Cryohydra "breath weapon" and polymorph/wildshape

[Frostthehero]

The pyro/cryohydra description is essentially the same as the normal hydra (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm), except for the following:

These reddish hydras can breathe jets of fire/frost 10 feet high, 10 feet wide, and 20 feet long. All heads breathe once every 1d4 rounds. Each jet deals 3d6 points of fire damage per head. A successful Reflex save halves the damage. The save DC is 10 + ½ hydra’s original number of heads + hydra’s Con modifier.

Fire attacks cannot prevent a pyrohydra’s stump from growing new heads (since a pyrohydra has immunity to fire), but 5 points of cold damage does.
The important stuff is bolded. Notably, this isn't explicitly listed as a "breath weapon" like in the true dragon entry (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) in the MM (or any other variety of creatures with breath weapons, which all explicitly say "breath weapon (Su)"). In fact, the ability isn't even typed as Ex, Su, or Sp - which, according to the special abilities entry (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm), means it is a "natural ability."

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
Now, consider that none of alter self (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm), polymorph (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm), alternate form (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm), or wild shape (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape) say anything about natural abilities, as far as I can tell (I could be missing something in the text). Given that a natural ability is one that a creature has due to its physical nature (as above), it might be argued from RAW that if one is able to get into the form of a pyro/cryohydra (polymorph functions as alter self except as stated, and does not give an upper bound on size, which some interpret to mean that on the upper end, the size category can be no more than 1 away from your original form, so it may not be viable for many players - but that's a whole other can of worms), they are allowed to breathe fire/frost as a pyro/cryohydra - which means up to 36d6 at 12th level (or at 15th level in the case of the druid). Of course, there are plenty of tricks one can do to easily outclass this, but it's a fun thought experiment, in my view.

This is an extremely RAW argument, and any sane interpretation of the rules is obviously going to rule it out - but I still find it interesting to think about.

Thoughts? Are there major holes in my logic and/or reading of the rules?

[Gruftzwerg]

The pyro/cryohydra description is essentially the same as the normal hydra (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm), except for the following:

The important stuff is bolded. Notably, this isn't explicitly listed as a "breath weapon" like in the true dragon entry (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) in the MM (or any other variety of creatures with breath weapons, which all explicitly say "breath weapon (Su)"). In fact, the ability isn't even typed as Ex, Su, or Sp - which, according to the special abilities entry (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm), means it is a "natural ability."

Now, consider that none of alter self (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm), polymorph (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm), alternate form (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm), or wild shape (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape) say anything about natural abilities, as far as I can tell (I could be missing something in the text). Given that a natural ability is one that a creature has due to its physical nature (as above), it might be argued from RAW that if one is able to get into the form of a pyro/cryohydra (polymorph functions as alter self except as stated, and does not give an upper bound on size, which some interpret to mean that on the upper end, the size category can be no more than 1 away from your original form, so it may not be viable for many players - but that's a whole other can of worms), they are allowed to breathe fire/frost as a pyro/cryohydra - which means up to 36d6 at 12th level (or at 15th level in the case of the druid). Of course, there are plenty of tricks one can do to easily outclass this, but it's a fun thought experiment, in my view.

This is an extremely RAW argument, and any sane interpretation of the rules is obviously going to rule it out - but I still find it interesting to think about.

Thoughts? Are there major holes in my logic and/or reading of the rules?

While I agree that you get the Natural Abilities of a creature, I don't agree the lack of tags (EX/SLA/SU) equals "not designated".

The misinterpretation thrives from the problem that the SRD list Natural Abilities first, while in the PHB its the last entry. In the PHB you have first a definition for all other categories and with the help of those definition you(r DM) can designate stuff into those category (that is what a definition for a category is for..). If something doesn't fit the definition of those (EX, SLA, SU) then it has to be Natural Ability.
Also remind you that the ability has to be of physical nature.

Otherwise spellcasting (Spells:) and a monks US (Unarmed Strike:) would both default to Natural Abilities and that sole causes dysfunctions on all ends. Because the former ain't physical and the latter is not part of your physical nature and something not everybody can do (EX)(it thrives from your training)

From my point of view the "breath weapon" of the pyro/cyrohydra has to be a SU ability because:

1) It's magical, thus can't be a Natural or Extraordinary Ability.

2) It's not spellbased and doesn't refer to a spell, thus SU is the sole legal option here by default.

3) No specific exceptions are given like tags (EX/SLA/SU) nor specific rule text that calls it out as something else.

[Inevitability]

From my point of view the "breath weapon" of the pyro/cyrohydra has to be a SU ability because:

1) It's magical, thus can't be a Natural or Extraordinary Ability.

2) It's not spellbased and doesn't refer to a spell, thus SU is the sole legal option here by default.

3) No specific exceptions are given like tags (EX/SLA/SU) nor specific rule text that calls it out as something else.

How do you know it's magical? Plenty of monsters have mundane energy attacks, your argument relies on an assumption that you haven't actually supported properly.

[Beni-Kujaku]

How do you know it's magical? Plenty of monsters have mundane energy attacks, your argument relies on an assumption that you haven't actually supported properly.

In 3.0, Pyrohydras and Cryohydras are Magical Beasts while the regular hydra is only a Beast. Since the only (lore) difference is the breath weapon, we can infer that the breath weapon is magical. Also, "Breath weapons are supernatural abilities except where noted.", which as the OP noted isn't that clear cut since it's not actually called a breath weapon, but is a good indication of the intent. The first statblock of a pyrohydra I found (the Cinder Sisters in City of Stormreach) also explicitly specifies it's a (Su) ability.

Oh, yeah, and to the OP: you don't automatically gain the natural abilities of the form you take. Only those listed in Alter Self (breathing, movements, size, general body shape, natural weapons...).

[Frostthehero]

In 3.0, Pyrohydras and Cryohydras are Magical Beasts while the regular hydra is only a Beast.

In 3.5e, they're both magical beasts, and I'm led to believe that 3.5 content replaces 3e content unless there is no 3.5 update (and even then, it's kind of iffy).


Since the only (lore) difference is the breath weapon, we can infer that the breath weapon is magical. Also, "Breath weapons are supernatural abilities except where noted.", which as the OP noted isn't that clear cut since it's not actually called a breath weapon, but is a good indication of the intent.

I agree that RAI, this doesn't work, but RAW, I think there's a pretty good case for it.


The first statblock of a pyrohydra I found (the Cinder Sisters in City of Stormreach) also explicitly specifies it's a (Su) ability.

That's interesting - the SRD version (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm) has no such specification. I'm not sure what the RAW ruling is for conflicting sources...

[sleepyphoenixx]

Natural abilities are stuff like movement modes and number of limbs, not special qualities. "Natural Ability" is not a subset of special abilities but a separate category.
Yes, strict RAW says unlabeled = natural, but playing that straight simply doesn't work.
Because we've had this argument before. Several times. It's basically the "what ability type is racial spellcasting and can i get it through Polymorph/Wild Shape" discussion all over again.

For even more confusion see also the section on reading monster entries.


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.

Even if the general section on abilities states that an unlabeled ability defaults to natural - which should be taken with a grain of salt since several ability descriptions specify they're "always X unless noted otherwise" (including breath weapons) - and you ignore the fact that the cryo-/pyrohydra entry is barely even a stub and doesn't even name the ability,
the primary source for monsters is the MM, which the above quote is originally from.

So going by RAW the breath is either (Ex), (Sp) or (Su).

So is racial spellcasting btw, by RAW. Some monster entries even come right out and label spellcasting as (Ex), but most leave it unlabeled. Why play a cleric if you can just Polymorph into one?



That's interesting - the SRD version (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm) has no such specification. I'm not sure what the RAW ruling is for conflicting sources...
There is no source conflict since the MM "entry" doesn't just not label the hydra's breath as (Su), it doesn't even name the ability. It's not "it doesn't say the breath is (Su)" but "it doesn't name the breath at all", so it can't conflict with the other one.
You need sources contradicting each other to have a rules conflict.

[Beni-Kujaku]

In 3.5e, they're both magical beasts, and I'm led to believe that 3.5 content replaces 3e content unless there is no 3.5 update (and even then, it's kind of iffy).
Never said the opposite. I'm only saying that if we're discussing the mundane or magical nature of this fire or cold breath, this is a good indication that it is intended to be magical.


I agree that RAI, this doesn't work, but RAW, I think there's a pretty good case for it.
Even RAW, you don't automatically gain the natural abilities of the form you take. Only those listed in Alter Self (breathing, movements, size, general body shape, natural weapons...).



That's interesting - the SRD version (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hydra.htm) has no such specification. I'm not sure what the RAW ruling is for conflicting sources...
If there's no conflict with the primary source (and there's none, since the primary didn't specify anything), the most recent book can update some things to previous subjects (think ACF, or sovereign archetypes, or adding spells to a spell list.)

[Frostthehero]

Even RAW, you don't automatically gain the natural abilities of the form you take. Only those listed in Alter Self (breathing, movements, size, general body shape, natural weapons...).
Great point - hadn't thought of that.

[Inevitability]

Never said the opposite. I'm only saying that if we're discussing the mundane or magical nature of this fire or cold breath, this is a good indication that it is intended to be magical.

Intended to be magical, sure, but this is an argument about RAW, and whether or not by RAW these 'jets of fire' are supernatural or not. I consider it pretty obvious that by RAW they're natural abilities, and I also acknowledge that that's dumb and should get fixed with a houserule at any real table (as is typical for weird natural ability-related shenanigans).

[Chronos]

I would say that, RAW, they're breath weapons, and therefore the "Unless otherwise specified, breath weapons are supernatural" rule applies. And you can't counter with "But it's not called a 'breath weapon'!", because it's not called anything. All we have is the ability's description, and that description matches the description of a breath weapon.

[blackwindbears]

The only official source that has it labelled labels it (su). Call it errata if you like, but it's a rule, it's written in an official source. Good enough to call it RAW in my book.

[Gruftzwerg]

How do you know it's magical? Plenty of monsters have mundane energy attacks, your argument relies on an assumption that you haven't actually supported properly.

Can you explain the fire breath with real life physics? If not, it can't be a Natural Ability and either has to be EX (which is defined as "may break the laws of physics.") or magical (SLA/SU).

Is it magical? Unless you have an explanation how the element is bound "magically" to the creature (e.g. Elementals who may have EX element attacks, since the element is their body) at creation, it has to be a magical effect. Similarly constructs with inbuild mechanics to release elemental attacks (e.g. fire or acid thrower) also can have EX element attacks.
Since both don't apply here, imho we can safely assume that the breath is magical here.


Natural abilities are stuff like movement modes and number of limbs, not special qualities. "Natural Ability" is not a subset of special abilities but a separate category.
Yes, strict RAW says unlabeled = natural, but playing that straight simply doesn't work.


Sorry but I have to heavily argue against this.

unlabeled != undesignated

We have 4 distinctly defined categories which allow for a proper designation. Nothing in their definition overlaps.

Nowhere the rules tell you to solely pay attention to the tags (EX; SLA;..).

The tags can be either a friendly reminder (if the ability fits the categories definition) or a specific trumps general situation (if the ability doesn't fit the default definition of the category). But its absence doesn't mean that the ability can't be designated or hasn't been designated by the rules.
It's the same as how you determine if something a standard attack or a full attack. Unless specific exceptions are called out you follow the general "DEFINITIONS" to designate an attack into the right category.

As said before, the definition of NA makes much more sense when you read it in the right order as presented in the PHB (as last "remaining" category) compared to the SRD which changed the order.

I also find it odd that people rely on the definition of NA, while at the same time ignoring the definitions of the the other categories to come to such an interpretation. Imho flawed logic ...

[Inevitability]

Can you explain the fire breath with real life physics? If not, it can't be a Natural Ability and either has to be EX (which is defined as "may break the laws of physics.") or magical (SLA/SU).

Can you explain how an enormous Great Wyrm Mercury Dragon can nonmagically, non-extraordinarily fly at 113 miles per hour, from standstill? Can you explain how a gargantuan nightcrawler can burrow through 20 feet of dirt per second?
Can you explain how a housecat's fangs are apparently strong enough to crack an ogre's skeleton, while a halfling with a shortbow could never dream of harming it?

Are those (Ex) abilities? Are they magical? No! They're natural abilities, all of them. If you expect natural abilities to conform to earth-standard physics, you're not just wrong, you're trying to extract a concept that the writers never bothered to put in the game.

A dumb handwave like "the hydra breathes biosynthesized methane and then ignites it using a pair of teeth that function like a flint-and-steel" (they actually do this in the new D&D movie, I believe) would explain a fire breath without straying from real-life physics, and frankly reveals more concern for physics-compliant explanations than 99% of even 'natural' abilities in D&D. Ice breath? Highly compressed gases that expand and cool down as they do so, same principle that makes your deodorant feel cold.


Is it magical? Unless you have an explanation how the element is bound "magically" to the creature (e.g. Elementals who may have EX element attacks, since the element is their body) at creation, it has to be a magical effect. Similarly constructs with inbuild mechanics to release elemental attacks (e.g. fire or acid thrower) also can have EX element attacks.
Since both don't apply here, imho we can safely assume that the breath is magical here.

Why does it have to be a magical effect? You keep very confidently stating that we can reliably distinguish 'nonmagical' from 'magical' traits using a couple rules of thumb, without actually bothering to back up that fundamental underlying assumption. Show me where in the rules it says: "Elemental attacks are magical and thus supernatural or spell-like, and in very specific cases they are instead extraordinary, but they are never natural, there is no physics-compliant way to deal 1d6 fire damage on your attacks". We don't know whether something is magical (a specific game term with a defined meaning) unless the game tells us it's magical.


Since both don't apply here, imho we can safely assume that the breath is magical here.

Of course we can safely assume it, if I was playing at an actual table and this came up I would agree with you, but OP very specifically said: "This is an extremely RAW argument, and any sane interpretation of the rules is obviously going to rule it out - but I still find it interesting to think about". We are not in the domain of 'safe assumptions' and 'imho', we're in the domain of plumbing the insanities of 3.5's ruleset, and 'cryohydra breath is by RAW a natural ability' is one of those.

[Gruftzwerg]

Can you explain how an enormous Great Wyrm Mercury Dragon can nonmagically, non-extraordinarily fly at 113 miles per hour, from standstill? Can you explain how a gargantuan nightcrawler can burrow through 20 feet of dirt per second?
Can you explain how a housecat's fangs are apparently strong enough to crack an ogre's skeleton, while a halfling with a shortbow could never dream of harming it?
The Mercury Dragon uses wings which implies mundane flight unless noted otherwise. The speed while impressive is still within earthly limits. A peregrine falcon can get up to 300km/h or 186 miles/h.
The nightclawler's description doesn't mention any magic involved for its burrowing speed and thus I don't see any reason/indicator why it shouldn't be just mundane.
As for the housecat example, it fits the "NA are the leftover" interpretation, because it is an ability that doesn't fit the DEFINITIONS of the other categories and is something the housecat has because of its physical nature.
(edit: I misread the sentence.. :) That the stats presented in 3.5 may not be always 100% accurate is not to debate here. It barely has anyhing to do with the definition of special abilities.

Pls try to follow my interpretation...
The PHB first gives you a proper designation tool for EX, SLA and SU by "DEFINING" em. Keep this in mind while reading:
"This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. "
Then the latter sentence adds (!) anything that doesn't fit the DEFINITIONS of the 3 previous categories. You have to effectively negate all the previous definitions. That is what this sentence mechanically means and not that all abilities which lack a "tag" are NA. That is a misconception that thrives from the fact that the SRD mixed the order and thus the intention of the sentence got lost.


Are those (Ex) abilities? Are they magical? No! They're natural abilities, all of them. If you expect natural abilities to conform to earth-standard physics, you're not just wrong, you're trying to extract a concept that the writers never bothered to put in the game.
Really?
"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics."
I would argue that while they never defined it, they have put that concept into the game..

And if you keep in mind what I said about the order in PHB, this means that NA may not break the laws of physics, because that is something that belongs into either EX (if mundane), or SLA (if spell based) or SU (if magical but not spell based).




A dumb handwave like "the hydra breathes biosynthesized methane and then ignites it using a pair of teeth that function like a flint-and-steel" (they actually do this in the new D&D movie, I believe) would explain a fire breath without straying from real-life physics, and frankly reveals more concern for physics-compliant explanations than 99% of even 'natural' abilities in D&D. Ice breath? Highly compressed gases that expand and cool down as they do so, same principle that makes your deodorant feel cold.

Sounds still like an EX ability. I don't see any real life creatures breathing fire. Do you? If not, we should assume that this kind of stuff "breaks the law of physics" as we know and have evidence for. Fictional beings are not a reference for "laws of physics".




Why does it have to be a magical effect? You keep very confidently stating that we can reliably distinguish 'nonmagical' from 'magical' traits using a couple rules of thumb, without actually bothering to back up that fundamental underlying assumption. Show me where in the rules it says: "Elemental attacks are magical and thus supernatural or spell-like, and in very specific cases they are instead extraordinary, but they are never natural, there is no physics-compliant way to deal 1d6 fire damage on your attacks". We don't know whether something is magical (a specific game term with a defined meaning) unless the game tells us it's magical.
I asked the question "Is it magical" to see if it belongs to either SLA or SU. Because you always need to ask 2 of 3 possible questions to designate an ability (unless an exception is called out in the ability):
(1) Is the ability magical? If yes, go to (2). If not, go to (3).
(2) Is it spell based? If yes, it's an SLA. If not, it's an SU
(3) Does it break the law of physics? Or do you need special training that maybe not everybody can learn (possible prerequisites)? If either question is answered with yes, it's an EX ability. If both are answered with a no, it has to be a NA.

These simple 3 questions will always give you a clear designation. Because all categories are distinctly defined.
Sure, sometimes you may lack the information by the rules to know if the elemental damage is mundane or magically. But in most cases these questions will easily help you to categories any ability. Even homebrew abilities. (Unless specific exceptions are made by the rules, as it is always the case..).




Of course we can safely assume it, if I was playing at an actual table and this came up I would agree with you, but OP very specifically said: "This is an extremely RAW argument, and any sane interpretation of the rules is obviously going to rule it out - but I still find it interesting to think about". We are not in the domain of 'safe assumptions' and 'imho', we're in the domain of plumbing the insanities of 3.5's ruleset, and 'cryohydra breath is by RAW a natural ability' is one of those.
Imho this is strict RAW. Because the way rules are presented is an important factor to interpret em and shouldn't be ignored. Changed order can cause misinterpretations and imho this is here the case. The misconception occurred due to the SDR and people like us using it as reference for rule debates. But the SRD is to blame here, because it caused all this mess and is the reason why we are arguing here in the first place..

And as said before: I find it odd that people like to refer to the DEFINITION of Natural Abilities, while ignoring the DEFINITIONS of EX, SLA and SU at the same time!?! If you stop ignoring the other DEFINITIONS and use the correct order as presented in the PHB, I hope that you should come to a similar conclusion as me.

Defintions are not fluff text nor eye candy. They are there so that we have 4 distinct categories and can easily designate abilities with the bare minimum of information needed for that (see the 3 questions).

[Frostthehero]

Imho this is strict RAW. Because the way rules are presented is an important factor to interpret em and shouldn't be ignored. Changed order can cause misinterpretations and imho this is here the case. The misconception occurred due to the SDR and people like us using it as reference for rule debates. But the SRD is to blame here, because it caused all this mess and is the reason why we are arguing here in the first place..

And as said before: I find it odd that people like to refer to the DEFINITION of Natural Abilities, while ignoring the DEFINITIONS of EX, SLA and SU at the same time!?! If you stop ignoring the other DEFINITIONS and use the correct order as presented in the PHB, I hope that you should come to a similar conclusion as me.

Defintions are not fluff text nor eye candy. They are there so that we have 4 distinct categories and can easily designate abilities with the bare minimum of information needed for that (see the 3 questions).

I am not sure we agree on what RAW means - my understanding is that RAW is rules as written, i.e. without any interpretation going on.

My argument, then, rests on the fact that the natural ability section says "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." Whether it comes before or after the other definitions is irrelevant. The hydra's ability is clearly NOT designated as one of those three, and hence by RAW, it is a natural ability.

But again, any sane or reasonable interpretation of the rules is going to disagree with that.

Of course, this all ignores that fact that there is an official sourcebook (City of Stormreach) which labels it as (Su), so the argument is doubly broken.

[Chronos]

The hydra's breath weapon IS classified as supernatural, by virtue of the fact that it's a breath weapon, and breath weapons are supernatural unless otherwise noted.

[Gruftzwerg]

I am not sure we agree on what RAW means - my understanding is that RAW is rules as written, i.e. without any interpretation going on.
If so, then explain why you are interpreting "not otherwise designated" as "not tagged"?
Tags are only one legal option to designate stuff. DEFINED categories is the other tool provided by the rules to designate abilities.
What gives you the permission to artificially narrow down "not otherwise designated" to "not tagged"?
Where does the rules say to sole pay attention to the tags? Where?




My argument, then, rests on the fact that the natural ability section says "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like." Whether it comes before or after the other definitions is irrelevant. The hydra's ability is clearly NOT designated as one of those three, and hence by RAW, it is a natural ability.
As said, the PHB presents definitions for EX, SLA and SU first and then tells you to put anything not designated (by the definitions of the 3 previous categories) into the NA category. Stop to interpret "not otherwise designated" as "not tagged" and realize that NA is just the remaining rest (of the previous 3 definitions).

Explain me which rules tells you to ignore all other category definitions (EX; SLA; SU) and sole to look if it fits the NA DEFINITION (...), just because it doesn't have a tag. Why don't you try and see if it maybe better fits the definitions of the other categories? What gives you the permission to cherry pick and sole check the NA definition in the absence of a tag?
If you designate stuff, you should be aware of all definitions and use the best fitting category.
What gives you the permission to ignore everything else what is defined (magical; spellbased, break the laws of physics....) and sole go for a tag-hunt?

I see no rules supporting this. Everything thrives from misinterpreting "not otherwise designated" as "not tagged" and that ain't RAW to begin with.

[Vaern]

(2) Is it spell based? If yes, it's an SLA. If not, it's an SU

Except that the description of SLAs does not support this. SLAs can have unique effects other than simply replicating the effects of spells. Saying that anything that isn't based on a spell must be SU is not only extremely reductive of the category as a whole, but also strictly RAI.


I don't see any real life creatures breathing fire.
I'd like to introduce you to the bombardier beetle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle), a real-world creature that can spray you with boiling-hot acid by inducing a chemical reaction in its gullet. Who's to say a pyrohydra isn't doing something similar on a much larger scale?



Explain me which rules tells you to ignore all other category definitions (EX; SLA; SU) and sole to look if it fits the NA DEFINITION (...), just because it doesn't have a tag. Why don't you try and see if it maybe better fits the definitions of the other categories? What gives you the permission to cherry pick and sole check the NA definition in the absence of a tag?
If you designate stuff, you should be aware of all definitions and use the best fitting category.
What gives you the permission to ignore everything else what is defined (magical; spellbased, break the laws of physics....) and sole go for a tag-hunt?

The ability in question gives no defining characteristics that allow it to be separated or removed from any category. The effect is not described as being either magical or natural. The description does not specify whether it provokes an attack of opportunity, or whether it's affected by an antimagic field, or whether it is subject to spell resistance. There is no relevant information, fluff or crunch, with which to place it into or remove it from any category. Any attempt to designate this ability as (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) in this case relies solely on assuming multiple things that the rules do not tell us. This is the very definition of RAI.

Furthermore, the PHB descriptions of the various types of special abilities only give us a few examples of each and describes how such abilities function mechanically. The purpose of the section is to tell you how an ability functions when it is designated as one of these things (such as whether an ability marked as (Su) is subject to spell resistance).
This section is not a checklist for you to use to classify abilities on your own.
This section does not give you permission or authority to designate which category an ability falls into.
If the rules neither apply a label to the ability nor specify which category it falls into, then by RAW it is not designated as being extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Designating such an ability as anything other than natural is strictly RAI, no matter how much you keep telling yourself otherwise.


Anyway, as they appear in the Monster Manual, the pyrohydra and cryohydra do not even have their abilities to breathe flame or frost presented as abilities. The creatures' abilities to do these things are noted, but there is no name for the ability like Flame jet: or Frost jet: or whatever to go with these descriptions. Arguing that the abilities are not categorized as (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) is kind of a moot point because there is no actual ability to categorize. If these creatures had been given proper stat blocks rather than just being a footnote tacked onto the base hydra's description, I'm fairly certain that the ability to breathe jets of flame/frost would have been listed as Breath weapon:, with all breath weapons defaulting to (Su) unless otherwise specified. Chronos's simple approach of "It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so I'm calling it a duck," is consistent with Frostthehero's findings in City of Stormreach. And Frostthehero has shown that Gruftzwerg is technically correct that the ability is (Su) by RAW, just not for any of the arguments he has made.

[Gruftzwerg]

Except that the description of SLAs does not support this. SLAs can have unique effects other than simply replicating the effects of spells. Saying that anything that isn't based on a spell must be SU is not only extremely reductive of the category as a whole, but also strictly RAI.
The SLA rules sole remind you that there might be specific exceptions, but these are called out explicitly!

A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are
described.
The rules just remind you of Specific Trumps General here and nothing else. The general case for SLA is that they are spell based. Specific cases like Eldritch Blast always call themselves explicitly out to be an SLA.




I'd like to introduce you to the bombardier beetle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle), a real-world creature that can spray you with boiling-hot acid by inducing a chemical reaction in its gullet. Who's to say a pyrohydra isn't doing something similar on a much larger scale?
Acid Spitting != Breath Weapon
The beetle doesn't breathe its acid, it spits it. I still don't see any real life breath weapons that would compar to the 3.5 ones.




The ability in question gives no defining characteristics that allow it to be separated or removed from any category. The effect is not described as being either magical or natural. The description does not specify whether it provokes an attack of opportunity, or whether it's affected by an antimagic field, or whether it is subject to spell resistance. There is no relevant information, fluff or crunch, with which to place it into or remove it from any category. Any attempt to designate this ability as (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) in this case relies solely on assuming multiple things that the rules do not tell us. This is the very definition of RAI.

I agree that it can be sometimes hard to impossible to tell if an ability is meant to be magical or not.
Sometimes you are given the information in the monster's description and lore. And in a few rare cases the DM just has to decide wether it is magical or not. But those cases are very rare imho.

Just because we don't know if an ability is magical or not doesn't allow us to designate untagged abilities into the Natural Abilities category. The rules provided us with both TAGS and DEFINITIONS. If something doesn't have a tag, we can still fall back to the definitions provided by the rules. The rules never tell us to go on a tag-hunt and to ignore the definitions. If the ability provides a tag you use it. If it doesn't have a tag, you use the definitions to designate the ability into the right category.

I can see that it could be sometimes hard to decide if something is EX or an SU ability, because we don't know if it is magical or not. But I don't see that much situations where it is questionable if something is a Natural Ability or not. To be a NA it may not fit into any of the other categories' definitions and that is something I barely ever see.



Furthermore, the PHB descriptions of the various types of special abilities only give us a few examples of each and describes how such abilities function mechanically. The purpose of the section is to tell you how an ability functions when it is designated as one of these things (such as whether an ability marked as (Su) is subject to spell resistance).
This section is not a checklist for you to use to classify abilities on your own.
This section does not give you permission or authority to designate which category an ability falls into.
If the rules neither apply a label to the ability nor specify which category it falls into, then by RAW it is not designated as being extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural. Designating such an ability as anything other than natural is strictly RAI, no matter how much you keep telling yourself otherwise.
I heavily disagree with you here.
We get tags and definitions and not sole tags as said. I have tried to show the mechanical properties that are mentioned in the rule text that DEFINE each category. It's just your choice to ignore em and go sole for a tag hunt for unknown reasons so far.



Anyway, as they appear in the Monster Manual, the pyrohydra and cryohydra do not even have their abilities to breathe flame or frost presented as abilities. The creatures' abilities to do these things are noted, but there is no name for the ability like Flame jet: or Frost jet: or whatever to go with these descriptions. Arguing that the abilities are not categorized as (Ex), (Sp), or (Su) is kind of a moot point because there is no actual ability to categorize. If these creatures had been given proper stat blocks rather than just being a footnote tacked onto the base hydra's description, I'm fairly certain that the ability to breathe jets of flame/frost would have been listed as Breath weapon:, with all breath weapons defaulting to (Su) unless otherwise specified. Chronos's simple approach of "It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so I'm calling it a duck," is consistent with Frostthehero's findings in City of Stormreach. And Frostthehero has shown that Gruftzwerg is technically correct that the ability is (Su) by RAW, just not for any of the arguments he has made.

Even if it is not called out as Breath Weapon, it is still the only legal choice. Do you know of anything else that allows you to "breathe an attack" that ain't a breath weapon? We don't have permission to make up new categories and the pyro/cyro hydra rules don't mention any new type here. Thus, if we don't wanna imply any new category, we can sole assume that the rules are talking about a breath weapon here. As Chronos said "It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so I'm calling it a duck,"

[hamishspence]

Acid Spitting != Breath Weapon
The beetle doesn't breathe its acid, it spits it. I still don't see any real life breath weapons that would compar to the 3.5 ones.



Breath weapons involve "something being expelled" but don't actually involve breathing:


Breath Weapon
A creature attacking with a breath weapon is actually expelling something from its mouth (rather than conjuring it by means of a spell or some other magical effect). Most creatures with breath weapons are limited to a number of uses per day or by a minimum length of time that must pass between uses. Such creatures are usually smart enough to save their breath weapon until they really need it.

Using a breath weapon is typically a standard action.
No attack roll is necessary. The breath simply fills its stated area.
A breath weapon attack usually deals damage and is often based on some type of energy.
Breath weapons usually allow a Reflex save for half damage (DC 10 + ½ breathing creature’s racial HD + breathing creature’s Con modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). Some breath weapons allow a Fortitude save or a Will save instead of a Reflex save.
Breath weapons are supernatural abilities except where noted.
A creature is immune to its own breath weapon unless otherwise noted.
Creatures unable to breathe can still use breath weapons. (The term is something of a misnomer.)


A better reason for disallowing the bombardier beetle as an example is that the spray doesn't come from its mouth but from the tip of its abdomen.

[Vaern]

Acid Spitting != Breath Weapon
The beetle doesn't breathe its acid, it spits it. I still don't see any real life breath weapons that would compar to the 3.5 ones.

The fact that there's no exact real-world equivalent to something in a fantasy game is a poor argument. It's a fantasy game. It's full of (Ex) abilities with no real-world equivalent. Paladins gain full immunity to all forms of natural disease as an extraordinary ability. Druids and monks stop physically aging as an extraordinary ability. The main takeaway is that the mechanisms that could allow a creature to be able to do this kind of thing do exist in nature in the real-world. If someone wanted to create a creature for the game that is described as using a chemical reaction on a much larger scale than a beetle to breathe such an effect instead of spewing it from their abdomen, they could reasonably label it as Breath weapon (Ex): despite the fact that nothing in the real world could exactly replicate the ability.

[Chronos]

Yeah, that's the beauty of Specific Trumps General. If you do want to have an Extraordinary breath weapon, you can. Just give a monster an ability "Breath weapon (ex)". All you have to do is explicitly state it.

But Specific Trumps General also means that if there isn't a Specific, you still have the General. It's probably a good idea to specify anyway (which they usually do), just so the reader doesn't have to keep flipping back and forth to different pages, but you can do without the specific rules.


Quoth Gruftzwerg:

Do you know of anything else that allows you to "breathe an attack" that ain't a breath weapon?
Well, there are other abilities that function like breath weapons without explicitly being called that, like the Fire Breath ability a binder can get from Amon, or the throat bind of a totemist's Gorgon Mask. Though I would likewise say that those are also breath weapons, despite not being explicitly labeled as such. More problematic is the Dissolving Spittle soulmeld, which is also spewed from the mouth, but which doesn't work like most breath weapons (it uses an attack roll, rather than a save). But in any event, all of those are also supernatural abilities, too.

[Gruftzwerg]

Breath weapons involve "something being expelled" but don't actually involve breathing:




A better reason for disallowing the bombardier beetle as an example is that the spray doesn't come from its mouth but from the tip of its abdomen.
3.5 differentiates between "Spitting" attacks and "Breath Weapons". The former attacks a single creature at range, the latter is just an AoE effect.

Imho the Bombardier Beetle has a Spitting attack/ability.



The fact that there's no exact real-world equivalent to something in a fantasy game is a poor argument. It's a fantasy game. It's full of (Ex) abilities with no real-world equivalent. Paladins gain full immunity to all forms of natural disease as an extraordinary ability. Druids and monks stop physically aging as an extraordinary ability. The main takeaway is that the mechanisms that could allow a creature to be able to do this kind of thing do exist in nature in the real-world. If someone wanted to create a creature for the game that is described as using a chemical reaction on a much larger scale than a beetle to breathe such an effect instead of spewing it from their abdomen, they could reasonably label it as Breath weapon (Ex): despite the fact that nothing in the real world could exactly replicate the ability.

"Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics."

EX abilities: YES, may break the laws of physics
Natural Abilities: NO, may not break the laws of physics

And my point is that any kind of breath weapon can't be a NA by default. It has to be at least EX if it is not magical. If it is magical and not spellbased (SLA), it is a SU.



Yeah, that's the beauty of Specific Trumps General. If you do want to have an Extraordinary breath weapon, you can. Just give a monster an ability "Breath weapon (ex)". All you have to do is explicitly state it.

But Specific Trumps General also means that if there isn't a Specific, you still have the General. It's probably a good idea to specify anyway (which they usually do), just so the reader doesn't have to keep flipping back and forth to different pages, but you can do without the specific rules.


Well, there are other abilities that function like breath weapons without explicitly being called that, like the Fire Breath ability a binder can get from Amon, or the throat bind of a totemist's Gorgon Mask. Though I would likewise say that those are also breath weapons, despite not being explicitly labeled as such. More problematic is the Dissolving Spittle soulmeld, which is also spewed from the mouth, but which doesn't work like most breath weapons (it uses an attack roll, rather than a save). But in any event, all of those are also supernatural abilities, too.
Dissolving Spittle lets you "spit" your attack, thus it belongs into the Spitting attack category and not into Breath Weapons (like the other examples you mentioned).

[Biggus]

Plenty of monsters have mundane energy attacks

Do they? Can you give some examples?


Can you explain how an enormous Great Wyrm Mercury Dragon can nonmagically, non-extraordinarily fly at 113 miles per hour, from standstill?


Because acceleration and deceleration rules would add quite a bit of extra complexity for little or no extra enjoyment, so are ignored like loads of other fine details in the game?


A peregrine falcon can get up to 300km/h or 186 miles/h.


That's in a long dive, the fastest known animal in level flight can reach about 100mph. That said, that's still not much less than 113mph.

[Gruftzwerg]

Do they? Can you give some examples?
Dunno if there are plenty, but a fire Elemental's (EX) Burn ability come to my mind. And some creatures have EX acid attacks IIRC.



That's in a long dive, the fastest known animal in level flight can reach about 100mph. That said, that's still not much less than 113mph.

point for you^^
But yeah, imho it is still realistic if you get what I mean.

[Vaern]

Do they? Can you give some examples?

Acid:
I'm actually not going to bother with acid. It's fairly common, and pointing at a bunch of acid attacks as natural energy attacks feels kind of cheaty. Even the rulebooks say that it's not a real form of energy, and it's only treated mechanically as such because the damage it deals behaves more like a form of energy damage than a form of physical damage.

Fire:
Just combing through the SRD -- azer, fire elemental, efreeti, magmin, remorhaz, salamander, and thoqqua all have extraordinary abilities that deal fire damage. Any creature that's made of fire or is closely associated with fire can reasonably have some sort of non-magical fire damage, so I'm not going to put the effort into digging up more examples from outside of core. Examples of other energy types are much less common.

Cold:
Frost worms have extraordinary abilities that deal cold damage. Outside of core there's also frost salamanders, chraals, snowflake oozes, vazalkyon, vazalka, and a handful of creatures from Frostburn that all have (Ex) cold damage.

Sonic:
A bunch of creatures have shriek and roar abilities that deal sonic damage, many of which are (Su) but a few of which happen to be (Ex). There are no (Ex) sonic attacks on the SRD, but MM2-5 give us the automaton (pulverizer), gulgar, demonhive queen, and garngrath.

Electricity:
I haven't found anything that deals electricity damage as an extraordinary ability yet, but there are a select few that appear to deal lightning damage as a natural ability. I'm going to count that as a mundane attack and chalk it up as a win.
Will-o-wisps have a melee touch attack that isn't described as a special ability.
Zelekhuts have electricity damage built into the spiked chains that spring from their arms, with no mention of the weapons being magical and no mention of electricity damage in any of their ability descriptions. This electricity could be inherent to its design as a construct rather than the result of a special ability or weapon enhancement.
Storm elementals have electric damage baked into their slam attack that isn't mentioned in their ability descriptions, presumably because the creature literally made of lightning.