What Outsider abilities do plane touched get?

[TheEvil]

In regards to elves loosing racial proficiencies due to background.

That's easy: yes.

Cool, all is consistant. I would forward the suggestion that since plantouched races tend to be bred by creatures which often are themselves inherently martial, that this could be considered a reasonable explaination on why they have the proficiencies: It is in their blood.

 

[TheEvil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by glass
So lay of the ad hominems please.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

So it would seem. However, by appealing to common sense, you are implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not showing any, which you ought to lay off.

 

[Hypersmurf]

According to the DMG, I could create an Astral Deva as a PC with 12 levels of wizard and no racial HD.

No, you couldn't; that clause refers to replacing the normal advancement of a creature with class levels.

If you invoke this clause, then the stat block would change from:

ANGEL, ASTRAL DEVA
Medium Outsider (Angel, Extraplanar, Good)
Hit Dice: 12d8+48 (102 hp)
Advancement: 13–18 HD (Medium); 19–36 HD (Large)

to

ANGEL, ASTRAL DEVA
Medium Outsider (Angel, Extraplanar, Good)
Hit Dice: 12d8+48 (102 hp)
Advancement: By character class

Notice how even though the advancement has changed, the Deva still has 12 Outsider hit dice...

-Hyp.

 

[Yeoman]

What about the goliath? It's a monstrous humanoid, and in the racial information it even mentions

As Monstrous Humanoids, Goliaths are proficient with all simple weapons, but they have no proficiency with any armor or shield.

which mirrors the srd information about monstrous humanoids exactly.

So I'd say that planetouched definitely get the proficiencies from being an outsider.

 

[moritheil]

For me to accept your point of view I would have to believe that upon gaining a character class the hound archon losses its weapon proficiencies including the ability to use its greatsword, and also suddenly must begin to eat and sleep.

Yeah, good point.

The same logic must apply to planetouched

Huh? How do you figure?

I'm not being facetious; I always figured that making a planetouched character was different from making an actual deva or something into a character.

 

[moritheil]

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Glass is responding to the implication that he lacks common sense. That implication is an ad hominem attack. I don't see the discrepancy.

 

[Prism]

Huh? How do you figure?

I'm not being facetious; I always figured that making a planetouched character was different from making an actual deva or something into a character.

If you simply take the core books as source, a plane touched creature is no more playable than a hound archon as a character. Neither are in the players handbook as races, both are considered monsters (outsiders). However both of these monsters have blocks in the monster manual that adds some detail for playing these monsters as characters. One of the problems is that the detail under playing them as a character is not complete and you have to also look at the type and subtype info in the appendix which covers the martial weapon proficiency and the part about eating and sleeping

People probably feel that certain plane touched races are different from normal outsiders as they are listed as races in both the forgotten realms books and the planar handbook. Now neither of those two books mentions the martial weapon proficiency either and so I suppose one of the debatable points is, are you supposed to look up their outsider traits in the monster manual too - which in this case would mean martial weapon proficiency. I believe that aasimar for example are no different than lets say a janni or a Chaond (MM2). Just because they get a racial entry in a couple of books why should they be less of an outsider than the other two i.e no martial weapon proficiency

There is also the aspect that many more plane touched in other books are not given any additional detail at all on how to play them as characters. They are simply outsiders and therefore the only place you can look to see what that means is the appendix at the back of any monster book which tells you what you get for being an outsider, and in most of these cases the native subtype to

As most of these examples are 1HD and that 1HD is a single level in a class (usually warrior) you have to remove all feats and features gained from the class but certainly not from the race

This is all RAW of course and some of us seem to have difficulty sticking to that in this discussion i.e we don't all necessarily play it that way and it doesn't always make sense

 

[Storm Raven]

Glass is responding to the implication that he lacks common sense. That implication is an ad hominem attack. I don't see the discrepancy.

No, actually it isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person to evade answering the argument they are making. It is like calling someone a "poopy-head" in response to an actual argument. As part of my answer, I said that mechanically applying the material listed in the types descriptions leads to silly results, and as a result, one needs to apply common sense when doing so. My "common sense" argument is a direct response to the argument at hand. I prefer DMs who apply common sense when using the rules, and I think that the opposing argument in this case lacks it. That isn't an ad hominem attack, it is actually the antithesis of an ad hominem.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Storm Raven, that word does not mean what you think it means. Let me summarize.

1. glass presents a conclusion.
2. You state that to reach such a conclusion you must not be "using your brain in the process."

That is not an attack on the conclusion, it's an attack on the person making the conclusion. It is the very definition of ad hominem.

 

[TheEvil]

No, actually it isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person to evade answering the argument they are making. It is like calling someone a "poopy-head" in response to an actual argument. As part of my answer, I said that mechanically applying the material listed in the types descriptions leads to silly results, and as a result, one needs to apply common sense when doing so. My "common sense" argument is a direct response to the argument at hand. I prefer DMs who apply common sense when using the rules, and I think that the opposing argument in this case lacks it. That isn't an ad hominem attack, it is actually the antithesis of an ad hominem.

Things you seem to failing to consider:

1. Common sense is actually rather subjective, as is evidenced by numerous discussions on this board. Appealing to it is almost by definition an admission that you don't have a good argument.

2. The rules may actually mean what they say. Per the PHB, races have Traits, classes have Features. If you follow the rules for those when looking at creature types, there should be no question as to what the rules mean. You may not like them and prefer to houserule them, but that doesn't change them.

3. Saying someone isn't using their brain, is applying things mechanically without using common sense, and other such things are insulting. You may want to reconsider your word choice.