Inner Fortitude:
If the ring prevents any damage, drain, or penalties that are associated with a beneficial effect, it also negates the beneficial effect.
Enlarge person give -2penality to Dex so Inner Fortitude bloks EP?
Sure does.
I'm not sure that it applies.
Enlarge Person gives a -2 Size Penalty to DEX. The question I have is whether that penalties is a temporary penalty or not.
Obviously, the spell temporarily changes your size, but the penalty to DEX for that size isn't changing or temporary, it is a constant effect.
What would the text of the spell have to be for you to be sure it's a temporary penalty? I don't think it's reasonable to require them to say "temporary" explicitly when the spell itself is temporary. It would just make people wonder if the penalty went away before the spell ended.
I think you are missing my point.
There are intrinsic differences (some bonuses, some penalties) that are related to size. These size bonuses and penalties always apply at that size, they are part of being that size, for ease the spells detail them out, but they really don't have to.
The spell is changing the size (which comes with bonuses and penalties) and it is doing that temporarily, but it is not directly applying ANY bonuses or penalties.
I'm not 100% sure I even agree with this argument myself, but there is something attractive about looking at it this way.
So, Dave and Pantshandshake, do you say that enlarge person works and you take the -1 Dex despite the ring, or does the ring prevent the -1 w/o preventing the spell?
I agree.
Going with the interpretation of the size bonuses and penalties being intrinsic to the size, the ring doesn't apply at all.
It doesn't prevent the spell, but it doesn't prevent the size penalty either.
I am absolutely sure that either you have to say the two don't interact at all, or that the ring blocks the penalty and the size change.
I can't see any possible interpretation where the size change occurs and the penalty is prevented by the ring.
|
The text of enlarge person does specify a penalty to Dex. The ring’s text is that if the penalty is associated with a “beneficial effect” the beneficial effect is negated as well. It doesn’t matter if the source is the size change or the spell.
We’re actually on the second version of the ring (2nd printing errata). The first one didn’t have the exception and it was just too good. Especially the minor version, which for an extremely cheap price removed the balancing factors designed into a whole lot of abilities (my mindchemist loved it).
I would say the ring wouldn’t prevent any of the changes from a change in size, so the spell would work and the target would become enlarged.
My reasoning being, the -2 to dex from being large isn’t a penalty (there is no effect happening that reduces a large target’s dex, aside from large things having a lower dex.) Nor is there a temporary stat change (casting restoration on a large target doesn’t suddenly increase the dex score, nor could a day of bed rest return any dex points.)
It is very definitely a penalty:
The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.
And I don't see any good argument for it being a permanent penalty, so it's a temporary penalty.
Well, good luck having a character that exists once the ring stops all the temporary negatives to stats that many races have at character generation, thereby stopping the beneficial process of creating a character, I guess.
What makes you think those are temporary? Those are permanent penalties, and are not ability damage/drain, hence the ring does not attempt to block them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.
Going with the interpretation of the size bonuses and penalties being intrinsic to the size, the ring doesn't apply at all.
It doesn't prevent the spell, but it doesn't prevent the size penalty either.
If they were intrinsic to the size, they'd be the same regardless of the spell or method used to change size. This isn't the case, though--different spells that change size grant different bonuses/penalties. I suppose you could argue (for polymorph spells only) that the portion of a polymorph spell that changes your size from (not small or medium) to small or medium is inherent to the size, but after that it's all up to the spell.
(Full disclosure: In my opinion, this item was either poorly written or poorly edited, enough so that I rewrote the description as a house rule in case one of my players wants to craft one.)
And I don't see any good argument for it being a permanent penalty, so it's a temporary penalty.
What I keep coming back to is the spell specifically says it is a SIZE penalty, one of the few penalties with a type.
The bonus types definitions says: "A size bonus or penalty is derived from a creature’s size category"
So the source of the penalty is the size category directly, and only indirectly is it the spell.
And I don't see any good argument for it being a permanent penalty, so it's a temporary penalty.What I keep coming back to is the spell specifically says it is a SIZE penalty, one of the few penalties with a type.
The bonus types definitions says: "A size bonus or penalty is derived from a creature’s size category"
So the source of the penalty is the size category directly, and only indirectly is it the spell.
Hmm. Say enlarge person also made the target fatigued. Fatigue then inflicts ability penalties. Would the ring stop them, because they're temporary ability penalties, or not stop them, because that would stop the spell and the spell isn't directly the source of the penalties?
That is a pretty good point.
Honestly I don't know. What if we substitute grappled? How direct does it have to be? Would it reduce the penalties from being grappled by Black Tentacles?
I certainly agree that for many reasons the item is poorly written.
Well, good luck having a character that exists once the ring stops all the temporary negatives to stats that many races have at character generation, thereby stopping the beneficial process of creating a character, I guess.What makes you think those are temporary? Those are permanent penalties, and are not ability damage/drain, hence the ring does not attempt to block them.
Well, of course from a certain point of view they are temporary. Nothing lasts forever after all.
What about the penalties from being a young character? Are those temporary?
What if we substitute grappled? How direct does it have to be? Would it reduce the penalties from being grappled by Black Tentacles?
Bad example. It always reduces the Dex penalty from being grappled, that being a temporary ability penalty, doesn't matter if it's caused by a spell or not.
Well, good luck having a character that exists once the ring stops all the temporary negatives to stats that many races have at character generation, thereby stopping the beneficial process of creating a character, I guess.What makes you think those are temporary? Those are permanent penalties, and are not ability damage/drain, hence the ring does not attempt to block them.Well, of course from a certain point of view they are temporary. Nothing lasts forever after all.
What about the penalties from being a young character? Are those temporary?
Oh, good one. They're definitely not permanent, hence they must be temporary, hence the ring ought to stop them---which is problematic enough by itself! OTOH, being young is seen by the rules as a detriment, not a beneficial effect, so at least that doesn't get blocked by the ring. :-P
What mechanical reasoning might you use to say it doesn't apply to young characters?
<sigh> Put me in the "the ring is poorly written" camp too, I guess. Though I'm not sure how I'd rewrite it unless I just dropped the anti-penalty effect entirely, limiting it to ability damage/drain only.
|
|
I'm still not understanding what the point of arguing over the wording of enlarge person is. Whether it's a "size" bonus that somehow isn't coming from the spell. (Don't misunderstand me, I have an opinion on that, it's just that the answer doesn't matter.)
If the ring prevents any damage, drain, or penalty that are associated with a beneficial effect, it also negates the beneficial effect.
There's a penalty associated with enlarge person (clearly written in the text).
This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.
A humanoid creature whose size increases to Large has a space of 10 feet and a natural reach of 10 feet. This spell does not change the target's speed...
Melee weapons affected by this spell deal more damage...
If the ring negates the penalty, it negates the beneficial effects as well. If you drink a potion of enlarge person while wearing a Ring of Inner Fortitude, the net result is a -1 penalty to attack rolls and AC. You don't get the Strength bonus, you don't get the increased reach, and you don't get increased melee weapon damage. Those are beneficial effects.
|
|
Could the ring be written better? Maybe. I think the intention is clear but there's almost always room for minor wording changes. Something like this would probably be better:
If the wearer chooses to accept an effect that causes ability damage, drain, or penalties (such as enlarge person or an alchemist's mutagen) the ring has no effect.
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses.
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
Well at least i'll know to make sure I put one of these on any enemy I think might try shapeshifting when we take them into custody. I think just about any size change effect has a penalty somewhere.
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses.Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.
That is a definition for bonuses, not penalties.
It is, fair enough, all we have as a technical definition of 'temporary'. Unfortunately using 'lasts less than 24 hours' as the definition of temporary creates its own problems. Let's look at becoming fatigued, which the text of the item says the ring will prevent penalties from. Fatigued lasts for an indefinite period, however long it is until you get 8 hours of rest. When you become fatigued, you have no idea whether it will be gone in 24 hours or not, so you can't know whether the temporary. This problem doesn't exist if you use the mundane dictionary definition of temporary, but that open up other problems as discussed.
Ring of Inner Fortitude
Enlarge Person
Bestiary Size Change
Polymorph
The only size change table I could find was in the Bestiary. That table does not line up with the numbers from the spell.
If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class, attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell.
So the ring ignores polymorph spells unless the spell specifically calls out stat modifiers.
Enlarge Person is not a polymorph, so this does not apply. However, it does state specific changes that do not line up with the 'usual' size changes. I think that clearly makes the changes a direct part of the spell.
So I think the ring blocks this spell.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst thing about this item is that I can't even come to a plausible guess as to how the designer intended it to work--that is, I can't think of an interpretation, right or wrong, that would be consistent with the written text.
The worst thing about this item is that I can't even come to a plausible guess as to how the designer intended it to work--that is, I can't think of an interpretation, right or wrong, that would be consistent with the written text.
Based on something upthread I think it got errated for being too powerful when it just stopped the penalties and let the good stuff happen. so that was the intent of the designer no clue about the dev team at this point.