Master of Many forms and Human Bonus feat

[Warmjenkins]

I've to apologize that due to the overheated discussion maybe some of my arguments may have sound to polarizing. Let me try to put it in in a more detailed way:

When I see an untyped ability (assuming the ability in Special "Ability" defaults to base English definition and that feats are abilities by English definition) I ask myself the following questions, because the Special Ability section enforces these rules:
1. "Is it a Natural Ability?" In some chases races can even have racial feats (as NA) because of some parts of their body that enables them to have em without any "special" effort. That doesn't mean that all feats in a monster stat block are racial feats, only those explicit mentioned that come from form/body-parts.

2. If it doesn't fit into (1): "Is it non magical?" When it ain't magical it can only be an Extraordinary Ability, since we excluded NA as possibility. Most feats generally default into this group but not all.

3. If it doesn't fit into (1+2): "Is it referring to a spell?" if it is, then it has to be a SLA.

4. If it doesn't fit into (1+2+3): If it is magical but not resembling a spell it can only be an SU ability.

An easy guideline to categorize, that doesn't cause any conflicts.

I don't get why some of you insist that either one (Special Abilities or Feats) has to call out the other to have a reason for interaction. Let me give you a similar example to our situation. There are many combat spells that make use of the "Combat" rules. Do you see that the "Combat" rules are always referring to the fact that spells might fall under this rule? No, because they don't have to. As soon as a spell provides a scenario to follow the combat rules they apply.
The same can be said about Feats and Special Abilities. As soon as feats provide the required things to follow the Special Ability rules they apply.

No problem, I never took any offense to anything and completely understand how easy it is to get overly excited about topics. I also know that many people on this forum and the internet in general don't have English as their first language. I think I understood the meaning behind all your statements but upon a reread of it I became less sure of myself so I mentioned the part about what I assumed were typos just in case. I'm sorry if I came across as accusatory. Even if someone has atrocious grammar, and ive seen some pretty poor grammar on the internet, and no excuse for it I'd never attack them for it in a debate because I feel personal attacks only make your position look weaker.

Anyway, on to the actual subject. The problem i have is if you classify all feats as special abilities because you think they fit the criteria of the English definition of the word ability you then must, for the sake of fairness and consistency, count skills, spellcasting, all untyped class abilities, all untyped abilities gained through spells, plot, items, world events ect... as special abilities. It never ends, the argument is actually pretty good for dexterity or strength being special abilities then since things like toughness, iron will, and alertness are all feats. If a feat gives me claws then why aren't all things that give claws extraordinary abilities unless they say otherwise? Why aren't skills extraordinary abilities? They are gained in the same way as feats and the human bonus feat even comes with a bonus skill, supposedly for the exact same reason that they get the feat. In fact feats and skills are far more similar than feats and special abilities are in most cases. Spellcasting definitely seems like a special ability by all definitions much more than feats do.

This problem isn't contained to feats and special abilities either. Things aren't considered attack actions unless they say they are even though the argument could be made that many things are attack actions. The same is true for many things in 3.5. Nothing in 3.5 presents a vague definition and tells you to just figure out what does or doesn't fit based on your personal opinion for that very reason. Skills are only what is described as a skill in their chapter or in their own description. Plenty of things meet the definition of a skill but aren't unless they say they are in d&d. Plenty of things meet the definition of an attack but also aren't considered attacks. To do things the other way around just makes things messy and it never ends, a persuasive person could argue almost anything is a special ability.

Sight is an ability, its definitely mental in nature so not a natural ability, after all your eyes are no more integral to sight than your brain is to thought and most of the actual seeing happens in your brain. Sight is governed by your wisdom stat, also a mental ability. Therefore wisdom is an extraordinary ability. Definitely moreso of an ability than the iron will feat that does only a portion of what wisdom does. You also gain wisdom as you grow, age, and level up just like feats. You might argue that you are born with some amount of wisdom but some feats must also be taken at character creation so no difference there. Neither explicitly calls out its ability type anywhere and feats don't even call themselves abilities where wisdom is explicitly and repeatedly called an ability in the players handbook. I don't see how you could logically argue that feats are extraordinary abilities but wisdom isn't or especially that skills aren't.

[ciopo]

cue mandatory https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html
about one word having more than one meaning

sight is indeed an ability, and is extraordinary at that when it's low-light or darkvision :P

I would counterpoint that spellcasting as a whole could be inferred to be a SU ability

are there any untyped class abilities? legit question, I can't think of any, except feats ( which again, I accept as possibly not special abilities after all, I just disagree with that conclusion )

Classes such as the war hulk that has extra ability boosts, classify these boosts as (ex), so I don't see the problem exactly with wisdom being an ability here.

The only thing that comes to mind is damage reduction in some, but not all monster entries.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I would counterpoint that spellcasting as a whole could be inferred to be a SU ability

are there any untyped class abilities? legit question, I can't think of any, except feats ( which again, I accept as possibly not special abilities after all, I just disagree with that conclusion )

Natural abilities are untyped. By RAW anything not marked Ex, Sp or Su is one.

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.

That should make it simple but it's also RAW that special abilities, which at least innate casting definitely is - must be Ex, Sp or Su.

"Spells" is generally undesignated, so it should be a natural ability, but it's also listed as a special ability so by RAW it can't be. So we have a dysfunction.

If spellcasting was SU it wouldn't be subject to dispel, counterspelling or cause AoO's. And that's before you consider how broken that would be with Assume Supernatural Ability.
It's also never called out as Su (or anything, there's been pages and pages of discussion about it with regard to Planar Shepherd WS).

Manifesting psionic powers is explicitly a psi-like ability, but there's no such rule regarding spells and it wouldn't work anyway because of the dispel + counterspell issue, though you might argue "specific trumps general" on that.
It's certainly the most generally balanced interpretation if you must give it one of the three types because afaik there is no option to gain Sp abilities via shapeshifting except for Planar Shepherd, which is broken anyway.

If spellcasting was Ex it would be granted by MoMF wildshape (it's generally listed as a special attack in monster statblocks, see Planetar and Solar).
Though that's the only option with some RAW backing, as in some monsters having innate spellcasting that's explicitly Ex (Hobgoblin Warsoul iirc from MM 5 is one).
Certainly makes MoMF and Aberration WS a lot more attractive if you play it that way.

In the end there's really no proof either way - as i said there's pages upon pages of threads of people trying to figure it out - so your best bet is probably to treat it as a natural ability.
It's the most balanced way - afaik there is no way to gain nonphysical natural abilities, Alter Self, it's evolutions and Alternate Form/WS certainly don't - and the way that works best under the rules if you ignore that single conflict with the special ability rules.

[ciopo]

Oh, I am not advocating that spellcasting should be treated as a SU special ability, I'm mad but not that mad!

I'm saying that, by semantic, *IF* I were to classify spellcasting under the umbrella of special ability, I would put it into supernatural

[Darg]

are there any untyped class abilities? legit question, I can't think of any, except feats ( which again, I accept as possibly not special abilities after all, I just disagree with that conclusion )

Bonus feats (the class feature gives the bonus feats and are not the feats themselves), spellcasting, DD's apotheosis, bardic knowledge, and bardic music (the effect is supernatural but the music is not, meaning you can still perform in an anti-magic field) are all examples.

If it doesn't have an Ex, Sp, or Su next to the name of the feature it is not either of those 3 things

"Spells" is generally undesignated, so it should be a natural ability, but it's also listed as a special ability so by RAW it can't be. So we have a dysfunction.

Luckily you don't have to worry about it:

The char-
acter’s base attack bonus, base saving throw bonuses, and special
class abilities are now reduced to the new, lower level

They are special class abilities and not special abilities. The abilities themselves may be special abilities, but are not inherently special abilities.

Manifesting psionic powers is explicitly a psi-like ability, but there's no such rule regarding spells and it wouldn't work anyway because of the dispel + counterspell issue, though you might argue "specific trumps general" on that.

I would argue that the section header focuses the point of the paragraphs preceeding from it. Should this be ignored, powers explicitly do not cost power points and invalidates the entire system. The fact that class psionics do not meet the definition and properties of PLAs should be enough evidence to prove that class powers are not PLAs.

Eldritch Blast is an SLA. Spell-Like-Ability. The "like a spell" part ain't just for looks ;) It has to behave like a spell unless noted otherwise in the SLA description. As such, it has to follow the regular spell stacking rules. No conflict/dysfunction here.
And just because an ability is stackable, doesn't mean that their effects (e.g. bonus types, size bonuses..) are stackable as you wish. They still follow all other rules that apply in the specific situations.

As said, SLAs have to follow the spell casting rules unless otherwise mentioned in the (general and specific) SLA rules. But that isn't the chase for SU abilities since they aren't related to casting spells.

You missed the point. Same sources don't stack regardless. Gaining the properties of a form you possess is overwritten by the new form you become.

As other have also confirmed it: All racial traits are Ex. Just because we lack a table to confirm this for HBF doesn't change that the HBF doesn't call itself out as an exception and as such has to follow the Special Ability Rules.
And I have said several times that MOMF7 gives all Extraordinary Qualities. Where is your problem? Did you miss that this topic ain't about base Wild Shape?

All racial traits are not Ex and I want to know where in the rules it states this? Combing previous posts, nothing confirms that they are. Infact, there is more evidence that they are not. The best one is the fact that Ex, SLA, and Su abilities have the tag next to them. Those that aren't are not either of the 3. None of the human traits have that tag and are therefore neither.

Regardless of whether feats are Ex or not, the human trait gives you a feat at level 1. The trait is not the feat itself.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Luckily you don't have to worry about it:

They are special class abilities and not special abilities. The abilities themselves may be special abilities, but are not inherently special abilities.

I was actually talking about innate (as in racial) spellcasting like dragons or angels have, not spells granted by class levels.
That's definitely a special ability, seeing how it appears in the special ability index and is generally listed under Special Attacks in monster statblocks.

I would argue that the section header focuses the point of the paragraphs preceeding from it. Should this be ignored, powers explicitly do not cost power points and invalidates the entire system. The fact that class psionics do not meet the definition and properties of PLAs should be enough evidence to prove that class powers are not PLAs.

There isn't really anything to argue. It's right there in the text:

The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability, as is the manifestation of powers by creatures without a psionic class (creatures with the psionic subtype, also simply called psionic creatures).

I don't really see how this can be interpreted to refer to anything but characters with a psionic class.

And as i also mentioned in the post you quoted this conflict can easily be resolved by using "specific trumps general".
Psionics is specifically ruled to cost pp, so it does despite being a PLA. There is no conflict here.

All racial traits are not Ex and I want to know where in the rules it states this? Combing previous posts, nothing confirms that they are. Infact, there is more evidence that they are not. The best one is the fact that Ex, SLA, and Su abilities have the tag next to them. Those that aren't are not either of the 3. None of the human traits have that tag and are therefore neither.

All the other PHB races have their racial traits listed as Ex Special Qualities in the MM despite not labelling them Ex in the PHB. So it's at the very least not an unreasonable assumption.

Yeah, you can quibble about humans never getting such an entry, but i prefer consistency and simply telling my players they can't use an otherwise-valid option over having different rules for the same thing book-by-book because the editors didn't pay attention.

[Gruftzwerg]

Anyway, on to the actual subject. The problem i have is if you classify all feats as special abilities because you think they fit the criteria of the English definition of the word ability you then must, for the sake of fairness and consistency, count skills, spellcasting, all untyped class abilities, all untyped abilities gained through spells, plot, items, world events ect... as special abilities. It never ends, the argument is actually pretty good for dexterity or strength being special abilities then since things like toughness, iron will, and alertness are all feats. If a feat gives me claws then why aren't all things that give claws extraordinary abilities unless they say otherwise? Why aren't skills extraordinary abilities? They are gained in the same way as feats and the human bonus feat even comes with a bonus skill, supposedly for the exact same reason that they get the feat. In fact feats and skills are far more similar than feats and special abilities are in most cases. Spellcasting definitely seems like a special ability by all definitions much more than feats do.

Skills:
I would argue that skills are something that anyone can do (those that can be used without ranks) and that anyone can learn (skills don't have requirements to put points into them.). This excludes em as EX since: "They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training."
And I think we can easily exclude them from the remaining categories.

Spellcasting:
What would happen if we would categorize spellcasting as SU? Would it really break the world apart? Lets have a look at the rules:

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:

10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).

Is there any rule that doesn't get trumped by "more specific" global spell rules (e.g. Spell Resistance, Counterspell, casting time, AoO, Save rolls..) or by specific spell rules (e.g. Dispell Magic...)? I'm kindly asking here. Is there any rule untouched by spell rules that would cause problems if we would assume that spellcasting would be SU?

untyped class abilities, all untyped abilities :
If we are talking about real abilities and not just some passive bonuses the class gets I would say yes. May sound "too strong" at first glance but still not as strong as T1 casting imho (MOMF needs to sacrifice 7 lvl worth of druid casting to pull this off). Further, the MOMF still needs to be familiar with the form. The DMs needs to be careful what he is presenting in front of the MOMF and what he is getting familiar with. Compare this power lvl to a default druid who gets his spell list no matter what (plus his regular shapes and abilities). Further the DM can stretch the time and interaction needed to be familiar with someone "specific" depending on the circumstances. Imho very strong but not game breaking. Just another reason why mundanes got the short end of the stick in 3.5... :/

gained through spells, plot, items, world events ect:
Not part of the target form. Their source is not the target form (e.g. even if the form has cast the spell himself, the spells effect is the source, not the target form). So none of the things apply here in our chase (MOMF 7).

This problem isn't contained to feats and special abilities either. Things aren't considered attack actions unless they say they are even though the argument could be made that many things are attack actions. The same is true for many things in 3.5. Nothing in 3.5 presents a vague definition and tells you to just figure out what does or doesn't fit based on your personal opinion for that very reason.

Sorry, but imho an attack action doesn't need to be called out explicitly in every ability, cause the general combat rules set the definition of "Attack Action" are in most (non exceptional) chases enough to determine if something is an attack action or not. The explicit ability in each chase doesn't need to call it out every time if it is obvious by the definition of "attack action". As said, 3.5 often uses friendly reminder, but on an inconsistent base (see effects that give size bonuses)

I can see the arguable point that things who only give passive bonuses should not be counted as abilities and just be viewed as merely enhancements/benefits/whatsoever. But one could also argument that the "ability" gives me the passiv bonus/enhancement. Debatable and normally would call for a DM decision. But as shown by ciopo's War-Hulk example, such passive bonuses can be EX abilities. So it seems even passive bonuses can be valid 3.5 abilities.

Sight is an ability, its definitely mental in nature so not a natural ability, after all your eyes are no more integral to sight than your brain is to thought and most of the actual seeing happens in your brain. Sight is governed by your wisdom stat, also a mental ability. Therefore wisdom is an extraordinary ability. Definitely moreso of an ability than the iron will feat that does only a portion of what wisdom does. You also gain wisdom as you grow, age, and level up just like feats. You might argue that you are born with some amount of wisdom but some feats must also be taken at character creation so no difference there. Neither explicitly calls out its ability type anywhere and feats don't even call themselves abilities where wisdom is explicitly and repeatedly called an ability in the players handbook. I don't see how you could logically argue that feats are extraordinary abilities but wisdom isn't or especially that skills aren't.

Again, "sight" is something that anyone can do and as such not an EX ability. It's non-magical either and as such just a mere "ability" (as in default English). Same can be said about Wisdom which thus can easily be categorized as Natural Abilities.

cue mandatory https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html
about one word having more than one meaning

sight is indeed an ability, and is extraordinary at that when it's low-light or darkvision :P

I would counterpoint that spellcasting as a whole could be inferred to be a SU ability

are there any untyped class abilities? legit question, I can't think of any, except feats ( which again, I accept as possibly not special abilities after all, I just disagree with that conclusion )

Classes such as the war hulk that has extra ability boosts, classify these boosts as (ex), so I don't see the problem exactly with wisdom being an ability here.

The only thing that comes to mind is damage reduction in some, but not all monster entries.

yeah, i think the comic fits our discussion to some degree^^

As already asked above, do you see any rule problems if we would categorize spellcasting as SU. Imho all SU rules get trumped by more specific spell casting rules.

I would like to know if there are so many untyped class abilities that might be problematic.
Monk's Unarmed Strike would come into my mind. If we would follow the categories of the Special Abilities section, it would count as EX, despite not being explicitly called out as such.

Natural abilities are untyped. By RAW anything not marked Ex, Sp or Su is one.

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.

That is not what the quoted rule text is saying. It doesn't say all untyped abilities are Natural Abilities (nor that NA are untyped). It says that those abilities that doesn't fit into the other categories (EX, SLA, SU) are NA.

All racial traits are not Ex and I want to know where in the rules it states this? Combing previous posts, nothing confirms that they are. Infact, there is more evidence that they are not. The best one is the fact that Ex, SLA, and Su abilities have the tag next to them. Those that aren't are not either of the 3. None of the human traits have that tag and are therefore neither.

Regardless of whether feats are Ex or not, the human trait gives you a feat at level 1. The trait is not the feat itself

It's not a rule, but as far as I know (and others have pointed out): all racial traits in the MM are marked as EX. We only lack the statblock for humans in the MM. The human traits don't mention that their traits count as anything "out of the line", which leads to the conclusion that all human traits would count as EX (yeah,not a real rule and it's extrapolated info, I have to admit. But it is on a consistent level. Can you show contradicting examples? Kindly asking).

Yeah, the HBF trait is not a feat itself. So what? Sorry but I don't get the point you are trying to make here. As long as the trait is an EX ability MOMF lvl 7 gives access to it. Please explain me where your argument is aiming here? Imho I could even argue that the target form has already picked their HBF (since my target form is an adult with a minimum of 1hd worth of class lvl) and thus the "HBF ability" got replaced by a feat which I again (could) get via MOMF lvl 7 (unless it is a feat called out as SU/SLA). However you want to turn it around, the result is that I will get it since both are EX Abilities.

edit:

You missed the point. Same sources don't stack regardless. Gaining the properties of a form you possess is overwritten by the new form you become.

Would you be so kind to quote the rule you are suggesting here? The only rules that comes into my mind would be either stacking rules for bonuses on dice rolls or "spell" stacking rules that would forbid this kind of stacking (same source). Do we have any global rule here that I'm unaware of? Otherwise I have to point out that Wild Shape is neither a bonus to a dice roll, nor a spell/SLA and thus doesn't fall under the rules you mention. As I said, blame the ERRATA that changed Wild Shape from referring to Polymorph, which is a spell and thus had forced Wild Shape to behave under the spell effect stacking rules (back, before the ERRATA). Now it refers to Alternate Form which is not a cast spell and doesn't follow the limitations cast "spell" effects have to face. I'm kindly asking if you can present either global rules that prevent stacking from the same source or at least for SU abilities?

_______________________________________________
PS: I'm really getting the feeling we are close to a final answer here. Lets see if there are any other obstacles left with this "theory so far". Keep it coming, anything that worries/bothers you.

And I'm sorry for the late response, but I received really sad news and this messed up my last few days (and probably the coming few weeks or more...).

[Darg]

Apparently the Premium edition of the MM stealth errataed the (Ex) tag:

The traits of the aquatic elf (Monster Manual 103) are listed as extraordinary abilities in the Monster Manual (2003) and in the SRD, but they are not listed as extraordinary abilities by the premium edition Monster Manual (2012), therefore they're actually natural abilities via stealth errata. (This change is consistent throughout the premium edition and, for example, eliminates some confusion with races that had all their racial traits listed as extraordinary abilities even when those extraordinary abilities were also spell-like abilities, like some possessed by a drow (103) or a gnome (131).)

I don't have the premium edition so I can't verify this, but it makes much more sense than racial traits being Ex abilities.

Otherwise I have to point out that Wild Shape is neither a bonus to a dice roll, nor a spell/SLA and thus doesn't fall under the rules you mention.

You forget that it modifies your ability scores, which are indeed die rolls. The fact that you get ability score modifiers from other spells or effects proves that they are. Still, I can't see how you don't think that a supernatural ability isn't a magical effect and isn't subject to the magical effect stacking rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

Apparently the Premium edition of the MM stealth errataed the (Ex) tag:



I don't have the premium edition so I can't verify this, but it makes much more sense than racial traits being Ex abilities.

I don't have the premium edition neither. But I can theoretically go through two possible scenarios:

1)
Unless they explicitly call out a change, it doesn't change anything per 3.5 rules. Because keeping silent about something doesn't contradict what has already been said. Unless a new rule is shown, nothing changes.

2)
Even if we would ignore the given friendly reminders in previous MM and go for uncategorized traits as in the Premium MM, the changes would be little. As said, nothing stops the Special Ability section to apply the rules and categorize each ability. Only a handful of racial traits would fall into Natural Abilities. Because most of em are still non-magical things that "not anyone can learn" and thus belong into the EX category. Further this would solve the problem with those SLA granting traits that are marked as EX, since they would easily fall into the SLA category where they belong to.

While I would personally prefer option 2, imho it I looks more like to be option 1.

You forget that it modifies your ability scores, which are indeed die rolls. The fact that you get ability score modifiers from other spells or effects proves that they are. Still, I can't see how you don't think that a supernatural ability isn't a magical effect and isn't subject to the magical effect stacking rules.

A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

Wild Shape doesn't give you any positive or negative modifiers to apply to your ability scores. It sets your ability scores to the target values.

The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form.

You don't gain any modifiers, you directly gain the physical ability scores.

Edit:
Anyone here with a Premium edition of the MM? We could need some clarification, if there are any new rules "who call out changes" or not.

[Darg]

Wild Shape doesn't give you any positive or negative modifiers to apply to your ability scores. It sets your ability scores to the target values.

You don't gain any modifiers, you directly gain the physical ability scores.

And yet it modifies your ability scores to be that which it becomes. The only way it wouldn't be a bonus or penalty is if you had the exact same scores as the form you assume. Even then, 0 is a valid number as your ability modifiers can be 0. The books do this circle thing where modifier refers to bonus or penalty while bonus and penalty refer back to modifier which ultimately doesn't provide a clear definition of what they exactly are. Without this clear answer, any modification to a die roll is a modifier by definition.

[Gruftzwerg]

And yet it modifies your ability scores to be that which it becomes. The only way it wouldn't be a bonus or penalty is if you had the exact same scores as the form you assume. Even then, 0 is a valid number as your ability modifiers can be 0. The books do this circle thing where modifier refers to bonus or penalty while bonus and penalty refer back to modifier which ultimately doesn't provide a clear definition of what they exactly are. Without this clear answer, any modification to a die roll is a modifier by definition.

I have presented how "modifiers" have their special definition that trumps any other normally valid definition of modifiers.
And these rules talk about "modifiers that you apply to a roll" and not about "gaining ability scores". Mechanically two different things in 3.5.
And imho even in the real world. Think about prepaid sim cards for smartphones. You can modify the sim cards value by charging money onto it. But you could also exchange the sim card with another prepaid sim card which has its own value. The previous value didn't get modified at all.
The same can be said in our situation. You temporary exchange your ability score. This is not what 3.5 has defined as modifier.

modifying a given value is not same as exchanging the value: A +/- B != A B
edit: B in the formula is the modifier to A, it doesn't exchange it. The result is not B!

[Darg]

I have presented how "modifiers" have their special definition that trumps any other normally valid definition of modifiers.
And these rules talk about "modifiers that you apply to a roll" and not about "gaining ability scores". Mechanically two different things in 3.5.
And imho even in the real world. Think about prepaid sim cards for smartphones. You can modify the sim cards value by charging money onto it. But you could also exchange the sim card with another prepaid sim card which has its own value. The previous value didn't get modified at all.
The same can be said in our situation. You temporary exchange your ability score. This is not what 3.5 has defined as modifier.

modifying a given value is not same as exchanging the value: A +/- B != A B

You are applying your own narrow interpretation. Using the same prepaid card scenario, the total amount of money you possess was modified by changing cards. "Gaining ability scores" has never been defined. You gain a bonus or penalty. You receive a bonus or penalty. You get a bonus or penalty. You gain the ability scores. You receive the ability scores. You get the ability scores. It's all the same. It's all a modification to a die roll you possess. Your ability score is modified to a lesser or greater degree.

This is not what 3.5 has defined as modifier.

What is the definition of modifier? "Any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." What is a bonus and what is a penalty? "A positive modifier to a die roll" and "A negative modifier to a die roll." What is the english definition of "modifier?" "a person or thing that makes partial or minor changes to something." Wild Shape changes your abilities. It modifies your ability scores. Specifically and individually your strength, dexterity, and constitution. Just because it doesn't give a specific number in the description doesn't mean there isn't a specific number to be had.

2)
Even if we would ignore the given friendly reminders in previous MM and go for uncategorized traits as in the Premium MM, the changes would be little. As said, nothing stops the Special Ability section to apply the rules and categorize each ability. Only a handful of racial traits would fall into Natural Abilities. Because most of em are still non-magical things that "not anyone can learn" and thus belong into the EX category. Further this would solve the problem with those SLA granting traits that are marked as EX, since they would easily fall into the SLA category where they belong to.

You ignore part of the definition of Natural ability:

Natural Abilities

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

Traits definitely fall under this as creatures possess these by their physical nature. Even if the possession of racial traits is a Ex ability, by the example of drow and gnome the individual traits themselves are not Ex unless otherwise specified. Therefore wouldn't be gained by Extraordinary Wild Shape.

You also bring into contradiction what an Ex ability is. 'Because most of em are still non-magical things that "not anyone can learn"' kinda excludes feats doesn't it as feats are something anyone can learn. Feats are also not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like as a whole. The only single reference to feats being abilities is that one line from BoED. Even then it never even says that the exalted feats are supernatural abilities which means it contradicts itself mechanically if it were establishing a rule.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are applying your own narrow interpretation. Using the same prepaid card scenario, the total amount of money you possess was modified by changing cards. "Gaining ability scores" has never been defined. You gain a bonus or penalty. You receive a bonus or penalty. You get a bonus or penalty. You gain the ability scores. You receive the ability scores. You get the ability scores. It's all the same. It's all a modification to a die roll you possess. Your ability score is modified to a lesser or greater degree.



What is the definition of modifier? "Any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." What is a bonus and what is a penalty? "A positive modifier to a die roll" and "A negative modifier to a die roll." What is the english definition of "modifier?" "a person or thing that makes partial or minor changes to something." Wild Shape changes your abilities. It modifies your ability scores. Specifically and individually your strength, dexterity, and constitution. Just because it doesn't give a specific number in the description doesn't mean there isn't a specific number to be had.

You ignore that you are calculating that modifier and that it is not something the the effect of Wild Shape/Alternate Form does tell you to do. Alternate Form doesn't tell you to calculate the difference and apply it as modifier to your score. It tells you that you "gain the scores". Gaining something is not modifying something. Mechanically totally different things. When you modify a value, you can't ignore the value at the same time. You can only ignore a value when you exchange it by gaining a new value. Basic logic. modify!=(ex)change
And Wild Shape (Alternate Form) does give you new values and doesn't care to modify the old values. It's clear that the values only get changed but not modified. You are mixing up the very definition of modifying something.

You ignore part of the definition of Natural ability:



Traits definitely fall under this as creatures possess these by their physical nature. Even if the possession of racial traits is a Ex ability, by the example of drow and gnome the individual traits themselves are not Ex unless otherwise specified. Therefore wouldn't be gained by Extraordinary Wild Shape.

You also bring into contradiction what an Ex ability is. 'Because most of em are still non-magical things that "not anyone can learn"' kinda excludes feats doesn't it as feats are something anyone can learn. Feats are also not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like as a whole. The only single reference to feats being abilities is that one line from BoED. Even then it never even says that the exalted feats are supernatural abilities which means it contradicts itself mechanically if it were establishing a rule.

as said in previous post, you are misinterpreting the rule text in your favor. The text doesn't tell you that all Natural Abilities are untyped, nor that all untyped abilities are NA. All it does tell you is:

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

Any ability that can't be designated into the EX, SU or SLA categories presented are NA. This means if you have an ability that doesn't fit the description of EX, SU nor SLA (as presented in the Special Abilities section), then it can only be a Natural Ability.
My interpretation doesn't cause any dysfunctions and sets four 100% distinguishable categories.

Racial traits have a hard time to count as Natural Ability, even if you might think otherwise by basic logical assumptions.
The problem is that EX abilities claim that "they are not something that just anyone can do or even learn".
Racial traits are bound to races as the name implies. As such they qualify for things that nor just anyone can do or learn. Thus they can't be Natural Abilities. Natural abilities are things which you would expect any normal creature to have: Ability scores, and access to all skills, normal senses, height, weight, age and so on.

[Raishoiken]

as said in previous post, you are misinterpreting the rule text in your favor. The text doesn't tell you that all Natural Abilities are untyped, nor that all untyped abilities are NA. All it does tell you is...

This is incorrect:

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

It literally says that, specifically, anything that is a special abilty that isnt already specified as ex,sp,su is EXPLICITLY defaulted to natural ability.
It doesnt default if it can't be designated, just if it simply isn't designated as such

[Gruftzwerg]

This is incorrect:



It literally says that, specifically, anything that is a special abilty that isnt already specified as ex,sp,su is EXPLICITLY defaulted to natural ability.
It doesnt default if it can't be designated, just if it simply isn't designated as such

It still doesn't say that all abilities that don't have their type mentioned are NA.
Those that can't be designated as EX, SP, SU are NA. That is not the same.

Otherwise the "Spells" class feature becomes a NA if I would assume that what Darg implied. And as we know, spells aren't something from your natural form and thus can't be NA.

To assume that the sentence means all untype abilities are NA is just dysfunctional and is not what the text says.


Further, when I say "defaults to Ex", I mean, that most feats are:
1: non-magical, thus can't be a SLA/SU
2: something not everyone can do or even learn (feats in general have prerequisites, while exceptions exist).
As such, unless a feat is magical somehow or explicitly calls itself out as an exception (SU/SLA), it "defaults to EX". I hope I could make it sound less polarizing now and I'm sorry if it caused confusion.

The fact that feats in general have prerequisites is an indicator that they at least qualify for EX unless they are magical. They are (normally) not something that you have because of your physical form (exceptions may exist).

__________________________________
edit: we could sort the 4 types of abilities into 2 groups where each type represents a subgroup:

1: Nonmagical Abilities
1a:(NA) Things that you would normally assume anyone can/has (Ability Scores, normal sight/senses, skills...)
1b:(EX) Things that not anyone can do or learn (feats, class abilities and other things that can have special requirements to obtain them like other feats, stats or level in a certain class (for class abilities)).


2: Magical Abilities
2a:(SLA) Calls out a spell as reference
2b:(SU) Doesn't resemble a certain spell

Any ability can be easily designated into one of the categories without causing any dysfunctions.

[Darg]

It still doesn't say that all abilities that don't have their type mentioned are NA.
Those that can't be designated as EX, SP, SU are NA. That is not the same.

Otherwise the "Spells" class feature becomes a NA if I would assume that what Darg implied. And as we know, spells aren't something from your natural form and thus can't be NA.

Actually that is exactly what it says. If they aren't designated, they are natural abilities.

Spellcasting from classes are actually "special class abilities" as I have previously mentioned. Basically another term for class feature. Just as there are armor and weapon special abilities. They are special abilities; however, they are not the special abilities that the special abilities section is referencing. Classifying them as natural abilities changes nothing mechanically either. There is nothing mechanically in the game that gives you the abilities of a specific individual other than the Consume Identity supernatural ability of a greater doppelganger.

IFurther, when I say "defaults to Ex", I mean, that most feats are:
1: non-magical, thus can't be a SLA/SU
2: something not everyone can do or even learn (feats in general have prerequisites, while exceptions exist).
As such, unless a feat is magical somehow or explicitly calls itself out as an exception (SU/SLA), it "defaults to EX". I hope I could make it sound less polarizing now and I'm sorry if it caused confusion.

The fact that feats in general have prerequisites is an indicator that they at least qualify for EX unless they are magical. They are (normally) not something that you have because of your physical form (exceptions may exist).

I see where your confusion comes into play. Natural abilities are based on physical nature, not physical form. Ones nature is the natural limits one can accomplish. Extraordinary goes beyond one's physical nature. Every creature is technically able to learn spellcasting as long as their physical nature allows it which means it can't be extraordinary. One's intelligence is just as much a physical quality as is the wings a bird possesses. Feats are learned by gaining experience and requirements have nothing to with being Ex. Just as a human can't fly because they don't have wings (doesn't make wings any less natural) requirements for feats don't make them extraordinary. What would be extraordinary is that same human learning to fly without the physical nature for it such as a feat granting the beholder's flight (ex) ability.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually that is exactly what it says. If they aren't designated, they are natural abilities.

The rules nowhere claim that all special abilities are marked with friendly reminders for you. As such you have to look up the 4 categories in the Special Abilities section to see where the rules designate em. And if you can't designate an ability into the EX, SU & SLA categories, it has to be a NA. The 4 categories aren't presented there for no reason. They are supposed to be used, so that you can see where an ability is designated to.

Spellcasting from classes are actually "special class abilities" as I have previously mentioned. Basically another term for class feature. Just as there are armor and weapon special abilities. They are special abilities; however, they are not the special abilities that the special abilities section is referencing. Classifying them as natural abilities changes nothing mechanically either. There is nothing mechanically in the game that gives you the abilities of a specific individual other than the Consume Identity supernatural ability of a greater doppelganger.

Can you quote where the term "special class ability" is defined in 3.5. I can't find it.
And how can they be Special Abilities and at the same time not, without calling out an explicit exception? They can't just ignore the Primary Source rule for Special Abilities without explicitly making some kind of exception. And so far you haven't provided any rule text that would confirm such an exception.

I see where your confusion comes into play. Natural abilities are based on physical nature, not physical form. Ones nature is the natural limits one can accomplish. Extraordinary goes beyond one's physical nature. Every creature is technically able to learn spellcasting as long as their physical nature allows it which means it can't be extraordinary. One's intelligence is just as much a physical quality as is the wings a bird possesses. Feats are learned by gaining experience and requirements have nothing to with being Ex. Just as a human can't fly because they don't have wings (doesn't make wings any less natural) requirements for feats don't make them extraordinary. What would be extraordinary is that same human learning to fly without the physical nature for it such as a feat granting the beholder's flight (ex) ability.

I would argue that physical nature is basically the same as physical form. The NA section isn't talking about things that come from your mental abilities. While there are mental abilities that are NA (e.g. WIS & INT score) because your physical form/nature includes a brain, that doesn't mean that the thing that come from those mental abilities are natural abilities (e.g. your casting ability which is tied to a mental stat ain't a NA // Turn Undead isn't a NA just because it's tied to a mental stat).
Cultural "traits" are often tied to the common mental state of a race or a "special" part/form/size of their body (again not a NA since it is not something everybody can do). This is represented by the fact that the MM marked all traits as EX.
When it comes to flying, the "Movement Modes" are explained in the glossary of the MM on p311:

These are natural, non magical, unless specifically noted in the monsters description.

We have a specific exception that calls out all movement modes to be natural (abilities) unless noted otherwise (as in the chase of the Beholder).

[Darg]

The rules nowhere claim that all special abilities are marked with friendly reminders for you. As such you have to look up the 4 categories in the Special Abilities section to see where the rules designate em. And if you can't designate an ability into the EX, SU & SLA categories, it has to be a NA. The 4 categories aren't presented there for no reason. They are supposed to be used, so that you can see where an ability is designated to.

The special abilities section doesn't designate what type of ability it is. The monster manual entries, class features designate the type of ability it is within the parenthesis: (Su), (Ex), and (Sp).

Can you quote where the term "special class ability" is defined in 3.5. I can't find it.
And how can they be Special Abilities and at the same time not, without calling out an explicit exception? They can't just ignore the Primary Source rule for Special Abilities without explicitly making some kind of exception. And so far you haven't provided any rule text that would confirm such an exception.

It isn't defined, only mentioned a few times. I previously quoted the monster manual under "Level Loss." The SRD mentions it too. It uses the term in place of class feature. Armor and weapon special abilities are also not included in the classification of creature special abilities. So you have creature special abilities, class special abilities, and item special abilities as separate categories that don't necessarily follow the rules for the others.

I would argue that physical nature is basically the same as physical form. The NA section isn't talking about things that come from your mental abilities. While there are mental abilities that are NA (e.g. WIS & INT score) because your physical form/nature includes a brain, that doesn't mean that the thing that come from those mental abilities are natural abilities (e.g. your casting ability which is tied to a mental stat ain't a NA // Turn Undead isn't a NA just because it's tied to a mental stat).
Cultural "traits" are often tied to the common mental state of a race or a "special" part/form/size of their body (again not a NA since it is not something everybody can do). This is represented by the fact that the MM marked all traits as EX.
When it comes to flying, the "Movement Modes" are explained in the glossary of the MM on p311:

We have a specific exception that calls out all movement modes to be natural (abilities) unless noted otherwise (as in the chase of the Beholder).

Either way, spellcasting can't be Ex, Sp, or Su. It has never been designated as such and so it can never be. Reinforcing this fact is that there are class features specifically not designated as such so spellcasting is not unique.

The MM only classified the non-human PHB races and their subraces' racial traits as such. There is no hard and fast rule that all racial traits are Ex. It even conflicts with racial traits that are specifically other than extraordinary. It's funny that a character's size and move speed is an extraordinary ability instead of a physical quality of their form. Makes alter self's size change not actually applicable.

[Gruftzwerg]

The special abilities section doesn't designate what type of ability it is. The monster manual entries, class features designate the type of ability it is within the parenthesis: (Su), (Ex), and (Sp).

The Special Ability section is the primary source. The MM just follows the guideline presented in the primary source on an inconsistent level. Same as with "size affecting effects that don't stack" isn't mentioned on every size affecting ability. Because they are inconsistently used friendly reminders that refer to the primary source for stacking spell effect. The absence of that reminder doesn't stop the primary source rules to apply.
In our chase we have friendly reminders in the MM in form of "(XX) that follow the primary source rule for Special Abilities. Just because it isn't mentioned always doesn't stop the Special Ability rules to apply (same as with size effects).

It isn't defined, only mentioned a few times. I previously quoted the monster manual under "Level Loss." The SRD mentions it too. It uses the term in place of class feature. Armor and weapon special abilities are also not included in the classification of creature special abilities. So you have creature special abilities, class special abilities, and item special abilities as separate categories that don't necessarily follow the rules for the others.

If it ain't defined, it can't be an exceptional category by the definition of rules. It has no weight to suppress the primary source unless it explicitly calls it out or designates itself into a "defined" category. So far no evidence was presented for that.

Either way, spellcasting can't be Ex, Sp, or Su. It has never been designated as such and so it can never be. Reinforcing this fact is that there are class features specifically not designated as such so spellcasting is not unique.

Again, the Primary Source set the definition of the categories and thus gives a guideline how to designate those abilities 100% without error. It never claims that all abilities have reminders for you.
NA talks about those abilities that per the rules in the very same page "Special Abilities" can't be designated into EX, SU,SLA has to be NA.
Your interpretation ignores the context and purpose of the "Special Abilities" section where the rule your are talking about is.

The MM only classified the non-human PHB races and their subraces' racial traits as such. There is no hard and fast rule that all racial traits are Ex. It even conflicts with racial traits that are specifically other than extraordinary. It's funny that a character's size and move speed is an extraordinary ability instead of a physical quality of their form. Makes alter self's size change not actually applicable.

3.5 works with consistent rules that can have explicit exceptions. I have presented rule interpretation that explains why the MM reminds you that they are EX abilities. The MM didn't do anything else than following the guideline presented in the Primary Source. Nowhere the HBF is presented as something out of the line (no exception mentioned). As such it follows the same rules as all other traits do. They get designated by the Special Ability rules. And I have presented quotes from BoED and the FAQ that support my interpretation.
While your interpretation assumes that BoED and the FAQ has to be wrong and causes wired states and dysfunctions.
Occam's razor would suggest to use the interpretation that causes less dysfunctions or the one making less claims about authors who have failed here and there (just because it doesn't fit your interpretation). I think I win/lead in both categories so far.

[Raishoiken]

The Special Ability section is the primary source. .


If it ain't defined, it can't be an exceptional category by the definition of rules. It has no weight to suppress the primary source unless it explicitly calls it out or designates itself into a "defined" category. So far no evidence was presented for that.

The SRD says, EXPLICITLY as rules text that if it is not labled as ex,sp, or su, that it is automatically considered a natural ability. Point to the rule that says specifically that if a designation isnt givin that you have to give it a designation yourself and your point will be made, which as far as ive seen doesnt exist.

Again, the Primary Source set the definition of the categories and thus gives a guideline how to designate those abilities 100% without error.

This isnt a guideline for determining what an undesignated ability is, these are explanations aa to how ex,sp,and su abilities work. The closest it is to a guidline is a clue to dms who are creating new abilities

It never claims that all abilities have reminders for you.
NA talks about those abilities that per the rules in the very same page "Special Abilities" can't be designated into EX, SU,SLA has to be NA.

No, it doesnt explicitly say all abilities have friendly reminders. But the rules do explicitly say that:

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.

What that means, by air tight rules, is that if
A: it is not designated as ex,spn or su
Then
B: it is designated at that point as a natural ability
So unless you can find something im not seeing in the same section that says something different, anything you say to the contrary is head canon

[Gruftzwerg]

The SRD says, EXPLICITLY as rules text that if it is not labled as ex,sp, or su, that it is automatically considered a natural ability. Point to the rule that says specifically that if a designation isnt givin that you have to give it a designation yourself and your point will be made, which as far as ive seen doesnt exist.

The text doesn't say "those not labled". It say those not designated (as defined on the same page: "Special Abilities") as EX, SU and SLA. While I present rules that define the categories of Special Abilities you ignore to follow em. The definition of those categories are reason enough to apply em. Compare it with "Combat" rules or "Spell effect stacking" rules. They don't need to be mentioned everywhere where they apply. The fact that there are primary source rules for their topic is enough to enforce the rules everywhere where they have to be applied by their definition. E.g. a spell needs to call out that it can ignore primary source "Combat" rules. Spells doesn't have any kind of special rights to ignore em because the text keeps silent. In the same way, you have no right to ignore the defined categories presented in the Special Ability section without an explicit exception.

This isnt a guideline for determining what an undesignated ability is, these are explanations aa to how ex,sp,and su abilities work. The closest it is to a guidline is a clue to dms who are creating new abilities

1. The categories are defined. As such you have to follow the rules within those definitions to use those categories as the rules demand it.
2. I have presented how any ability can be designated without any errors into on of the 4 categories. None of the categories overlap. They have clear distinctions that separates each category from the other. 100% clear set definitions.

No, it doesnt explicitly say all abilities have friendly reminders. But the rules do explicitly say that:


What that means, by air tight rules, is that if
A: it is not designated as ex,spn or su
Then
B: it is designated at that point as a natural ability
So unless you can find something im not seeing in the same section that says something different, anything you say to the contrary is head canon

As said above, the rules don't say to designate all untyped abilities as NA. All it says that those that aren't designated as EX, SLA, SU (as defined in their definitions) are NA. You have to exclude all the definitions of EX, SLA & SU first to conclude that it isn't designated to them. Otherwise you ignore the definition of those categories. The definitions aren't eye candy, they are rules to follow.

[Darg]

I don't think you understand what designate means. The (Ex) tag designates an extraordinary ability. Defining something is not designation. They have to be specifically called out as such to not be a natural ability. Unless you can refute the definition of "designated" I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.

Descriptions of what the abilities do or how they mentally categorized abilities does not equate to rules text. Just like how an off hand parenthetical does not make feats default to extraordinary abilities.

Funnily enough, the PHB is the primary source for playing PC races. Meaning that when you play an elf your racial traits are not extraordinary as they aren't designated as such. This means if the PC wild shapes into an elf with extraordinary wildshape, you don't get the racial traits as an extraordinary ability. Primary source wins out right?

[Raishoiken]

I don't think you understand what designate means. The (Ex) tag designates an extraordinary ability. Defining something is not designation. They have to be specifically called out as such to not be a natural ability. Unless you can refute the definition of "designated" I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.

Descriptions of what the abilities do or how they mentally categorized abilities does not equate to rules text. Just like how an off hand parenthetical does not make feats default to extraordinary abilities.

Big ninja, and better articulated than i would have been able to

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't think you understand what designate means. The (Ex) tag designates an extraordinary ability. Defining something is not designation. They have to be specifically called out as such to not be a natural ability. Unless you can refute the definition of "designated" I don't think we are going to see eye to eye.

Descriptions of what the abilities do or how they mentally categorized abilities does not equate to rules text. Just like how an off hand parenthetical does not make feats default to extraordinary abilities.

Funnily enough, the PHB is the primary source for playing PC races. Meaning that when you play an elf your racial traits are not extraordinary as they aren't designated as such. This means if the PC wild shapes into an elf with extraordinary wildshape, you don't get the racial traits as an extraordinary ability. Primary source wins out right?

I do understand what it means. But what you fail to see is that the Special Ability section defines clearly distinct categories to designate any ability into them.

The Special Ability section is the primary source for its topic.
And abilities don't need to call out the rules they have to follow. See size bonuses from effects. Some call out that you lack the permission to stack em, while others don't. That doesn't stop the rules to apply to all of em.
Same can be said in our chase. Feats and Spells don't need to call out every time under which rules they need to behave. But that doesn't stop the rules from applying to em.
Feats are abilities and as such they need to follow the Special Abilities section and can only call out exceptions. Which exalted feats in BoED does as example and supports this interpretation.

1: Nonmagical Abilities
1a:(NA) Things that you would normally assume anyone can/has (Ability Scores, normal sight/senses, skills...)
1b:(EX) Things that not anyone can do or learn (feats, class abilities and other things that can have special requirements to obtain them like other feats, stats or level in a certain class (for class abilities)).


2: Magical Abilities
2a:(SLA) Calls out a spell as reference
2b:(SU) Doesn't resemble a certain spell

4 clearly defined categories where you can fit any ability into it. Nothing overlaps, clearly distinct categories.
And since the Special Abilities section is the primary source for its topic, these four categories set how abilities are designates per the rules. The 4 category definitions aren't there just for show.

IMHO, my interpretation doesn't contradict with any of the ruletext we have quoted so far in this thread.
While you assume that the 4 categories in the Special Abilities section are what? Fluff text? And BoED and the FAQ have to be wrong. Then and only then can your argumentation survive. But that is imho to much to ask if we have theories that don't rely on such fiat.

[Raishoiken]

Homie, what you just said shows that you donr know what it means. What you are describing by talking about the fact that you can use those definitions to place the abilities in one category or the other is the process of designation. You deciding which category it is in based on the descriptions of what each ability is you going through the process of designating a category for them to go in.

Thia is why there is an issue. Because the monster manual is saying that anything that isnt already designated, as in the past tense, is a natural ability. Its the very fact that you have to designate a category meana that itnismt already designated.
Does that make more sense?

[Darg]

the FAQ have to be wrong.

Have you even read the FAQ? How can anyone actually take it seriously when it is filled with inconsistency and being flat out contradictory. At best it's good as a guideline when you run into a delimma, but should never be brought into a rules discussion.

As for the BoED statement for Ex feats, what has more authority: PHB or BoED? Remember your statement about the premium edition MM? You didn't think it not including the Ex tag on racial traits was a legitimate errata. If that is the case it's contradictory to think that feats default to Ex because BoED vs every other book not stating as such. It makes even less sense.

[Gruftzwerg]

Homie, what you just said shows that you donr know what it means. What you are describing by talking about the fact that you can use those definitions to place the abilities in one category or the other is the process of designation. You deciding which category it is in based on the descriptions of what each ability is you going through the process of designating a category for them to go in.

Thia is why there is an issue. Because the monster manual is saying that anything that isnt already designated, as in the past tense, is a natural ability. Its the very fact that you have to designate a category meana that itnismt already designated.
Does that make more sense?

The rules are already written and set. As such, using past tense ain't really wrong imho.

Further, a rule-book isn't used from "start to end". Sure, first you read it through to have a vague knowledge about the presented rules. But when you actually use rule-books in a game, you start to look up topics and everything that topic is referring to. Think about combat rules. Sometimes you need to jump multiple times between pages to solve a single attack action (attack actions, combat situation modifiers, special maneuvers..). The same happens here. The rules demand you to know something that is presented later. That is imho something very common in 3.5 rule-books. Here it is on the same page. Nothing to get upset about.

Example:
So we want to use an ability. We look up Special Abilities and read the entire section to get an overview of the topic. After reading the 4 categories we now have the knowledge to tell the characteristics of each category and how they are distinct from each other. This knowledge shows us how the rules designated abilities into the mentioned categories.

Note how Natural Abilities is presented in the Special Abilities section:
1. The page title is Special Abilities
2. The Natural Abilities paragraph tells us that those abilities not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like are NA.
3. A new Special Abilities paragraph is opened which starts with the statement that all Special Abilities are either EX, SLA, SU. This seems to exclude Natural Abilities as one of em.

If you note this separation, we can easily tell why they simply said, that anything that isn't designated into one of the other categories EX, SLA, SU categories (as defined on that page) has to be a NA. Because Natural Ability seems to be (as I already suggested) the normal (non special) abilities section and not part of the Special Abilities club. NA are those abilities that remain if you take all Special Abilities away.

Why this presentation order:
This way the authors did gave us a stairway presentation. We start at the ground with NA and the ground isn't a real part of the stairway. As such NA are all abilities that don't designate into Special Abilities. The stairway consist of the 3 steps:
- EX (special, something not anyone can learn but not magical)
- SLA (magical but has to follow spell rules)
- SU (magical and doesn't have to follow spell rules)
A linear progress of power-enhancement. NA (the ground) is everything left what hasn't been designated into these 3 steps. Imho a good presentation order. But the rule text could have been lesser misleading (as we see with our different points of view ^^).

Have you even read the FAQ? How can anyone actually take it seriously when it is filled with inconsistency and being flat out contradictory. At best it's good as a guideline when you run into a delimma, but should never be brought into a rules discussion.

As for the BoED statement for Ex feats, what has more authority: PHB or BoED? Remember your statement about the premium edition MM? You didn't think it not including the Ex tag on racial traits was a legitimate errata. If that is the case it's contradictory to think that feats default to Ex because BoED vs every other book not stating as such. It makes even less sense.

I've read the FAQ dozens of times, believe me. And I have to admit that I myself once also thought that the FAQ is poorly written and contradicts itself to often. But time has passed and my knowledge about rules have grown. At some point I realized that my own wrong interpretations caused me to believe that the FAQ "was wrong" in many chases. I can say the same for many so called "proofs" in many FAQ stomping threads over the internet. Most of them either thrive from a wrong interpretation of rules, the lack of knowledge about the existence of certain rules or they just straight don't understand things like Primary Source and how it behaves.
And if you follow my interpretation, BoED doesn't contradict with it. As such, it is a valid rule. Trying to find the best interpretation that causes the no rule text to become dysfunctional. That should be what we aim for, don't you agree?

I'm not denying that there still might be a few errors in the FAQ, but I can't remember anything right off the bat. Most of the things where I thought that the FAQ had to be wrong, it was me who was wrong. Once I tried to find an interpretation that somehow fits the FAQ I had several breakthroughs.

Understanding the full extend of what the Primary Source rule does was one of the things that helped the most. And it is imho one of the reasons why we all have problems with the rules for so many years. We all learned the rules without the Primary Source rule in mind, while the authors have designed the rules based on them without telling us...
This caused a chaotic state where people where quoting spell specific combat rules as general combat rules (yeah that was a thing in the early days pre-ERRATA). The authors realized the mess they caused and released the ERRATA which finally included the Primary Source rule. The problem that remains is, that our brain has spent to much time without this rule in mind and it is hard to delete all the wrong thoughts that thrive from this.
Imagine you have today a total newbie at your table. How long will it take for him to even hear "Primary Source rule"? Hours? Weeks? Months? Years? I would assume years for most newbies.

This is the reason why I make such topics. It's sometimes hard to even apply all the rules you know because we lived to long under a misconception (absence of the Primary Source rule). Further I need to dissect a topic with the community together to even recall all rules (and the pages where to find em) to make sure I'm not missing any rules in my thoughts.

PS: I hope that nobody felt offended here. I'm talking about the problems I had(and maybe still have) and I see everybody is having at some point due to the described reasons.

_______________

edit:
You would do me a "favor" if you would take your time in a calm state to reread the Primary Source rule and to think about the extend of what it means when something is the "Primary Source for its topic".
Imho it means that anything that is related to that topic has to follow the rules unless it explicitly calls itself out not to behave under the primary source rules. Which means on the contrary that there is no need for other things to call out to behave under the Primary Source rules. Because that is the reason why we have Primary Source rules in the first place: That everything that fits the situation described in those rules has to follow em (unless an exception is mentioned).
Since feats are abilities they have to follow the rules presented in the entire Special Abilities section. As such most feats are EX, since most are nonmagical but still something not everyone can learn (prerequisites).

[Raishoiken]

Idk if i'm coming across as a bit unhinged or something but i assure you that im in a "calm state of mind", the emphasis was just for that, to emphasis the point to mayne make it easier to understand. Im not mad or anything lol, especially not at the dude who forged Lord Orochimaru from scratch. With that out of the way


You would literally be 100% correct if the monster manual/srd said:

if an ability cannot be designated as ex, sp, or su, then it is a natural ability

This line would mean exactly what you are arguing for. Put the way i did above, if you came across an ability that did not have a lable attatched to it already such as ex, sp, or su, you would interpret how the ability works and then place it into one of the categories based on what would be most appropriate.

This, however, is not the case. More snippets for clarification;

To designate:

officially assign a specified status or ascribe a specified name or quality to.

In past tense, it would then mean:
"Officially assinged a specific status or ascribed a specific name or quality already"

The big important thing here, is that since the special abilities section use tells us that an ability is a "natural ability" if the ability hasnt already been given a descriptor, because it uses the past tense "not designated"

[Warmjenkins]

Ok, I've been absent for a while and there is way too much to quote if I were to reply to everything individually. Thats said I still fail to see any evidence at all that feats are extraordinary abilities by default. The rules clearly and unquestionably state that all abilities not already designated as a specific category are natural abilities. That seems pretty set in stone and straightforward. It would be ludicrous to think that the rules want you to try to determine what every ability is by your own personal interpretation of flavor text and descriptions that are usually fluff. As already shown multiple times most people won't agree which category an ability falls into by description alone. Luckily we don't have to because they already designated all the special abilities for us.

Next, skills still meet the definition of special abilities as much as feats. Not all skills can be used without special training or prerequisites, same as feats. Many feats require no training and literally everyone can do them. Feats cannot be extraordinary abilities by your own definition. Sight isn't something everyone can do. Many people are born blind, never able to see once in their life. Many races are blind by default. Not everyone can do it, not magical, more extraordinary of an ability than some extra hp, which you are arguing is an extraordinary ability. So why again don't these count?

Obviously I don't think skills, feats, sight, hp, or many of the other things I pointed out to no contest or contrary evidence are extraordinary abilities. That would be ridiculous, I just used them as examples of some of the countless things that can easily fit your definition of extraordinary ability. If you try to start categorizing things based on a plain English definition of a word you open the floodgates to everything in existence now being argued to fit within that mold. Especially when you use a word in a language that has many possible definitions and interpretations of those definitions. This is compounded by many examples of things you yourself argue count as extraordinary abilities.

For example, yet again, if iron will is an extraordinary ability why isn't wisdom. Everyone has will saves, both do the exact same thing. Wisdom actually does more than iron will and would fit better than an extraordinary ability. Toughness, same argument. Weapon focus, how is this different than a trained skill. The feat represents the payoff of training with a specific weapon or technique(such as unarmed strike or ray) as bonus on rolls. The same way many skills represents the same thing with a chosen tool or technique. As previously mentioned arcane strike uses spell slots to fuel magical energy into your attacks. Not designated as any kind of abilitiy therefore extraordinary by your own argument and therefore non-magical. These are but a few of many more examples of feats not fitting the description of extraordinary ability. I can't come up with and have yet to see an argument for the myriad if natural, magical, and passive feats being extraordinary abilities but the other things that are functionally identical somehow not. The only logical conclusion, and the one supported by how other rules work as well as rules text, is that things are not extraordinary abilities unless the rules say they are.

[Gruftzwerg]

Idk if i'm coming across as a bit unhinged or something but i assure you that im in a "calm state of mind", the emphasis was just for that, to emphasis the point to mayne make it easier to understand. Im not mad or anything lol, especially not at the dude who forged Lord Orochimaru from scratch. With that out of the way


You would literally be 100% correct if the monster manual/srd said:


This line would mean exactly what you are arguing for. Put the way i did above, if you came across an ability that did not have a lable attatched to it already such as ex, sp, or su, you would interpret how the ability works and then place it into one of the categories based on what would be most appropriate.

This, however, is not the case. More snippets for clarification;

To designate:


In past tense, it would then mean:
"Officially assinged a specific status or ascribed a specific name or quality already"

The big important thing here, is that since the special abilities section use tells us that an ability is a "natural ability" if the ability hasnt already been given a descriptor, because it uses the past tense "not designated"

When you use rules, they aren't ordered from the first page to the last. They are all present at the same time. Due to the (entire) Special Abilities section having set the definition for Special Abilities, imho it is normal to use past tense here, since the rules are already written and set. The is no indicator that the needed information is above or below. I see by RAW no reason to limit the sentence to "above".

Further I still argue that
designate != marked (with a friendly reminder)

The rules presented in the (entire) Special Ability section define how you designate abilities into presented categories.
It doesn't say that all untyped abilities are NA. Only those that are not designated as Special Abilities (EX, SLA, SU) (as presented by the rules in the entire Special Ability section) are NA.

Ok, I've been absent for a while and there is way too much to quote if I were to reply to everything individually. Thats said I still fail to see any evidence at all that feats are extraordinary abilities by default. The rules clearly and unquestionably state that all abilities not already designated as a specific category are natural abilities. That seems pretty set in stone and straightforward. It would be ludicrous to think that the rules want you to try to determine what every ability is by your own personal interpretation of flavor text and descriptions that are usually fluff. As already shown multiple times most people won't agree which category an ability falls into by description alone. Luckily we don't have to because they already designated all the special abilities for us.

most feats default to EX, because most are not magical (thus can't be a SLA o SU). But all feats qualify for: (EX:) They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

Next, skills still meet the definition of special abilities as much as feats. Not all skills can be used without special training or prerequisites, same as feats. Many feats require no training and literally everyone can do them. Feats cannot be extraordinary abilities by your own definition. Sight isn't something everyone can do. Many people are born blind, never able to see once in their life. Many races are blind by default. Not everyone can do it, not magical, more extraordinary of an ability than some extra hp, which you are arguing is an extraordinary ability. So why again don't these count?

Obviously I don't think skills, feats, sight, hp, or many of the other things I pointed out to no contest or contrary evidence are extraordinary abilities. That would be ridiculous, I just used them as examples of some of the countless things that can easily fit your definition of extraordinary ability. If you try to start categorizing things based on a plain English definition of a word you open the floodgates to everything in existence now being argued to fit within that mold. Especially when you use a word in a language that has many possible definitions and interpretations of those definitions. This is compounded by many examples of things you yourself argue count as extraordinary abilities.

For example, yet again, if iron will is an extraordinary ability why isn't wisdom. Everyone has will saves, both do the exact same thing. Wisdom actually does more than iron will and would fit better than an extraordinary ability. Toughness, same argument. Weapon focus, how is this different than a trained skill. The feat represents the payoff of training with a specific weapon or technique(such as unarmed strike or ray) as bonus on rolls. The same way many skills represents the same thing with a chosen tool or technique. As previously mentioned arcane strike uses spell slots to fuel magical energy into your attacks. Not designated as any kind of abilitiy therefore extraordinary by your own argument and therefore non-magical. These are but a few of many more examples of feats not fitting the description of extraordinary ability. I can't come up with and have yet to see an argument for the myriad if natural, magical, and passive feats being extraordinary abilities but the other things that are functionally identical somehow not. The only logical conclusion, and the one supported by how other rules work as well as rules text, is that things are not extraordinary abilities unless the rules say they are.

The things that you mentioned (skills, sight, wisdom/ability scores, HP, ..) have a major difference to feats. They don't qualify for:
(EX:) They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
nor are they magical, which disqualifies em as SLA and SU. Thus, since they aren't designated as EX, SLA, SU as per the rules presented, they are NAs. I can see that one could argue to separate skills into "those usable without ranks (NA)" and "those only usable with ranks (EX)". But I would still argue that ".. even learn to do without extensive training." is most likely referring to prerequisites and requirements (e.g. feats generally have requirements; class abilities require you to have X levels in a certain class to unlock the ability...). Anyone can put skill-points into skills which imho ain't extensive training. Other than that, anything is easily designated by the rules:
non magical non special = NA
non magical but special = EX
magical and resembles a spell (follows spell rules) = SLA
magical but doesn't resemble a spell (and thus doesn't follow spell rules) = SU
100% clear defined without anything that overlaps.

about sight/blindness:
In 3.5 all types have (generally at character creation) sight unless otherwise mentioned (exceptions) or they have some kind of flaw (exception). Or does your DM randomly (or even rolled %dice) burden your characters with blindness at character creation? I guess not.