Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 4182434" data-attributes="member: 6562">The Bard's text is actually the preceding definition. If you insist that the three "bonus hit dice" effects are related, you must view the Bard's as without precedent, and instead consider the others mere modifications of it. I'm afraid precedent doesn't help your case, and could probably be twisted around to hurt it (e.g.: "Why must the Paladin's mount text go to such trouble to explain that the mount's bonus HD are the same as actual HD? Because the Bard's bonus HD are practically unrelated, of course!"). Sorry.We have one instance of "Bonus HD" being used to indicate a thing that is equivalent to actual hit dice; we have another separate instance where "bonus hit dice" is used to indicate something undefined, except for one feature that is incongruent to actual hit dice, and one case where they can be counted as regular hit dice.We have no glossary entry for "bonus hit dice". It's not a term of art (you're right about that), but that doesn't imply we must either consider all definitions identical, nor that we must default to the definition of the contained term. (For an example of a "contained term" being invalid, consider the shadow's "incorporeal touch" attack. "Incorporeal" is a term of art, "touch attack" is a term of art, but "incorporeal touch attack" is not a term of art, nor is it a "touch attack" under some conditions.)Cheers, -- N</blockquote>