Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kreynolds" data-source="post: 421410" data-attributes="member: 2829">Do you mean in regards to familiars? Beats the hell out of me. Again, I didn't write the book. I assume they wrote that section because familiars are awfully weak and vulnerable. Giving them magic items helps increase their chances for survival at least a little bit.Here's why "form" is important and "type" is irrelevant. The Polymorph spell states that Constructs do not possess item slots, right? But it's form that matters. How can I prove this? Take a look at the Worm that Walks in the ELH. It's a construct in humanoid form, and it is fully capable of using equipment. In fact, every Worm that Walks encountered has a basic set of equipment. Now, if "type" was the deciding factor in this, as you believe it to be of at least some importance, then the Worm that Walks could not use equipment at all, simply because it's a construct. But, it can in fact use equipment, no matter what it's type is, simply because it is in humanoid form.I can't stress enough that "type" has nothing at all to do with this. A finger is a finger. If you have one, you should be able to wear a ring. Arguably, a dragon does not have a finger, but in fact has a claw, and there is a difference between the two, if only slightly.I wasn't really defensive. I was just trying to prevent a flame-war before it started. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, your rebuttal was partially suitable, but mostly not. Refer to my response to that rebuttal for more info.You keep coming back to this, and I'm confused why. You wanted evidence of this within the rules. I gave it. It's in the Polymorph spell. You don't like the Polymorph spell because it's been errated a few times, but that's not my problem. I gave an example for the current errated version of the spell, which is within the rules of the game, yet you don't like it. Again, not my problem. If you can show me where that passage in the spell is in error, then I'll certainly consider your argument.In short, I provided proof, you don't like it, and here we are. It would be like you telling me I was late for work, me showing you my watch which clearly shows that I'm not late, and you saying I'm late anyways because you don't like my watch, even though your watch says the exact same thing. *shrug*It is immaterial. See second answer.If it's not important, why do you keep bringing it up?Tome & Blood contradicts itself. You pointed out the familar/magic item section, which states that familiars can use magic items, because some of them have item slots as well. Yet in the spell description for Polymorph it states that Dragons cannot use equipment. It doesn't state "some dragons", it states simply "dragons". Granted, that passage is not 100% solid at all, seeing as how it has been proven that certain creatures do in fact have item slots and can use equipment, such as the drider above. Now, you can have a pseudodragon for a familiar, and a pseudodragon is still a dragon, but even though it's type is irrelevant, it is also in dragon form, and dragons cannot use equipment, so it doesn't matter if it's a familiar or not. The creature simply isn't capable of using equipment because it doesn't have any item slots. Tome & Blood says "yes" and "no" at the same time.I politely ask that you dispense with this counterproductive behavior and please try to keep this discussion going forward, not backwards. The contradiction you mention was pointed out a while back, and addressed a while back, and responded to a while back, and progress was made a while back. Your bringing it up again serves absolutely no purpose, except perhaps to try and derail the argument by pointed backwards to something that has already been gone over.This was part of the discussion......but you seem to have completely ignored the fact that I agreed with drnuncheon that the statement cannot be applied 100%, as a drider is an abberation, yet it can wear a ring, thus it has an item slot.Please, I beg of you that you refrain from resorting to pettiness, and please, if pettiness is not the case (which it very well might not be) at least give me the courtesy of actually reading my posts. I give you that courtesy by default.What argument? What you stated above was one of two things; either an attempt at a petty jab or an oversight because you didn't read my posts.Nobody has raised it so far...Do you have a hand? You do? Then explain why you couldn't wield a weapon. Need an example? Take the Balor. It's an Outsider, and the Polymorph spell states that some outsiders can't use equipment, yet the Balor specifically uses a Vorpal weapon. What about a Lantern Archon, which is also an outsider. Can the Lantern Archon use equipment? What's the distinction? Hands.By definition, a slotless item does not take up any space on the character. An Ooze doesn't have any item slots, but it doesn't need an item slot if it has a slotless item.See previous answers.Of course it does. Polymorph made a blanket statement about creatures and the ability to use equipment. Personally, I don't see why a Dragon shouldn't be able to wear a ring, but at the same time, it shouldn't. Perhaps it's fingers are normal enough, and a testament to that would be the fact that they can use their hands for somatic spell components. But, initially, I argued that they didn't have any item slots at all. The Drider example above (the one involving weapons) sent me on a hunt to find a drider I had seen that was wearing a ring. I found it and brought it forward, and viewpoint had been expanded.The Polymorph spells makes a statement that is essentially a primer, but certain creatures should be evaluated carefully to see if they should be able to use equipment.Ah yes, the familiars. Here's what we have left. You site a passage in Tome & Blood that says familiars, such as a pseudodragon, have item slots and can use magic items. I show you a passage in the very same book that says dragons cannot use equipment. At first glance, I would say only one of them is right, but I've done more than just glance at it.There is the possibility that familiars do indeed get concessions because they are so weak and vulnerable, such as a pseudrodragon familiar being able to use slotted magic items, even though the very same book says that dragons cannot.By the way, I noticed this...To be honest, I'm not sure. I made a statement about this earlier but I had it backwards. Instead of the dragon -> human I was thinking human -> dragon, which would mean that the ring is absorbed.But, since the dragon form would be it's natural form, and if it's human form was dispelled, I don't know what would happen to the ring. Rings state that they magically resize to fit the wearer, so it only stands to reason that it would remain on the dragon's finger, but whether or not it will function is a different matter altogether.Like I said, I don't have a problem with a dragon wearing a ring, but Tome & Blood both says "no" and "yes, in regards to familiiars" at the same time. Also, like I said...case by case basis. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification