Inspire Greatness -- Bonus Hit Dice?

[Nifft]

How about D - the general rules for hit dice apply, unless overridden by a detail in the text?

That's actually one of the choices. It's C. I have already answered this one, and would prefer not to have to paste the specific counter-argument a third time. Would you mind addressing the counter-argument already in the post? Thanks.

Base attack bonus? Base save bonus? Skill points? Feats? Ability score increases?

You forgot hit points, which I list. Not all hit dice provide skill points or feats. (The average ability increase provided by +2 hit dice is +0.5, and D&D rounds down, so that's +0.)

But again, remember that final argument is explicitly not, not, not based on the letter of the rules, and thus quoting the rules at it won't help. Ignore it if you wish; it's there for those who think intuitively and wish to reconcile expectations about hit dice with the effects of Inspire Greatness.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's actually one of the choices. It's C.

No, it's not. You say "C can't be true, because it says d10, which is a change, not an extension".

Again, consider the Lycanthrope's alternate form.

It contains change: physical ability scores.
It contains repetition: reversion on death.
It contains extension: specifies a standard action, which the general ability does not.
And it contains inheritance: everything about the general ability which isn't contradicted.

So let's apply your A, B, and C:
A/ the features listed by the lycanthrope text are the full extent of what the alternate form ability does; or
B/ the features listed are explanatory, and mere examples of what the alternate form ability does; or
C/ the features listed are extensions, and are in addition to what the alternate form ability does.

By your logic, it's not C, because the effect on physical ability scores modifies Alternate Form. It's not B for the same reason. Which leaves A, the lycanthrope text is the full extent of what alternate form does... so clauses like "Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space" don't apply, since they're a general rule, not a specific rule.

Under D, though, both the general rules can apply, and the specific rules, and the specific take precedence where there's a contradiction. So the general rule about physical ability scores is overwritten, but the general rule about gear falling off applies normally.

Under D, the bonus hit dice being d10s overrides the general rule for die size, without invalidating the rest of the rules for hit dice. The bonus hit dice counting as regular hit dice with regard to spells repeats the general rule that hit dice count with regard to spells, without invalidating the rest of the rules for hit dice. And all the other rules for hit dice which aren't contradicted or repeated apply normally... because they're hit dice.

(The average ability increase provided by +2 hit dice is +0.5, and D&D rounds down, so that's +0.)

The average modifier increase provided by +1 to an ability score is +0.5, and D&D rounds down, so that's +0.

... but that's not how it works! We don't add the average modifier increase... we add the actual modifier increase, based on the original score and the final score! If our ability score increases from 10 to 11, the modifier stays the same. If our ability score increases from 11 to 12, the modifier goes up by 1. The average modifier increase is irrelevant.

Same with hit dice. If hit dice increase from 5 to 7? No ability score increase. If hit dice increase from 6 to 8? One ability score increases by 1. The "average ability increase" might be of statistical interest, but has no effect on the calculation.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

No, it's not. You say "C can't be true, because it says d10, which is a change, not an extension".

You may be thinking of someone else's argument... or perhaps you're looking at B, to which that would have been a more valid counter.

My claim regarding C is that the first clause ("d10s") and the last clause ("these bonus HD count ...") explicitly modify the bonus hit dice. Thus, we have either a case of truly terrible editing, or all the elements in between are also intended to apply to the bonus HD. (This should sound familiar.)

If that's granted, then we look at the "temporary hit points" clause, and we notice that actual hit dice do not grant "temporary hit points". Unless, of course, we decide to deliberately ignore a strict reading of "temporary hit points" while insisting on a strict reading of "bonus hit dice"... but that would be hypocrisy. So let's not do that.

Anyway. Now you can counter the right argument. Then I'll defend it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

If that's granted, then we look at the "temporary hit points" clause, and we notice that actual hit dice do not grant "temporary hit points". Unless, of course, we decide to deliberately ignore a strict reading of "temporary hit points" while insisting on a strict reading of "bonus hit dice"... but that would be hypocrisy. So let's not do that.

So you're instead ignoring "bonus hit dice" while insisting on a strict reading of "temporary hit points"?

But let's assume, for a moment, that these are hit dice which grant, unlike normal hit dice, temporary hit points. In much the same way that a lycanthrope's alternate form grants, unlike normal alternate form, ability score modifiers rather than ability scores.

How does a change to the type of hit points granted by the hit dice invalidate all the other rules for hit dice not altered by the text?

These are hit dice which, unlike the general rule for hit dice, grant temporary hit points (change); which, possibly unlike the creature's normal hit dice, are d10s (change); and which count as regular hit dice with regard to spells (repetition of general rule). Nothing else is addressed; therefore nothing else about these hit dice differs from the general rules for hit dice.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

So you're instead ignoring "bonus hit dice" while insisting on a strict reading of "temporary hit points"?

Ignoring? No, good sir, I'm interpreting! There's only room for interpretation in one of those quoted terms, and I'll show you why.

Here's one definition of "bonus hit dice":

Bonus HD

Extra eight-sided (d8) Hit Dice, each of which gains a Constitution modifier, as normal. Extra Hit Dice improve the mount’s base attack and base save bonuses. A special mount’s base attack bonus is equal to that of a cleric of a level equal to the mount’s HD. A mount has good Fortitude and Reflex saves (treat it as a character whose level equals the animal’s HD). The mount gains additional skill points or feats for bonus HD as normal for advancing a monster’s Hit Dice.

... and here's another:

A creature inspired with greatness gains 2 bonus Hit Dice (d10s), the commensurate number of temporary hit points (apply the target’s Constitution modifier, if any, to these bonus Hit Dice), a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls, and a +1 competence bonus on Fortitude saves. The bonus Hit Dice count as regular Hit Dice for determining the effect of spells that are Hit Dice dependant.

Note two things: first, that every instance of "hit dice" in the second is preceded by the modifier "bonus", and second, that last clause: "The bonus Hit Dice count as regular Hit Dice..." which implies they are not regular Hit Dice.

In contrast, the Bonus HD provided to a Paladin's mount are explicitly the same as regular Hit Dice.

When there's a conflict between a certainty and an uncertainty, the certainty wins.

How does a change to the type of hit points granted by the hit dice invalidate all the other rules for hit dice not altered by the text?

These are hit dice which, unlike the general rule for hit dice, grant temporary hit points (change); which, possibly unlike the creature's normal hit dice, are d10s (change); and which count as regular hit dice with regard to spells (repetition of general rule). Nothing else is addressed; therefore nothing else about these hit dice differs from the general rules for hit dice.

Regular Hit Dice do not grant competence bonuses to attack rolls or fortitude saves. Basically, out of the three things that every regular hit die grants, these bonus hit dice handle all three differently.

Contrast with a definition that's actually clear:

Extra Hit Dice improve the mount’s base attack and base save bonuses.

I don't see how you can consider these two effects, though both named "bonus", to be all that similar.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Regular Hit Dice do not grant competence bonuses to attack rolls or fortitude saves.

Neither do bonus hit dice! The competence bonus to attack rolls and to fortitude saves is granted by Inspire Greatness, not by the bonus hit dice.

I don't see how you can consider these two effects, though both named "bonus", to be all that similar.

They're both hit dice, and we know what hit dice provide.

-Hyp.

 

[Elethiomel]

Good catch, until you look closer.

With the rules as written, that's correct (seems at first like an odd result, doesn't it?).

But... dragons do not advance by class. Their advancement is specified as being by age category not by class (look at the entry for any dragon).

You could run a dragon under the "Monsters as Races" rules, but that's not generally recommended by the rules

"Creatures ... who are so different from other PCs that they disrupt the campaign should not be used. Some creatures have strange innate abilities or great physical power, and thus are questionable at best as characters (except in high-level campaigns)."

So in a high-level campaign, a dragon who is a character can take a level of sorcerer and then stop aging?

 

[Nifft]

Neither do bonus hit dice! The competence bonus to attack rolls and to fortitude saves is granted by Inspire Greatness, not by the bonus hit dice.

So you're ignoring the content of point C. That's not granted. The whole passage refers to the hit dice -- which are contrasted against regular hit dice.

In the Special Mount's passage, his "bonus hit dice" are equated with regular hit dice.

The difference in language and content is not minor.

They're both hit dice, and we know what hit dice provide.

We know what regular or normal hit dice provide. You can't take a hard line on "bonus hit dice" and simultaneously ask for a fuzzy interpretation of "temporary hit points", because the former is not well defined while the latter is. That's the point of B.

"Bonus hit dice" are not a term of art, though regular "hit dice" certainly are. If they'd omitted the modifier "bonus" from any instance of "hit dice" you'd have a chance for a case, but here (unlike the Paladin's special mount) they do not.

We most emphatically do not know what "bonus hit dice" provide, and that's why every time they come up, we get a passage explaining the benefit provided.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Artoomis]

So in a high-level campaign, a dragon who is a character can take a level of sorcerer and then stop aging?

Well, strictly speaking, maybe so, but, obviously, the rules break down a bit when doing things this unusual. Anytime one ignores the "advancement" line in a creatures' description one has to assume that one may need to adjust the rules some place.

However, given that a dragon ages slowly (25 years as a Juvenile, 50 years as a Young Adult) and that the typical D&D adventuring career is only a few years or so, this is really not much of an issue.

Also, as a matter of balance and fair play, allowing a PC dragon to have a full adventuring career as a classed character and then also improve dramatically by aging is a bit... unbalancing.

So, lets cease arguing unsual cases, as things that are very unusual often need to have special handling to make it all be balanced, fair and make sense.

 

[Nifft]

The whole passage refers to the hit dice -- which are contrasted against regular hit dice.

You know what? I take part of this back. I agree with you that the competence bonus to attack and Fortitude saves can be legitimately read as not arising from the "bonus hit dice" benefit. Consider "whole passage" redacted; it's inaccurate and unnecessary.

Cheers, -- N