Elethiomel
First Post
This is a thread intended to take discussion from http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205966 about the wording of the Reincarnate spell, because that was starting to hijack said thread.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Reincarnate and its interpretation
- Thread starter Elethiomel
- Start date
Jeff Wilder
First Post
The discussion revolves around this text from reincarnate:
"Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."
I (and others) argue that since (a) there's no mention of not stripping mental racial adjustments away (when so many other spells are explicit about when mental stats aren't affected) and (b) the spell makes perfect sense and works perfectly well if mental adjustment are stripped away, the literal RAW is that all racial adjustments to ability scores are stripped, then Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments from the accompanying table are made.
I (and others) further argue that interpreting the spell the other way (that the reference to stripping away racial adjustments applies only to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments, even though that's not explict) is perfectly understandable, and might well be what is intended, despite not being what is written.
Hypersmurf (and others) argue that it's unambiguously clear that the instructions to remove ability score adjustments apply solely to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.
"Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."
I (and others) argue that since (a) there's no mention of not stripping mental racial adjustments away (when so many other spells are explicit about when mental stats aren't affected) and (b) the spell makes perfect sense and works perfectly well if mental adjustment are stripped away, the literal RAW is that all racial adjustments to ability scores are stripped, then Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments from the accompanying table are made.
I (and others) further argue that interpreting the spell the other way (that the reference to stripping away racial adjustments applies only to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments, even though that's not explict) is perfectly understandable, and might well be what is intended, despite not being what is written.
Hypersmurf (and others) argue that it's unambiguously clear that the instructions to remove ability score adjustments apply solely to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.
kreynolds
First Post
Jeff Wilder said:
I would not go so far as to argue that it is completely unambiguous, but for me personally, "Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body..." extends to "while Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma do not depend on the new body", so I do agree none the less.
I do not see where the spell description makes mention of changing mental ability scores, nor do I see where it is implied, but that may just be due to how I think.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
If someone says to you, "Okay, before you do Action, remove the racial adjustments to ability scores," that doesn't imply that you might be changing a mental ability score?kreynolds said:
Jeff Wilder
First Post
Let me make sure I understand you.kreynolds said:
You don't think that the statement "before you do Action, remove the racial adjustments to ability scores" is a fair paraphrase of "[f]irst eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer of his previous race) and then [do Action]"?
If not, I can see why reincarnate would have you confused.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Jeff Wilder said:
If someone says to you, "Okay, before you do Action, your Str, Dex, and Con might be affected - remove the racial adjustments to ability scores," that doesn't imply that you might not be changing a mental ability score?
Do you feel that's a fair paraphrase of "Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer of his previous race) and then [Action]"?
-Hyp.
Doug Sundseth
First Post
The term that's been missing from this discussion is "conversational implicature". To go back to a previous example with a slight modification:
"I saw a bus yesterday. The bus is yellow."
In the absence of implicature, you cannot know what color bus I saw yesterday. "The bus" need not refer to the same bus as "a bus" in the previous sentence. Perhaps I'm referring to a bus that is passing outside my window right now.
In fact, some people's brains work that way, but it's a hallmark of autism spectrum disorders and comedians, not normal discourse.
For more information on conversational implicature, see (for example):
http://www.sil.org/LINGUISTICS/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsConversationalImplicatur.htm
"I saw a bus yesterday. The bus is yellow."
In the absence of implicature, you cannot know what color bus I saw yesterday. "The bus" need not refer to the same bus as "a bus" in the previous sentence. Perhaps I'm referring to a bus that is passing outside my window right now.
In fact, some people's brains work that way, but it's a hallmark of autism spectrum disorders and comedians, not normal discourse.
For more information on conversational implicature, see (for example):
http://www.sil.org/LINGUISTICS/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsConversationalImplicatur.htm
Hypersmurf is quite right (as (almost) always).Jeff Wilder said:
Arguing strictly by RAW without thinking about the rule's intent leads to a very specific kind of insanity. It is not possible to play the game in any meaningful way if you restrict yourself to RAW. It is an interesting theoretical exercise but it's just that: theoretical.
FWIW, the 3.0 description of this spell contained this sentence:
Looks they should have kept the old description...
Similar Threads
