When the APG was in development Paizo staff anounced that the Archmage was going to be break down in feats, because the Archmage as a class was, essentially, the wizard but more and that was against Paizo's directive for Pathfinder. Needless to say, I agreed with that exposition and was excited about newcoming APG.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price. Evenmore they nerfed the most most underwhelming Archie's features, I am talking about Arcane Fire.
Don't get me wrong. The APG is an enjoyable, extraodinary, remarkable publication, a must have for every Pathfinder fan, but I feel that the work done with Archie feats was cheap.
Humbly,
Yawar
When the APG was in development Paizo staff anounced that the Archmage was going to be break down in feats, because the Archmage as a class was, essentially, the wizard but more and that was against Paizo's directive for Pathfinder. Needless to say, I agreed with that exposition and was excited about newcoming APG.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price. Evenmore they nerfed the most most underwhelming Archie's features, I am talking about Arcane Fire.
Don't get me wrong. The APG is an enjoyable, extraodinary, remarkable publication, a must have for every Pathfinder fan, but I feel that the work done with Archie feats was cheap.
Humbly,
Yawar
Personally, I'd clear all feat selections planned for levels 15 onwards in favour of spell perfection. There's quite alot of power available right there. =) Free quickened 5th level spells? Yes please! =D
I agree with both of you. :)
Well they do have that one option where you can change the energy type of any spell to anything -but- Sonic (heh... Sonic was what I always chose in 3.5), but yeah it was a tad disappointing. Then again, do Wizards really need more power than they already got in Pathfinder? (Specialty Schools are freaking awesome... especially Diviners)
Well they do have that one option where you can change the energy type of any spell to anything -but- Sonic (heh... Sonic was what I always chose in 3.5), but yeah it was a tad disappointing. Then again, do Wizards really need more power than they already got in Pathfinder? (Specialty Schools are freaking awesome... especially Diviners)
compared to the divine casters? yes.
also: these feats are available to said divine casters too.
When the APG was in development Paizo staff anounced that the Archmage was going to be break down in feats, because the Archmage as a class was, essentially, the wizard but more and that was against Paizo's directive for Pathfinder. Needless to say, I agreed with that exposition and was excited about newcoming APG.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price. Evenmore they nerfed the most most underwhelming Archie's features, I am talking about Arcane Fire.
Don't get me wrong. The APG is an enjoyable, extraodinary, remarkable publication, a must have for every Pathfinder fan, but I feel that the work done with Archie feats was cheap.
Humbly,
Yawar
Are these the feats that have the "Spellcraft X points" as prerequisites?
Are these the feats that have the "Spellcraft X points" as prerequisites?When the APG was in development Paizo staff anounced that the Archmage was going to be break down in feats, because the Archmage as a class was, essentially, the wizard but more and that was against Paizo's directive for Pathfinder. Needless to say, I agreed with that exposition and was excited about newcoming APG.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price. Evenmore they nerfed the most most underwhelming Archie's features, I am talking about Arcane Fire.
Don't get me wrong. The APG is an enjoyable, extraodinary, remarkable publication, a must have for every Pathfinder fan, but I feel that the work done with Archie feats was cheap.
Humbly,
Yawar
Unfortunately, yes-unfortunate because they become less exclusive to dedicated casters or even dedicated arcanists (which I perceive was the object of the OP). However, when you take into account the requisite of metamagic feats, which casters are far more likely to get mileage out of beyond the application of spell perfection, the feat does indirectly favour primary casters.
Too much free metamagic is what ruined 3.5.
Wizards already have several ways to do so, throug feats, class features and items.
Going too far on this route could be troublesome.
The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell
I think it made them too great, to be honest. If you want to change elements on the fly, play an evoker with the admixture subschool.
I'm happy with it. Seems balanced.
Besides, we still have Ultimate Magic coming.
Personally, I'd clear all feat selections planned for levels 15 onwards in favour of spell perfection. There's quite alot of power available right there. =) Free quickened 5th level spells? Yes please! =DWhen the APG was in development Paizo staff anounced that the Archmage was going to be break down in feats, because the Archmage as a class was, essentially, the wizard but more and that was against Paizo's directive for Pathfinder. Needless to say, I agreed with that exposition and was excited about newcoming APG.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price. Evenmore they nerfed the most most underwhelming Archie's features, I am talking about Arcane Fire.
Don't get me wrong. The APG is an enjoyable, extraodinary, remarkable publication, a must have for every Pathfinder fan, but I feel that the work done with Archie feats was cheap.
Humbly,
Yawar
You mean, Free quickened 5th level SPELL? I thought Spell Perfection was awesome too, but then I read it applies to only one spell that you choose when taking the feat. Rubbish.
And yes, I was disappointed too when I saw what they did with Archmage abilities. Not to mention the nerf on Spell-Like ability, now you need TWO feats to get a spell up to only 5th lvl as a SLA.
I'm not saying that that those feats are worthless, BUT if you announce that the only reason Archmage as a class doesn't exist is because you'll publish its abilities as feats, it's kinda lame to make them not even half of what they were in 3.5.
|
The problem with the Archmage was that it was a no-brainer. You lost nothing by taking the PrC, you gained a lot. A well-designed PrC is an option: you lose something, you gain something. The Archmage had no element of choice attached, it was dumb not to take it.
And please, really, Wizards don't need more buffs, thankyouverymuch.
The problem with the Archmage was that it was a no-brainer. You lost nothing by taking the PrC, you gained a lot. A well-designed PrC is an option: you lose something, you gain something. The Archmage had no element of choice attached, it was dumb not to take it.
And please, really, Wizards don't need more buffs, thankyouverymuch.
Erm, you need 3 feats to take Archmage. In 3.5 that's too much. Skill Focus is worthless, Spell Focuses... Well, not worthles, but not my first choice as feats, anyways. And for each ability you take, you lose high level spell slots.
3.5 Wizard didn't really *need* any feats apart from Quicken Spell, so blowing Skill Focus is not a loss, really.
As for the arcana, the ones that matter were more than worth losing spell slots.
Of course it's a loss. It's a feat that doesn't do anything and you could have taken something else instead of it. Improved Toughness, Improved Familiar, Alacritous Cogitation, Spell Penetration etc etc. Just read any Wizard guide and you'll see that there's a bunch of feats that wizard would need. Not to mention that there are certain feats thay ANY character needs. Some saves-boosting feats (Great Fortitude and its likes, or Improved Initiative or those feats that swap which ability score you use for saves).
Of course they are worth it, but that's hardly the point. You said that Archmages don't lose anything, I'm just providing proof that they do. Spell slots and feats are Wizard's most precious commodities and losing them hurts. Sure you get nice stuff in return, and most of all, those abilities that you get via High Arcana aren't the ones that make wizard overpowered. It's the spells. Mastery of Shaping just makes it easier to use some spells, for example. No need to delay your action in order for a friend to get out of you cone of Waves of Exhaustion, or move around the battlefield differently.
Just read any Wizard guide and you'll see that there's a bunch of feats that wizard would need.
There are a bunch of feats the wizard could have gained more benefit from. Suggesting that he needs them is to suggest that without them, he's going to be ineffective or dead. This is unlikely, considering that he is a wizard.
Spell slots and feats are Wizard's most precious commodities and losing them hurts.
Not being a wizard hurts more. ;)
ARCANE BLAST: I love this feat just as much as I loved the archmage ability, but I really wish it would clarify that it was a supernatural ability that did not provoke. That was the real strength of the old archmage ability, the ability to bypass almost all resistances to deal some damage.
ARCANE SHIELD: This was never an archmage ability, but is obviously based off of the idea. I love it.
ELEMENTAL SPELL: Not as versatile as the archmage's class ability, but much more balanced now overall.
MINOR/MAJOR SPELL EXPERTISE: I really wish these could be taken more than once. Furthermore, I think the spell level perquisite is too high. The old archmage could get a decent spell-like ability as early as 11th or 13th level rather than 17th.
PARRY SPELL: Disregarding the flaws of countering a spell with anything other than a readied damaging spell, I really like this feat.
REACH SPELL: I think this should be limited to touch range spells rather than ANY ranged spell. As written it makes Enlarge Spell almost completely worthless.
ARCANE BLAST: I love this feat just as much as I loved the archmage ability, but I really wish it would clarify that it was a supernatural ability that did not provoke. That was the real strength of the old archmage ability, the ability to bypass almost all resistances to deal some damage.
I hate the fact that blowing a ninth level spell only nets 11d6 of damage and only at 30 feet against a single opponent that you still have to hit. IF the damage was 2d6 per spell level with a range of 20 feet + 10 feet per spell level then I think it would have been were it needs to be -- as is, it's too little too late for the full casters (now the bard and summoner might see some usage from it).
ARCANE SHIELD: This was never an archmage ability, but is obviously based off of the idea. I love it.
I dislike the fact it's a deflection bonus, and that it only lasts for a single round -- a ninth level spell is worth more than a +9 deflection bonus for a single round -- heck a fifth level spell is worth more than a +5 deflection bonus for a single round. IF it was a round per spell level or a different type of bonus then sure -- but as it stands I really can't see anyone taking this feat, especially past level 10.
ELEMENTAL SPELL: Not as versatile as the archmage's class ability, but much more balanced now overall.
Meh this one is ok in my book. I would have liked a +0 level adjustment perhaps with some slightly heavier prerequisites for it, or the +1 level adjustment and the ability to choose the energy type when you cast the spell. As it is for full versitility you have to spend 4 feats -- or simply buy a few metamagic rods... which would probably be the better deal.
MINOR/MAJOR SPELL EXPERTISE: I really wish these could be taken more than once. Furthermore, I think the spell level perquisite is too high. The old archmage could get a decent spell-like ability as early as 11th or 13th level rather than 17th.
Agreed on the spell level prereq being too high... this is one I might take... but not regularly.
PARRY SPELL: Disregarding the flaws of countering a spell with anything other than a readied damaging spell, I really like this feat.
It's one I could see using in specialized builds.
REACH SPELL: I think this should be limited to touch range spells rather than ANY ranged spell. As written it makes Enlarge Spell almost completely worthless.
This is one I like -- but I agree that this is what enlarge spell should have been in the first place.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price.
Unless I am completely mistaken, Archmages couldn't do that at all. That was the shtick of the Incantatrix. Archmages could change elemental spells to another element and leave out party members from area spells. Between other stuff, but none of his abilities included ways to lower metamagic level increases.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price.Unless I am completely mistaken, Archmages couldn't do that at all. That was the shtick of the Incantatrix. Archmages could change elemental spells to another element and leave out party members from area spells.
They could apply effects very similir to metamagic effects to their spells hence the ¨¨.
Humbly,
Yawar
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price.Unless I am completely mistaken, Archmages couldn't do that at all. That was the shtick of the Incantatrix. Archmages could change elemental spells to another element and leave out party members from area spells. Between other stuff, but none of his abilities included ways to lower metamagic level increases.
+1
I'm reading the 3.5 DMG at the moment, the missing abilities claimed by the OP aren't part of the Archmage PrC, at least not in my copy.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price.Unless I am completely mistaken, Archmages couldn't do that at all. That was the shtick of the Incantatrix. Archmages could change elemental spells to another element and leave out party members from area spells.They could apply effects very similir to metamagic effects to their spells hence the ¨¨.
Humbly,
Yawar
Ok, now I understand what you mean.
The big difference I see is that an Archmage had to give up a spell slot to get an ability, and now the metamagic feats increase the spell slot used (by 1 in many cases). Furthermore Elemental Spell can no longer be used on the fly.
The feats are ok imho, altough the PrC had more flavour, but that's what the PrCs allow.
My personal thoughts is that it boils down to how the Archmage PrC worked in 3.X. It was a class that, unless a Wizard was specifically avoiding the prerequisite feats, all wizards would take. And why not? Full spellcasting progression, cool new abilities, you just throw away a feat (skill focus: spellcraft, which is at least minimally useful) and a few spell slots.
I know I took Archmage for most of the higher level mages and NPCs I statted up in 3.X.
Thats the basic definition of a Prestige Class or spell or feat or anything being too good! If most players/characters are going to take that ability/class, its too good.
While I loved the Archmage PrC, I do think it was too good.
3.5 Wizard didn't really *need* any feats apart from Quicken Spell, so blowing Skill Focus is not a loss, really.
As for the arcana, the ones that matter were more than worth losing spell slots.
Unless you used splat books (like Ultimate Feats), in which case the world of overpowered Munchkin-ness opened up for a Wizard with the right feats.
I personally am not a fan of the feats. While I appreciate the idea of them, I'm not happy with the execution.
Arcane Blast isn't worth taking; 2d6 plus 1d6 per spell level is not worth sacrificing the spell in the first place. Spending a 9th level spell slot for a mere 11d6 doesn't sound useful or fun.
|
I personally am not a fan of the feats. While I appreciate the idea of them, I'm not happy with the execution.
Arcane Blast isn't worth taking; 2d6 plus 1d6 per spell level is not worth sacrificing the spell in the first place. Spending a 9th level spell slot for a mere 11d6 doesn't sound useful or fun.
Maybe if it was 1d10 + 1d10 per spell level, that would be worth something.
Maybe if it was 1d10 + 1d10 per spell level, that would be worth something.I personally am not a fan of the feats. While I appreciate the idea of them, I'm not happy with the execution.
Arcane Blast isn't worth taking; 2d6 plus 1d6 per spell level is not worth sacrificing the spell in the first place. Spending a 9th level spell slot for a mere 11d6 doesn't sound useful or fun.
Still worthless. Check how much dmg can a martial class dish out at lvl 17+ and then compare it to the paltry 55 dmg Arcane Blast would do. For a 9th lvl slot. Just compare it to any other 9th lvl spell you could cast instead of using it for AB and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I personally am not a fan of the feats. While I appreciate the idea of them, I'm not happy with the execution.
Arcane Blast isn't worth taking; 2d6 plus 1d6 per spell level is not worth sacrificing the spell in the first place. Spending a 9th level spell slot for a mere 11d6 doesn't sound useful or fun.
Arcane Blast is 30' range ray that deals untyped damage permitting no saving throw. That you can convert ALL of your spells / spell slots to untyped damage is pretty sweet - it means that that character can ALWAYS deal damage to a foe. I'll happily take that.
The ability could use some clarification - as it stands, these rays are dished out as an extraordinary ability ... making them the perfect "fall back" attack at close range.
I don't think Arcane Blast is meant to replace the normal damaging spells, but a way to get some "blasty" when all you've got left are some utilitarian spells.
When I finally got to check out the ¨High Arcana¨ feats I stumble upon Metamagic feats. The whole point that made the Archmage great was its ability to apply ¨metamagic¨ on the fly without increasing the spell level, all of this at a price.Unless I am completely mistaken, Archmages couldn't do that at all. That was the shtick of the Incantatrix. Archmages could change elemental spells to another element and leave out party members from area spells.They could apply effects very similir to metamagic effects to their spells hence the ¨¨.
Humbly,
Yawar
But in Pathfinder, the standard Universalist Wizard can apply metamagic without increasing the spell level beginning at 8th level.
There's not really a need to add more abilities that base classes can already achieve on their own. The APG feats IMHO include it what I felt was also most valuable about the Archmage (changing elements, etc.).
Personally, I'm alright with Arcane Blast. It's not as potent as Arcane Fire, but I never liked Arcane Fire because you had to sac a 9th level slot, and I'd rather have more room for actual 9th level spells then just a giant blast. Time Stop is better than raw damage any day, IMHO.
I'd see Arcane Blast where you'd actually use with your lower level slots more, as a stopgap emergency damage ability rather than something you relied on for your major damage spells (3d6 damage for a 1st level spell slot is NOT bad at all, and perfect if you just need something to knock an already damaged foe over.).
Arcane Blast is 30' range ray that deals untyped damage permitting no saving throw. That you can convert ALL of your spells / spell slots to untyped damage is pretty sweet - it means that that character can ALWAYS deal damage to a foe. I'll happily take that.
The ability could use some clarification - as it stands, these rays are dished out as an extraordinary ability ... making them the perfect "fall back" attack at close range.
Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field. And as a touch attack, it's pretty useful.
Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field.
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field.
Why not, it's an extraordinary ability? I don't have access to my PDF so I can't look it up. Is there a clause that says it won't work?
Why not, it's an extraordinary ability? I don't have access to my PDF so I can't look it up. Is there a clause that says it won't work?No, it doesn't.
Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field.
Please cite where it states that Arcane Blast is an Extraordinary Ability? Most feats are, but not all. Feats that allow you to convert raw magical energy into a blast of magical power are clearly Supernatural at a minimum.
Please cite where it states that Arcane Blast is an Extraordinary Ability? Most feats are, but not all. Feats that allow you to convert raw magical energy into a blast of magical power are clearly Supernatural at a minimum.Why not, it's an extraordinary ability? I don't have access to my PDF so I can't look it up. Is there a clause that says it won't work?No, it doesn't.
Not to mention that it also works in an antimagic field.
I agree that it should state that - however, it does not do so at any point in the feat's description. APG page 150. As things presently stand, the citation is required stating anything other than extraordinary.
EDIT: I will house-rule the "high arcana" feats as supernatural at my own table, but "RAW" ... yeah, anti-magic fields do nothing to stop the blast.
Dun Dun DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!
As things presently stand, the citation is required stating anything other than extraordinary.
Please cite me the rule that states this.
I'll give you a tip: there does not exist a rule that says feats are extraordinary abilities. Thus, an exception is not required, because there's no rule to counteract.
Yes, it should be made clear that Arcane Blast is a Su or Sp ability, but just because it doesn't say it's one of those does not automatically mean it's Ex. In fact, the very definition of an Ex ability precludes Arcane Blast from being one without an exception being made.
As things presently stand, the citation is required stating anything other than extraordinary.Please cite me the rule that states this.
I'll give you a tip: there does not exist a rule that says feats are extraordinary abilities. Thus, an exception is not required, because there's no rule to counteract.
Yes, it should be made clear that Arcane Blast is a Su or Sp ability, but just because it doesn't say it's one of those does not automatically mean it's Ex. In fact, the very definition of an Ex ability precludes Arcane Blast from being one without an exception being made.
As I said, I agree that it should be - but at no point in ANY feat do they say that they are any type of ability - thus the default is extraordinary.
The source of certain feats I think is what we need to look at - which had been done by saying "why isn't this supernatural?" - simply asking that question answers it. Arcane Strike, the Channel and Smite-related feats, the arcane blast / shield / whatever feats - they all modify or allow a different use in some form of an existing class feature / ability.
Thus, in an anti-magic field arcane strike would not work - you do not have the ability to cast (arcane) spells in an anti-magic field.
The various feats pertaining to doing "alternative stuff" with Channel Energy and Smite are Supernatural abilities because the base ability is Supernatural. For a paladin, channel positive energy is such an alternative use of lay on hands.
Feats are there own "category" I'm thinking given what they do.
Given the specialist powers the Archmage is not needed as a PrC. The feats themselves have some moderate usage and will be used by some but not all which I think was the design intent because I believe Paizo wanted to go away from the concept of "Every wizard must take this to be useful" feats. This goes for every class and I completely agree. It's why I like this version of the rules better because you can play something that is not "optimal" and still have a decent character.
the default is extraordinary.
You keep saying this, but you refuse to provide backup. Where is the default listed as extraordinary?
As things presently stand, the citation is required stating anything other than extraordinary.Please cite me the rule that states this.
I'll give you a tip: there does not exist a rule that says feats are extraordinary abilities. Thus, an exception is not required, because there's no rule to counteract.
Yes, it should be made clear that Arcane Blast is a Su or Sp ability, but just because it doesn't say it's one of those does not automatically mean it's Ex. In fact, the very definition of an Ex ability precludes Arcane Blast from being one without an exception being made.
I was actually looking for the rule for the last couple of days that says feats are extraordinary. I can't find it anywhere in the book. I know it was in 3.5 but this isn't 3.5. I stand corrected. I actually was coming here to the thread just to say that I was wrong and noticed that you posted pretty much what I was going to say.
There is a description of what Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-Like abilities are. Most feats would qualify as Extraordinary but there are some that would be Supernatural or even Spell-Like. The feats should make it clear but I think this is the time for the GM to make clear and consistent rulings. Just because a feat doesn't follow the laws of physics doesn't make it non-extraordinary but in this case I believe that this particular feat should be non-extraordinary. It isn't a spell-like power so it can only be a supernatural one.
On the whole idea of Feats, and what is EX, SU, or SP, I think a little common sense and reason go a long way.
Sometimes going (or trying to go) strict RAW, just isn't feasible.
I know some like to go by RAW no matter what, and I can respect that, but when something isn't spelled (no pun intended)out specifically, you have to fall back on logic.
I added a house rule to my games that we'd stick to the RAW as much as possible, but in cases of confusion, or a corner case where something "broken" popped up, we'd resort to logic, reason, and the intent behind a rule, rather than strict interpretations.
the default is extraordinary.You keep saying this, but you refuse to provide backup. Where is the default listed as extraordinary?
Okay - let's try this again. The general trend has been to list specifically when something is either spell casting, spell-like or supernatural, yes? What does that leave: extraordinary.
Okay - let's try this again. The general trend has been to list specifically when something is either spell casting, spell-like or supernatural, yes? What does that leave: extraordinary.the default is extraordinary.You keep saying this, but you refuse to provide backup. Where is the default listed as extraordinary?
So in other words, you're not actually describing a rule, you're trying to invent a rule that doesn't exist to create a problem that doesn't exist without the nonexistent rule.
Stick with what the rules actually say. It generally causes less problems in cases like these. The rules say that an extraordinary ability is not magical in nature. Arcane Blast is clearly magical in nature; thus, it cannot be extraordinary.
Creative Director
|
the default is extraordinary.You keep saying this, but you refuse to provide backup. Where is the default listed as extraordinary?
I'm trying not to get TOO involved in this thread...
But the initial 3rd edition design philosophy was that feats should always model things that could, theoretically, happen in real life. In that initial design philosophy, the powers granted by feats defaulted to Extraordinary abilities. I suspect that they publicly mentioned this philosophy, either in a Dragon article or perhaps even in the text of the original 3rd edition Player's Handbook.
This was a philosophy that relatively quickly got swept to the curb as 3rd edition matured and the designers realized that having feats grant supernatural or even spell-like abilities is an interesting direction to take feats. And a logical one, since the vast majority of PC class options are magic using or spellcasting in some way.
In Pathfinder, we do not start from a base assumption that feats are extraordinary. They can be any sort of ability, although they generally skew toward being extraordinary abilities.
the default is extraordinary.You keep saying this, but you refuse to provide backup. Where is the default listed as extraordinary?
They said something to that effect in the 3.5 Expanded Psionic Handbook, for instance:
"Because psionic feats are supernatural abilities—-a departure from the general rule that feats do not grant supernatural abilities—-they cannot be disrupted in combat (as powers can be) and generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity (except as noted in their descriptions)."
Take that with a whopping grain of salt, of course, and it doesn't necessarily apply to Pathfinder.