HURRY! DON'T BE THE LAST ONE TO SEE THIS THREAD! [Archive] - Wizards Community

HURRY! DON'T BE THE LAST ONE TO SEE THIS THREAD! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Pitiless_Interfector
11-25-07, 04:27 PM Apologies for the title.

Here, I would like to address a concern of mine in regards to supernatural abilities. While the rules currently distinguish between spell-like and psi-like abilities, they make no such provision for supernatural abilities that arise from magic and those that are psionic in nature. So, to avoid future confusion, I would suggest that the term 'metaphysical ability' be put forth, as defined below:

Metaphysical Abilities (Me)

Metaphysical abilities are psionic and go away in a null psionics field but are not subject to power resistance or being negated by dispel psionics. Using a metaphysical ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Metaphysical abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like psi-like abilities. However, metaphysical abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a metaphysical ability has an effective manifester level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a metaphysical ability is 10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s relevant ability modifier (usually Charisma).
For purposes of magic-psionics transparency, metaphysical abilities function identically to supernatural abilities.

All in favor?
Callix
11-25-07, 08:57 PM Say what? Deconstruct the meaning of "supernatural" for me. To me, it says "beyond the laws of nature; physically impossible". Nothing about arcane/divine/psionics divides, just not "freakishy good at something", which is what Extraordinary abilities cover.

The reason for the distinction between (Sp) and (Ps) is simply because the psionics crowd would go crazy if all the psionic creatures had their abilities listed as "spell-like". There is no real flavour issue about psionics not being supernatural, so why mess with it? It's just one more thing to remember to no mechanical or flavour benefit.
serow_#R
11-25-07, 09:11 PM It feels unnecessary, (Su) abilities are magical by nature, it doesn't have to be divine/arcane/psionic by definition.
dman11235
11-25-07, 09:23 PM Yeah, there's no need for this. It's supernatural, plain and simple. The reason there are psi-like abilities is that psionics is slightly different than spells (different powers). And there's the option of different abilities (non-transparancy). There is no reason, flavor or mechanical, for the ability type.
NoldorForce
11-25-07, 09:26 PM The reason for the distinction between (Sp) and (Ps) is simply because the psionics crowd would go crazy if all the psionic creatures had their abilities listed as "spell-like".It also helps with respect to the Psionics is Different variant; spell-like abilities bypass PR, while psi-like abilities bypass SR. It still is mostly flavor, though, considering that Psionics is Different is often/usually a bad idea.

I agree with the rest of your stuff, though; "supernatural" refers as a catch-all to just about every magical/mystical/impossible-through-purely-physical-means ability that isn't covered by other stuff. In addition, there's very little mechanical change that comes from inserting such a difference; the only effect will again occur in a Psionics is Different campaign. And it shows up only when you use Antimagic Field or Null Psionics Field. Such a specialized case does not warrant an entire new type of creature abilities.
Tempest Stormwind
11-25-07, 10:29 PM The reason for the distinction between (Sp) and (Ps) is simply because the psionics crowd would go crazy if all the psionic creatures had their abilities listed as "spell-like".

And the minor nitpick that there's a subtle difference between spells and powers (i.e. spell-likes take effect at a particular caster level, while psi-likes take effect at a particular manifester level *and* are considered augmented to that level).
InkBlot
11-25-07, 11:22 PM Supernatural powers are neither arcane, divine, nor psionic. They're just supernatural.
Pitiless_Interfector
11-25-07, 11:36 PM Supernatural powers are neither arcane, divine, nor psionic. They're just supernatural.

Isn't the soulknife's mind blade listed as (Su)?
Tempest Stormwind
11-25-07, 11:59 PM Isn't the soulknife's mind blade is listed as (Su)?

Non sequitor. Reread InkBlot's comment. The mind blade is (Su), but supernatural abilities aren't psionic, arcane, or divine in nature in the same way magic is. The fact that you'd find Turn Undead under (Su) as well should be a giveaway.
NoldorForce
11-26-07, 01:04 AM ...but supernatural abilities aren't psionic, arcane, or divine in nature in the same way standard magic is.Minor nitpick; after all, the binder's primary class features are (Su) as well (further supporting your argument, no?).
CrimsonDeath
11-26-07, 06:56 AM I like the idea of having a separate category for psionically derived (Su) abilities, but for the purpose of game mechanics, I believe the simplicity of lumping them all together makes more sense. It avoids cluttering up the game with more techincal terms than necessary.
Pitiless_Interfector
11-26-07, 10:45 PM Actually, there's an entire category of feats (including Antipsionic Magic, Chaotic Mind, Hostile Mind, Improved Hostile Mind, Force of Will, and Psionic Hole) that rely on violating psionics-magic transparency. As the rules stand, an elf wizard with the Meager Fortitude and Pathetic (Constitution) flaws, Plucky and Detached traits, Iron Will, and Force of Will who comes across a thought slayer is f***ed, since the beast's Mind-Consuming Gaze (Su) is Fort DC 19 or die. Seeing as it is mind-affecting and originates from a creature with the (Psionic) subtype, it would be reasonable to assume that Mind-Consuming Gaze is psionic in nature, and thusly the elf's Force of Will feat would enable him to put that crazy Will save (Wis mod + 1/2 level + 6) to use and avoid being brain-pasted. Of course, to be perfectly squared away from a rules standpoint, you'd have to amend the feat to function against powers, psi-like abilities, and metaphysical abilities, and typecast the gaze as (Me) [both relatively insignificant changes, when it comes down to it].
NoldorForce
11-27-07, 02:02 AM First, that line of feats has a rather inconsistent design, considering that there aren't any equivalents for regular magic. Force of Will, for instance, would be much more useful if it applied against spells and SLAs instead. But it doesn't, and no feat does. (You'd likely see complaints about them on these boards.)

Second, using the antipsionic feat line to support the concept of metaphysical abilities makes sense in the same way that our discussions could be used to deal with rules issues in GURPS. There's a tenuous connection at best - Force of Will is in fact one of the two feats out of seven for which such a distinction even matters. (The other is Closed Mind, another of those feats which would be notably more powerful if they applied against magic.) The others, whether by design or from the dearth of "psionic" supernatural abilities, would never be capable of applying to them.

(Essentially, you're making this argument based on the potential effect from two feats interacting with a mere handful of creature abilities. A few cases here and there do not merit a broad rules change.)

Third, recall how it's been noted above that supernatural abilities are (as they stand) neither arcane, divine, nor psionic? There are already a couple of effects (spells, class abilities, creature abilities) that make distinctions between spells/SLAs and supernatural effects. The most common sort gives a bonus to saves against the former set, but not the latter. If the rules have seen fit to make supernatural effects distinct with respect to standard magic, what's wrong with leaving them distinct with respect to psionics as well?

Fourth, that particular elf wizard deserves to die against the thought slayer if he's within range.
-He should have seen it and gotten farther away while he was still more than thirty feet away.
-He shouldn't have been tanking his Fortitude save or his Constitution score (ie, hit points) in general.
-He should have himself some saving throw bonuses to offset that whole mess.
-He should have had some sort of Death Ward effect that he was capable of throwing up - death effects are relatively common around those levels.
Pitiless_Interfector
11-27-07, 07:58 PM (Essentially, you're making this argument based on the potential effect from two feats interacting with a mere handful of creature abilities. A few cases here and there do not merit a broad rules change.)

What rules change? (Me) is identical to (Su) if you follow psionics-magic transparency (as most sane people do). Using an (Me) ability provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures with the feats Supernatural Reflexes or Supernatural Crusader, go away in antimagic field spells and null psionics zone powers alike, can be affected by feats such as Empower Supernatural Ability, and can be deleted by the spell expunge the supernatural. Come to think of it, those are essentially the only instances where psionics-is-different would make (Me)/(Su) a noteworthy distinction.
NoldorForce
11-27-07, 11:05 PM What rules change? (Me) is identical to (Su) if you follow psionics-magic transparency (as most sane people do). Using an (Me) ability provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures with the feats Supernatural Reflexes or Supernatural Crusader, go away in antimagic field spells and null psionics zone powers alike, can be affected by feats such as Empower Supernatural Ability, and can be deleted by the spell expunge the supernatural. Come to think of it, those are essentially the only instances where psionics-is-different would make (Me)/(Su) a noteworthy distinction.So why do we need such a distinction if it's mostly window-dressing?
Pitiless_Interfector
12-06-07, 08:34 PM So why do we need such a distinction if it's mostly window-dressing?

For the only reason window dressing is ever put up: aesthetics.
Tsuul
12-06-07, 09:31 PM You mind changing the title?
It'd really help out the search function.
NoldorForce
12-06-07, 11:00 PM For the only reason window dressing is ever put up: aesthetics.Then it's flavor, in which case we don't need rules to represent things when mere handwaving is necessary.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pitiless_Interfector 11-25-07, 04:27 PM	Apologies for the title. Here, I would like to address a concern of mine in regards to supernatural abilities. While the rules currently distinguish between spell-like and psi-like abilities, they make no such provision for supernatural abilities that arise from magic and those that are psionic in nature. So, to avoid future confusion, I would suggest that the term 'metaphysical ability' be put forth, as defined below: Metaphysical Abilities (Me) Metaphysical abilities are psionic and go away in a null psionics field but are not subject to power resistance or being negated by dispel psionics. Using a metaphysical ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Metaphysical abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like psi-like abilities. However, metaphysical abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a metaphysical ability has an effective manifester level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a metaphysical ability is 10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s relevant ability modifier (usually Charisma). For purposes of magic-psionics transparency, metaphysical abilities function identically to supernatural abilities. All in favor?
Callix 11-25-07, 08:57 PM	Say what? Deconstruct the meaning of "supernatural" for me. To me, it says "beyond the laws of nature; physically impossible". Nothing about arcane/divine/psionics divides, just not "freakishy good at something", which is what Extraordinary abilities cover. The reason for the distinction between (Sp) and (Ps) is simply because the psionics crowd would go crazy if all the psionic creatures had their abilities listed as "spell-like". There is no real flavour issue about psionics not being supernatural, so why mess with it? It's just one more thing to remember to no mechanical or flavour benefit.
serow_#R 11-25-07, 09:11 PM	It feels unnecessary, (Su) abilities are magical by nature, it doesn't have to be divine/arcane/psionic by definition.
dman11235 11-25-07, 09:23 PM	Yeah, there's no need for this. It's supernatural, plain and simple. The reason there are psi-like abilities is that psionics is slightly different than spells (different powers). And there's the option of different abilities (non-transparancy). There is no reason, flavor or mechanical, for the ability type.
NoldorForce 11-25-07, 09:26 PM	The reason for the distinction between (Sp) and (Ps) is simply because the psionics crowd would go crazy if all the psionic creatures had their abilities listed as "spell-like".It also helps with respect to the Psionics is Different variant; spell-like abilities bypass PR, while psi-like abilities bypass SR. It still is mostly flavor, though, considering that Psionics is Different is often/usually a bad idea. I agree with the rest of your stuff, though; "supernatural" refers as a catch-all to just about every magical/mystical/impossible-through-purely-physical-means ability that isn't covered by other stuff. In addition, there's very little mechanical change that comes from inserting such a difference; the only effect will again occur in a Psionics is Different campaign. And it shows up only when you use Antimagic Field or Null Psionics Field. Such a specialized case does not warrant an entire new type of creature abilities.
Tempest Stormwind 11-25-07, 10:29 PM	The reason for the distinction between (Sp) and (Ps) is simply because the psionics crowd would go crazy if all the psionic creatures had their abilities listed as "spell-like". And the minor nitpick that there's a subtle difference between spells and powers (i.e. spell-likes take effect at a particular caster level, while psi-likes take effect at a particular manifester level and are considered augmented to that level).
InkBlot 11-25-07, 11:22 PM	Supernatural powers are neither arcane, divine, nor psionic. They're just supernatural.
Pitiless_Interfector 11-25-07, 11:36 PM	Supernatural powers are neither arcane, divine, nor psionic. They're just supernatural. Isn't the soulknife's mind blade listed as (Su)?
Tempest Stormwind 11-25-07, 11:59 PM	Isn't the soulknife's mind blade is listed as (Su)? Non sequitor. Reread InkBlot's comment. The mind blade is (Su), but supernatural abilities aren't psionic, arcane, or divine in nature in the same way magic is. The fact that you'd find Turn Undead under (Su) as well should be a giveaway.
NoldorForce 11-26-07, 01:04 AM	...but supernatural abilities aren't psionic, arcane, or divine in nature in the same way standard magic is.Minor nitpick; after all, the binder's primary class features are (Su) as well (further supporting your argument, no?).
CrimsonDeath 11-26-07, 06:56 AM	I like the idea of having a separate category for psionically derived (Su) abilities, but for the purpose of game mechanics, I believe the simplicity of lumping them all together makes more sense. It avoids cluttering up the game with more techincal terms than necessary.
Pitiless_Interfector 11-26-07, 10:45 PM	Actually, there's an entire category of feats (including Antipsionic Magic, Chaotic Mind, Hostile Mind, Improved Hostile Mind, Force of Will, and Psionic Hole) that rely on violating psionics-magic transparency. As the rules stand, an elf wizard with the Meager Fortitude and Pathetic (Constitution) flaws, Plucky and Detached traits, Iron Will, and Force of Will who comes across a thought slayer is f***ed, since the beast's Mind-Consuming Gaze (Su) is Fort DC 19 or die. Seeing as it is mind-affecting and originates from a creature with the (Psionic) subtype, it would be reasonable to assume that Mind-Consuming Gaze is psionic in nature, and thusly the elf's Force of Will feat would enable him to put that crazy Will save (Wis mod + 1/2 level + 6) to use and avoid being brain-pasted. Of course, to be perfectly squared away from a rules standpoint, you'd have to amend the feat to function against powers, psi-like abilities, and metaphysical abilities, and typecast the gaze as (Me) [both relatively insignificant changes, when it comes down to it].
NoldorForce 11-27-07, 02:02 AM	First, that line of feats has a rather inconsistent design, considering that there aren't any equivalents for regular magic. Force of Will, for instance, would be much more useful if it applied against spells and SLAs instead. But it doesn't, and no feat does. (You'd likely see complaints about them on these boards.) Second, using the antipsionic feat line to support the concept of metaphysical abilities makes sense in the same way that our discussions could be used to deal with rules issues in GURPS. There's a tenuous connection at best - Force of Will is in fact one of the two feats out of seven for which such a distinction even matters. (The other is Closed Mind, another of those feats which would be notably more powerful if they applied against magic.) The others, whether by design or from the dearth of "psionic" supernatural abilities, would never be capable of applying to them. (Essentially, you're making this argument based on the potential effect from two feats interacting with a mere handful of creature abilities. A few cases here and there do not merit a broad rules change.) Third, recall how it's been noted above that supernatural abilities are (as they stand) neither arcane, divine, nor psionic? There are already a couple of effects (spells, class abilities, creature abilities) that make distinctions between spells/SLAs and supernatural effects. The most common sort gives a bonus to saves against the former set, but not the latter. If the rules have seen fit to make supernatural effects distinct with respect to standard magic, what's wrong with leaving them distinct with respect to psionics as well? Fourth, that particular elf wizard deserves to die against the thought slayer if he's within range. -He should have seen it and gotten farther away while he was still more than thirty feet away. -He shouldn't have been tanking his Fortitude save or his Constitution score (ie, hit points) in general. -He should have himself some saving throw bonuses to offset that whole mess. -He should have had some sort of Death Ward effect that he was capable of throwing up - death effects are relatively common around those levels.
Pitiless_Interfector 11-27-07, 07:58 PM	(Essentially, you're making this argument based on the potential effect from two feats interacting with a mere handful of creature abilities. A few cases here and there do not merit a broad rules change.) What rules change? (Me) is identical to (Su) if you follow psionics-magic transparency (as most sane people do). Using an (Me) ability provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures with the feats Supernatural Reflexes or Supernatural Crusader, go away in antimagic field spells and null psionics zone powers alike, can be affected by feats such as Empower Supernatural Ability, and can be deleted by the spell expunge the supernatural. Come to think of it, those are essentially the only instances where psionics-is-different would make (Me)/(Su) a noteworthy distinction.
NoldorForce 11-27-07, 11:05 PM	What rules change? (Me) is identical to (Su) if you follow psionics-magic transparency (as most sane people do). Using an (Me) ability provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures with the feats Supernatural Reflexes or Supernatural Crusader, go away in antimagic field spells and null psionics zone powers alike, can be affected by feats such as Empower Supernatural Ability, and can be deleted by the spell expunge the supernatural. Come to think of it, those are essentially the only instances where psionics-is-different would make (Me)/(Su) a noteworthy distinction.So why do we need such a distinction if it's mostly window-dressing?
Pitiless_Interfector 12-06-07, 08:34 PM	So why do we need such a distinction if it's mostly window-dressing? For the only reason window dressing is ever put up: aesthetics.
Tsuul 12-06-07, 09:31 PM	You mind changing the title? It'd really help out the search function.
NoldorForce 12-06-07, 11:00 PM	For the only reason window dressing is ever put up: aesthetics.Then it's flavor, in which case we don't need rules to represent things when mere handwaving is necessary.