Hold Person and Polymorph

[Saeviomagy]

Can someone not currently under the influence of mind-altering drugs please try to explain what Scion is talking about?

(Provided that's even possible...)

I think you two are trying not to understand each other, but here goes.

Iku - you said (in reference to a prior post), that a more general form of a particular statement would be

"The rules must always explicitly state that something is an exception, no matter how self evident it is from the context"

Scion asked you what exactly you meant by "self evident"

Is it self evident that a dead person is no longer a valid target for an invisibility spell?

Is it self evident that a shillelagh is no longer a valid target for a shillelagh spell?

What is the difference between the two, and what do we have to do to pick out the spells where this general rule does not apply?

Self evident only works for fundamental truths, not for odd gaming terms.

 

[cordell]

>>>Right, the rules don't explicitly contradict your statement. Unfortunately they don't explicitly support the statement, either. There's no statement in the books that says whether targetting is checked only once, or continuously. Hence the vagueness, which is why we've got a thread on the subject.

I give you the SRD, quoted below.

For me it's pretty clear. The SRD is outlining how to cast a spell, and it mentions targetting the spell as you cast it. Its the only time targetting is mentioned, so its the only time it occurs.

I mean, the meaning of the English verb, "to target", is pretty clear to me, too. Let's say a modern day archer fires an arrow and hits the Bullseye. Would you try to argue that the arrow is continuosly "targetting" the Bullseye?

-----------------------
AIMING A SPELL
You must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on the type of spell. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

 

[Iku Rex]

I think you two are trying not to understand each other, but here goes.

I appreciate the effort, but I don't think you understood Scion either.

Scion asked you what exactly you meant by "self evident".

Where? Did he edit his posts at some point, replacing that simple question with the nonsense currently on display?


And why on earth would he ask me that? Where do I suggest or imply that I am using the term in some special, non-standard way?

Not to mention; what I think is self evident or not is completely irrelevant to my questions, as they involve Hypersmurf's idea of "self evident".

(Or is he trying to say that nothing is self evident in the rules?! And therefore my question is absurd?)

Is it self evident that a dead person is no longer a valid target for an invisibility spell?

No. (I'll pretend the answer was "yes" for the sake of argument.)

Is it self evident that a shillelagh is no longer a valid target for a shillelagh spell?

Yes.

(I'm not sure if "self evident" is the right term with regards to your questions, but I'll play along.)

My turn: Is it self evident that the shillelagh spell (duration: 1 min./level) is not supposed to end (or get suppressed) the second you cast it?

IMO the answer is "yes". Hypersmurf presumably thinks the answer is "yes", or he wouldn't keep bringing up shillelagh as an example. I'll even go out on a limb and predict that you too will say that the answer is "yes".

What is the difference between the two, and what do we have to do to pick out the spells where this general rule does not apply?

The difference is that anyone sufficiently intelligent to read a DnD rulebook will understand that shillelagh doesn't end when you cast it. It's not "unclear" in any way.

What to we have to do? Had there been such a general rule, it would apply unless some rule said "general rule X does not apply here" OR it was clearly absurd for it to apply.

Self evident only works for fundamental truths, not for odd gaming terms.

Does the Eschew Materials feat let you cast a spell with a cheap material component without possessing that component? Remember, the "Magic" chapter clearly says that you need to possess a spells's material component to cast it. And nowhere in the feat does it say that this general rule no longer applies.

 

[Egres]

Does the Eschew Materials feat let you cast a spell with a cheap material component without possessing that component? Remember, the "Magic" chapter clearly says that you need to possess a spells's material component to cast it. And nowhere in the feat does it say that this general rule no longer applies.

Mmhh..perhaps it's due to a bad translation, but the Italian edition of Tome and Blood uses a verb that clearly excludes the need of possessing the material component.

 

[Scion]

Probably not a bad translation, it doesnt really get any clearer (or less clear) in the english version either. There isnt any way to hedge around it and make people still need components less than 1gp without completely making things up.

SRD:
ESCHEW MATERIALS [GENERAL]
Benefit: You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component. (The casting of the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.) If the spell requires a material component that costs more than 1 gp, you must have the material component at hand to cast the spell, just as normal.

 

[DemonAtheist]

hypothetical situation: an outsider is polymorphed into a humanoid. Later, hold person is cast on him. During hold person's duration, polymorph naturally ends (duration is over). Is the outsider still under the effects of hold person?

 

[Saeviomagy]

The difference is that anyone sufficiently intelligent to read a DnD rulebook will understand that shillelagh doesn't end when you cast it. It's not "unclear" in any way.

But are supposed to ignore that when passing any judgement on any comparable situation, situations which have no other evidence for or against them. I see.

 

[Egres]

Bumped!

 

[Iku Rex]

You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component.

AHA! But then there's the magic chapter in the PH: "A spell’s components are what you must do or possess to cast it."

MUST possess. So clearly what we have here is a contradiction, right?

Of course, to a crazy rules-anarchists like myself it's not a problem. But that's because it's self-evident to me that eschew materials is supposed to be an exception to the general rules for spell components. Just as it's self-evident to me that shillelagh would be an exception to a rule saying that a spells end if their target becomes invalid.

 

[Iku Rex]

But are supposed to ignore that when passing any judgement on any comparable situation, situations which have no other evidence for or against them. I see.

Ignore what?