Inheritance Rules in 3.5 don't work: deal with it!

[Username17]

If that's the case, then inheritance clauses don't work at all. They're fundamentally useless, basically stating, "This ability works like this one, except it doesn't." There's no point in even adding it in there unless it means that the new ability functions under the same rules as the old one.

I'm moving this to a new thread because the old one was caught up in a lot of things that were dumb.

Inheritance has no effect whatsoever on the type of creature you can turn into with a transformtation spell. None. It does still affect some things - like spell durations, how and when people can make saves, and so on. In short, while inheritance is very useful for spells like Magic Weapon, Greater, and Cure Serious Wounds, Mass - it's not so good for spells like Polymorph.

Let's consider the Hit Die Limit that some of these spells have. Polymorph says:

The assumed form can't have more hit Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject's HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level.

Now, Polymorph the spell can transform you into a set of creatures which fall into a variety of limits - some of which are that none of the forms have more hit dice than the caster's caster level, or the target's hit dice, or 15.

Wildshape calls a new set, animals you are familiar with. And it lays a variety of restrictions on that - none of which mentions the 15 hit die limit. Does Wildshape have a 15 Hit Die limit? FAQ says no. In fact, the FAQ points out that the ability to become a "Huge Elemental" would be pretty useless if it did as the "Huge Elemental" from the Monster Manual actually has 16 Hit Dice (and if we are talking Core Rules - that's all you get).

But what's the reasoning?

So my question is: Is the 15 HD limit from the polymorph spell completely removed for a wildshaping druid and is limited only by the druid's level?

Yes, use the wildshaping druid's level as the limit of Hit Dice for the assumed form, as noted in the wildshape description, instead of the 15-HD limit for the spell. Don't forget to observe the wildshape ability's limits on the types of form that the druid can assume as well as the assumed form size, both of which also vary with the druid's class level.

So because the Wildshape Ability does not mention having a 15 Hit Die limit - that limit is gone. Furthermore, since Wildshape does not mention the ability to assume your own kind - presumably that's gone as well. In short, the entire set of what Alter Self and Polymorph could and could not turn you into doesn't make any difference to Wildshape at all!

Next example, Polymorph Any Object. It doesn't mention the restriction of not turning the target into creatures with more hit dice than the target has. But it does let you turn shrews (1/16th of a HD) into Manticores (more than that), and even pebbles (zero hit dice) into humans (1 hit die).

What's the reasoning there? Well, Polymorph Any Object calls a new set of things you can turn into, which means that that set applies, and restrictions and allowances of the previous set do not apply. It's just like the Wildshape ability above, it uses its own rules about what you can turn into because it mentions new rules about what you can turn into and it doesn't make any difference at all what other spells in the inheritance chain do or do not allow.

So what difference does the inheritance make then? Well, there are a number of things in Alter Self that don't have to do with the set of what you can turn into. Those get inherited fine.

When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional.

That inherits fine, because unlike the forms that the spell allows you to assume - equipment isn't mentioned by the other spells so Alter Self's rule carries over.

Now it's entirely possible that Andy Collins in fact wanted one or more restrictions on form to carry over from Alter Self all the way through to Polymorph Any Object, Wildshape, and Shapechange. But that is not consistent with how we are explicitly supposed to handle type, size, and hit die limits so the only possible clue we would have to that effect would be our telepathy - which I'm afraid is woefully underdeveloped in myself.

I also submit that it is entirely possible that no such limitations are supposed to carry over. After all, when confronted by the multiple infinite power loops inherent in Shapechange alone - Andy Collin's best suggestion was that DMs were in control of what creatures players encountered and thus what creatures they were familiar with (and thus, you could simply never have any Balors, Phoenixs, Chronotyrin, Barghests, etc. in your game if any of the players were ever going to get their hands on Shapechange, and Shapechange wouldn't have infinite loops in your game). Similarly, you could simply never have players meet a Paragon Wolverine by the time the characters get to 5th level - and the 5th level druid would not be able to wildshape into one.

That's not really a "fix" - but it is how Andy Collins suggests handling Shapechange - so it seems equally likely that this is his fix for Wildshape as well.

BTW, Polymorph doesn't have template restrictions either, only Alter Self does. Half-Dragon Ogres are totally on the table as per the wording of Polymorph in the 3.5 PHB.

-Username17

[Username17]

So why all the hullabaloo about Elemental Wildshape? Why not get our panties in a knot about Polymorph instead?

Well, two reasons:

The first is that there are templates that can transform a creature from something which is not on the list of things you could Elemental Wildshape into into something that you can. The only other transformation thing that would be true of is Alter Self - but Alter Self has a no templates restriction. Polymorph Any Object and Shapechange can both already transform you into anything, and Polymorph occupies the entire bottom portion of the type pyramid so according to Savage Species you can't bring things into Polymorph's reach with templates unless they were already there.

The second is that Elemental Wildshape is unique among transformation abilities as giving access to all Spell-Like Abilities - which means that certain spellcaster forms are extremely powerful in the hands of Elemental Wildshape while still being worthless in the hands of even Shapechange.

That's why Elemental Wildshape is such a special case. Not because it can allow you to transform into a Fire Element Tiger and Polymorph can't let you turn into a Half-Dragon Badger - Polymorph can let you turn into a Half-Dragon Badger. It's because when you Polymorph any Object to turn into a Half-Water Elemental Efreet you don't get any magic powers - but when you Elemental Wildshape into a Half-Water Elemental Efreet you can grant wishes.

That's the difference. Which from a reasoning and form allowance standpoint - is no difference. It's just an end result difference. People are suddenly terrified by the possibilities that Elemental Wildshape permits. As they should be. Like Shapechange, Elemental Wildshape promotes several infinite power loops.

The problem here is much deeper than "Elemental Wildshape lets you get Templates!" - as previously noted, the entire transformation line of spells and effects is by its very nature broken. However, some people can't see the obvious unless and until you write the words "infinite power loop" on their bathroom mirror with ketchup.

-Username17

[DracoNova]

In which case, we're pretty much stuck with one conclusion -- 3.5 is a logistical nightmare, for which it is entirely possible for just about any conclusion to be argued logically from the rules, since the rules themselves are so completely vague (if they weren't, the whole elemental Wild Shape argument would not even have been an issue) that it's flat-out impossible to tell what's supposed to be inherited and what isn't, if indeed anything at all is.

The only problem, then, that I have with your conclusions are that they're only your conclusions, Frank. If we're to agree that inheritance is massively screwed up, then, as I've stated, both sides in the elemental Wild Shape argument, for example, are just as correct as the other. It's specificity again, but a different aspect of it...if there's no accuracy at all in the rules, then there's simply no one answer. I don't like this any more than you seem to, but it's about all we're left with.

[Username17]

Not at all - the only way we would have to agree that the rules were unclear is if indeed Template Restrictions were somehow suposed to carry over into Polymorph despite the fact that size restrictions and type allowances don't.

Look at Magic Fang and Magic Fang, Greater. It doesn't even have a components line listed - because it uses the components of Magic Fang. Magic Weapon, Greater has a components line listed because it has different components (for some unknowable reason) than does Magic Weapon. You don't use Magic Weapon's components for Magic Weapon, Greater - because it lists the line and has its own rules.

Polymorph has its own "what you can transform into" line. That means that it does not use Alter Self's "what you can transform into" line. Wildshape has its own "what you can transform into" line. That means it doesn't use Alter Self's or Polymorph's "what you can transform into" line.

If somehow we were supposed to take bits and pieces of the "what you can transform into" information from previous spells that would be confusing and contradictory.

But we're not - it's actually very simple and there isn't any contradictions. We just don't like what it says.

-Username17

[DracoNova]

Not at all - the only way we would have to agree that the rules were unclear is if indeed Template Restrictions were somehow suposed to carry over into Polymorph despite the fact that size restrictions and type allowances don't.

That's simply not true, and I spent numerous posts on the other thread explaining why. Again, it's specificity -- the fact that size and type are specifically dealt with in the elemental Wild Shape description allows for those rules to override the basic rules from Polymorph (and, originally, from Alter Form). The fact that there are changes doesn't mean, however, that one should throw out all of the restrictions...just those two. There's no ground to argue from on the issue of throwing out the template restriction, because there's nothing there. Absolutely nothing in the source material that suggests that such an argument is even close to right. Indeed, that was the entire point -- if there's nothing there, what do you work with?

Look at Magic Fang and Magic Fang, Greater. It doesn't even have a components line listed - because it uses the components of Magic Fang. Magic Weapon, Greater has a components line listed because it has different components (for some unknowable reason) than does Magic Weapon. You don't use Magic Weapon's components for Magic Weapon, Greater - because it lists the line and has its own rules.

I really don't see what you're getting at here, unless you're trying to prove my argument. It's specificity, yet again -- GMF inherits the MF components because there's nothing more specific in its rules, while GMW doesn't inherit those from MW because it lists its own. That's how inheritance and specificity is supposed to work.

Polymorph has its own "what you can transform into" line. That means that it does not use Alter Self's "what you can transform into" line. Wildshape has its own "what you can transform into" line. That means it doesn't use Alter Self's or Polymorph's "what you can transform into" line.

I believe this is an oversimplification, and a misreading of the source material...and it also proves that your argument depends on such a misreading. The description of the types of creatures a character can transform into does specifically override something in Alter Form...that isn't the template restriction, though. Alter Form only allows a character to Alter himself into a creature of his own type...and Polymorph specifically overrides this. Still nothing on templates, though, and I'll reiterate that I think your argument is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" -- that is, you're arguing that since there's one specific change, nothing is inherited.

We could just as easily talk about text placement -- the template prohibition in Alter Form isn't even part of the "what you change into" passage that you're basing your argument on...it's part of the "abilities you gain" passage...which, yeah, makes little sense...but then the entire point of this discussion seems to be that the designers really dropped the ball on the accuracy issue.

So again, we're left with a massively ambiguous situation, both because of lack of specificity on the template issue, and lack of accuracy regarding where templates are even discussed in the source material. Once more, I'll propose -- if inheritance simply doesn't work (which would seem to be the point you're trying to make, if the title means anything), then 3.5 is a logistics nightmare, and is so ambigious as to make logical discussion and argument based on it completely impossible. Nearly any conclusion drawn from it is as correct as any other, because no one can claim to know what's really going on.

[Username17]

That's simply not true, and I spent numerous posts on the other thread explaining why. Again, it's specificity -- the fact that size and type are specifically dealt with in the elemental Wild Shape description allows for those rules to override the basic rules from Polymorph (and, originally, from Alter Form). The fact that there are changes doesn't mean, however, that one should throw out all of the restrictions...just those two.

But maximum hit dice is not addressed in Wildshape. And elsewhere in the chain, Polymorph Any Object does not address Size or Hit Dice. And yet these issues are in fact overridden at those stages.

You can't have it both ways. Or rather, you can, but the game falls apart. Wildshape doesn't say it has a maximum of 15 hit dice - therefore it doesn't have a maximum of 15 hit dice. Polymorph does not say that it has a Template restriction - therefore it doesn't have one.

It's exactly the same reasoning in both cases, and the only reasoning actually supported by the examples and the FAQ.

if there's nothing there, what do you work with?

If Alter Self did not mention Templates, what would we work with? Alter Self's set of forms does not include Templates, Polymorph does not mention templates.

Alter Self has a maximum size one size larger than the caster's, Polymorph does not mention a maximum size.

Are we to conclude that a Grig Wizard can't turn a Human into an Orc? If we decided that he couldn't transform a human into a half-dragon orc, the answer would be yes. But it would also be retarded. Polymorph does not have a maximum size. Polymorph does not have a template restriction.

The description of the types of creatures a character can transform into does specifically override something in Alter Form...that isn't the template restriction, though.

So the hit die restrictions, the size restrictions, and the "same kind" allowance all go away when they are not mentioned - butr the template restriction stays on until the bitter end unless it is? I can't believe that you expect me to swallow that.

what makes the template restriction so special that it works differently from all the other restrictions of form choice?

-Username17

[DracoNova]

But maximum hit dice is not addressed in Wildshape. And elsewhere in the chain, Polymorph Any Object does not address Size or Hit Dice. And yet these issues are in fact overridden at those stages.

Wrong. The only evidence you've presented for this is the "can't turn a shrew into a manticore" argument, based on the example from Poly Any Object...and I still say that's an example of horrible writing (again, the reason we're having this discussion), rather than a suggestion that such a transformation is even possible. Again, the whole point of my argument is that you have nothing specific to back up any of your claims...and now you're relying only on circumstantial "proofs" taken from highly questionable and totally unspecific passages.

Alter Self's set of forms does not include Templates, Polymorph does not mention templates.

Again, this is the point of my argument. The lack of anything specific means that a) your argument has no ground to stand on, and b) according to Rule Specificity, which must be in place if any inheritance is to work, the restriction against templated forms should be inherited from Alter Self. As amusing as I find this, I'm getting a little tired of stating this over and over again...you still haven't provided even the first valid argument against it, only these groundless and thus irrelevant claims.

Alter Self has a maximum size one size larger than the caster's, Polymorph does not mention a maximum size.

That's true...but one more time, that doesn't mean that you can just assume that Polymorph overrides it. There's absolutely nothing in the source material that gives any indication that it does...and that's the entire point. That's why your arguments are completely groundless -- there's nothing in the source that supports your reading, and, if we're to understand Rule Specificity in the only way that allows inheritance to be meaningful at all, your reading is by definition wrong. So you have a choice. First, you can throw out inheritance. If you do, then this discussion is meaningless, since without it, the whole elemental Wild Shape rule structure (along with every other inheritance chain) is so completely vague that any one interpretation is as good as the next. If you don't want to throw out inheritance, though, then my definition of specificity is the only one that makes any sense, and the only choice you have is to concede the argument, since your claims have no foundation in the source material. At all.

Are we to conclude that a Grig Wizard can't turn a Human into an Orc?

If we use the caster's size to determine the maximum size, yes. Although, given that the source material has nothing to say on the issue, I don't see why we wouldn't do just as well to use the target's size. Again, this is just another example of how badly a lot of this is written. It's not by any means any proof to support your claims.

So the hit die restrictions, the size restrictions, and the "same kind" allowance all go away when they are not mentioned - butr the template restriction stays on until the bitter end unless it is? I can't believe that you expect me to swallow that.

Oy...that just proves you're not reading a) my argument, and b) the source material. The argument works the same way for each of the above items. Polymorph specifically alters the HD limit from Alter Form, setting it at either the caster's level or the target's HD. Wild Shape doesn't touch on HD limits, so it follows the same rules as Polymorph (according to inheritance and Rule Specificity). The size restrictions from Alter Form are somewhat altered by Polymorph, with problems noted above, so Polymorph works differently with regards to size. Wild Shape brings up a completely new set of rules regarding size, so Wild Shape works differently with regards to size. The "same kind" allowance from Alter Form is directly overriden in the first paragraph of Polymorph, meaning that Polymorph allows creatures to assume more forms than those within their own type. Wild Shape specifically only allows Animal-type forms up until elemental Wild Shape, so it follows those specific rules. Every last one of these is mentioned, and where they aren't, Rule Specificity demands that they follow the inherited rules. I never argued otherwise, and your claim that I am is simply made up (you seem to be doing a lot of that).

Yeah, you're "stuck to the bitter end" with rules that aren't specifically overridden. That's the entire idea behind inheritance, and it's what many of us (Oberoni, Essence, da chicken, and myself, at least) have been saying for the last few days... So far, all I've seen from you are a) arguments that are by their very nature groundless, b) misreadings of the source and arguments presented to you, c) a rejection of the rules of logic, d) a rejection of the rules of language, and e) switching to a different thread, which looks an awful lot to me like an attempt to escape from the arguments you can't shut down. Oh yes, and f) insults, describing the arguments that you can't shut down as "dumb". To quote one of your infamous statements, You have no valid argument, go away.

[da_chicken]

You're right, Draco. This is amusing!

[Mole_2]

1073847704[/unixtime]]

So because the Wildshape Ability does not mention having a 15 Hit Die limit - that limit is gone.
-Username17

A. Wild shape does not mention the 15hd limit.
A is true

B. That limit is gone.
B is true

Because Wild shape does not mention the 15hd limit - that limit is gone
A => B

Your arguement boils down to
A is true
B is true
therefore A=>B

"Because" is pure conjecture.
You are assuming cause and effect with no evidence.

The inheritances are a mess, but your pseudo-logical assertions do nothing to clarify the situation or assist anyone else to reach there own conclusions.

More likely the chumps didn't realise that wild shape's inheritance carried with it a 15HD limit that needed explicitly removing.

[da_chicken]

Actually, I agree with Frank on that one.

Polymorph says "The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level."

Wild Shape says "The new form’s Hit Dice can’t exceed the character’s druid level."

Those are two rules covering the same restriction, so the latter superceeds the former. Otherwise, Elemental Wild Shape and Plant Wild Shape simply don't work since polymorph restricts you from them. Also, Elemental Wild Shape Huge would be a nonsensical ability, since the only core huge elementals have 16 hit dice.

It would be more clear if Wild Shape said "The new form’s Hit Dice can’t exceed the character’s druid level (no maximum)." But that would also be redundant. Should Smite Evil or Diamond Soul also explicitly state "no maximum"?

[Username17]

More likely the chumps didn't realise that wild shape's inheritance carried with it a 15HD limit that needed explicitly removing.

Or that Polymorph carried with it an inheritance rstriction that the new form could only be within one size category of the caster?

Or that Wildshape carries with it an inheritance ability to transform into your own type?

Or that Polymorph Any Object carries with it an inheritance restriction keeping it from changing things into new forms with more hit dice than the target?

Is it somehow more likely then, that depite the fact that rules regarding type, size, and hit dice are all of them "accidentally" left in and left to other implications to be weeded out than the alternate reading that in fact the new forms available are redefined from scratch at each new effect?

After all, there is not a single rule affecting form choice which is explicitly carried over from one effect to the next that is inferrable by dint of the examples or FAQ. It is known that many of these rules go away, but it is not known that any of them stay!

Redefining your choice of forms is a perfectly valid reading of the inheritance as presented, and the only one which can actually allow you to transform a Shrew into a Manticore with Polymorph Any Object (which you are definately allowed to do). Whatever your interpretation - it must be consistent with the maximum hit die limit being out the door on Polymorph Any Object - and Polymorph Any Object doesn't mention hit die limits at all.

Can you show anywhere in the entire rules where it is made clear that any part of the definition of available forms from Alter Self is carried over into Polymorph (or any of the later effects)? You don't have to show that the whole thing is - but you are claiming that partial definitions of what forms are available somehow pass on to the next spell in the chain, and I can't find any evidence for that.

-Username17

[DracoNova]

Polymorph says "The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level."

Wild Shape says "The new form’s Hit Dice can’t exceed the character’s druid level."

Those are two rules covering the same restriction, so the latter superceeds the former.

I'd agree here, too. The removal of the 15 HD limit would seem to logically follow given the phrasing of the Wild Shape passage. And yeah, this is another example of bad writing, really -- I can think of about half-a-dozen better, more accurate ways of writing the Wild Shape HD passage, and that's just with a few minutes' thought.

It doesn't help the logic of the argument, though, especially if we agree that the Wild Shape HD passage fits Rule Specificity. Mole's right in that it's illogical to put together an implication from two previously unrelated arguments. The best that can be done is stating that both A and B are true -- by the rules of logic, no implication or causal relationship can be developed from this situation. And, of course, it really doesn't help if the "B" to the argument has no foundation in the actual words on the page...

[Username17]

Mass Bear's Endurance says it has a range of close, but it doesn't say that it is no longer able to be held as a charge.

Polymorph says that it can't turn the target into a size smaller than fine, but it doesn't say that it is no longer restricted to a form within one size category of the caster.

Polymorph Any Object says that it can turn any cretaure or object into another - but it doesn't say that it is no longer restricted to a form with equal or less hit dice to the target.

And you know what? None of them have to.

As soon as a part of a spell is redefined in any way - that part is redefined. Range, form choice, whatever. It doesn't have to go back and line item veto every single implication of that portion of the original spell - if it is mentioned at all, the old spell's take on the matter doesn't exist.

Noone is arguing that you can hold a charge of Mass Bear's Endurance, but it doesn't actually mention whether or not you can in the spell description. It doesn't have to any more than Wildshape has to explicitly state that it has no hit die maximum. It never mentioned having a maximum, so it doesn't have one.

-Username17

[DracoNova]

And here I thought we were done... Should have known better.

Or that Polymorph carried with it an inheritance rstriction that the new form could only be within one size category of the caster?

It may be that the designers forgot this. There should have been something mentioned, regardless of our individual ideas on Specificity, just because Polymorph has a target of "Any creature" and was inheriting from a "Target: Self" spell.

Or that Wildshape carries with it an inheritance ability to transform into your own type?

Flat-out wrong. Wild Shape, if I remember correctly, specifically states that only Animal-type forms are possible. Claiming that the "same type" restriction from Alter Form also inherits is just nonsensical given the more specific Wild Shape rules.

It is known that many of these rules go away, but it is not known that any of them stay!

Looks like I'm going to have to keep calling you on this overgeneralization. The rules regarding forms don't just "go away" -- they're specifically altered by the new spell or ability. That's what Rule Specificity is all about. Anything that isn't specifically altered stays, because it's not specifically altered. Any claim that it does has, by its very nature, no foundation in the rules. Such a claim tries to reject a restriction that the rules simply don't reject.

Redefining your choice of forms is a perfectly valid reading of the inheritance as presented, and the only one which can actually allow you to transform a Shrew into a Manticore with Polymorph Any Object (which you are definately allowed to do).

Again with the shrew and the manticore. The only place where these are mentioned is in an example that simply doesn't fit with the rules that actually appear on the page. There is simply nothing in the rest of the spell's description that would validate this, which makes it more than a little suspect.

Can you show anywhere in the entire rules where it is made clear that any part of the definition of available forms from Alter Self is carried over into Polymorph (or any of the later effects)? You don't have to show that the whole thing is - but you are claiming that partial definitions of what forms are available somehow pass on to the next spell in the chain, and I can't find any evidence for that.

Most of it isn't. That's the point. The definition of available forms in Alter Self is "own type only". Polymorph adds a host of other possible forms. The proposition that it adds templates to that host, though, is highly questionable, since a) templates aren't even mentioned in the Alter Self available forms passage, but in a later passage in the spell description and b) there's nothing in Polymorph that reinstates them as potential forms. Statement "a" above invalidates your claim that I'm using "partial definitions", since Alter Self doesn't include templates in the definition of available forms, choosing instead to prohibit them in a separate passage.

To assume that the altered restrictions for Polymorph reinstates them is just that -- an assumption. Granted, to assume that they aren't is an assumption, too...but it's an assumption that is overtly justified earlier in the inheritance chain. Your claims have no such overt justification anywhere.

[Username17]

Claiming that the "same type" restriction from Alter Form also inherits is just nonsensical given the more specific Wild Shape rules.

I'm not talking about the "same type" restriction - I'm talking about the "same kind" allowance. It's a separate ability that Alter Self has that overwhelms its hit die limit and its template limit - but it doesn't even exist when we get to Polymorph. Polymorph does not allow a hill giant wizard to wander around transforming kittens into Hill Giants, amusing as that would be.

And given that fact, what makes us believe that the template restriction exists there either? Polymorph has given a new definition of what forms are available. The caster size limit is gone without being specifically addressed. The ability to transform creatures into your own kind is gone, without being specifically addressed. What is left to make us believe that the Template restriction is anything but gone? The fact that it hasn't been specifically addressed?

Or to put it another way - Alter Self has a template restriction primarily so that people can't take creatures of other types and apply templates to them in order to make them the same type as the caster and then transform into them. Polymorph, OTOH, takes up the entire block of the pyramid at the bottom and so it is necessarily impossibl to template a creature to change it from an illegal form to a legal form - so it doesn't need a template restriction from that point of view. And it doesn't say it has one, why is this so fucking surprising?

Polymorph adds a host of other possible forms.

Wrong. Polymorph does not "add" forms, it has a bunch of forms. That's completely different.

In order to make your view of the inheritance chain work with the presented material, we would have to treat some of the definitions of form choice (type, creature entry, hit dice in some effects, size) completely differently from the manner in which we treat others (templates, hit dice in other effects). In my view of the inheritance chain, we can treat them all exactly the same.

So I'm going to pull the razor - the argument that really ends discussion. Your argument is simply too grounded in subjective emotional desire and complexity to be correct.

-Username17

[DracoNova]

Mass Bear's Endurance says it has a range of close, but it doesn't say that it is no longer able to be held as a charge.

It doesn't have to. If Bear's Endurance can be held as a charge, and Mass Bear's Endurance inherits from it and doesn't specifically state that it can't be held, then Mass Bear's Endurance can be held as a charge. That's how inheritance works.

Polymorph says that it can't turn the target into a size smaller than fine, but it doesn't say that it is no longer restricted to a form within one size category of the caster.

Meaning that there's simply no reason to believe that Polymorph doesn't leave the upper limit for size intact. The spell doesn't give any reason to believe that, nor do your arguments.

And you know what? None of them have to.

As soon as a part of a spell is redefined in any way - that part is redefined. Range, form choice, whatever. It doesn't have to go back and line item veto every single implication of that portion of the original spell - if it is mentioned at all, the old spell's take on the matter doesn't exist.

This is perhaps the most illogical claim I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot. Beyond being a massive misunderstanding of the term "specific" (which I provided a definition for in the last thread), this sends us hurtling back to a claim I've long since shown to be nonsensical -- the whole "this ability works like this one, except it doesn't" idea. There is simply no reason to believe that one change throws out all of the other rules for the previous ability in the inheritance chain.

I'll try to explain it one more time. Inheritance exists to serve a purpose -- basically, to prevent having to rewrite rules for two similar abilities, which wastes paper, ink, effort, and time. Of course, even with similar abilities, there are going to be some differences, so the description of the ability farther down the inheritance chain includes all of the changes that are made for that ability from the first one. It has to work that way, otherwise the description of the second and subsequent abilities in the inheritance chain is totally inaccurate and incomplete. The changes have to be overtly stated, because otherwise there's no way to tell how the ability is really supposed to work.

Therefore, the claim that there has been a change in a later ability that is not explicitly stated in the later ability's description is basically asking us to believe in something that isn't obviously there and can't be logically derived from...well, anything, really. My argument, on the other hand, is logically derived from both the actual words on the pages of the books and the very principle of inheritance. Frank, You still have no valid argument; why are you still here?

[Username17]

Draco: your "interpretation" cannot consistently interpret the rules as presented, nor can it consistently interpret new rules as they arise.

What good is it? And why are you wasting my time by arguing for its inclusion?

-Username17

[DracoNova]

So I'm going to pull the razor - the argument that really ends discussion. Your argument is simply too grounded in subjective emotional desire and complexity to be correct.

Utter nonsense -- your razor is obviously dull, since you can't even show how you're justified in using this line of argument. I'll claim that argument is entirely grounded in a) the definition of specific as presented by the experts on the English language, b) the rules of logic, again as presented by the experts (and introduced into this discussion so long ago by Oberoni, which I am thankful for), and c) the only possible way inheritance can be usefully applied to the rules. The only reason left for you believe my argument to be grounded in "subjective emotional desire" is because you have rejected, without reason, all of the above foundations. Thus, by default your claims are a) unfounded in the English language, b) totally illogical, and c) have little to do with the rules as written. It's not because I have any desire to put you down or prove you wrong that I'm arguing, Frank, I can assure you. I'm arguing because you are wrong.

The simple fact is that nothing that you have written thus far has invalidated any of my arguments. Your argument is by its nature based on a complete lack of evidence -- nearly all your examples are based on statements that aren't made, rather than those that are. There's no reason for me or anyone else to believe in something or follow a rule that isn't on the page. It's not "subjectively emotional" or "complex" -- I and others have posted volumes, by this point, proving that my line of argument is instead logical. Since you have yet to prove otherwise, I'll thank you not to use such cheap tactics and unfounded claims from here on out.

[DracoNova]

Draco: your "interpretation" cannot consistently interpret the rules as presented, nor can it consistently interpret new rules as they arise.

What good is it? And why are you wasting my time by arguing for its inclusion?

Nor can your interpretation accurately interpret the rules as presented, nor can it accurately interpret new rules as they arise. Why are you wasting my time arguing for your interepretation's inclusion?

[Username17]

the definition of specific as presented by the experts on the English language,

And that has to do with the primary source rule... how? You've been going up and down stairs about the meaning of the word
"specific", when in fact, that was a word I used, not the designers of the game.

Look, I'm sorry that I used an adjective that brings up Nam flashbacks for you, but the Primary Source rule doesn't use the word "specific" even once - so shut the hell up about it, its exact meaning doesn't make any difference because it's not in the primary source rule.

I have rejected your reasoning because it is without exception grounded in wordings that the rules do not, in fact, actually use. I'm sure that if you wrote the rules they would say and mean exactly whatever it is that you want them to - but you didn't, they don't, and you should get over it or start arguing from what the rules actually say.

-Username17

[fbmf]

[action]sighs[/action]

Frank, You still have no valid argument; why are you still here?

so shut the hell up about it

Neither of these are acceptable.

Please be civil when are replying even if the other person is not. PM me or Report the Thread if you feel you are being flamed and I will take care of it.

Game On,
fbmf

[Psifon]

All this parsing of the rules is a tempust in a teapot. Every DM MUST house rule the polymorph rules, or they will simply overrrun his campaign. This is true even if you are just dealing with the shapechange spell.

So as Frank said in his title, "Deal with it!" Let's all just go on with our games, and make the DM rulings that we all are going to have to make. We are all going to be arbitrarty and we are all going to be different. OK, life goes on.

[DracoNova]

I'm tending to agree with Psifon, here... In the last few days, I've come to the conclusion that the whole Alter Self/Polymorph/Wild Shape inheritance chain is so fundamentally screwed up that -- quite obviously at this point -- there's simply no way to completely prove one side or the other of the issue. Frank's insults are getting old, and I'm getting tired of reading essentially the same arguments (on both sides, mind) over and over again. These rules are simply lost beyond redemption, and I'm getting bored.

[Username17]

In short:

Your entire argument was based on wording that was not, in fact, actually present anywhere in the rules, and your eaborate logical structures amounted to nothing at all. Furthermore, your proposed methodology of rules interpretation, in addition to being bereft of contextual support, leads directly to a number of contradictions between the text and the examples and FAQ explaining how that text - once interpreted - takes effect upon the game.

Then, having absolutely nothing whatsoever to add to this, you choose to announce that the system can only be parsed via intuition, and that thusly you don't actually need a system for interpretation at all, because intuition cannot be argued with, your initial erroneous claims of what the rules say are now correct within that context and will no longer suffer the slings and arrows of dissent. Then, having declared victory by redefining the playing field, you let loose a parting barb and depart.

That's just great. You realize that you've just announced that you are playing "magical fairy treehouse", and taking your ball and going home...

-Username17