Hypersmurf said:
I say that's one way the sentence can be rephrased... but another is "If it's not one of these types, you can't change the subject into a construct, elemental, outsider, or undead."
Insert the general rule into the spell description. It doesn't affect the spell text:
"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead unless they already are one of these types. Undead and Constructs are immune to spells requiring a Fort save unless the spell also affects objects."
No, but the spell text does not make sense in your example here. Drop the outsiders and elementals from it to see what I mean:
"You cannot change subjects into constructs or undead unless they already are one of these types. Undead and Constructs are immune to spells requiring a Fort save unless the spell also affects objects."
In sentence one you are saying that "this spell cannot do this unless" and in sentence two, you are saying that "this spell cannot do this".
That is totally nonsensical to have these two sentences within the same spell description.
There is no need for the first sentence if the meaning is the second sentence.
However, the first sentence IS in PO, hence, it means what it says and takes precedence.
And, even if the first sentence was written your way above, it would STILL mean that PO overwrites the general rule. The way you rewrote it doesn't change the meaning.
"If it's not, you cannot" is the same as "If it is, you can".
You are grasping at straws here.
Hypersmurf said:
If both sentences are assumed to be true (and there's no reason they shouldn't be), then my rephrasing above doesn't contradict either rule, but yours does.
Except that sentence two overrides sentence one because you put it into the spell description.
With your interpretation, the sentence in PO should read:
"You cannot change subjects into elementals or outsiders unless they already are one of these types."
There is absolutely no reason to have undead or constructs in that sentence at all, even in the way you rewrote it.
Please explain to me why undead and constructs are needed in the sentence at all if your interpretation is correct?
Why are undead and constructs mentioned in the spell at all when the no fort save rule takes care of them in the "cannot do" case already?
If you drop them, then your interpretation rules (pun intended). With them in the sentence, my interpretation rules.
Hypersmurf said:
It's like the Sneak Attack / Cure Light Wounds combo.
You can sneak attack with any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage.
Cure Light Wounds requires an attack roll and deals damage to undead.
So with Cure Light Wounds, you cannot sneak attack unless the subject is undead.
But that doesn't mean you can deal sneak attack damage to undead with Cure Light Wounds... because undead are immune to sneak attack.
This analogy is totally different.
Cure Light Wounds does not state that you can suddenly do sneak attack damage against undead. If it did, you could, regardless of the sneak attack rule.
Polymorph Others, on the other hand, DOES state that you can change undead IF they are "one of these types" ("cannot unless" means the same thing as "can if" or even "if not, cannot" as you rephrased it).