Cool. Thanks. I'm not positive that this discrepancy completely eliminates the counter-argument (since there has been odder things in D&D... this one reminds me of the Dragon Disciple dilemma). However, I do agree with the principle since I recall the ruling being stated in another official source (possibly the RotG), not positive where though.Infiniti2000 said:
polymorph and enlarge...how big?
- Thread starter Cephid
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
mvincent said:
If, while under the effect of a spell that depends on type
(such as hold person), my character is transformed into a
different creature type by polymorph, does the spell’s
effect remain?
Yes. A spell only checks to see if you are a legal target
when it is cast. If you become an illegal target later (such as via
the polymorph spell), the spell remains in effect.
-Hyp.
So to summarize "the shillelagh argument"...Infiniti2000 said:Shillelagh's Target is "One touched nonmagical oak club or quarterstaff." But, the spell itself transmutes the target into a magical weapon. If the Target were checked again, the spell would be invalid. Once the spell is invalid, it no longer makes the weapon magical and then becomes valid again, which . . . now you can see how nonsensical it would be.
1) It is self evident that spells continue working after the target becomes invalid because otherwise the shillelagh spell is absurd.
2) As opposed to the contrary state of affairs, where spells cease to work after the target becomes invalid and the shillelagh spell is a self-evident and arguably quite explicit exception.
"The shillelagh argument" is pointless and circular. The very same logic used to "prove" a far-reaching general rule can be used to prove that shillelagh is an exception to the general rule.
(Fortunately this unclear-by-the-RAW issue has been clarified in the FAQ, as quoted above.)
Infiniti2000
First Post
How can the shillelagh argument be both pointless and self-evident? Unless you don't really mean that it's self-evident...
Infiniti2000
First Post
That's where I got the idea. You said it was self-evident twice and pointless once. If you don't really mean that it's self-evident, please explain your previous post where you claim it's self-evident twice. The only other explanation is that you're setting up a Strawman with loaded words like "self-evident." It's easy to throw out an argument when you call it self-evident to begin with.Iku Rex said:
In my own summary of "the shillelagh argument" (an argument I said quite explicitly that I don't agree with) I included two different statements that included the words "self-evident". The purpose of said statements was, as I said in my post, to show that the very same logic used to "prove" a far-reaching general rule can be used to prove that shillelagh is an exception to the general rule.Infiniti2000 said:
I did not say the argument was self-evident, and from the creative way you edited my words in your quote above I think you know that...
mvincent said:
I'm going to take the lazy way out on this one, and just point back to an older thread where this was discussed:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=162669
I think Iku Rex hits the biggest ones. I haven't done a complete analysis to find every nitpick.
Similar Threads
