So then the contrary position is that you only see a problem because you're out looking for one.
Only in the same vein as looking for consistent limits to be applied to abilities across the rules as a whole.
So far, we've established that:
- hags' abilities had to be changed after the fact, because they didn't work like they were intended
- silver dragons' abilities clearly don't function as they are intended to
- succubus' abilities (as written) have significant flaws in a world like Golarion, where infinite worlds reside, save for very specific and odd interpretations
All of this argues that intent isn't always reflected in the broad or specific strokes of RAW, and mistakes are made.
As Stephen-Radney MacFarland has stated on more than one occasion, (and once specifically to me, which is awesome!): the rules are not meant to be an inviolable matrix from which only a single solution or realization is arrived.
This means that, when variance is held from their strict standards or formulas... there is going to be interpretation.
I get what you're trying to say. "There are so many people out there that all the faces have been taken! It's impossible to not look like somebody." It's a wonder that in this world of 7+ billion people, we're not awash with unrelated visual twins. There are no unique snowflakes, I guess.
That's not what the RAW means. When it says you can look like someone specific, it's saying you can't say, "I want to look like that guy. *points at guy*" Similarly, you can't say, "I want to change my appearance to that of Captain Shuffles McTrufflestein so I can bluff my way into the guardhouse barracks more easily."
That's RAW. I'm perfectly in line with that.
In which case, the interpretation is "I can become anyone so long as I don't know them." which, you know, is a really weird thing, and bizarrely internally self-limiting.
(It creates an very interesting but also non-standard setting where succubi actively seek to avoid going anywhere other than the Abyss and getting to know as few creatures as possible in order to avoid limiting their own unique abilities, as succubi of advanced age would naturally have fewer options remaining to them. Or, they could just not care, but that's very short-sighted for a high wisdom immortal creature; then again, they're chaotic evil. It could also answer some questions, but, eh, that's another conversation altogether.)
And, ultimately, succubus is only one of many different creatures that fall under the same paradigm.
As I said, you hand-waive it - they've never seen that guy, so they can become a guy that looks exactly like them. Fair enough.
But given that it's self-defeating for an internally consistent world, that is still a problem.
As for your position on the Ring of Invisibility's price, that is a perfectly fine opinion. All evidence indicates that Paizo disagrees with you. WotC certainly disagreed with you because they patently answered these questions to the opposite of your desire with regard to this item. I also think the item is quite fairly priced. The 3 minute duration will only incredibly rarely even come up. As I said before, this isn't ruinous in a game; it just means that once in a blue moon, a player might have to get a little tactical in when and how s/he reactivates the ring while going on that longterm scouting mission. Heaven forbid. Frankly, I find that possibility a lot more interesting than "I activate my Ring and stay invisible for six hours while I map out in detail every passageway in the fort, including guard paths and shift changes." *yawn*
The only thing I get from your description of how a game with invisibility runs is that you don't play many stealth-focused games. It never works that way, unless, again, there is a lot of hand-waiving going on... which, you know, is fine, but doesn't follow the RAW rules of Stealth and Perception.
The fact that the core pricing disagrees with my assessment is obvious.
File that under the "no duh" clause, which I have not ever disagreed with.
They also disagree with my assessment of:
- Rings of Wizardry
- Amulets of Mighty Fist (unless that's been changed?)
- the ability of silver dragons to use their Change Shape ability beyond juvenile
The fact that they've changed amulet of mighty fist (I think? I've been told, but I've not seen it), and that literature built off of the ability of silver dragons of advanced age to mimic humans means that my assessment is, in fact, to some extent, more correct than the original writ of RAW, at least as most people intended/understood/played the game.
I'm not so arrogant to presume that all my assessments that differ from RAW are correct. Of course they aren't. But dismissing it as "that's just your assessment" is also incorrect, given the above.
Is the ring of invisibility supposed to help you stealth with invisibility bonuses? Y/N
IF yes: does it fulfill it's function? Y/N
You say "yes, of course" and I say, "not it's ultimate purpose".
I mean, per RAW, I could also make a ring of invisibility that glowed like a torch and played Mission Impossible theme music wherever I played, but that would clearly violate it's purpose, and make the item effectively worthless*.
An item that demands that I auto-fail my stealth check against second level trained guards 50% of the time every three minutes clearly doesn't do what it's intended to do.
* Worthless for purposes of going around undetected. There are still uses for it, as there are for anything.
In which case, the interpretation is "I can become anyone so long as I don't know them." which, you know, is a really weird thing, and bizarrely internally self-limiting.
No, it's not. My point is that you vastly underestimate the number of permutations possible. And I think you have a peculiar view of what RAW means (in that you appear to think RAW is something different from what we know the RAI to be). If there's more than one way to read the literal words on the page, but we know exactly what the developers wanted to occur, then that's the RAW. We don't have to be beholden to some wonky interpretation because there is some way to parse the words on the page to force that interpretation.
As to the ultimate purpose of the Ring of Invisibility, maybe you and Paizo disagree as to the ultimate purpose of it. You say it doesn't fulfill its ultimate purpose. I think it does that just fine. Because I don't think it's supposed to make you an unstoppable stealth machine. It has vast utility, but even vast utility is limited.
As to the ultimate purpose of the Ring of Invisibility, maybe you and Paizo disagree as to the ultimate purpose of it. You say it doesn't fulfill its ultimate purpose. I think it does that just fine. Because I don't think it's supposed to make you an unstoppable stealth machine. It has vast utility, but even vast utility is limited.
If you believe invisibility makes you an unstoppable stealth machine, you vastly overrate it.
It makes you an excellent and greatly enhanced stealth machine, but hardly an unstoppable one.
Here's an excellent way of stopping invisibility: a locked door.
Here's another: lightly powdered floor.
Here's a third: faerie fire.
Here's a fourth: glitterdust.
Here's a fifth: see invisibility.
Here's a sixth: true seeing.
Here's a seventh: a trip wire with bells or a trap or anything.
Here's an eight: an unlocked door.
These are off the top of my head, and cover a broad spectrum of power levels and difficulty setting up in advance.
Point in fact, while you're moving, presuming equal training, there is a 2.5% chance each round for any given watcher to notice any given invisible creature. Intriguingly, that's about... four minutes.
Also, if you're actively using stealth, you're progressing at half speed, or are taking substantial penalties. You don't cover nearly as much, or aren't nearly as good.
If you compare raw power, a SWAT-style dungeon assault is going to be much, much more effective than a ring of invisibility, costs nothing, and leaves more people alive.
If you compare scouting ability, divination spells will always outweigh the power of stealth, even invisible stealth.
If you compare precise and un-traced movement, teleportation abilities are going to win.
What invisibility allows: stealth to be viable.
What it doesn't: stealth to be unstoppable.
EDIT:
No, it's not. My point is that you vastly underestimate the number of permutations possible. And I think you have a peculiar view of what RAW means (in that you appear to think RAW is something different from what we know the RAI to be). If there's more than one way to read the literal words on the page, but we know exactly what the developers wanted to occur, then that's the RAW. We don't have to be beholden to some wonky interpretation because there is some way to parse the words on the page to force that interpretation.In which case, the interpretation is "I can become anyone so long as I don't know them." which, you know, is a really weird thing, and bizarrely internally self-limiting.
I can do this too: "Yes it is. My point is that you vastly overestimate the number of permutations possible given immortal creatures immortal lifespans and common determinations."
Wee, firm assertions based purely off conjecture and thought.
As seebs noted, the RAW doesn't work in the plain-text version of the words. The RAI is just so that you don't have the succubus attempting to impersonate the duke. Sure, makes sense, we'll go with that. Almost everyone who ever uses the ability will. As I said.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These rings don't spontaneously appear out of thin air; somebody crafts them.
Deliberately.
Making deliberate choices.
Like, for example, choosing to make it activated by command-word or act of will.
The command word version should cost 10,500, but the price is bumped up to 20,000.
The act of will version should cost 12,000, but the price is bumped up to 20,000.
In which universe would a sane crafter make a command word version? For a stealth item?
Also, if the ring has the duration of the spell, as cast by a 3rd level caster (3minutes), but the ring is deemed too powerful so the price is bumped up to 20,000, what a waste of everybody's time! Just make the thing CL 5, have it last for 5 minutes (act of will) and 20,000 will be the correct price anyway!
This is so obvious that the fact that they didn't do this and had to write a blog explaining the increased price just illustrates that they weren't considering that it had a time limit anyway!
As always, from the very first version and unchanged to now, the ring confers a state of invisibility, and that state is the state described in the spell. The ring doesn't cast a spell on the wearer. If it did, then no part of its description would prevent the ring being activated and passed around the entire party to make them all invisible.
Sometimes, you just have to use your thinky bits.
(I like the post, Malachi, but, due to invisibility's duration, the price of a use-activated ring would be 24k - that would incidentally, be the price of a continuous ring. Because the effect is measured in minutes/level, the magic item crafting rules state that it's doubled in price. SKR made the same error in the post I linked earlier.)
EDIT: As shown by Malachi below, the above is incorrect.
I'm not sure why you're getting flippant here.
Succubi can take the shape of small or medium humanoids. How many small or medium humanoids are immortal?
How many ways do you think there are to make a human nose distinctly? Let's pretend it's as small of a number as a million. I'm betting that's selling it short.
How many ways do you think there are to make a human chin distinctly? Let's short change that one to a million, too.
Assuming every other facial characteristic (of which there are what, dozens if not more?)' just between these two features we have one trillion distinctly different human faces. Even if you want to cut this down to 100,000 for each one, we're talking about 10 billion options. With just two characteristics.
We still have lips, eye color, eye placement, cheekbones, cheeks, ears, hair color, hair texture, eyebrows, complexion, skin tone, brow, jaw line, and any number of other minute characteristics that make a person's face unique.
And that's just human faces. Throw in you elves and halfelves and dwarves and halflings and any number of other races. The numbers start getting pretty big.
So yeah, pretty sure you're underestimating the available options.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a couple of notes, for those of you saying that the writer of the words on one thing actually knew what, exactly, the other thing referenced was going to be: False.
Pathfinder Core Rulebook:
Lead Designer: Jason Bulmahn
Design Consultant: Monte Cook
Additional Design: James Jacobs, Sean K Reynolds, and F. Wesley Schneider
Additional Contributions: Tim Connors, Elizabeth Courts, Adam Daigle, David A. Eitelbach, Greg Oppedisano, and Hank Woon
5 designers, 6 additional contributors
Creative Director: James Jacobs
Editing and Development: Christopher Carey, Erik Mona, Sean K Reynolds,
Lisa Stevens, James L. Sutter, and Vic Wertz
Editorial Assistance: Jeffrey Alvarez and F. Wesley Schneider
Editorial Interns: David A. Eitelbach and Hank Woon
Editing, if you count everyone listed: 11 people
Total pages: 575 through the Index.
You seriously think all 11 people went over every single word on every single one of those pages as a group?
Almost certainly not.
Someone was probably in charge of each chapter, but I would suspect that the coordination between chapters was fairly loose. Let's consider, the feat Brew Potions, and compare it to the Creating Potions section of the Magic Items chapter. Is the fact that you cannot make potions from spells with the Personal range in both sections?
You can create magic potions.
Prerequisite: Caster level 3rd.
Benefit: You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures or objects. Brewing a potion takes 2 hours if its base price is 250 gp or less, otherwise brewing a potion takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. When you create a potion, you set the caster level, which must be sufficient to cast the spell in question and no higher than your own level. To brew a potion, you must use up raw materials costing one half this base price. See the magic item creation rules in Chapter 15 for more information.
When you create a potion, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.
The creator of a potion needs a level working surface and
at least a few containers in which to mix liquids, as well as a source of heat to boil the brew. In addition, he needs ingredients. The costs for materials and ingredients are subsumed in the cost for brewing the potion: 25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.
All ingredients and materials used to brew a potion must be fresh and unused. The character must pay the full cost for brewing each potion. (Economies of scale do not apply.) The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions. The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.
Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster’s currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) Brewing a potion requires 1 day.
Item Creation Feat Required: Brew Potion.
Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft or Craft (alchemy)
But that mostly doesn't matter; I very rarely see invisibility last for more than a few rounds.
That's basically my point and why I think the argument that the Ring as restricted by 3.5 is pretty much worthless is baseless.
Your argument is, "You're underestimating the number of options." when I've noted that there are, in fact, more options that we can count.
Regardless, the argument you're using becomes, "So long as they don't know someone looks like that, they can become that, or the distinction is allowed to be so fine that the human eye can't make out the difference, hence it doesn't matter."
Because, in the end, there is, was, or will be, someone with that facial structure - or near enough to it as to not matter for anyone looking at them.
That facial structure then belongs to a specific individual.
You could throw other races into it, but that's just ceding the loss of humans as a viable option.
How many worlds have humans? How long have humans existed?
I dunno. In Golarion's omniverse, certainly more and longer than earth, but on earth we already have (apparent) overlap.
You're grossly underestimating the number of living entities in the Golarion 'verse. Otherwise, outsiders wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
The price of a use activated or continuous item is 2000 x CL x SL.
But note 2 only applies to continuous items, not to use activated items.
So 2000 x CL (5) x SL (2) = 20,000 at CL 5, or 12,000 at CL 3. There is no modifier for duration, because that only applies to continuous items, not use activated items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, good catch. You are, in fact, correct.
No evidence of intent for PF? Maybe. Pretty good evidence of intent regarding 3.5, considering the FAQ says exactly that.Interpretation is not intent.
Intent means "when these words were written, what did the person who wrote them think they meant?"
And we have nothing on that. The people who did the 3.5 FAQ were not necessarily the people who wrote the words originally, and for that matter, they may have changed their minds. They didn't say what the intent was when it was originally written, they just made a ruling on what it should mean now.
What I'm looking for is a statement from one of the people who worked on the original 3.0 DMG as to what they thought they had said. It looks to me like a nigh-cut-and-paste of the 1e/2e item, and I honestly doubt anyone thought about it at all.
You must hate constitutional law. ;)
Whether it was how the item functioned prior to 3.5 really doesn't matter. Wording was changed and specific official answers were provided describing just exactly how it was supposed to function.See, this is where I think the disagreement is coming in, because the wording wasn't ever changed. The 3.0 wording, which Wizards said meant "lasts until cancelled", and the 3.5 wording, which they said meant "3 round duration", are identical.
I don't have my 3.0 books around anymore. If you could post what the language was in 3.0 that'd be great. Also, if you could link to FAQs, errata, or developer (specifically author) commentary on how the Ring functioned, that would help a tin, too. I don't think I can have an in depth conversation about what you're saying here without it.
Though again, how it functioned even in 3.0 doesn't much matter since we have an official statement as to how it functioned in PF's direct predecessor, 3.5.
Pretty sure PF staff would be aware of that. They were aware of the WotC article discussing the pricing issue (since they nearly copypasta'd the relevant information).I could find nothing in that article which spoke to the writer's understanding of the duration of the effect. Everything there is consistent with both interpretations. So even if we assume they've read that article, I still have no information which would lead me to believe that anyone at Paizo ever talked about that question, or realized it was a question. And I would be totally unsurprised if at least some of the Paizo people who've worked on PF have always assumed it was last-until-cancelled, since there was...
The article didn't speak to duration. But here's the thing, it did speak to a clear difference in how 3.5 treated the ring compared to predecessors. This is the same language and justification used by Paizo in the GMG. So here's the thing. That means we know Paizo is aware that 3.5 treated the ring differently, at least in some regard.
Your point is that we cannot know that Paizo knew that 3.5 treated the ring differently than its predecessors, with regard to duration. You're right that we have nothing at present which directly speaks to that. But we do know that they were aware that the ring was being treated differently.
So you're in the position of arguing that Paizo both knew and didn't know that the ring was different in 3.5 than it was prior to that. It's certainly possible that Paizo knew of one change, but not the other. But it seems highly unlikely to me that they'd be aware of what was essentially a blog post, but not an official clarification of the rules. And at any rate, I think it's fair tomsay that the ball is now in your court to demonstrate a lack of knowledge in this regard. I'll even assume that the burden of initial production was on me. But that's been met. Of course, it's not absolutely definitive (few things ever are). But certainly the more reasonable assumption at this point favors awareness of the rule change.
Your argument is, "You're underestimating the number of options." when I've noted that there are, in fact, more options that we can count.
Regardless, the argument you're using becomes, "So long as they don't know someone looks like that, they can become that, or the distinction is allowed to be so fine that the human eye can't make out the difference, hence it doesn't matter."
Because, in the end, there is, was, or will be, someone with that facial structure - or near enough to it as to not matter for anyone looking at them.
That facial structure then belongs to a specific individual.
You could throw other races into it, but that's just ceding the loss of humans as a viable option.
How many worlds have humans? How long have humans existed?
I dunno. In Golarion's omniverse, certainly more and longer than earth, but on earth we already have (apparent) overlap.
You're grossly underestimating the number of living entities in the Golarion 'verse. Otherwise, outsiders wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
So wait, the options are infinite, but I'm still overestimating them? They must have changed how math works since I got my degree in it.
Regardless, hyperliteralism and RAW are not necessarily one and the same.
So wait, the options are infinite, but I'm still overestimating them? They must have changed how math works since I got my degree in it.
No. They are not infinite. That's an asinine intentional misreading of what I just wrote. Stop it.
Regardless, hyperliteralism and RAW are not necessarily one and the same.
They literally are one and the same. That's what 'literalism' is: being literal.
The only thing I have done is be literal.
You have been more vague, i.e. going more after the intent than the RAW.
Which is fine, and the expressed intent of the rules designers anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very rarely see invisibility last for more than a few rounds.
Did you own a ring of invisibility? I played a cleric with a ring of invisibility (assuming 3 minute duration, non-spoken activation) and I was routinely invisible. Scouting? Invisible. Walking in the wilderness? Invisible. In battle? I'd mostly buff, summon and heal while invisible.
So wait, the options are infinite, but I'm still overestimating them? They must have changed how math works since I got my degree in it.No. They are not infinite. That's an asinine intentional misreading of what I just wrote. Stop it.
Regardless, hyperliteralism and RAW are not necessarily one and the same.They literally are one and the same. That's what 'literalism' is: being literal.
The only thing I have done is be literal.
You have been more vague, i.e. going more after the intent than the RAW.
Which is fine, and the expressed intent of the rules designers anyway.
1. It was a joke. Relax. And you were the one getting snippy first. But you did write that the options were more than we could count. That quite literally means infinite. I was just going by the literal meaning of the words in your post. I mean, I knew that those words were subject to an equally valid interpretation that would result in a less ridiculous outcome, but I chose to force the most literal meaning of the words, even though it might not make the most sense.
It's also possible I was setting up a larger point while making the joke ...
2. When there are two ways to read RAW, and one is the intended reading of the developers, it is the intended reading that is the only RAW that matters. Insisting upon the other version, simply because the rules can be read that way is not RAW; it is hyperliteralism at best.
Playing by RAW doesn't mean you divest yourself of intellect. Hyperliteralism and RAW are not one and the same. Literalism and RAW are not uniformly one and the same. RAW can and does involve reading the rules as they are written with respect to how the developers intended them to function. Just because it's author's intent doesn't mean it's not RAW. It can be both, even when there is another possible reading available.
Just like "too many to count" doesn't always literally mean infinite.
Regardless, I'm out for the night. I have court in the morning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Infinite means "without end". What I wrote means "uncountably large, but still finite". A googleplex is, for example, uncountably large but finite - feel free to start counting to it (hint: you can't ever get there). You are factually incorrect.
You set up a joke to make a pint. It came off less as a joke and more being arrogant and incorrect simultaneously.
If there were two ways of reading RAW, you'd be correct in that you take the one that is the clear intent. Certainly, that's how I tend to take things. However, taken as it stands, there is only one way of reading RAW, and that way does not function for exceedingly large worlds without weird arbitrary rules.
Also: you just argued that literal (i.e. "Taking what is written as it is written") does not mean taking things literally. You are wrong. Literally.
If you are finished insisting that a singular example of of my entire suite points is incorrect because you - like everyone else - choose to hand waive the implications, then by all means we can drop it.
Good luck in court tomorrow, presupposing you're pursuing the most morally correct course! (I don't know, as I have no details of the case! But I hope you are and, given that, that it works out well!)
You set up a joke to make a pint.
"They come in pints?! I'm getting one!"
"But you have a whole half... already..."(See? Joke at my expense made for you.) :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't make yourself look like a specific individual, can you make yourself look like a specific individual with the exception of one less mole? If shenanigans like this are possible, then the restriction is meaningless.
If it is not possible to cheat in this way, then the succubus cannot assume the same form twice (even subtle variations on it), therefore their ability to execute long term scams requires them to keep up that shape for the entire duration. As soon as they change form, they can never return to that assumed form again.
It's one or the other. Trouble is, neither interpretation is the intent, and we all know it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ What I've been saying. :)
(That's why we go by the intent, in this case, because it makes better stories.)
No. Infinite means "without end". What I wrote means "uncountably large, but still finite". A googleplex is, for example, uncountably large but finite - feel free to start counting to it (hint: you can't ever get there). You are factually incorrect.
You set up a joke to make a pint. It came off less as a joke and more being arrogant and incorrect simultaneously.
If there were two ways of reading RAW, you'd be correct in that you take the one that is the clear intent. Certainly, that's how I tend to take things. However, taken as it stands, there is only one way of reading RAW, and that way does not function for exceedingly large worlds without weird arbitrary rules.
Also: you just argued that literal (i.e. "Taking what is written as it is written") does not mean taking things literally. You are wrong. Literally.
If you are finished insisting that a singular example of of my entire suite points is incorrect because you - like everyone else - choose to hand waive the implications, then by all means we can drop it.
Good luck in court tomorrow, presupposing you're pursuing the most morally correct course! (I don't know, as I have no details of the case! But I hope you are and, given that, that it works out well!)
No, if something is finite, it is by definition countable. That you would not be able to reach the number by counting within your lifetime does not mean something is not countable. ("Googolplex", by the way. Not a big deal, just thought you might like to know.) Of course, to be fair, that something is countable does not necessarily mean it is finite (integers are countable, yet infinite).
Infinite does in fact mean impossible to calculate (i.e., cannot be counted). So no, I am not incorrect. Regardless, that this wasn't the intended meaning of your statement doesn't mean that it isn't a possible meaning of your statement, which is ultimately my point.
Here's where you have a problem with your argument. You complain about the Succubu's ability being unworkable, but really your problem is with all polymorph spells and effects. Polymorph spells and effects do not allow you to take the form of a specific creature.
You read "specific creature" to mean that you cannot take the appearance if some other creature somewhere in the great multiverse already has that appearance. This is, to be sure, a perfectly valid interpretation of this phrase. It is not, however, the correct one.
"Specific" means "clearly defined or identified". In that context, a "specific creature" is one the caster clearly defines or identifies (the whole "I want to look like that guy! *points to guy*" interpretation we all know and love). The point being, polymorph spells allow you to take the visage of, for example, Random Indiscriminate Human Male #24,386. That RIHM24386 looks startlingly similar to Bob Jenkins, the plumber, living on the other side of the galaxy on a separate plane in another dimension is irrelevant. You look like a random human, not a specific one you're trying to emulate. This is an absolutely valid interpretation of what "specific creature" means in the polymorph entry.
Despite your protestations otherwise, there are two possible interpretations of RAW here. However, one of them leads to a completely unworkable class of spells and the other leads to the class of spells working just like we all expect them to. In that case, the correct RAW reading is not the case that leads to ridiculousness.
Hyperliteralism might hold steadfast to a literal interpretation of the rules, despite being faced with other more workable solutions, even within the definitions of the rules. That is what you are doing here.
An employer tells an employee that it is a necessary job duty for that employee to go to the post office every day to pick up the mail.
There are a few ways to interpret this statement. The natural, sensible interpretation is that by "every day", the employer means "every day that the mail runs". This is a perfectly valid reading of the words on the page, the RAW so to speak.
The hyperliteral reading of this employee's duty is that the employer absolutely, positively means literally every calendar day. This interpretation would require the employee to show up at the post office to check for mail on Sundays, holidays, and other times when the mail is not running. This is also a perfectly valid reading of the words on the page, the RAW so to speak.
We could also interpret "day" to mean the period of time when the sun is out (so the employee doesn't have to pick up the mail on work days when the mail runs if the sun never comes out, perhaps because the business is located for into the Northern Hemisphere). Or, "day" could mean a 24 hour period. These are all legitimate definitions of the word "day".
But everybody knows that the only interpretation here that isn't ridiculous is the first, even though the others might literally be accurate interpretations of various component parts of the statement. They lead to unworkable results. Since there is a perfectly valid interpretation that also only resorts to the words on the page, why would one force the unworkable situation simply because they might literally (also) be true?
That's where we are. You have unfairly restricted the definition of "specific creature" to something that forces an unworkable result instead of realizing that perhaps you are operating under the incorrect definition. This is not choosing interpretation or RAI over RAW; this is simply recognizing that RAI influences what RAW actually is.
That an answer is conceivable through various definitions of the words on the page does not necessarily mean that this answer is RAW. Hence, Literalism does not necessarily mean RAW. If there are multiple possible literal readings, why stick to one that doesn't make any sense?
So in this regard as well, I am not wrong, literally or otherwise.
Good luck in court tomorrow, presupposing you're pursuing the most morally correct course! (I don't know, as I have no details of the case! But I hope you are and, given that, that it works out well!)
Depends. What do you mean by "morally correct"?
Lamashtu might define that differently than Torag.
:P
;)
The only conclusion your interpretation allows is: so long as you don't know the person (see my other arguments) or you cannot choose your form (see my other arguments). You are arguing an undefendable point. Either you can choose your appearance (and, by accident, become like a specific creature) or there is a weird block that prohibits it.
You hand waive (apply judgement beyond what is written) things to make sense.
You are thus, not following what is written. You are following what makes sense.
This is exactly what you are saying you do.
EDIT:
"Googolplex"
Thanks! A combination of search engines and dyslexia, I suppose. :)
The only conclusion your interpretation allows is: so long as you don't know the person (see my other arguments) or you cannot choose your form (see my other arguments). You are arguing an undefendable point. Either you can choose your appearance (and, by accident, become like a specific creature) or there is a weird block that prohibits it.
You hand waive (apply judgement beyond what is written) things to make sense.
You are thus, not following what is written. You are following what makes sense.
This is exactly what you are saying you do.
No, I am following what is written. It's not "so long as you don't know the person". It's that if you happen to take a form that looks like random, irrelevant person, it doesn't violate the spell. This isn't going beyond what is written. "Specific Creature" isn't as restricted in meaning as you claim, that is the point. The very next sentence in Polymorph makes that clear.
"Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type."
"Generic" is the important word there for a couple of reasons. 1. It literally means "not specific". 2. It demonstrates the intent of how you're supposed to read the rules on the page. If you happen to look like a regular member of the race, whatever. What matters is that you're not emulating the features of a person you're intentionally trying to look like.
And this is all going by the words on the page. It is, quite literally, the RAW. I am indeed following what makes sense. But that I am following what makes sense does not mean I am not following what is written. That is where we disagree.
EDIT:
"Googolplex"Thanks! A combination of search engines and dyslexia, I suppose. :)
Mildly interesting tidbit:
Google got its name from the number, which is pretty obvious. However, when they checked for the availability of the domain registry, apparently the guy misspelled it!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further evidence for this (from real life) is the idea of the "distant twin" - i.e. that other person that happens to look like you somewhere out there. EDIT: As an example, I've seen this happen. Saw a model (definitely female) advertising things who had a face of a guy I knew in...
My wife was meeting me for lunch once and accidentally grabbed and kissed the wrong guy. He looked exactly like me and, being military, was dressed exactly the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further evidence for this (from real life) is the idea of the "distant twin" - i.e. that other person that happens to look like you somewhere out there. EDIT: As an example, I've seen this happen. Saw a model (definitely female) advertising things who had a face of a guy I knew in...My wife was meeting me for lunch once and accidentally grabbed and kissed the wrong guy. He looked exactly like me and, being military, was dressed exactly the same.
That's what she tells you...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1st: TacticsLion and Seebs have made themselves my personal heroes through this thread.
2nd:
"Specific" means "clearly defined or identified". In that context, a "specific creature" is one the caster clearly defines or identifies (the whole "I want to look like that guy! *points to guy*" interpretation we all know and love). The point being, polymorph spells allow you to take the visage of, for example, Random Indiscriminate Human Male #24,386. That RIHM24386 looks startlingly similar to Bob Jenkins, the plumber, living on the other side of the galaxy on a separate plane in another dimension is irrelevant. You look like a random human, not a specific one you're trying to emulate. This is an absolutely valid interpretation of what "specific creature" means in the polymorph entry.
This argument ignores the fact that even if this functions, it only functions once because:
the succubus cannot assume the same form twice (even subtle variations on it), therefore their ability to execute long term scams requires them to keep up that shape for the entire duration. As soon as they change form, they can never return to that assumed form again.
Once an nonspecific appearance has been randomly chosen, it becomes specific and therefore impossible to replicate according to the RAW.
|
|
That's what she tells you...Further evidence for this (from real life) is the idea of the "distant twin" - i.e. that other person that happens to look like you somewhere out there. EDIT: As an example, I've seen this happen. Saw a model (definitely female) advertising things who had a face of a guy I knew in...My wife was meeting me for lunch once and accidentally grabbed and kissed the wrong guy. He looked exactly like me and, being military, was dressed exactly the same.
I saw the guy, and his reaction. He was a dead ringer for me, and I've never seen anyone run that fast.
1st: TacticsLion and Seebs have made themselves my personal heroes through this thread.
2nd:
"Specific" means "clearly defined or identified". In that context, a "specific creature" is one the caster clearly defines or identifies (the whole "I want to look like that guy! *points to guy*" interpretation we all know and love). The point being, polymorph spells allow you to take the visage of, for example, Random Indiscriminate Human Male #24,386. That RIHM24386 looks startlingly similar to Bob Jenkins, the plumber, living on the other side of the galaxy on a separate plane in another dimension is irrelevant. You look like a random human, not a specific one you're trying to emulate. This is an absolutely valid interpretation of what "specific creature" means in the polymorph entry.This argument ignores the fact that even if this functions, it only functions once because:
the succubus cannot assume the same form twice (even subtle variations on it), therefore their ability to execute long term scams requires them to keep up that shape for the entire duration. As soon as they change form, they can never return to that assumed form again.Once an nonspecific appearance has been randomly chosen, it becomes specific and therefore impossible to replicate according to the RAW.
Wat.
No. You cannot take the form of a specific creature. That you took a form before does not mean that form is a specific creature.
In general I think the argument about not being able to assume a specific apperance is silly. It obviously means "Can't pick someone to duplicate".
It really is and it really does. And you can get to that obvious meaning using just the words on the page. No RAW violations or anything.
I get some of the other arguments being thrown about for other things. The Silver Dragon issue is a clear wording problem. But this one is simply forcing an issue where none exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature’s type."
Is this what everyone's drifted into talking about? It seems fairly clear that 'the previous form you took' is not the same as a 'specific individual'. I'd imagine that you can change into a 'typical elf', only you can make small adjustments, like the sliders you get when creating your character in Skyrim and similar games. Not enough precision to pass yourself off as the chief of police to people who know him, but enough that you can look 'old' or 'fat' or similar.
|
|
Haven't been using the rings much, but we've had plenty of access to invisibility, and if it wasn't greater invis, it's been broken pretty quickly anyway.
That would depend on who is using the ring. If you're a rogue looking to sneak attack, it won't last. If you're a caster focused on control, buffs or healing, it stays up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The succubus has used her shape altering ability to assume an identity of a noblewoman called Lady Lucy Lastic. When she first used this ability to change to this form, it was a 'generic' human female, whatever that means.
Another creature with the same shape changing ability sees Lucy, doesn't know she's really a succubus, and attempts to assume her form.
Does it work or not? Does it work because the spell somehow knows that Lucy is not a specific individual? How?
Does it fail because you can't look and someone and say 'I want to look like that'?
Surely it means that you can't change to a particular face, no matter where that face came from. Given that, Lady Lucy's face, as random as it started, is now a specific face, and as such cannot be assumed using this ability because this ability cannot be used to assume a specific face.
So Lady Lucy is a one time only disguise.
Dropping the succubus conversation because, unwilling to admit that he uses his own judgement to supply meaning where there is none (even when he actually states that's what he's doing), fret will likely continue to do so unconvinced regardless of words.
In this case it's become a fundamental matter of degrees and importance placed on what you're doing.
I hold that the words have a specific meaning and deviating from them means you're deviating from them. (I also hold that this is the correct thing to do, but it is worth noting that you do so.)
He holds that the words have a specific meaning, but that presuming things that aren't within that meaning and going after the intent is actually going after the specific meaning (even if it's a different actual meaning).
Either way, communication happens. We all know what it means.
On to other topics...
Haven't been using the rings much, but we've had plenty of access to invisibility, and if it wasn't greater invis, it's been broken pretty quickly anyway.That would depend on who is using the ring. If you're a rogue looking to sneak attack, it won't last. If you're a caster focused on control, buffs or healing, it stays up.Even more, if you're a rogue looking to scout.
Sure, in combat it doesn't last long, but if you're trying to avoid a fight...
This is very true... which is the basis of my argument.
I've rarely played a scry'n'fry caster... but I often play stealthy characters (and enjoy running that for table top games as well).
One of the more interesting elements to that is going invisible.
This has allowed him to - in a very cinematic and difficult, intriguing series of encounters - successfully (sometimes barely) manage to sneak through a castle, carefully scouting out and marking locations, and sneak back (though, eventually, towards the end, they were caught, because, you know, invisibility isn't unable to be defeated*).
It's a real shame when, all of a sudden, his stealth, which he's put a great deal of skills and traits into is suddenly rendered into a flat DC 15 Perception check to discover every three minutes.
Hm... no, on second thought, I don't recall ever seeing that happen...
Invisibility grants a number of bonuses that are very useful to have... but those bonuses are able to be acquired in other ways.
* We successfully managed to turn the discovery into a stealth 'assassination' (if by 'assassination' you mean 'left the guy alive, but unconscious' - a noted tendency of our games**) by using forced quiet and ganging up long enough to drop him.
** Weird, I know. We often have families and stuff, too, only some of which are missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in the end, I'm not sure what the relevance is (not specifically your post, I know why you responded, I mean the point in general), since we know precisely how long the Ring, spell, and potion effects lasted in 3.5. Not trying to be flippant at all. I get why people have the impression they do about the current Ring because of legacy. But for that legacy to override, you have to ignore the more direct and recent legacy that answers these questions very clearly and very differently. That's tough to do since PF parroted all of that language directly from 3.5.
Everyone knows the earth is flat, even though some have said otherwise for a long time.
Legacy rules. :-)Just because you kept up with rules changes, does not mean everyone does.
/cevah
Very true.
Dropping the succubus conversation because, unwilling to admit that he uses his own judgement to supply meaning where there is none (even when he actually states that's what he's doing), fret will likely continue to do so unconvinced regardless of words.
Lulz.
It's not my own judgment that words have multiple meanings. That's actually a quantifiable fact. I'm not making baseless accusations here. I'm not the one insisting upon a definition that leads to ridiculousness when an equally valid definition leads to a completely workable result.
Apparently that employee better swing on down to the post office every Sunday or else s/he might get fired.
But in the end, I'm not sure what the relevance is (not specifically your post, I know why you responded, I mean the point in general), since we know precisely how long the Ring, spell, and potion effects lasted in 3.5. Not trying to be flippant at all. I get why people have the impression they do about the current Ring because of legacy. But for that legacy to override, you have to ignore the more direct and recent legacy that answers these questions very clearly and very differently. That's tough to do since PF parroted all of that language directly from 3.5.Everyone knows the earth is flat, even though some have said otherwise for a long time.
Legacy rules. :-)Just because you kept up with rules changes, does not mean everyone does.
/cevah
It's not even really about keeping up with rules changes. I've been caught off guard by changes before. But when I find out, my response is usually more along the lines of "Huh. I didn't know they changed that." Not, "This can't possibly be how this works now because it worked differently 25 years ago."
*shrug*
To each their own, I suppose.
I don't have my 3.0 books around anymore. If you could post what the language was in 3.0 that'd be great. Also, if you could link to FAQs, errata, or developer (specifically author) commentary on how the Ring functioned, that would help a tin, too. I don't think I can have an in depth conversation about what you're saying here without it.I thought the part where I said that the wording was absolutely identical from 3.0 through Pathfinder made it pretty clear what the words were. As a hint: They were exactly the same as they are now. Nothing has changed since 3.0. The words are identical.
You missed the part where I asked for author commentary and clarifications. It seems really important to you to have author commentary to demonstrate the intent for 3.5, so I was wondering if the same thing existed for 3.0. Because ultimately, the thing is the exact same questions you have about the 3.5 FAQ can be applied to the 3.0 FAQ. Did the person writing the FAQ simply assume things continued on as they had before? Were rings supposed to be treated differently in 3.0 than they were in prior iterations of the game. And ultimately, does it matter since, again, the 3.5 FAQ tells us how the 3.5 versions of the items worked.
Though again, how it functioned even in 3.0 doesn't much matter since we have an official statement as to how it functioned in PF's direct predecessor, 3.5.True. But we also have that old thread which suggests that it functioned differently in 3.0. Which tells us that the words didn't change, but the interpretation changed. In 3.0, the FAQ said "Note that most rings function continuously once activated, which allows for virtually unlimited use unless the ring produces an effect that can be broken." But then when someone asked Skip Williams about rings like that later:
"Skip, I'm looking at the various command-activated magic rings in the DMG that have no specified duration to their powers (like blinking, invisibility, and spell turning). Are these effects (a) unending until deactivated, or (b) limited in duration according to the prerequisite spell and caster level (for example, 150 minutes duration for a ring of spell turning), or something else entirely?
n general, it's the latter."
Which tells us that, sometime between 3.0ish and 3.5ish, the answer changed. And not just for one ring, but for rings in general; I don't think I've ever seen someone run a ring of spell turning as having a specific duration per activation, either.
But it's interesting to me that it's a change, because if there's a change in interpretation, without a change in words, that often indicates, to me, an unintentional change -- no one said "yes, it used to work like that, but this is better". Instead, I think this is a case where some people had taken it for granted that it was Answer A, and others took it for granted that it was Answer B, and none of them ever happened to talk the issue over with each other to reach a conclusion that a change was appropriate. Rather, they just kept ruling it differently without ever finding out.
And as I've said, it's certainly possible that this is true. But I'm not going to presume it.
I must be missing something. How does the article speak to differences between 3.5 and 3.0?
I didn't say it spoke to differences between 3.5 and 3.0. I said is spoke to differences between 3.5 and predecessors. By predecessors, I meant game versions prior to 3.0, since what we were talking about is the state of affairs in 3.0. It wasn't particularly clear, so my apologies.
Okay, the thing I'm not getting here is, you keep saying "differently", but the article I thought we were talking about never said anything even remotely like "unlike in previous editions, the ring of invisibility..."
And nothing stated about it sounds like a "difference" from previous editions. It's a ring that lets you go invisible as many times as you want. That's valuable. 3E pricing reflects that, but then, so did 1E. The only difference I see is that 1E pricing didn't have to explain why it deviated from a very approximate set of guidelines.
Your point is that things changed between 3.0 and 3.5. You also pointed to a post mentioned a 3.0 FAQ which stated that the Ring of Invisibility was a use-activated, continuous magical item. The 3.5 article mentioning the construction of the Ring used a formula that is different than the formula which would be used to calculate the price of a use-activated, continuous magical item. This is evidence that 3.5 is treating the Ring differently.
PF used this same method of calculation for the Ring of Invisibility. Again, this method treats the Ring differently than a use-activated, continuous magical item. I think it is fair to assume that PF knew which rules they were citing when making that entry. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that they were discussing the pricing of a magical item that is not use-activated and continuous use. Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that PF was aware that the Ring of Invisibility was treated differently in 3.5 than in 3.0. They adopted the 3.5 method of calculation and, by extension, it stands to reason the 3.5 intent. So the 3.0 version of the Ring is irrelevant. Either that or PF never knew that the 3.0 Ring was use-activated and continuous, meaning the 3.0 version of the Ring is still irrelevant because they created the PF version of the Ring based on their understanding of the intent 3.5 version of the Ring, which was not use-activated and continuous.