The Divine Oracle's Prescient Sense

[Pazu]

Which leads to say that monks have Evasion. Rogues have Evasion, but this is a different ability that is not, in fact, Evasion. My personal oppinion has been already stated on the matter; that while they share similar function, the different name and lack of cross-compatability note says they're different.

It could be argued that since Prescient Sense applies under all circumstances that (standard) Evasion would also apply, the function of (standard) Evasion is subsumed under Prescient Sense.

If the purpose of a prerequisite is to say "You must be able to do X before you're qualified to learn Y", then what's the logic in saying that "Well, Mark the rogue can learn Y because he can avoid damage on a successful Reflex save (but only when he's wearing light armor or no armor), but Jane the oracle can't learn Y because she can avoid damage on a successful Reflex save (in any kind of armor)"?

To look at DM Matt's cancer analogy from another angle, stomach cancer is a form of cancer and skin cancer is a form of cancer, but treatment for skin cancer won't help alieviate stomach cancer simply by virtue of both afflictions being cancer. For skin cancer treatments to work, you need to have skin cancer. So it goes.

On the flip side, imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) treats both gastrointestinal stromal sarcoma and chronic myelogenous leukemia (two completely unrelated cancers) quite effectively.

 

[Mistwell]

Heh, yeah, upon reflection that really wasn't the best analogy I've ever come up with. Ah well, live and learn.

Anyway - Mistwell and DM Matt, regarding the X is a form of Y. First off, here's the exact text of the ability as it appears in the book.



The segment you gents are pointing to is:

"...This form of evasion..."

And thus coming to the conclusion that Prescient Sense is the same as Evasion. As a counterpoint, look to:

"...unlike the monk's and rogue's evasion ability."

Which leads to say that monks have Evasion. Rogues have Evasion, but this is a different ability that is not, in fact, Evasion. My personal oppinion has been already stated on the matter; that while they share similar function, the different name and lack of cross-compatability note says they're different. To look at DM Matt's cancer analogy from another angle, stomach cancer is a form of cancer and skin cancer is a form of cancer, but treatment for skin cancer won't help alieviate stomach cancer simply by virtue of both afflictions being cancer. For skin cancer treatments to work, you need to have skin cancer. So it goes.

Your comments alter the actual wording of the sentence. It does not say unlike the rogues Evasion, captial "E". It uses the exact same word, spelled out the exact same way. It says prescient says is a form of evasion (small "e"). It says monks and rogues also have a form of evasion (also small "e"). Both are specifically sub-sets of whatever the sentence is referring to as "evasion".

We are not looking to how to treat things, we are looking to see if two things are a sub-set of one thing or not. Hence, your response on the skin-cancer analogy makes no sense. Nobody is saying the two abilities are identical in all ways. We are saying the two abilities are both sub-sets of "evasion", and that prestige classes that require "evasion" are not specifying a sub-set of that term.

 

[Mistwell]

Rogues and monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor. Some creatures with the evasion ability as an innate quality do not have this limitation.

Wow. Nice find. That pretty much seals the deal in my mind. We are now down to a dispute of title vs. text. In this case, the text says it is a form of evasion, the DMG acknowledges such forms of evasion exist, and the only dispute really left is that the title doesn't say the word evasion.

 

[IcyCool]

Wow. Nice find. That pretty much seals the deal in my mind. We are now down to a dispute of title vs. text. In this case, the text says it is a form of evasion, the DMG acknowledges such forms of evasion exist, and the only dispute really left is that the title doesn't say the word evasion.

Which is why I say it isn't Evasion for the purposes of pre-requisites. If they had wanted it to be, they would have called it Evasion, and specified that it is identical to the evasion in the DMG that isn't the monk and rogue's evasion ability.

 

[Mistwell]

Which is why I say it isn't Evasion for the purposes of pre-requisites. If they had wanted it to be, they would have called it Evasion, and specified that it is identical to the evasion in the DMG that isn't the monk and rogue's evasion ability.

I cannot think of a single ability that refers back to a DMG description of the kind we are discussing. You don't need to refer back to a rule to make it clear the rule applies.

They did call it evasion. It's right there in the text - it's a form of evasion. If they meant something other than evasion, they would have said this is not a form of evasion, or not mentioned evasion at all in the description.

 

[IcyCool]

They did call it evasion.

Actually, they called it Prescient Sense. They state in the text that it works just like evasion, but isn't restricted by armor.

They didn't give the Divine Oracle Evasion, they gave it Prescient Sense.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, they called it Prescient Sense. They state in the text that it works just like evasion, but isn't restricted by armor.

They didn't give the Divine Oracle Evasion, they gave it Prescient Sense.

No see there is the heart of this problem. They did not state in the text it "works just like evasion, but isn't restricted by armor". They stated "this form of evasion...". You see the difference? What is the purpose of stating it is a form of evasion if it is NOT a sub-set of evasion?

 

[Sejs]

Right, to which the other school of thought asks why, if they're cross-compatable, do they not expressly say they're cross-compatable like other, similar abilities do?

I'm sure we can all agree that the issue is sufficiently grey enough that a call could be made on either side of the fence. *shrug*

 

[Pazu]

Actually, they called it Prescient Sense. They state in the text that it works just like evasion, but isn't restricted by armor.

So, logically, why would a character who can evade regardless of armor be prohibited from entry to a prestige class that's open to a character who can evade only in light or no armor?

 

[Pazu]

I'm a slow thinker, what can I say...

And unlike, say, Sudden Strike vs Sneak Attack, it's not denoted as functioning as its equivalent for the purpose of pre-reqs.

It occurs to me that I don't quite buy this analogy either. Since Sudden Strike is, in essence, a limited form of Sneak Attack, it's necessary to state that it functions equivalently as a prerequisite, since Sudden Strike doesn't do everything Sneak Attack does. Otherwise, we'd be having a similar argument over "Well, Sudden Strike lets me do 'A', but Sneak Attack lets me do 'A', 'B', and 'C', so are they close enough?"

Conversely, Prescient Sense does everything Evasion does, and more. The argument here is the opposite one: "If Evasion lets me do 'A', and Prescient Sense lets me do 'A' and 'B', then why should Prescient Sense not count as fulfilling the prerequisite for 'being able to do A'?"