Rules Q&A What happens to an energy immunity after polymorph [Archive]

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-19, 02:18 PM

A balor has fire immunity without getting it from anywhere but the stat block. It's not listed as Ex, Sp, or Su and thus defaults to being a natural ability of being a balor. Which is technically a racial subtype like elf, dwarf, etc. are of humanoid, but unstated.

Sorry but that is not correct, because Natural Abilities are not "Special Abilities".

The Primary Source here is the Monster Manual according to the Primary Source Rule:

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

Have a look at the MM page 315 at the definition of Special Abilities.
Natural Abilities is not even listed/mentioned there.

I know the that it is mentioned on the Special Abilities SRD page (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm), but if you look carefully, the Special Ability paragraph starts after Natural Abilities and says:

Special Abilities

A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature.

Both book and srd exclude Natural Abilities from being Special Abilities.

And since the immunities are listed as "Special Abilities" in the statblock, they can't be Natural Abilities.

Sole EX, SLA & SU are possible options here. And in our case we can exclude SLA, since no activation is mentioned and it's an ongoing immunity that is not referring to a spell.

Which leaves us with the mentioned EX or SU options.

Imho the "Flaming Body" (SU) ability gives a hint that its fire is magic based. Because if the fire wouldn't be based on magic this ability would be EX. Take a fire elemental as counterexample. An elemental can freely move in an AMF since it's fire is not magical as its Burn (EX) ability.

Thus we have a strong indicator that the immunity of a Balor seems to be magical, which designates it into the SU category.

edit: to give you an example of a real special Natural Ability, look up the "Heads ability"of a Hydra (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm). This "ability" is not listed as one of its "Special Abilities" and thus designates into the Natural Ability category. This is imho the meaning of "not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like" here.

Darg

2023-02-19, 03:06 PM

Both book and srd exclude Natural Abilities from being Special Abilities.

This is flat wrong. The PHB literally tells you that Sp, Ex, Su, and natural abilities are special abilities.

Additionally, members of certain classes and certain creatures can use special abilities that aren’t magical. These abilities are called extraordinary or natural.

Sorry but that is not correct, because Natural Abilities are not "Special Abilities".

The Primary Source here is the Monster Manual according to the Primary Source Rule:

The PHB has topic precedence. What it states is a natural ability is by the primary source rule the primary source as the MM or the DMG do not define natural abilities.

Sole EX, SLA & SU are possible options here. And in our case we can exclude SLA, since no activation is mentioned and it's an ongoing immunity that is not referring to a spell.

Which leaves us with the mentioned EX or SU options.

Imho the "Flaming Body" (SU) ability gives a hint that its fire is magic based. Because if the fire wouldn't be based on magic this ability would be EX. Take a fire elemental as counterexample. An elemental can freely move in an AMF since it's fire is not magical as its Burn (EX) ability.

Thus we have a strong indicator that the immunity of a Balor seems to be magical, which designates it into the SU category.

edit: to give you an example of a real special Natural Ability, look up the "Heads ability"of a Hydra (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm). This "ability" is not listed as one of its "Special Abilities" and thus designates into the Natural Ability category. This is imho the meaning of "not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like" here.

The fact that there is even a question as to the type of ability it is clearly demonstrates the the necessity for topic precedence as it neatly makes everything clear.

Of course the heads of a hydra are a natural ability just as the Spells ability of an aranea is a natural ability.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-19, 03:56 PM

This is flat wrong. The PHB literally tells you that Sp, Ex, Su, and natural abilities are special abilities.

The PHB has topic precedence. What it states is a natural ability is by the primary source rule the primary source as the MM or the DMG do not define natural abilities.

The fact that there is even a question as to the type of ability it is clearly demonstrates the the necessity for topic precedence as it neatly makes everything clear.

I have provided you with a quote from the Primary Source Rule itself which directs you to the MM as primary source for this topic. There is no room for debate here:

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

Lets have a look at "Monster Descriptions" and how the "Special Qualities: (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#specialAttacksAndSpecialQualities)" line is defined:

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.
again no room for Natural Abilities.

No matter where you look at, Natural Abilities are not Special Abilities. And even if they where, it wouldn't matter for the statblock, since the Special Attacks and Special Quality line doesn't include them in their definition. Dead End here.

Of course the heads of a hydra are a natural ability just as the Spells ability of an aranea is a natural ability.
I'm really sorry, but I also have to disagree on the Aranea (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aranea.htm).. (I mean this for real. Pls don't assume any grudge or anything, since we are often discussing in the past days/weeks.)

Their "Spells" ability is part of the "Special Attack" line. And as shown in this post's quotes, the definition only allows EX, SLA or SU abilities. So they can't be Natural Abilities to begin with.

Now we have the same problem as with the normal Sorcerer's "Spells:" ability. What is it? It can sole be EX, SLA and SU.
1. It can't be EX because it's magical
2. It's also obviously not an SLA since those are referring to "Spells:" (and we don't wanna create any loop that goes ad absurdum)
3. Which leaves us with SU as sole possible option.

Remind you that "Spells:" is still more specific to the general SU rules and thus trumps em anywhere needed. So, in the end, in 99% of the situations it doesn't even matter if they are SU, because the specific spellcasting rules take over..
edit: the 1% here are things like Assume Supernatural Ability and Shapechange (dunno if I'm missing anything here).

Crake

2023-02-19, 06:37 PM

I dunno, trying to use the logic that a balors fire immunity is magical just because its flames are seems like a massive leap with literally no supporting evidence.

cython

2023-02-19, 11:43 PM

Thank you for your posts.

After reading the posts, I think that any immunities in the original form should not be carried into the new form via polymorph.

In the example, it is easy to see why it should not.

Though things get murky if the origin of the immunity is not an energy subtype, are there many such cases like Balor?

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-20, 12:11 AM

I dunno, trying to use the logic that a balors fire immunity is magical just because its flames are seems like a massive leap with literally no supporting evidence.

That's why I said "hint" & "indicator" there. I didn't say that it was 100% RAW. But that (Ex or Su) is the sole point where you need to extrapolate info to come to a conclusion. The rest is RAW.

And imho it's still better to be stuck between EX and SU and also better than a random choice between those two. If you can provide any hard rules to determine if their fire is magic based or not I would really be happy. But as far as I know we don't have such a rule. Thus you are forced to extrapolate info to come to a conclusion.
I don't see any other option to solve it. (beside from a random choice)

Though things get murky if the origin of the immunity is not an energy subtype, are there many such cases like Balor?

IIRC most immunities are not based on energy subtypes. If I'm not mistaken Cold and Fire subtypes are the sole ones that come to my mind. This kind of subtype immunity is imho a rare thing compared to regular immunities overall.

Biggus

2023-02-20, 08:00 AM

Sorry but that is not correct, because Natural Abilities are not "Special Abilities".

The Primary Source here is the Monster Manual according to the Primary Source Rule:

Have a look at the MM page 315 at the definition of Special Abilities.
Natural Abilities is not even listed/mentioned there.

More conclusive that immunity is not a natural ability is that it's listed under special qualities in the MM. On page 6, in the section explaining the special attacks and special qualities entries, it states that special abilities are extraordinary, spell-like or supernatural. If you look at the actual entries, they confirm that natural abilities are not listed; for example, creatures which fly with wings don't have flight listed as a special quality, but creatures which fly without wings do.

Paragon

2023-02-20, 08:49 AM

I guess the question would be : "Would a Balor resist natural fire damage in an Antimagic Field ?"

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-20, 01:55 PM

More conclusive that immunity is not a natural ability is that it's listed under special qualities in the MM. On page 6, in the section explaining the special attacks and special qualities entries, it states that special abilities are extraordinary, spell-like or supernatural. If you look at the actual entries, they confirm that natural abilities are not listed; for example, creatures which fly with wings don't have flight listed as a special quality, but creatures which fly without wings do.
I know and I already posted the SRD version of that two post below the one you have quoted (see post #9).

The sole problem are those cases where we can't be 100% sure it it's EX or SU. (as below in the quote)

I guess the question would be : "Would a Balor resist natural fire damage in an Antimagic Field ?"

Yeah. And that question boils mechanically down to if the Immunity is Ex or SU based. You are just giving an example situation but that doesn't bring us any further here. The question still remains, is it EX or SU.
And if we lack any clear info about which type of Special Ability it is, we (as DM) have to make assumptions to come to a decision.

In the case of the Balor, the sole extrapolatable info here is that the sole other fire related ability is an SU ability (Flaming Body). If we compare that to the (EX) Burn ability of a Fire Elemental (which keeps its immunity in an AMF), imho it is fair to assume (=not RAW, but as close as we get to that with RAI) that a Balor's immunity is SU. Just my humble opinion.

Crake

2023-02-20, 06:41 PM

I know and I already posted the SRD version of that two post below the one you have quoted (see post #9).

The sole problem are those cases where we can't be 100% sure it it's EX or SU. (as below in the quote)

Yeah. And that question boils mechanically down to if the Immunity is Ex or SU based. You are just giving an example situation but that doesn't bring us any further here. The question still remains, is it EX or SU.
And if we lack any clear info about which type of Special Ability it is, we (as DM) have to make assumptions to come to a decision.

In the case of the Balor, the sole extrapolatable info here is that the sole other fire related ability is an SU ability (Flaming Body). If we compare that to the (EX) Burn ability of a Fire Elemental (which keeps its immunity in an AMF), imho it is fair to assume (=not RAW, but as close as we get to that with RAI) that a Balor's immunity is SU. Just my humble opinion.

I think its more fair to assume its Ex, given that it has no tag. If it were intended to be Su, which has implications in AMF, then they would have tagged it.

However, I am inclined to go with the “balors are an exception to the rule, and being untagged, it is a natural ability” reading.

The PHB defines natural abilities as special abilities that are not given a tag, and the balor fire immunity fits that description.

I definitely think Su is completely off the table, as, to give it the Su tag you would need to effectively add extra rules to the balor that arent present.

Darg

2023-02-20, 10:27 PM

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-21, 12:47 AM

I think its more fair to assume its Ex, given that it has no tag. If it were intended to be Su, which has implications in AMF, then they would have tagged it.

However, I am inclined to go with the “balors are an exception to the rule, and being untagged, it is a natural ability” reading.

The PHB defines natural abilities as special abilities that are not given a tag, and the balor fire immunity fits that description.

I definitely think Su is completely off the table, as, to give it the Su tag you would need to effectively add extra rules to the balor that arent present.

Let me first say here that I fully get how you did get to that interpretation. A few years ago, before I did become a Primary Source Rule maniac..., I would have had the same opinion about this as you and would have heavily argued against my current point of view.

But the PSR alters the context under which you have to interpret the undefined keyword "designate". If you don't do that, you just end up with a bunch of weird and sometimes dysfunctional interpretation.

Lets keep in mind that we need 4 distinct categories here, to prevent dysfunctions. Because we can't apply 2 different rule-sets to a single ability. That wouldn't work.
e.g. what would you do in an AMF if an ability would be EX and SU at the same time?
Thus we want 4 distinct categories, for a full functional rule set for (Special) Abilities.

By defining these 4 distinct categories, the PSR sets those definitions as Primary Source how a DM has to designate any Ability.

The "(XX)" tags are just "friendly reminder" and aren't needed for a DM to follow the properly defined categories (as Primary Source) for a functional designation of any possible ability. A "friendly reminder" just reminds you of higher rules. To give an example. "Size changing effects": You can sole have one, because according to the stacking rules, we lack the rule base to stack em in the first place. We never had permission to stack em. Some size changing effects remind you of this. Other don't. But those who lack the "friendly reminder" still work under the same general rules and thus still can't be stacked. The "friendly reminder" is not needed for the general rules to apply (and deny the stacking in this case). The same is true for the "(XX)" tags of Abilities. They are not needed for a DM to follow the general rules presented and to properly designate abilities into the categories.

If you can follow my interpretation, you will end up with the ability to designate any possible ability into the right category as soon as a few basic questions can be answered (which we have most of the time, but not always as seen with the Balor), which won't cause any weird outcomes.

I will explain the PHB first (since it has precedence when compared with the SRD) and then show why the SRD is a bit more misleading at first glance, while being technically still correct.

PHB: p180
1. The phb start to define EX, SLA and SU, by explaining the "distinct characteristics" of each.
2. With these 3 definitions we have covered 75% of all possible abilities
3. Anything that doesn't fit into the previously defined 3 categories, is designated as Natural Abilities.

The problem sole starts if you interpret "designate" as "tag". While this is legal interpretation by the English language, it's not the one mechanically fitting here. You can interpret "designate" also a variation of "defined". If I translate "designate" via google into german, google also shows me the English words "tag" and "defined" as similar word variations/examples. Without context "tag" is a fully legit interpretation of "designate". But with the context of having already defined 3 categories, I heavily insist that "designate" is not used as a variation of "tag", but more similar as a variation of "defined". Imho you heave to read it like:
"If the ability can't be designated into the other 3 distinct defined categories (by their specific definition), this is the category for the remaining rest."

SRD: (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)
The problem in the SRD is that here they start with Natural Abilities and didn't presented you the 3 other distinct categories so far. This leaves a totally different impression of how you should interpret "those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."
But unless rules present an order of application, they are always working and checking if they apply to any given situation. Thus the definitions of EX, SLA and SU are there even if you haven't read em so far in your reading flow.
The DM still needs to check those definitions and see if any ability can be designated into those 3 categories first (due to the PSR) before he can say that it has to fit into Natural Abilities (because it can't be fit into any other category).

Imho they changed the presentation order in the SRD to better show that Natural Abilities are not Special Abilities, while still being related to the topic. While it's on the Special Abilities page, it's before the Special Ability paragraph starts and ain't called out as part of the Special Ability category list. But as said, this causes a slightly misleading presentation if you ignore the PSR. Because the presented definitions of the categories are the tools given to the DM to designate any ability without causing any overlaps.

Natural Abilities: Non special and non magical

Extraordinary Abilities: special but non magical
special as in: "They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. "

SLA: magical and refers to a Spell
(or calls itself out as SLA in those cases where no real spell version exists, like an Eldritch Blast)
these abilities has to operate under the spell rules with the addition of the specific SLA exceptions.

SU: magical but doesn't refer to spells
These magical abilities don't follow the specific spell rules (e.g. Spell Stacking rules).

The sentence "They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. " is imho best interpreted as things that possibly requires you to have something. Like feats can have requirements, or class abilities needing class lvls. I really have a hard time to put this sentence into the right words. But I hope you get the original intend here.

If you can agree with my logic, you can tell the right category for any ability as soon as you know if it is "special" and/or "magical". While there are edge cases like the Balor where we can't be 100% sure, it can still solve most things without causing any dysfunctions.
If you ever wanted to understand why BoED claims that "most feats are EX" despite having no "(EX)" tag, you just have to follow my interpretation. The "tags" are sole friendly reminders and not the rules that "designate" the abilities in the first place. The designation tool here is the definition of those categories.

Immunity in the latter MMs it's given a description without a designation. Other natural abilities don't have designations either like natural weapons, movement modes, nonabilites, etc. MM4 and MM5 separates immunities into its own category, away from special qualities. They also remove the limit on SA and SQ to be "only" Ex, Sp, or Su.

A Chaos Beast has immunity to critical hits which doesn't have a designation. Behir, Ghaele, Golden Protector, etc also have undesignated immunities. The only immunities I know of that are designated are special immunities like the Chaos Beast's immunity to transformation or a golem's immunity to magic. However, it would be pretty hard to say they actually provide immunity. A chaos beast CAN be harmed or benefit from transformation, but can never be hurt by critical damage. A golem CAN be hurt or benefit from magic, even ones it says it's immune to. This is all to imply that they aren't the same immunity.

As I said to Crake above, the friendly reminder tags "(XX)" are not the tools designating the stuff here. We have distinctly defined categories who handle how you designate the abilities. Anything else just causes weird and sometimes dysfunctional outcomes. I mean, do you wanna argue that a monk's Unarmed Strike is Natural Ability and that it is not "Special" ("They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. ") and that anyone can do it?

Darg

2023-02-21, 08:24 AM

.As I said to Crake above, the friendly reminder tags "(XX)" are not the tools designating the stuff here. We have distinctly defined categories who handle how you designate the abilities. Anything else just causes weird and sometimes dysfunctional outcomes. I mean, do you wanna argue that a monk's Unarmed Strike is Natural Ability and that it is not "Special" ("They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. ") and that anyone can do it?

The SRD is not RAW and is actually incomplete rules with even some rules that can't be found anywhere else. Its version of Improved Whirlwind Attack is a perfect example. One should only use the SRD for reference, not for determining how the rules work.

Natural abilities are found under the header "Special Abilities." In both the PHB and the SRD it is this way. Your argument that having non-designated abilities can't be natural abilities causes a hole in the rules where abilities exist that are not any of the 4 types. The rules do not allow for assumption in this case. A balor that polymorphs would not lose their immunity to fire because under your definition it isn't a defined ability and thus cannot be attributed to any source.

Monk's unarmed strike ability is a natural ability just like a wizard's spells ability is. Class feature's are 100% under the preview of topic precedence. Regardless of your view, natural abilities are defined in the PHB and class special features have precedence in the PHB. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that abilities found in the PHB that are not designated are in fact natural abilities. For example it's why there is contention about racial traits in the first place. Player races' racial traits are not designated in the PHB and so under the primary source rule (as exampled in the errata) they would be natural abilities (racial traits are covered under physical qualities of alter self, not Ex special qualities [they wouldn't get them].)

And yes, anyone can learn to fight better unarmed. In fact, leveling into a monk implies extensive training. At the same time, every bird is born with the ability to fly and yet so many die because they fail to learn how or fail to train the muscles required for flight. Likewise with a monk, real life martial artists have more lethal and damaging martial strikes because of the way they naturally sculpt their body using training. Meaning their natural body becomes naturally tougher through the rigors of the lives they lead. Flurry of blows is more technique than the shaping of the body. Having higher strength already improves one's UAS.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-22, 12:12 AM

The SRD is not RAW and is actually incomplete rules with even some rules that can't be found anywhere else. Its version of Improved Whirlwind Attack is a perfect example. One should only use the SRD for reference, not for determining how the rules work.
I agree, I sole added the SRD version to show that it is contributing to the confusion due to the changed order of presentation. The MM (primary source) still backs me up (see below).

Natural abilities are found under the header "Special Abilities." In both the PHB and the SRD it is this way. Your argument that having non-designated abilities can't be natural abilities causes a hole in the rules where abilities exist that are not any of the 4 types. The rules do not allow for assumption in this case. A balor that polymorphs would not lose their immunity to fire because under your definition it isn't a defined ability and thus cannot be attributed to any source.

I'm arguing which tool is given for the designation of Abilities.

You are arguing that the "(XX)"-tags are designating the abilities into the right category.

I argue that the definitions of the categories are the tools to designate abilities into the right category.

Why do we we have "definitions"?
They are not just eye candy/fluff text. You may not ignore em and have to put em into use.

How do you use definitions?
A: By looking for things that qualify for the definition.

Example:
Think of any kind of a specific weapon which comes to your mind.
How you know what kind of weapon it is?
By looking up the definitions of the weapon types (weapons; natural weapons) and see into which one it fits.

Same with (Special) Abilities:
You have any kind of ability and want to know the type of it. You check into which category your ability has to be designated by looking up the definitions.

I have tried to show that the rules make often use of "friendly reminders" as showcased with "the denial of size stacking". But these aren't needed for the general rules to apply.
Same with the "(XX)" tags. They are not the tools provided for a proper designation. For that we have 4 distinctly defined categories.

Sorry, but you are basically ignoring the definitions of the categories and than run into problems because of the inconsistency of the "friendly reminder"-tags. Remind you again of "size changing stuff". Just because an ability lacks the "friendly reminder" that you can't stack em, don't suddenly allow you to do it.
Same here, just because of the lack of a tag, you can't argue that you lack the tools to properly designate abilities.

As said, "Tags" are not the sole options 3.5 has for designating stuff. Tags of any kind are sole used as friendly reminder. We have general definitions that handle what fits where. And here we have 4 distinct categories.

Monk's unarmed strike ability is a natural ability just like a wizard's spells ability is. Class feature's are 100% under the preview of topic precedence. Regardless of your view, natural abilities are defined in the PHB and class special features have precedence in the PHB. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that abilities found in the PHB that are not designated are in fact natural abilities. For example it's why there is contention about racial traits in the first place. Player races' racial traits are not designated in the PHB and so under the primary source rule (as exampled in the errata) they would be natural abilities (racial traits are covered under physical qualities of alter self, not Ex special qualities [they wouldn't get them].)

And yes, anyone can learn to fight better unarmed. In fact, leveling into a monk implies extensive training. At the same time, every bird is born with the ability to fly and yet so many die because they fail to learn how or fail to train the muscles required for flight. Likewise with a monk, real life martial artists have more lethal and damaging martial strikes because of the way they naturally sculpt their body using training. Meaning their natural body becomes naturally tougher through the rigors of the lives they lead. Flurry of blows is more technique than the shaping of the body. Having higher strength already improves one's UAS.

Here you are ignoring the definition of the categories again, to go on a "Tag/Friendly Reminder"-hunt.

Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature, such as a bird’s ability to fly. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
A monk's US doesn't come from it's "physical nature". It comes from a specific physical training and is not something because of his physical nature.

Further the phrase "those not otherwise designated" means this category is the left over of what doesn't fit into the other categories definitions.
Remind you that the MM has supremacy over "EX, SLA and SU" and not the PHB.
Thus anything that would fit into any of those definitions can't be a Natural Ability.

Monk's US fits into EX, because it is non-magical and not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

If you follow sole the tags and ignore the definitions, you end with abilities in categories that don't fit the description. This should show you the problem with your interpretation.
My interpretation doesn't pretend that "Spells:" are "abilities a creature has because of its physical nature". Try explaining that to a wizard who has studied for years to get his ability. I mean, what comes next? "Wanna argue that Spells aren't affected by AFM anymore because they are Natural Abilities???"

You totally ignore the dysfunctions your interpretation causes. Is it so hard to accept an interpretation that is 100% functional?

Crake

2023-02-22, 12:40 AM

"Wanna argue that Spells aren't affected by AFM anymore because they are Natural Abilities???"

No, because spells are explicitly called out as being affected by AMF, so regardless of the general rules on natural abilities, AMF’s specific rules supercede them.

Also, if spells arent a natural ability, what would they fall under? They arent Su because they provoke and require concentration, they arent Ex, because they’re magical, and they require concentration, they arent Sp, because theyre spells, not spell-likes… so what else are they? They are natural abilities because they dont fit into any of the other categories, and have their own ruleset which is completely contrary to how all the other abilities function.

And the same goes for balor immunity. It is isnt labelled, thus it defaults to natural ability, which makes sense, because I can definitely envision their literal flesh being impervious to fire, since they literally live in fiery hellpits.

Also, please try to make your argument more concise, I can’t speak for anyone else, but you seem to write a lot to say very little, and I would appreciate if you just outlined your logic in a direct and linear fashion to help identify where disagreements fundamentally lie.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-22, 01:45 AM

No, because spells are explicitly called out as being affected by AMF, so regardless of the general rules on natural abilities, AMF’s specific rules supercede them.
Nice, you did catch the twist here. But wait, because "IT'S A DOUBLE-LAYERED TRAP!"^^ Just wait...this argument will backlash just right back at you^^

Also, if spells arent a natural ability, what would they fall under? They arent Su because they provoke and require concentration, they arent Ex, because they’re magical, and they require concentration, they arent Sp, because theyre spells, not spell-likes… so what else are they? They are natural abilities because they dont fit into any of the other categories, and have their own ruleset which is completely contrary to how all the other abilities function.
as I explained earlier, Spells are SU:
1. They are special (as in, needs training and bla bla, I hope I don't need to repeat this here and that you get what I mean here)
2. They are magical
3. They are "not referring to a specific spell".
All criteria are meat here. And none of the general rules apply, since spells have (as you said a moment ago, and as I said in my initial explanation) more specific rules that trump the general SU rules.
But it still fits the definition and doesn't cause any weird dysfunctions.

Sole 2 things that come into my mind where it really matters that they are SU are:
Assume Supernatural Ability
&
Shapechange
And those are broken to begin with... (regarding their power lvl).
So, in 99.9% of the cases it doesn't matter. And the 0.1% leftover we normally have a competent DM to keep it in "check", that nobody abuses it to break the game (which he already needs to do even without this interpretation..).

So really, "nothing has changed" imho. (except that ASA and SC got a bit more broken).

And the same goes for balor immunity. It is isnt labelled, thus it defaults to natural ability, which makes sense, because I can definitely envision their literal flesh being impervious to fire, since they literally live in fiery hellpits.

Also, please try to make your argument more concise, I can’t speak for anyone else, but you seem to write a lot to say very little, and I would appreciate if you just outlined your logic in a direct and linear fashion to help identify where disagreements fundamentally lie.
As I said, I disagree that "labels" are the tools given for a proper designation of abilities here. Nowhere do the rules tell you to keep track of those "tags". They are sole friendly reminders. You can't ignore the definitions of the categories. They are there for a reason = To have 4 distinct categories where you can designate any ability without overlaps (if the neccessary info about magical or not and special or not are provided).

For a balor's immunity we can safely exclude Natural Abilities, since it is part of the Special Qualities line, which per definition sole allows EX, SLA and SU abilities (here you again ignore definitions..). It can sole be a Natural Ability if it is not mentioned in either the Special Attack or the Special Quality lines.

We can further safely exclude SLA, since the immunity ain't based of a spell (that would be "Energy Immunity (fire)").

Which leaves us with EX and SU.

A 100% RAW reading sadly stops here. The sole "indicator" if a balor's fire immunity is magical or not would be to "make the assumption" (extrapolated info and thus not RAW), that it is magical like it's "Flaming Body (SU)" ability.
Imho better than nothing, but as said not 100% RAW. But imho as close as we can get.

Crake

2023-02-22, 02:10 AM

It can sole be a Natural Ability if it is not mentioned in either the Special Attack or the Special Quality lines.

Except thats flat out not true. Natural abilities are, as defined in the phb, special abilities, and special qualities are just a designation of special abilities that are not attacks. Ergo, natural abilities that are not attacks must be special qualities.

Your argument is predicated on the fact that natural abilities are not special abilities, despite them explicitly being stated as being special abilities.

Tzardok

2023-02-22, 03:36 AM

I personally am of the opinion that spells are not spell-like, or supernatural, or extraordinary, or psi-like, or natural. They are spells, a category on its own.

They already have rules on their own, in tables that compare abilities they always get their own row/column, and both of you need to contort the text to make them fit into any other category. Also, a shadowcaster's mysteries first function like spells, then like spell-like abilities, then like supernatural abilities.
To me, all of that is enough to simply declare spells (and powers, and anything else that isn't explicitely called out as extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like) their own thing and be done with it.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-22, 06:21 AM

Except thats flat out not true. Natural abilities are, as defined in the phb, special abilities, and special qualities are just a designation of special abilities that are not attacks. Ergo, natural abilities that are not attacks must be special qualities.

Your argument is predicated on the fact that natural abilities are not special abilities, despite them explicitly being stated as being special abilities.
Even if Natural Abilities would be Special Abilities (which I still don't buy), the rest of my arguments would still work the same. You still have 4 distinctly defined categories. And those definitions are the tools given to a DM for a proper designation of abilities. Not the inconsistent use of friendly reminders. Nowhere do the rules (text) tell you to pay any attention to em.

Definitions are there to be used, not to be ignored.

And the specific definition of the Special Attacks and Special Quality lines trump any general rules. Anything mentioned there can sole be EX, SLA, SU. Still no room for NA.

So a Balor's immunity can't be a Natural Ability. There is room for that by RAW. 0% chance

You can provide your own suggestion what to pick from EX, SLA or SU, or you can agree upon my suggestion. Your choice.

Crake

2023-02-22, 06:53 AM

And the specific definition of the Special Attacks and Special Quality lines trump any general rules. Anything mentioned there can sole be EX, SLA, SU. Still no room for NA.

The special attacks and special quality lines don't specify any unique rules to special attacks and special qualities that are separate from special abilities. That is because special attacks and special qualities are literally, as I said earlier, just subcategories of special abilities, and you'll note that the description for special attacks and qualities only speaks to abilities in general on this matter, not attacks and qualities specifically. Meaning it is not contesting a general rule with a specific rule, it is directly contesting general rules with general rules.

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. 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). See the Glossary for definitions of special abilities. Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature’s descriptive text.

Now, since one of 3.5's fundamental core features is the fact that all creatures abide by the same ruleset, we have to determine whether to include natural abilities as special abilities or not. Since you said yourself you love the primary source rules, let'x examine them. Here's the direct quote from the primary source rules:

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Here we have the governance spaces for the two books. Note that the monster manual is NOT the primary rules source for special abilities, it only has precedence for supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. This means, that the rules for playing the game are what we should use for determining what is a special ability, as that would come under the rules for playing the game.

Ergo, natural abilities are special abilities, and since special attacks and special qualities are simply designations for special abilities that are, and are not, attacks, and have no actual rules of their own, natural abilities can be both special attacks and special qualities.

Darg

2023-02-22, 08:19 AM

A monk's US doesn't come from it's "physical nature". It comes from a specific physical training and is not something because of his physical nature.

So you're saying that every creature is born with an ability score and isn't presumed to have trained and exercised to reach that ability? A human baby is born with 18 str and can rip their way out to being born? No. They grow, they exercise to get to where they are when the game begins. They aren't born with 18 intelligence. There is a reason that there are age related bonuses and penalties. A monk trains their body as much as they train their technique. The ability to play chess is natural. The ability to learn and execute the rules for chess is natural.. The ability to dominate at chess, the tactics and strategies, come from something more strenuous, more extraordinary. However they both require training. One hones natural ability, the other hones something less natural.

I personally am of the opinion that spells are not spell-like, or supernatural, or extraordinary, or psi-like, or natural. They are spells, a category on its own.

They already have rules on their own, in tables that compare abilities they always get their own row/column, and both of you need to contort the text to make them fit into any other category. Also, a shadowcaster's mysteries first function like spells, then like spell-like abilities, then like supernatural abilities.
To me, all of that is enough to simply declare spells (and powers, and anything else that isn't explicitely called out as extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like) their own thing and be done with it.

Spells are their own thing. However the ability to cast spells is given by the Spells ability class or racial feature. That is where the argument lies. As that ability is not designated it defaults to natural.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-22, 09:47 AM

The special attacks and special quality lines don't specify any unique rules to special attacks and special qualities that are separate from special abilities. That is because special attacks and special qualities are literally, as I said earlier, just subcategories of special abilities, and you'll note that the description for special attacks and qualities only speaks to abilities in general on this matter, not attacks and qualities specifically. Meaning it is not contesting a general rule with a specific rule, it is directly contesting general rules with general rules.

The Special Attack and Special Quality line still defines what type of "Special Abilities" those can be. They are still both Special Abilities. I don't see how this affects my argument. The Barlo's immunity still can sole be EX, SLA, SU. Because neither Special Attack nor Special Qualities did call out an exception. As such, they follow the rule for Special Abilities as presented in the definition of the Special Attack and Special Quality line: "A special ability is either
extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). "
You still can't have Natural Abilities in that line. No matter how you look at it. A immunity presented in that line can't be a Natural Ability. Is it so hard to accept that the definition excludes Natural Abilities? If yes, you need to provide a rule that gives you a permission to do so. And I don't see that rule so far..

Now, since one of 3.5's fundamental core features is the fact that all creatures abide by the same ruleset, we have to determine whether to include natural abilities as special abilities or not. Since you said yourself you love the primary source rules, let'x examine them. Here's the direct quote from the primary source rules:

Here we have the governance spaces for the two books. Note that the monster manual is NOT the primary rules source for special abilities, it only has precedence for supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. This means, that the rules for playing the game are what we should use for determining what is a special ability, as that would come under the rules for playing the game.

Ergo, natural abilities are special abilities, and since special attacks and special qualities are simply designations for special abilities that are, and are not, attacks, and have no actual rules of their own, natural abilities can be both special attacks and special qualities.

As said, even if Natural Abilities are Special Abilities. Nothing changes for our examples here. The Special Attacks and Special Qualities lines still sole allow EX; SLA or SU and not NA.
Why are we arguing about this aspect, if it won't change anything in the first place?

So you're saying that every creature is born with an ability score and isn't presumed to have trained and exercised to reach that ability? A human baby is born with 18 str and can rip their way out to being born? No. They grow, they exercise to get to where they are when the game begins. They aren't born with 18 intelligence. There is a reason that there are age related bonuses and penalties. A monk trains their body as much as they train their technique. The ability to play chess is natural. The ability to learn and execute the rules for chess is natural.. The ability to dominate at chess, the tactics and strategies, come from something more strenuous, more extraordinary. However they both require training. One hones natural ability, the other hones something less natural.

IIRC in 3.5 we lack by RAW stack for any kind of babies and children as far as I know. Thus arguing about those aspect when and how your get to your initial stats is a pointless debate which won't help our current discussion in any way.
Further I neither see a monk's training as "natural", nor playing chess. I really don't see how you can come to such a conclusion.

BY the rules your ability scores are your Natural Abilities. I bet you train while growing up, but the 3.5 doesn't care for that part. But for what the rules care is how the 4 distinct categories for Special Abilities are defined and that you follow em (and not ignore em).

Spells are their own thing. However the ability to cast spells is given by the Spells ability class or racial feature. That is where the argument lies. As that ability is not designated it defaults to natural.
Tzardok also did suggested such an interpretation. While I can see the appeal of such an interpretation and I would even see it as interesting/good solution for actual play, it is not RAW but sole a houserule.

Casting spells is an ability. If you want evidence:

Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells..

Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells

And we have 4 categories for abilities and not more, not less. The way the Special Abilities are presented, there is no room for possible untyped categories. It's an exclusive list, not inclusive. And if you follow the definitions of the 4 categories, you should see how they cover any possibility there is. As long as you know if it is "special or not" and if it's "magical or not" you can designate the ability into the right category without any errors.

And I would like to remind you of the before mentioned Aranea (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aranea.htm). Its "Spells" ability is a Special Attack. Thus has to be EX, SLA or SU. Again an exclusive list without room for untyped stuff.

Duke of Urrel

2023-02-22, 10:25 AM

Crake

2023-02-22, 10:29 AM

The Special Attacks and Special Qualities lines still sole allow EX; SLA or SU and not NA.

Citation needed. Quote me the exact line that specifically says that special attacks and qualities can only be ex, su, or sp. The section you’re referring to never actually states that.

Darg

2023-02-22, 10:30 AM

The monster manuals give up defining special abilities in the 4th and 5th. Now they define Ex, Sp, and Su separately instead of being under the special abilities description. The MM4&5 no longer lists immunities under special qualities unless an ability or trait provides for it. It's plenty obvious WotC never thought of immunity as Ex, Sp, or Su. They just didn't have anywhere else to put it in the monster block.

Citation needed. Quote me the exact line that specifically says that special attacks and qualities can only be ex, su, or sp. The section you’re referring to never actually states that.

This is quite true. It never says anything about special attacks/qualities only being special abilities, regardless of how special abilities are defined.

Tzardok

2023-02-22, 11:50 AM

Spells are their own thing. However the ability to cast spells is given by the Spells ability class or racial feature. That is where the argument lies. As that ability is not designated it defaults to natural.

I do not think that changes anything? The "ability to cast spells" is not a thing at all independent of the actual spells. It is, IMO, solely a placeholder and has ruleswise no effect beyond the actual spells.
I mean, let's assume you are right and it is a natural ability. Let's further imagine an "Anti-Natural Aura" spell that suppresses natural abilities in it's field, but nothing else. What would change for a wizard in that field? Nothing at all, because it doesn't suppress spells, only the natural "Spells" ability. And if nothing changes when you "remove" an ability, why even treat it as anything besides a placeholder?

Also @Gruftzwerg, I disagree with your claim that treating spells as their own thing is a houserule. It is in fact IMO the most straightforward reading of RAW.

Darg

2023-02-22, 02:17 PM

I do not think that changes anything? The "ability to cast spells" is not a thing at all independent of the actual spells. It is, IMO, solely a placeholder and has ruleswise no effect beyond the actual spells.
I mean, let's assume you are right and it is a natural ability. Let's further imagine an "Anti-Natural Aura" spell that suppresses natural abilities in it's field, but nothing else. What would change for a wizard in that field? Nothing at all, because it doesn't suppress spells, only the natural "Spells" ability. And if nothing changes when you "remove" an ability, why even treat it as anything besides a placeholder?

Also @Gruftzwerg, I disagree with your claim that treating spells as their own thing is a houserule. It is in fact IMO the most straightforward reading of RAW.

Such an spell cannot exist. A creature's ability to breathe, think, act, be is a function of their natural abilities. It'd basically be a no save finger of death.

Natural abilities are a function of physical form. Birds can fly because they have wings. Humans can cast spells because they have the ability to intone and move in the right ways.

An AMF does not prevent you from casting while inside of it. You can cast a spell with a duration from inside the AMF and the AMF will suppress it while the AMF lasts. If the spell has a longer duration than the AMF then the spell will be unsuppressed when the AMF ends.

Tzardok

2023-02-22, 02:47 PM

Darg

2023-02-22, 05:27 PM

So what? It's just a hypothetical. If you instead assume that "Spells" is a supernatural ability and then invent an Anti-Supernatural Field that suppresses supernatural abilities and nothing else, you arrive at the same absurdity of "Spells" being suppressed, but the spells you cast not. My point stands.

Besides, I'm not sure why you are telling me about the traits of the AMF. They seem to be irrelevant to my point.

It's because the hypothetical is so far afield of the power level of the equivalent that effects all other special abilities: AMF. Which does suppress supernatural effects.

The problem with creating a natural suppression field is that keeping it at the level of suppression an AMF provides would cause all nonmagical effects to be suppressed. Is a creature's strength score an effect? What about vocalizing? Is that an effect. Walking? Natural abilities are what allow the world to go round. Magic on the other hand is not so encompassing. This is the point. Things don't have to be a two-way street.

Having the natural ability to cast spells is not the same thing as being imbued with spell ability. Both are different sources of being able to cast spells. The latter is one of the only sources of spell sourced spells and because of that the ability to cast those spells are suppressed in an AMF.

Crake

2023-02-22, 06:18 PM

It's because the hypothetical is so far afield of the power level of the equivalent that effects all other special abilities: AMF. Which does suppress supernatural effects.

The problem with creating a natural suppression field is that keeping it at the level of suppression an AMF provides would cause all nonmagical effects to be suppressed. Is a creature's strength score an effect? What about vocalizing? Is that an effect. Walking? Natural abilities are what allow the world to go round. Magic on the other hand is not so encompassing. This is the point. Things don't have to be a two-way street.

Heres something for you to wrap your head around: AMF doesn’t actually stop you from CASTING spells, it merely suppresses the spells themselves, so AMF doesnt actually hinder your spellcasting capability at all, just the effects of your spellcasting capability. Heck, you can technically cast a bunch of spells inside an AMF, and if their duration outlasts the AMF, they will be there after it expires.

Also, as an aside, supernatural abilities are specifically called out as NEVER having concentration checks. Thats a pretty hard line drawn.

Darg

2023-02-22, 07:40 PM

Heres something for you to wrap your head around: AMF doesn’t actually stop you from CASTING spells

Exactly. Unless your ability to cast spells comes from something like the Imbue with Spell Ability spell, it won't be.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-23, 12:10 AM

Citation needed. Quote me the exact line that specifically says that special attacks and qualities can only be ex, su, or sp. The section you’re referring to never actually states that.

Here you go:

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special
attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of
damage, and enhanced senses, among others. 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). See the
Glossary for definitions of special abilities. Additional informa-
tion (when needed) is provided in the creature’s descriptive text.
When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save
and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving
throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows: 10
+ 1/2 the attacker’s racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.
The save DC is given in the creature’s description along with the
ability on which the DC is based.
So what now? Are you gonna argue now that Special Attacks an Qualities are not Special Abilities??
The definition is obvious here. The rules explain what they (S. Attacks & Qualities) are, Special Abilities. And it defines those abilities in those 2 lines as either EX, SLA or SU. Still no room for NA

But just to be sure, let us have a look at the glossary too where the rules are referring to:

Special Abilities: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).
...
edit: the authors didn't placed a random quote about Special Abilities to irritate the reader. They placed it there in context as definition of what Special Attacks and Special Qualities are. You may not read a single sentence in a vacuum. You have to read it in the context presented. Otherwise all kinds of other rules will just become broken and I don't know if you can play the game any longer. I highly doubt that you normally read the rules this way (each sentence in a vacuum). So, pls let us stop this silliness and move on.

The monster manuals give up defining special abilities in the 4th and 5th. Now they define Ex, Sp, and Su separately instead of being under the special abilities description. The MM4&5 no longer lists immunities under special qualities unless an ability or trait provides for it. It's plenty obvious WotC never thought of immunity as Ex, Sp, or Su. They just didn't have anywhere else to put it in the monster block.

MM II+ are mostly irrelevant for our discussion. Because MM (I) is the primary source and core. The other MM can't trump it. They lack the permission needed, like an ERRATA, Rules Compendium or Draconomicon to trump anything from core primary sources. Even if RAI changed over time, they failed to change RAW along. No changes can be made by the other MM (non core).

Heres something for you to wrap your head around: AMF doesn’t actually stop you from CASTING spells, it merely suppresses the spells themselves, so AMF doesnt actually hinder your spellcasting capability at all, just the effects of your spellcasting capability. Heck, you can technically cast a bunch of spells inside an AMF, and if their duration outlasts the AMF, they will be there after it expires.

Also, as an aside, supernatural abilities are specifically called out as NEVER having concentration checks. Thats a pretty hard line drawn.
A cast is sole successful if you unleash the effect. Otherwise you sole tried to "cast" and "failed" to accomplish it. Just like an Concentration check can stop you from successfully casting a spell.

attempt to cast spell != casting a spell

You may attempt to "cast" a spell, but you still can't cast spells.
Nothing can stop you from trying something, but depending on the circumstances it may be impossible even if you try.

edit: regarding SU and concentration checks.
Specific Trumps general.

It's like saying a warock's invocations can't provoke AoO because of the general SLA rules. But thankfully "Specific Trumps General" solves the problem.

Same if we designate Spells into SU. The specific spell rules even out 99,9% of the problems that could occur (except ASA and SC as said).

Darg

2023-02-23, 01:09 AM

Here you go:

So what now? Are you gonna argue now that Special Attacks an Qualities are not Special Abilities??
The definition is obvious here. The rules explain what they (S. Attacks & Qualities) are, Special Abilities. And it defines those abilities in those 2 lines as either EX, SLA or SU. Still no room for NA

But just to be sure, let us have a look at the glossary too where the rules are referring to:

edit: the authors didn't placed a random quote about Special Abilities to irritate the reader. They placed it there in context as definition of what Special Attacks and Special Qualities are. You may not read a single sentence in a vacuum. You have to read it in the context presented. Otherwise all kinds of other rules will just become broken and I don't know if you can play the game any longer. I highly doubt that you normally read the rules this way (each sentence in a vacuum). So, pls let us stop this silliness and move on.

They didn't say that SAs or SQs couldn't be special abilities. They just pointed out that nothing says that they HAVE to be special abilities. In fact, special abilities are like a side inclusion.

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
Many creatures have unusual abilities, which can include special attack forms, resistance or vulnerability to certain types of damage, and enhanced senses, among others. 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). See the Glossary for definitions of special abilities. Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature’s descriptive text.

Even if the the MM/DMG are the authority in declaring that natural abilities are not special abilities, a natural ability can be a special attack or special quality as they aren't excluded.

MM II+ are mostly irrelevant for our discussion. Because MM (I) is the primary source and core. The other MM can't trump it. They lack the permission needed, like an ERRATA, Rules Compendium or Draconomicon to trump anything from core primary sources. Even if RAI changed over time, they failed to change RAW along. No changes can be made by the other MM (non core).

They aren't relevant for declaration, but they are relevant to understand the direction and intention the rules were meant to follow. Luckily, as mentioned above natural abilities can be special qualities so immunity is by default natural.

A cast is sole successful if you unleash the effect. Otherwise you sole tried to "cast" and "failed" to accomplish it. Just like an Concentration check can stop you from successfully casting a spell.

attempt to cast spell != casting a spell

You may attempt to "cast" a spell, but you still can't cast spells.
Nothing can stop you from trying something, but depending on the circumstances it may be impossible even if you try.

edit: regarding SU and concentration checks.
Specific Trumps general.

It's like saying a warock's invocations can't provoke AoO because of the general SLA rules. But thankfully "Specific Trumps General" solves the problem.

Same if we designate Spells into SU. The specific spell rules even out 99,9% of the problems that could occur (except ASA and SC as said).

AMF only suppresses magical effects. A spell effect only takes place AFTER the spell is cast. The concentration check happens BEFORE you cast which interrupts your cast. They work on two different points in time.

They said Su abilites don't require concentration checks, and they don't. The general SLA rules do cause warlock invocations to provoke which is reiterated under the Invocations class feature.

Crake

2023-02-23, 02:46 AM

Here you go:

The bolded section makes no qualifying statements about either special attacks nor special qualities, it only makes speaks on special abilities, which, as I stated earlier, is in contradiction (arguably. Technically it's an omission, meaning both are capable of being correct, as not including natural abilities on the MM list doesn't make it INCORRECT just incomplete) with the PHB statement about special abilities, which include natural abilities. And since the PHB has precedence over rules of the game, it wins in terms of priority.

Your argument is that the rules for special qualities and special attacks override this, however, as I said, the bolded part of your quote makes no qualifying statement on special attacks and qualities specifically, it makes a general statement on special abilities.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-23, 09:40 AM

@Crake & Darg

What does this sentence do in your opinion? What do the authors try to tell us here in the context of "Special Attacks & Special Qualities":

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
...
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)
...

If where to follow your interpretation: "this ain't further explaining "Special Attacks & Special Qualities", but is just a random quote that does nothing."...

Remind you that we are in the mid of a definition. This is further explaining Special Attacks & Special Qualities, because both together are Special Abilities. Stop ignoring the context or tell me what the sentence mechanically does for the definition here?

And I still don't buy that relying on tags "(XX)" is what a DM is supposed to do here. We have 4 distinct category definitions for that. Nowhere do the rules tell you to pay attention to the tags. There are either a "friendly reminder" or can at best be used to create a "specific exception". The absence doesn't mean you get to ignore the definitions of the categories. You (the DM) have to look into which category the ability fits best. For that the rules did provide us with the 4 distinct category definitions.

edit: why "tags" "(XX)" aren't as important as you imply...

What about feats? Most lack any kind of tag. According to your interpretation they all default into Natural Abilities since they have no tags.

BOED does disagree with such a statement. According to BOED most feats are EX (and I can't even recall a single feat that has an EX tag..).
But my interpretation does designate most feats into EX, because they are "special" and "non-magical".

So it seems my interpretation of definitions and tags seems to be in line with the authors.

Crake

2023-02-23, 10:57 AM

@Crake & Darg

What does this sentence do in your opinion? What do the authors try to tell us here in the context of "Special Attacks & Special Qualities":

If where to follow your interpretation: "this ain't further explaining "Special Attacks & Special Qualities", but is just a random quote that does nothing."...

Remind you that we are in the mid of a definition. This is further explaining Special Attacks & Special Qualities, because both together are Special Abilities. Stop ignoring the context or tell me what the sentence mechanically does for the definition here?

It's simple: The sentence makes a statement about special abilities. That sentence is in contradiction with the rules in the PHB. Since the rules for playing the game give priority to the PHB, the PHB definition, which includes natural abilities, takes precedence.

Darg

2023-02-23, 12:04 PM

This is further explaining Special Attacks & Special Qualities, because both together are Special Abilities.

Not true. Special abilities are special attacks or special qualities, but nothing says that special attacks or special qualities have to be special abilities. The only thing MM says for sure about special attacks and special qualities is that they are abilities. It does not however specify the type of ability.

Take shapes for example. A square IS a rectangle, but a rectangle does not have to be a square. One does not equate to the other in every case.

It's simple: The sentence makes a statement about special abilities. That sentence is in contradiction with the rules in the PHB. Since the rules for playing the game give priority to the PHB, the PHB definition, which includes natural abilities, takes precedence.

The PHB is book 1. It has topic precedence on everything it says. The DMG and MM build off of what the PHB has already laid down as a foundation.

Even the declaration that special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su does not contradict the PHB as that description does not declare that they are the only options when the context includes natural abilities. Not to purposely bring it off topic, but the energy substitution feat is another example of such exclusion without declaration under the context of existence with the sonic energy type.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-24, 12:30 AM

It's simple: The sentence makes a statement about special abilities. That sentence is in contradiction with the rules in the PHB. Since the rules for playing the game give priority to the PHB, the PHB definition, which includes natural abilities, takes precedence.
You still failed to explain what the sentence does for the definition of "Special Attacks & Special Qualities".
In your current explanation it is just a random quote that does nothing for the definition.
Sorry but I don't buy that this sentence is just randomly placed into a definition just to irritate the reader (since it has no effect in your opinion)

Not true. Special abilities are special attacks or special qualities, but nothing says that special attacks or special qualities have to be special abilities. The only thing MM says for sure about special attacks and special qualities is that they are abilities. It does not however specify the type of ability.

Take shapes for example. A square IS a rectangle, but a rectangle does not have to be a square. One does not equate to the other in every case.

You also didn't provide any explanation for "that" sentence. You also try to make it look like a random placed quote that does nothing for the definition itself. Sorry I don't buy such an explanation.

The PHB is book 1. It has topic precedence on everything it says. The DMG and MM build off of what the PHB has already laid down as a foundation.

Even the declaration that special abilities are Ex, Sp, or Su does not contradict the PHB as that description does not declare that they are the only options when the context includes natural abilities. Not to purposely bring it off topic, but the energy substitution feat is another example of such exclusion without declaration under the context of existence with the sonic energy type.

The PHB has not precedence on everything it says.
The PSR tells you on which topics it takes precedence: "rules to play the game"
Expect:

The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

________________________________
________________________________

I kindly request that you both maybe address my main arguments here that you keep dodging:

1. What does "that" sentence do for the "definition" of Special Attacks & Special Qualities?

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
...
A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)
...

2. Where do the rules tell you to keep track of the "(XX)" tags?
In the meanwhile I will post what BOED has to say on exalted feats and most other feats:

Exalted Feats

...
These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are).
Remind you that most feats lack any "(XX)" tags and don't call out that they are EX in their description.
The sole possible way to come to such a statement as in BOED is if you start to use the DEFINITIONS of Special Abilities as tool to designate stuff into the right category.

__

(1) My interpretation doesn't put a useless random quote into a definition. The quote has a mechanical impact in my definition and ain't just eye candy to distract the reader.

(2) Finally my interpretation is also in line with BOED statement about feats. Most feats have no "(XX)" tags at all, but don't default to Natural Abilities. They are EX, because most feats are special but non-magical. And I don't need any tags at all to designate em into that category. I have 4 distinct category definitions that aid me.

Now it's your turn to show me how your interpretations solve these 2 arguments (if at all).

Crake

2023-02-24, 12:57 AM

(1) My interpretation doesn't put a useless random quote into a definition. The quote has a mechanical impact in my definition and ain't just eye candy to distract the reader.

It was not intended to be either useless nor is it random. The definition states that special attacks and qualities are special abilities, and then goes on to give a (incomplete) definition of special abilities so you dont have to go look up in the phb what a special ability is.

As i said earlier, this is very common practise, rather than constantly referring you to a book and page number, the rules are just repeated. In this case the rules repeated are just not correct (or complete, depending on how semantic you want to get about it). The rules for special attacks and qualities dont have the authority to redefine special abilities, and since special attacks and qualities are merely categories for special abilities, they dont actually have any rules beyond how theyre categorized (attack or not-attack).

Theres a reason why special attacks and qualities are never brought up in the phb, because they are merely a means of making it easier to differentiate offensive special abilities in a monster entry, and dont actually have any purpose or rules beyond that.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-24, 11:47 PM

It was not intended to be either useless nor is it random. The definition states that special attacks and qualities are special abilities, and then goes on to give a (incomplete) definition of special abilities so you dont have to go look up in the phb what a special ability is.

As i said earlier, this is very common practise, rather than constantly referring you to a book and page number, the rules are just repeated. In this case the rules repeated are just not correct (or complete, depending on how semantic you want to get about it). The rules for special attacks and qualities dont have the authority to redefine special abilities, and since special attacks and qualities are merely categories for special abilities, they dont actually have any rules beyond how theyre categorized (attack or not-attack).

Theres a reason why special attacks and qualities are never brought up in the phb, because they are merely a means of making it easier to differentiate offensive special abilities in a monster entry, and dont actually have any purpose or rules beyond that.

Even if I would believe you, that the line is incomplete (which I still heavily disagree, but I'll put that aside for a moment) and that it includes Natural Abilities. Nothing changes.

You still may not rely on the lack of "(XX)"-tags to designate abilities into the NA category. You still have to rely on the definitions of the categories and I still don't buy that Immunities are Natural Abilities.

Because "Natural Abilities" are the ODD ONE here per definition. It's the rest, if you can't fit something into the other categories.

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

Remind you that the tool provided for a proper designation are the definitions of each category and not the tags.

Further I argue that "Immunities to fire" break the laws of physics (as we know so far). We have fire resistant stuff in reality. But nothing is totally immune to fire (super high temperatures).

Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

As such, an Immunity can be gained as either EX, SLA or SU ability, but not as a NA.

A Natural Ability may not be "special" as I like to say it. It has to be "normal" stuff. And an elemental Immunity doesn't fit here.

Crake

2023-02-25, 01:43 AM

Even if I would believe you, that the line is incomplete (which I still heavily disagree, but I'll put that aside for a moment) and that it includes Natural Abilities. Nothing changes.

You still may not rely on the lack of "(XX)"-tags to designate abilities into the NA category. You still have to rely on the definitions of the categories and I still don't buy that Immunities are Natural Abilities.

Because "Natural Abilities" are the ODD ONE here per definition. It's the rest, if you can't fit something into the other categories.

That line you quoted IS WHY the lack of a tag typically denotes a natural ability. The tag is what defines an ability's type, so the lack of a tag means a lack of defintion, meaning it's a natural ability.

Now of course, there's times where common sense needs to be taken into account, for example, the tanar'ri subtype gives creatures an untyped telepathy, but is telepathy possible as a natural ability? Probably not. Immunities on the other hand, are COMPLETELY capable of being a natural ability. It just depends on how that ability arises. A swarm's immunity to single target magical spells isn't due to some extraordinary power it has, it's simply due to the fact that there's hundreds or thousands of creatures, so any one creature being targetted by a spell ultimately does nothing. Likewise, if a creature literally has fireproof skin, that's not the result of some extraordinary ability the creature has or invokes, it's literally just made of inflammable material. A balor's fire immunity can very plausibly fall under this category.

Ultimately though, I think the delineation between natural and Ex for the purposes of polymorph abilities is largely irrelevant, because you explicitly lose Ex qualities, and you implicitly lose natural abilites, since you're literally changing your form, and changing your form means you no longer have the form with which that natural ability is associated.

So whether a balor's immunity is Ex or natural, he'd lose it either way when polymorphing. Ironically, if it was Su, he WOULD keep that, but I don't buy that a balor's fire immunity is Su. Seems dumb to me that creatures that wade through the fiery pits of hell would suddenly start burning up if exposed to an AMF while doing so.

Remind you that the tool provided for a proper designation are the definitions of each category and not the tags.

Further I argue that "Immunities to fire" break the laws of physics (as we know so far). We have fire resistant stuff in reality. But nothing is totally immune to fire (super high temperatures).

As such, an Immunity can be gained as either EX, SLA or SU ability, but not as a NA.

A Natural Ability may not be "special" as I like to say it. It has to be "normal" stuff. And an elemental Immunity doesn't fit here.

Hmmm, this is actually one of the more convincing arguments you've presented, but I would argue back that demons are made of literaly evil incarnate, and that the metaphysics of such things are not analogous to real world physics.

But again, in the context of Polymorph, both Ex and natural would be lost either way, so it's largely irrelevant. The only time it matters is when you transform INTO a balor via a polymorph effect. If it's natural, you'd get it, if it's Ex, you wouldn't.

Darg

2023-02-25, 12:15 PM

The Tanar'ri subtype doesn't designate their resistances either. Telepathy and resistances default to the designations given in the glossary which are Su and Ex respectively. Immunity on the other hand does not have a designation in the glossary.

Duke of Urrel

2023-02-25, 06:36 PM

Immunity in the latter MMs it's given a description without a designation. Other natural abilities don't have designations either like natural weapons, movement modes, nonabilites, etc. MM4 and MM5 separates immunities into its own category, away from special qualities. They also remove the limit on SA and SQ to be "only" Ex, Sp, or Su.

Ultimately though, I think the delineation between natural and Ex for the purposes of polymorph abilities is largely irrelevant, because you explicitly lose Ex qualities, and you implicitly lose natural abilites, since you're literally changing your form, and changing your form means you no longer have the form with which that natural ability is associated.

I have discovered one small but significant set of cases in which the existence of Special Qualities that are natural rather than Ex, Sp, or Su is very relevant indeed. Since this was a pleasant discovery for me, I'll share it with you.

Previously, that is, before reading this thread, I assumed that Special Attacks and Special Qualities had to be special, that is, could not be natural. Looking at the MONSTER MANUAL, I observed that the racial traits of elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings are all listed as "Special Qualities." This led me to assume that all racial traits of elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings had to be extraordinary unless they were identified as special in some other way. Consequently, with the exception of the spell-like abilities of gnomes, I assumed that all demi-human racial traits were extraordinary.

So I allowed the Alter Self spell to bestow racial skill bonuses, because the description of the Alter Self spell explicitly allows this. But I didn't allow the Alter Self spell to bestow racial save bonuses or racial dodge bonuses, because these are not skill bonuses, and because I assumed that these were not only special qualities but extraordinary special qualities, which the Alter Self spell – and every spell based upon it except Shapechange – cannot bestow.

Now, I no longer assume that all demi-human racial traits are extraordinary. Indeed, I now assume that the overwhelming majority of demi-human racial traits are natural, because they are nowhere identified as Ex, Sp, or Su. (Darkvision, Low-Light Vision, and the aforementioned spell-like abilities of gnomes are the sole exceptions.) So now, I have decided to allow the Alter Self spell (as well as the Polymorph spell and the Polymorph Any Object spell) to bestow racial save bonuses and racial dodge bonuses as well as skill bonuses. I like this decision very much indeed.

Thanks again!

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-25, 09:47 PM

That line you quoted IS WHY the lack of a tag typically denotes a natural ability. The tag is what defines an ability's type, so the lack of a tag means a lack of defintion, meaning it's a natural ability.

Now of course, there's times where common sense needs to be taken into account, for example, the tanar'ri subtype gives creatures an untyped telepathy, but is telepathy possible as a natural ability? Probably not. Immunities on the other hand, are COMPLETELY capable of being a natural ability. It just depends on how that ability arises. A swarm's immunity to single target magical spells isn't due to some extraordinary power it has, it's simply due to the fact that there's hundreds or thousands of creatures, so any one creature being targetted by a spell ultimately does nothing. Likewise, if a creature literally has fireproof skin, that's not the result of some extraordinary ability the creature has or invokes, it's literally just made of inflammable material. A balor's fire immunity can very plausibly fall under this category.

Ultimately though, I think the delineation between natural and Ex for the purposes of polymorph abilities is largely irrelevant, because you explicitly lose Ex qualities, and you implicitly lose natural abilites, since you're literally changing your form, and changing your form means you no longer have the form with which that natural ability is associated.

So whether a balor's immunity is Ex or natural, he'd lose it either way when polymorphing. Ironically, if it was Su, he WOULD keep that, but I don't buy that a balor's fire immunity is Su. Seems dumb to me that creatures that wade through the fiery pits of hell would suddenly start burning up if exposed to an AMF while doing so.

Remind you that the tool provided for a proper designation are the definitions of each category and not the tags.

Hmmm, this is actually one of the more convincing arguments you've presented, but I would argue back that demons are made of literaly evil incarnate, and that the metaphysics of such things are not analogous to real world physics.

But again, in the context of Polymorph, both Ex and natural would be lost either way, so it's largely irrelevant. The only time it matters is when you transform INTO a balor via a polymorph effect. If it's natural, you'd get it, if it's Ex, you wouldn't.
1. The quote for Natural Abilities never loses a single word about tags.
2. If tags would be the designation tool here, most feats would default to NA. Imho that creates more dysfunctions than it solves. Further BOED has the statement that most fest are EX, which is in line with my interpretation and contradicts your statement. I don't see any evidence that the tags are the tools for designation.

Let me give you a real life example. Let's talk about the "oldtimer" tag. We all have some kind of expectations for this tag (definition), sometimes even laws that define what an oldtimer is.
A: If you mislabel a car you are selling as oldtimer, people might get mad at you.
B: If you sell an oldtimer without labeling it as such, it is still an oldtimer.
C: There might be edge cases where putting the label might be of great help.

Labels/Tags in 3.5 are no different. Tags don't define anything and as such aren't the tools you should use for a proper designation. They can sole be of additional help (friendly reminder or specific trumps general) if they are there. Their absence doesn't change the "definitions" they (the tags) are based on.

See below what I'm gonna response to Darg

The Tanar'ri subtype doesn't designate their resistances either. Telepathy and resistances default to the designations given in the glossary which are Su and Ex respectively. Immunity on the other hand does not have a designation in the glossary.

If you can look up specific definitions in the glossary, what stops me from looking up general definitions for Special Abilities?

That is what you always do. Even in real life. Your pattern-recognition abilities try to compare your senses to things that you have "defined" in your memory to recognize what you perceive.

And just because your steak lacks the "meat" tag, doesn't turn it into a vegetable.
If it has "vegan steak" as label we would have a specific exception.

I have discovered one small but significant set of cases in which the existence of Special Qualities that are natural rather than Ex, Sp, or Su is very relevant indeed. Since this was a pleasant discovery for me, I'll share it with you.

Previously, that is, before reading this thread, I assumed that Special Attacks and Special Qualities had to be special, that is, could not be natural. Looking at the MONSTER MANUAL, I observed that the racial traits of elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings are all listed as "Special Qualities." This led me to assume that all racial traits of elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings had to be extraordinary unless they were identified as special in some other way. Consequently, with the exception of the spell-like abilities of gnomes, I assumed that all demi-human racial traits were extraordinary.

So I allowed the Alter Self spell to bestow racial skill bonuses, because the description of the Alter Self spell explicitly allows this. But I didn't allow the Alter Self spell to bestow racial save bonuses or racial dodge bonuses, because these are not skill bonuses, and because I assumed that these were not only special qualities but extraordinary special qualities, which the Alter Self spell – and every spell based upon it except Shapechange – cannot bestow.

Now, I no longer assume that all demi-human racial traits are extraordinary. Indeed, I now assume that the overwhelming majority of demi-human racial traits are natural, because they are nowhere identified as Ex, Sp, or Su. (Darkvision, Low-Light Vision, and the aforementioned spell-like abilities of gnomes are the sole exceptions.) So now, I have decided to allow the Alter Self spell (as well as the Polymorph spell and the Polymorph Any Object spell) to bestow racial save bonuses and racial dodge bonuses as well as skill bonuses. I like this decision very much indeed.

Thanks again!

Imho, like feats most traits are EX. But some are SLA or SU. So you have to look at each trait to determine where it belongs to. Since most traits are special, but non magical the are EX.
But lets have a look at gnome traits (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gnome.htm):
While the gnome traits are called out as (EX), they also have SLA listed as trait (Specific Trumps General).

Imho this further confirms that that most special stuff designates into minimum EX (if non magical) and not NA.

_____________

Natural Abilities out of the "norm" do exist, but only in a few edge cases where the ability is not part of the Special Attacks or Special Quality line. The sole thing that comes to my mind so far is the Hydra (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm)'s "Head" ability. (if you can name similar examples like this one, I would appreciate it)

Darg

2023-02-25, 11:11 PM

If you can look up specific definitions in the glossary, what stops me from looking up general definitions for Special Abilities?

No one is stopping you. You're free to interpret things the way you want. It doesn't mean anyone else has to abide by that interpretation when there are other options. That said, we just seem to disagree fundamentally on what a special ability is. You believe the lack of inclusion is exclusionary to the contradiction of the PHB. We believe that the lack of inclusion is not exclusionary which is in alignment to the PHB. Language says both are correct understandings. There isn't much left to discuss on this topic.

Imho, like feats most traits are EX. But some are SLA or SU. So you have to look at each trait to determine where it belongs to. Since most traits are special, but non magical the are EX.
But lets have a look at gnome traits (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gnome.htm):
While the gnome traits are called out as (EX), they also have SLA listed as trait (Specific Trumps General).

Imho this further confirms that that most special stuff designates into minimum EX (if non magical) and not NA.

The racial traits ability grants other abilities. There are even feats which grant special abilities beyond the feat itself. Fey/Fiendish Legacy feats grant multiple SLAs for example. Even though racial traits may be Ex, the abilities they grant do not inherit the Ex tag by default considering there are plenty that are Sp and Su. Making the assumption that they do inherit the Ex tag is a leap with no grounding in the rules themselves. Especially when you consider that a race's size and speed are part of their traits. Would anyone really say that a creature's ability to move and the size they grow into requires extensive training when a bird's ability to fly is considered a natural ability?

Biggus

2023-02-26, 02:05 PM

The SRD is not RAW and is actually incomplete rules with even some rules that can't be found anywhere else. Its version of Improved Whirlwind Attack is a perfect example.

This specific example is incorrect: the version of Improved Whirlwind Attack in the SRD appears in the ELH 3.5 update booklet. Most discrepancies between the SRD and the published books are where they've included errata or 3.5 updates. Having said that, there are a few examples where the SRD doesn't match any of those things.

Darg

2023-02-26, 03:06 PM

This specific example is incorrect: the version of Improved Whirlwind Attack in the SRD appears in the ELH 3.5 update booklet. Most discrepancies between the SRD and the published books are where they've included errata or 3.5 updates. Having said that, there are a few examples where the SRD doesn't match any of those things.

Thanks for the info. It still stands however that the SRD is still missing rules text due to overzealous copyright scrubbing.

Biggus

2023-02-26, 03:42 PM

Thanks for the info. It still stands however that the SRD is still missing rules text due to overzealous copyright scrubbing.

Oh? Can you give me any examples of that?

Darg

2023-02-26, 05:16 PM

Oh? Can you give me any examples of that?

Illusion interactions and saving throws

Several feats including shield proficiency and armor proficiencies. The former allows you to use tower shields with the feat and the latter do not grant proficiency when using just the RAW of the SRD.

These are the ones off the top of my head. I remember there being more things like these sprinkled throughout the document.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-27, 12:34 AM

No one is stopping you. You're free to interpret things the way you want. It doesn't mean anyone else has to abide by that interpretation when there are other options. That said, we just seem to disagree fundamentally on what a special ability is. You believe the lack of inclusion is exclusionary to the contradiction of the PHB. We believe that the lack of inclusion is not exclusionary which is in alignment to the PHB. Language says both are correct understandings. There isn't much left to discuss on this topic.

And why do you treat the situations mechanically different? Either you believe in tags or in definitions. So, if you use specific definitions for the Tanar'ri's abilities, why don't you also use the general special ability definitions in the absence of tags or a specific defined abilities.
The general rules are still there and the PSR expects you to make use of em. You have no permission to ignore em. Nor do you have the permission to rely and deny definitions as you like it. Sorry but that is inconsistent behavior.
You lack any proof that we should go on a TAG hunt and you don't even do it yourself all the time... Do you realize that your ruling here is inconsistent?

The racial traits ability grants other abilities. There are even feats which grant special abilities beyond the feat itself. Fey/Fiendish Legacy feats grant multiple SLAs for example. Even though racial traits may be Ex, the abilities they grant do not inherit the Ex tag by default considering there are plenty that are Sp and Su. Making the assumption that they do inherit the Ex tag is a leap with no grounding in the rules themselves. Especially when you consider that a race's size and speed are part of their traits. Would anyone really say that a creature's ability to move and the size they grow into requires extensive training when a bird's ability to fly is considered a natural ability?
I said most traits, not all. As said you have to look at each trait on a case by case basis. Some are Natural Abilities (movement modes, I did forgot that they are part of traits, my bad), some are EX and a few are SLA and SU. The definitions of the Special Abilities aid you to find its designation.

I still don't see how Immunities are not "special"..
No matter what you do, Immunities break the laws of physics and thus have to be at least EX unless something calls out a specific exception. The absence of tags doesn't create a specific exception, but sole refers to the general definitions.

Illusion interactions and saving throws

Several feats including shield proficiency and armor proficiencies. The former allows you to use tower shields with the feat and the latter do not grant proficiency when using just the RAW of the SRD.

These are the ones off the top of my head. I remember there being more things like these sprinkled throughout the document.

Illusions: I sole see the lack of "examples" and shortened "explanations". "Mechanically" the rules seems to be the same to me. Most examples have been cut out of the SRD, but that doesn't mean that the rules are different. If you see a specific rule/mechanic missing, pls point it out for me (I really don't see it, sorry..).

Proficiency:
"Proficiency" is undefined. The benefit gets rid of all non proficiency penalties. I don't see any reason to assume that you lack "Proficiency" with the SRD version of the feats. Imho they qualify for treating you as "proficient".

Imho SRD sole has a updated (3.0 > 3.5 conversion; ERRATA;..) and shortened version of the books (shortened examples and explanations). But as far as I am aware of, I didn't see anything that was mechanically different what the books say. If you can provide specific examples it would be nice, we could look up if they really differ (mechanically) or not.

Crake

2023-02-27, 10:45 AM

You have no permission to ignore em. Nor do you have the permission to rely and deny definitions as you like it.

Actually, as a DM, you very much explicitly do have permission to ignore them, or interpret them as you see fit. It's literally rule 0.

Darg

2023-02-27, 10:51 AM

I believe in both. The description for natural abilities is quite frank. If it isn't declared as being any of the other 3 ability types it is a natural ability. You think we are ignoring the PSR, but that is wrong. We just think it applies differently. The errata document says that the MM is the primary source specifically for Ex, Sp, and Su abilities. It says nothing about special abilities on the whole. In fact, according to the errata anything that pertains to playing the game, PC races, and base classes the PHB has precedence.

When it comes to those 3 topics untagged abilities are natural. Period. Honestly it seems really silly to disconnect the PHB from the other core books though. It fits together really neatly if the description of a natural ability is applied to cases of other special abilities. A balor's immunity is really silly to think of it as something that can simply be trained for and the aspect of it being supernatural failing in an AMF is also an extremely silly prospect. The only real serious contender of place is it being a natural ability.

As for natural abilities not being special, that's on you. No where does it say that natural abilities are not special and in fact the PHB and the SRD both classify them as special abilities. If you think the SRD is as complete as you think it is you should be giving that greater weight than you are.

As for the illusion text, it cuts out the explanation of what study and interaction requires on the part of the character to recieve the saving throw or bypass it entirely. What you are misunderstanding is that the examples are used as explanatory text. To say they are just examples removes the explanatory elements and now the reader has no idea how it works mechanically as it wasn't explained outside of the example.

Shield proficiency tells you specifically what shields it applies to in the plain text. That plain text was cut. The benefit line now applies to all shields and makes tower shield proficiency redundant. The only reason a person can say it doesn't is because that is what tower shield proficiency is supposed to do but the RAW of it doesn't care.

Armor proficiency feats grant proficiency in the plain text. Literally it tells you you gain proficiency with that armor type. The benefit of the feats grant you the benefits of proficiency with the armor type you are proficient in. The problem is that the feat doesn't grant you proficiency without the plain text. You could say that it's in the name, but names have nothing to do with the effect of a feat as exampled by Shot on the Run where you aren't shooting while running.

I'm inaccurate where the SRD contains the 3.5 update booklet information, but the parts where they cut out too much for copyright are still there.

Gruftzwerg

2023-02-27, 10:59 PM

Actually, as a DM, you very much explicitly do have permission to ignore them, or interpret them as you see fit. It's literally rule 0.
Yeah a DM might do that. but what has that to do with our discussion here? Are we discussing house rules here? We have a separate subforum for that topic. As such we talk about about a RAW dummy DM or at best about a DM who seeks a more balanced RAI approach.
I don't see any indicator for RAI, nor do I see that your interpretation causes a more balanced state. Imho it even creates more dysfunctions and that alone should be reason enough to dismiss it as option here.

I believe in both. The description for natural abilities is quite frank. If it isn't declared as being any of the other 3 ability types it is a natural ability. You think we are ignoring the PSR, but that is wrong. We just think it applies differently. The errata document says that the MM is the primary source specifically for Ex, Sp, and Su abilities. It says nothing about special abilities on the whole. In fact, according to the errata anything that pertains to playing the game, PC races, and base classes the PHB has precedence.
Imho the real problem comes from a stupid design decision made elsewhere in 3.5.
Bear with me with a moment and hear me out...

Do you know how "Ability" is defined in 3.5...?

Ability

One of the six basic character qualities: Strength (Str), Dexterity (Dex), Constitution (Con), Intelligence (Int), Wisdom (Wis), and Charisma (Cha).
Source: PHB
This is why the "Special Abilities" section/page (not the SA paragraph/definition!) ain't named just "Abilities" which would have been a much more fitting name for the overall topic. Natural Abilities would have fit into "Abilities" and you could have still "Special Abilities" as something separate.

But due to "Abilities" been used for "Ability Scores" (which is also defined for the same thing.... -.-) we ended up with the main topic being called "Special Abilites".

The problem is that (imho) Natural Abilities, while being abilities, are not Special Abilities.
But do you want to create a separate section/page sole for Natural Abilities? That would be just annoying and maybe even more misleading.
Thus the best place to fit NA is still the Special Ability section/page, even if it is the ODD ONE or the Remaining Rest, or how else you wanna describe it.

But from a mechanical point of view it is mostly irrelevant. Since we sole need to know the definitions and the categories. If NA are Special Abilities or not doesn't change anything as far as I can think of (are you aware of anything that would be affected/changed due to this?).

And if I look at monster statblocks all over the MM, my impression is that all "special" stuff is already either a "special attack" or "special quality". The sole odd NA example I can find is Hydra's heads ability as said. And that is imho fitting since the heads are a natural characteristic of its specific form. It's not more special than having 2 claws. And just like claws have some exceptional attack rules inbuilt, so do the "heads".

When it comes to those 3 topics untagged abilities are natural. Period. Honestly it seems really silly to disconnect the PHB from the other core books though. It fits together really neatly if the description of a natural ability is applied to cases of other special abilities. A balor's immunity is really silly to think of it as something that can simply be trained for and the aspect of it being supernatural failing in an AMF is also an extremely silly prospect. The only real serious contender of place is it being a natural ability.
You still haven't provided any rule to confirm that we should keep track of the tags. If you sole pay attention to the tags, you ignore the definitions. Where is your permission to ignore the definitions and to go on a tag hunt?

As for natural abilities not being special, that's on you. No where does it say that natural abilities are not special and in fact the PHB and the SRD both classify them as special abilities. If you think the SRD is as complete as you think it is you should be giving that greater weight than you are.
If you would pay more attention to the definitions, you should be able to see that NA are those things that can't be designated into EX, SLA or SU. The rules expect you to look if said ability fits into any of these categories' definitions first. And sole if you can't fit it into any of these 3 it ends up as Natural Ability. This is the reason by the PHB originally mentioned NA last, after defining all other Special Abilities.
With this structure, it could explain NA simply by effectively saying "if it doesn't fit elsewhere, it belongs here".

And the PSR will always refer you back to the topic's primary source. And there you'll find the definitions of each category. That is another reason why you may not ignore em. Even if there are no tags. You pay way more attention to the tags than you have permission to.
The statement in BOED about most feats being EX (while most feats have no tags) further proves my point here.
You totally ignore the definitions and the dysfunctions you cause, when you designate anything without a tag into NA.

But if you follow the definitions, you can exclude all the characteristics of the other Special Abilities (EX, SLA & SU) to define NA. If something is special (as in breaks the normal physics as an example), it can't be NA, since special fits at least into EX (non magical but special). If it is in addition magical, you have to look if it is based upon a spell (SLA) or not (SU).
A very simple but effective pattern to separate these 4 categories without any overlapping (in the definition).

1. Is it special or not? If no: NA
2. If (1) is yes: Is it magical or not? If no: EX
3. If (2) is yes: Is it based upon a spell? If yes: SLA ; If no: SU

(if you did notice, this is the the order presented in the SRD: NA first. This structure was imho the intend for the different order in the SRD. But the definition of NA got even more misleading since the definitions of the other categories (which are excluded from NA's definition) haven't been presented yet..

As for the illusion text, it cuts out the explanation of what study and interaction requires on the part of the character to recieve the saving throw or bypass it entirely. What you are misunderstanding is that the examples are used as explanatory text. To say they are just examples removes the explanatory elements and now the reader has no idea how it works mechanically as it wasn't explained outside of the example.
And the explanatory text didn't had any impact on the rule mechanics. If you did understand the implied mechanic, you don't really need the example here. It doesn't tell you anything mechanically new than you already know.

Shield proficiency tells you specifically what shields it applies to in the plain text. That plain text was cut. The benefit line now applies to all shields and makes tower shield proficiency redundant. The only reason a person can say it doesn't is because that is what tower shield proficiency is supposed to do but the RAW of it doesn't care.
While I agree with you here, that is imho the overall inconsistency of "Tower Shields" & "Armor" proficiencies in 3.5 and not something SRD specific.

There are examples of PRC that give you:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: An anointed knight is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all types of armor, and shields.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Bone knights are proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor and shields (including tower shields).

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Cavaliers are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, all types of armor, and shields.
...

RAW, there are a bunch of prc that give you access to all types of armor and sometimes even all shields. By strict RAW this includes all exotic stuff (and yeah, I already abused this for TO showcases..^^).
But RAI even I highly doubt that this is intended, and assume that this is just a problem of the overall inconsistency with this topic.

Funny that the SRD just adds to this confusion if you ask me^^
I wouldn't have expected anything less from the 3.5 authors.. ;)