Reincarnate and its interpretation

[Mouseferatu]

Sorry, Jeff, I gotta go with Smurfy on this one. I think any interpretation other than the one he espouses is simply inaccurate.

I'm not going to repeat the arguments about whether the sentence should be taken in or out of context with the preceding sentence. That's been done. Instead, I'll ask this:

If your interpretation is correct, what purpose does the first sentence serve at all? Why is it there?

It's not for flavor, because--if your interpretation is correct--that's not how the spell works. It's not to describe the chart, because the chart already specifies which abilities it adds to; there's no need for further elaboration.

The only way the sentence "Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body" has any purpose at all is if it defines the sentence that follows it.

I know you've argued that game designers don't always make their points clearly, and that's sometimes true. But surely you don't think they make a habit of throwing in random sentences that have no bearing whatsoever on the topic?

(In addition, the fact that the table only adjusts physical stats certainly implies that the spell has no impact on mental stats. After all, a "real" orc has mental penalties, but not one who's been reincarnated. It makes no mechanical sense for the spell to remove mental adjustments, but not then add mental adjustments.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The first sentence doesn't need to give specific instructions

I agree, it doesn't. That's why that's not what I said.

The first sentence adds meaning to the clause as written.

No, the first sentence might add meaning to the clause as written. It need not do so for the clause as written to work fine and make perfect sense -- grammatically, and as part of the spell description -- nor need it do so for the sentence itself to work fine and make perfect sense, so going beyond it is a choice, not necessary to interpreting the rule. Accordingly, going beyond the clause as written is going beyond the literal meaning.

By continuing to assert that the first sentence is necessary to the interpretation, you're assuming the conclusion of your argument within the argument itself. And that's circular reasoning. What you need to show -- as you did with the fly spell -- is that the second sentence renders the spell nonsensical without the influence of the first sentence.

And, since it doesn't, you're gonna have a pretty hard time doing that.

Sorry, Jeff, I gotta go with Smurfy on this one. I think any interpretation other than the one he espouses is simply inaccurate.

Once again, whether his interpretation is accurate isn't the issue. It might well be. (Why do I have to keep saying this over and over?) It's simply not the RAW.

If your interpretation is correct, what purpose does the first sentence serve at all? Why is it there?

It serves as -- or could serve as -- what writers call a signpost. Basically, it's an observation orienting the reader in the paragraph. Signposts are not "random," and nor are they necessarily bad writing; they're used frequently. This signpost says, "Hey, you're getting ready to apply some Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution adjustments," and then, in the second clause of the second sentence, the reader is unsurprisingly instructed to do just that.

Here's an example from miracle (and note that this is the first spell I looked at): "You don’t so much cast a miracle as request one. You state what you would like to have happen and request that your deity (or the power you pray to for spells) intercede."

What function does the first sentence actually serve in the description of how miracle works? None at all. It's a signpost, with all of its meaningful information repeated in the very next sentence.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My assumption is that, as you are only adding the Str/Dex/Con ability adjustments of the new body, you only remove the Str/Dex/Con ability adjustments of the old one.

That's a fine assumption. It might even be correct. It's just not what the rules say to do. (Which, of course, is why you have to make an assumption about it.)

 

[WarShrike]

SIGH... Geez Jeff, you don't do this during your PnP games do you?

Heres an example of how the spell works, and note, there are no rules in this post. I friken hate arguing about rules.

A Grey elf gets reincantated.

Now, that Grey elf really only exists on paper, but gamewise and in your imagination, he probably lived a long life. At first, he was just a baby (weren't we all). then he grew up. At some point, geneticly, he inherited his races characteristics. By comparison to Humans, he's a bit frailer (-2 Con), but a wee bit brighter (+2 Int). Now he does whatever it is he does until he gets reincarnated. He lives out that whole period with those characteristics shaping who and what he is.

REINCARNATION!!! Boom. He is now, well, a bear.

GAAAH!! IMA BEAR! HELP!

Ok. Sorry about that. Now, onward.

He isn't really a bear, he's just driving a bear's body around. Inside, he's the same person he always was. He can't speak elven anymore, but it's not because he got dumbed down, it's because bear vocal chords dont work that way. But it gets worse, cause he cant speak bear either and will have to learn from scratch. Other bears will probably think he's a retard and will avoid him. Ill feel sorry for this guy during mating season. Anyway, driving this bear around, hes alot stronger (Str), faster (Dex), and healthier (Con) than he ever was in his original body, but on the inside (mental stats), he's the same person he always was, and the Int boost is a part of that, remember? Now if he can only find himself a Druid or a Ranger that speaks elven, and theres a potential for being the most badass companion ever. Forget tricks.

I appologize for turning this into a fairy tale, but i felt a simpler answer was due. The concept of reincarnation seems awfully simple to me, and not truely worthy of such an epic argument.

WarShrike

P.S. Good points on both sides guys, but please, dont dont think you know more of what the devs had in mind then the devs themselves did.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

SIGH... Geez Jeff, you don't do this during your PnP games do you?

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to single me out? Hypersmurf, for example, is absolutely famous for "epic arguments" on rules minutiae. (And he usually sides on the side of RAW. This particular thread is an interesting aberration. Interesting to me, anyway.)

Your fairy tale, BTW, works perfectly well if the grey elf loses that bonus to Intelligence (as reincarnate by RAW says he does). If you need a rationale (for some reason), ask yourself if a bear brain has the same size or structure as an elf brain. Personally, I'm fine with "it's magic."

It's true that in most cases of shapechanging in D&D, mental stats don't change. It's also true that in most cases of shapechanging in D&D, that fact is explicit in the rules description. Thus the ambiguity in interpretation of reincarnate ... and given ambiguity, ignoring the actual words as written is a house rule. A fairly reasonable house rule, but still a house rule.

P.S. Good points on both sides guys, but please, dont dont think you know more of what the devs had in mind then the devs themselves did.

I don't believe either side is doing that. Hypersmurf believes he's following the writer's intent. I'm making no concrete judgments about the writer's intent ... I'm just pointing out -- over and over and over -- what was actually written.

Oh, and as an aside, a grey elf probably can't be reincarnated as a bear. Note this text: "For a humanoid creature, the new incarnation is determined using the following table. For nonhumanoid creatures, a similar table of creatures of the same type should be created." That very strongly implies that a creature is always reincarnated as the same Type.

 

[WarShrike]

I appologize for seeming to single you out Jeff, and Smurf DOES get riled up and runs wild in rules debates (no offense Hypa, we still wuv you), its just that your posts seemed more off, and to be honest, you remind me of one of my players who just started playing for the first time a month ago, and thinks he already knows more than his DM (me) who has been DMing since 1st ed came out. He really knows how to grind a game to a halt with rules debates. Often not knowing what hes talking about in the process. /sigh

WarShrike

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is there any particular reason you felt the need to single me out? Hypersmurf, for example, is absolutely famous for "epic arguments" on rules minutiae. (And he usually sides on the side of RAW. This particular thread is an interesting aberration. Interesting to me, anyway.)

Yes, but he's usually right. Such as in this case.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Yes, but he's usually right. Such as in this case.

Do you use any kind of flavored wax? You know, when you're polishing his back-side? (Oh, let's not forget: )

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf believes he's following the writer's intent.

I do, but I believe I'm following the writer's intent because it's what he wrote.

If the first sentence weren't there, I'd agree that despite the lopsidedness, the spell states to remove adjustments to all abilities and restore them to only half. But the first sentence is there, so it doesn't.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Do you use any kind of flavored wax? You know, when you're polishing his back-side? (Oh, let's not forget: )

You've been reported.

I'm quoting you so you can't go back and change it later.

Have a nice day!