Question for Frank

[Thoth_Amon]

Nothing allows Templates (in general). Something allows elemental templates becasue the resulting creature is in fact an elemental.

Not that that helps you if your DM is a hard ass.

TA

[Oberoni]

Something allows elemental templates becasue the resulting creature is in fact an elemental.

With all due respect, though--who cares?

I can't believe I'm arguing against this, seeing as how I'm playing a druid in your game, TA, but I still need some proof.

But who cares if the Fire Elemental Pit Fiend or tiger or whatever you became is an elemental?

Your druid has to play by the rules to get from human to elemental-ville, just like he does for a regular wildshape. He can't ignore a rule because it'll still have him end up as an elemental when it's all said and done.

I can't add a template to a regular animal since I'm Wildshaping, even if the result is indeed still an animal--why should elemental be any different?

So far, the only possible room for argument I can see is that Elemental Wildshape isn't specific enough when it lets you turn into Elementals. Elemental is a template, after all--how do I know that when the book says Elemental, it's not referring to that template?

Of course, I have to respond to this by saying that first of all, the elemental template is in a seriously non-core book, and second of all, if we're being literal--your interpretation allows me to turn into a creatureless template.

This means that I'm just an adjective, a descriptor that doesn't modify anything. What a horrible thing to be.

[Oberoni]

To put it another way--

Let's say you like to bake chocolate-chip stuff. I let you use my kitchen, which has a white oven and a green oven.

I let you use the white oven, but I forbid you from making anything in the green oven. Ever. I also only let you make chocolate cookies in my kitchen.

So you're doing an awesome job making those cookies in the white oven, and then one day, I walk in, a big smile on my face.

"You're doing a great job. I'll tell you what--now, you're allowed to make pies." Then, I leave.

Did I allow you to make pies in the green oven? Heck no! You can make cookies in the white oven, or pies in it. Heck, you can even make chocolate-chip cookie pies.

But you ain't touchin' my green oven.

[Username17]

If we really truly want to stick to the pies analogy, the first part is:

"You may make cookies, not using the green oven."

The second part is:

"You may make pies."

In what way is it even implied that you can't use the green oven for the making of pies?

-Username17

[Oberoni]

Not at all. You lump it in as a modifier to the cookie-making, when it's a modifier to using the whole kitchen.

You can't arbitrarily do that. I told you not to use the green oven, ever. If I explicitly allow you to use it under certain circumstances--great, I've changed my mind, you get to use my precious green oven.

But until the very day I tell you "you can use the green oven," or "you can use the green oven, but only to cook Turkey on Thursday," you ain't touchin' it, even if it gets you to your culinary goal. You'll just have to make your food with the rules I've already given you.

[Thoth_Amon]

Uh. Because all pies are white oven type no matter ehich oven they are baked in?



"Elemental Wildshape isn't specific enough when it lets you turn into Elementals. Elemental is a template, after all--how do I know that when the book says Elemental, it's not referring to that template?"

That is it rockstar! It is a loophole.

The reason you cant turn into a creatureless template is that templates are not allowed per alter self, unless they make you something that has been exempted from that restriction or at least the as the theory. Creaturless wildshape doen not exist, but an exception is made for Celestial wildshape. (And you can do that in my game as long as you are "exalted enough". )

TA

[Username17]

Or to put it another way, Alter Self has two separate allowances already:

* Turn into an untemplated creature with at most 5 HD which is the same type as you are currently.

* Turn into your own kind of creature - or even just "yourself".

So when a half-dragon elven wizard casts Alter Self - he can become a Wyrmling Green Dragon. If he has been polymorphed into a Unicorn, he is now Magical Beast Type (one of the worst ideas of 3.5, but there it is), and can now Alter Self into an Owl Bear. Regardless of whether he's currently dragon type or magical beast type he can become a Half-Dragon Elf.

Now Half-Dragon Elf is a templatted form. It is denied by one of the restrictions. But a separate and more specific allowance allows access to a set which happens to include that templatted form (since that set is, in this case, "Half Dragon Elves" it only includes templatted forms, but for these purposes it is only important that it includes at least one).

So our Half-Dragon-Elven-Wizard can use Alter Self to become a templatted form because a separate allowance gives him access to a set that includes a templatted form and does not reiterate the no-templates restriction on that set. And elemental wildshape is a separate allowance that gives access to a set of forms which includes one or more templatted forms and does not reiterate the no-templates restriction on that set.

Why are we still having this discussion?

-Username17

[Thoth_Amon]

Frank,

I understand your position. I understand the reasoning.

In your games, do you allow elemental Wildshape to include elemental template forms?

Just becasue it is written that way does not mean you are not houseruling for sanity!

Just curious.

TA

[Oberoni]

So our Half-Dragon-Elven-Wizard can use Alter Self to become a templatted form because a separate allowance gives him access to a set that includes a templatted form and does not reiterate the no-templates restriction on that set. And elemental wildshape is a separate allowance that gives access to a set of forms which includes one or more templatted forms and does not reiterate the no-templates restriction on that set.

Why are we still having this discussion?

-Username17

"Does not reiterate?" "Does not reiterate?"

We don't need no stinkin' reiteration!

A rule is assumed to continuously be in effect until it's explicitly stated otherwise. Them's the beauty of inheritance clauses.

Furthermore, let's look at your Alter Self example.

I'll grant you that a half-dragon elven wizard can become a half-dragon elven wizard--by becoming himself. This is one of the several abilities of alter self.

In fact, let's look at all three of them:

You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. You can change into a member of your own kind or even into yourself.

So I can use Alter Self to become:
1. A new form
2. A member of my own race, which by definition is still a new form
3. Myself

So most of alter self deals with the "new form" crap, since it uses the phrase "new form" over and over again. But it has that one ability that lets me become myself.

When I become myself, I don't need to worry about the legions of "new form" restrictions, because I'm not becoming a new form. So that means I can Alter Self into myself even if I'm a Half-Dragon, or even if I have more than 5 HD.

But, yeah, that only applies to changing into oneself. Everything else in that spell applies to "new forms." That's where I have to follow the legions of restrictions.

So really, if your argument is based on the fact that restrictions get tossed out the door if you use the "turn into self" function of Alter Self--then it's not based on anything, since there is way, way fewer restrictions on turning into oneself, as opposed to assuming a new form.

[User3]

Wow... I go away for a few days and somebody starts arguing for me! Sweet!

There's no other possible way to consistently interpret anything - that's how language works.

No it isn't.

This is two restrictive statements, and if for some reason they conflicted, it would mean that under some circumstances when a character was helpless but not wearing armor (or perhaps, wearing armor but not helpless) - that evasion could be used.

No, Frank. This evasion example is simply a case where a monk is denied using it for two independent reasons. Just because they're two restrictive statements on the same topic doesn't mean they're related. They don't conflict because they're independent, not because they're both restrictions. In a tree sense, they're both children of the "Evasion" parent. They're sibling rules not child-parent rules.

Same deal with the wizard example you give. Both allowances, true, but independent allowances.

So those examples don't conflict because they have nothing at all to do with inheritance conflicts. And still no example of a conflicting allowance/restriction.

A rule is assumed to continuously be in effect until it's explicitly stated otherwise. Them's the beauty of inheritance clauses.

See, this is how inheritance works. None of this obscure allowance/allowance, restriction/restriction, allowance/restriction nonsense. Inheritance means "I'm exactly the same as that unless I explicitly state otherwise".

Wild Shape even helps us out when it says "This ability functions like the polymorph spell, except as [explicitly] noted here." That's how inheritance works.

You maintain that the HD restricition is inherited, but the template restriction is not. Yet, clearly, there exist creatures in the set { Small, Medium, Large, or Huge elemental (air, earth, fire, or water) } that have more than 20 HD. How do you explain this inconsistency?

[da_chicken]

Grr... stupid logged out. That was me.

[Username17]

We don't need no stinkin' reiteration!

Actually, you do.

Consider this as a set, to which you are continuously adding and removing other sets.

Step One: Add Integers greater than zero and less than ten.

Current Set:
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}

Step Two: Remove Integers that are evenly divisible by 3.

Current Set:
{1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8}

Step Three: Remove numbers greater than five.

Current Set:
{1, 2, 4, 5}

Step Four: Add Integers evenly divisible by 2 that are greater than 1 and less than 13.

Current Set:
{1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12}

Note that Step Two and Step Three both exclude 6 and 12. But it doesn't make a damn bit of difference because it is included in step 4.

That's what it means when it says that the most narrow rule wins. It means that it doesn't make any difference if a less narrow rule - or even seventeen less narrow rules - come out and forbid something if the most narrow rule comes out and allows it.

If the last introduced set includes a creature - that creature is included.

Period.

-Username17

[Username17]

Just becasue it is written that way does not mean you are not houseruling for sanity!

True. But that is, of course, what you are doing. The rules as written are completely broken. Not because they explicitly allow you to grant Wishes to your party members by becoming a Half Earth Elemental Efreet (although they do) - but because the entire concept of transformation as an excercise in monster entry data-mining and stat replacement is inherently unworkable.

Shapechange was unbalanced in 3rd edition, it's much worse in 3.5. The entire Alter Self/ Polymorph/ Wildshape tree doesn't work - it doesn't even come close to working. The basic "no templates" approach still lets people get the "Ice Runes" ability - which is alot like "Quicken Spell" except that it doesn't cost spell levels and doesn't have an explicit uses/round limitation (I assume most people rule it to use up your Quickened Spell for the round - but it's bad enough even so).

Fundamentally, the entire concept of REPLACING physical attributes is unbalanced (in that even something as simple as setting your strength to 17 can be anywhere from a +9 bonus to no bonus for different characters, which is the very definition of an unbalanced ability), and linking that replacement to whatever you can data-mine out of an increasingly large set of monsters is guaranteed to make it unbalanced in the up direction. And as soon as that replacement starts extending to abilities of any kind it goes over-the-top nuts.

The only way templated wildshape forms get broken compared to the forms you can just ambiantly turn into or creatures that a lower-level wizard can simply call, is when you start noting that the Epic Templates don't increase hit dice at all, or if you are dumb enough to try to restrict the wildshaping by names (which allows the PCs access to the Outsiders, with templates, which is exactly one template more broken than the already broken Planar Binding gimicks).

Transforming into a Fire Element Basilisk isn't broken - it's awesome. And so on for most of the creatures you'd turn into. Transforming into a Half-Air Elemental Balor is BROKEN - but so is Shapechanging into one cold or calling one with Greater Planar Binding. So unless you do something about those other avenues of cheese, limitting the Druid in this fashion is just sweeping the tide with a broom.

I've let people really use 3.0 Shapechange as printed and it pretty much just dominated the game (in an Epic Level Party no less!). 3.5 Shapechange is an order of magnitude more gruesome - you don't have to resort to any of the Infinite Loops it engenders All By Itself in order to break things (although you certainly can). Just its "normal use" of transforming between a Dragon and various creatures with Gaze and/or Horrific Appearance in order to breathe out more damage than a spell of your level is supposed to and have all of your enemies make a save or die every single round is more than the game balance can really withstand from a single spell.

Shapeshifting and Calling, in addition to being extremely confusing and hard to adjudicate, are over-the-top crazy-go-nuts insanely overpowered, and this is so fundamental to their nature that I can't see them being otherwise without a complete overhaul of the system. Elemental Wildshape isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back: we made BREAD out of that poor camel's spine 8 levels before this even became an issue. If the players have sufficient restraint or lack of imagination that the game wasn't already in crazy town before, then letting people take advantage of the Element Creature Template isn't going to change that.

As to my own vision on how to "fix" it - I don't think it can be done. Wildshape, as conceived, simply violates too many game design guidelines to be salvageable. The closest I think which can be done is the as-yet unfinished Morpher class for Final Fantasy d20. I think that if you were really wedded to the shapechanging concept you could make some spell-trees and some core classes that worked on this principle as well:

http://www.scshop.com/~ritaxis/ff/shifter.html

-Username17

[Oberoni]

Ok, you want logic kung-fu, let's bust it out. Hi-yah!

Your "set" example is flawed in regards to this conversation. It relies on a series of "check once in a particular order" conditions to prove that your 6 and 12 get to stay, even though some steps (earlier on) would have eliminated them.

The polymorph rules are always there, and always being checked, and always beign applicable, except in the instances that they are specifically mentioned as not.

Your misuse of logic makes me cry--you say "as soon as an exception is made in one case, it applies to other cases." I weep, I really do, because this just isn't how these things work.

The legal system would be a shambles if it worked this way--you can attack someone in self-defense, right? Therefore, you can always attack someone, or you can attack someone in some other situation (say, crossing the street at a crosswalk) that does not specifically forbid the attacking of said someone.

Round two:

However, if I say "You can go to the Boardwalk if you do your homework" and I say "You can't go to the Boardwalk if you have not cleaned your room" there is a conflict - one of the statements must be determined to be stronger in that instance.

No.

Logic time.

You have two statements:

"If you do your homework, then you can go to the Boardwalk."

"If you do not clean your room, than you can not go to the Boardwalk."

These statments take on the following format, using logic language, found here:

(P => R) and (~Q => ~R).

The => is the logic thingy that people use to show the "if-then" format, the squigly line means 'not.'

Using the contrapositive rule on the second part, we can change the structure to this:

(P => R) and (R => Q).

Using the rule of transitivity, we arrive at

P => Q.

This translates into "If you've done your homework, then you've cleaned your room."

Confusing? At first, but what it basically means is that both rules are in effect. It means that doing your homework is one thing you can do to get to the boardwalk--not necessarily the only way. But, no matter what, you have to have a clean room before you go. So if I say that doing your homework lets you go to the Boardwalk, that means you have to have cleaned your room for me to even give you the opportunity to go. This is explained more at the bottom of this page.

So, literally, this statement:

However, if I say "You can go to the Boardwalk if you do your homework" and I say "You can't go to the Boardwalk if you have not cleaned your room" there is a conflict - one of the statements must be determined to be stronger in that instance.

Is false. There is no conflict, no "stronger statement."

And this false structure you've created is the foundation for your elemental wildshape arguments allowing you to become Fire Elemental Tigers (and Paragon Fire Elemental Solars and whatever other stuff you want to add).

[Username17]

The polymorph rules are always there, and always being checked, and always beign applicable, except in the instances that they are specifically mentioned as not.

True, as is Step Two and Step Three in the set example above. Step Two is still being applied, but the last step - Step Four - still wins.

Similarly, the most recent part of the inheritance chain wins all arguments - no matter how trivial. That's what the Primary Sources Rule Means!

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D(R) rules sources, unless official errata states otherwise, the primary source is correct.

Unless erratum is forthcoming, the Elemental Wildshape entry completely wins against any and all previous portion(s) of the inheritance progression, because it is the primary source.

So first you look at what the text of the primary source material allows you to turn into. Then you look at what the secondary sources (the prvious portions of the inheritance) allow you to turn into. Then you completely ignore whatever the secondary sources say as they don't make any god damned difference because the primary source automatically wins anyway!

So the primary source gives a descirption which by itself allows you to turn into an Invisible Stalker, a Medium-Sized Air Elemental, and an Air Element Giraffe. The secondary sources (Alter Self, Polymorph, and Wild Shape) do not allow you to turn into any of those creatures for a variety of reasons. But the primary source wins and the secondary sources can all collectively suck my (Mod Edit: Too far, Frank). Therefore you can turn into an Invisible Stalker, a Medium-Sized Air Elemental, or an Air Element Giraffe as you see fit with Elemental Wildshape.

-Username17

[Psifon]

So what if you just limited the ability to the forms (that meet the other criterion) in the Monster Manual. This would eliminate both the whole template issue, and stop the data mining problem in one fell swoop.

As a house rule of course.

It also helps Shapchange a bit, although you could still shapchange into a fly, fly up a gain'ts nose and shape change into an iron golem. EWWW!

[Username17]

Is false. There is no conflict, no "stronger statement."

I am having problems here. Namely, I can't figure out whether you are being sarcastic or stupid. However, since it is nonetheless possible that you may have inadvertently convinced someone of this spurious reasoning - I will pretend that you were just being stupid.

The statement was:

However, if I say "You can go to the Boardwalk if you do your homework" and I say "You can't go to the Boardwalk if you have not cleaned your room" there is a conflict - one of the statements must be determined to be stronger in that instance.

Can and Can't (a contraction of Can Not) are "mutually exclusive opposites. It's like how things are either "hot" or "cold" and not both. You either "can" do something, or you "can't". If one statement says that you can do something, and another says you can't - then you are still in a binary state where you either can or can't do the thing, so one of the satements is false (havig been overridden by the other).

In fact, you not only need a priority to interpret those two statements - you also need a ground state. In short, you need to know what would be true if neither statement took effect because it is entirely possible that that will happen.

See: if you do your homework and clean your room - there's no problem with interpretation. The statement that you can go to the Boardwalk triggers, and the statement that you can't does not. So you can go to the Boardwalk.

If you don't do your homework or clean your room, there is also no problems. Quite simply the statement that you can't go has triggered, and the statement that you can go has not. So you can't go.

But if you don't do your homework and do clean your room - things get sticky. Neither statement at that point says that you can go. Neither says you can't go. At that point you can either go or not go based upon the ground state - whatever would have been true if neither statement had been made at all. That's probably available from the context these statements were made in - but it's not contained in either statement.

And if you do your homework and don't clean your room - statements are in conflict. One statement says that you can go, the other says you can't. Whichever one is stronger wins. Since these are just two statements, there is no way to know.

Now, it would make intuitive sense if the stronger statement had the same value upon triggering as the ground state; so that if the ground state was that you couldn't go the statement that you could not go if don't clean your room takes precendence; and if the ground state is that you can go the stronger statement is that you can go if you do your homework. Why? Because if the other statement is stronger, than the weaker statement is completely superfluous and has no effect on anything.

If you can't go unless a statement that allows you to triggers - and the statement that allows you to overrides the statement that prevents you - the statement that prevents you makes no difference. Cleaning your room, in this case, would have no effect at all upon whether or not you could actually go under any circumstances.

Which means that's probably not what was meant. But not necessarily. People make useless statements all the time. Our President is internationally famous for it.

So there are four possible ways to intrepret those two statements:

* Ground State: Can't go * Can't go beats Can Go
* Ground State: Can't go * Can go beats Can't Go
* Ground State: Can go * Can't go beats Can Go
* Ground State: Can go * Can go beats Can't Go

But in the equivalent situation in the D&D books - there is in fact only one correct interpretation. The ground state is that you can't turn into things unless something tells you that you can; and whatever the elemental wildshape description says you can turn into beats the sum total of all other rules in the entire game because it is the Primary Source for itself.

So what if you just limited the ability to the forms (that meet the other criterion) in the Monster Manual. This would eliminate both the whole template issue, and stop the data mining problem in one fell swoop.

As a house rule of course.

Well... no it doesn't. The ability to turn into a Leopard at 5th level is still unbalanced, whatever you do. The data mining problem is reduced - but there's plenty of ways to break the system with just the basic monster manual. You can't Phoenix Duplicate without the Moster Manual Two, but you can Balor Mine with just the 3.5 Core Books.

I am simply unconvinced that stopping "some" power loops is in any way helpful. After all, that just makes it more likely that in a four person party, one of the players will have a remaining powerloop and none of the other players will. Short of infinite power - all the players having "lots of power" doesn't actually break the game. One player having lots of power, however, does.

-Username17

[da_chicken]

1073453923[/unixtime]]Similarly, the most recent part of the inheritance chain wins all arguments - no matter how trivial. That's what the Primary Sources Rule Means!

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D(R) rules sources, unless official errata states otherwise, the primary source is correct.

Unless erratum is forthcoming, the Elemental Wildshape entry completely wins against any and all previous portion(s) of the inheritance progression, because it is the primary source.

But it's not the only primary source. The spell description for alter self on PH p197 is still a primary source for Wild Shape. The short description for alter self on p182 and p193 would be secondary sources. Is there any place where the rules in alter self are restated? No. Then they must be primary.

Primary sources rule has nothing at all to do with inheritence. It's for removing confusion when the exact same rule is described in multiple places. Like how Energy Resistance is in the DMG (at least once), the PH Glossary, and the MM. And the descriptions are all slightly different. The Primary Sources rules tells us that the MM is the correct source to use.

Indeed, the point of inheritence is that it says "this rule is also primary, but I can explicitly change it for my purposes".

And again, your interpretation still allows you to ignore every other restriction in polymorph and alter self. Why do you maintain that it only allows you to ignore templates and no other restriction? You have still not even attepted to explain that.

Edit: Dang quote tag inheritance.

[Username17]

The spell description for alter self on PH p197 is still a primary source for Wild Shape.

That's so stupid that I don't feel the need to expound upon your opinions on this matter any more.

You are wrong. The whole point of the Primary Source rule is to resolve disagreements between rules on the same topic in different places. If there were indeed more than one primary source it would have no power at all. And then we'd be in the position of having four possibilities again.

If you truly believe that there can be more than one Primary Source.... this discussion is over, I have nothing polite to say to you any more.

-Username17

[fbmf]

This is the second time I've had to say this, and the last time I will say it:

Please be civil when replying.

Thank you,
fbmf

[Oberoni]

Frank:

You called my reasoning stupid, sarcastic and/or spurious, but you have neglected to mention that it is right. I've provided links to prove it. You provided your own, alternate rules of logic which conflict with the rules of logic.

You have also neglected to mention:

*Legal system ramifications. What if I kill someone in self-defense? Cool, right? What if I pull out a machine gun and accidently mow down about 20 people behind my assailant, while my assailant dies? What if I throw my assailant off of me and 45 feet over a banister and onto an elderly woman?

*Paragon problem. So I can just add templates, sweet. What stops me from becoming a Paragon XXX? Even a Paragon plant creature is pretty awesome.

*No disagreement. The "no template" rule and the "elemental rule" do not necessarily conflict at all. I can choose to do both and still be a happy elemental camper. I can fulfill both conditions in a trivially easy manner, which is far from a disagreement.

[Username17]

No it is not right. You claimed that there is no contradiction between the word "can" and the word "can't". Any logical system that accepts such obvious garbage is... garbage.

There is no polite way to say that your attempts to prove that down and up are the same are contrary to all first principles. They are not logic, they are madness.

-Username17

[Joy_Division]

Oberoni:
Self defence or not self defence is a binary descriptor of a murder. Each is evaluated seperately and one murder does not inherit the descriptor from another.

Your logic above is true but it ignores the important case where P and ~Q are both true. This is certainly a case that can happen and when it does we need extra information to resolve the conflict. Without a way of determining which statement takes precedence the whole system is a contradiction.

[da_chicken]

1073590887[/unixtime]]Your logic above is true but it ignores the important case where P and ~Q are both true. This is certainly a case that can happen and when it does we need extra information to resolve the conflict. Without a way of determining which statement takes precedence the whole system is a contradiction.

Given the following logical premises:
P => R
~Q => ~R
P
~Q

Only this can be concluded: At least one of the premises is not true.

[Note: "^" is logical AND, "v" is logical OR]

However, if the premises are instead:
(P => R) ^ (~Q => ~R)
P
~Q

Then we get:
R ^ ~R

Which is always false.

Yet if the premises are:
(P => R) v (~Q => ~R)
P
~Q

Then we get:
R v ~R

Which is true (and a tautology).


Therefore the premises are flawed, as it is not clear if inheritence is an AND operator or an OR operator. I maintain it is an AND. Frank seems to think that templates are special and you can use an OR for them, but you still must use an AND for hit dice limits, etc. I still don't see why templates are more special than hit dice limits.

[Username17]

Only this can be concluded: At least one of the premises is not true.

Which is important - P => R and ~Q => ~R are not premises. They are operators, yes, but not premises. Their Truth values are determined by the premises. Premises are restricted to things which can be assumed to be true - like P xor ~P.

Frank seems to think that templates are special and you can use an OR for them, but you still must use an AND for hit dice limits, etc. I still don't see why templates are more special than hit dice limits.

No, that was you - not me. Like the whole "what if laws were written this badly!" rant of Oberoni's. It's just a pinata you keep bringing out - and I'm frankly sick of it. Note that Wildshape, for instance, actually does obviate the hit die limits of Polymorph. It also reinstates new ones of its own (which are similar to, but different from, those of Polymorph).

So yeah, Wildshape uses its own Hit Die limits and does not use Polymorph's Hit Die limits - it uses its own. Why is that surprising?

-Username17