as well as certain class features, can also create magical effects. These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural. Additionally, members of certain classes and certain creatures can use special abilities that aren’t magical. These abilities are called extraordinary or natural.
The Paragraph about Special Abilities defines NA & EX as non-magical abilities and SLA & SU as magical. Any ability that is typed otherwise is a specific expection to this general rule.


@ most feats being designated into EX category
While it is not part of my RAW argument, BoED still confirms my interpretation. FAQ quotes BoED in the same way which further is an indicator that this interpretation is at least RAI!



We've been through this before, you're misinterpreting the english in order to reach this conclusion.


The description for different abilities (ex,sp,su) isnt a guidline for assigning an ability that isnt marked one of the ability types.
All abilities that have an ex,sp or su descriptor are already given one, and the rules say that any ability that is not designated already , which in this context means by the author of the book you're reading, is a natural ability.

It doesnt matter what the ability does, if it doesnt have an ex,sp,su tag on it it's a natural ability. If you say otherwise.

Because yes, all abilities that aren't natural abilities explicitly by the rules do come with a friendly reminder as to what they are. And, to repeat ad nauseum, if they dont: they default to natural

As said before (in the last thread):
1. The Primary Source Rule sets the PHB as the primary source to play the game.
2. This means that any rules presented in each topic is its own primary source for its topic.
3. The "Special Abilities" section is the primary source for all abilities.
4. Any ability that doesn't want to follow the general rules in the "Special Ability" section, needs to specifically call it out.
5. Not having any friendly reminder/marker (NA)/(EX)/(SLA)/(SU) is not calling out any specific exceptions.
6. As such, untyped abilities designate into the category they fit in best by the category definitions.

D&D 3.5 makes use of friendly reminders on an inconsistent base. There are a few examples. Right of the bat I can recall "size changing effects". Many of em call out that size changing effects don't stack, but some don't. They still can't stack. The reminders are just there because there is no direct rule that says that you can't stack em. It thrives from the fact that we have defined "Stacking Rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)" in 3.5 and that size effects are not listed there as legal for stacking.
With feats we have a similar situation. It's just that most feats lack any friendly reminder and only BoED and the FAQ remind you that most (non-magical) feats are EX.

Imho you would need to show a clear exceptional statement to disqualify em as EX. Being untyped (or without a friendly reminder depending on your view) ain't a clear expectional statement. Untyped is the absence of a statement and of any intend. As such, the general rule for Special Abilities apply and you designate em into the right category.

My interpretation creates 4 clearly distinct defined categories, where any imaginable ability can be designated without any errors. And it is in line with the statement in BoED and the FAQ. Can you say the same for your interpretation? (which imho causes more dysfuntions and overlapping categories that aren't clearly different anymore..)
Occam's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)would demand to pic the simplest and least problem creating solution/interpretation.

[Raishoiken]

My assumption wasn't sole based on the argument that NA aren't Special Abilities. Even with this new information my assumption still stands:

PHB 180

The Paragraph about Special Abilities defines NA & EX as non-magical abilities and SLA & SU as magical. Any ability that is typed otherwise is a specific expection to this general rule.


@ most feats being designated into EX category
While it is not part of my RAW argument, BoED still confirms my interpretation. FAQ quotes BoED in the same way which further is an indicator that this interpretation is at least RAI!




As said before (in the last thread):
1. The Primary Source Rule sets the PHB as the primary source to play the game.
2. This means that any rules presented in each topic is its own primary source for its topic.
3. The "Special Abilities" section is the primary source for all abilities.
4. Any ability that doesn't want to follow the general rules in the "Special Ability" section, needs to specifically call it out.
5. Not having any friendly reminder/marker (NA)/(EX)/(SLA)/(SU) is not calling out any specific exceptions.
6. As such, untyped abilities designate into the category they fit in best by the category definitions.

D&D 3.5 makes use of friendly reminders on an inconsistent base. There are a few examples. Right of the bat I can recall "size changing effects". Many of em call out that size changing effects don't stack, but some don't. They still can't stack. The reminders are just there because there is no direct rule that says that you can't stack em. It thrives from the fact that we have defined "Stacking Rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)" in 3.5 and that size effects are not listed there as legal for stacking.
With feats we have a similar situation. It's just that most feats lack any friendly reminder and only BoED and the FAQ remind you that most (non-magical) feats are EX.

Imho you would need to show a clear exceptional statement to disqualify em as EX. Being untyped (or without a friendly reminder depending on your view) ain't a clear expectional statement. Untyped is the absence of a statement and of any intend. As such, the general rule for Special Abilities apply and you designate em into the right category.

My interpretation creates 4 clearly distinct defined categories, where any imaginable ability can be designated without any errors. And it is in line with the statement in BoED and the FAQ. Can you say the same for your interpretation? (which imho causes more dysfuntions and overlapping categories that aren't clearly different anymore..)
Occam's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)would demand to pic the simplest and least problem creating solution/interpretation.

Im beyond glad you dropped a link to occams razor because it literally only helps my side. So going for both the philosphical clarification and,more importantly, a clarification on english syntax.

What is the simplest explanation for this phrase here:

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

Well, if we look at the sentence structure, you can see that it says they are abilities that are

A: "not otherewise designated

But it does not say what it would need to to fit your interpretatipn which is that they are abilities that

B: cannot otherwise be designated


In B, the sentence would suggest that if the person looking at the ability couldn't themselves designate an ability under one of those categories, then it defaults to a natural ability. In order for this interpretation to work you have to ignore the sentence actually present in the book and add onto it with your own words

In A, (which happens to be the phrase we see in the rules), the english is saying that if an ability has not been designated already in the past/by the author, theb its a "natural ability". You dont need to make any extra assumptions or add on any extra words or change any in the phrasing in order to reach this conclusion; you literally just read the sentence and thats what it says.

Occan's razor would suggest that A is correct due to the lack of any extra assumptions or "entities" needing to be tacked on

The english language also suggests A because "not otherwise designated" means almost the exact same thing as "not designated already"

If im told to make a list by my boss and they say that on the list people live in either houses (HSE), apartments (APT), or hotels (HTL). All people not otherwise designated as living in one of these kinds of shelters are homeless

This would mean anny name i see on the list without a marker showing what kind of house they're in is homeless I woupdnt assime that i have to make a judgment call and slot them into the kind of shelter i think theyd be living in

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Will tell this to you at the very start of the section

[Gruftzwerg]

Im beyond glad you dropped a link to occams razor because it literally only helps my side. So going for both the philosphical clarification and,more importantly, a clarification on english syntax.

What is the simplest explanation for this phrase here:


Well, if we look at the sentence structure, you can see that it says they are abilities that are

A: "not otherewise designated

But it does not say what it would need to to fit your interpretatipn which is that they are abilities that

B: cannot otherwise be designated


In B, the sentence would suggest that if the person looking at the ability couldn't themselves designate an ability under one of those categories, then it defaults to a natural ability. In order for this interpretation to work you have to ignore the sentence actually present in the book and add onto it with your own words

In A, (which happens to be the phrase we see in the rules), the english is saying that if an ability has not been designated already in the past/by the author, theb its a "natural ability". You dont need to make any extra assumptions or add on any extra words or change any in the phrasing in order to reach this conclusion; you literally just read the sentence and thats what it says.
My interpretation is based on A. So we seem to agree here.
Where we seem to disagree is that imho the rule text of those categories (EX,SLA,SU) define the rules if an ability is designated into them or not. The author has already shown you his intend. In the PHB (p180) the NA category is mentioned last, when all other categories have been defined. With this order the (NA) statement "...those not otherwise designated.." refers clearly to the 3 categories defined previously (EX,SLA,SU).


Occan's razor would suggest that A is correct due to the lack of any extra assumptions or "entities" needing to be tacked on

The english language also suggests A because "not otherwise designated" means almost the exact same thing as "not designated already"
As said, you ignore that the other categories have definitions how to differentiate em. If they where just lables without any rule text that shows if an ability can be designated into em or not, you would clearly expect that all abilities would need type markers (NA)(SU)(..) and those without would be NA. But that is not the chase here. We have definitions that create 4 clearly distinct categories where anything can be designated without error (unless it calls itself out as exception).





If im told to make a list by my boss and they say that on the list people live in either houses (HSE), apartments (APT), or hotels (HTL). All people not otherwise designated as living in one of these kinds of shelters are homeless

This would mean anny name i see on the list without a marker showing what kind of house they're in is homeless I woupdnt assime that i have to make a judgment call and slot them into the kind of shelter i think theyd be living in

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Will tell this to you at the very start of the section
Sorry but you are using an oversimplified example here that doesn't resemble our situation at all. Let me try to show you the difference between em and maybe you'll agree with me then.

Your example just uses 1 variable (e.g. how/where do the people live) with 3 different marker (HSE, APT and HTL) and says that all without a marker are categorized as homeless.

If I would project our situation on your example, we would need rules to define when someone counts as living in a House, an Apartment or an Hotel. Just markers aren't enough to represent the definitions given in the Special Abilities section. That is an unequal comparison. And once you have defined what it takes to count as living in a house / an apartment / a hotel, it is easy to say that anything that can't be designated into the other categories (the remaining rest) has to be homeless.

The rules never show the intention that they gonna put a friendly reminder/mark on everything. If that would have been the intention they would just explain the marks (e.g. "(EX)= Extraordinary" without any further ruletext). They define categories and as such create rules to follow/obey. The statement of NA is referring to the other defined categories and sets the NA category as the remaining rest of them. 3 well defined distinct categories and 1 category as the distinct rest, where anything else left belongs into.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: we've gone way off topic here, everyone. Let's get back on topic. People who wants to debate the intricacies of Ex and Su abilities are invited to start another thread to do so.