Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 538331" data-attributes="member: 752">I haven't the foggiest idea. I already asked you what you meant, remember? Maybe you didn't understand the question? I guess "I have no idea what you are talking about" wasn't quite clear enough either...It is directly relevant to your claim that any interpretation of what the rules are constitutes an opinion on what the rules ought to be.    And I thought we were discussing polymorph... The issue is if natural abilities exist in the game, and if they don't if that makes the rule stating that you don't get extraordinary abilities invalid. Let's assume for a moment that the term "natural ability" appeared nowhere except in the polymorph spell description. How would that indicate that you get (for example) the extraordinary ability blindsight?   Keep in mind that the spell description specifically says that you don't get extraordinary abilities.   IMO? "Shield bonus" is a shorter way of saying "armor bonus from a shield that stacks with the armor bonus from worn armor". Not that it matters the slightest what "shield bonus" means, since the game designers have made it clear that shields provide an armor bonus. And that answers your second question. If there is a contradiction in the rules (i.e. we don't understand how something is supposed to work) the best way of finding the intent is to ask the game designers. If we can't do that we have to exersise judgement. The goal should be to find out what the game designers meant. (If all you care about is how it ought to work, in your opinion and reghardless of the intent,  then the rules don't matter anyway.) How many times have I explained this now? Natural abilities are defined as an ability without a designator. Whining about how natural abilities must have a designator to exist is just silly. The Monster Manual contains plenty of natural abilities.  <sigh> You said: [The game designers] appear to be terminally confused on this issue. Posting a quote from a game designer that shows that he isn't the slightest bit confused on the issue is relevant in response to that.   Is this meant to be yet another creative example of childish behavior? You said: "Explain why the abilities in the MM haven't been rejigged to be consistent with this new definition of natural abilities". (my emphasis) I even quoted you saying this in my last post. Do you deny that you wrote that? Are you now claiming to be the victim of some evil hacker?  It's been a while since I read the house rules forum. But I don't think it has changed so much that "these rules are just fine" is a common topic for new post. It's no doubt a common response to suggested rules changes, but since we were discussing the core rules and not a suggested house rule (beyond your claims, which are not posted on the house rules forum as suggested house rules) that can't be it.  Because, despite your stated disregard for the intent of the rules, you keep attacking my claim that the intent of the rules is that you don't get any extraordinary abilities. If you truly didn't care about the intent, you wouldn't bother replying in this thread. So, as far as I can see, you have somehow gotten the idea that my posts are an attack on your authority as a DM. It's the only way I can explain your hostility. Because you, despite your claim that you don't care, have been stating opinions about the rules and the intent of the game designers.   True. But if you strain yourself you will remember that your claim was that his opinion wasn't supported by the core rules. Not the self evident fact that a ruling clarifying a contradiction would have to go against one of the (contradictory) rules. Both (1) and (2) are supported by the rules.  Do you honestly expect me to "prove" the existence of abilities defined as having no designator by finding such an ability with a designator? Logic is not  your strong suite, is it?</blockquote>

Verification