| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a blog post about Ex abilities vs. Su abilities, how that interacts with the idea of "martial characters aren't magical and therefore shouldn't be able to do X because you can't do that without magic," and how abandoning the need for defining something as Ex or Su might give some traction to abandoning that limitation.
I thought people here might be interested in the topic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting thoughts, though I for one really enjoy knowing whether an ability is magical. It helps my understanding of the world, and of the nature of magic, to know that a firebreathing dragon is using magic to do so, rather than having to wonder whether it's supposed to be a biological process that combusts internal chemicals.
It might eliminate some silly forum arguments, sure, but keeping the (Su) and (Ex) distinction helps clarify a designer's intent.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, and I see your point. But there is no reason that non casters can't get SU abilities right now other than that those abilities aren't being designed for them.
Also I don't think it's fair to call down AMF as the root of Martials not getting "nice things". AMF serves a purpose, it serves it well. Your argument could be misconstrued by some to just eliminating AMF which serves a necessary purpose.
As a guideline any character should be able to access SU abilities at some point in their carreer, easily by 5th or 6th character level.
The major downside to the 3.X magic system is that it operates without any fundamental rules or boundaries. Beyond a max level of 9, and a cap on spells per day, d20 spells can do ANYTHING. That leads to the "Muggle Doctrine", that those who can't cast spells can't do anything really worthwhile.
I find that limiting.
As an addendum to this.
The Antagonize feat made people freak out. Would they have been willing to accept it if it was a SU ability?
|
As an addendum to this.
The Antagonize feat made people freak out. Would they have been willing to accept it if it was a SU ability?
With no Save? No, probably not.
Would've made it less illogical, but not less mechanically problematic.
On the more general subject: Interesting. Seems reasonable enough...though I'm not sure it's necessary to accomplish what seems to be the goal (ie: Fighters with Supernatural stuff and so on). Which is a goal I agree is worthwhile to a large degree, don't get me wrong...I'm just saying I'm not sure removing the distinction is necessary to achieve it.
I would see most magic as supernatural powers organized via spells. Purely supernatural powers are more primal and unrelated to spells but still very much tied to the impossible that comes with fantasy.
Extraordinary abilities strike me as only improbable. That means that anything in Sci-fi is fair game for these abilities. These abilities can do just as much as supernatural abilities but they require more thought and justification (but just barely).
It is not like one is stronger than the other. Superman (powers come from the sun) and Dr. Fate (powers comes from magic) both exist in the same universe. One is extraordinary, the other is supernatural.
I think it is appropriate to distinguish the two even if that causes balance problems. But I would like developers to realize that (Ex) does not have to be second class to (Su). One only has to look as far as the X-men to see that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there is no reason that non casters can't get SU abilities right now other than that those abilities aren't being designed for them.
The brawler was given a Su ability to penetrate DR, and pro-martial people complained about it (as in "why does a nonmagical character have this magical ability?").
(Which was a totally separate issue from "I want the brawler to have a different ability to penetrate DR that doesn't work like the monk ability to penetrate DR."
out about it (they also frea
Also I don't think it's fair to call down AMF as the root of Martials not getting "nice things".
I'm not saying it's the root, but it is a symptom of the problem.
The major downside to the 3.X magic system is that it operates without any fundamental rules or boundaries. Beyond a max level of 9, and a cap on spells per day, d20 spells can do ANYTHING. That leads to the "Muggle Doctrine", that those who can't cast spells can't do anything really worthwhile.
I find that limiting.
Yes, that's my point. It's a fantasy world, even the non-spellcasters don't have to be limited to nonmagical abilities. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's my point. It's a fantasy world, even the non-spellcasters don't have to be limited to nonmagical abilities. :)
This is a valid point. The fighter's niche has always been, "Versatile class that excels with a specific type of weapon." No where in that niche does the phrase "no magic" come into play.
To expand even further, would Ray Shield (an Advanced Player's Guide feat) be Supernatural or Extraordinary if it wasn't a feat? By my best guess, probably supernatural because many people would claim that the ability to deflect magic requires magic.
I thought SKR's article was very though-provoking and made sense.
I seem to recall it being that feats are, unless otherwise stated, Extraordinary, and that an Extraordinary ability is supposed to let a character do something, well, extraordinary. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there is no reason that non casters can't get SU abilities right now other than that those abilities aren't being designed for them.The brawler was given a Su ability to penetrate DR, and pro-martial people complained about it (as in "why does a nonmagical character have this magical ability?").
(Which was a totally separate issue from "I want the brawler to have a different ability to penetrate DR that doesn't work like the monk ability to penetrate DR."
out about it (they also freaAlso I don't think it's fair to call down AMF as the root of Martials not getting "nice things".I'm not saying it's the root, but it is a symptom of the problem.
Yes, that's my point. It's a fantasy world, even the non-spellcasters don't have to be limited to nonmagical abilities. :)The major downside to the 3.X magic system is that it operates without any fundamental rules or boundaries. Beyond a max level of 9, and a cap on spells per day, d20 spells can do ANYTHING. That leads to the "Muggle Doctrine", that those who can't cast spells can't do anything really worthwhile.
I find that limiting.
Quick correction. Those are not Pro-martials. They are anti-martials that claim to like martials a lot but really mean they like low level play a lot. People who point out how weak martials are and how powerful casters can be are the pro-martials. Those people who don't like non-spellcasters to have anything they consider to be magical are literally the reason we real pro-martials can't have nice things.
Interesting, and I see your point. But there is no reason that non casters can't get SU abilities right now other than that those abilities aren't being designed for them. . . .
This.
There were plenty of fighter types in myth and legend that performed supernatural feats. In a fantasy game that is inspired, at least in part, by our own collective (hi)stories, it would hurt nothing to have those available to players who want a character like Cuchulainn, Fionn mac Cumhaill, Beowulf, Achilles, Odysseus, or others.
Yes, that's my point. It's a fantasy world, even the non-spellcasters don't have to be limited to nonmagical abilities. :)This is a valid point. The fighter's niche has always been, "Versatile class that excels with a specific type of weapon." No where in that niche does the phrase "no magic" come into play. . . .
I think a character's skill in arms should allow them to do amazing things that would seem impossible in our physics run world. In a world of magic, things would evolve in response to magic to combat it.
This issue also highlights, for me, a troupe that doesn't currently exist in game. That magic usually has a loophole. For example, spells cast by fey aren't inhibited by iron. Destroying a spell focus doesn't end the spell. And curses can't be dispelled by a public display of affection.
Quick correction. Those are not Pro-martials. They are anti-martials that claim to like martials a lot but really mean they like low level play a lot. People who point out how weak martials are and how powerful casters can be are the pro-martials. Those people who don't like non-spellcasters to have anything they consider to be magical are literally the reason we real pro-martials can't have nice things.
My recollection of the brawler-DR discussion was with people who are very pro-martial, were enthusiastic about the brawler as a non-mystical alternative to the monk class, and didn't feel that the Su DR-penetrating ability fit the otherwise-not-magical brawler class. But perhaps I am remembering it wrong.
I haven't really ever seen Anti-Magic Field do anything, because other than some really specific builds, it is hard to get the thing to not ruin the party. If that is the only way to distinguish between Ex and Su abilities, it seems there is room for more things that do distinguish. I suppose you could drop it entirely, I don't think it would change much and it would save on word count at the very least.
I was planning to make a post about AMF and how terrible it is as an equalizer (available very late, unpopular because of how anti-fun it is for casters due to lack of counterplay). You seem to capture most of sentiment in this post.
The ex vs su thing shows up a lot if you compare the power of normal rogue tricks to ninja tricks or barbarian rage powers. Basically because rogue tricks are stuck as ex they are often way more limited. Either in over all power or how often they can be uses.
That said I have only seen amf used once by a of at the end of rotrl.
|
Utterly minor data point (i.e. not trying to be pedantic or difficult). AMF is not the only place in CRB that EX v. SU makes a difference. The Superstition rage power also keys on SU abilities. (I'm not aware of any others off the top of my head.)
Utterly minor data point (i.e. not trying to be pedantic or difficult). AMF is not the only place in CRB that EX v. SU makes a difference. The Superstition rage power also keys on SU abilities. (I'm not aware of any others off the top of my head.)
True. :)
Well the thought of a brawler's DR turning off in an AMF when nothing about their class is described as explicitly magical is a bit weird. That's the only thing I can think of.
My recollection of the brawler-DR discussion was with people who are very pro-martial, were enthusiastic about the brawler as a non-mystical alternative to the monk class, and didn't feel that the Su DR-penetrating ability fit the otherwise-not-magical brawler class. But perhaps I am remembering it wrong.
I agree, which is why their ability (at least the version that went to editing) was changed to Ex rather than Su, as in practice there's very little difference between each category. (Plus, for most DR we don't specify whether it's Ex or Su, so you don't know if the DR should shut off in AMF or not...).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I basically agree with the premise of the article, I... don't think it does much to sway people who are already resisting more legendary martials. It takes away the in-game label and justification but people will still whine when a Fighter does something that would be beyond what a real-world human could do.
I don't think getting rid of the concept of Ex and Su is necessary. We just need to be able to accept Charles Atlas superpowers; the Brawler doesn't bypass DR because of some mystical powers, the Brawler bypasses DR because he just punches so hard it breaks the rules of the game. People's definition of magical/supernatural is too broad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't suppose we could dispense with calling the other side of the debate whiners or blaming them for why your side "can't get nice things"? Those are the attitudes that spawned the edition wars - dismissing and belittling other people's opinions. People have different opinions. We can respect that and disagree without being a jerks, can't we?
Personally, I like relying on Ex abilities for martial character and consider many of them to be some pretty damn nice things, indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like relying on Ex abilities, too. I just consider punching the ground so hard that it causes an earthquake to be an extraordinary ability.
Modules Overlord
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also comers into play for the spells arcane cannon, banish seeming, gaseous form, and healing thief, the feats Dragonheart and Witchbreaker, the conductive magic weapon ability and forsaken banded mail, and the fey-taken drawback and noble born traits.
NONE of that is mainstream Pathfinder material (though its all official), but it is a sign of how the Ex/Su distinction can be a useful tool of specific design ideas. I'd hate to lose it.
I would love to see a strong design theme that Ex abilities can do things like reflect spells using a shield, and that martial classes can pick up magical abilities. But I don't think eliminating the difference between Ex and Su is the way to get there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support this wholeheartedly. If a dragon can fly in an antimagic field, a barbarian leaping and whatnot doesn't need to be magic, either.
Similarly, what makes the fire from a fireball, a dragon's breath, and alchemist's fire so different that they behave differently when burning a creature with spell resistance, an iron golem, or an antimagic field.
A fireball is resisted by spell resistance, heals an iron golem, and stops at the edge of an antimagic field.
Dragon breath gets past the spell resistance, but still heals the iron golem, and stops at the edge of an antimagic field.
Alchemist's fire ignores spell resistance, damages an iron golem, and gets through the antimagic field.
I support this wholeheartedly. If a dragon can fly in an antimagic field, a barbarian leaping and whatnot doesn't need to be magic, either.
Similarly, what makes the fire from a fireball, a dragon's breath, and alchemist's fire so different that they behave differently when burning a creature with spell resistance, an iron golem, or an antimagic field.
A fireball is resisted by spell resistance, heals an iron golem, and stops at the edge of an antimagic field.
Dragon breath gets past the spell resistance, but still heals the iron golem, and stops at the edge of an antimagic field.
Alchemist's fire ignores spell resistance, damages an iron golem, and gets through the antimagic field.
That's easy. Fireballs and dragon's breath are magical. Alchemist's fire is not.
Next.
Right, but why does a dragon's breath have to be magical, when its strength, ability to fly, and longevity are not? Why is the fire created by a fireball still magical after it has exploded?
Why does a fireballs magical fire get stopped by spell resistance but a dragon's magical fire not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but why does a dragon's breath have to be magical, when its strength, ability to fly, and longevity are not? Why is the fire created by a fireball still magical after it has exploded?
Why does a fireballs magical fire get stopped by spell resistance but a dragon's magical fire not?
Because that's how magic works. Let me make an analogy. Asking those questions in a magical setting is similar to me asking the following:
If science is real, why does wood burn and iron doesn't? And don't use none o' that highfalutin' "physics" or "chemistery" non-sense, I don't hold with any o' that "science!" If your book learning is true, why do different things burn different colors????? Why isn't all fire the same?????
It's an absurd question and I exaggerated mine for comedic effect, because the answer to my questions is that it's simply how the universe works, and the answer to your question is that it's simply how Golarion works. It's magic. My questions can be answered with a careful explanation of real-life physics, because we understand our world. Yours can't, because we don't understand Golarion. I'm sure someone who had ranks in K. Arcana, like Ezren, could provide you with a more detailed answer.
Fire is fire. Fireball's odd behavior may be an argument that it is magical, but when a dragon breathes fire it's operating through perfectly mundane inertia and convection once it leaves the dragon's mouth.I support this wholeheartedly. If a dragon can fly in an antimagic field, a barbarian leaping and whatnot doesn't need to be magic, either.
Similarly, what makes the fire from a fireball, a dragon's breath, and alchemist's fire so different that they behave differently when burning a creature with spell resistance, an iron golem, or an antimagic field.
A fireball is resisted by spell resistance, heals an iron golem, and stops at the edge of an antimagic field.
Dragon breath gets past the spell resistance, but still heals the iron golem, and stops at the edge of an antimagic field.
Alchemist's fire ignores spell resistance, damages an iron golem, and gets through the antimagic field.
That's easy. Fireballs and dragon's breath are magical. Alchemist's fire is not.
Next.
Clearly not, since it's Su and various items specifically give protection from the breath weapons of dragon and not mundane fire.
There's no reason for dragonfire to be supernatural. Anyone can breathe fire. All it takes is a mouthful of high proof alcohol and a lighter or spark. Dragon flight, on the other hand, violates the square cube law and therefore cannot possibly be anything but magic and yet it's Ex.
That's what people used to say about bees flying when they didn't understand how bees flew. Bees continued flying anyway, and it turned out not to be magic. I suspect the same is happening here.
This isn't a matter of aerodynamics. It's about weight to power ratios. Weight to power ratios that are fully endorsed by the rules since strength modifiers do not go up with the cube of size categories as they would have to for biologically powered flight to scale up.
That's what people used to say about bees flying when they didn't understand how bees flew. Bees continued flying anyway, and it turned out not to be magic. I suspect the same is happening here.
This is not endorsed by the rules at all. A dragon's weight is not specified. You cannot argue that they are not strong enough to fly with their weight if you do not know what they weigh.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also comers into play for the spells arcane cannon, banish seeming, gaseous form, and healing thief, the feats Dragonheart and Witchbreaker, the conductive magic weapon ability and forsaken banded mail, and the fey-taken drawback and noble born traits.
NONE of that is mainstream Pathfinder material (though its all official), but it is a sign of how the Ex/Su distinction can be a useful tool of specific design ideas. I'd hate to lose it.
I would love to see a strong design theme that Ex abilities can do things like reflect spells using a shield, and that martial classes can pick up magical abilities. But I don't think eliminating the difference between Ex and Su is the way to get there.
I basically agree with all this. Ex abilities need to be extraordinary. A guy who can punch a wall for lots of damage is ordinary. A guy who can shatter a hole in a castle wall with his bare fist is extra ordinary. The anti-martials would claim this requires Su abilities though/isn't mundane enough/has to much spiral energy for them. Reflect spells with your shield, cut enchantments with your sword. Cut a distance foe with a vacuum slash. Being able to hit multiple opponents that are in a line. These are the kinds of things a 10+ Martial character should be capable of. Not "Can make one more attack at -5 less then the last attack, provided of course neither they or the opponent have moved."
But there is no reason that non casters can't get SU abilities right now other than that those abilities aren't being designed for them.The brawler was given a Su ability to penetrate DR, and pro-martial people complained about it (as in "why does a nonmagical character have this magical ability?").
I would aks , what is the problem of penetrating DR as (EX)?
The anti-martials would claim this requires Su abilities though/isn't mundane enough/has to much spiral energy for them.
I've seen people argue that the ability to jump high enough to tag a dragon would be supernatural.
I mean, they're wrong, but the argument is being made. Which is Anzyr's point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would aks , what is the problem of penetrating DR as (EX)?
Nothing, which is why I changed it to Ex.
But there is no reason that non casters can't get SU abilities right now other than that those abilities aren't being designed for them.The brawler was given a Su ability to penetrate DR, and pro-martial people complained about it (as in "why does a nonmagical character have this magical ability?").
My recollection of the brawler-DR discussion was with people who are very pro-martial, were enthusiastic about the brawler as a non-mystical alternative to the monk class, and didn't feel that the Su DR-penetrating ability fit the otherwise-not-magical brawler class. But perhaps I am remembering it wrong.
Slightly.
It wasn't so much "Why does this pure martial class have a Su ability? I dun like it" and more "Why does THIS PARTICULAR martial class (billed as a Monk 'without the mysticism') have a Su ability that could work just as easily as an Ex one?"
It was a minor, flavor based gripe in the bigger complaint of it not having something a bit more unique.
I kind of like the idea of changing the amf spell such that it impacts spells and spell likes instead of everything that isn't ex. At that point you can basically make ex abilities identical to su abilities and the difference would be fluff basically.