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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oni" data-source="post: 421766" data-attributes="member: 380">I'll answer my own question here to begin with, what difference in form is there between a psuedodragon that is a familiar and one that is not?  In, there isn't any.  So the familiar version of a creature can use an item, then the nonfamiliar version should be able to as well (intelligence allowing).  You say that Polymorph dictates a certain rule, then you say that there are case by case exceptions.  I'm confused here, how is Polymorph dictating any of this.  The rules contained within Polymorph refer only to Polymorph itself, and abilities that refer back to Polymorph.  They have no bearing on anything else, they have no bearing on whether a creature has slot for items or not.  You keep contradicting yourself, so obviously there has to be a flaw in your logic somewhere.  In your Worm that Walks (which is an ooze by the way, not a construct) example you say that it can use certain items because it is humanoid in form.  Show me wear in the rules it says you have to humanoid in form to use slotted items.  The only reason I even mention type is in questioning that validity of Polymorph as an example, because in not actually making the target the creature, it is a poor example of what rules apply to the creaute.  Does that make sense, because I cannot explain it any clearer than that.As for your responce to my rebuttal of Wildshape as good example, all you did was acuse me of attacking your for your example.  If you don't believe me go back and read your response, I've done so several times (as with all of your post on this thread, it is childish to accuse someone of not reading your post if they don't agree with you).  You ask me why I keep asking for examples other than Polymorph, here is the reason.  The rules in Polymorph refer only to Polymorph, they don't dictate anything else, that is why I keep asking for other examples.  The fact that they refer only to Polymorph should be very evident from your need to make exceptions to the very rule you cited in order to justify some of the examples you have been given, such as the drider.  I'm not disagreeing with you to be disagreeable, I'm disagreeing with you because I feel you are incorrect.  In essense to call upon your example, my watch most certainly doesn't say the same thing your says, that or your reading yours upside down.  I don't feel that Tome and Blood contradicts itself, because the Polymorph applies only to itself, the rules contained there in are not meant to be used wholesale across the entire game.   I also have not ignored the fact that you said the rules from Polymorph cannot be applied 100% of the time.  In fact, that alone should be enough to point out that Polymorph has no bearing on the situation, if you have to repeatedly make exceptions to it.  If a rule has that many exceptions then it's not a rule, its not even a guideline, it has no bearing. I argued that driders could not use weapons according to the rules of Polymorph if they are applied as 100% true, to show how silly it was, which I think it does.  Of course they can use weapons, but the fact that they do shows that the rules by Polymorph are not reliable, and thus are not applicable.  I'm sorry if that was unclear.  What does all this mean?  Well simply put, it means that Polymorph means absolutely nothing as to what items a creature can and cannot use.  I end on this thought.  It is bad form to accuse me of being petty or of not reading your post (neither of which is the case) when you cannot defend your assertions any other way.  Is it necessary to question my character or motivations if I disagree with you?  Defend you assertion without resorting to low tactics, or admit your wrong.  I also believe if you go back and reread my post you'll find answers to many of your questions, and arguments that already address your counter arguments if you read carefully enough.  Perhaps I am not always clear, but the information is there.</blockquote>

Verification