Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 1162140" data-attributes="member: 752">Are you familiar with the term &quot;arguing from your conclusion&quot;? My argument is: 1) PaO works like polymorph unless otherwise noted. 2) Polymorph has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. 3) This is not contradicted anywhere in PaO's spell description. 1+2+3) Therefore, PaO has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form.Your argument: &quot;Since there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO, the first line of the spell must mean that there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO. This proves that there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO. Not a very impressive argument if you ask me. No matter how many times you repeat it. (If I've misrepresented your position, then by all means correct me. Preferably with arguments I haven't already shot down.)&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Another&quot; has to be referring to &quot;creature or object&quot; - correct. (So far so good.) However, this &quot;creature or object&quot; does not have to be from the same selection as the creatures or objects that are valid targets for the spell. (Just as with polymorph.) Example: 1) Spell X changes one fish into another 2) You may not change a fish into a bigger fish with spell X. Can both statements be True at once? Answer: Yes. Even though a goldfish can't be changed into a shark (2), it can still be changed into a guppy - another fish (1).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iku Rex, post: 1162140, member: 752"] Are you familiar with the term "arguing from your conclusion"? My argument is: 1) PaO works like polymorph unless otherwise noted. 2) Polymorph has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. 3) This is not contradicted anywhere in PaO's spell description. 1+2+3) Therefore, PaO has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. Your argument: "[i]Since there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO[/i], the first line of the spell must mean that there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO. This proves that there are no restrictions on type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form with PaO. Not a very impressive argument if you ask me. No matter how many times you repeat it. (If I've misrepresented your position, then by all means correct me. Preferably with arguments I haven't already shot down.) "Another" has to be referring to "creature or object" - correct. (So far so good.) However, this "creature or object" does not have to be from the same selection as the creatures or objects that are valid [i]targets[/i] for the spell. (Just as with polymorph.) Example: 1) Spell X changes one fish into another 2) You may not change a fish into a bigger fish with spell X. Can both statements be True at once? Answer: Yes. Even though a goldfish can't be changed into a shark (2), it can still be changed into a guppy - [i]another[/i] fish (1). [/QUOTE]

Verification