Reincarnate and its interpretation

[Felnar]

I agree with Hypersmurf et al.

You cant choose to read some paragraphs as being made of entirely separate sentences (eg Reincarnate description) and others as made of dependent sentences (eg Fly description)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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]"?

I do not. Your paraphrase, while still ambiguous, leans much more heavily toward your interpretation. Unsurprisingly.

Consider this sentence: "Fuel injection work requires the proper tools. First make sure you have good lighting, and then use Tool X to calibrate your engine." Are you really trying to say that because the first clause in the second sentence has nothing to do with "tools," that it has no meaning in the sentence?

Similarly: "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." Just because the first clause of the second sentence might involve something other than "Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution" in no way means that (a) the sentence and paragraph structure is incorrect, or (b) that the instruction -- as written is not a valid and meaningful instruction.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Hypersmurf is quite right (as (almost) always).

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.

You (seemingly) contradict yourself.

I'm arguing that the literal meaning is RAW (whether intended or not and whether correct or not). Hypersmurf is arguing that the literal meaning should be set aside in favor of a specific interpretation, but yet that that interpretation is RAW.

He's incorrect. (He might be correct in his interpretation. He is incorrect that it is RAW.)

It's particularly surprising that Hypersmurf is arguing against the literal language as RAW, since he so often -- whatever the absurdities it produces -- argues that RAW is literal. And in this case, reading the text literally doesn't even produce any absurdities.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. Before you do Action, remove the racial adjustments to ability scores."

Now it's a fair paraphrase.

Yes, it is, and it still says to remove racial adjustments. All of them.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You cant choose to read some paragraphs as being made of entirely separate sentences (eg Reincarnate description) and others as made of dependent sentences (eg Fly description)

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, since the second clause of the second sentence -- the clause instructing the player to add Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments from the table -- refers back to the previous sentence.

If your claim is that it's impossible -- or even just poor writing -- to have independent clauses that don't directly relate to an earlier sentence in a paragraph -- such as an instruction to remove racial adjustments -- well, you're just plain wrong.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf is arguing that the literal meaning should be set aside in favor of a specific interpretation, but yet that that interpretation is RAW.

I'm not saying the literal meaning should be set aside at all. I'm saying that the literal meaning of the sentence in the context of the paragraph in which it appears differs from the literal meaning of the sentence taken in isolation.

And since the sentence doesn't appear in isolation, that's not the literal meaning that's applicable.

If your claim is that it's impossible -- or even just poor writing -- to have independent clauses that don't directly relate to an earlier sentence in a paragraph -- such as an instruction to remove racial adjustments -- well, you're just plain wrong.

Are you claiming it's impossible to have clauses that do directly relate to an earlier sentence in a paragraph -- such as an instruction to remove racial adjustments?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Are you claiming it's impossible to have clauses that do directly relate to an earlier sentence in a paragraph -- such as an instruction to remove racial adjustments?

How about you look back through the thread and let me know whether you think that's what I'm claiming. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm not saying the literal meaning should be set aside at all. I'm saying that the literal meaning of the sentence in the context of the paragraph in which it appears differs from the literal meaning of the sentence taken in isolation.

The problem is that, given that the sentences -- and the paragraph, and the spell itself -- make fine sense both ways, and given that the first clause of the second sentence gives no specific instructions on which way to read it, the literal meaning is to simply read and apply the clause as written. You are adding meaning to the clause as written because you believe that it relates directly to the previous sentence. In other words, you're using circular reasoning, and you're ignoring the literal meaning.

If the clause said, "first remove the physical ability adjustments," or even just "these ability adjustments," as it easily could have, there'd be no issue. But the clause says to eliminate the subject's ability adjustments -- not just some of them -- and then add the adjustments from the table. Why do we add the adjustments from the table? Because, as we're told in the preceding sentence, "Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body."

 

[Hypersmurf]

The problem is that, given that the sentences -- and the paragraph, and the spell itself -- make fine sense both ways, and given that the first clause of the second sentence gives no specific instructions on which way to read it, the literal meaning is to simply read and apply the clause as written.

The first sentence doesn't need to give specific instructions - those instructions are implicit in the fact that it says "Str, Dex, and Con depend on the new form" and not "Ability scores depend on the new form".

You are adding meaning to the clause as written because you believe that it relates directly to the previous sentence.

The first sentence adds meaning to the clause as written. I believe that it relates directly to the previous sentence, but it is not my belief that makes it so.

-Hyp.

 

[robberbaron]

My assumption is that, as you are only adding the Str/Dex/Con ability adjustments of the new body, you only remove the Str/Dex/Con ability adjustments of the old one.

If you don't have to take the -2 Int and -2 Cha from being reincarnated as a Half-Orc why should you suddenly become more intelligent and charismatic if you die as a Half-Orc then get reincarnated into, say, an Elf?

It seems to me that, without taking a RAW entry as a whole, it is often difficult to get a meaning that makes sense.