Let me fully explain my idea

[Immabozo]

Fun with the lycanthrope template! Yes, perhaps it is not the most effective, or powerful build, or cheese, but it is one I have been fascinated by. I have posted about it before and my ideas were unpopular and their legality challenged.

But there is no question on the legality, once you understand. My arguments in the past have been poorly worded, missing parts and spread out over not just different posts, but worse yet, across several threads. This is my attempt at explaining this idea as best I can.

The rules as written:


The Lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type. This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore who's size is within one size category of the base creature.

Emphasis mine. Adding templates that do not change the animal's "animal" type, per the above rule, remain eligible for lycanthrope. Cause however it's changed, it's still an animal.


Used when it is not important to say which person or thing you are referring to, because what you are saying applies to everyone or everything


A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.

A lycanthrope cannot take it's animal form, cause it is templated, no doubt. However, the Lycanthrope template allows the ability to take the form of a completely new, doesn't-exist-elsewhere form, the hybrid form. You turn into the untemplated hybrid.

But what are your stats? Well, they are a mix of your natural form and the animal form.


Abilities:... when in animal form (or hybrid), a lycanthrope's ability scores improve according to it's type... These adjustments are equal to the animal's normal -10 or -11.

The words in parenthesis are mine.


Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.


Not acquired; inherent

As long as the templates are inherited, they are normal. You can also use the same definition of "normal" as in "normal form"


Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

A half-dragon is the "natural" form for a half dragon lycanthrope (not that this template stacking is a good idea), or symbiotic, to choose an acquired template, is still the humanoid's natural form. So even if they are acquired, it works, not that I have found one.

The animal's "normal" ability scores are modified by the templates, even though you cant take the templates, you are gaining most, if not all, of the benefits, through lycanthrope.

And becoming a lycanthrope like this means you cannot take animal form, therefore, Afflicted has all the advantages of Natural (by effectively having perfect form control, by having the third form that you would be "forced" into, being ineligible to turn into), with 1 less LA. Or, you can look at it like Controlled Shaped checks to force you into a templated animal form and then rip a hole in the space-time continuum just before the material plane implodes.

Now that (Alt form cannot take templated forms) is a very specific ruling that only the hybrid lycanthrope (that I know of) can get around, cause it is a very general template and a very specific ruling. To reiterate,


The Lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type. This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore who's size is within one size category of the base creature.

Again, emphasis mine.

So once you are past this barrier, there is a whole lot of wiggle room, because the rules are so specific, once you get past them, SLAs, SR and the like are not specifically mentioned, because they shouldn't be able to get past the in-place rules.

But we just did! (read the templates below)

And it seems to go with the theme of the "get all the special qualities and special attacks" and all that.

Now, one of the few templates that fall into the realm of this very cheesey cheese, "Paragon" from the ELH, gives +15 to all abilities and SR and a ton of goodies. But +15 to all stats means int +15 and that means Magical beast, because


An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

First thought is the "unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry" line, but the general ruling ("unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry") at the top of the list is trumped by the specific "no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal"

But


Type remains unchanged

So then, the "all stats +15" is limited, in reguards to int, by two rules. The template itself says that type remains unchanged. So it creates an animal with 16 Int.

What's not there is as important as what is. Many other templates specify that "animals" with that template become magical beasts, otherwise, no change. But not Paragon.


Type remains unchanged

But, again,


An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

So, to make both rules above satisfied, Int cannot be raised above 2.

Templates that I've found that work for this:
Paragon
Titanic (but no way around 25 HD)
Magebred
Dungeonbred (make that big beastie small enough for your lycanthrope! Using just this one isn't cheese and the only use of this cheese I can see, seeing play)
(edit) Divine Ranks dont change creature type. (thanks ShurikVch)
(edit) Monster of Legend (same ruling on int for paragon applies to this one)

One of my several ideas using this, throws RHD up super high (and LA as low as possible), so you will be always taking RHD, but you are the bomb.com as a mundane goes. (although throwing all this on a "Tauric" makes more sense, but 1, it doesn't involve the mechanics I want to (ab)use and 2. It's 3.0, not specifically 3.5

The Beast


The templates:
For simplicity's sake, ease of reading and completeness of data, I will list all the effects of each template.

Lycanthrope (Were-fleshraker, MM III, pg 40)
Str +6
Dex +8
Con +4
Wis +2
(increase from 6 to 25 HD by "titanic" template gives 5 stat increases)
NA +6 (template increases +2 in all forms)
BAB: +3 (+19 from titanic HD)
DR 5/silver
Feats: Improved Natural Attack (claw), track, Iron Will
Leaping Pounce
Poison: 1D6 dex/1D6 dex DC is con based
2 Claws 1D6 + str (or 1/2 str if not main attack)
Bite 1D6 + 1/2 str
Tail 1D6 + 1/2 str + poison
Rake 1D6 + 1/2 str
+6 racial bonus to hide and jump (Hide in forested areas increases to +10)
Alternate Form
Low light vision
Scent

Titanic (MM II, pg, 218):
(from a medium fleshraker)
Size: Gargantuan
Space/Reach: 20' x 20' / 20'
Str +26
Dex -4 (never lower than 10)
Con +14
NA: 20 (not +20, becomes 20)
Poison: 2D6 dex/2D6 dex DC is con based
Trample: Huge or smaller, 3D8 + 1 1/2 str
Rake: 3D6 + 1 1/2 str (unless it is primary attack, then x3, "damage from special attacks that are not poison, has their damage tripled")
Fort 14 Ref 14 Will 14
Feat: Great Fortitude
CR: +13

Magebred (ECS, pg 295):
Str, Dex, Con, one is +4, the others +2
NA: +2
+10' movement or +2 NA
feats: Alertness, Athletic, Endurance and imp. natural attack or multi attack


Paragon (ELH, pg. 210):
HD are D12, always maximum, +12, +con
Str +15
Dex +15
Con +15
NA +5
Speed: tripled
Feats 2 bonus feats
+25 luck bonus on attack rolls
+20 luck bonus on all melee and thrown weapons
SLA 3/day Greater Dispelling, Haste and See Invisibility, CL 15
Fire and cold resist 10
DR 20/+6
SR = CR + 10
Fast healing 20
CR +12


Dungeonbred (Dungeonscape, pg 113):

-1 size category
Str -4 (str +4 and con +4, but also reversing the bonuses granted in MM I for advancing 1 size category, in this case, -8 str, -4 con, -4 NA)
-4 NA
+2 vs disease and poison
Racial bonus on hide (+4) applies to underground, instead of forests
Feats: Endurance, Imp Natural Attack (claw), Imp. Natural Attack (Bite), Imp Natural Attack (tail), Imp. Natural Attack (rake)


Stats
Order templates are applied: Titanic --> Dungeonbred --> Magebred --> Paragon

{table=head]base creature/Template|Size|Str|Dex|Con|NA|Fort|Ref|Will|CR

Fleshraker|
M|
17|
19|
15|
N/I*|
N/I*|
N/I*|
N/I*|
7

Titanic|
G|
+26|
-4|
+16|
20|
14|
14|
14|
+13

Dungeonbred|
H|
-4|
-|
-|
-4|
-|
-|
-|
-

Magebred|
-|
+4|
+2|
+2|
+4|
-|
-|
-|
-

Paragon|
-|
+15|
+15|
+15|
+5|
-|
-|
-|
+12

Total|
H|
58|
32|
48|
25|
14|
14|
14|
32[/table]

*N/I means not important, on account of the number is rendered meaningless in a following entry

The above beastie (which is still retaining an unchanged animal type) as the lycanthrope animal to a large character, assuming 32 point buy, would look like this:

{table=head]Race/Template|Size|Str|Dex|Con|Int|Wis|Cha|NA|Fort|Ref| Will|CR|LA|RHD

32 point buy|
-|
16|
12|
16|
14|
8|
10|
-|
-|-|-|-||
-|
-|

Half Ogre|
L|
+6|
-2|
+2|
-2|
-|
-2|
N/I*|
-|-|-|+2|
+2|
-

Were-Fleshraker|
H|
+48|
+22|
+38|
-|
+2|
-|
27|
+14|
+14|
+14|+32|
+2|
+25

Total|
L (H in hybrid)|
70|
32|
56|
12|
10|
8|
27|
+39**|
+25|
+39***|34|
4|
25[/table]

*N/I means not important, on account of the number is rendered meaningless in a following entry

**Great Fortitude

***Steadfast Determination and Iron Will

A buttload of nifty special qualities:

Base attack bonus +19 (interesting one)
Leaping Pounce
2 Claws 1D6 + str (or 1/2 str if not main attack)
Bite 1D6 + 1/2 str
Tail 1D6 + 1/2 str + poison (but not really, since only available in animal form)
Rake: 3D6 + 1 1/2 str (unless it is primary attack, then x3)
+6 racial bonus to hide and jump (Hide in underground areas increases to +10)
Alternate Form (hybrid or animal, but cannot take animal form, see above)
Low light vision
Scent
Trample: Large or smaller, 3D8 + 1 1/2 str (I'm not sure how, or if, damage from Trample is scaled back from losing a size category)
+25 luck bonus on attack rolls
+20 luck bonus on all melee and thrown weapons
SLA 3/day Greater Dispelling, Haste and See Invisibility, CL 15
Fire and cold resist 10
DR 20/+6
SR 44
Fast healing 20
+2 vs disease and poison

Bonus Feats:
lycanthrope: Iron Will, Improved Natural Attack (claw), track

Titanic:
Great Fortitude

Magebred:
Alertness, Athletic, Endurance and imp. natural attack or multi attack

Paragon:
Any 2 bonus feats

Dungeonbred:
Endurance, Imp Natural Attack (claw), Imp. Natural Attack (Bite), Imp Natural Attack (tail), Imp. Natural Attack (rake)

EDIT: The reason you don't need to pay for the LA on the templates, or can use "-" LA templates is because they are all on the Fleshraker Dinosaur, in my example, or whatever animal you use. LA the animal has, per the template, does not translate to an increased LA for you. Also, animal NPCs are totally fine to use "- LA" templates. Lycanthrope is just a flat 2 (or 3) LA.

However, there is no way around increased HD, that I know of, other than just not taking it.

[marcielle]

Wonder if you have heard of this but a lycanthrope is a template, therefore a lycan in any form is a templated creature, therefore lycans can never actualy change shape.

eg. a)You cannot use alt form to change in to a wolf because that wolf would have the lycanthrope template. OR b)You would change into a normal wolf without the template and lose alt form and either revert back immediately(again, to a creature without the lycan template) or need to find another way to turn back to yourself.

Can't remember if they debunked it but it was funny as heck at the time.

[Piggy Knowles]

I really, really think there should be a Godwin's Law for RAW debates - something to the effect of:

As a discussion of the D&D "Rules As Written" grows longer, the probability of someone quoting a dictionary as rules text approaches 1.

Sorry, I don't actually have anything constructive to add just yet, because I want to fully read through the monster manual entries and re-read the alternate form rules before commenting. Something in this doesn't pass the smell test, but I'll withhold judgment until I go over everything again. But man, quoting dictionaries in RAW debates is a pet peeve of mine.

(That said, bold choice going with Macmillian's. Most people choose the "old reliable" OED, but you - you're a rebel. It's Macmillian's way or the highway.)

[Flickerdart]

This is like the 4th time you've posted the same thread.

[KillianHawkeye]

Tell me again how a Titanic Magebred Dungeonbred Paragon Fleshraker is in any way normal or natural? :smallconfused::smallsigh:

[Toliudar]

Not to overstate the obvious, but using a bunch of templates that either have no LA listed, or because you've think you've found a way to not have to pay the LA, is not the same thing as it being acceptable in any game, ever. So, congrats: you've built an NPC monstrosity with 25 RHD.

[Immabozo]

Wonder if you have heard of this but a lycanthrope is a template, therefore a lycan in any form is a templated creature, therefore lycans can never actualy change shape.

haha, it is, and I laughed. In a previous thread on the subject that came up. We decided the specific "a lycanthrope can turn into these forms" specific, trumps the general rule saying he cant.


I really, really think there should be a Godwin's Law for RAW debates - something to the effect of:

As a discussion of the D&D "Rules As Written" grows longer, the probability of someone quoting a dictionary as rules text approaches 1.

Sorry, I don't actually have anything constructive to add just yet, because I want to fully read through the monster manual entries and re-read the alternate form rules before commenting. Something in this doesn't pass the smell test, but I'll withhold judgment until I go over everything again. But man, quoting dictionaries in RAW debates is a pet peeve of mine.

(That said, bold choice going with Macmillian's. Most people choose the "old reliable" OED, but you - you're a rebel. It's Macmillian's way or the highway.)

I've posted this before, but not having the full thought process out there led to arguments, so I wanted to post the full thing. Feel free to let me know if you find holes.


This is like the 4th time you've posted the same thread.

It is not the same in the slightest. It is on the same subject. There is a difference. I fully wrote out all my thoughts, cited my sources, fully presented for the playground to see and poke holes in.

I acknowledge that in the opening paragraph. Either join the debate, because now you have all the data I promised at the end of the last thread, or feel free to ignore the thread.


Tell me again how a Titanic Magebred Dungeonbred Paragon Fleshraker is in any way normal or natural? :smallconfused::smallsigh:

Re-read the definitions of normal and natural, that explains it very clearly.


Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.


Not acquired; inherent

As long as the templates are inherited, they are normal. You can also use the same definition of "normal" as in "normal form"


Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

So in this definition, it may not be normal, but it is normal for THAT animal, which has been that way since birth. And it is still an animal, falling under the category of "any animal"

Fluff reasons, I could imagine a mage creating this monster (magebred) and, per the paragon entry, it could be the perfect version, the way it was designed to be, or just when circumstances are perfect (paragon) bred for dungeons, or at least to be smaller (dungeonbred) and he wants it to be still very big (titanic) and then make it a carrier of lycanthropy (or however that disease spreads)


Not to overstate the obvious, but using a bunch of templates that either have no LA listed, or because you've think you've found a way to not have to pay the LA, is not the same thing as it being acceptable in any game, ever. So, congrats: you've built an NPC monstrosity with 25 RHD.

Read my edit at the bottom of the post. It's for you and anyone with a similar point.

It works. But what makes you think that RAW debates and TO and the like have to be made to work in games (not saying this is "TO" by the definition generally used, but "theoretical optimization" it is no doubt)? Pun-pun will never see the light of day. Neither will any other TO build. Feel free to add something to the discussion that is constructive, or poke holes in my theory, but sarcasm and antagonism are not welcome here.

[Flickerdart]

It is not the same in the slightest. It is on the same subject. There is a difference. I fully wrote out all my thoughts, cited my sources, fully presented for the playground to see and poke holes in.
If you're posting on the same subject, why are you not using one of the other threads on the same subject you've made? That's kind of what threads are for, you know.

You're still not addressing how you are benefitting from templates without having those templates on your character, though. Lycanthrope is very clear about where the animal stats and abilities and HD come from - you "multiclass" to animal. You pay the cost for them. You're trying to argue that those templates somehow come for free, which is absurd on every level. You're not turning into a specific creature, you're turning into a different aspect of yourself, and don't get anything that isn't already part of you.

[Immabozo]

If you're posting on the same subject, why are you not using one of the other threads on the same subject you've made? That's kind of what threads are for, you know.

You're still not addressing how you are benefitting from templates without having those templates on your character, though. Lycanthrope is very clear about where the animal stats and abilities and HD come from - you "multiclass" to animal. You pay the cost for them. You're trying to argue that those templates somehow come for free, which is absurd on every level.

Simply, I wasn't wanting to hunt them down, didn't want to be pinged for thread necromancy (not sure how long ago they were and I only think the thread necromancy cutoff is 6 weeks, but I am not sure.

I did address that:



Abilities:... when in animal form (or hybrid), a lycanthrope's ability scores improve according to it's type... These adjustments are equal to the animal's normal -10 or -11.

The words in parenthesis are mine.


Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.


Not acquired; inherent

As long as the templates are inherited, they are normal. You can also use the same definition of "normal" as in "normal form"


Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

A half-dragon is the "natural" form for a half dragon lycanthrope (not that this template stacking is a good idea), or symbiotic, to choose an acquired template, is still the humanoid's natural form. So even if they are acquired, it works, not that I have found one.

The animal's "normal" ability scores are modified by the templates, even though you cant take the templates, you are gaining most, if not all, of the benefits, through lycanthrope.

The key word is normal. These are the normal scores for THAT animal. Therefore, those normal scores are the ones used in the rest of the calculations.

[Flickerdart]

The Lycanthrope template very clearly refers to the base animal. The base animal of a Half-Dragon Goat is still Goat, no matter how you try to twist it.

[DeusMortuusEst]

The problem with using dictionaries when playing around with RAW is that it doesn't really work. The English language is not logic, 'normal' have several meanings, another which is


Normal, adjective:
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

Which a templated creature most certainly isn't, unless the majority of that animal has the specific template. So another interpretation of 'normal' means that your trick doesn't work.

[Immabozo]

The Lycanthrope template very clearly refers to the base animal. The base animal of a Half-Dragon Goat is still Goat, no matter how you try to twist it.

I see no such wording

[Flickerdart]

I see no such wording
Look harder.



Lycanthropes can also adopt a hybrid shape that combines features of the base creature and the base animal.




Abilities: Increase from the base creature as follows: Str +8, Con +2, Int +2, Cha +2.


A half-dragon animal is a combination of a base animal and the half-dragon template. A lycanthrope is a combination of a base humanoid or giant and a base animal. A half-dragon lycanthrope is a combination of a base animal, a base humanoid or giant, and the half-dragon template. If you want to benefit from the half-dragon template, you can't add it onto some phantom non-existing creature and then say you turn into that one, because in order to be modified by the template, you have to have it.

[Immabozo]

Base animal and base creature are precisely defined terms.


The Lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (refferred to hereafter as the base animal)

So, this templated animal, is the base animal. Because it is "some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type "

[Flickerdart]

Base animal and base creature are precisely defined terms.



So, this templated animal, is the base animal. Because it is "some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type "
Ah, but if we use the dictionary definition of base, we get


1. the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests: a metal base for the table.
2. a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms.

Therefore, the base animal is still ultimately the default creature.

Either dictionary definitions are admissible and you're wrong, or they're inadmissible, and you're wrong.

[Immabozo]

Ah, but if we use the dictionary definition of base, we get


1. the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests: a metal base for the table.
2. a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms.

Therefore, the base animal is still ultimately the default creature.

Either dictionary definitions are admissible and you're wrong, or they're inadmissible, and you're wrong.

Dictionary definitions are always admissable, but not every single definition applies to one usage all the time, you gotta figure out which one fits, cause thats the one that applies. As you're implying, that is not how the English language works. The definition that applies is as they establish in the beginning of the entry, in reference to the animal chosen, as I point out above.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Dictionary definitions are always admissable, but not every single definition applies to one usage all the time, you gotta figure out which one fits, cause thats the one that applies.

And what happens when more than one definition can be applied to the usage of the word in a sentence?

[Flickerdart]

Dictionary definitions are always admissable, but not every single definition applies to one usage all the time, you gotta figure out which one fits, cause thats the one that applies. As you're implying, that is not how the English language works. The definition that applies is as they establish in the beginning of the entry, in reference to the animal chosen, as I point out above.
I'm reading that paragraph but all I see is "only my interpretations count, and only I may decide which source is relevant" which is the opposite of how TO works.

[Immabozo]

And what happens when more than one definition can be applied to the usage of the word in a sentence?

Then you find what fits best.

To use a ridiculous example "I hit him with a bat" Well, bat the animal and baseball bat both COULD apply, but a baseball bat fits a whole lot better.


I'm reading that paragraph but all I see is "only my interpretations count, and only I may decide which source is relevant" which is the opposite of how TO works.

This is not my interpreation.

1. The base animal is:


some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (refferred to hereafter as the base animal)

2. the statistics are gotten from the base animal.


Abilities:... when in animal form (or hybrid), a lycanthrope's ability scores improve according to it's type... These adjustments are equal to the animal's normal -10 or -11... Lycanthropes can also adopt a hybrid shape that combines features of the base creature and the base animal.

Again,

Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.


Not acquired; inherent

As long as the templates are inherited, they are normal. You can also use the same definition of "normal" as in "normal form"


Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

So in this definition, it may not be normal, but it is normal for THAT animal, which has been that way since birth. And it is still an animal, falling under the category of "any animal"

The reason neither of these definitions fit: "1. the bottom support of anything; that on which a thing stands or rests: a metal base for the table.
2. a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms. " is because, the specific text already establish the templated creature to be able the fall under "any animal" and changing that reference point 3/4 of the way though a text talking about it doesn't make sense.

Or, you can take those definitions to refer to exactly what is established in the beginning of creating a lycanthrope, the animal it is built upon, in this case the fact that it has templates is irrelavant

3. In hybrid form, you calculate the ability scores:


Abilities:... when in animal form (or hybrid), a lycanthrope's ability scores improve according to it's type... These adjustments are equal to the animal's normal -10 or -11.

The words in parenthesis are mine.

I dont think I need to cite the definitions of normal again.

So there you go. Not my interpretation, it is the meaning of what is written, in a very strict sense.

[DeusMortuusEst]

There's a difference between 'base animal' and 'normal animal'. I'm having a hard time convincing myself that a templated animal counts as normal, unless you play in a campaign where the templated animal is the norm.

[thethird]

The problem with bringing a dictionary to that, is that base creature is defined in the template, and base animal too. And of course when applying templates you need to go to the description of templates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm).


Both intelligent and nonintelligent creatures with an unusual heritage or an inflicted change in their essential nature may be modified with a template. Templates usually result in tougher monsters with capabilities that differ from those of their common kin.

[...]

A templated creature can represent a freak of nature, the individual creation of a single experimenter, or the first generation of offspring from parents of different species.

[Flickerdart]

I dont think I need to cite the definitions of normal again.
As soon as you have to resort to dictionary definitions, you are no longer operating under the tenets of TO. TO demands that the DM be impartial; not ban content, not send gods to stop you, etc. This "build", if it can so be called, requires a complicit DM, that can be convinced to interpret certain words in a certain way just to make it work. What you're optimizing isn't the D&D ruleset, it's real-life Diplomacy skill checks. And I'm afraid you're not even hitting that DC.

[ShurikVch]

By the way, Divine Ranks don't change the base creature type. :smallwink:
(Congratulations! Your character was bitten by the god of Lycantropic Titanic Magebred Dungeonbred Paragon Fleshrakers! :smallbiggrin: )

[Immabozo]

This


There's a difference between 'base animal' and 'normal animal'. I'm having a hard time convincing myself that a templated animal counts as normal, unless you play in a campaign where the templated animal is the norm.

Mixed with this


The problem with bringing a dictionary to that, is that base creature is defined in the template, and base animal too. And of course when applying templates you need to go to the description of templates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm).

Makes me finally agree with you. kinda.

"any carnivore" and then choosing the templated animal (fleshraker in my example) is then established as the base creature. Then, now that that reference point is established, the norm for the base creature (I.E. not raging, buffed, or some other temporary stat boost) is modified by the templates, but still the norm.

Is it "a normal animal"? No, I am not contesting that. But it is normal for the base animal.

[Immabozo]

By the way, Divine Ranks don't change the base creature type. :smallwink:
(Congratulations! Your character was bitten by the god of Lycantropic Titanic Magebred Dungeonbred Paragon Fleshrakers! :smallbiggrin: )

Now that's a funny one, haha. Unfortunately, Divine ranks dont give any bonuses that Lycanthrope can transfer (unless Divine Ranks are ruled an Extraordinary quality, but I dont think they are). They are mostly operating off your divine rank, too, which is useless if you lack a Divine rank.

Although, I think they get NA, IIRC, so maybe a small boost to NA?

[thethird]

"any carnivore" and then choosing the templated animal (fleshraker in my example) is then established as the base creature. Then, now that that reference point is established, the norm for the base creature (I.E. not raging, buffed, or some other temporary stat boost) is modified by the templates, but still the norm.

Is it "a normal animal"? No, I am not contesting that. But it is normal for the base animal.

SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm) The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal).

As I read it the template references no specific/singular animal, and thus there is no point if the animal is not normal.

[DeusMortuusEst]

Obviously you choose to interpret the rules differently the the majority of the people in this thread. There's hardly any reason to argue this any more, since a ruling can't be established due to the ambiguous wording.

Note that I still think that you are wrong in your interpretation, and that this is, like Flickerdart said previously, hardly TO.

I give this trick 1/10 Fleshrakers and 10/10 Goudas, cheesy but hardly RAW.

[ShurikVch]

...Unfortunately, Divine ranks dont give any bonuses that Lycanthrope can transfer...
Although, I think they get NA, IIRC, so maybe a small boost to NA?
Speed :smallsmile:

Same as the base creature or base animal, depending on which form the lycanthrope is using. Hybrids use the base creature’s speed.

Deities can move much more quickly than mortals. A deity’s base land speed depends on its form (biped or quadruped) and its size, as shown on the following table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#speed). Some deities are exceptions, with speeds faster or slower than the norm.

[Immabozo]

SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm) The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal).

As I read it the template references no specific/singular animal, and thus there is no point if the animal is not normal.

I never saw that before, thank you. As written, in my book anyway, it works. In a strict meaning, it works. Even with the word "type", you are just making a new "type" with this animal, because it is definitely different than others of it's kind, making a new "type".


Obviously you choose to interpret the rules differently the the majority of the people in this thread. There's hardly any reason to argue this any more, since a ruling can't be established due to the ambiguous wording.

Note that I still think that you are wrong in your interpretation, and that this is, like Flickerdart said previously, hardly TO.

I give this trick 1/10 Fleshrakers and 10/10 Goudas, cheesy but hardly RAW.

TO, no, will it ever see play? no. But it is theoretically optimizing. It isn't TO by the definition or scale of TO, but in it just being a theoretical exercise.

I agree, cheesy, yes, and I guess I see your point about RAW. This case is one of connecting the dots, and if you do it, per a mixture of RAW and the dictionary, granted, maybe a little bit of a stretch, it works, but the leap isn't huge, if one is needed at all.

[Immabozo]

Speed :smallsmile:

But in this use, the divine ranks would be on the animal, and then the paragon template would triple it, making an insanely fast creature

[DeusMortuusEst]

I never saw that before, thank you. As written, in my book anyway, it works. In a strict meaning, it works. Even with the word "type", you are just making a new "type" with this animal, because it is definitely different than others of it's kind, making a new "type".

Type is clearly defined in D&D 3.5, a templated animal isn't a new type of animal, it is a animal with a sub-type.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is RAW in only the very loosest and most technical of senses.

Unlike much of RAW, wherein the meaning of the plain-english, non-key words are taken at their obvious face value; a value that is typically very difficult to interpret in any but a singular way, this requires an interpretation of certain, relatively vague words in the english language to work.

The odds that these words would be interpreted this way by any but the most lenient DM's imaginable are so vanishingly slim that I really don't think it's worth seriously evaluating this "trick" since it will see play about as often as pun-pun himself; which is a much more solid bit of RAW in that it doesn't require any sketchy interpretations and simply exploits poorly phrased abilities whose intent was rather obviously different but that intent isn't actually supported by the phrasing of the abilities.

[SowZ]

I never saw that before, thank you. As written, in my book anyway, it works. In a strict meaning, it works. Even with the word "type", you are just making a new "type" with this animal, because it is definitely different than others of it's kind, making a new "type".



TO, no, will it ever see play? no. But it is theoretically optimizing. It isn't TO by the definition or scale of TO, but in it just being a theoretical exercise.

I agree, cheesy, yes, and I guess I see your point about RAW. This case is one of connecting the dots, and if you do it, per a mixture of RAW and the dictionary, granted, maybe a little bit of a stretch, it works, but the leap isn't huge, if one is needed at all.

Not by the D&D definition of the word type. In D&D, there is a set number of creature types. Undead, humanoid, aberration, etc. There are only so many types and you can't make new ones. You can make new combinations of sub-types, but that isn't making up a new type. Dictionary doesn't apply here since D&D is referring to a specific mechanic when it says type.

[Immabozo]

Not by the D&D definition of the word type. In D&D, there is a set number of creature types. Undead, humanoid, aberration, etc. There are only so many types and you can't make new ones. You can make new combinations of sub-types, but that isn't making up a new type. Dictionary doesn't apply here since D&D is referring to a specific mechanic when it says type.

I knew there was a reason I agreed that it didn't work, but then I forgot it, haha. thanks

[Immabozo]

This is RAW in only the very loosest and most technical of senses.

Unlike much of RAW, wherein the meaning of the plain-english, non-key words are taken at their obvious face value; a value that is typically very difficult to interpret in any but a singular way, this requires an interpretation of certain, relatively vague words in the english language to work.

these aren't vague, or obscure meanings. They are some of the most common meanings, either the #1 or #2 meanings for those parts of speech (noun, adjective, etc)

[Kelb_Panthera]

these aren't vague, or obscure meanings. They are some of the most common meanings, either the #1 or #2 meanings for those parts of speech (noun, adjective, etc)

That the word -has- more than one different meaning is what makes it vague, no matter how crisp, concise, and well written those definitions are.

If a word can be interpretted to have more than one meaning, it's vague.

And since you like dictionaries;


Vague

2; indefinite in shape, form, or character; hazily or indistinctly seen or sensed

[Immabozo]

That the word -has- more than one different meaning is what makes it vague, no matter how crisp, concise, and well written those definitions are.

If a word can be interpretted to have more than one meaning, it's vague.

And since you like dictionaries;

Just because you dont understand it, doesn't make it vague, it is vague to you, but not as far as the language and the majority of the people are concerned. You know how many words that everyone uses has multiple definitions? A VAST, VAST majority. And of those that not only have multiple definitions, but multiple definitions for multiple parts of speech, is again, a vast majority. How clear or vague it is to one, does not make it clear or vague.

But, we digress. point is taken.

[Toliudar]

Just because you dont understand it, doesn't make it vague, it is vague to you, but not as far as the language and the majority of the people are concerned. You know how many words that everyone uses has multiple definitions? A VAST, VAST majority. And of those that not only have multiple definitions, but multiple definitions for multiple parts of speech, is again, a vast majority. How clear or vague it is to one, does not make it clear or vague.

The corollary is also true. Where interpretation seems crystal clear to one poster, but is identified as murky or meaning something else to a VAST majority of others, clarity should not be assumed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just because you dont understand it, doesn't make it vague, it is vague to you, but not as far as the language and the majority of the people are concerned. You know how many words that everyone uses has multiple definitions? A VAST, VAST majority. And of those that not only have multiple definitions, but multiple definitions for multiple parts of speech, is again, a vast majority. How clear or vague it is to one, does not make it clear or vague.

But, we digress. point is taken.

You realize that one of the words you're defending as clear is the word "normal?"

In spite of dictionaries, I don't think there's a less clearly defined word in the english language.

Moreover, that you had to highlight a specific definition of "normal" means that it did not, in fact, have a "definite character," the lack of which fits the definition I gave for "vague."

Ironically, "vague" is -not- a vaguely defined word. All of its meanings have to do with a lack of clarity in definition.

[Immabozo]

You realize that one of the words you're defending as clear is the word "normal?"

In spite of dictionaries, I don't think there's a less clearly defined word in the english language.

Moreover, that you had to highlight a specific definition of "normal" means that it did not, in fact, have a "definite character," the lack of which fits the definition I gave for "vague."

Ironically, "vague" is -not- a vaguely defined word. All of its meanings have to do with a lack of clarity in definition.

Normal is not vaguely defined at all, it is relative, yes, but very specific definitions exist. If you want help finding them I would be more than happy to show you.

But just to be clear, I conceded my point and now we are debating meanings of words. I have no problem with this debate, but I thought it deserved saying

[TuggyNE]

I really, really think there should be a Godwin's Law for RAW debates - something to the effect of:

As a discussion of the D&D "Rules As Written" grows longer, the probability of someone quoting a dictionary as rules text approaches 1.

Sorry, I don't actually have anything constructive to add just yet, because I want to fully read through the monster manual entries and re-read the alternate form rules before commenting. Something in this doesn't pass the smell test, but I'll withhold judgment until I go over everything again. But man, quoting dictionaries in RAW debates is a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah, I've been noticing that myself in other threads. I think it's because quoting dictionary entries at people, especially for fairly common words, basically implies that your opponents don't understand basic English and need to be patiently instructed again. Which, needless to say, is very seldom the case. It's even worse when the terms you're attempting to define have more specific (and sometimes implicit) usages in D&D that the dictionaries cannot hope to cover adequately, because then you're just misusing jargon for your own purposes.

[Immabozo]

Yeah, I've been noticing that myself in other threads. I think it's because quoting dictionary entries at people, especially for fairly common words, basically implies that your opponents don't understand basic English and need to be patiently instructed again. Which, needless to say, is very seldom the case. It's even worse when the terms you're attempting to define have more specific (and sometimes implicit) usages in D&D that the dictionaries cannot hope to cover adequately, because then you're just misusing jargon for your own purposes.

This is a jab at me, I do not appreciate it.

I included it for completeness of data. And believe it or not, most people do not know what "to", "yet", "of", or a number of other small, common words. Want proof? Walk up to 10 people and ask them to define those words and any other number of small common words. Can they do it? Can you do it? If they know one definition, do they know any others? "Of" has about 20 definitions.

The fact remains, if you are arguing over something like this, it is possible that someone has something they do not understand. More often than not, it's a word that is not defined properly.

My idea works, but I have agreed with you because those who are responding, are overwhelmingly "you are wrong" posts and after a point, I've had enough of it. If you properly understand the words and the definitions that apply in each case (even the technical D&D terms vs when those same terms are not using the technical definitions) you will understand it and agree with me, but since I do not care to correct 90 billion people on the facts of each little bit, all the while getting a "you are wrong" from each, well, no one enjoys that. If it wasn't constant attacking me for this idea and actually looking at each individual piece and everyone willing to talk in a decent fashion, I would. But that is not here, not now.

[TuggyNE]

This is a jab at me, I do not appreciate it.

Not really, no. I don't especially care whether therianthropes can apply further templates to their base animal before taking it on, although I doubt it works; I do care about fallacious or problematic arguments, though. And generally, starting with "here's a bunch of words that you already have an implicit knowledge of, but no! you totally are forgetting something, and my dictionary quotes are here to remind you" is at the very least strongly indicative of a problematic argument.

If it's not obvious to most native speakers what a common word should mean, then, chances are, that's not what that word means! Occam's Razor. (Also, I am a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist, despite being something of a grammar and spelling Nazi.)


I included it for completeness of data. And believe it or not, most people do not know what "to", "yet", "of", or a number of other small, common words. Want proof? Walk up to 10 people and ask them to define those words and any other number of small common words. Can they do it? Can you do it? If they know one definition, do they know any others? "Of" has about 20 definitions.

Formal definitions of extremely basic words are extremely hard to formulate, not because people don't know what they mean (!!!) but because they're so crucial to being able to use the language at all that defining them without self-reference is like defining the number 1 in mathematics. (True story: there is a mathematical encyclopedia published early last century by a group of pseudonymous mathematicians that spent over 200 pages explaining the concepts behind the number 1.)

In other words, they understand it so well on an informal level that it is very difficult to define it formally, which requires certain standards that don't really reflect normal usages.


The fact remains, if you are arguing over something like this, it is possible that someone has something they do not understand. More often than not, it's a word that is not defined properly.

Oh? Anecdotally, I can remember one discussion in my entire time on the boards that might, perhaps, have been improved by arguing semantics and correcting definitions. All the others? Didn't need that; just pointing out the logic behind the rules without condescending about others' presumed incorrect knowledge of the language was sufficient.


My idea works, but I have agreed with you because those who are responding, are overwhelmingly "you are wrong" posts and after a point, I've had enough of it. If you properly understand the words and the definitions that apply in each case (even the technical D&D terms vs when those same terms are not using the technical definitions) you will understand it and agree with me, but since I do not care to correct 90 billion people on the facts of each little bit, all the while getting a "you are wrong" from each, well, no one enjoys that. If it wasn't constant attacking me for this idea and actually looking at each individual piece and everyone willing to talk in a decent fashion, I would. But that is not here, not now.

Disagreements are not attacks.

If people believe you to be sincerely mistaken, they will attempt to sincerely point it out (well, or use sarcasm if initial attempts don't seem to be getting through). Assume the assumption of good faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AAAGF)! You are not your opinion; you can be wrong without being evil or stupid or an idiot, and pretty much every poster here knows and understands that, at least to some extent. (For that matter, nearly every experienced poster has been publicly wrong on at least one thing; that's a large part of experience right there.)

And, for the record, I do try to avoid attacking people, although I'm not sure I always succeed in remaining irenic. If you see a post of mine that doesn't seem to hit that standard, a PM would be appreciated (and, for that matter, reporting it is probably fine too, even if it's less snippy than a lot of others).

[Immabozo]

Formal definitions of extremely basic words are extremely hard to formulate, not because people don't know what they mean (!!!) but because they're so crucial to being able to use the language at all that defining them without self-reference is like defining the number 1 in mathematics. (True story: there is a mathematical encyclopedia published early last century by a group of pseudonymous mathematicians that spent over 200 pages explaining the concepts behind the number 1.)

In other words, they understand it so well on an informal level that it is very difficult to define it formally, which requires certain standards that don't really reflect normal usages.

Check out the dictionary "small common words defined". It has very good definitions for all the basic words.


Oh? Anecdotally, I can remember one discussion in my entire time on the boards that might, perhaps, have been improved by arguing semantics and correcting definitions. All the others? Didn't need that; just pointing out the logic behind the rules without condescending about others' presumed incorrect knowledge of the language was sufficient.

I didn't say it was with a word, I just said misunderstanding (if I said word, it's cause I had too many thoughts going through my head) and I didn't say it has to be with the other party. I may misunderstand something, but I doubt it.


Disagreements are not attacks.

If people believe you to be sincerely mistaken, they will attempt to sincerely point it out (well, or use sarcasm if initial attempts don't seem to be getting through). Assume the assumption of good faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AAAGF)! You are not your opinion; you can be wrong without being evil or stupid or an idiot, and pretty much every poster here knows and understands that, at least to some extent. (For that matter, nearly every experienced poster has been publicly wrong on at least one thing; that's a large part of experience right there.)

I guess it is perhaps the curse of the internet, plain text can very easily be interpreted wrong (in the matter that tone of voice would communicate when speaking) because of the lack of a speaking voice and the ease of the mood of the reader influencing how it is read.


And, for the record, I do try to avoid attacking people, although I'm not sure I always succeed in remaining irenic. If you see a post of mine that doesn't seem to hit that standard, a PM would be appreciated (and, for that matter, reporting it is probably fine too, even if it's less snippy than a lot of others).

Fair enough, and I appreciate the sentiment.

I do not mean my definitions to say "I need to reeducate you because you are unenucated" or whatever, I merely mean to use them to point out the definitions I find relevant.

A great example was the post above about a type of animal vs animal type. In D&D, the animal type is a very specific thing. But a type of animal? The same definition cannot apply. Therefore, another one must. So, in cases like that, where the poster was using the wrong one, not cause he is uneducated, but because he/she may not be thinking and just skating over the point. Perhaps the poster was so sure of their argument they didn't second guess it.

Whatever the reason, I try to cite the relevant definition, if someone finds they need it, or I find that it is needed, or at least a good idea to point out.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Normal is not vaguely defined at all, it is relative, yes, but very specific definitions exist. If you want help finding them I would be more than happy to show you.

But just to be clear, I conceded my point and now we are debating meanings of words. I have no problem with this debate, but I thought it deserved saying

:sigh:

After a quick glance at the full entry for "Normal" on american heritage's website, two things become immediately apparent.

1) You omitted a word from your definition to give it more credibility.

That definition is in relation to normally functioning biology. In that context, biology is certainly refering to the sum of an individual's anatomic and bio-chemistry functions.

The definition you used isn't the correct definition for the context that you were seeing "normal" in.

2) The definition immediately above the one you chose, the correct definition for the context under which you found "normal," categorically shuts down your idea.

By that definition a "normal" animal is one conforming to a certain standard: the standard set by all others of its kind; the non-templated animal.

Moreover, use of the phrase "some type of [adjective] or [adjective] creature of the animal type" implies that the base animal is not one specific creature but a species.

Pseudonatural, paragon, and gargantuan are all templates that explicitly call themselves out as atypical specimens of a broader, non-templated species. They do -not- represent species that meet the definition given for the base animal.

So your "trick" only works by deliberately distorting the meaning of a word in the english language and by completely ignoring, not only the context of that word, but several lines of text from both the templates you've chosen, themselves, and the rules for templates in general.

That is, it doesn't work at all.

@Tuggyne:

Our discussion on the ridiculously poor phrasing of gate didn't happen to be the one time a dictionary definition was meaningful in one of these discussions, did it?

[TuggyNE]

@Tuggyne:

Our discussion on the ridiculously poor phrasing of gate didn't happen to be the one time a dictionary definition was meaningful in one of these discussions, did it?

It was, actually, the one time it might have been relevant. :smalltongue:

I don't remember for sure exactly how it went at this point (probably because I've repressed those memories :smallwink:) but that is what I was thinking of.

[Just to Browse]

I like it, and it really does look RAW. I don't see the need for dictionary definitions really.

[thethird]

Yeah, I've been noticing that myself in other threads. I think it's because quoting dictionary entries at people, especially for fairly common words, basically implies that your opponents don't understand basic English and need to be patiently instructed again. Which, needless to say, is very seldom the case. It's even worse when the terms you're attempting to define have more specific (and sometimes implicit) usages in D&D that the dictionaries cannot hope to cover adequately, because then you're just misusing jargon for your own purposes.


For the record sometimes I fail to understand basic English. But if we were holding this conversation in any of my mother tongues... :smallamused:

Just trying to say that not all posters in the forum are native speakers, and in some cases a RAW argument might be induced by a lack of comprehension of just plain old language, or an error in translation of the material.

Of course as tuggyne mentions, and I pointed out earlier, in this case there are specifically defined terms in D&D so the definition in English is moot. Mathematics is the language of the universe, English is the language of the manual, but RAW is the language of D&D*.

*At least it must be assumed when discussing topics in a forum, unless it is specifically houseruled.

[Immabozo]

After a quick glance at the full entry for "Normal" on american heritage's website, two things become immediately apparent.

1) You omitted a word from your definition to give it more credibility.

That definition is in relation to normally functioning biology. In that context, biology is certainly refering to the sum of an individual's anatomic and bio-chemistry functions.

The definition you used isn't the correct definition for the context that you were seeing "normal" in.

2) The definition immediately above the one you chose, the correct definition for the context under which you found "normal," categorically shuts down your idea.

By that definition a "normal" animal is one conforming to a certain standard: the standard set by all others of its kind; the non-templated animal.

Moreover, use of the phrase "some type of [adjective] or [adjective] creature of the animal type" implies that the base animal is not one specific creature but a species.

Pseudonatural, paragon, and gargantuan are all templates that explicitly call themselves out as atypical specimens of a broader, non-templated species. They do -not- represent species that meet the definition given for the base animal.

So your "trick" only works by deliberately distorting the meaning of a word in the english language and by completely ignoring, not only the context of that word, but several lines of text from both the templates you've chosen, themselves, and the rules for templates in general.

That is, it doesn't work at all.

I copy-and-pasted the definition. It's interesting I missed a word. But if I did, so be it.

I missed the definition you state, but the I looked at the top of the page to find that the link I had been sent to was a Yahoo page, not the American Heritage that I thought I was reading!

But regarding the use of "Normal" since I can see both definitions working, I have to consider context. The beginning on the entry, states that any animal could be used and this templated animal qualifies, if only by the text there. Then, close to the end, it says the stats that are normal for the animal, well, it no longer makes sense to suddenly impose the "standard set by the species" definition.


I like it, and it really does look RAW. I don't see the need for dictionary definitions really.

Thank you. I guess the dictionary definitions aren't for you. I felt, knowing the arguments to come) it needed to be there to try to fully explain where I was coming from.

[dascarletm]

Yeah, I've been noticing that myself in other threads. I think it's because quoting dictionary entries at people, especially for fairly common words, basically implies that your opponents don't understand basic English and need to be patiently instructed again. Which, needless to say, is very seldom the case. It's even worse when the terms you're attempting to define have more specific (and sometimes implicit) usages in D&D that the dictionaries cannot hope to cover adequately, because then you're just misusing jargon for your own purposes.

I may have helped that little guy along when I was defending the "grossly" aspect of the paladin code just before the site went down a couple months ago.

my bad.

To the topic:

Reading the SRD on the topic I'm not seeing why the creature couldn't be templated. (If in the MM it is different then ignore the rest of this



"Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature). The lycanthrope template can be inherited (for natural lycanthropes) or acquired (for afflicted lycanthropes). Becoming a lycanthrope is very much like multiclassing as an animal and gaining the appropriate Hit Dice.
Nothing bad here....


The base creature’s type does not change, but the creature gains the shapechanger subtype. The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal).

This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore whose size is within one size category of the base creature’s size (Small, Medium, or Large for a Medium base creature). Lycanthropes can also adopt a hybrid shape that combines features of the base creature and the base animal. A lycanthrope’s hybrid form is the same size as the base animal or the base creature, whichever is larger.
Still seeing nothing besides predator, scavenger, or omnivore, and the size category.

As for alternate form:

A lycanthrope can assume the form of a specific animal (as indicated in its entry).
specific animal? sounds about right to me.


Am I missing something? According to the SRD it looks completely fine. Though practically you'd need an animal with the disease and those templates to infect you, unless you are natural. However, both require the DM to okay it.

[Immabozo]

I may have helped that little guy along when I was defending the "grossly" aspect of the paladin code just before the site went down a couple months ago.

my bad.

To the topic:

Reading the SRD on the topic I'm not seeing why the creature couldn't be templated. (If in the MM it is different then ignore the rest of this



Nothing bad here....


Still seeing nothing besides predator, scavenger, or omnivore, and the size category.

As for alternate form:

specific animal? sounds about right to me.


Am I missing something? According to the SRD it looks completely fine. Though practically you'd need an animal with the disease and those templates to infect you, unless you are natural. However, both require the DM to okay it.

But since when do arguments like this get sawed by logic?

And thank you

[Kelb_Panthera]

I copy-and-pasted the definition. It's interesting I missed a word. But if I did, so be it.

I missed the definition you state, but the I looked at the top of the page to find that the link I had been sent to was a Yahoo page, not the American Heritage that I thought I was reading!There are only two things I can do with this. Either I can choose to disbelieve it as you trying to cover your butt or I can call you out on failing to verify your source. Which would you prefer?


But regarding the use of "Normal" since I can see both definitions working, I have to consider context. The beginning on the entry, states that any animal could be used and this templated animal qualifies, if only by the text there.The bolded statement is false. When the template defines the base animal it says to choose a type of animal, not a specific animal.


Then, close to the end, it says the stats that are normal for the animal, well, it no longer makes sense to suddenly impose the "standard set by the species" definition. "Stats for the animal," wherein "animal" is referring to the base animal as defined earlier in the template; the base animal which is a type of animal, not a single specific creature.




Thank you. I guess the dictionary definitions aren't for you. I felt, knowing the arguments to come) it needed to be there to try to fully explain where I was coming from.

The definition you used isn't even a dictionary definition. It's a definition given by a second-hand source (allegedly) that is remarkably similar to the dictionary definition.

This trick only works if you can fast-talk the DM into buying the twisting of the terms and phrases used and ignoring both context and basic gramatic rules.

[dascarletm]

"Stats for the animal," wherein "animal" is referring to the base animal as defined earlier in the template; the base animal which is a type of animal, not a single specific creature.


For our example lets call the template a scarlet creature.
A scarlet creature retains its type but is coloured red when angry:smallfurious:, and it can glow purple when sad:smallfrown: and orange when annoyed:smallannoyed:.
So, what I'm hearing is that since it has dascarlet template it doesn't qualify.

Here is what I read on what can qualify as an acceptable creature.

lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal).
So, our lycanthrope takes on characteristic derived from some type of creature that must be:
I'm not seeing the reasoning behind that when it says type of creature it is meaning a base creature. When it says type it is talking about the diet of the animal that can be used.
A: Carnivorous
or
B: Omnivorous

It also must be of the animal type.
So far the only qualifiers are that it cannot be a herbivorous nor a creature of any type other than animal.

It goes on to say:

This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore whose size is within one size category of the base creature’s size (Small, Medium, or Large for a Medium base creature). Lycanthropes can also adopt a hybrid shape that combines features of the base creature and the base animal. A lycanthrope’s hybrid form is the same size as the base animal or the base creature, whichever is larger.
It is now saying that the animal must be a predator, scavenger, or omnivore. (there is also a size qualification).
It then says base creature, but that, as said earlier, is what we are talking about, and isn't a qualifier for the animal.

The only thing I can see to be an issue is when they say, "a type of[...]creature."

I think it could be argued that a Scarlet Wolf, is a type of wolf. A dungeon-bred wolf might also be a type of animal as well. Otherwise, would dinosaur count as a type of animal? If you can't pick a velociraptor because it falls as a specific "dinosaur"... Do you see my point?

I don't think it is really clear enough to say that templates specifically don't count as another type of creature.

[Immabozo]

There are only two things I can do with this. Either I can choose to disbelieve it as you trying to cover your butt or I can call you out on failing to verify your source. Which would you prefer?

Failure to verify my source, cause that's exactly what it was, you are correct. I have no problems admitting I am wrong, when I am.


The bolded statement is false. When the template defines the base animal it says to choose a type of animal, not a specific animal.


The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type

It is some type of animal.


a person who seems to represent a particular group of people, having all the qualities that you usually connect with that group

Granted that is the second of the only two definitions. Your argument has going for it that your definition is #1, which means it is more common usage.


"Stats for the animal," wherein "animal" is referring to the base animal as defined earlier in the template; the base animal which is a type of animal, not a single specific creature.

False.


The Lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type. This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore who's size is within one size category of the base creature (hereafter referred to as the base animal)

It is the same thing they do in legal documents, establishing "The Church", or "The Company", or whatever, as this longer set of words, simplified into "the base animal" (in this case) so they dont have to completely type out the whole thing each time. Otherwise "The carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type" would have to be typed, every time, instead of "base animal".


The definition you used isn't even a dictionary definition. It's a definition given by a second-hand source (allegedly) that is remarkably similar to the dictionary definition.

This trick only works if you can fast-talk the DM into buying the twisting of the terms and phrases used and ignoring both context and basic gramatic rules.

False and false again. I failed to verify WHICH dictionary, on ONE definition, does not make the definition any less right, in and of itself. The fact that it was one word off of yours, as you said yourself, goes to show it was pretty reliable.

This trick has nothing to do with fast toking your DM, nor ignoring either context nor grammar rules, it is in fact you who is ignoring context (establishing what base animal is, as the template does, and then arguing that is not what it means 3/4 of the way through the document, as i mention immediately above). Grammar plays no part in this one way or the other.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Failure to verify my source, cause that's exactly what it was, you are correct. I have no problems admitting I am wrong, when I am.Very well then.






It is some type of animal.



Granted that is the second of the only two definitions. Your argument has going for it that your definition is #1, which means it is more common usage.That's not what the entry says. It says "some type of [...] creature of the animal type," not some type of animal. Not that this is particularly important, but misquoting is really damaging to the credibility of one's position even if it's unintentional.

More importantly, every template you've chosen in particular and the header for templates in general both say that the templated creatures are deviations from the normal, untemplated, species rather than entirely new species unto themselves.

What you're arguing is that the use of the phrase "some type of [...] creature" is an extraneous way of saying "a creature," rather than being intended to specify a sample from a group of creatures. If this was the case then the inclusion of both of the adjectives describing what type of creature would be entirely redundant, since the very next sentence defines those details.

Context says you picked the wrong definition again.




False.



It is the same thing they do in legal documents, establishing "The Church", or "The Company", or whatever, as this longer set of words, simplified into "the base animal" (in this case) so they dont have to completely type out the whole thing each time. Otherwise "The carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type" would have to be typed, every time, instead of "base animal".I am aware of how contract phrasing works. That such phrasing was used for all templates doesn't change the fact that the paragraph as a whole clearly states that the base animal is a creature drawn from a group of creatures that are a type of creature that is either carnivorous or omnivorous. Either you're wrong or somebody at WotC would fail miserably when writing a 9th grade-level essay.




False and false again. I failed to verify WHICH dictionary, on ONE definition, does not make the definition any less right, in and of itself. The fact that it was one word off of yours, as you said yourself, goes to show it was pretty reliable.This is why misquoting undermines your position in a debate.

I didn't quote the dictionary. I referenced it. I have no quote to compare to yours. You, however, have a quote that does not match the referenced source. That missing word is central to the context under which that definition applies; making your omission of it a change to the definition. This makes your definition very unreliable.

Since you're using the dictionary as an appeal to authority on how to interpret the word, using a definition that differs from your authority nullifies any apparent legitimacy that appeal might've granted to your argument. Misquoting, when discovered, means you're using quote that has no legitimacy granted by authority and probably should've paraphrased.

In this case, however, paraphrasing the definition for normal would likely have been countered by an accurate quote of the definition that did -not- match your own, granting that side of the debate the appearance of legitimacy granted by authority and undermining your position to an even greater extent than your own misquote.

That misquote reduces your argument to what constitutes as "this is what I want it to mean."


This trick has nothing to do with fast toking your DM, nor ignoring either context nor grammar rules, it is in fact you who is ignoring context (establishing what base animal is, as the template does, and then arguing that is not what it means 3/4 of the way through the document, as i mention immediately above). Grammar plays no part in this one way or the other.Yeah, getting the DM high first might get this to work.

Grammar is everything when arguing about the meaning of words and phrases in a given language. You can't use it to defend your position then discard it when it disagrees.

[Somensjev]

ok, i just read this whole thread (and while i'm more inclined to the OP's way of thinking, i can mostly understand both sides)

however with all this arguing that's going on, has any one realised that someone mentioned that the template definition, may also be the offspring of two different species parents, and the first generation of a new race ?
that would include the half dragon template, half celestial, half fiend, etc

and if you're saying that a half dragon cannot, since it's a templated creature
then why can a half elf or half orc, you know, because they're "the offspring of two different species parents"
of course, that's mostly fluff reasons

but also, there's argument about "base creature", the term is used in every template i've ever seen (and i've read the book of templates cover to cover)
so, since someone posted up the dictionary definition, i'm just gonna shoot that down for now
i'm paraphrasing here, but the definition was somewhat equivelant to "the most basic building blocks" or "the object, as it started"
but that is like saying you dont build a house on concrete, you build it on "a congregation of sand, gravel, rocks, etc"

[Flickerdart]

and if you're saying that a half dragon cannot, since it's a templated creature
then why can a half elf or half orc, you know, because they're "the offspring of two different species parents"
of course, that's mostly fluff reasons
There is a vast gulf between half-elf/orc/giant, who are races with characteristics of their own produced by specific matings, and a half-dragon creature, which is a member of its base race with the half-dragon template added on top, and can have practically any two parents as long as they meet some very loose criteria.

[thethird]

however with all this arguing that's going on, has any one realised that someone mentioned that the template definition, may also be the offspring of two different species parents, and the first generation of a new race ?
that would include the half dragon template, half celestial, half fiend, etc

I was that someone who mentioned it. Half dragon cannot be because its type is no longer animal. Even if it where, the template calls for a type of creature, and a half dragon is a unique creature.


and if you're saying that a half dragon cannot, since it's a templated creature
then why can a half elf or half orc, you know, because they're "the offspring of two different species parents"
of course, that's mostly fluff reasons

This is irrelevant, a half dragon cannot be because it cannot match the animal type. And half elf or half orc still cannot be the base animal, because they are not of the animal type. Of course they could be the base creature, but that is a different thing altogether, that is not questioned in this thread. Even if the question regarded a different thing, such as a Phynxkin which is a crossing of dragons and wild cats (and has the animal type) there is no question that it is not: the first generation of offspring from parents of different species. Thus it is totally different from a templated creature.

In case you want to continue arguing on that venue, may I point you to the fluff of the paragon template (ELH 209): Paragon creatures may represent the First Creature, created in its perfect form by some creator deity, or perhaps the evolutionary endpoint of a race after thousands of years of steady improvement. Sometimes, paragons just spring accidentally, when all factors are right.

None of those descriptions fits the bill of a normal creature, those creature are not normal. The only thing that might come close to be normal is totally campaign setting depending, and thus DM depending.

[dascarletm]

I was that someone who mentioned it. Half dragon cannot be because its type is no longer animal. Even if it where, the template calls for a type of creature, and a half dragon is a unique creature.

I think the phrase, "type of creature," is a debatable aspect. I'm not seeing anything that makes the word type as a qualifying factor for the base animal. It is merely the fluff of the template. It is telling you it takes the aspects of some animal, it then goes to tell you what it can be. That is why it explains the dietary habit requirements twice.

It must be some sort of animal.
This animal must be X, Y, and Z.



None of those descriptions fits the bill of a normal creature, those creature are not normal. The only thing that might come close to be normal is totally campaign setting depending, and thus DM depending.

It doesn't say normal. It says type. I can't see how you are taking so much meaning from just one phrase in the section. It gives a list of attributes which it must meet to qualify for, but not that. If I said, "hey you guys can buy some type of ice cream for me. I will pay for any purchase that has chocolate or caramel and is of the ice-cream type (referred hereafter as the base purchase.) This ice cream can be any chocolate, vanilla, or peanut butter infused ice cream, and must be a 1 pint in size.

Could you go to cold stone and buy me some sort of mix-in ice cream that they create. It isn't a base ice cream it is a templated ice cream. Just because I said type of ice cream it doesn't mean it can't. That really is a stretch.
Legal Trickery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpB9YmmLAtg) is not permitted :smalltongue:

[thethird]

Is cold stone an ice cream store?

Anyways the fluff of lycanthrope is:

"Lycanthropes are humanoids or giants who can transform themselves into animals. In its natural form, a lycanthrope looks like any other members of its kind, though natural lycanthropes and those who have been afflicted for a long time tend to have or acquire features reminiscent of their animal forms. In animal form, a lycanthrope resembles a powerful version of the normal animal, but on close inspection, its eyes (which often glow red in the dark) show a faint spark of unnatural intelligence."

Which says normal.

In the crunch of the template though, when explaining the base animal there is the following sentence:

"The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal)."

If instead of that it said:

"The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of a carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal)."

It would have a really different meaning, as it is, type is relevant. Because type has a specific meaning in D&D. As it is the sentence, refers to a type of creatures, a group if you will, templated animals are not a type, nor a group, they are by the very definition of templates unique creatures. Note though, that if the reading of the sentence was the second I would agree with you.

[Somensjev]

ok, my last post had mostly nothing to do with the actual topic at hand (mostly because i find lycanthropy almost as confusing as why lots of players i know despise playing wizard)

so, for base creature, if you had, lets say a tiger
it fits the criteria;
carnivore/omnivore/scavenger
within 1 size category of you (assuming base creature is medium, large, or huge)
normal for a creature of it's type (i.e. tiger)

but then, for a winged tiger, couldn't you say:
carnivore/omnivore/scavenger (check)
within 1 size category (same assumption) (check)
normal for creature of it's type (i.e. winged tiger) (check)


a templated creature is (probably) considered perfectly normal for it's own species

of course, this is just my interpretation of it, and can probably be completely disregarded


it should (probably) be read as
some type of x of the y type

in our case;
x = carnivore/omnivore/scavenger
y = animal

i'm not quite sure where species comes into that sentence, since it doesnt mention species at all, only their dietary needs, and the creature type it belongs to :smallconfused:



list of creature types (and a few examples) for 3.5 MMI

Aberration: aboleth, athach, beholders, carrion crawler, choker, chuul,
cloaker, delver, destrachan, drider, ethereal filcher, ettercap, gauth,
ghaur, gibbering mouther, grick, mimic, mind flayer, nagas, otyugh,
phasm, rust monster, skum, umber hulk, will-o’-wisp.

Animal: animals, bat swarm, dinosaurs, dire animals, rat swarm,
roc.

Construct: animated objects, golems, homunculus, inevitables,
retriever, shield guardian.

Dragon: dragons, dragon turtle, pseudodragon, wyvern.

Elemental: belker, elementals, invisible stalker, magmin, thoqqua.

Fey: dryad, grig, nixie, nymph, pixie, satyr.

Giant: ettin, giants, ogre, ogre mage, troll.

Humanoid: bugbear, dwarf, elf, githyanki, githzerai, gnoll, gnome,
goblin, halfling, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, locathah, merfolk, orc,
troglodyte.

Magical Beast: ankheg, aranea, basilisk, behir, bulette, blink dog,
chimera, cockatrice, darkmantle, digester, displacer beast, dragonne,
ethereal marauder, fiendish dire rat, frost worm, giant eagle, giant owl,
girallon, gorgon, gray render, griffon, hellwasp swarm, hippogriff, hydras,
kraken, krenshar, lamia, lammasu, manticore, owlbear, pegasus, phase
spider, purple worm, remorhaz, roper, shocker lizard, sea cat, sphinxes,
spider eater, stirge, tarrasque, unicorn, winter wolf, worg, yrthak.
Monstrous Humanoid: centaur, derro, doppelganger, gargoyle, grimlock, hags, harpy, kuo-toa, medusa, minotaur, sahuagin, yuan-ti.

Ooze: black pudding, gelatinous cube, gray ooze, ochre jelly.

Outsider: ravid.

Plant: assassin vine, phantom fungus, shambling mound, shrieker,
tendriculos, treant, violet fungus.

Undead: allip, bodak, devourer, ghast, ghost, ghoul, lich, mohrg,
mummy, nightshades, shadow, skeletons, spectre, vampire, vampire
spawn, wight, wraith, zombie.

Vermin: centipede swarm, giant insects, locust swarm, monstrous
centipedes, monstrous scorpions, monstrous spiders, spider swarm.

as long as it doesnt belong to any of those, except animal, then i see no reason why it couldn't be used

so, i'd count templated creatures as normal, as long as it's not unique, because then you could claim that they're normal, for their newly developed "species"

edit: two seperate ninja's, one (seemingly) on each side of the arguement? damn, i really did take too long writing this stupid post

[Immabozo]

That's not what the entry says. It says "some type of [...] creature of the animal type," not some type of animal. Not that this is particularly important, but misquoting is really damaging to the credibility of one's position even if it's unintentional.

That's exactly what I quoted, "some type of [...] creature of the animal type", I dont get the problem here. I didn't quote that line, I said it. In my Quote immediately under that text, I quote it as the book says it.


More importantly, every template you've chosen in particular and the header for templates in general both say that the templated creatures are deviations from the normal, untemplated, species rather than entirely new species unto themselves.

This is true, but since when does fluff trump crunch? I've always heard that argument in reverse. But hell, someone could create this monster and then try to start a new species by breeding it. Then it is the norm for the (new) species.


What you're arguing is that the use of the phrase "some type of [...] creature" is an extraneous way of saying "a creature," rather than being intended to specify a sample from a group of creatures. If this was the case then the inclusion of both of the adjectives describing what type of creature would be entirely redundant, since the very next sentence defines those details.

Context says you picked the wrong definition again.

I would argue that the context here, hinges on the rest of the argument, because context does change if you vs I win, and this point can flex to accommodate either view.


I am aware of how contract phrasing works. That such phrasing was used for all templates doesn't change the fact that the paragraph as a whole clearly states that the base animal is a creature drawn from a group of creatures that are a type of creature that is either carnivorous or omnivorous. Either you're wrong or somebody at WotC would fail miserably when writing a 9th grade-level essay.

Lets break it down to the qualifications the template calls out.

carnivorous or omnivorous creature: yes
animal type: yes
any predator, scavenger, or omnivore: yes
size within one size category of the base creature: and again, yes

(at least in the case of my fleshraker, as long as you fulfill that criteria) your animal is "hereafter referred to as the base animal"

That was shockingly easy to qualify for.


I didn't quote the dictionary. I referenced it. I have no quote to compare to yours. You, however, have a quote that does not match the referenced source. That missing word is central to the context under which that definition applies; making your omission of it a change to the definition. This makes your definition very unreliable.

Since you're using the dictionary as an appeal to authority on how to interpret the word, using a definition that differs from your authority nullifies any apparent legitimacy that appeal might've granted to your argument. Misquoting, when discovered, means you're using quote that has no legitimacy granted by authority and probably should've paraphrased.

I did no such thing. I correctly quoted the source I got it from. It just turned out to be not the intended source. Almost no dictionaries have the same definitions and not all of them are correct (I once saw a dictionary with over 100 definitions for the word "of" or some other small, common word, that was obviously wrong, at least in part.)

However, I mis-represented a quote of a dictionary as "Macmillian dictionary, definition of 'any'" at the beginning of the post, afterwards, I quoted the "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" for all subsequent words, including normal. I do not believe I missed a word, if I did, you are welcome to point out the specifics, cause I cannot further argue against this generality.


In this case, however, paraphrasing the definition for normal would likely have been countered by an accurate quote of the definition that did -not- match your own, granting that side of the debate the appearance of legitimacy granted by authority and undermining your position to an even greater extent than your own misquote.

That misquote reduces your argument to what constitutes as "this is what I want it to mean."

Feel free to quote another source as you will. Again, as I said above, I did not mis quote, and this argument is built upon me doing that. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


Yeah, getting the DM high first might get this to work.

Grammar is everything when arguing about the meaning of words and phrases in a given language. You can't use it to defend your position then discard it when it disagrees.

I just saw that typo also and found it quite humorous.

I am not quite sure what, specifically, this refers to, where am I ignoring grammar?

EDIT: forgot to reply to other posters! Here we go:


but also, there's argument about "base creature", the term is used in every template i've ever seen (and i've read the book of templates cover to cover)
so, since someone posted up the dictionary definition, i'm just gonna shoot that down for now
i'm paraphrasing here, but the definition was somewhat equivelant to "the most basic building blocks" or "the object, as it started"
but that is like saying you dont build a house on concrete, you build it on "a congregation of sand, gravel, rocks, etc"

not quite. The term "base creature is established as meaning "some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type. This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore who's size is within one size category of the base creature."


If instead of that it said:

"The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of a carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal)."

It would have a really different meaning, as it is, type is relevant. Because type has a specific meaning in D&D. As it is the sentence, refers to a type of creatures, a group if you will, templated animals are not a type, nor a group, they are by the very definition of templates unique creatures. Note though, that if the reading of the sentence was the second I would agree with you.

Like I said in my longer post above, the first instance of type in that line is very dependent on context and can flex to both meanings just as easily, dependent on the rest of the argument.

[dascarletm]

Is cold stone an ice cream store?
yes. :smallbiggrin:



Anyways the fluff of lycanthrope is:

"Lycanthropes are humanoids or giants who can transform themselves into animals. In its natural form, a lycanthrope looks like any other members of its kind, though natural lycanthropes and those who have been afflicted for a long time tend to have or acquire features reminiscent of their animal forms. In animal form, a lycanthrope resembles a powerful version of the normal animal, but on close inspection, its eyes (which often glow red in the dark) show a faint spark of unnatural intelligence."

Which says normal.

1. Fluff is fluff, so really it has no bearing on this but, assuming this matters...
2. It says it resembles a normal version, not has the abilities of the normal creature. If that is to be the case, then we must use a higher stat aray for the base creature since it says a powerful version. Does this mean it should get more strength? no.


In the crunch of the template though, when explaining the base animal there is the following sentence:

"The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal)."

Like I said earlier:

I think the phrase, "type of creature," is a debatable aspect. I'm not seeing anything that makes the word type as a qualifying factor for the base animal. It is merely the fluff of the template. It is telling you it takes the aspects of some animal, it then goes to tell you what it can be. That is why it explains the dietary habit requirements twice.



If instead of that it said:

"The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of a carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal)."

It would have a really different meaning, as it is, type is relevant. Because type has a specific meaning in D&D. As it is the sentence, refers to a type of creatures, a group if you will, templated animals are not a type, nor a group, they are by the very definition of templates unique creatures. Note though, that if the reading of the sentence was the second I would agree with you.

It cannot be the dnd definition of type. DnD definition includes animal, undead, abberation, dragon, etc. Which later in that sentence it uses this definition. It cannot logically be using type in that way for the instance of type that you put bold.
If you mean to say a templated creature cannot be a group of creatures I do not see how that is the case. (I have read the quote on templates, but they say that it can be this.) Type is synonymic with breed. A dungeonbred animal would be a separate breed of animal, or type. A paragon wolf, could very well be considered a separate breed.

[Flickerdart]

A paragon wolf, could very well be considered a separate breed.
No, it can't. Paragon, at least in the SRD, is not an inherited template.

[dascarletm]

No, it can't. Paragon, at least in the SRD, is not an inherited template.

I suppose it isn't an inherited template. I suppose I thought of it in a different way.

[Immabozo]

No, it can't. Paragon, at least in the SRD, is not an inherited template.

Are you kidding?


Paragon may represent the mythical First Creature created by some creator deity, or perhaps the evolutionary end point of a race after thousands of years of steady improvement. Some paragons just spring up when all the factors are right.

The first two are only inherited, I can see the last line being either inherited (most likely) or possibly aquired

[dascarletm]

Are you kidding?



The first two are only inherited, I can see the last line being either inherited (most likely) or possibly aquired

Templates can come in two flavors: Acquired and Inherited. If it doesn't call it an inherited template then it isn't.

if you read paragon it doesn't call it inherited. In phrenic, for example, it does.

“Phrenic” is an inherited template that can...

[Flickerdart]

Are you kidding?



The first two are only inherited, I can see the last line being either inherited (most likely) or possibly aquired
"Inherited template" is a rule term. It doesn't matter what you "see".

[Immabozo]

"Inherited template" is a rule term. It doesn't matter what you "see".

Can you expand upon this?? I was assuming it just meant "a template that can only be gotten through being born into it" is there something I am missing?

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's exactly what I quoted, "some type of [...] creature of the animal type", I dont get the problem here. I didn't quote that line, I said it. In my Quote immediately under that text, I quote it as the book says it.I'm not sure what happened there but if I were to hazard a guess my hardware limitations got in my way again. I really ought to get a proper computer. :smallsigh:




This is true, but since when does fluff trump crunch? I've always heard that argument in reverse. But hell, someone could create this monster and then try to start a new species by breeding it. Then it is the norm for the (new) species.The crunch/fluff divide isn't always as clear as we'd like. The burden lies with you to prove that it -is- extraneous fluff in the creature's description and not intended to be any kind of rules text. Paragon, in particular, will make this difficult. How is something a paragon if all of its kind are just like it?




I would argue that the context here, hinges on the rest of the argument, because context does change if you vs I win, and this point can flex to accommodate either view. Context is relative. In the context of the sentence, were the sentence in isolation, the definition for "type" -could- go either way. The sentence isn't isolated though. It's part of a paragraph and in the context of the paragraph its meaning, and the correct definition, becomes clear as I outlined.




Lets break it down to the qualifications the template calls out.

carnivorous or omnivorous creature: yes
animal type: yes
any predator, scavenger, or omnivore: yes
size within one size category of the base creature: and again, yes

(at least in the case of my fleshraker, as long as you fulfill that criteria) your animal is "hereafter referred to as the base animal"

That was shockingly easy to qualify for. Only because you've derived your qualification criteria from the individual sentences that comprise the paragraph describing the base creature, as opposed to drawing them from the paragraph as a whole. This becomes rather blatantly evident when you notice that the first and third criterium, those that specify the creature must be carnivorous or omnivorous, are redundant. All predators, scavangers, and omnivores -are- either carnivorous or omnivorous and all carnivorous or omnivorous creatures are either predators, scavengers, or omnivores.




I did no such thing. I correctly quoted the source I got it from. It just turned out to be not the intended source. Almost no dictionaries have the same definitions and not all of them are correct (I once saw a dictionary with over 100 definitions for the word "of" or some other small, common word, that was obviously wrong, at least in part.)In that case, you failed to properly cite your source. Since your definition can't be verified as an accurate quote, it looks like an attempt at subterfuge. This is the danger in quoting an authority to bolster your argument. If you don't get the quote right it hurts your position, sometimes worse than an accurate quote would've helped. In any case, your quote cannot be accepted as accurate unless its source is properly cited.


However, I mis-represented a quote of a dictionary as "Macmillian dictionary, definition of 'any'" at the beginning of the post, afterwards, I quoted the "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" for all subsequent words, including normal. I do not believe I missed a word, if I did, you are welcome to point out the specifics, cause I cannot further argue against this generality.I don't remember seeing any other errors, but I can double-check.




Feel free to quote another source as you will. Again, as I said above, I did not misquote, and this argument is built upon me doing that. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.You did misquote. Both making an in accurate repetition of the source's phrasing and attributing a quote to the wrong source are misquoting. I've outlined why both are problems already.




I just saw that typo also and found it quite humorous.:smallbiggrin:


I am not quite sure what, specifically, this refers to, where am I ignoring grammar?In failing to note the full context surrounding a word when trying to determine its meaning. I admit that grammar may not be the correct term. Perhaps it would be better phrased as, "your argument depends on a failure of reading comprehension." That sounds a bit more aggressive and derogatory than I'd prefer though. Sorry if that phrasing offends.


EDIT: forgot to reply to other posters! Here we go:



not quite. The term "base creature is established as meaning "some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type. This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore who's size is within one size category of the base creature."Right.




Like I said in my longer post above, the first instance of type in that line is very dependent on context and can flex to both meanings just as easily, dependent on the rest of the argument.

Half right. Context is the key there, but the full context means that the definition you chose for "type" is an incorrect one.

(It was easier to repeat myself than to delete these last two blocks of text. Hardware issues again. Stupid Wii.)

[Immabozo]

First off, sorry for a late reply. Long weekend.


I'm not sure what happened there but if I were to hazard a guess my hardware limitations got in my way again. I really ought to get a proper computer. :smallsigh:

eh, all is forgiven, I've been there and been in worse, so no worries!


The crunch/fluff divide isn't always as clear as we'd like. The burden lies with you to prove that it -is- extraneous fluff in the creature's description and not intended to be any kind of rules text. Paragon, in particular, will make this difficult. How is something a paragon if all of its kind are just like it?

Well, the "endpoint of thousands of years of evolution" to me, indicates that the whole race has reached paragon. I guess a real world equivalent would be cockroaches and gators. Although the bonuses dont correlate, both species have been around for a very long time, both since dinosaurs, I think, or not long after, and have not evolved or changed much in thousands of years!

Hell, a cockroach can survive a nuclear fallout, live a week without it's head (until it starves to death) an has a great natural armor and then a supernatural "ew" bonus to AC vs women.

hmmm, I guess you are right though. I could have easily argued that point had I known I needed to argue it.

I suppose the argument would be that the specified rules for the template of "an animal" and "type unchanged" do not preclude it from eligibility to qualify under "any animal of the carnivore or omnivore type" for the lycanthrope qualification. Then definition for normal, taking context into account, would be "a trend, or standard, or the norm, set by an individual". The argument for that being the context is that it flows, it carries the same idea all the way through.

Changing to "the standard, or usual set by a group" definition at the end would create a conflict with the beginning of the paragraph, requiring further explanation and reconciliation of the contrary halves of the template text, further explanation which is not given.


Context is relative. In the context of the sentence, were the sentence in isolation, the definition for "type" -could- go either way. The sentence isn't isolated though. It's part of a paragraph and in the context of the paragraph its meaning, and the correct definition, becomes clear as I outlined.

Forgive me, but the chain of quotes on this point referring back to something a page ago is continually throwing me off, so I will quote it for continuity sake.



But regarding the use of "Normal" since I can see both definitions working, I have to consider context. The beginning on the entry, states that any animal could be used and this templated animal qualifies, if only by the text there.The bolded statement is false. When the template defines the base animal it says to choose a type of animal, not a specific animal.

Which is in reference to:


The Lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type. This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore who's size is within one size category of the base creature.

and


Abilities:... when in animal form (or hybrid), a lycanthrope's ability scores improve according to it's type... These adjustments are equal to the animal's normal -10 or -11.

Now I'll resume my argument.

"Characteristics of some type of carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type." the animal qualifies if it is "carnivorous or omnivorous creature" Templates do not change it's diet, therefore do not change or disqualify the lycanthrope prerequisites.

Normal is the "animal's normal" which, again, establishes the fact that it is my definition of a, "trend, usual, established by an individuals normal, or usual state of existence."

I can quote the exact dictionary definitions if desired, but since they have been quoted before, several times, I assume it is unneeded.


Only because you've derived your qualification criteria from the individual sentences that comprise the paragraph describing the base creature, as opposed to drawing them from the paragraph as a whole. This becomes rather blatantly evident when you notice that the first and third criterium, those that specify the creature must be carnivorous or omnivorous, are redundant. All predators, scavangers, and omnivores -are- either carnivorous or omnivorous and all carnivorous or omnivorous creatures are either predators, scavengers, or omnivores.

See above. But also, yes, I did break it down, yes they are redundant, yes this occurred to me. But how does the paragraph as a whole say I'm wrong, when the sum of it's parts agree with me?


In that case, you failed to properly cite your source. Since your definition can't be verified as an accurate quote, it looks like an attempt at subterfuge. This is the danger in quoting an authority to bolster your argument. If you don't get the quote right it hurts your position, sometimes worse than an accurate quote would've helped. In any case, your quote cannot be accepted as accurate unless its source is properly cited.

I don't remember seeing any other errors, but I can double-check.

Subterfuge would indicate that I am trying to be sneaky, or deceitful about it, but when called out on it, I immediately admitted my error very openly, this, at the very least, would throw doubt into my intention of hiding it, that you (not maliciously) accuse me of.

But if you wish to read the definition, here's the link. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/normal


You did misquote. Both making an in accurate repetition of the source's phrasing and attributing a quote to the wrong source are misquoting. I've outlined why both are problems already.

However, the quote was correct, just not the source, which I linked above. I don't see it as a harmful aspect of the argument, we are all human and none of us are perfect. Take it as you will.


In failing to note the full context surrounding a word when trying to determine its meaning. I admit that grammar may not be the correct term. Perhaps it would be better phrased as, "your argument depends on a failure of reading comprehension." That sounds a bit more aggressive and derogatory than I'd prefer though. Sorry if that phrasing offends.

Ironically, your phrasing takes any potential sting out of it.

I covered the context above, I think, rather well. Correct me if I left something out.


Right.

Wait, we agree on something?!?!?!


Half right. Context is the key there, but the full context means that the definition you chose for "type" is an incorrect one.

(It was easier to repeat myself than to delete these last two blocks of text. Hardware issues again. Stupid Wii.)

Never knew you could get normal internet on the wii, interesting.


The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of a carnivorous or omnivorous creature of the animal type (referred to hereafter as the base animal).

Type here, is the D&D definition of a group of creatures that fall under either "animal, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, aberration, undead, construct, outsider, dragon, plant, etc" a templated animal, as long as the templates don't change type, is still the animal type.

[Immabozo]

So does this mean I win the debate?

[Zombimode]

In general:
1. A lack of counterarguments doesn't imply that you are actually right.

2. A discussion is successful if every participant in the end smiles and says 'Ah, yes, I understand.'. Everbody "wins".
If not, then the discussion wasn't successful and everybody "loses". The notion that there can be single winners and losers in one discussion is a misunderstanding.

[DeusMortuusEst]

So does this mean I win the debate?

No. Winning =/= repeating your argument until everyone tires of debating with you.

[TuggyNE]

So does this mean I win the debate?

The phrase "silenced but not convinced" comes to mind.

[Vaz]

So does this mean I win the debate?

Template Shenanigans. In other ground breaking news, Sky Is Blue, Grass Is Green, Buttercups are Yellow, Roses are Red.

Seriously, I don't think anybody cares as much as you do about this. If you feel you've "won", go ahead and try it in a game, and see if the DM says "rocks fall", or "no", or lets your face play catch with a Monster Manual.

Templates are hilariously poorly written and thought out, (Dread Blossom Swarm, Tauric etc), and yes, you can go as far as you want with it, but it's unlikely to wash in a real game.

So, congratulations, I guess, you've discovered that Templates are borked. Here's a medal for finding a new poorly written abuse that'll be used.

From a DMing POV, cool, I'd forgotten that the template didn't change type on an animal, I could see that running an Alpha Lycanthrope as a Paragon animal would be a fairly decent mid-level boss.

[Immabozo]

Your slighting remarks are not appreciated. The whole purpose of this was to discuss an idea and I was mid a debate with Kelb_Panthera and was interested in continuing it. If you bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I am not "repeating an argument" and I am fully explaining an idea, instead of in part, or incompletely, as I had before.

[dascarletm]

Actually I won, because I had the most fun. :smalltongue:

[137beth]

Actually I won, because I had the most fun. :smalltongue:

Fun? FUN? What does fun have to do with a discussion:smalltongue:


Template Shenanigans. In other ground breaking news, Sky Is Blue, Grass Is Green, Buttercups are Yellow, Roses are Red.

Seriously, I don't think anybody cares as much as you do about this. If you feel you've "won", go ahead and try it in a game, and see if the DM says "rocks fall", or "no", or lets your face play catch with a Monster Manual.

Templates are hilariously poorly written and thought out, (Dread Blossom Swarm, Tauric etc), and yes, you can go as far as you want with it, but it's unlikely to wash in a real game.

So, congratulations, I guess, you've discovered that Templates are borked. Here's a medal for finding a new poorly written abuse that'll be used.

From a DMing POV, cool, I'd forgotten that the template didn't change type on an animal, I could see that running an Alpha Lycanthrope as a Paragon animal would be a fairly decent mid-level boss.
Many templates seem to not be intended for players, so it is okay for the rules to be somewhat vague, as the DM can just decide the adjusted monster's stats. Of course, the mindset of "hey, let's make this not-for-players tool have vague rules to make it easier for DMs to adapt" is contradictory to the extensive use of creature type as a prerequisite for templates, or the inclusion of Level Adjustment, so...yea, I guess the template rules don't really make sense.


In other earth-shattering news, I hear the rules for polymorphing are ambiguous and both highly exploitable and game-breaking. Also, both archers and TWFers could really benefit from bonus feats (or the combining of certain existing feats), and I bet that miracle is a pretty powerful spell:smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

The whole purpose of this was to discuss an idea and I was mid a debate with Kelb_Panthera and was interested in continuing it. If you bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I am not "repeating an argument" and I am fully explaining an idea, instead of in part, or incompletely, as I had before.

The "repeating" remark was, I think, less directed at the original purpose of the thread, and more directed at the way in which your posts in this thread itself were largely repetitious. Basically, yeah, you fully explained your idea, several times over, and a lot of us didn't really agree with the interpretation and rules basis, even after fully understanding exactly what you were saying, several times over.

However, as noted, wacky RAI-denying template shenanigans aren't exactly thin on the ground anyway, so it doesn't seem especially important to argue against this one, even if (even though) it doesn't seem to work by RAW. The result is, as noted, general silence despite not being convinced.

[Immabozo]

This thread quickly devolved into the debate ability of 5 year olds... something I thought I had successfully pulled this thread out of. *sigh*

I guess it's time to climb a bell tower with my trusty rifle and see how ready I am for the zombie apocalypse

[Vaz]

No, sorry, you hadn't. It essentially boiled down to you saying, "no, here is what I'm doing, here are some favourable quotes out of context to support what I'm doing" and then followed by other people saying no, the rules don't work like that, followed by you rejigging your sentence around, saying the exact same thing followed by everyone else saying "no the rules don't work like that", and you saying...

See a pattern?

Keep the insults likening people to 5 year olds to yourself. They are not welcome and is more a case of Pot and Kettle sharing colourations.

[Immabozo]

If you notice, I was having a rather in depth debate dealing with specifics, with Kelb_Panthera, not name calling, but someone specifying rules, saying "no, I dont think it works like that and here's why" for a good page and a half or so. Everyone else posting was also contributing to either side of said debate. Not its responses that are very short not inspiring warm feelings to one another

[Flickerdart]

This thread quickly devolved into the debate ability of 5 year olds... something I thought I had successfully pulled this thread out of. *sigh*

I guess it's time to climb a bell tower with my trusty rifle and see how ready I am for the zombie apocalypse


not name calling
You literally just called everyone who disagrees with you five year olds and zombies.

[Immabozo]

You literally just called everyone who disagrees with you five year olds and zombies.

I did not call anyone 5 year-olds, I said the arguments were on that (slightly exaggerated) level. They aren't debating my point, they are "I am right and you are wrong". And I never said mine were not included.

And I did not mean the zombies comment to communicate anything other than headshots.

[Flickerdart]

Ah, okay. So you didn't call people 5 year olds and zombies, you just said they were behaving like five year olds and then expressed your desire to shoot them. That's much better, I can't see why anyone would possibly be offended by that.

[TuggyNE]

Ah, okay. So you didn't call people 5 year olds and zombies, you just said they were behaving like five year olds and then expressed your desire to shoot them. That's much better, I can't see why anyone would possibly be offended by that.

Whoa, someone is in need of a fresh batch of blue text!

[Zombimode]

They aren't debating my point, they are "I am right and you are wrong".

Actually, we ARE debating your point, which was:


So does this mean I win the debate?

[Aegis013]

Whoa, someone is in need of a fresh batch of blue text!

Actually, I think blue text is more likely to express facetiousness than sarcasm given their dictionary definitions. (but not necessarily their commonly accepted vernacular definitions, in which they mean the same thing) Which I think is an appropriate point to make given the heavy use of dictionary definitions in this thread.

Sarcasm according to the OED is: Noun: "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt"

Facetious according to the OED is: Adjective: "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant."

I also suspect that Flickerdart's response possibly came from a position of frustration and exacerbation, seeing as he has attempted to rebut Immabozo's claims using rules terms and the like in what seemed like a level-headed and calm way to him (and to me) and was grouped in by Immabozo with a group who he mocked the debate ability of.

I suspect Immabozo didn't intend to attack the group who don't believe his idea functions within the confines of RAW, but his condition is likely similar to Flickerdart's as one of frustration and exacerbation due to the lack of acceptance and recognition of what he was hoping would be considered a neat trick.

I don't think the post was about the thread devolving into the debate ability of 5 year olds and the clocktower comments were necessarily warranted, but hopefully all sides will try to resolve the issue in a peaceful way.

On the topic, I personally think that the base animal would be the non-templated version of said animal, even if you wanted to pick a templated animal, but that is merely my interpretation.

[Immabozo]

Actually, we ARE debating your point, which was:

Touche (with that little squiggly line above the "e")


I also suspect that Flickerdart's response possibly came from a position of frustration and exacerbation, seeing as he has attempted to rebut Immabozo's claims using rules terms and the like in what seemed like a level-headed and calm way to him (and to me) and was grouped in by Immabozo with a group who he mocked the debate ability of.

I suspect Immabozo didn't intend to attack the group who don't believe his idea functions within the confines of RAW, but his condition is likely similar to Flickerdart's as one of frustration and exacerbation due to the lack of acceptance and recognition of what he was hoping would be considered a neat trick.

I don't think the post was about the thread devolving into the debate ability of 5 year olds and the clocktower comments were necessarily warranted, but hopefully all sides will try to resolve the issue in a peaceful way.

On the topic, I personally think that the base animal would be the non-templated version of said animal, even if you wanted to pick a templated animal, but that is merely my interpretation.

I think you are very right, I know I was frustrated. If there was intelligent debate, I was blinded by my frustration at the other responses. Perhaps it was carry-over from the frustrating first part of this thread?

Regardless, Flickerdart, I have long known your name and respected you opinion (I think the little word "titan" under your avatar when I first came across your post, you were the first "titan" I had seen). So I apologize, no offense was meant.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To be completely honest, I found myself without internet for about 3 days (pleasant family affair) and when I came back I just didn't have the enthusiasm to continue the discussion.

Things -were- getting a bit repetitious anyway, as I recall. I maintain my original position, but I don't care to discuss it any further. Sorry.

Happy gaming, everyone. :smallsmile:

[Immabozo]

To be completely honest, I found myself without internet for about 3 days (pleasant family affair) and when I came back I just didn't have the enthusiasm to continue the discussion.

Things -were- getting a bit repetitious anyway, as I recall. I maintain my original position, but I don't care to discuss it any further. Sorry.

Happy gaming, everyone. :smallsmile:

Understandable. No one feels like debating everything forever. Happy gaming.