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: 422416" data-attributes="member: 2829">There shouldn't be a difference, but one passage says they can use items and the other says they can't.This is an assumption on your part, your interpretation. The passage regarding familiars does not state that it applys to all creatures, and the passage in the spell states that it applies to all creatures. One of them is wrong, or both of them are right.Then show me something that says otherwise. Show me a passage that states that all creatures have item slots. Show me a passage that does not exclusively apply to familiars.I haven't been contradicting myself at all. My opinion on this matter has been evolving along with this discussion. The more we talk about this, the more I see this matter in a new light. Perhaps you would rather me stick to my guns and simply ignore everything you say. Perhaps you would prefer that I do not truly participate in a discussion and simply state that you are wrong without providing any evidence to the contrary.We are having a discussion, and as it progresses, new bits of informationn are brought to the table, and as those bits of info are digested, my viewpoint widens to accept things I had not thought of before. That's the basis of any discussion, otherwise there would be no point in having the discussion in the first place. So, in effect, you are accusing me of contradicting myself simply because my viewpoint is expanding. I find that very amusing seeing as how I'm trying my best to keep an open mind. Would you prefer that I adopt a bull-headed attitude and simply refuse to digest/process any new ideas offered by others? A fresh viewpoint was offered by drnuncheon above, and I adopted it into my own viewpoint as his was quite logical and pointed out the flaw in my own argument. I call that progress. Perhaps you call that something else.My bad. I mixed up the two, but my viewpoint still applies solidly.The polymorph spell outlines what creatures cannot use equipment, albeit rather roughly. But, it does not mention humanoids at all. Would you like to know another type it doesn't mention at all? Giants. Why? Because they possess the very same item slots as a humanoid. After all, they're just bigger versions of a humanoid. How about another? Monstrous Humanoids.The familiar passage outlines how they can use equipment. Those are the only two applicable rules quotes. You don't like my quote and I don't like yours. What next? I think we need another viewpoint in this matter.No, that doesn't make any sense at all, and neither is it applicable to matter. Again, why does your type even matter? In my opinion, it is your form that is important, perhaps even a combination of both, but your type should make a difference. The polymorph spell states that some shapechangers cannot use equipment. This implies that the form of the shaperchanger is the mitigating factor in regards to whether or not it can use equipment. A shaperchanger in humanoid form can use equipment without a problem at all, seeing as how it possesses all of the appropriate item slots. But if a shaperchanger is in the form of a monstrous spider, it can't use equipment because that form doesn't allow any item slots.See fourth answer.You're right. I don't believe you. See fourth answer.So all of my posts are chilidish? So I take it you are throwing civility right out the window? I haven't berated you in any way. I made assumptions as to the motives behind your posts, and I even stated in those very assumptions that I might have been wrong, yet you call me childish for giving you the benefit of the doubt.I also didn't accuse you of not reading my posts simply because you don't agree with me. I made that accusation because you felt it necessary for some reason to rehash an old piece of this discussion that had already been addressed. You referred to a post when I had but one viewpoint, but my viewpoint had since expanded to accept other ideas. It was pointless to bring it up.And the familiar passage does not state that it applies to all creatures, yet you make exceptions to the very rules that you quote, stating that it should. You're in no better boat than I am.Same here.You refer to a passage that only mentions familiars. I refer to a passage that is only in a spell. But, somehow, you believe your passage is more solid than mine, even though it specifically focuses upon familiars. When drnuncheon pointed out that Driders wield weapons, I remembered the Drider with the Ring of Protection. I then admitted that the polymorph spell obviously could be taken word for word, that creatures must be evaluated on a case by case basis.Funny enough, the passage regarding familiars also states that they must be evaluated on a case by case basis, yet you are claiming that the passage applies to all creatures, even though it only refers to familiars.Also, by stating that I am "reading my watch upside down", you are implying that my opinion is obviously wrong and that you are obviously right, even though you haven't provided any evidence that is more solid than mine. You claim the equipment limitations in the polymorph the polymorph spell only pertain the spell itself because of the very location in which it resides. The same can be said of your own referrence. It is in the familiar section of the book, and it only addresses familiars.I realized that the limitations dictated by Polymorph could not be stretched to apply to all creaures (thanks drnuncheon). However, you are stretching your own referrence outside the bounds of the passage.The passage regarding familiars does not mention anything but familiars, yet you seem to believe it states otherwise.Yet you make exceptions to the passage regarding familiars. Curious.And that argument is invalid, because Driders can in fact use equipment, which is why I accepted others ideas as valid and adopted a new viewpoint, yet you keep bringing it up as if I had never accepted that idea. In effect, you are not making forward progress but simply rehasing old posts that have since been clarified.What is unclear to me is why you keep bringing this up, even after I admitted that the limitations in the polymorph spell cannot be applied wholesale because said limitations were vague and unspecific.And the passage regarding familiars is more applicable than the passage in the description of polymorph? You say that the passage in the description of polymorph only applies to the polymorph spell, and nothing else. Your very logic demands that the passage regarding familiars only applies to familiars.Again, I even stated in my assumptions that I could be wrong, effectively giving you the benefit of the doubt, yet you seem to wish to ignore that. You imply that I harbored malicious intent by making assumptions in regards to your motives, yet my very admission that I could be wrong in my assumptions only proves that I was not judging you, when in fact, I was simply making an assumption and accepting the possibility that you had no ill intentions.Yet you defend your assertions by calling me "childish"? How strange.See previous answers.So, my admittal that I could be wrong about your intentions is a "low tactic"? Perhaps you would rather I behave as I used to? I can tell you now, that's not going to happen. You call me childish, yet you resort to demanding that I "admit I'm wrong", when in my opinion, you have not defended your assertions to my satisfaction either.This is what's called a "disagreement". A "disagreement" happens when two people do not share the same viewpoint. It happens all the time. Yet you resort to claiming that I am using "low tacticts" by giving you the benefit of the doubt by admitting I could be wrong about your intentions, and you also call me "childish". This just keeps getting stranger and stranger.Perhaps I misunderstand your assertions. Perhaps you weren't clear. Perhaps I just outright think you are wrong about the passage regarding familiars apply to all creatures. Here's my theory......I think you're wrong.So, that means you and I have come to a "disagreement", and unless you can continue this discussion without resorting to name-calling, then I have no interest in continuing it with you, as I would rather not see this thread closed.</blockquote>

Verification