Incense of Meditation

[Pinotage]

I dont know if my post above was clear enough, it certainly wasnt very brief

I'd just like to know why you feel that someone who is both X and Y does not count as being X or Y when something asks if they are whatever it is asking for.

As an example that is used easily in the game, if someone is lawful good then they are both lawful and good. If something effects lawful people then it will effect them, even though they are 'lawful good' and not just 'lawful'.

No, it was very clear. Thank you. I guess I just don't see it that way. If you take a strict literal reading, it says divine spellcaster. Divine is an adjective describing spellcaster. Much like red flower or blue sky. If I say to you that here is a blue flower, why would you infer from that that it might also be yellow, for instance? Divine and Arcane are two very different things, much like blue and yellow, and as such if I wanted to describe a blue flower, I'd call it blue, rather than blue and yellow. I guess I was being 'tongue in cheek' about your comment regarding 'plain english'. Sorry. If you take it as that, divine spellcaster can't mean anything other than a spellcaster only capable of casting divine spells. Completely literal english.

A theurge casts both arcane and divine spells, and as such should not be called a divine spellcaster, since that's not entirely true. He's not only a divine spellcaster, but an arcane one as well. I thought it was stretching it a bit to think that the word 'divine' as an adjective would suddenly imply arcane as well depending on interpretation. By the letter, it doesn't.

To take your example above, lawful and good are two different entities, whereas divine is only one. I don't think you can compare them. If you said divine arcane spellcaster, then the above would be relevant. Again, looking at your balloon example, I'd rule that a yellow popping dart didn't pop a red and yellow balloon, since it's not what the dart does. A red and yellow balloon is very different to a yellow balloon despite the fact that they share some similarities (i.e. both have yellow). To take you above example a bit further, would a 'good' dart affect a creature with 'good and lawful' DR? No, because it requires both, not just one.

Hope that makes sense. Not being brief either! If we're talking Rules as Written, it says divine. Divine means divine spells only. While a theurge is also a divine caster, he's not a divine caster only, much like a creature with DR good and lawful is not a good creature or a lawful creature, but both.

Pinotage

 

[Infiniti2000]

You are claiming that something written in plain english means something other than what it says.

I find that rather unfortunate and am trying to get you to realize that the english is fine, you are just reading too much into it. More than is actually there in fact.

Well, at least we agree on this, just from opposite view points. It's written in plain English and yet you read it differently from me. Except: my interpretation is playable and I actually allow/use the item.

 

[Diirk]

Well, at least we agree on this, just from opposite view points. It's written in plain English and yet you read it differently from me. Except: my interpretation is playable and I actually allow/use the item.

Playable? I don't see the big balance issue in allowing wizards to use it, to be honest. A wizard can't do anything with maximized fireballs and orb of xxx's that a druid can't do with flamestrikes and fire seeds, for example.

Not to mention all the billions of cleric domain spells...

Its a flavour issue that makes it only useably by divine casters, nothing more.

PS. I fail to see how the word 'all' can mean anything other than all, regardless of what you think it should mean.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To take you above example a bit further, would a 'good' dart affect a creature with 'good and lawful' DR? No, because it requires both, not just one.

I think that's backwards.

Would a 'good and lawful' dart affect a creature with DR X/Good?

The creature is only affected by Good weapons. Do you consider that the dart qualifies as a Good weapon, or does it not, since a Good-and-Lawful weapon is different to a Lawful weapon?

-Hyp.

 

[Pinotage]

I think that's backwards.

Would a 'good and lawful' dart affect a creature with DR X/Good?

The creature is only affected by Good weapons. Do you consider that the dart qualifies as a Good weapon, or does it not, since a Good-and-Lawful weapon is different to a Lawful weapon?

-Hyp.

I think there are two ways to look at this:

a) Something with two qualities (lawful and good/arcane and divine) can be affected by something with one quality (lawful/arcane/good/divine)

b) Something with two qualities (lawful and good/arcane and divine) can affect something with one quality (lawful/arcane/good/divine)

I think I'm describing (a) while you're describing (b). I think (a) is the situation under discussion where something with one quality (divine) can affect something with two qualities (arcane and divine).

Note that my argument is a purely literal reading of the text. It says divine. Without any interpretation of divine in game terms, it's just that. A spellcaster that can only cast divine spells. If you want the RAW, that's it.

However, there is a precedent in game for this not to be the case. Would you allow a weapon that affects divine casters to affect a Theurge? I think most people would. Would a Mage Bane (?) weapon affect a Theurge?

If you take the letter of the rule, I think it's divine only, but in game there is a precedent to go as Scion has indicated. Me, I'll stick to divine only and call it a house rule, if you like.

Pinotage

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think (a) is the situation under discussion where something with one quality (divine) can affect something with two qualities (arcane and divine).

A Good weapon can affect a creature with DR X/Good. A Holy Axiomatic dagger is both Good and Lawful. A Holy Axiomatic dagger therefore falls into the set of Good weapons, and can affect a creature with DR X/Good.

A Divine caster can use Incense of Meditation. A Mystic Theurge is both an Arcane and Divine caster. A Mystic Theurge therefore falls into the set of Divine casters, and can use Incense of Meditation.

A spellcaster that can only cast divine spells.

So when the rules say that a sorcerer must use a full-round action to cast a spell using a metamagic rod, does that mean that a Sorcerer 9 / Fighter 1 doesn't have to, since he's not a Sorcerer... he's a Sorcerer / Fighter?

Would you allow a weapon that affects divine casters to affect a Theurge? I think most people would. Would a Mage Bane (?) weapon affect a Theurge?

Of course. He's a divine caster, and he's an arcane caster. He isn't neither... he's both.

If you take the letter of the rule, I think it's divine only, but in game there is a precedent to go as Scion has indicated. Me, I'll stick to divine only and call it a house rule, if you like.

I take the letter of the rule, and I take 'divine caster' to mean 'one capable of casting divine spells'... which a Theurge is.

-Hyp.

 

[Pinotage]

A Good weapon can affect a creature with DR X/Good. A Holy Axiomatic dagger is both Good and Lawful. A Holy Axiomatic dagger therefore falls into the set of Good weapons, and can affect a creature with DR X/Good.

A Divine caster can use Incense of Meditation. A Mystic Theurge is both an Arcane and Divine caster. A Mystic Theurge therefore falls into the set of Divine casters, and can use Incense of Meditation.

I don't agree with this. A Holy Axiomatic Dagger does not fall into a set of Good weapons. It overlaps it. There's a difference. Same with the Theurge. Hence why I still believe my earlier analogy is relevant. A Good weapon affects creatures with DR/Good, but not creatures with DR/Good and Lawful. Something that's only affects divine casters, does not affect divine and arcane casters. Note again, that this is only based on a strict reading of what a divine spellcaster is, i.e. somebody who can only cast divine spells. Just like a red flower is something that's only red.

So when the rules say that a sorcerer must use a full-round action to cast a spell using a metamagic rod, does that mean that a Sorcerer 9 / Fighter 1 doesn't have to, since he's not a Sorcerer... he's a Sorcerer / Fighter?

The answer is no. But, by that analogy, since the spellcasting only applies to his sorceror class, wouldn't something that calls for a divine spellcaster only apply the divine portion of a theurge's class?

I take the letter of the rule, and I take 'divine caster' to mean 'one capable of casting divine spells'... which a Theurge is.

-Hyp.

Yes, but my argument was based on a plain english reading of the text. It says divine caster, not divine and arcane caster like the Theurge. Something says red flower, it means red flower, not red and blue flower. Step away from the rules interpretation and just look at the plain sentence. Don't interpret divine, just read it as 'divine' and say that it hence applies to divine spells only.

I agree that if you attempt to interpret the rules, your interpretation is valid, but from a literal, strict reading? No. How can a red flower be anything other than red?

Pinotage

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree that if you attempt to interpret the rules, your interpretation is valid, but from a literal, strict reading? No. How can a red flower be anything other than red?

Pinotage

I give you a red rose. We can all agree that a rose falls under the subset of flowers, so we can agree that I just gave you a red flower. Now, I ask if there is any green on your red rose. Surprisingly, the base of the bud and the stem are both green. I instruct you to remove all traces of green because only red may exist on your red rose. After removal, the petals of the rose fall apart as there is now no longer any support for them as that support consisted of the green bud. You now no longer have a red rose, but a bunch or red rose petals. Point in case: you may have colors OTHER than red in your flower and it does not change the fact that it is a red flower.

The definition of a divine caster is one who casts divine spells. Not one who *only* casts divine spells. If the item in question stated that only [good] creatures may use it, could a creature that is both [good] and [lawful] use it? According to your arguement, no, because you must only be [good] and the extra bit of [lawful] you have is not [good]. A case of too much is not a good thing?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think the proper analogy with the Good subtype and this item is the following. Let's assume for a minute that the Good subtype were worded similarly. I.e. instead of:

A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were good-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).

We would have:

A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were aligned with the same type (see Damage Reduction, above).

In the rewording, consider the hypothetical case where's there's no such benefit to Lawful creatures -- i.e. in the Lawful subtype, it doesn't say that they overcome DR/Lawful. However, now creatures having both Good and Lawful overcome DR/Good and/or DR/Lawful, but creatures of just Lawful do not. However, it's clear that the Good subtype description refers to only creatures having the Good subtype, not creatures having other subtypes (i.e. the overcoming of DR only applies to Lawful, not to its other subtypes, if any). This isn't altering the letter of the rule, it's reading the rule and comprehending it. It's directly transferrable to the incense description. When the entire description focuses around divine spellcasters, does it suddenly apply to sorcerers with the Arcane Preparation feat?

I say no. The rules do not need to exhaustively list everything in every sentence for fear that readers will take them out of context. This is what I feel is happening here. The opposing view is taking the sentence out of context with the remainder of the paragraph and applying it exhaustively to every other domain. That's inappropriate. A general principle of understanding the rules is that they do no more or less than what they say.

 

[Pinotage]

I give you a red rose. We can all agree that a rose falls under the subset of flowers, so we can agree that I just gave you a red flower. Now, I ask if there is any green on your red rose. Surprisingly, the base of the bud and the stem are both green. I instruct you to remove all traces of green because only red may exist on your red rose. After removal, the petals of the rose fall apart as there is now no longer any support for them as that support consisted of the green bud. You now no longer have a red rose, but a bunch or red rose petals. Point in case: you may have colors OTHER than red in your flower and it does not change the fact that it is a red flower.

I think you're reading too much into the analogy and perhaps a flower was not the best one to use. How about a red ball? How can a red ball be anything other than red?

The definition of a divine caster is one who casts divine spells. Not one who *only* casts divine spells. If the item in question stated that only [good] creatures may use it, could a creature that is both [good] and [lawful] use it? According to your arguement, no, because you must only be [good] and the extra bit of [lawful] you have is not [good]. A case of too much is not a good thing?

You're going along the same lines as Hypersmurf. We're not talking game mechanics here. We're talking language. I believe that was always the case. I was merely using game mechanics to illustrate the language. If I use an adjective to describe a word, why add more things to that adjective than a pure literal reading will entail? Yes, I agree that in game terms that's probably not the case, but I'm trying to point out that taking the RAW (Rules As Written) does not always give you the correct answer. You need interpretation. The RAW states divine - nowhere does it say that it's divine combined with arcane. It's divine. Period. Just like a red ball is always red, so too is a divine spellcaster, only divine. Language dictates as much. Interpretation is another matter.

I'm not really trying to argue. I'm just not one to shake of 'intent' in favour of the RAW, in other words, reading the words as literally as possible. I think I've pointed out that if you do that, you often end up with something that's not what you expected. Interpretation is always required, and in this case I think the RAW is incorrect, and while its pointless arguing intent, I just don't see in game terms what prayer, meditation and divine have got to do with arcane spells, irrespective of the literal reading of _all_. Hence my comments regarding a literal reading of _divine_. If you want to be literal about _all_, you've got to be literal about _divine_.

Pinotage