Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 538072" data-attributes="member: 752">There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, thank you. And you clearly don't know what you are talking about. If I were  to say "mage armor does not stack with a shield" that would be true. It would not constitute my opinion on whether or not mage armor ought to, based on common sense, stack with a shield. Q: [...]are there any (EX) abilities that an animal might possess which would count as "natural" abilities for Polymorph?A: Not if they're labeled extraordinary.<a href="http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=135;t=009970;p=" target="_blank">http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=135;t=009970;p=</a>No game designer has ever said that you get "natural" extraordinary abilities. There is no confusion here, except in your mind. The spell description has some errors (and those regarding extraordinary abilities  have been fixed in the most recent PsiH errata), but nevertheless says that you don't get extraordinary abilities. The intent have been made crystal clear.  A definition does not have to be repeated ad nauseam to be valid. The definition appears in the same book as polymorph other. It has been confirmed by the Sage and is repeated in the MM2.   Did I say it was? [/B]</blockquote>  Yes you did.  House rules are changes (or additions) to the way the rules are supposed to work. "There is no need to "rejigg" rulebook X" is not an opinion that belongs in the house rules forum. Surely you understand that?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> This may come as a big shock to you, but I did not post in this thread in an evil attempt to ruin your game. Most people actually consider the opinions of the people who wrote the rules to be fairly important when trying to figure out what the people who wrote the rules meant. (Go figure...) If you don't care about the intent of the rules, it hardly matters whether that intent is conveyed through a clear statement in the PH or through an e-mail from the Sage. You did not. You were clearly so busy making inane comments and ignoring my arguments that you forgot.  "Look - a contradiction in the rules!" will not do. Skip's "shields provide an armor bonus" opinion is supported by the rules. Pointing out that shields are sometimes said to provide a "shield bonus" does not change that. All it proves is that the rules are unclear and need clarification.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> You did not. You keep saying that "natural abilities" are an anachronism in the rules, like (you believe) the shield bonus. If that was the case, then presumably Skip would know about it. And the MM2 would definitely not change the description of special abilities to include a definition of natural abilities. MM1: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).  MM2 (from memory): A special ability is designated as  extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su) or it can have no designator, in which case it's natural.Edit: Minor clarification.[/QUOTE]

Verification