Master of Many forms and Human Bonus feat

[Raishoiken]

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)

that just so happens to be exactly what the word designated means. To have been "otherwise designated" or in other words: "otherwise officially assigned a specific status", the designating has to have already been set in stone.

The way things are designated in the monster manual and the player's handbook where this is discussed are by being marked, officially and by the authors, with either ex, sp, or su.

The rules presented in the (entire) Special Ability section define how you designate abilities into presented categories.

No the special abilities section does not. The special ability section describes special abilities and how they work, not how to designate them. Because the authors have already designated everything that needs to be already

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.

The primary issue here is that all of the abilities we come across have already been described, designated, and had their status as an ability assigned when they were written into the books they are presented in.

After the authors described what each ability did and assigned them their status, they went on to further tell us that any ability they had not already done that to is a natural ability by default.

In short: yes, that is quite literally exactly what it says

You would have to make the assumption that the writers would just randomly get lazy half-way through writing the creature blocks and decided to make the player's and dm de-cypher which abilities were which in order for what i'm saying to not be the case


If anyone has a different way to explain this than me that would be amazing because i feel like i'm just repeating the same thing

[Gruftzwerg]

that just so happens to be exactly what the word designated means. To have been "otherwise designated" or in other words: "otherwise officially assigned a specific status", the designating has to have already been set in stone.

The way things are designated in the monster manual and the player's handbook where this is discussed are by being marked, officially and by the authors, with either ex, sp, or su.


...

If anyone has a different way to explain this than me that would be amazing because i feel like i'm just repeating the same thing

I feel also like repeating the same things over and over again. You are ignoring the Primary Source Rule. The Special Ability section is the primary source for its topic = all abilities.
It defines NA as any ability that is not part of the Special Ability family and this definition covers all "normal" abilities (as NA).

Due to the Primary Source rule, feats don't need to call out what they are or not. You have rules to categorize each feat separately. Just because some abilities have friendly reminders doesn't change any global rules set by the Special Ability section.

Here 2 examples of the Primary Source Rule:

1) size changing effects
Take "size changing effects" that give "bonuses to size". We have stacking rules (Primary Source) that say that only "bonuses to dice rolls" may stack. This rule causes that "bonuses to size" don't stack, because size itself it not a roll and it doesn't affect any rolls itself. Size gives you a "size modifier" to certain dice rolls, but that is not the affected target of those "size changing"-effects.
Because this is hard to gasp for many (including myself for the first, what 7-10years?). We can assume that it did come up in the internal tests of WotC before releasing their stuff. As such most "size changing"-effects remind you that you may not stack em (while not even calling out the rule basis for that), but sadly not all. This inconsistency of friendly reminders can be seen for other topics too.

2) stacking fear effects
DMG p. 294 has a special "Fear"-section (Primary Source). It defines how fear effects stack with each other. While all fear effects operate under this rule (unless an exception is called out), only a few mention this. But that doesn't stop the Fear section to have supremacy over the topic and setting the global rules for that topic.

Now back to Special Abilities:
The Special Abilities section defines the 4 categories of abilities and as such has supremacy over this topic. It doesn't need to be called out to affect things in its Territory. It doesn't care if reminders are constantly used or not. Unless something calls itself out as exception regards the Special Ability section (as BoED does for Exalted Feats), it has to behave under these rules.

Btw, BoED is another example where you have a friendly reminder for exalted feats. Where are the friendly reminders for all the other feats? We have none. It doesn't even proceed to mark any exalted feat in the same book with an "(SU)" as friendly reminder. This is what I talk about when I mention the inconsistency of friendly reminders in 3.5 (Do you see now how lazy the authors are?^^)
And if BoED can once mention a rule (exalted feats as SU) and than never mention it again in the feats description, than I would assume the same thing for the Special Ability Section.

I'll quote the Primary Source rule once again in the hope that it helps to understand my point here:

Spoiler: Primary Source Rule

Show

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

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

The Special ability section defines the 4 categories and how each ability is designated into those categories by their definition. Any other interpretation causes dysfunctions like Spells becoming NA (and thus would be inherit abilities of the physical form and not a mental ability as it clearly is..) or undefined ability categories which ignore the Primary Source rule for Special Abilities (since no explicit exception is called out in any way).

[Darg]

If anyone has a different way to explain this than me that would be amazing because i feel like i'm just repeating the same thing

You are. You have done a great job presenting your argument. The goal shouldn't be to convince anyone; it'll just tire you out. Present your side of the argument and let other readers make their own decisions and judgements. Just as you can't overturn nearly two decades of assumptions in one forum thread; you have no power to change peoples minds.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are. You have done a great job presenting your argument. The goal shouldn't be to convince anyone; it'll just tire you out. Present your side of the argument and let other readers make their own decisions and judgements. Just as you can't overturn nearly two decades of assumptions in one forum thread; you have no power to change peoples minds.

Totally agree on this!

Imho it is hard to convince someone on the spot (or getting convinced yourself on the spot). Especially with complicated topics like this one, it often needs much time to let the discussion sink into the mind. And often we have later a moment of enlightenment when something related happens. I can again point to my own experience with "size bonus stacking". Even after reading the FAQ I needed about 1-2 years to admit that the FAQ is right on this topic and I had been wrong.

Thx for finding these kind words Darg. A great support for a peaceful discussion <3