Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
High-Level Play: Nightmare for DMs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mephistopheles" data-source="post: 1689768" data-attributes="member: 4460"><p>I can see your argument more clearly after that post, but I think there are some complications that may make the position untenable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're reading things into this clause that aren't stated. When the spell says "If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures." it says this because if you are calling a particular being then it is implied that you are calling a single creature. If I could specify a particular being and get multiples of him/her/it then the spell would be cloning the particular being as well as calling him/her/it. If I am calling a kind of being, though, then this clause is making it clear that I can call multiple creatures of that kind.</p><p></p><p>As calling a particular being implies that we are calling a single creature, we then read on to find that "In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice your caster level can't be controlled.". So, when I call a particular being that creature is called to me but will only be controlled by me if its HD is not more than twice my caster level. (I admit I am at a loss to explain why they repeated, albeit with rewording, the same sentence. Perhaps it was an effort to enhance clarity.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You seem to be saying that the author of the spell text does not use the word "unique" in an absolute sense but in a more watered down form common to modern sales or self affirmation language (eg/ "This rundown shack offers a unique renovation challenge", "You are a unique individual", etc). If this is what you're getting at then it's an issue that is impossible for us to settle without the intent being made clear by WotC. If it turns out that the use of the word "unique" is intended the way you suggest then it's actually a misuse of the word because they don't mean unique at all, they mean particular. In the meantime, it's more reasonable to assume that they mean what they've written rather than assuming they mean something else, isn't it?</p><p></p><p>More problematic is that once you apply this watered down redefinition of "unique" then what creature isn't unique? And so, if every creature is unique then specifying a "kind of being" becomes impossible because they are all unique beings. Furthermore, because they are all unique only a single creature can be called and those single creatures can never be controlled by this spell, rendering the clauses discussing calling multiple creatures and the control of creatures irrelevant. At this point continuing with this reading of the spell is starting to resemble a kline bottle as it turns itself inside out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mephistopheles, post: 1689768, member: 4460"] I can see your argument more clearly after that post, but I think there are some complications that may make the position untenable. You're reading things into this clause that aren't stated. When the spell says "If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures." it says this because if you are calling a particular being then it is implied that you are calling a single creature. If I could specify a particular being and get multiples of him/her/it then the spell would be cloning the particular being as well as calling him/her/it. If I am calling a kind of being, though, then this clause is making it clear that I can call multiple creatures of that kind. As calling a particular being implies that we are calling a single creature, we then read on to find that "In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice your caster level can't be controlled.". So, when I call a particular being that creature is called to me but will only be controlled by me if its HD is not more than twice my caster level. (I admit I am at a loss to explain why they repeated, albeit with rewording, the same sentence. Perhaps it was an effort to enhance clarity.) You seem to be saying that the author of the spell text does not use the word "unique" in an absolute sense but in a more watered down form common to modern sales or self affirmation language (eg/ "This rundown shack offers a unique renovation challenge", "You are a unique individual", etc). If this is what you're getting at then it's an issue that is impossible for us to settle without the intent being made clear by WotC. If it turns out that the use of the word "unique" is intended the way you suggest then it's actually a misuse of the word because they don't mean unique at all, they mean particular. In the meantime, it's more reasonable to assume that they mean what they've written rather than assuming they mean something else, isn't it? More problematic is that once you apply this watered down redefinition of "unique" then what creature isn't unique? And so, if every creature is unique then specifying a "kind of being" becomes impossible because they are all unique beings. Furthermore, because they are all unique only a single creature can be called and those single creatures can never be controlled by this spell, rendering the clauses discussing calling multiple creatures and the control of creatures irrelevant. At this point continuing with this reading of the spell is starting to resemble a kline bottle as it turns itself inside out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
High-Level Play: Nightmare for DMs?
Top