Rules Q&A Dread Necromancer, Level 20 [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

RedMage125

2015-04-12, 01:52 PM

This is something I've posted before, copy/pasted for your benefit:
So...a lot of people on the boards here suggest that a DN should acquire the necropolitan template if possible, making them undead. And it's a good idea. But, they also say that such a DN would "need" to get a true resurrection by level 20, because otherwise, they wouldn't get the "lich transformation", because the lich template can only be applied to living things.

I say shenanigans, because the lvl 20 DN capstone ability DOES NOT GRANT THE LICH TEMPLATE FROM THE MONSTER MANUAL.

This is my post copied from another thread, and I came to this realization when I was looking stuff up to reply to that. In it, they were discussing whether or not a DN20 also had to take the LA from the lich template. So, for clarity purposes, the quote from the other thread starts and ends with a bunch of asteriks.

**********************
For everyone's consideration, here's a few points to consider, going by the qualities of the lich template:

The lich template has a fear aura, so does DN.
The lich has a paralyzing touch, DN does not.
The lich has DR 15/bludgeoning and magic, DN has DR 8/bludgeoning and magic.
Lich gets +2 to INT, WIS, and CHA, DN does not.
Lich has a +5 Natural Armor bonus, DN has +0
Lich has +4 Turn Resistance, DN has +0
Lich has immunity to Cold, Electricity, and Polymorph, DN is not.

Now, on top of all of that, I want to point out a little detail in the HoH quote others have been posting. It says that the DN "gains all the traits of the undead (see page 317 of the Monster Manual)". Note something. They reference page 317, and NOT page 165, which is the MM entry for lich.

I think at this point that we should all be able to agree that, according to Rules as Written, a DN does not gain the lich template.

Now, we can argue from here to Baator about Rules as Intended, because we've all got different ideas about that. But I do believe, personally, that RAI was that DN's do NOT gain the lich template on page 165 of the Monster Manual. Why? Well, BECAUSE of what has been pointed out about the dragon disciple (as another transformative template class), which explicitly grants the remaining stat boosts that had not already been handed out by the PrC. Although a lvl 10 Dragon Disciple has more than paid off a +3 LA with 10 levels of a crappy class. DN does NOT gradually grant lich-like powers, except for fear aura, and some DR, about half of what the template grants. Even at the capstone, DN refers us to the Monster Manual, and NOT the lich entry (which includes all the undead info on page 317 in it), but only to page 317. Why direct us to the book that has the lich template in it, and not direct us to the template if that was the intent?

If a DM is going to grant the template, a few things are worth looking at, namely, does the LA kick in? Well, at level 20, a +2 boost to some stats that a DN likely doesn't use, and one he does is a drop in the bucket. Any lvl 20 DN should have a CHA of 30 or higher or be shot in the face with a hammer. An additional +2 is a small advantage. +5 Natural Armor for free is nice, and would be worth a significant LA at low levels, but maybe not at 20. Turn resistance is something that every undead PC is going to want, and +4 means that a level 20 cleric (assuming regular not-anti-undead-focused build) must roll pretty high on the initial turn check to even have a chance, and that a level 19 or lower cleric CANNOT turn you. Paralyzing touch may not seem like much, given the DN's existing Charnel/Scabrous/Enervating Touch abilities, but it's at-will, and the duration of paralysis is PERMANENT, the save DC is CHA-based. That means that a 20 DN lich, even if he runs out of spells, has an at-will option to try and paralyze ANYTHING, with a save DC over 30 (10 base, plus 10 for half-HD, plus minimum 10 for CHA mod). And then there's flat-out immunity to Cold, Electricity, and Polymorph. As a DM myself, I would rule that at level 20, those things are not worth the full +4 LA, but they're enough to warrant SOME kind of LA, maybe +2.

Of note here is that the lich's phylactery and the way it works is NOT a feature of the lich template. Nothing in the lich stat bock or template stat block entry even mentions "phylactery", not even under Special Qualities. The ability to return to life with a phylactery is a feature of the phylactery, not a feature of the lich template, so a lvl 20 DN (who specifically acquires a phylactery JUST LIKE A LICH), gets all the benefits of it, without needing the lich template.

This means that all the people who suggest making your DN a necropolitan are right, that's a good idea, and gives the DN undeath earlier than lvl 20. But most of them assume that when you hit 20, you'll need an ally to kill you, and cast true resurrection, because the lich template must be added to a living creature. This is flawed logic, because if the DN is not granting the lich template from the MM page 165, then the DN need not go through the whole true resurrection process. The capstone ability of DN becomes gaining the phylactery and all of its benefits.
*********************

So, what it boils down to is that Necropolitan is a GREAT idea for a DN. And no need to have it all undone once reaching level 20. Because at level 20, you'd basically just be getting necropolitan again, plus a phylactery. And nothing in the DN entry says that you must be alive to make your phylactery. So go on, be free. Grab necropolitan early in your DN career, and at level 20, get a phylactery and hide it well.

TL;DR - If level 20 of DN was giving you the lich template, it would refer you to the lich template on page 165 of the Monster Manual, and not page 317 of the MM, which is just the undead traits. If the lich template were gained, the traits on page 165 include all of the traits listed on page 317 as well.

Brova

2015-04-12, 02:55 PM

Now, on top of all of that, I want to point out a little detail in the HoH quote others have been posting. It says that the DN "gains all the traits of the undead (see page 317 of the Monster Manual)". Note something. They reference page 317, and NOT page 165, which is the MM entry for lich.

{scrubbed} You are picking up a pointer from the phrase "Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the traits of the undead" to the undead type and assuming that implies anything at all about what kind of undead she becomes. It very obviously does not. The capstone has the text "becomes a lich", which as written implies that you become a lich.

Now I could make a long argument about how the rules of D&D switch intermittently between being written in natural English ("becomes a lich") and rules English ("Her type changes to undead"), and why that is terrible. But that is far longer than is necessary to rebut your argument that because the citation for someone's type changing to undead points to the rules for the undead type, the separate sentence "becomes a lich" does not mean she becomes a lich.

sideswipe

2015-04-12, 03:20 PM

i believe that RAW it does not give the template but more along the lines of what was written by redmage125.

though if i was DM i would award the DN the lich template as is without LA.

Blackhawk748

2015-04-12, 03:27 PM

i believe that RAW it does not give the template but more along the lines of what was written by redmage125.

though if i was DM i would award the DN the lich template as is without LA.

I agree, RAW be damned you just went 20 levels in a base class, you deserve something cool! On top of this they give you Craft Wondrous Item a few levels before 20 for "preparing to become a lich" or something to that effect. Honestly i believe the intent was for you to become a Lich, its just that WotC has the worst editing staff ive ever seen so nobody catches these things.

Also was Necropolitan even a thing when HoH came out? I actually dont know which came first.

Brova

2015-04-12, 03:44 PM

its just that WotC has the worst editing staff ive ever seen so nobody catches these things.

This is very much the truth, and also why I'm skeptical about RAW rulings on ambiguities. FFS, the Fighter's bonus feats specifically note that he has to meet their requirements, wile the Monk's bonus feats specifically note that he does not need to meet their requirements. Those rulings should not happen in the same edition, let alone the same book. There are many, many other examples of this (i.e. Factotums getting infinite inspiration points), and that's without counting the rules that do stupid things but are coherently written (i.e. wish and the candle).

Blackhawk748

2015-04-12, 03:46 PM

This is very much the truth, and also why I'm skeptical about RAW rulings on ambiguities. FFS, the Fighter's bonus feats specifically note that he has to meet their requirements, wile the Monk's bonus feats specifically note that he does not need to meet their requirements. Those rulings should not happen in the same edition, let alone the same book. There are many, many other examples of this (i.e. Factotums getting infinite inspiration points), and that's without counting the rules that do stupid things but are coherently written (i.e. wish and the candle).

Martial Monk is the big offender there, normal Monk just gets an exception on those few feats which I think is ok. Honestly Martial Monk is just lousily written and Factotum just needs some clarification. (I mean we're pretty sure, but we'd like to be absolutely sure)

Brova

2015-04-12, 03:53 PM

Martial Monk is the big offender there, normal Monk just gets an exception on those few feats which I think is ok. Honestly Martial Monk is just lousily written and Factotum just needs some clarification. (I mean we're pretty sure, but we'd like to be absolutely sure)

Actually, as far as the bonus feats go, both the Monk and the Fighter are in the clear. Specific bonus feats you don't meet the requirements for are fine, as a general bonus feats you do meet the requirements for. The issue is the ambiguity it grants with people like the Rogue, who get a general bonus feat with no restrictions. So it's literally impossible to have a consistent RAW ruling on whether the Rogue can take Epic Spellcasting with his bonus feat. Either you don't have to meet requirements for bonus feats, in which case the Monk is wrong, or you do, in which case the Fighter is wrong. There is no RAW ruling that adequately explains all the evidence.

sideswipe

2015-04-12, 04:11 PM

(i.e. Factotums getting infinite inspiration points),

please explain.

Brova

2015-04-12, 04:24 PM

please explain.

Factotums gain inspiration points every encounter. They don't lose any inspiration points unless they spend them. If you're being picky, it's not "infinite", but it is a hell of a lot. Also, encounter is not actually a defined term in the 3.5 rules so you don't actually know when you get your inspiration points.

Silva Stormrage

2015-04-12, 04:26 PM

please explain.

I believe the Factotum class doesn't say you LOSE inspiration when an encounter ends... Thus if you start encounters with your team mates then immediately end them you can get infinite inspiration. Good luck getting it to work in any game.

Edit: Swordsaged...

icefractal

2015-04-12, 04:31 PM

RedMage125

2015-04-12, 05:50 PM

"Becomes a lich" is a game term with a specific meaning. You can try to claim that it's flavor text, but that's pretty shaky ground. If the text said "The Dread Necromancer becomes proficient with martial weapons. She could use a longsword with no penalty," nobody would be saying that they're only really proficient with longswords and the first part is just flavor text.
Except that "proficient with all martial weapons" is a phrase that has mechanical weight. It dictates SPECIFICALLY what is gained.
"Gains all the traits of undead on page 307 of the Monster Manual" is another phrase with mechanical weight. As is "Acquires the lich template". One of those is stated in the level 20 DN ability, one is not.

Also, the phylactery. If the DN isn't a Lich, then how do they have a phylactery? And what does it do?

I covered this in my earlier post. Re-read your 3.5e MM. While the phylactery is mentioned on the lich page, having a phylactery is NOT a quality of a lich. Look at the list of abilities granted by the template, phylactery is not mentioned. Look at any stat block for liches...no phylactery mentioned.
On the lich page, Phylacteries get their own subheading, and the regenerative properties of a phylactery are a property of the phylactery, and not a property of being a lich. If a lich's phylactery is destroyed, he remains a lich, with all lich qualities. He just doesn't re-form if destroyed, because that is, like I said, a property of phylacteries, not of liches. What a phylactery does is explicitly spelled out in the Monster Manual.

The LA is a moot point here anyway, because barring Epic level play, you're already at the maximum level (keep in mind, gaining LA doesn't reduce your level, simply makes gaining the next one take considerably longer).

And barring epic play, few players ever get to play a character at or above level 20 at all. HOWEVER, should you be playing at level 20 and continuing to adventure and gain XP, then the level adjustment is, in fact, a major issue.

Brova

2015-04-12, 06:15 PM

Except that "proficient with all martial weapons" is a phrase that has mechanical weight. It dictates SPECIFICALLY what is gained.
"Gains all the traits of undead on page 307 of the Monster Manual" is another phrase with mechanical weight. As is "Acquires the lich template". One of those is stated in the level 20 DN ability, one is not.

Except that "becomes a lich" is the common English form of the rules English phrase "acquires the lich template" - and there is no language that indicates that you don't become a lich. You seriously haven't got a leg to stand on, given that you are arguing that a description of what having a type means invalidates a separate sentence with its own implications. If you wanted to make an argument it should be "because it describes specific properties after stating the DN becomes a lich, it is using lich in the common form of 'spellcasting undead' and not the game form of 'lich template'". {scrubbed} Also worth noting, many abilities specify effects that are mechanically obvious (the most pertinent example being still listing claw damage values for claws that deal default damage for size of the creature that has them).

Necroticplague

2015-04-12, 06:31 PM

Brova

2015-04-12, 06:35 PM

Here's a question for the people who think you do get it: why would it list what you get in the class description if that was true? All the crap that it mentions is already stated under the lich template itself, so it would be unnecessary to say it if the just got the template. Except for the part about phylacteries being free for you.

Why does the Cleric get BAB when he has the class feature of divine power, which gives him full BAB on demand? The Dread Necromancer has class features that emulate the abilities of a lich for two reasons. First, because it gives you cool and level appropriate abilities. Second, because it gives you continuity of character when you become a lich.

Necroticplague

2015-04-12, 06:48 PM

Brova

2015-04-12, 07:06 PM

I was asking the people who thought that the DN gets the whole lich template why it bothers to mention that you become undead, lose your con mod, and have your HD made to d12 when the template already does all of those?

Ah. I had assumed you were talking about the deal where DNs get a fear aura and DR. My bad.

But that objection is also not reasonable. As I've pointed out in this thread, Fighter and Monk issue opposite clarifications on the interaction of bonus feats and prerequisites. Whether something makes sense to include is not generally a particularly good guide to whether or not it will be included. Formatting is simply not a compelling guide in a game written as sloppily as D&D is. For example, the Rainbow Servant has text and table that are radically different. The Anima Mage gains vestige metamagic at 4th level but has no uses of vestige metamagic until 5th level.

The bottom line is this: there is text indicating you do become a lich and no text indicating you don't. Therefore you become a lich. And, external to any RAW concerns, it's simply not a problem if the DN becomes a lich at 20th.

sideswipe

2015-04-12, 07:08 PM

Why does the Cleric get BAB when he has the class feature of divine power, which gives him full BAB on demand? The Dread Necromancer has class features that emulate the abilities of a lich for two reasons. First, because it gives you cool and level appropriate abilities. Second, because it gives you continuity of character when you become a lich.

no he is specifically mentioning in the lich transformation ability. ill elaborate so there is no confusion as to what is meant.

in the lich transformation it mentions becomeing a lich, then it continues to describe you get a free phalactory and that you gain undead traits blah blah.

in other classes that give templates it specifically mentions the templates you gain. without any ambiuity.

dragon devotee - pg 85 races of dragon

Draconic Template: At 5th level, you gain all the
abilities of the draconic creature template (see page 74)
that you have not already gained as dragon devotee class
features—except that you do not apply the template’s level
adjustment. Specifi cally, you gain the dragonblood subtype
in addition to any subtype you might already have. You
also gain darkvision out to 60 feet, low-light vision, and a
+2 bonus on Intimidate checks and Spot checks.

walker in the wastes - pg 91 sandstorm

Dry Lich: On reaching 10th level,
you learn to apply the secrets
of waste preservation to your own
body, becoming a dry lich. You
must undergo the Sere Rite, overseen
by another dry lich, which
includes preserving your fl esh,
removing your organs and storing
them in special canopic jars, and imbuing
your body with foul magic to make it
undying. See the dry lich template, page
155, for more information.
As a dry lich, you cannot be permanently
killed unless the canopic
jars containing your life essence
are destroyed.

all other classes that grant templates mention the template specifically and then any alterations if relevent.

whereas DN says you become a lich. thats the end of the sentence. you then look to see what that means later in the description, you gain undead traits, and a free phalactery.
having a phalactory grants you the imortality as that is a property of having a phalactory, not part of the lich template.

that is the exact RAW. it is so different from ever other class and there is nothing in the errata to change it and there is even an FAQ that says "you do not gain the template you gain what is listed".

expand your mind from your point of view. or people will just stop debating with you. i agree that there may have been original intent to give it the lich template but it was considered unblanaced. so they gave it "become a lich" making it undead and have a phalactory but no other benifits.

Brova

2015-04-12, 07:25 PM

expand your mind from your point of view. or people will just stop debating with you. i agree that there may have been original intent to give it the lich template but it was considered unblanaced. so they gave it "become a lich" making it undead and have a phalactory but no other benifits.

Look, if they did not intend for you to become a lich, they would not use the phrase "becomes a lich". That's the entire thing. As far as inconsistency with other works, I need only to direct you to the point I've made about Monk bonus feats and Fighter bonus feats already in this thread.

If your argument rests on the thesis that the people who published 3.5 wish, CL 12 blasphemy on a CR 6 creature, planar binding, and candles of invocation had a coherent template for anything, your argument is laughable.

Tvtyrant

2015-04-12, 07:28 PM

In short this has been debated for almost a decade now. Read (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?42530-20th-Dread-Necromancer-question)through (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309105-Dread-Necromancer-Help)these (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1218496)and then choose your own answer.

Blackhawk748

2015-04-12, 08:37 PM

Heres something, why do you get a free phylactery if you dont actually get the Lich template? I mean it wont do anything for ya.

Necroticplague

2015-04-12, 08:40 PM

As far as inconsistency with other works, I need only to direct you to the point I've made about Monk bonus feats and Fighter bonus feats already in this thread.

You keep bringing this up as an example, but the RAW on this is simple.

1:Specific overides general. So whatever the general rule for bonus feats is, it would still work as is for the fighter or monk regardless, because they have more specific rules.
2:The relevent general rule. In MM, it states that a creature can still use a bonus feat if they don't have the prerequisites for it.

Thus, the RAW is clear, if the more idiotically broken of the interpretations. Yes, a rogue can take epic spellcasting pre-epic. However, a fighter still needs to meet his prereqs because his ability says so.

Heres something, why do you get a free phylactery if you dont actually get the Lich template? I mean it wont do anything for ya.
Because it does actually do something for you. If you look at the Lich template, coming back from the dead isn't an ability of the lich. Nowhere does the template give you the ability to survive death.
That's an ability of the phylactery. As a DN, your are a Lich, so your phylactery still works, you just don't have the template.

Esprit15

2015-04-12, 08:47 PM

I assume it tells you to reroll and remove your CON so that your CON and DN hit dice no longer affect your HP.

Brova

2015-04-12, 08:47 PM

You keep bringing this up as an example, but the RAW on this is simple.

1:Specific overides general. So whatever the general rule for bonus feats is, it would still work as is for the fighter or monk regardless, because they have more specific rules.
2:The relevent general rule. In MM, it states that a creature can still use a bonus feat if they don't have the prerequisites for it.

Thus, the RAW is clear, if the more idiotically broken of the interpretations. Yes, a rogue can take epic spellcasting pre-epic. However, a fighter still needs to meet his prereqs because his ability says so.

You are missing the entire point. The Monk bonus feats state explicitly that the Monk does not have to meet the requirements for his bonus feats (implying that the default is that you do), whereas the Fighter explicitly states that he has to meet the requirements of his bonus feats (implying that the default is that you do not). Regardless of what the actual rule is, having one of those things in your book is wrong. Either you don't need prerequisites and the Monk can just drop the text about not needing to qualify for Stunning Fist, or you do and the Fighter doesn't need to specify that he must meet prerequisites.

My point is not about RAW, it is about arguments from clarifying text (things like the "doesn't have to meet requirements" on Monk or "type changes to Undead" on DN) being flawed as a mechanism for evaluating what rules mean.

As it happens, you are correct that the RAW is that Rogues can take any feat they want. I was never actually disagreeing with you. You're probably wrong that it's broken though - a Rogue still lacks the Knowledge ranks to get epic spells, and in any case the flaw is with the epic spellcasting rules not with Rogues getting to pick up a novel trick. Used as it actually would be in play (to pick up Perfect Two Weapon Fighting or something), it's not particularly broken.

atemu1234

2015-04-13, 09:42 AM

And barring epic play, few players ever get to play a character at or above level 20 at all. HOWEVER, should you be playing at level 20 and continuing to adventure and gain XP, then the level adjustment is, in fact, a major issue.

Unless I'm mistaken, you count as a what, 22nd level character, with LA, and don't level again until you reach the XP total that would elevate you to 23? Effectively, you take three levels at once?

RedMage125

2015-04-13, 01:01 PM

Except that "becomes a lich" is the common English form of the rules English phrase "acquires the lich template" - and there is no language that indicates that you don't become a lich. You seriously haven't got a leg to stand on, given that you are arguing that a description of what having a type means invalidates a separate sentence with its own implications. If you wanted to make an argument it should be "because it describes specific properties after stating the DN becomes a lich, it is using lich in the common form of 'spellcasting undead' and not the game form of 'lich template'". {scrubbed} Also worth noting, many abilities specify effects that are mechanically obvious (the most pertinent example being still listing claw damage values for claws that deal default damage for size of the creature that has them).
Sideswipe brought up quite nicely that other classes and prestige classes that add templates EXPLICITLY mention the template, and refer you to it.

DN does not. It refers you to the "undead traits" on page 307 of the Monster Manual, and NOT the "lich template" on page 165 of the exact same book.

I'm not arguing RAI. RAI probably was to obtain the lich template. But RAW does not. And that's the point. The RAW directs you to the mechanical effects of the undead type, but not the lich template, which includes all features of the undead type, which would be redundant if the lich template was acquired.

This is my whole point. RAW does NOT, unfortunately, grant the lich template from the Monster Manual. Using the argument that "becomes a lich" is equivalent in weight to "acquires the lich template" in mechanical effect is not proper, because where does that stop then? One could also argue that as soon as the DN gets any ability called "lich transformation" that he gets the full lich template, too. That's hyperbole, of course, but you see my point. When discussing RULES, "rules English" trumps "common English". Sorry, but that's how RAW discussions work. And saying that you become a lich on the basis that there is no text saying that you don't is Munchkin Fallacy.

As a DM, if I had a player playing a DN who actually reached level 20, I would probably allow the full template. It's not that big of a jump. But I acknowledge that doing so is technically a deviation from strict RAW, which does not grant the template. By virtue of being an undead spellcaster with a phylactery, a fear aura, some DR/bludgeoning and magic, and some at-will damaging touch abilities, a level 20 DN is nearly indistinguishable from a true lich, and for all intents and purposes might as well be one. But, by RAW, he or she (it?) is not truly a creature with the lich template.

Here's a question for the people who think you do get it: why would it list what you get in the class description if that was true? All the crap that it mentions is already stated under the lich template itself, so it would be unnecessary to say it if the just got the template. Except for the part about phylacteries being free for you.
DN's do NOT get everything the lich does.
Again:
The lich template has a fear aura, so does DN.
The lich has a paralyzing touch, DN does not.
The lich has DR 15/bludgeoning and magic, DN has DR 8/bludgeoning and magic.
Lich gets +2 to INT, WIS, and CHA, DN does not.
Lich has a +5 Natural Armor bonus, DN has +0
Lich has +4 Turn Resistance, DN has +0
Lich has immunity to Cold, Electricity, and Polymorph, DN does not.

Heres something, why do you get a free phylactery if you dont actually get the Lich template? I mean it wont do anything for ya.

What phylacteries do is a property of a phylactery and not a property of the lich template. Nowhere in the lich template or lich stat block is "phylactery" ever noted under special qualities, or abilities gained from the template.

icefractal

2015-04-13, 01:03 PM

Segev

2015-04-13, 03:07 PM

Sorry, I think those saying "becomes a lich" does not mean they actually become a lich are reading too much into it and, essentially, complaining that they can't see the army of skeletons because the bones are in the way.

RedMage125

2015-04-13, 04:26 PM

I'm still not seeing how "becomes a lich" is at all ambiguous. A lich is a specific thing. Becoming a lich means you are one. That text is not italicized or separated from the other text in any way that would indicate it isn't part of the rules.

You're acting like "acquires the lich template" is a magic phrase, the absence of which negates any mention of being a lich, but I don't buy that. If it said something like "is invested with the dark power of lichdom", that would be a phrasing you could argue was just flavor text. "Becomes a lich" is not.

Re: LA - Lich has one, and DN says nothing about negating the LA, so RAW it'd be there, if you went to epic levels. Now in practice, I think a lot of DMs (including myself) would consider lich-ness part of the DN's abilities, already paid for by taking 20 levels of it, and not give the character any LA. But that would be technically a house-rule.

Look, the real problem here is that it refers you to page 307 of the Monster Manual. In the absence of that text, if all we had was "becomes a lich", then yes, you would be correct. However, what we do have is mechanics that tell us to add ONLY the undead traits found on page 307, and NOT the lich traits on page 165 (which INCLUDES the undead traits on 307, plus some extras).

When it comes to RAW discussions, what's in the text is what matters. That's how an objective, dispassionate discussion of rules works. Your snide tone of dismissal of "you act like it's a magical phrase" contributes nothing constructive to such a discussion, and conveys a sense of empty arrogance to the reader that really makes me think that you do not understand the minutiae of a dissection of RAW.

I am not advocating that a DM not give a level 20 DN the lich template. I believe that was the intent of the rules, and the DN is a class otherwise narrow enough in focus that it doesn't really hurt game balance to give it to them, especially at level 20, when game balance (especially for spellcasters) is largely a joke anyways. The difference being that I am capable of a level of objective perspective where I can step back, look solely at what is in print in the rules and say "yes, the RAW only grant the undead traits on page 307 of the Monster Manual and give the DN a phylactery. They do not inherit the lich template on page 165." I say this because that is what is in the text.

This is what RAW means. Rules As Written. And in an in-depth discussion of RAW, only what is WRITTEN matters. D&D is a game. It has rules. And those rules are a system. "Common Sense" does not hold up in such a discussion, because the rules of a system need to be explicit to prevent exploits and loopholes, and more importantly, to provide clarity for "proper" function (the word "proper" gets quotes there because I personally maintain that D&D is a game that thrives on variation and houserules. As long as your group is having fun, there is no "wrong" way to play). The OP was asking for what the "official" answer was in regards to this issue, not what "common sense" dictates. So everyone who wants to jump in with their 2 cents about how "lich" meaning "lich template" should somehow just be a fact we should accept is WRONG. Everyone here who says that people are just "looking too much into it" is WRONG. Because that is not how a RAW discussion works. You back up what you claim to be true with FACTS. You provide citations for your facts, this means page numbers, so that anyone else who doubts you can check your sources. And nothing that isn't printed in black and white in an official source is true.

Do such discussions get a little anal-retentive and detail-oriented? Yes. But they're also usually technically correct. The intent of such discussion is usually to find flaws in the system, either for exploitation or for potential correction (although with this system, now 2 editions in WotC's past, I think it's safe to say that the ship has sailed), or for clarification on how something mechanically works. If such an in-depth discussion is not something you are willing to engage in, then don't post. But for crying out loud, nothing constructive is added by jumping in and saying "it's common sense", or "it works if you don't look too deeply at it". Saying things like "the rules don't say you don't get it, so that means you do" is even worse, because that's Munchkin Fallacy.

So unless you've got some ACTUAL TEXT that explicitly states that the lich template is applied, then either acknowledge that the RAW does not apply it (even if you think that such was an oversight or a mistake on WotC's part), or stop posting in the discussion. If you have some actual RAW support for your point, the please, by all means, provide it, along with all appropriate citations. I love in-depth discussions. No vitriol or malice on my part, I love to argue and debate. I'd be really interested to see if there was actually some conflicting rules. But only what is WRITTEN IN THE BOOK (to include errata) constitutes Proof.

Brova

2015-04-13, 04:33 PM

{scrubbed}

danzibr

2015-04-13, 05:12 PM

Brova

2015-04-13, 05:22 PM

Hmm, so we've seen two instances of PrC's specifically talking about gaining a template when you become something. Are there any instances of a PrC or whatever certainly granting a template when not using that phrasing?

First, that's not the argument RedMage125 is making. His claim is that a description of the undead type invalidates the claim that you become a lich, which is a type of undead.

Second, that argument assumes that 3.5 was written with a consistent game language. That's what I'm arguing against in terms of the whole Monk bonus feats versus Fighter bonus feats issue. We straight up know that the people writing D&D 3.5, from the first three books that existed, failed to use a consistent template for applying rules. I could see the case being made if the text was "the DN becomes a powerful undead spellcaster", but it literally says that "the DN becomes a lich."

Again, your argument is beginning from the premise that people who wrote the description for Monk bonus feats and Fighter bonus feats wrote rules consistently. And that is obviously false.

RedMage125

2015-04-13, 05:25 PM

Stop. Just stop. It refers to that page in the section about changing type. Because obviously it does, because that is the section about what having the undead type means. You are seriously claiming that because it explains what some of the lich traits are after saying you become a lich, you don't become a lich. That's not even a little bit defensible.

As opposed to referencing page 165, which INCLUDES the change to undead type, and references page 307's Undead traits as well. Again, read the whole post in regards to what a discussion of RAW minutiae really means. Provide actual text that supports your claim.

Hmm, so we've seen two instances of PrC's specifically talking about gaining a template when you become something. Are there any instances of a PrC or whatever certainly granting a template when not using that phrasing?

Nope. :smallsmile:Even Dragon Disciple explicitly says the Half-Dragon template is gained, and that PrC (although crappy) gives ALL the benefits of the template over the course of 10 levels. Unlike Dread Necromancer, which does NOT grant a lich's full DR of 15/bludgeoning and magic.
Or immunities to cold, electricity and polymorph.
Or paralyzing touch.
Or turn resistance.
Or a natural armor bonus of any kind (let alone +5).
Or bonuses to INT, WIS, and CHA.

So the class doesn't even spread out the ACTUAL benefits of the template, lacking only the official "you gain the template" words, like Dragon Disciple does.

EDIT:

First, that's not the argument RedMage125 is making. His claim is that a description of the undead type invalidates the claim that you become a lich, which is a type of undead.

that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the text does NOT say "gain the lich template". I am saying that it EXPLICITLY points you to the book which CONTAINS the lich template, but does NOT point you to the lich template. If it pointed you to the lich template, then pointing you to page 307's undead traits would be redundant, because the lich template INCLUDES those traits.

You seem to be arguing that in the absence of rules saying "you do not gain this template" that you do gain it. This is Munchkin Fallacy to the highest degree. Templates are only gained when the text EXPLICITLY says that they are gained. You have provided ZERO RAW support for your claim. I have asked a number of times for you to provide such.

danzibr

2015-04-13, 05:45 PM

First, that's not the argument RedMage125 is making. His claim is that a description of the undead type invalidates the claim that you become a lich, which is a type of undead.

Second, that argument assumes that 3.5 was written with a consistent game language. That's what I'm arguing against in terms of the whole Monk bonus feats versus Fighter bonus feats issue. We straight up know that the people writing D&D 3.5, from the first three books that existed, failed to use a consistent template for applying rules. I could see the case being made if the text was "the DN becomes a powerful undead spellcaster", but it literally says that "the DN becomes a lich."

Again, your argument is beginning from the premise that people who wrote the description for Monk bonus feats and Fighter bonus feats wrote rules consistently. And that is obviously false.
Oh, I get that. I was just looking for more examples of gaining templates/not gaining templates.

If you check the language in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm), it says two things which interest me.

"Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery.

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
The first one is the definition of the word ``lich'' in D&D. Essentially, lich = template. Right?

The second sentence says a lich has all these properties, then goes on to list them.

Basically... I don't see how you can be a lich without the lich template, since by my reading, by very definition, a lich is something with the lich template (oh, and there are specific variations of the lich template).

Brova

2015-04-13, 06:21 PM

As opposed to referencing page 165, which INCLUDES the change to undead type, and references page 307's Undead traits as well. Again, read the whole post in regards to what a discussion of RAW minutiae really means. Provide actual text that supports your claim.

{scrubbed}

Seriously. Here is the relevant passage: "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich. Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the traits of the undead (see page 317 of the Monster Manual)."

Notice how the section you are harping on about is from a separate sentence from the phrase "becomes a lich". Also notice that it says "type changes to undead" and then points you to the undead type.

{scrubbed}

You seem to be arguing that in the absence of rules saying "you do not gain this template" that you do gain it. This is Munchkin Fallacy to the highest degree. Templates are only gained when the text EXPLICITLY says that they are gained. You have provided ZERO RAW support for your claim. I have asked a number of times for you to provide such.

{scrubbed}

ninjamaster1991

2015-04-13, 08:44 PM

To throw in my two cp in this:
The difference between "You become a lich" and "You become a Lich" is the same as the difference between "Elves are outsiders in the dwarven mines" and "Elves are Outsiders in the dwarven mines".
One's rules text explicitly calling out a defined game term, and the other is a bit of fluff that uses an alternate meaning of a game term.
Did the designers intend to give the Lich template? Probably, but by RAW, they don't.

Brova

2015-04-13, 08:56 PM

{scrubbed}

Doctor Awkward

2015-04-13, 09:03 PM

I really have no opinion on what the proper interpretation is, but my take on the CustServ ruling was that someone at WotC thought it would be overpowered if a level 20 capstone ability just handed a +4 LA template, with its ability score bonuses, skill bonuses, natural armor, natural attacks, et al, to a character at no cost.

Do I agree with that? Don't know, and have no opinion.

Is lich any more overpowered than any of the other myriad of ways a player character can get the undead type?

icefractal

2015-04-13, 09:21 PM

Is lich any more overpowered than any of the other myriad of ways a player character can get the undead type?Oh, if we were going by what's balanced, go for the full Lich template, absolutely. Also, it should probably grant a lesser undead template by no later than 10th level.

While DN is a full caster, it's seriously restricted in comparison to most of them, including others that can also do the "undead master" thing. And while the increased size horde is nice, by 20th (17th, really) it's lost a lot of its power in comparison to what other casters can trivially pull out. No zombie is going to stand up to the stuff Gate brings in, for example. So yeah, Lich status is the least it could use.

But the larger problem is that the undead-transforming elements of DN are often wasted anyway, because nobody wants to wait for 20th level (which many campaigns don't even hit) to become undead. So they become a Necropolitan, probably at low level because the way it works encourages that. And then like half the class features are useless.

Brova

2015-04-13, 09:38 PM

The thing to compare "become a lich at level 20" to isn't "other ways to become undead" but "other things to do a level 20". And given that chain binding or consumptive field or literally anything related to polymorph or persist abuse or any number of other things that break the game into small pieces have existed for half a dozen levels or more, I am deeply unimpressed by a spellcaster getting a couple of immunities and some melee range tricks.

SinsI

2015-04-13, 10:32 PM

I'm interested in another question - is he considered to have "created" himself? Does his transformation into a Lich give him benefits from his own Undead Mastery?

RedMage125

2015-04-14, 01:02 AM

{scrubbed}

As sideswipe pointed out:

in other classes that give templates it specifically mentions the templates you gain. without any ambiuity.

dragon devotee - pg 85 races of dragon

Draconic Template: At 5th level, you gain all the
abilities of the draconic creature template (see page 74)
that you have not already gained as dragon devotee class
features—except that you do not apply the template’s level
adjustment. Specifi cally, you gain the dragonblood subtype
in addition to any subtype you might already have. You
also gain darkvision out to 60 feet, low-light vision, and a
+2 bonus on Intimidate checks and Spot checks.

walker in the wastes - pg 91 sandstorm

Dry Lich: On reaching 10th level,
you learn to apply the secrets
of waste preservation to your own
body, becoming a dry lich. You
must undergo the Sere Rite, overseen
by another dry lich, which
includes preserving your fl esh,
removing your organs and storing
them in special canopic jars, and imbuing
your body with foul magic to make it
undying. See the dry lich template, page
155, for more information.
As a dry lich, you cannot be permanently
killed unless the canopic
jars containing your life essence
are destroyed.

all other classes that grant templates mention the template specifically and then any alterations if relevent.

The DN does NOT point you to the lich template. Instead it EXPLICITLY ONLY directs you to the Undead traits on page 317.

Notice how the section you are harping on about is from a separate sentence from the phrase "becomes a lich". Also notice that it says "type changes to undead" and then points you to the undead type.
Thank you for making my point for me, because if the lich template WAS added, then pointing you to the undead traits on page 317 would have been EXTREMELY redundant, as part of the lich template includes, and I quote "your type changes to undead", which includes EVERYTHING on page 317.

No, instead, they ONLY point you to that page and NOT to the lich template.

Give up. This is not the hill you want to die on.

I've already claimed the hill. I'm enjoying lunch on the hill. You seem to be bleeding out on it.

I'm beginning to assume you simply can't read the words "becomes a lich", because that's the RAW argument and you don't actually address it.

Munchkin Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/1548256). All you. All day.

I'm beginning to assume you don't understand the distinction between "let's use common sense" and "let's look ONLY at the text of what is written and ONLY assume what is written is true". The former is for use in most situations. The latter is for RAW discussions. I have explained this. You have ignored it. Either you are incapable of divorcing your own bias and opinion from your logic and ability to reason (which no doubt stems from the same source as your condescending attitude), or you just have no taste for the objective, dispassionate discussion of minutiae that is a RAW discussion. Either way, you are wrong. Your whole argument stems from the reader making ASSUMPTIONS off of what is written, instead of just taking in what is written.

Look, since you seem to be missing the point of what a RAW discussion is (since you seem to think I am saying that DN's "should not" get the template), I will say this: Do I think Dread Necros SHOULD get the lich template? Yes, but that is an opinion, nothing more. Do I think it was the designers' INTENT to give the full lich template? Perhaps, but that is also my opinion, and I'm on the fence only because. Does the text in the book, to include the errata EXPLICTLY give the lich template? A most resounding NO. And that is the point that is being made. We're discussing technicalities, which is far more important than common sense if you are having a RAW discussion.

Sith_Happens

2015-04-14, 02:00 AM

Here's a question for the people who think you do get it: why would it list what you get in the class description if that was true? All the crap that it mentions is already stated under the lich template itself, so it would be unnecessary to say it if the just got the template. Except for the part about phylacteries being free for you.

Because, for better or worse, WotC is in love with redundancy.

Because it does actually do something for you. If you look at the Lich template, coming back from the dead isn't an ability of the lich. Nowhere does the template give you the ability to survive death.
That's an ability of the phylactery. As a DN, your are a Lich, so your phylactery still works, you just don't have the template.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/044/b5f.jpg

I'm still not seeing how "becomes a lich" is at all ambiguous. A lich is a specific thing.

Semi-specific, there's a few different kinds.

danzibr

2015-04-14, 05:47 AM

Brova

2015-04-14, 07:44 AM

The DN does NOT point you to the lich template. Instead it EXPLICITLY ONLY directs you to the Undead traits on page 317.

Yes, in the section where it explains that your type changes to undead, it points you to the undead type. Congratulations?

Thank you for making my point for me, because if the lich template WAS added, then pointing you to the undead traits on page 317 would have been EXTREMELY redundant, as part of the lich template includes, and I quote "your type changes to undead", which includes EVERYTHING on page 317.

If the default for bonus feats was to ignore prerequisites, it would be extremely redundant for the Monk to point out that its bonus feats ignored prerequisites. If the default for bonus feats was to require prerequisites, it would be extremely redundant for the Fighter to point out that its bonus feats require prerequisites.

Munchkin Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/1548256). All you. All day.

No, because the text says you become a lich. If the text said that humans have a bunch of extra arms, you would be well within your rights to claim they had four extra arms. Oh, and wouldn't you know, it lists "using parallels to assume a rule", much as you are doing with the Dragon Devotee and the Dread Necromancer. Own goal!

RedMage125

2015-04-14, 01:17 PM

Yes, in the section where it explains that your type changes to undead, it points you to the undead type. Congratulations?
AS OPPOSED TO pointing you to the lich template, which INCLUDES the undead type. It points you ONLY to the change in type to undead.

I'm not saying you don't become undead, so I don't know why you're debating that point. I am saying you do not get the following:
Paralyzing touch.
Immunity to Cold, Electricity and Polymorph.
Turn Resistance.
+2 to INT, WIS, and CHA
+5 bonus to Natural Armor
Increase in DR from 8 to 15

In many other respects, a level 20 DN resembles a lich very closely. He is an undead spellcaster, he has a phylactery, a fear aura, some DR/bludgeoning and magic, a supernatural touch attack ability.

Is it a technicality? Of course. TECHNICALLY, the DN, by the text of the RAW, does not acquire the lich template because of the way the text was written. This could very well have been an error on the part of the developers. God knows that they have released other books that were full of errors. Take a look at the Complete Divine, for example. Several cases of "see page XX" (variable not added by me, the book actually says "XX"), spells which have different names in the class spell list, but a different name (same basic description) in the full text of the spell (the one that immediately comes to mind is a level 8 druid spell involving water or tides or something), the favored weapon of Tharizdun listed as a "check toee"...the list goes on. And that's just one book. It is entirely likely that it was an oversight by the editors of Heroes of Horror, but it was never put into errata, and thus remains technically correct (that or it never was the designers intent to grant the lich template). I know I am arguing a technicality, but that's what a RAW discussion is all about. One must put aside assumptions and only go off what is in the text.

If the default for bonus feats was to ignore prerequisites, it would be extremely redundant for the Monk to point out that its bonus feats ignored prerequisites. If the default for bonus feats was to require prerequisites, it would be extremely redundant for the Fighter to point out that its bonus feats require prerequisites.
You know, I declined to comment on this before because it was so off-topic, but you're way off-base in your complaint about this matter, too. The Core Monk gets, what, 3 Bonus feats? And they are very limited in their selection of them (at 3 different levels, you may choose between one of these two feats). So for those 3 times the monk gets to choose bonus feats by choosing one of two options, he may ignore prerequisites. The Fighter, on the other hand, gets a bonus feat at every even level. His bonus feats must meet prerequisites (in addition to the additional prerequisite of the feat having the special tag that it may be chosen as a bonus feat by a fighter.

Who said that the "default for bonus feats was ignoring prerequisites?" Certainly not the RAW. In fact, if you look at the vast majority of classes and prestige classes that grant bonus feats (Wizard, Scout, Incantatrix, just to name the first 3 that pop into my head), they MUST meet the prerequisites in order to choose the bonus feat. So it seems that the monk's ability to ignore prerequisites for those THREE bonus feats he gets is the specific exception to the general rule. Much like the Ranger in his Combat Style bonus feats. And what do you know? General rules with occasional specific exceptions is one of the core design concepts of every edition of D&D that WotC has been at the helm at so far. No disparity or discrepancy here. The Fighter specifying that was a way of re-enforcing that general rule, because it was part of the first book released for the system when the system was new, and was included in a book with classes like Monk and Ranger who DID get to ignore prerequisites. Wizard says that prerequisites for their bonus feats must be adhered to as well.

But what you miss is that even in the face of redundancy, the ruling are explicit and clear. There is no doubt that Fighters' bonus feats must meet prereqs. Just as there is no doubt that the level 20 DN gets the undead traits listed on page 317. But unlike the bonus feat exceptions (Monk and Ranger saying prereqs can be ignored), the DN does NOT say that the lich template from page 165 is acquired.

No, because the text says you become a lich. If the text said that humans have a bunch of extra arms, you would be well within your rights to claim they had four extra arms.
Apples and oranges, because general rules exist to cover humanoid creatures with more than 2 arms such as how Multiattack and Multiweapon Fighting work (especially in regards to classes that get two-weapon fighting feats as bonus feats), as well as limitation of magic items (still can only wear one pair of magic gloves and two magic rings). Furthermore, races with additional limbs (such as the athach monster class in Savage Species or the Thri-Kreen in Expanded Psionics Handbook) have a distinct, bulleted item under their racial features detailing what the "extra limbs" feature means for that race. There is no such example of "this race has 'extra arms'" that just leaves it at that. So you are making a tangent that does not highlight or support your point at all.

Oh, and wouldn't you know, it lists "using parallels to assume a rule", much as you are doing with the Dragon Devotee and the Dread Necromancer.
Except that I am not "assuming a rule", you are. I am pointing out the LACK of a specific ruling. I am using parallels to highlight said LACK of a rule by showing you that in EVERY OTHER CASE where a template is gained by a class or prestige class, that it is specifically mentioned. That's what you're missing about my whole point. I assume NOTHING, which is what you need to do in a RAW discussion. Only what is in the text is true. Your whole argument hinges on ASSUMING that "becomes a lich" equates to "acquires the lich template" in the absence of those exact words. You have used ZERO text from RAW to support your claim other than the words "becomes a lich", which is the bone of contention because it hinges on an assumption. Which makes your whole argument circular.

Here, let's try this: Even though "using parallels to assume a rule" is not entirely valid, I've opened that up for you to invite you to find SOME support for your claim, since you want to debate this point. Find me 3 examples of other classes or prestige classes that DO acquire templates of some kind without explicitly using the specific verbage of such. If you can find 3 examples in official WotC published material that grant templates without saying "gain x template", I'll even concede the point. I know it's circumstantial evidence, but I am THAT confident that such examples do not exist.

Own goal!
You have yet to score a single goal. Unless you think you deserve points for being atrociously condescending and insulting. I know I've been guilty of firing back at you, but that was a passive-aggressive attempt at showcasing what you were doing to get you to stop. If you want to debate the point, then do so objectively and dispassionately. I really do enjoy debate. But please, drop the sarcasm and ad hominem attacks, it does nothing to make your case stronger. So moving forward, let's keep it clean, and for crying out loud, please cite your references, and show support for your claim using only the text of official rulebooks. You don't use a word when giving its definition, do you? So when you try and support the claim that "becomes a lich" = "acquires the lich template", don't just point out the words "becomes a lich" and sit back smugly like you've just revealed some kind of higher truth. That's not how debate works, and certainly holds no weight in an objective discussion of RAW facts.

danzibr

2015-04-14, 01:49 PM

Ya know, I feel my last two posts contributed to the conversation, yet were totally ignored. If this thread has been reduced to RedMage v. Bravo, I'll just step out.

icefractal

2015-04-14, 02:16 PM

Brova

2015-04-14, 03:26 PM

The issue is that if "becomes a lich" doesn't mean acquiring the lich template, what exactly does it mean? It's part of the rules text, not separated in any way, and it has a coherent meaning within the rules. Saying that it should be considered flavor text only, because it could be worded in a way more consistent with other PrCs, seems like a pretty big stretch.

I mean, if you had the ability:
"Martial Skillz (Ex): A 20th level Dread Necromancer has power attack and cleave."
Would you say that this is moot because it didn't use the phrasing:
"gains the Power Attack and Cleave feats"?

Well, no, we would obviously look at the next sentence "he can make melee attacks (page XX)", and conclude that all the capstone gave him was the ability to make melee attacks.

AS OPPOSED TO pointing you to the lich template, which INCLUDES the undead type. It points you ONLY to the change in type to undead.

Why would the section to explain the new type point to the template? That sentence is about the type changing, the fact that it points to a new type doesn't mean anything.

Who said that the "default for bonus feats was ignoring prerequisites?" Certainly not the RAW. In fact, if you look at the vast majority of classes and prestige classes that grant bonus feats (Wizard, Scout, Incantatrix, just to name the first 3 that pop into my head), they MUST meet the prerequisites in order to choose the bonus feat. So it seems that the monk's ability to ignore prerequisites for those THREE bonus feats he gets is the specific exception to the general rule.

You do understand that the RAW isn't on your side here, right? The only unambiguous ruling (general case) on bonus feats is from the MM, where the description of bonus feats states that you don't need to meet the prerequisites for them.

Also, my point isn't about what the rule is for Monks, Fighters, or bonus feats. It's about assuming things based on the presence, absence, or contents of clarifying text being a terrible idea.

Your whole argument hinges on ASSUMING that "becomes a lich" equates to "acquires the lich template" in the absence of those exact words.

You mean, it hinges on assuming English words mean the things the mean? The horror! You are assuming that D&D is consistently written in a "game language" that has unambiguous meanings. That's just ... not true. For example, the Factotum uses "encounter" to define when it gets IP, despite the fact that the rules don't actually define an encounter.

Side Note: For an example of a game that is written in a "game language", look at a MTG card designed in the last five or ten years. All of those cards are written in a formal language where the only words and phrases used have a concrete game meaning.

So when you try and support the claim that "becomes a lich" = "acquires the lich template", don't just point out the words "becomes a lich" and sit back smugly like you've just revealed some kind of higher truth.

What the hell do you think "becomes a lich" means? Lich is a term with game meaning, specifically the lich template. The phrase "becomes an X" means that you start out as something else and then become an X. Becomes a lich is therefore the common form of the game term "acquires the lich template." Your argument only makes any sense at all if you assume both that the game is written with perfect efficiency and in a perfectly unambiguous language. Spoilers: Neither of those things are true.

For that matter, do you also believe that any Dread Necromancer with two arms and two legs gets the capstone because the phrase "a dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature" doesn't cite to the rules for the humanoid type?

Zanos

2015-04-14, 04:17 PM

"Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery.

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich.

This all seems fairly clear to me. Custserv isn't RAW.

danzibr

2015-04-14, 04:25 PM

This all seems fairly clear to me. Custserv isn't RAW.
I completely agree! Hence my two earlier posts.

I mean... lich means lich (lich by itself anyway, as opposed to dry lich or something).

nintendoh

2015-04-14, 06:38 PM

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.

Necroticplague

2015-04-14, 07:07 PM

sideswipe

2015-04-14, 07:31 PM

Look, the real problem here is that it refers you to page 307 of the Monster Manual. In the absence of that text, if all we had was "becomes a lich", then yes, you would be correct. However, what we do have is mechanics that tell us to add ONLY the undead traits found on page 307, and NOT the lich traits on page 165 (which INCLUDES the undead traits on 307, plus some extras).

When it comes to RAW discussions, what's in the text is what matters. That's how an objective, dispassionate discussion of rules works. Your snide tone of dismissal of "you act like it's a magical phrase" contributes nothing constructive to such a discussion, and conveys a sense of empty arrogance to the reader that really makes me think that you do not understand the minutiae of a dissection of RAW.

I am not advocating that a DM not give a level 20 DN the lich template. I believe that was the intent of the rules, and the DN is a class otherwise narrow enough in focus that it doesn't really hurt game balance to give it to them, especially at level 20, when game balance (especially for spellcasters) is largely a joke anyways. The difference being that I am capable of a level of objective perspective where I can step back, look solely at what is in print in the rules and say "yes, the RAW only grant the undead traits on page 307 of the Monster Manual and give the DN a phylactery. They do not inherit the lich template on page 165." I say this because that is what is in the text.

This is what RAW means. Rules As Written. And in an in-depth discussion of RAW, only what is WRITTEN matters. D&D is a game. It has rules. And those rules are a system. "Common Sense" does not hold up in such a discussion, because the rules of a system need to be explicit to prevent exploits and loopholes, and more importantly, to provide clarity for "proper" function (the word "proper" gets quotes there because I personally maintain that D&D is a game that thrives on variation and houserules. As long as your group is having fun, there is no "wrong" way to play). The OP was asking for what the "official" answer was in regards to this issue, not what "common sense" dictates. So everyone who wants to jump in with their 2 cents about how "lich" meaning "lich template" should somehow just be a fact we should accept is WRONG. Everyone here who says that people are just "looking too much into it" is WRONG. Because that is not how a RAW discussion works. You back up what you claim to be true with FACTS. You provide citations for your facts, this means page numbers, so that anyone else who doubts you can check your sources. And nothing that isn't printed in black and white in an official source is true.

Do such discussions get a little anal-retentive and detail-oriented? Yes. But they're also usually technically correct. The intent of such discussion is usually to find flaws in the system, either for exploitation or for potential correction (although with this system, now 2 editions in WotC's past, I think it's safe to say that the ship has sailed), or for clarification on how something mechanically works. If such an in-depth discussion is not something you are willing to engage in, then don't post. But for crying out loud, nothing constructive is added by jumping in and saying "it's common sense", or "it works if you don't look too deeply at it". Saying things like "the rules don't say you don't get it, so that means you do" is even worse, because that's Munchkin Fallacy.

So unless you've got some ACTUAL TEXT that explicitly states that the lich template is applied, then either acknowledge that the RAW does not apply it (even if you think that such was an oversight or a mistake on WotC's part), or stop posting in the discussion. If you have some actual RAW support for your point, the please, by all means, provide it, along with all appropriate citations. I love in-depth discussions. No vitriol or malice on my part, I love to argue and debate. I'd be really interested to see if there was actually some conflicting rules. But only what is WRITTEN IN THE BOOK (to include errata) constitutes Proof.

hear hear. well said.

danzibr

2015-04-14, 07:35 PM

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.
Why do people say this?

atemu1234

2015-04-14, 07:35 PM

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.

Yes, depending on what you were doing.

SinsI

2015-04-14, 07:36 PM

According to MM, "A Lich is an undead spellcaster, who has used its magical powers to unnaturally extend its life".
"Lich template" is only one of the ways to become a Lich, and quite a restrictive one - Drakoliches and Dread Necromancers are some of the other ones.
I don't see any problem with that - D&D is full of alternative rules and methods. You can easily create a Lich Monster Class as an alternative to the template and it would be just as viable.

sideswipe

2015-04-14, 07:41 PM

Look, if you're seriously claiming that the fact that "lich" has a lowercase L proves your point, you have stopped making arguments at all. Just give up.

actually in a RAW debate with something as specific as thi sthat make a whole lot of difference. if it was a Noun for the Lich template then it would be capitalised. since it is not then it is an adjective, which is indications that it is a descriptive term. which in turn means it is more likely to be fluff text then a Rules application.

again i am going to say that it is the intent to give you the lich template probably, but in RAW it does not for quite a few reasons.

grammer is the difference between-

I helped my Uncle Jack, off his horse.
And
I helped my uncle jack off his horse.

sideswipe

2015-04-14, 07:55 PM

For another comment on the lich versus Lich thing, while we here on the forums like to capitalize it, the MM does not.

In the MM, lich = a specific template. Then it states the properties of a lich. To state someone is a lich without those properties contradicts the MM.

i just checked my monster manual, what you have stated is half true. in all parts of FLUFF text the lich is not capitalised. however, in all instances of rules including what you just quoted it IS capitalised.

danzibr

2015-04-14, 07:59 PM

i just checked my monster manual, what you have stated is half true. in all parts of FLUFF text the lich is not capitalised. however, in all instances of rules including what you just quoted it IS capitalised.
Huh. Where are you seeing this? I only see it capitalized in titles and at the beginning of sentences.

btw I love your sig.

sideswipe

2015-04-14, 08:03 PM

Huh. Where are you seeing this? I only see it capitalized in titles and at the beginning of sentences.

btw I love your sig.

i guess it may be that "lich" is the first word of that sentance. but still it is capitalised there...

i could go into a silly side discussion that you can never gain the lich template due to an awkwardly placed capital letter that means that you are granted the lich template which gives nothing where as the Lich template grants everything but has no method of applying it, or vice versa depending on how it reads but im not digressing more.

and thank you :smallsmile:

danzibr

2015-04-14, 08:17 PM

i guess it may be that "lich" is the first word of that sentance. but still it is capitalised there...

i could go into a silly side discussion that you can never gain the lich template due to an awkwardly placed capital letter that means that you are granted the lich template which gives nothing where as the Lich template grants everything but has no method of applying it, or vice versa depending on how it reads but im not digressing more.

and thank you :smallsmile:
Uhh... I mean, coming at the start of a sentence, of course it's capitalized. I don't get your point.

But even in the crunch, it's all lower case.

sideswipe

2015-04-14, 08:21 PM

Uhh... I mean, coming at the start of a sentence, of course it's capitalized. I don't get your point.

But even in the crunch, it's all lower case.

the spoiler point was a jokey one. it can be ignored

RedMage125

2015-04-14, 11:28 PM

First off, sideswipe, I love everything you've posted. Even the cheeky bits.
Grammar saves lives:
Let's eat, Grandma!
Let's eat Grandma!

Also, I want to "like" all your posts relevant to the point.

Ya know, I feel my last two posts contributed to the conversation, yet were totally ignored. If this thread has been reduced to RedMage v. Bravo, I'll just step out.
I apologize if you have felt ignored. I felt that your points were more elaborately discussed elsewhere, and did not feel the need to re-hash what had already been said. That is not to denigrate your contribution, but rather that I felt that I had nothing to say that had not already been said.

The issue is that if "becomes a lich" doesn't mean acquiring the lich template, what exactly does it mean? It's part of the rules text, not separated in any way, and it has a coherent meaning within the rules. Saying that it should be considered flavor text only, because it could be worded in a way more consistent with other PrCs, seems like a pretty big stretch.

I mean, if you had the ability:
"Martial Skillz (Ex): A 20th level Dread Necromancer has power attack and cleave."
Would you say that this is moot because it didn't use the phrasing:
"gains the Power Attack and Cleave feats"?
This is a tangent with no real contribution. If you can find an actual example of text like this that shows that the RAW has been printed this way, then it could be relevant to our discussion. As it is, all examples of specific feats being granted use the words "you gain X feat".

Why do people say this?
That is in reference to the much-touted "Necromancer Handbook" that can probably be found with a Google search. you'll get a thread on the WotC boards.
And on that note...

Cant we all just get along... I mean this is only an 8 level class anyway.
I really hope you're just being cheeky. If so, then it gave me a chuckle. That Handbook has some good advice, but the claim that DN is "only 8 levels long" on the premise that the rest of the class sucks too much to take any more of is silly. It's a decent Tier 3 class. And while the level 8 ability is pretty dern awesome, I wouldn't want to give up my higher level spells by multiclassing anywhere else. Plus, the flavor for it is great. I've got a great concept for one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335215-Character-Concepts-Non-Evil-Necromancer) that unfortunately I did not get to play because the Navy gave me new orders in another state.

Well, no, we would obviously look at the next sentence "he can make melee attacks (page XX)", and conclude that all the capstone gave him was the ability to make melee attacks.
If you're done strawmanning, I thought I asked you to stop with the passive-aggressive personal attacks. I'm willing to debate politely if you are.

Why would the section to explain the new type point to the template? That sentence is about the type changing, the fact that it points to a new type doesn't mean anything.
Why would the class ability that YOU claim adds a template point to the template? :smallconfused:

If it adds the template, it should point to the template, this particular template includes all changes of type in it. The Lich template says "the creatures type changes to undead". That means that any creature which gains the lich template already gains all the undead traits from page 317 of the Monster Manual. So IF the lich template was being indicated, the text pointing to the undead type entry on the glossary (page 317) would be redundant, because the template already directs one there by virtue of changing type in the template.

Look, I'll create an example to highlight what I am saying. If a Prestige class said "you become a celestial. Your type changes to Outsider, and you gain all benefits of the outsider type (see page 313 of the Monster Manual)", would you honestly argue that you gain the Celestial Creature template, and try and argue that you get Smite Evil and DR and resistances based on your HD? Or no, because that template doesn't change one's type to Outsider, would you try and argue for the even more powerful Half-Celestial template? Or would you read that as what the text says, which is "your type changes to outsider"?

You do understand that the RAW isn't on your side here, right? The only unambiguous ruling (general case) on bonus feats is from the MM, where the description of bonus feats states that you don't need to meet the prerequisites for them.
Again, condescending tone. And I looked at the entry you spoke of. It does not support your claim as well as you'd like me to believe. (Also, in the future, for proper debating purposes, please cite the page number when claiming citation from RAW)
Monster Manual, page 7, under the "Feats" entry for monsters says this: "Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites."
Most creatures do not have class levels, but they get feats based off Hit Dice, in the same progression that players do (1st, 3rd, 6th, etc). Any feats apart from that are bonus feats unique to that creature type. So...they work in the same manner as a racial bonus feat. The Muckdweller race (Serpent kingdoms) gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, such a character could still use the feat, even if he chose a class that didn't have a +1 BAB at first level, because it is a racial trait, much like elven weapon proficiencies, halfling luck bonus to saves, dwarven stonecunning, etc. They even specify (bolded part) that you cannot change those bonus feats, because those are the racial traits.

Also, my point isn't about what the rule is for Monks, Fighters, or bonus feats. It's about assuming things based on the presence, absence, or contents of clarifying text being a terrible idea.
I'm sorry, but this is not a problem with me. It's with your perception. As sideswipe and I have both pointed out, this is how a RAW discussion works. If you don't want to engage in debate that works that way, don't get into detailed RAW discussions.

You mean, it hinges on assuming English words mean the things the mean? The horror! You are assuming that D&D is consistently written in a "game language" that has unambiguous meanings. That's just ... not true. For example, the Factotum uses "encounter" to define when it gets IP, despite the fact that the rules don't actually define an encounter.
So...things in D&D can only mean what they mean in the English language? So no Evil variant paladins (such as Tyranny and Slaughter from Unearthed Arcana) can exist because "paladin" in English means "knight renowned for heroism and chivalry" or "champion of a noble cause".
I guess warlocks can only mean "oath-breakers".
Druids have no business turning into animals, since the word refers to specific priests of real-world Celtic peoples who could not do that.
Clerics without a deity should not be allowed, since "cleric" specifically means a member of a clergy.
Medusae should not be a race of monsters because "Medusa" was a specific named individual (one of three Gorgon sisters) in Greek mythology.

Do you see why that breaks down?

YOU assume that D&D is somehow NOT written in a "game language".

Side Note: For an example of a game that is written in a "game language", look at a MTG card designed in the last five or ten years. All of those cards are written in a formal language where the only words and phrases used have a concrete game meaning.
So you think that the same company that produces both of those games decided one game needed formal "game language", but the other one could just fly with loose, ambiguous wording? :smallconfused:

What the hell do you think "becomes a lich" means? Lich is a term with game meaning, specifically the lich template. The phrase "becomes an X" means that you start out as something else and then become an X.
SinsI brought up a great point, something I touched on in my last post, and my response to him below will answer this.

Becomes a lich is therefore the common form of the game term "acquires the lich template."
You have yet to provide text from any RAW source that explicitly says this statement is true.

Your argument only makes any sense at all if you assume both that the game is written with perfect efficiency and in a perfectly unambiguous language. Spoilers: Neither of those things are true.
Once again, you seem to not understand what sideswipe and I have been saying about what a detailed RAW discussion is all about. RAW discussions are all about anal-retentive, detail-ridden, nitpicky breakdowns of minutiae and technicalities. So yes. A RAW discussion only accepts as absolutely true what is written in concise verbage in the text. Perfectly unambiguous language is necessary to prove something as FACT in a RAW discussion.

If that is a manner of discussion you are not comfortable participating in, please feel free to concede the point and bow out. Otherwise, support your claims with RAW quotes that say what you claim in unambiguous language.

For that matter, do you also believe that any Dread Necromancer with two arms and two legs gets the capstone because the phrase "a dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature" doesn't cite to the rules for the humanoid type?
You mean like a Mind Flayer? Correct, a Mind Flayer is an Aberration, not a humanoid, and does not gain the benefits.

What happens if a DN isn't a humanoid when they hit level 20? Do they still get the lich template, even though they aren't a valid target for it? Would they not get the lich template (because they don't qualify), but still get the other parts of that class feature (undead, no con, reroll HD)?
They get nothing, because the undead type is still a part of that same capstone ability, and it specifically says that a creature who is not a humanoid does not gain the "Lich Transformation" ability at all.

According to MM, "A Lich is an undead spellcaster, who has used its magical powers to unnaturally extend its life".
"Lich template" is only one of the ways to become a Lich, and quite a restrictive one - Drakoliches and Dread Necromancers are some of the other ones.
I don't see any problem with that - D&D is full of alternative rules and methods. You can easily create a Lich Monster Class as an alternative to the template and it would be just as viable.

This is an excellent point, and one I kind of touched on earlier.

A level 11+ Wizard, Sorcerer or Cleric with the lich template is a kind of lich.
A Dracolich is a template that can make a dragon into a draconic lich.
A level 10 Walker in the Wastes becomes a dry lich.
An Alhoon is a Mind Flayer template that basically allows the lich template from the Monster Manual to apply to a mind flayer, even though it is not a humanoid. Still must meet spellcasting prerequisites though.
And a level 20 Dread Necromancer is another kind.

All of these liches are different, but share many qualities. Most have a fear aura (dry lich does not). Most have a paralyzing touch (Dread Necro and dry lich do not). Dread Necro and Alhoon have a touch attack that does damage to living creatures with negative energy. All have damage reduction (only dracolich is not "bludgeoning and magic", but since most dragons have DR/magic anyway and keep that trait, it's almost a moot point). All of them have a phylactery in some form or another.

Like I pointed out before, the fear aura, charnel touch, DR...combined with being an undead creature with a phylactery...these make a being who is very similar to a lich with the template. So I think, perhaps, that SinsI may have the truth of it. A truth that keeps to the RAW (that DN's do not get the template) while still keeping to the fluff of being a "lich".

I think it's an acceptable compromise. I know that's just an opinion, but it sounds pretty good.

danzibr

2015-04-15, 06:11 AM

I apologize if you have felt ignored. I felt that your points were more elaborately discussed elsewhere, and did not feel the need to re-hash what had already been said. That is not to denigrate your contribution, but rather that I felt that I had nothing to say that had not already been said.
Hmm, well thanks RedMage!

I read the whole thread and didn't pick up on the definition bit. I'll have to peruse it again...

And after a quick check, lich is not in the D&D glossary. We only have the lich = the specific template to go off of, but it seems sufficient.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-04-15, 06:30 AM

What happens if a DN isn't a humanoid when they hit level 20? Do they still get the lich template, even though they aren't a valid target for it? Would they not get the lich template (because they don't qualify), but still get the other parts of that class feature (undead, no con, reroll HD)?

If it applies the lich template then a non-humanoid gets nothing. It if simply grants undead type it would change their type to undead. The template lists nothing that would allow it to illegally apply the lich template (unlike Death Master).

atemu1234

2015-04-15, 06:43 AM

If it applies the lich template then a non-humanoid gets nothing. It if simply grants undead type it would change their type to undead. The template lists nothing that would allow it to illegally apply the lich template (unlike Death Master).

It might be partly me just ignoring RAW (I really don't care about this argument, either way), but I interpret it as applying the template. Though to be fair, I completely ignore alignment restrictions, and even allowed Ur-Priest to require Spell Focus (Any Alignment).

So I don't have a good track record with this.

Necroticplague

2015-04-15, 06:54 AM

It might be partly me just ignoring RAW (I really don't care about this argument, either way), but I interpret it as applying the template. Though to be fair, I completely ignore alignment restrictions, and even allowed Ur-Priest to require Spell Focus (Any Alignment).

So I don't have a good track record with this.

How can it apply the template if you aren't a valid creature for it? Lich can only be applied to humanoids.

atemu1234

2015-04-15, 07:18 AM

actually in a RAW debate with something as specific as thi sthat make a whole lot of difference. if it was a Noun for the Lich template then it would be capitalised. since it is not then it is an adjective, which is indications that it is a descriptive term. which in turn means it is more likely to be fluff text then a Rules application.

again i am going to say that it is the intent to give you the lich template probably, but in RAW it does not for quite a few reasons.

grammer is the difference between-

I helped my Uncle Jack, off his horse.
And
I helped my uncle jack off his horse.

That's punctuation, not capitalization.

Brova

2015-04-15, 07:29 AM

but the claim that DN is "only 8 levels long" on the premise that the rest of the class sucks too much to take any more of is silly. It's a decent Tier 3 class. And while the level 8 ability is pretty dern awesome, I wouldn't want to give up my higher level spells by multiclassing anywhere else.

What? When people say the DN is 8 levels long, they mean that you should take a prestige class that advances casting after taking at levels of it. By level 8 you have all the class features you care about, so you take levels of Rainbow Servant or something.

If a Prestige class said "you become a celestial. Your type changes to Outsider, and you gain all benefits of the outsider type (see page 313 of the Monster Manual)", would you honestly argue that you gain the Celestial Creature template, and try and argue that you get Smite Evil and DR and resistances based on your HD?

No, because the argument I'm making is based on an important linguistic technicality. In the instance of the Celestial Creature template, the common form of "acquires the celestial creature template" isn't "becomes a celestial", it's "becomes a celestial creature" or possibly "becomes celestial". In this case, "celestial" is a game term for "good outsider" so at best you might be able to argue you should get the good subtype.

Monster Manual, page 7, under the "Feats" entry for monsters says this: "Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites."

The specific rule you want is on page 301: "(It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.)"

Also, you seem to agree anyway, so I'm not really sure why you're arguing.

So...things in D&D can only mean what they mean in the English language?

Nice strawman.

So you think that the same company that produces both of those games decided one game needed formal "game language", but the other one could just fly with loose, ambiguous wording?

Yes. You know the reason that I said "from the last five or ten years"? Because there was a point where MTG was written like D&D is. Where it did in fact explain things conversationally rather than spell them out in a "game language". And that was a pain, because MTG is a competitive game and the pressures on it to be clear, precise, and balanced are much stronger than the pressures on D&D. It's the same reason that the D&D team printed wishing for items and The Shadow Over The Sun as its broken stuff (things which destroy the entire game), and the MTG team printed Affinity and Jitte as its broken stuff (things which make certain strategies too good). The MTG team is more competent than the D&D team was, and that was before Mearls started running the show. /rant

A RAW discussion only accepts as absolutely true what is written in concise verbage in the text.

You mean like "becomes a lich". Okay, how about this. What if "becomes a lich" was the only text of the capstone. No cite to the lich template, but bit about becoming undead either. What does a level 20 DN get then. Nothing?

You mean like a Mind Flayer? Correct, a Mind Flayer is an Aberration, not a humanoid, and does not gain the benefits.

Ah, but much like the phrase "become a lich" the phrase "is not a humaniod" does not cite to any rules text. Why are we to assume that humanoid is being used in its game meaning but that lich is not?

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 08:09 AM

What? When people say the DN is 8 levels long, they mean that you should take a prestige class that advances casting after taking at levels of it. By level 8 you have all the class features you care about, so you take levels of Rainbow Servant or something.
The rest of DN is still worth taking was my point. That Handbook had some good advice, but a great deal of it was very closed minded.

The specific rule you want is on page 301: "(It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites.)"
That is under the section for making brand new monsters from scratch, which would mean making up racial traits for them. You either missed that or are trying to be deliberately deceptive by claiming that such is somehow a general rule for bonus feats.

Nice strawman.
I had to chuckle at this. You accusing me of that is laughable in light of your posts up to this point. That wasn't a strawman, that was me highlighting a few examples of other things in D&D that DON'T mean what they do in English. I am well aware that you were not arguing for those.

You mean like "becomes a lich". Okay, how about this. What if "becomes a lich" was the only text of the capstone. No cite to the lich template, but bit about becoming undead either. What does a level 20 DN get then. Nothing?That's the distinction between fluff and crunch. This is the point of the conversation.

Ah, but much like the phrase "become a lich" the phrase "is not a humaniod" does not cite to any rules text. Why are we to assume that humanoid is being used in its game meaning but that lich is not?
So either
A) DN does not apply the lich template, but the level 20 capstone specifies that a non-humanoid does not get the capstone ability, so a Mind Flayer DN20 is still not undead.
or
B) DN does grant the template, but since the template does not apply to aberrations, a Mind Flayer DN 20 is STILL not undead.

I don't understand why you would argue that a mind flayer WOULD receive the capstone benefits.

Brova

2015-04-15, 08:21 AM

The rest of DN is still worth taking was my point. That Handbook had some good advice, but a great deal of it was very closed minded.

For what exactly? Light fortification and some extra ways to kill fools in melee? I'm not sold on that being better than even grabbing Incantatrix and some cool spells to persist via Arcane Disciple.

That is under the section for making brand new monsters from scratch, which would mean making up racial traits for them. You either missed that or are trying to be deliberately deceptive by claiming that such is somehow a general rule for bonus feats.

So where exactly do you think the general rule for bonus feats is? That refers to "bonus feats". In fact, every instance that refers to "bonus feats" in the MM is about getting them without the prerequisites, such as mindless creatures still getting bonus feats.

I had to chuckle at this. You accusing me of that is laughable in light of your posts up to this point. That wasn't a strawman, that was me highlighting a few examples of other things in D&D that DON'T mean what they do in English. I am well aware that you were not arguing for those.

You missed the boat on this one. Those are words that are being defined with game meaning. For example, while "druid" normally refers to a priest for a certain subset of religions, in D&D it refers to a class that turns into a bear. That's obviously distinct from an English phrase like "becomes a lich".

So either
A) DN does not apply the lich template, but the level 20 capstone specifies that a non-humanoid does not get the capstone ability, so a Mind Flayer DN20 is still not undead.
or
B) DN does grant the template, but since the template does not apply to aberrations, a Mind Flayer DN 20 is STILL not undead.

I don't understand why you would argue that a mind flayer WOULD receive the capstone benefits.

I don't, because I recognize that "not a humanoid" is a common English phrase for the game English phrase "does not have the humanoid type", just like "becomes a lich" is common English for the game English phrase "acquires the lich template". You can't have this both ways. Either "becomes a lich" not having a rules citation means it is using "lich" in the common sense of "undead spellcaster", and therefore "not a humanoid" is using "humanoid" in the common sense of "has two arms, two legs, etc" or the reverse. If your logic that DN 20 doesn't grant the lich template holds, it is necessarily true that the capstone applies to Mind Flayers, because they are "humanoid" in the common sense.

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 11:29 AM

For what exactly? Light fortification and some extra ways to kill fools in melee? I'm not sold on that being better than even grabbing Incantatrix and some cool spells to persist via Arcane Disciple.
I didn't say those weren't good options, too. I'm just saying that acting like DN is "only" worth taking 8 levels of is closed-minded and overly harsh. And since we're talking about the capstone of the 20 level class here, I'm frankly surprised to see you advocating for the "8 level class" thing.

So where exactly do you think the general rule for bonus feats is? That refers to "bonus feats". In fact, every instance that refers to "bonus feats" in the MM is about getting them without the prerequisites, such as mindless creatures still getting bonus feats.

I've never expressed an issue with any kind of "general rule" on bonus feats, but the rule for FEATS in general is that you must meet the prerequisite. I don't know why you would assume that "bonus feats" (which simply means feats gained outside of the ones at 1,3,6,9,etc Hit Dice) are any different. The "general rule for bonus feats" follows all normal general rules for feats, the exception being that you get one outside the normal HD progression, as well as any other stipulations that apply (fighters must choose form a specific list, wizards must choose metamagic, item creation, etc.).
Plenty of races and monster types get bonus feats. Lycanthropes all get Iron Will, for example. The part you quoted is in the section on Making Monsters from scratch, so I have no idea why you would assume that what is printed there is some kind of "general rule" for feats gained. Making a Monster from scratch is very much akin to making a race from scratch, since monsters and players use the same basic rules. Other races get bonus feats, some of which they don't meet any prerequisites for(Muckdweller getting Weapon Finesse is a great example).

You missed the boat on this one. Those are words that are being defined with game meaning. For example, while "druid" normally refers to a priest for a certain subset of religions, in D&D it refers to a class that turns into a bear. That's obviously distinct from an English phrase like "becomes a lich".

Once again, the minutiae of a RAW discussion seems to be what you seem to be having a problem with here.

I don't, because I recognize that "not a humanoid" is a common English phrase for the game English phrase "does not have the humanoid type", just like "becomes a lich" is common English for the game English phrase "acquires the lich template". You can't have this both ways. Either "becomes a lich" not having a rules citation means it is using "lich" in the common sense of "undead spellcaster", and therefore "not a humanoid" is using "humanoid" in the common sense of "has two arms, two legs, etc" or the reverse. If your logic that DN 20 doesn't grant the lich template holds, it is necessarily true that the capstone applies to Mind Flayers, because they are "humanoid" in the common sense.
What? How do you get that? I am not arguing that we should use the "common sense" of the word humanoid. To the contrary, I have been saying that we should NOT be using "common sense of the word" in this discussion, because it is a RAW discussion. It is only by YOUR logic that a mind flayer would get benefit from the capstone, because mind flayers are only humanoid in the "common sense" of the word, and you argue that "becomes a lich" is the "common sense" of "acquires the lich template" (which is paradoxical because the lich template explicitly requires the humanoid type).
Let me ask you this. Would you allow Charm Person to work on a mind flayer? The text says "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."
Seriously, you're trying to tell me that my argument amounts to "if you DON'T use 'common sense of the word' regarding the template, then you HAVE to use the 'common sense of the word' regarding the word 'humanoid'". Which is nonsensical to me. Why would I adhere to a "common sense of the word" for :humanoid" if I don't for the phrase "becomes a lich"? Mind flayers are not humanoids, that much is very clear in the game. Aasimars are nearly identical to humans, but they are not "humanoids". A hill giant looks just like a size category large human (with down syndrome), and it is not a "humanoid" in any game term sense.

So let's look at it this way. Let's play a little game where for a brief moment, we open our minds and see what would happen if the other was right.
If we hypothetically suppose you are right, and we adhere to "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone. Then level 20 Dread Necros gain the lich template. This also means that Mind Flayer DNs gain the lich template as well, because "common sense of the word" for "humanoid" applies to them. But the lich template cannot be applied to a mind flayer (Alhoon is, by game definitions, a separate template from "lich"). So now we have a paradox of rules because a creature who is not a humanoid gained a humanoid-only template. Does it still gain the undead traits on page 317, then? If we're using the "common sense of the word" for "humanoid", then he doesn't get NO benefit from the capstone ability, right? What does a mind flayer DN get at level 20?
If we suppose I am right, and ignore any kind of "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone, what happens? Well, DN's just become Undead at level 20. So they are now an undead spellcaster with a phylactery, who has some DR/bludgeoning and magic, has a touch attack, and a fear aura. Very similar to a lich with the template, but not exactly the same, either. Also, mind flayers get nothing from the capstone because they are not "humanoids", they are aberrations.
Now, I get that you were playing Devil's Advocate with the mind flayer bit, because it seems to me that you believe the rules would allow a human DN20 to acquire the lich template, but that a mind flayer DN would get no benefit. But in order for the capstone to work 100% like you say it does, then you have to use "common sense of the word" for the phrase "becomes a lich", and ignore "common sense of the word" for "humanoid", applying only what the game term for "humanoid" is, which is inconsistent.

So we either A) only use "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone, which results in a rules paradox of non-humanoid-type DNs being able to acquire a humanoid-only template; B) Assume no "common sense of the word" anywhere in the language and we get rules-consistent results across the board, but a humanoid DN lacks the MM lich template (but remains an undead spellcaster with a phylactery, who has some DR/bludgeoning and magic, has a touch attack, and a fear aura); or C) We pick-and-choose when to apply "common sense of the word" and when not to, in order to avoid a rules paradox, and still get the template for our humanoid DNs.

From my perspective, B is the only acceptable route (for RAW discussion purposes) because it is the only consistent method which does not create a paradox of the rules. To cherry-pick when to apply the RAW and when not to is trying to twist the RAW for one's own gain.

Now, that is just from a strict-RAW perspective. I absolutely think that a DN should get the lich template, because it's not that overpowered (I have addressed earlier the issues regarding the LA, and how I think that at level 20, +4 is too harsh). I believe it is POSSIBLE that the Rules As Intended was to give the template, but I have no way to be sure. HOWEVER, I am able to separate my opinion from fact, and I acknowledge that applying the template would be a houserule. I am not so arrogant as to assume that just because I can CHOOSE to look at the RAW askance a certain way, that the RAW supports my opinions and houserules, and that they somehow hold objective weight in a RAW discussion. It takes a special kind of myopic hubris to argue that one's own opinions are somehow so vital and universal that they hold weight as fact. Thankfully, I don't go that far.

nolongerchaos

2015-04-15, 11:43 AM

Alright, so it seems to me that the argument against gaining the lich template stems from the following:
1) the class ability notably lacks the text "acquires the lich template"
and, to a lesser extent:
2) the text leads us to the undead type, rather than the lich template.

Flipping through the MM however, I glanced at the Mohrg entry and the Create Spawn ability doesn't seem to explicitly state that spawn of a Zohrg gain the zombie template. Wow. It doesn't even reference the page number of the zombie template.

This seems to imply that abilities can apply specifically mentioned templates without the need to explicitly mention that a creature acquires a template after having already stating that it becomes that kind of creature, nor does it seem to be strictly necessary to refer to the page concerning the template. Well, that or by the exact same logic that the DN ability doesn't grant the lich template, Mohrgs have a Create Spawn ability that, again using the exact same "RAW", creates a unique, undefined variety of zombie, different from the entry in the MM since the MM template is not explicitly stated to be applied to Mohrg spawn, nor is it even referenced.

In related news, clearly even Core isn't uniform about whether or not things need to be explicitly spelled out regarding templates, given the discrepancy between the texts of Dragon Disciple and Mohrg.

Necroticplague

2015-04-15, 11:46 AM

Brova

2015-04-15, 11:47 AM

For clarity, the simplest form of my argument. Both lich and humanoid have common meanings and game meanings. They are as follows:

Lich - Normal: An undead spellcaster.
Lich - Game: The lich template.
Humanoid - Normal: A creature with two arms, two legs, one head, etc.
Humanoid - Game: A creature of the humanoid type.

There are two pertinent sentences from the Dread Necromancer capstone class feature:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature."

Both of these sentences use a word with a game meaning and a normal meaning. Therefore, we have to choose one of those meanings when parsing them. In order to have a consistent interpretation, we have to use either the game meanings for both or the normal meanings for both.

If we chose the normal meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes an undead spellcaster."
2. "A dread necromancer who does not have two arms, two legs, one head, etc does not gain this class feature."

RedMage believes the first is correct, and that a Dread Necromancer merely becomes undead and has some lich-like traits at 20th level. Therefore it is necessarily true that he believes that anyone possessing of two arms, two legs, one head, etc (such as a Mind Flayer) gains the capstone.

If we chose the game meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and gains the lich template."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not of the humanoid type does not gain this class feature."

This is what I believe. In both cases, a common English word is used in the place of a rules English concept that is somewhat more complex.

There are other arguments I have advanced, but this seems to be the one RedMage is currently "debating".

What? How do you get that? I am not arguing that we should use the "common sense" of the word humanoid. To the contrary, I have been saying that we should NOT be using "common sense of the word" in this discussion, because it is a RAW discussion.

Okay, but you realize this is game over for your position, right? If we are going to use words in the game sense, lich means the lich template. You can't "become a lich" without the lich template from a game rules perspective. Just as you can't be "humanoid" without the humanoid type.

It is only by YOUR logic that a mind flayer would get benefit from the capstone, because mind flayers are only humanoid in the "common sense" of the word, and you argue that "becomes a lich" is the "common sense" of "acquires the lich template" (which is paradoxical because the lich template explicitly requires the humanoid type). Let me ask you this. Would you allow Charm Person to work on a mind flayer? The text says "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."

No, because "humanoid creature" is the normal English form of a rules concept - the humanoid type. You are the one who is arguing that normal English is interchangeable with rules English for the humanoid type but not the lich template.

So we either A) only use "common sense of the word" for the language in the capstone, which results in a rules paradox of non-humanoid-type DNs being able to acquire a humanoid-only template

You are confusing the term of art "common sense" with the phrase "common sense". The first refers to specific things that we consider to be "obvious" or "simple". For example, it is common sense that you should not punch bears in the face. The second refers to the normal meaning of a phrase - the common sense rather than some, other, more obscure sense. For example, the common sense of the word bear is a large, furry mammal but the uncommon sense of the word bear is a slang term for a gay man. Perhaps "normal sense" is more useful than "common sense" for this usage.

Brova

2015-04-15, 11:49 AM

And on this page:

3) Interpreting that it gains the template produces a dysfunction if the DN is not Humanoid.

Well, no. Because if you are parsing "becomes a lich" as "gains the lich template", you also parse "not a humanoid" as "doesn't have the humanoid type".{scrubbed}

nolongerchaos

2015-04-15, 11:58 AM

And on this page:

3) Interpreting that it gains the template produces a dysfunction if the DN is not Humanoid.

How is this even part of discussion?

A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature.

Necroticplague

2015-04-15, 12:09 PM

How is this even part of discussion?

Derp, I missed that part. Never mind.

EDIT: and then I read what Brova said, clears that issue up solidly.

danzibr

2015-04-15, 12:10 PM

How is this even part of discussion?

There are two pertinent sentences from the Dread Necromancer capstone class feature:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature."

[...]
Now, I was in favor of the DN gaining the lich template from the beginning (with a shred of doubt), but now I have no doubt.

It's as simple as lich = thing with specific template, become a lich = gain the specific template (I mean, it might take convincing to get there, but this is really what is boils down to). The first = is due to the definition found in MM, and the second = is due to how ``become'' is used in D&D (and, well, regular English too).

EDIT: Swordsaged.

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 12:12 PM

Okay, but you realize this is game over for your position, right? If we are going to use words in the game sense, lich means the lich template. You can't "become a lich" without the lich template from a game rules perspective. Just as you can't be "humanoid" without the humanoid type.
Negative. And once again, since you did not respond to it last time I said it, you have provided no RAW quotes to support the text that I have put in bold. You are ASSUMING that it is somehow a "given" of the argument from a starting point.

And also, you can become a lich without the lich template from the Monster Manual.
Dracolich template
Alhoon template
Dry Lich template (aka capstone of Walker in the Wastes PrC)
And finally, capstone of Dread Necromancer.

All of these are a kind of "lich".

No, because "humanoid creature" is the normal English form of a rules concept - the humanoid type. You are the one who is arguing that normal English is interchangeable with rules English for the humanoid type but not the lich template.
I am absolutely not, and spelled it out for you in my last post. I am arguing that "normal English" is NOT interchangeable with "rules English". I even broke it down in 3 separate scenarios. How you continue to misinterpret that is beyond me. My point, which is that "becomes a lich" is NOT interchangeable with the rules text "acquires the lich template" is also that the term "humanoid" refers only to the game term and things that the game terms refer to as "humanoids". Mind Flayers are not called "humanoids" in the game terms, so I am NOT using "normal English" interchangeably. You are claiming I am, which is a strawman.

You are confusing the term of art "common sense" with the phrase "common sense". The first refers to specific things that we consider to be "obvious" or "simple". For example, it is common sense that you should not punch bears in the face. The second refers to the normal meaning of a phrase - the common sense rather than some, other, more obscure sense. For example, the common sense of the word bear is a large, furry mammal but the uncommon sense of the word bear is a slang term for a gay man. Perhaps "normal sense" is more useful than "common sense" for this usage.
You are confusing what it means to have a RAW discussion with what it means to have a "normal discussion" where Common Sense can and should apply. Sideswipe and I have spelled it out for you on a number of occasions, and you don't even respond to those bits of the posts.

Once again: RAW discussions are all about anal-retentive, detail-ridden, nitpicky breakdowns of minutiae and technicalities. So yes. A RAW discussion only accepts as absolutely true what is written in concise verbage in the text. Perfectly unambiguous language is necessary to prove something as FACT in a RAW discussion.

If that is a manner of discussion you are not comfortable participating in, please feel free to concede the point and bow out. Otherwise, support your claims with RAW quotes that say what you claim in unambiguous language.

You are trying to have a "normal discussion" and include "common sense" and "normal (common) sense of the word/phrase", which, one more time, HAVE NO PLACE in a RAW discussion. If you are willing to actually adhere to the mores of a detailed RAW discussion, please do so, and cite your sources. If that's not how you want to discuss and argue things, then don't get into RAW discussions. I am not telling you "accept I am right or leave". If you CAN provide such proof and RAW quotes to back up your argument, please do so. But your unending tirade of "common sense dictates..." is not constructive to a RAW discussion.

Oh, and regarding your last post, you've been reported for ad hominem attacks. Seriously, if you can't disagree with someone or debate without accusing someone of "failing reading comprehension", it says more about you than it does about the opponent you are attacking.

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 12:48 PM

You added more ot the post after I hit "resond" so here's the rest of the response:

For clarity, the simplest form of my argument. Both lich and humanoid have common meanings and game meanings. They are as follows:

Lich - Normal: An undead spellcaster.
Lich - Game: The lich template.
Humanoid - Normal: A creature with two arms, two legs, one head, etc.
Humanoid - Game: A creature of the humanoid type.

There are two pertinent sentences from the Dread Necromancer capstone class feature:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature."

Both of these sentences use a word with a game meaning and a normal meaning. Therefore, we have to choose one of those meanings when parsing them. In order to have a consistent interpretation, we have to use either the game meanings for both or the normal meanings for both.

If we chose the normal meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes an undead spellcaster."
2. "A dread necromancer who does not have two arms, two legs, one head, etc does not gain this class feature."

RedMage believes the first is correct, and that a Dread Necromancer merely becomes undead and has some lich-like traits at 20th level. Therefore it is necessarily true that he believes that anyone possessing of two arms, two legs, one head, etc (such as a Mind Flayer) gains the capstone.
Please stop Strawmanning my points. That is not what I am saying, I have EXPLICITLY said on at least 3 occasions now that I do not believe this.

If we chose the game meaning, we get these sentences:

1. "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and gains the lich template."
2. "A dread necromancer who is not of the humanoid type does not gain this class feature."

This is what I believe.
And now we arrive at the meat of the problem. This is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. Doesn't make it a fact of RAW.

In both cases, a common English word is used in the place of a rules English concept that is somewhat more complex.
Only by you. My stance does not necessitate mixing of "common English" and "rules English". Complexity in rules terminology is a good thing for RAW discussion.
What gets me is that you flat out admit that your stance requires you to mix "common English" with "rules English", and you still think that holds weight in a RAW discussion.

There are other arguments I have advanced, but this seems to be the one RedMage is currently "debating".

Again, by putting the word "debating" in quotes you are being unnecessarily condescending. I have asked you to stop on numerous occasions. You have not. Please debate objectively and dispassionately like a mature adult.

To the point:
First off, you have your definitions messed up, because "Lich" in non-D&D terms is simply "a dead body" (Mirriam-Webster dictionary)
This is to use the same "normal" terminology that defines a "humanoid" as a creature with 2 arms, 2 legs, one head, etc.

In game terms, "humanoid" refers to creatures of the humanoid type, and "lich" refers to an undead spellcaster (which may be a level 10 Walker in the Wastes, a spellcaster with the lich template form the Monster Manual, a dragon with the Dracolich template, a mind flayer with the Alhoon template, a humanoid with the Baelnorn template, or a level 20 Dread Necromancer).

You are switching "normal terminology" with "game terminology", claiming you are not, and then intentionally misrepresenting my standpoint, in an attempt to lend more credence to your argument(in this most recent case flat-out claiming I am saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I have been saying).

What I am saying (for those of you who might mistakenly believe Brova and what he claims about my points) is this:

In game terms:
1) "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich." Is only a part of the RAW text. The rest of it says "Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the traits of the undead type (see page 317 of the Monster Manual). She no longer has a Constitution score, all her existing Hit Dice become d12s, and she must reroll her hit points. A dread necromancer need not pay experience points or gold to create her phylactery". Dread Necromancer does not explicitly gain the lich template, but does explicitly gain the undead type. Extra mention of loss of CON score and re-rolling hit points is pertinent, because from a game mechanic perspective, very few creatures (PCs especially) are statted out as living and then make the transition to undead.
2) "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature." Without using "normal parlance" of the word "humanoid", let's examine the Mind Flayer. Is it called a "humanoid" by the game? No? Then it receives no benefit.

I am not advocating that we ASSUME that "humanoid" means "creature of the humanoid type" while NOT ASSUMING "lich" means "lich template". That would be hypocritical (which would seem to be the basis for Brova's denigration of my points). I read just read "humanoid". Okay, now, assuming I don't already know the system, let's look at the stat block for a Mind Flayer, does it say "humanoid" anywhere there? No? Looks like Mind Flayers receive no benefit. Well, just to be sure, let's look at the stat block for an Elf. Does it say "humanoid" anywhere in there? Yes? Okay, they're good for the Lich transformation ability.

If you DO apply the template, because you believe "common usage" is more important than game terms or because you think "common usage" holds any weight in game terms, then you either apply "common usage" of the word "humanoid", or you are being inconsistent. If you DO apply "common usage" then, you have a rules paradox where a mind flayer can acquire the lich template.

OR you could completely reject "common usage" and go only off the text. Then you don't get the lich template, but neither do you get a rules paradox with mind flayers with the lich template, either/

Segev

2015-04-15, 12:49 PM

danzibr

2015-04-15, 01:18 PM

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 01:25 PM

People keep arguing that "becomes a lich" doesn't mean what it says it does because there are multiple kids of lich - dry lich, dracolich, etc.

But "lich" isn't defined as a broad category that includes those as "subtypes of 'lich.'" "Lich" is its own thing. "Lich" isn't even referenced in them; they're their own templates that happen to have the word "lich" as part of their title.

A dry lich is not a lich; a dracolich is not a lich. A lich is a lich is a creature with the lich template. A dry lich is a creature with the dry lich template. A dracolich is a creature with the dracolich template.

A paladin is not a "kind of fighter," and if Tenser's Transformation said "he becomes a fighter," it would give him the class abilities of a fighter plus (or including) whatever else the spell said. It wouldn't be valid to say "you don't get the fighter's features because paladins are a kind of fighter and it doesn't say which kind of fighter you are."

A thing that becomes a lich acquires the lich template. That's the definition, in game-terms.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. It's my fault, I should have been more concise.

Brova has been saying that in common parlance of the word that "lich" only means "lich template", I was contesting that using common parlance for those examples. In game terms a Dry Lich is not a Lich, nor is a Dracolich or an Alhoon, but in common parlance, they are all liches. I am contesting Brova's point on the grounds of him saying that "in common parlance 'lich' ONLY means 'lich template'". So, on the grounds of common parlance, no, it does not. There are many templates (in game terms) that equate to being a creature kind of lich (in normal parlance) without the specific monster manual lich template.

In game terms only "x creature acquires the lich template" equates to acquiring the lich template. There is no room for ambiguity in a RAW discussion. This is the meat of the problem with Brova and myself. In a RAW discussion, wording must be concise and unambiguous in order to be considered FACT.

Sideswipe and I have both said that we acknowledge that acquisition of the lich template was PROBABLY what was intended, but we also acknowledge that such is an opinion on our part. We have both said that if we were DMing at the table we would both give it to a level 20 DN character. HOWEVER, we both can acknowledge that our opinion and choice in ruling is not what the RAW says in black and white by a strict reading thereof.

There are other posters here who believe that the way they read the text is the only "right" way to read it. They do not step back, look OUTSIDE of their preconceived notions of how it works, and just take in ONLY what is on the printed page, from a completely dispassionate and objective perspective, with a critical eye akin to what a lawyer looking for a loophole would use. THAT is how detailed RAW discussions work. Is it nitpicky and anal-retentive attention to minutiae that focuses on technicalities? YES, it is! Isn't it great?:biggrin:

That's what's still the problem here. You have the OP, who asked for the "official" answer (which in the absence of errata is just the RAW). What followed was some people GIVING the RAW answer, and others giving the answer using the Common Sense, offering that their posited solution it is "reasonable". And it is. It is entirely REASONABLE to allow the lich template. But it's not RAW.

If we were debating what SHOULD happen, then Brova and I would be on the same side of the issue. I think if we apply any bit of Common Sense that he would be correct. What he suggests is an entirely reasonable, and well-founded INTERPRETATION of the RAW. But a RAW discussion does not accept "interpretations", or "reasoning" or "logical conclusions" drawn from the text. Only what is IN THE TEXT is factually true in a RAW discussion.

nolongerchaos

2015-04-15, 02:03 PM

Segev

2015-04-15, 02:32 PM

My contention is that the suggested ambiguity surrounding the lack of the phrase, "acquires the lich template," is insufficient. It is in a rules section of a class feature; it is referring to game rules. I will agree, in fact, that the entire additional bit of rules about him becoming undead and referring to the Undead section of the MM and spelling out specific immunities, et al, is redundant with the statement, "...becomes a lich."

"Lich" is unambiguous in this context. It is uniquely referred to in the rules.

So my contention remains that, in the RAW, there is no ambiguity about the level 20 ability. There is redundancy in some of the write-up and referencing, but none of that is connected linguistically with the dominating clause in such a way that it would override or modify it. It's just redundant word count, possibly there to emphasize that "yes, he really is undead" for some reason.

I think trying to say it MUST have the phrase, "acquires the lich template," to be unambiguous is not a close reading of the RAW so much as it is myopic.

danzibr

2015-04-15, 03:07 PM

[...] Dry Lich is not a Lich, nor is a Dracolich or an Alhoon, but in common parlance, they are all liches. [...]
As I said earlier, while on the forums we often capitalize names of monsters, the MM does no such thing. Basically, Lich = lich, as far as the MM is concerned.

... at least, it seems this way to me. I absolutely see your point RedMage, but the issue is that ``lich'' has a proper definition.

So I went ahead and read the relevant parts in Sandstorm.

A dry lich is an especially horrid sort of undead spellcaster
It does not say ``is an especially horrid sort of lich.''

Furthermore, in the Walker in the Wastes text and Dry Lich text, I did not find one single instance of ``lich'' without ``dry'' in front of it.

Admittedly I didn't check Dracolich or Alhoon yet (out of time, gotta go home, will check later).

Brova

2015-04-15, 03:44 PM

Negative. And once again, since you did not respond to it last time I said it, you have provided no RAW quotes to support the text that I have put in bold. You are ASSUMING that it is somehow a "given" of the argument from a starting point.

And also, you can become a lich without the lich template from the Monster Manual.
Dracolich template
Alhoon template
Dry Lich template (aka capstone of Walker in the Wastes PrC)
And finally, capstone of Dread Necromancer.

All of these are a kind of "lich".

No, all those are kinds of lich in a normal sense. If you are talking about being a lich in a rules sense, that means the MM lich template and only the MM lich template.

I am absolutely not, and spelled it out for you in my last post. I am arguing that "normal English" is NOT interchangeable with "rules English". I even broke it down in 3 separate scenarios. How you continue to misinterpret that is beyond me. My point, which is that "becomes a lich" is NOT interchangeable with the rules text "acquires the lich template" is also that the term "humanoid" refers only to the game term and things that the game terms refer to as "humanoids". Mind Flayers are not called "humanoids" in the game terms, so I am NOT using "normal English" interchangeably. You are claiming I am, which is a strawman.

Wait what? Why is lich a normal term but humanoid a game term? They both have normal meanings and game meanings. I'm not saying you are using normal and game English interchangeably, I'm saying you're using them inconsistently. You cannot claim that we should parse "lich" as a normal term but "humanoid" as a game term. They are both used in sentences with no rules citations and no indication that they refer to rules. If you would like to claim that "acquires the lich template" is not what the ability grants, that's fine. You just have to admit that the ability applies to people with a humanoid body type, but not the humanoid type. I think that's dumb, but it's a defensible interpretation of the text. Yours is not.

If you CAN provide such proof and RAW quotes to back up your argument, please do so. But your unending tirade of "common sense dictates..." is not constructive to a RAW discussion.

Okay, let's put this in terms as simple and open as possible. Consider the following argument:

A RAW discussion is the discussion of written abilities, not authorial intent.

A Dread Necromancer has the ability "Lich Transformation".

The ability "Lich Transformation" states that "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."

This sentence is written in a "conversation", "normal", or "common" tone.

Therefore parsing this sentence should assume either that it is flavor text, or that is rules text - there cannot be a definitive assumption in either direction.

[This argument is contestable, albeit weakly so - any instance of rules text written conversationally would disprove the thesis that it must be flavor text because it is written "normally"]

This should be considered rules text, because:

1. Generally, abilities consist of rules text.
2. Specifically, Dread Necromancer abilities consist of rules text.
3. The sentence begins with a rules concept - attaining 20th level.

[This argument is contestable - you could plausibly claim that this sentence should be parsed as flavor text for some reason.]

If this is to be parsed as rules text, "normal" phrases should be assumed to proxy for rules phrases.

The phrase most closely approximating "becomes a lich" is "acquires the lich template".

[This is contestable - you could find something in the rules that was a better fit for "becoming a lich"]

Ergo, the Dread Necromancer acquires the lich template at 20th level.

Some notes on potential counterarguments:

1. Assuming that lich is not meant as game text means you have to show a standard by which humanoid is game text.
2. Claiming that "become a lich" does not fit to "acquire the lich template" by the argument that Dracoliches and Dry Liches exist requires a mechanically meaningful term "lich" that is not the lich template which all of those entities possess.

Oh, and regarding your last post, you've been reported for ad hominem attacks. Seriously, if you can't disagree with someone or debate without accusing someone of "failing reading comprehension", it says more about you than it does about the opponent you are attacking.

First, what I did was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "you are wrong because you are stupid". I called you stupid, and also said you were wrong.

Second, I'm not really sure how your "you just can't be objective enough" rant is anything other than an ad hominem.

In game terms, "humanoid" refers to creatures of the humanoid type, and "lich" refers to an undead spellcaster (which may be a level 10 Walker in the Wastes, a spellcaster with the lich template form the Monster Manual, a dragon with the Dracolich template, a mind flayer with the Alhoon template, a humanoid with the Baelnorn template, or a level 20 Dread Necromancer).

Yes to the humanoid bit. No to the lich bit. A "lich" in game terms refers to a creature with the lich template. A Dry Lich isn't a lich, it's a Dry Lich. A Dracolich isn't a lich, it's a Dracolich. They all fall under the fluff term "lich", but they do not all fall under the game term "lich". It's like arguing that because a dragon could refer to a red dragon or a green dragon, red dragons and green dragons are the same creature.

Or, what Segev said.

I read just read "humanoid". Okay, now, assuming I don't already know the system, let's look at the stat block for a Mind Flayer, does it say "humanoid" anywhere there?

That, right there is the assumption that "humanoid" is being used as a game term. The DN's capstone very explicitly does not say "of the humanoid type". It says "humanoid". That's a lexical ambiguity. It could refer to the game construct of humanoid, or a colloquial form of humanoid.

But a RAW discussion does not accept "interpretations", or "reasoning" or "logical conclusions" drawn from the text. Only what is IN THE TEXT is factually true in a RAW discussion.

I feel like you're defining RAW differently than most people do. RAW will necessarily require some interpretation. For example, when the hell does a Factotum get inspiration points? Or the problem of Fighter, Monk, and Rogue bonus feats (assuming only those classes and not other rulings on bonus feats). The standard for a RAW debate isn't "no interpretation of text", it's "no contradiction of text" and "reasonable interpretation of text". And a DN gaining the lich template is a reasonable interpretation of the text (as I and others have show) and does not contradict the other text (after all, liches are undead).

I mean, FFS, on a basic level assuming the text is English and not some other language with the same alphabet is "interpretation".

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 04:13 PM

Since you did not respond to my earlier post Redmage, I'll address you directly. Using your same application of RAW for a DN not gaining the lich template, what would happen to a human druid and it's wolf companion if they are slain by a Mohrg?
Sorry, while I saw your post, I must have skipped it when I was clicking the posts to respond to.

That is an interesting conundrum. And thank you for providing something with an actual parallel from the RAW to contest the point. Right now, looking at the SRD, the word "zombie" in the create spawn entry is a hyperlink to the Zombie entry of the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mohrg.htm), which is, of course, a template. And since the SRD is official rules, I think it's safe to say that the RAW answer is that the creature obtains the zombie template.

This could all have been cleared up with some errata, or if more material had been added to the SRD (with hyperlinks and all that). If an official SRD source linked the word "lich" in the capstone to the template, then there would be no argument. Pathfinder managed to put ALL their material into the SRD.

My contention is that the suggested ambiguity surrounding the lack of the phrase, "acquires the lich template," is insufficient. It is in a rules section of a class feature; it is referring to game rules. I will agree, in fact, that the entire additional bit of rules about him becoming undead and referring to the Undead section of the MM and spelling out specific immunities, et al, is redundant with the statement, "...becomes a lich."

"Lich" is unambiguous in this context. It is uniquely referred to in the rules.

So my contention remains that, in the RAW, there is no ambiguity about the level 20 ability. There is redundancy in some of the write-up and referencing, but none of that is connected linguistically with the dominating clause in such a way that it would override or modify it. It's just redundant word count, possibly there to emphasize that "yes, he really is undead" for some reason.
You know, it's funny, but I noticed you were active in the Reanimated Dread Necromancer Handbook that I came across while searching for any errata on the issue.

Anyways...I understand your point. And in spirit, I respect and acknowledge where you are coming from. But from a strict RAW perspective, language must be unambiguous to be true. And from the same perspective, claiming that one gets to do something/acquire something just because of a lack of text that says one does NOT is Munchkin Fallacy.

Funny, but I didn't even know there WAS a CustServ answer on this topic. While in this case I agree, it is not BECAUSE of CustServ, that's just a coincidence. I am of the opinion that CustServ is inconsistent and therefore unreliable. They just happen to be right this time. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, I guess.

I think trying to say it MUST have the phrase, "acquires the lich template," to be unambiguous is not a close reading of the RAW so much as it is myopic.
That's a RAW discussion for you. Myopic is an appropriate adjective for how one must look at the RAW to completely exclude Common Sense and the natural inclination to apply reasoning and logic to what is otherwise not 100% clear. I understand that, but that's the kind of discussion (the RAW answer) that was asked for in the OP.

In practice, I would allow the template to applied. And while I have no proof, I have the opinion that it's RAI to allow the template. It is only through the lens of an overly nitpicky, detail-oriented adherence to minutiae and technicalities do I stand by the text of the RAW, for purposes of RAW discussion.

icefractal

2015-04-15, 04:39 PM

Right now, looking at the SRD, the word "zombie" in the create spawn entry is a hyperlink to the Zombie entry of the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mohrg.htm), which is, of course, a template. And since the SRD is official rules, I think it's safe to say that the RAW answer is that the creature obtains the zombie template.If you're talking about d20srd.org ...

The Hypertext d20 SRDTM is an independent entity and is not affiliated with
Wizards of the Coast, Inc. The SRD that is/was on the WotC website is just a bunch of RTF files, no hyperlinking.

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 05:26 PM

As I said earlier, while on the forums we often capitalize names of monsters, the MM does no such thing. Basically, Lich = lich, as far as the MM is concerned.

... at least, it seems this way to me. I absolutely see your point RedMage, but the issue is that ``lich'' has a proper definition.

So I went ahead and read the relevant parts in Sandstorm.

It does not say ``is an especially horrid sort of lich.''

Furthermore, in the Walker in the Wastes text and Dry Lich text, I did not find one single instance of ``lich'' without ``dry'' in front of it.

Admittedly I didn't check Dracolich or Alhoon yet (out of time, gotta go home, will check later).

So...your contention is that a "Dry Lich" is not a kind of "Lich" in normal parlance? :smallconfused:

No, all those are kinds of lich in a normal sense. If you are talking about being a lich in a rules sense, that means the MM lich template and only the MM lich template.

Yes, which I clarified in my response to Segev. I apologized for not being concise.

Wait what? Why is lich a normal term but humanoid a game term? They both have normal meanings and game meanings. I'm not saying you are using normal and game English interchangeably, I'm saying you're using them inconsistently. You cannot claim that we should parse "lich" as a normal term but "humanoid" as a game term. They are both used in sentences with no rules citations and no indication that they refer to rules. If you would like to claim that "acquires the lich template" is not what the ability grants, that's fine. You just have to admit that the ability applies to people with a humanoid body type, but not the humanoid type. I think that's dumb, but it's a defensible interpretation of the text. Yours is not.
That's nonsensical.
I am absolutely being consistent. I denote the lack of phrase "you acquire the lich template" to mean that you do not explicitly gain the lich template. I only referenced "lich" in normal parlance to counter your claim that "lich" ONLY means "lich template". In that phrase it is only being used as a game term, but lacks the terminology of "you acquire the template".
And "humanoid" doesn't need to say "of the humanoid type" (although that would be more concise). because when I look at a mind flayer's stat block and abilities description, it says "humanoid" NOWHERE. So it can be conclusively shown that a mind flayer is NOT a humanoid. I do not "have to" admit to the nonsensical position that you are vainly trying to attribute to me.

Okay, let's put this in terms as simple and open as possible. Consider the following argument:

A RAW discussion is the discussion of written abilities, not authorial intent.

A Dread Necromancer has the ability "Lich Transformation".

The ability "Lich Transformation" states that "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich."

This sentence is written in a "conversation", "normal", or "common" tone.

Therefore parsing this sentence should assume either that it is flavor text, or that is rules text - there cannot be a definitive assumption in either direction.

[This argument is contestable, albeit weakly so - any instance of rules text written conversationally would disprove the thesis that it must be flavor text because it is written "normally"]

This should be considered rules text, because:

1. Generally, abilities consist of rules text.
2. Specifically, Dread Necromancer abilities consist of rules text.
3. The sentence begins with a rules concept - attaining 20th level.

[This argument is contestable - you could plausibly claim that this sentence should be parsed as flavor text for some reason.]

If this is to be parsed as rules text, "normal" phrases should be assumed to proxy for rules phrases.
The phrase most closely approximating "becomes a lich" is "acquires the lich template".
[This is contestable - you could find something in the rules that was a better fit for "becoming a lich"]

Ergo, the Dread Necromancer acquires the lich template at 20th level.
Everything bolded is an assumption you have made, or simply your opinion. I understand your stance, but as some of your founding assumptions upon which you have constructed your argument are not incontrovertible facts, beither is your conclusion.

Some notes on potential counterarguments:

1. Assuming that lich is not meant as game text means you have to show a standard by which humanoid is game text.
2. Claiming that "become a lich" does not fit to "acquire the lich template" by the argument that Dracoliches and Dry Liches exist requires a mechanically meaningful term "lich" that is not the lich template which all of those entities possess.
1. I don't understand what you're saying here. Why would one be "normal" text and the other not be? They are both game text. "Lich" is (for purposes of acquiring the template) missing any kind of explicit statement that the template is acquired. "Humanoid" is game text (even though it does not say "humanoid type" in the DN entry), because every creature which IS a humanoid says so in its stat block. Mind flayers say "humanoid" nowhere in there entry, while elves do. Ergo, Elves are humanoids and mind flayers are not. This is unambiguous.
2. Again, Dracoliches and Dry Liches are "liches" in the sense of normal parlance (which you were claiming could ONLY mean "lich template"), not in mechanical terms.

First, what I did was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "you are wrong because you are stupid". I called you stupid, and also said you were wrong.
In what world is "this person fails at reading comprehension" NOT a personal attack? You ARE attacking my intelligence, because rather than say "I am not getting through to this person", you took it upon yourself to prescribe a lack of ability to competently read.

Second, I'm not really sure how your "you just can't be objective enough" rant is anything other than an ad hominem.
When did I say you were incapable of being objective enough? I said your arguments were not, yes. I did not say that such was "beyond your ability". I repeatedly tried to highlight what kind of objective, technical discussion a RAW was, and invited you to play by those rules. Which you have consistently refused to do. You just repeated the same argument over and over, adding more and more condescension which eventually devolved into an out-and-out attack on me (the reading comprehension comment). I acknowledged and apologized for the fact that I initially returned fire (the comments which have since been scrubbed by the mods), and asked that you refrain from such in the future. not only did you not respond to those parts of my posts, you continued to act in said manner.

Yes to the humanoid bit. No to the lich bit. A "lich" in game terms refers to a creature with the lich template. A Dry Lich isn't a lich, it's a Dry Lich. A Dracolich isn't a lich, it's a Dracolich. They all fall under the fluff term "lich", but they do not all fall under the game term "lich". It's like arguing that because a dragon could refer to a red dragon or a green dragon, red dragons and green dragons are the same creature.

Or, what Segev said.
Yes, I meant that the other way around when I said that about liches before. What you have said in this above post is correct. Mea Culpa.

That, right there is the assumption that "humanoid" is being used as a game term. The DN's capstone very explicitly does not say "of the humanoid type". It says "humanoid". That's a lexical ambiguity. It could refer to the game construct of humanoid, or a colloquial form of humanoid.
That's because I am being consistent in reading the sentence as "rules English" (to use your term from before). The text just says "humanoid". Well, as a game term what does "humanoid" mean? It COULD mean a creature of the humanoid type, but it doesn't say that explicitly, and we're not extrapolating here. So while I cannot draw it exclusively from that sentence, I do know that every creature, in its stat block says "humanoid" or it doesn't. So while the conclusion ends up only meaning all creatures of the humanoid type, I reach that conclusion not BECAUSE I am inferring or extrapolating that word to mean more than the text that is printed, but because I know that I can look at any monster's stat block, and it will either say "humanoid" or it will not. it's the long way to do it, but it proves the point while still eschewing any kind of "reading into it".

I feel like you're defining RAW differently than most people do. RAW will necessarily require some interpretation.
Ideally, it should not, and finding all the little holes in the RAW is one of the things that makes a RAW discussion so much fun.

For example, when the hell does a Factotum get inspiration points?
I genuinely know next to nothing about that class, so I cannot comment or speculate.

Or the problem of Fighter, Monk, and Rogue bonus feats (assuming only those classes and not other rulings on bonus feats).
Okay, once again, a "bonus feat" is simply a feat gained outside the normal Hit Dice progression, and is therefore still a feat and must follow the rules for feats, unless otherwise specified (Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Wizard are great examples).

The standard for a RAW debate isn't "no interpretation of text", it's "no contradiction of text" and "reasonable interpretation of text".
Cite your source for this, because I have participated in MANY RAW discussions over the last 15 years, and this is not the case.

And a DN gaining the lich template is a reasonable interpretation of the text (as I and others have show) and does not contradict the other text (after all, liches are undead).
It's not a contradiction, it's a lack of explicit "you acquire this" language. And given the lack of that text, it is an ASSUMPTION to conclude that you do.

Again, if I were DMing, I WOULD grant the template. I just acknowledge that it is a houserule. One that (in my opinion) is in keeping with RAI. I believe the discrepancy in the RAW was either laziness or a mistake on the editor's part, or they were not expecting that people would dissect the language they used with the kind of fine attention to detail as RAW discussions involve. But that doesn't alter what the RAW answer to this issue is. It's a technicality, and it only matters for purposes of hypothetical discussion and debate, but it's RAW fact.

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 05:28 PM

If you're talking about d20srd.org ...
The SRD that is/was on the WotC website is just a bunch of RTF files, no hyperlinking.

I did NOT notice that. That surprises me.

Thanks for the update. I guess that should re-examine that question, then. But as I am about to leave work, it will have to wait.

danzibr

2015-04-15, 05:43 PM

So...your contention is that a "Dry Lich" is not a kind of "Lich" in normal parlance? :smallconfused:
Wait, so... you respond to my point with this?

One of your points is that there are several types of liches: the kind in the MM, dracolich, dry lich, etc.

I pointed out that, at least in Sandstorm (I haven't checked the others), a dry lich is *never* referred to a type of lich. It is described as a magic-wielding undead, yes, but not a ``type of lich.'' A dry lich is a dry lich, its own thing, not a type of lich.

RedMage125

2015-04-15, 05:46 PM

Wait, so... you respond to my point with this?

One of your points is that there are several types of liches: the kind in the MM, dracolich, dry lich, etc.

I pointed out that, at least in Sandstorm (I haven't checked the others), a dry lich is *never* referred to a type of lich. It is described as a magic-wielding undead, yes, but not a ``type of lich.'' A dry lich is a dry lich, its own thing, not a type of lich.

Again, that was in common parlance, not in game terms. In common parlance, all of those things are a kind of lich. In game terms a Dry Lich, Dracolich, Alhoon, etc are not Liches.

That more clear?

Brova

2015-04-15, 06:30 PM

And "humanoid" doesn't need to say "of the humanoid type" (although that would be more concise). because when I look at a mind flayer's stat block and abilities description, it says "humanoid" NOWHERE. So it can be conclusively shown that a mind flayer is NOT a humanoid. I do not "have to" admit to the nonsensical position that you are vainly trying to attribute to me.

No.

To be unambiguous, humanoid would absolutely need the to be bracketed by "of the" and "type". Mind Flayer is totally a humanoid in the sense of "human-like body plan". And without text that grounds humanoid as the game term "humanoid type", there is no way to determine which kind of humanoid you need to be.

Everything bolded is an assumption you have made, or simply your opinion. I understand your stance, but as some of your founding assumptions upon which you have constructed your argument are not incontrovertible facts, beither is your conclusion.

You actually need an argument more than "That’s just like, your opinion, man".

1. I don't understand what you're saying here. Why would one be "normal" text and the other not be? They are both game text. "Lich" is (for purposes of acquiring the template) missing any kind of explicit statement that the template is acquired. "Humanoid" is game text (even though it does not say "humanoid type" in the DN entry), because every creature which IS a humanoid says so in its stat block. Mind flayers say "humanoid" nowhere in there entry, while elves do. Ergo, Elves are humanoids and mind flayers are not. This is unambiguous.

I don't even know how to parse this. I will say this - if "lich" is not a game term that means "dracolich, dry lich, etc", than "becomes a lich" can only mean "acquires the lich template" if you parse it as rules text.

In what world is "this person fails at reading comprehension" NOT a personal attack? You ARE attacking my intelligence, because rather than say "I am not getting through to this person", you took it upon yourself to prescribe a lack of ability to competently read.

I never said it wasn't a personal attack, just that it wasn't an ad hominem.

I genuinely know next to nothing about that class, so I cannot comment or speculate.

The deal with Factotum is that it says: "At the beginning of each encounter, he gains a number of inspiration points determined by his level (see Table 1–1)." That looks like normal rules text, but it hits a "does not parse" error because encounter isn't a defined term.

Okay, once again, a "bonus feat" is simply a feat gained outside the normal Hit Dice progression, and is therefore still a feat and must follow the rules for feats, unless otherwise specified (Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Wizard are great examples).

Actually, I'm carving out a very specific example with the Monk, the Fighter, and the Rogue. All of them have abilities granting bonus feats, but the Monk and the Fighter have opposite specific rulings. So what happens with the Rogue who has no specifics?

Cite your source for this, because I have participated in MANY RAW discussions over the last 15 years, and this is not the case.

Because the whole point of a "RAW discussion" is the thing where some parts of RAW are ambiguous and must be interpreted. If there isn't, it's just called reading the text.

danzibr

2015-04-16, 06:15 AM

Again, that was in common parlance, not in game terms. In common parlance, all of those things are a kind of lich. In game terms a Dry Lich, Dracolich, Alhoon, etc are not Liches.

That more clear?
What you're saying is clear, but I don't buy it at all.

Because a dry lich is never referred to as a type of lich in Sandstorm (and I assume dry lich doesn't appear outside of Sandstorm, so *no* 3.5 book refers to a dry lich as a type of lich), calling a dry lich a type of lich is using language not found in the books. Might as well have called it a dry banana, or try to convince me a ponytail is a type of tail.

RedMage125

2015-04-16, 01:41 PM

No.

To be unambiguous, humanoid would absolutely need the to be bracketed by "of the" and "type". Mind Flayer is totally a humanoid in the sense of "human-like body plan". And without text that grounds humanoid as the game term "humanoid type", there is no way to determine which kind of humanoid you need to be.
I agree that would be more concise (I said as much).

HOWEVER, it becomes clear the moment I try to apply the ability to anything that is not a "humanoid", mechanically. So basically it would remain ambiguous until a mind flayer dread necromancer hit level 20, at which point the question would be "are you a humanoid?". Well, nowhere in the mind flayer stat block does it say "humanoid" so...no.

You actually need an argument more than "That’s just like, your opinion, man".
Ok, how about:
"You have provided zero evidence that some of your founding ASSUMPTIONS upon which you have built your argument are actual FACTS. Since your total conclusion critically hinges upon assuming that those initial assumptions are true, I cannot accept your final result as FACT. Please re-visit your argument and bring it back with things that can be proven".

I don't even know how to parse this. I will say this - if "lich" is not a game term that means "dracolich, dry lich, etc", than "becomes a lich" can only mean "acquires the lich template" if you parse it as rules text.
It's not clearly indicative of the template, though. That is the whole argument. Everywhere else that template gain is indicated says so explicitly. DN does not. So what the "lich" in that sentence means is clearly MEANT to be rules text, but it ambiguous in its delivery.

Hence the issue, and why I believe it was probably RAI to apply the template.

I never said it wasn't a personal attack, just that it wasn't an ad hominem.
So...you think personal attacks are an acceptable medium in debate?

That wasn't an apology, or even a polite "I'll refrain from that going forward from here". Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you can cop to it. But what does that mean?

Actually, I'm carving out a very specific example with the Monk, the Fighter, and the Rogue. All of them have abilities granting bonus feats, but the Monk and the Fighter have opposite specific rulings. So what happens with the Rogue who has no specifics?
Once again I ask "why do you assume that there must be a separate general rule for bonus feats?"
I feel like that's asking "when is a bonus feat not a feat?"
Since a bonus feat is still a feat, it is covered under the normal, general rules for feats.
Monk and Ranger provide specific exceptions to the general rule in that they are given a very small subset of feats to choose from, and may ignore prerequisites. This is a case of specific overrides general.
Rogue just gets a bonus feat. This is still a feat, follows all rules for feats.
Fighter and Wizard are given a bonus feat, but their bonus feats MUST be chosen from a specific sublist of feats (wider list than the Monk and Ranger get, but still specific). Now I can't pretend to know for sure why the designers felt the need to re-emphasize that prerequisites must be met, as a bonus feat is still a feat and follows normal rules for feats. I could hypothesize that it was for clarification, because the other classes in the PHB that offer bonus feats from a smaller sublist allow prereq ignoring, but since I can't prove that factually, it's an opinion. What puzzles me is that you see some kind of "discrepancy in rules" as if bonus feats were somehow not at all subject to the normal rules that feats are. In the PHB, only Monk and Ranger are the ones that ignore that (and Ranger's is under the heading of a specific ability called Combat Style).

Scouts (from Complete Adventurer) follow the same pattern as Fighter and Wizard. A bonus feat which MUST be chosen from a limited list, with clarification that prerequisites must be met. Eldritch Knight Prestige Class from the DMG, as well.

Here's an interesting note I just picked up: Loremaster's bonus feat (which could be one of her "secrets" gained) says "Any one feat". While the intent is probably that prerequisites must be met for said feat, the verbage is "ANY one feat". So, from a RAW perspective, she could choose a feat she has no prerequisites for. THAT could get messy.

EDIT: Was going over some books idly and noticed that the Ranger doesn't ACTUALLY get bonus feats. He "is treated as if he had the feat". Under the updated ruling called "Virtual Feats", he may still qualify for other feats and for Prestige Classes as if he had those feats as well. So for all intents and purposes he has those feats but does not TECHNICALLY have them. Felt it was easier to add this in an edit than to winnow through the post and edit out all mention of rangers/

Because the whole point of a "RAW discussion" is the thing where some parts of RAW are ambiguous and must be interpreted. If there isn't, it's just called reading the text.

Welcome to the point. "Reading the text at the most bare-bones and completely LITERAL manner possible" is what a RAW discussion is about. You want clarification or help? Then you look for interpretation. You ask the community "how do you do this?" or something to that extent. You want the "official answer according to RAW"? Then you engage in a RAW discussion. Which, yes, is just reading the text and taking it completely literally.

Brova

2015-04-16, 03:19 PM

I agree that would be more concise (I said as much).

HOWEVER, it becomes clear the moment I try to apply the ability to anything that is not a "humanoid", mechanically. So basically it would remain ambiguous until a mind flayer dread necromancer hit level 20, at which point the question would be "are you a humanoid?". Well, nowhere in the mind flayer stat block does it say "humanoid" so...no.

Stop being obtuse. Humanoid means two things. Having the humanoid type, and having a humanoid body plan. The mind flayer has one of those things but not the other. Why is your interpretation that humanoid is asking for the humanoid type correct?

Ok, how about:
"You have provided zero evidence that some of your founding ASSUMPTIONS upon which you have built your argument are actual FACTS. Since your total conclusion critically hinges upon assuming that those initial assumptions are true, I cannot accept your final result as FACT. Please re-visit your argument and bring it back with things that can be proven".

And this is different from "That’s just like, your opinion, man" how? You are confidently asserting that those claims aren't founded. That doesn't make them unfounded.

It's not clearly indicative of the template, though. That is the whole argument. Everywhere else that template gain is indicated says so explicitly. DN does not. So what the "lich" in that sentence means is clearly MEANT to be rules text, but it ambiguous in its delivery.

What else could it possibly mean? Assuming we parse it as rules text, what else could "become a lich" mean other than "acquire the lich template".

Once again I ask "why do you assume that there must be a separate general rule for bonus feats?"
I feel like that's asking "when is a bonus feat not a feat?"
Since a bonus feat is still a feat, it is covered under the normal, general rules for feats.
Monk and Ranger provide specific exceptions to the general rule in that they are given a very small subset of feats to choose from, and may ignore prerequisites. This is a case of specific overrides general.
Rogue just gets a bonus feat. This is still a feat, follows all rules for feats.

First, the debate in question is about the Monk, the Rogue, and the Fighter. If you open it to everything, it's solved because the MM rules on bonus feats.

Second, there has to be a general case for whether you need to meet the requirements for bonus feats. It's possible that it inherits from feats, in which case you have to meet the requirements and the Fighter has pointless text. It's possible that it doesn't inherit from feats, in which case you don't have to meet the requirements and the Monk has pointless text.

Welcome to the point. "Reading the text at the most bare-bones and completely LITERAL manner possible" is what a RAW discussion is about. You want clarification or help? Then you look for interpretation. You ask the community "how do you do this?" or something to that extent. You want the "official answer according to RAW"? Then you engage in a RAW discussion. Which, yes, is just reading the text and taking it completely literally.

Let's talk about the Factotum's IP gain to make this point. The text on the page is broken in two ways. First, the Factotum uses an undefined condition to determine when it gains IP. Second, it never loses IP so every Factotum always has infinity IP. A RAW discussion can determine an answer to the first problem but not the second. An RAI discussion can answer both.

Hell, what does Font of Inspiration do? Is the gain linear or triangular? The RAW is in fact unclear in that case. You literally can't have a RAW judgement on FoI under your definition.

Seriously, what is your term for a discussion about rules that resolves ambiguities but doesn't override stupidity?

Beyond that, "becomes a lich" is part of the rules. You don't get to claim that a RAW discussion shouldn't involve it because you personally believe it is too ambiguous.

RedMage125

2015-04-16, 04:24 PM

I noticed no response on the note about personal attacks. So...is your stance that you're just going to keep making them?

Stop being obtuse. Humanoid means two things. Having the humanoid type, and having a humanoid body plan. The mind flayer has one of those things but not the other. Why is your interpretation that humanoid is asking for the humanoid type correct?
I agree that it is not EXPLICITLY saying "humanoid type", but it is still rules text. Ergo, when it comes up situationally, such as when a mind flayer Dread Necro hits level 20, one can simply look at the mind flayer and see if it is a humanoid or not. So while it ENDS UP meaning the same thing as "humanoid type", we do not arrive at that conclusion by interpreting or reasoning out or extrapolating from the text, which just says "humanoid".

Same conclusion, different path to get there. The difference being that one requires us to go outside the text on the page and apply interpretation. Which we are eschewing.

And this is different from "That’s just like, your opinion, man" how? You are confidently asserting that those claims aren't founded. That doesn't make them unfounded.
Then prove them.
You assert that the text from the DN's ability is "This sentence is written in a 'conversation', 'normal', or 'common' tone", as opposed to being explicit rules text. You make this claim and provide no definitive proof to support it.

You also say "If this is to be parsed as rules text, 'normal' phrases should be assumed to proxy for rules phrases", but provide no proof, ANYWHERE, that this is how rules text should be read.

You are making a claim about the way the rules should be read that is not supported.

What else could it possibly mean? Assuming we parse it as rules text, what else could "become a lich" mean other than "acquire the lich template".
Who can possibly know? Perhaps they mean "becomes an undead spellcaster", which he certainly does. The only thing we can say for absolute certainty is that the DN acquires the undead traits on page 317 of the MM and re-rolls all his/her hit points as d12s.

First, the debate in question is about the Monk, the Rogue, and the Fighter. If you open it to everything, it's solved because the MM rules on bonus feats.

Second, there has to be a general case for whether you need to meet the requirements for bonus feats. It's possible that it inherits from feats, in which case you have to meet the requirements and the Fighter has pointless text. It's possible that it doesn't inherit from feats, in which case you don't have to meet the requirements and the Monk has pointless text.

The bolded part is correct. The Monk provides a case of Specific Overrides General. Why is that hard?

Let's talk about the Factotum's IP gain to make this point. The text on the page is broken in two ways. First, the Factotum uses an undefined condition to determine when it gains IP. Second, it never loses IP so every Factotum always has infinity IP. A RAW discussion can determine an answer to the first problem but not the second. An RAI discussion can answer both.

Hell, what does Font of Inspiration do? Is the gain linear or triangular? The RAW is in fact unclear in that case. You literally can't have a RAW judgement on FoI under your definition.
I have to be honest. I know so little about that class that I do not feel I can contribute meaningfully in a discussion about it, and thus choose not to. I've never even been in a group where someone played that class.

Seriously, what is your term for a discussion about rules that resolves ambiguities but doesn't override stupidity?
RAW discussions don't always "resolve ambiguities". What we know from RAW is that a level 20 DN becomes undead. Whether or not the template is gained is ambiguous, so it is not expressly granted by the capstone of the class.

Sometimes RAW discussions dive headlong into some stupid technicalities and nonsense. For example, while the effects of being at 0 to -9 hp are very clearly defined, the "dead" condition is not. It says your "soul immediately departs" but does not say in game mechanics that you cannot take actions or do anything until you are once again alive. Is this stupid? Yes. Is it technically a true fact about RAW? Yes. No one's actually trying to claim in-game that they can get back up and keep fighting without their soul in their body. Not that I know of, at least. But RAW discussions frequently highlight the little holes in the way the words are written.

For purposes of gameplay, a little Common Sense and rules interpretation is necessary. But that doesn't mean there ISN'T a gaping hole where a rule should be.

Beyond that, "becomes a lich" is part of the rules.
Agreed, but "becomes a lich" is not EXPRESSLY SAID to mean "acquires the lich template". And it is not EXPLICITLY CLEAR what that phrase means.

You don't get to claim that a RAW discussion shouldn't involve it because you personally believe it is too ambiguous.
This has nothing to do with what I personally believe. This argument has been around for years. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214212-Reanimated-Dread-Necromancer-Handbook) is the DN Handbook from these forums, a thread almost 4 years old. They're arguing about it there, too (or at least, they were on the first page).

I'm currently wading through old Sage Advice articles to see if there was a ruling on that (because as much as people hate on Dragon Magazine, the content was "100% Official" and the Sage Advice column was written by Andy Collins and was official rules FAQ). While it's not AS official as errata, it WOULD be an answer from a developer to the question.

Here's what confuses me:
You have acknowledged that in order to read it the way you want to, you have to assume "becomes a lich" means "gains the lich template" and "humanoid" means "of the humanoid type". So you have acknowledged that the RAW requires some additional thought and interpretation. You even went off on a tangent about how you BELIEVE that the text must be written in "normal" or "conversational" tone, and that the reader should proxy game phrases and meanings for "normal phrases".
So...you seem to acknowledge that the way the RAW (by the text only) is kind of stupid, is that correct?
If so...why are you continuing to argue?
The way the RAW (on a bare-bones, strictly literal game terms sense) is written is contrary to Common Sense and all apparent indications of RAI. That's what I've been saying this whole time. At no point have I EVER advocated that DMs "should not" grant the lich template. Only that it would be a houserule. A houserule I have even said I would use if and when it came up in a game I was DMing.
I'm not even asking you to admit you were "wrong" or anything, because you seem to be quite aware that the language used in the text is not explicit and concise. YOU get that the intent was to add the template, but that's because (like most people) you read something and immediately apply THOUGHT to what the meaning is of what you read. This is not a bad trait. But detailed RAW discussions require us to suspend that inclination and be as anal-retentive as possible, even when-especially when- it runs contrary to all logic and common sense(see the "Dead" thing mentioned above).
From my end, it really looks like you are seeing that the RAW are not letter-perfect in their delivery, but you are under the misinterpretation that I somehow fail to be able to apply any kind of problem-solving or critical thinking skills to deduce what the ruling should be. This is not the case.

Can we just agree that the way the rules are written are stupid sometimes and leave too much open to interpretation? Because it sounds like -in practice- you would rule this the same way I would. That's all I'm arguing here, is that the RAW do not EXPLICITLY say one thing, even though it seems VERY CLEAR that the intent was to do so.

Brova

2015-04-16, 05:44 PM

I agree that it is not EXPLICITLY saying "humanoid type", but it is still rules text.

Agreed, but "becomes a lich" is not EXPRESSLY SAID to mean "acquires the lich template". And it is not EXPLICITLY CLEAR what that phrase means.

This. Right here. Explain exactly why "humanoid" means "humanoid type" but lich doesn't mean "lich template". Until you can resolve this, you don't have a case at all because your interpretation is not internally consistent.

The bolded part is correct. The Monk provides a case of Specific Overrides General. Why is that hard?

Why doesn't the Fighter have a case of Specific Overrides General? Oh wait, you can't tell without outside evidence.

Your entire argument on every front is an has always been to assert that you have beliefs, and that therefore those beliefs are correct despite the fact that you don't actually respond to the questions people ask or answer in an internally consistent way.

danzibr

2015-04-16, 06:47 PM

This. Right here. Explain exactly why "humanoid" means "humanoid type" but lich doesn't mean "lich template". Until you can resolve this, you don't have a case at all because your interpretation is not internally consistent.
There we go.

Brova, I admire your tenacity.

Brova

2015-04-16, 06:50 PM

There we go.

Brova, I admire your tenacity.

Thank you.

On a semi-related note, is there some sort of "like" or "upvote" deal for posts here?

danzibr

2015-04-16, 07:38 PM

Thank you.

On a semi-related note, is there some sort of "like" or "upvote" deal for posts here?
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?), no.

RedMage125

2015-04-16, 09:46 PM

So that's a "no" to points we can agree on?

Is that also a "no" to your stopping personal attacks?

This. Right here. Explain exactly why "humanoid" means "humanoid type" but lich doesn't mean "lich template". Until you can resolve this, you don't have a case at all because your interpretation is not internally consistent.

Grr, you are frustrating. I explained EXACTLY how we come to understand what "humanoid" means without just ASSUMING that it means "humanoid type".

I did it in steps, and here it is again. Here are the facts:
1) The word "humanoid" means SOMETHING, but we're not clear what, since it is not explicit.
2) Every creature's stat block in ALL of D&D either says "humanoid" in it, or it does not.

Therefore:
1) Only creatures that DO say "humanoid" apply as "humanoids" as per the text in DN

Does this RESULT in meaning "humanoid type"? yes, but not because I just INTERPRETED it to mean that It can be shown using nothing but text.

Why doesn't the Fighter have a case of Specific Overrides General? Oh wait, you can't tell without outside evidence.
I'm not a developer, I didn't write it, so I can't explain WHY the Fighter has the extra text regarding prerequisites. But it DOES have text on Specific Overrides General, I don't know how you missed it. The Fighter's bonus feats MUST be chosen from a specific list. This is a specific restriction on what would otherwise be the general rule on feats that when you get one, you can take any feat you meet prerequisites for.

oh, and incidentaly, I found the closest thing to a "general rule" a general ruling on bonus feats. PHB, page 87:
"Additionally, members of some classes get bonus feats as class
features. These feats may be chosen from special lists (see Fighter
Bonus Feats, below, and the individual class descriptions in Chapter
3 for details)."

So ironically, the general rule refers you to just adhere to what each class says.

Your entire argument on every front is an has always been to assert that you have beliefs, and that therefore those beliefs are correct despite the fact that you don't actually respond to the questions people ask or answer in an internally consistent way.
This is a Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), because such is not one bit what I have been saying.

Everything I have said I can (and have) supported with text from the books.

You have failed to furnish evidence of things you claim as "fact". You have resorted to personal attacks against those who disagree with you. You have attempted to use a condescending conversational tone, as if your sole purpose was to showcase how "superior" you are. You have failed to respond to a great number of relevant points (such as WHY a RAW is what it is), until your last 2 posts.

All of which I don't understand, since you can OBVIOUSLY see that the RAW are not as explicit as they COULD be. Which is the whole point. I even attempted to end the whole argument, since you can clearly see that interpretation is necessary to actually USE the RAW.

There we go.

Brova, I admire your tenacity.

Tenacity in continuing to have a go at something while making no progress (because, for example, one does not adequately support points with proper citation) is not necessarily an admirable trait.

Brova

2015-04-16, 10:01 PM

Grr, you are frustrating. I explained EXACTLY how we come to understand what "humanoid" means without just ASSUMING that it means "humanoid type".

I did it in steps, and here it is again. Here are the facts:
1) The word "humanoid" means SOMETHING, but we're not clear what, since it is not explicit.
2) Every creature's stat block in ALL of D&D either says "humanoid" in it, or it does not.

Therefore:
1) Only creatures that DO say "humanoid" apply as "humanoids" as per the text in DN

Does this RESULT in meaning "humanoid type"? yes, but not because I just INTERPRETED it to mean that It can be shown using nothing but text.

1. The word "lich" means something.
2. Everything is in D&D is a "lich" or it is not.

Therefore:
1. The only thing that "becomes a lich" means is "acquires the lich template".

But it DOES have text on Specific Overrides General, I don't know how you missed it. The Fighter's bonus feats MUST be chosen from a specific list. This is a specific restriction on what would otherwise be the general rule on feats that when you get one, you can take any feat you meet prerequisites for.

Ah, but just as a class skill is distinct from a skill, a bonus feat is distinct from a feat. All bonus feats are feats, but not all feats are bonus feats. Does a bonus feat inherit all the restrictions of a feat? If it does, why does the Fighter explicitly have to meet the requirements for his bonus feats? If it does not, why does the Monk explicitly not have to meet the requirements for his bonus feats?

oh, and incidentaly, I found the closest thing to a "general rule" a general ruling on bonus feats. PHB, page 87:
"Additionally, members of some classes get bonus feats as class
features. These feats may be chosen from special lists (see Fighter
Bonus Feats, below, and the individual class descriptions in Chapter
3 for details)."

You notice how that mentions prerequisites exactly nowhere? That doesn't answer the question of "can a Rogue take Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting.

Tommy2255

2015-04-16, 10:18 PM

Is it really worth 4 pages of argument to decide whether the phrase "becomes a lich" actually means "becomes a lich"?

RedMage125

2015-04-16, 10:28 PM

So not only are you not interested in agreeing that the RAW are not perfectly concise in rules language (which, ironically, you have said as much before), but you are going to continue to make personal attacks?

Is that correct?

1. The word "lich" means something.
2. Everything is in D&D is a "lich" or it is not.

Therefore:
1. The only thing that "becomes a lich" means is "acquires the lich template".
Since you are just repeating your personal belief, I will simply re-iterate the truth of the RAW.

1. The words "becomes a lich" are not the same words as "acquires the lich template"

Ergo, the RAW do not EXPLICITLY grant said template.

Ah, but just as a class skill is distinct from a skill, a bonus feat is distinct from a feat. All bonus feats are feats, but not all feats are bonus feats. Does a bonus feat inherit all the restrictions of a feat? If it does, why does the Fighter explicitly have to meet the requirements for his bonus feats? If it does not, why does the Monk explicitly not have to meet the requirements for his bonus feats?

You notice how that mentions prerequisites exactly nowhere? That doesn't answer the question of "can a Rogue take Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting.

When is a Class Skill not a Skill? Class Skills still follow all rules for skills.

A Bonus Feat remains a Feat.

No SPECIFIC ruling for the Rogue exists that says he can bypass prerequisites. Only for the Monk. The Monk gets to bypass prerequisites because the designers said so. I would guess that it was to give the Monk abilities to meet the archetype they were trying to represent with the class. The text in the Fighter readout seems a bit redundant, yes.

What you are suggesting about the Rogue taking Perfect 2-Weapon Fighting is Munchkin Fallacy.

How do you not see this?

General Sajaru

2015-04-16, 10:29 PM

1. The word "lich" means something.
2. Everything is in D&D is a "lich" or it is not.

Therefore:
1. The only thing that "becomes a lich" means is "acquires the lich template".

Actually, by that logic, "becomes a lich" means that you would turn into the lich as described in the MM, not gain a template.

Edit: from MM, Pg. 167 (this may have been quoted before, but I'm no going to try to find it if it was): “Lich” is an acquired template
that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery". From that, the only thing "Lich" means in D&D is the lich template.

Brova

2015-04-16, 11:10 PM

1. The words "becomes a lich" are not the same words as "acquires the lich template"

The word "humanoid" is not the same as the words "humanoid type".

Ergo by RAW Mind Flayers get the DN capstone.

When is a Class Skill not a Skill? Class Skills still follow all rules for skills.

A Bonus Feat remains a Feat.

It is a subset of skills, not all skills. Class skills can have traits that all skills do not. For example, you advance them by spending one skill point per rank rather than 2.

EDIT: A quick search turns up "Skill Knowledge", which allows you to do things with class skills you can't do with all skills.

No SPECIFIC ruling for the Rogue exists that says he can bypass prerequisites. Only for the Monk. The Monk gets to bypass prerequisites because the designers said so. I would guess that it was to give the Monk abilities to meet the archetype they were trying to represent with the class. The text in the Fighter readout seems a bit redundant, yes.

By default a bonus feat either requires that you meet the prerequisites or it does not. Agreed?

If it requires that you meet the prerequisites, then classes would never need to state that you had to meet the prerequisites for a bonus feat. Agreed?

If it does not require that you meet the prerequisites, then classes would need to state that you did not have to meet the prerequisites for a bonus feat. Agreed?

However, the Monk states that you do not have to meet the requirements for Stunning Fist but the Fighter states that you do need to meet the prerequisites for Power Attack. Agreed?

Therefore, one of the following conclusions:

1. The contradiction cannot determine what happens with bonus feats that do not explicitly state you need to meet the prerequisites. We must look to other sources.
2. The Monk case is correct and the Fighter is poorly written. Therefore Rogues can take any feat with their bonus feats.
3. The Fighter case is correct and the Monk is poorly written. Therefore Rogues can only take feats for which they meet the prerequisites.

You'll recall that I proposed this as a demonstration of RAW ambiguities and explicitly ruled out referencing anything other than the Monk, the Fighter, and the Rogue in this discussion. So we can rule out 1. Now, referencing only the Monk, the Fighter, and the Rogue prove that either 2 or 3 is definitively correct.

The point isn't to reach a conclusion about whether a tenth level Rogue can take Epic Spellcasting. It's to prove that RAW can be ambiguous.

Now, you also happen to be wrong as the general case for bonus feats and prerequisites (given in the Monster Manual) states very clearly that you don't need to meet prerequisites for them.

What you are suggesting about the Rogue taking Perfect 2-Weapon Fighting is Munchkin Fallacy.

How do you not see this?

Because it's not? Suspend your opinion about whether bonus feats need to meet prerequisites. Suppose that they don't unless explicitly stated they do. Is it Munchkin Fallacy to claim you can take Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting with a Rogue bonus feat? No.

With a box

2015-04-16, 11:24 PM

wow. It looks like two statues are having staring contest.
but who would take 20 level in DN anyway?:smallbiggrin:

Brova

2015-04-16, 11:41 PM

but who would take 20 level in DN anyway?:smallbiggrin:

Well, Level 20 is a totally reasonable level to take. You get the lich template for free. The issue is that levels 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 aren't that good.

danzibr

2015-04-17, 05:59 AM

Tenacity in continuing to have a go at something while making no progress (because, for example, one does not adequately support points with proper citation) is not necessarily an admirable trait.
I feel progress has been made. I made my comment after a good point by Brova (and you called him frustrating).

Is it really worth 4 pages of argument to decide whether the phrase "becomes a lich" actually means "becomes a lich"?
Yup.

Actually, by that logic, "becomes a lich" means that you would turn into the lich as described in the MM, not gain a template.

Edit: from MM, Pg. 167 (this may have been quoted before, but I'm no going to try to find it if it was): “Lich” is an acquired template
that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery". From that, the only thing "Lich" means in D&D is the lich template.
Yup.

wow. It looks like two statues are having staring contest.
Which is why I made my tenacity comment.

danzibr

2015-04-17, 07:47 AM

I usually don't double post, but I feel this would be lost if otherwise.

Not only does Sandstorm never refer to a dry lich as a type of lich, Draconomicon never refers to a dracolich as a type of lich (not proto-dracolich). Under alhoon we see phrases like ``like other liches'' and ``like all liches,'' and then when you look at ``Creating An Alhoon,'' it says ``An alhoon conforms to all the normal rules for adding the lich template to a humanoid, except as noted below.''

Dry lich: never referred to as a type of lich.
Dracolich: never referred to as a type of lich.
Proto-dracolich: never referred to as a type of lich.
Alhoon: never referred to as a type of lich. It is called a lich, but not a type of lich, and the rules for creating one refer to the lich template.

So... why is it people are referring to the above as ``types of liches'' when the books never do so?

Lubber

2015-04-17, 08:48 AM

Well, Level 20 is a totally reasonable level to take. You get the lich template for free. The issue is that levels 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 aren't that good.

While the DN is not the best choice for a caster in terms of power, it's still better than many others classes. Some people also just don't like multiclassing. :smallsmile:

Anyway, if someone at my table should become a 20th-level DN, be becomes a lich. With all the stuff a lich has. That solves it for me.

Zanos

2015-04-17, 10:04 AM

Is it really worth 4 pages of argument to decide whether the phrase "becomes a lich" actually means "becomes a lich"?
Welcome to Giant in the Playground. Come for the comics, stay for the arguments about whether or not A = A.

nolongerchaos

2015-04-17, 01:15 PM

danzibr

2015-04-17, 01:55 PM

As a point of interest, neither Dragon Disciple nor Walker in the Wast contain the text "acquire the [Half-Dragon/Walker in the Waste] template." [...]
Point of interest indeed.

RedMage125

2015-04-17, 03:45 PM

The word "humanoid" is not the same as the words "humanoid type".

Ergo by RAW Mind Flayers get the DN capstone.
I see what you are saying, because I can see that you are NOT getting what I am saying.

We can see the word "humanoid" in the DN text, which is lacking the distinct wording of "humanoid type".

Now, reading everything as Rules Text, we know "humanoid" means something, but it is not clear if it means "humanoid type" or not, right?

All that can be done is, when examining each individual case on an individual basis is to look at the stat block and see if the word "humanoid" is indicated anywhere in its official text block.

Mind Flayers distinctly LACK this word.

Those beings that DO have it in their stat block have it under the designation of "type".

So while, in the end, it ends up meaning creatures of the humanoid type, this conclusion is reached in a manner not at all related to ASSUMING that "humanoid" means "humanoid type". In a way, it is almost coincidental.

You can only argue that Mind Flayers get the DN capstone if you ASSUME that "humanoid" DISTINCTLY refers only to the "normal parlance" meaning of "humanoid" (that is, a being with 2 arms, 2 legs, one head, etc). Which is nonsensical if you're reading the rest of the paragraph as "rules text".

This is the 3rd or 4th time you have used this particular Straw Man to insist that "my interpretation MUST allow mind flayers to get the capstone". You are wrong. Flat wrong. And I would appreciate you not continuing to debate in such a manner.

It is a subset of skills, not all skills. Class skills can have traits that all skills do not. For example, you advance them by spending one skill point per rank rather than 2.
Are you insisting that they do not follow all normal rules for skills? Whether or not something is a class skill and the amount of points one can spend to acquire ranks is a subset of ruling for classes. A level 5 Fighter with a 16 Intelligence and 4 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) has the same modifier as a level 1 Bard with a 16 INT and 4 ranks in Knowledge (arcana). Both characters use the skills the same way, they can do the same things with the skill, everything about them is the same. It is Class Rules that affect expenditure and maximum ranks of Skills. The rules for skills for both remains the same.

EDIT: A quick search turns up "Skill Knowledge", which allows you to do things with class skills you can't do with all skills.
To what are you referring?

The feat in Unearthed Arcana? That whole book is just variant rules, and that feat is for use with the variant skill system, allowing you to make on cross-class skill a class skill, or gain 2 other skills from one of your classes lists as class skills. This allows a multiclass character to advance 2 skills that are cross-class for one of his classes as if they were always class skills.

Which doesn't noticeably "allow you to do things with class skills you can't do with all skills". It just effectively expands your class skill list.

Otherwise, it seems as if you are referring to Knowledge skills. Which are trained only. Trained Only skills don't matter whether or not it is a class skill for you, only whether or not you put one or more ranks in them.

By default a bonus feat either requires that you meet the prerequisites or it does not. Agreed?
By default a Feat (regardless of how it is obtained) requires you to meet the prerequisites.

If it requires that you meet the prerequisites, then classes would never need to state that you had to meet the prerequisites for a bonus feat. Agreed?
That sounds like good reasoning.

If it does not require that you meet the prerequisites, then classes would need to state that you did not have to meet the prerequisites for a bonus feat. Agreed?
Agreed.

However, the Monk states that you do not have to meet the requirements for Stunning Fist but the Fighter states that you do need to meet the prerequisites for Power Attack. Agreed?
Which falls right under "by default you do need to meet prerequisites, but the Monk is a Specific Exception to the General Rule on feats".

Therefore, one of the following conclusions:

1. The contradiction cannot determine what happens with bonus feats that do not explicitly state you need to meet the prerequisites. We must look to other sources.
2. The Monk case is correct and the Fighter is poorly written. Therefore Rogues can take any feat with their bonus feats.
3. The Fighter case is correct and the Monk is poorly written. Therefore Rogues can only take feats for which they meet the prerequisites.

You'll recall that I proposed this as a demonstration of RAW ambiguities and explicitly ruled out referencing anything other than the Monk, the Fighter, and the Rogue in this discussion. So we can rule out 1. Now, referencing only the Monk, the Fighter, and the Rogue prove that either 2 or 3 is definitively correct.
NEITHER 2 or 3 is correct, although 3 is closer to the truth. Instead of "the Monk is poorly written", it's "the Monk is an exception to the rule". I really don't understand why that's difficult.

The point isn't to reach a conclusion about whether a tenth level Rogue can take Epic Spellcasting. It's to prove that RAW can be ambiguous.
So you agree RAW can be ambiguous?

Then why are you still arguing the DN point? If you agree that "RAW can be ambiguous and it is not 100% explicit in the DN case", EVEN THOUGH any bit of reasoning and logic applied to it tells us that the DN should be given the template, why do you continue to argue? Because that is what I have been saying LITERALLY the entire time.

Now, you also happen to be wrong as the general case for bonus feats and prerequisites (given in the Monster Manual) states very clearly that you don't need to meet prerequisites for them.
Sigh.
No, YOU happen to be wrong, because the text you are quoting is from the section on creating monsters whole cloth. WHEN CREATING A NEW MONSTER, you may assign it bonus feats for which it does not meet the prerequisites. That has no bearing on existing creatures (to include PCs) who gain a bonus feat through a class ability or what have you.

You are also being EXTREMELY dishonest in claiming that the MM page you cite (page 301) supports your claim, because you are attempting to cherry-pick from the text and read out of context until you can make it seem to say a "rule" regarding bonus feats.
Monster Manual (page 301, which is in Chapter 5 "Making Monsters", and under the heading of "Feats")
"All monsters have a number of feats equal to 1 + (1 per 3 HD). Monsters must meet the prerequisites for feats, just as characters must. If your creature concept begs for a feat for which the creature does not qualify, consider altering the creature so that it qualifies for the feat, or assign the feat as a bonus feat (It is acceptable for a creature to have a bonus feat for which it does not meet the prerequisites)."
Bold added by me for emphasis.

So you have taken a line of text from a section EXPLICITLY about creating monsters and assigning feats to them. Then you have claimed that because the RAW support creating monsters with bonus feats they don't meet prerequisites for, that PCs may do the same when their class indicates that they get a bonus feat. Nothing about page 301 of the Monster Manual says that PCs "don't need to meet prerequisites for bonus feats"

You are ignoring that under the general rule for feats, on page 87 of the PHB, it says that you must meet the prerequisites in order to select or use a feat. A Bonus Feat is still a Feat.

Because it's not? Suspend your opinion about whether bonus feats need to meet prerequisites. Suppose that they don't unless explicitly stated they do. Is it Munchkin Fallacy to claim you can take Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting with a Rogue bonus feat? No.
My opinion? You mean the text, written in black and white, on page 87 of the PHB which says that a character MUST meet prerequisites of a feat?

And furthermore, "supposing that prerequisites don't have to be met unless it is explicitly stated that they do" IS Munchkin Fallacy.

So YES, it IS Munchkin Fallacy to say that a level 10 Rogue can take an Epic feat as his bonus feat because of a lack of rules explicitly saying he can't. That's actually TEXTBOOK Munchkin Fallacy. Furthermore, there's only a "lack of rules saying he can't" if you assume a bonus feat is not a feat, which is ridiculous.

I seriously cannot comprehend why it impossible for you to accept that the Monk has Specific Exception to General Rule, given how full of that kind of scenario D&D is.

Well, Level 20 is a totally reasonable level to take. You get the lich template for free. The issue is that levels 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 aren't that good.
Except that your number of undead controlled from Undead Mastery is off of your class level, as in levels of Dread Necromancer. Not your CASTER level, not your CHARACTER level. So if you're going for a minionmancer with an army of undead bent to your will, sticking with DN is still a good idea.

Enervating Touch is also not so bad. Especially because it says it is delivered upon using your Charnel Touch (and so is Scabrous Touch). Inflicting Negative levels is always nice, especially since so many Necromancy spells allow saving throws.

I understand why a lot of people advocate getting out at level 8. I just also believe that it's still a pretty solid Tier 3 class and has some good stuff in it.

I feel progress has been made. I made my comment after a good point by Brova (and you called him frustrating).
I called him frustrating because I had already explained 3 times that I wasn't just saying that "humanoid" meant "humanoid type", and broke it down to a step-by-step process to show how one uses only RAW text to discern the meaning.

He replies with almost the exact same "but why does this mean that?" as if he did not read what I had said AT ALL, and then accuses me of saying what I had JUST EXPLAINED I had not been saying. It's like he's intent on building the exact same straw man, no matter how many times I take it apart.

I usually don't double post, but I feel this would be lost if otherwise.

Not only does Sandstorm never refer to a dry lich as a type of lich, Draconomicon never refers to a dracolich as a type of lich (not proto-dracolich). Under alhoon we see phrases like ``like other liches'' and ``like all liches,'' and then when you look at ``Creating An Alhoon,'' it says ``An alhoon conforms to all the normal rules for adding the lich template to a humanoid, except as noted below.''

Dry lich: never referred to as a type of lich.
Dracolich: never referred to as a type of lich.
Proto-dracolich: never referred to as a type of lich.
Alhoon: never referred to as a type of lich. It is called a lich, but not a type of lich, and the rules for creating one refer to the lich template.

So... why is it people are referring to the above as ``types of liches'' when the books never do so?

Okay. I have said this multiple times, and you don't get it.

*deep breath*

I AM FULLY AWARE, AND HAVE EVEN SAID SO MYSELF that all those monsters are not "liches" proper in game terms.

Is that clear?

I hope that's clear.

When I said that they were a "kind of lich" I was using "normal parlance" or "conversational tone" or "normal English usage", whichever term you prefer.

I did so because Brova had made the assertion that in "normal parlance" the only thing that the word "lich" could mean was a creature with the lich template. I pointed out that in "normal parlance", you have a Dry Lich, a Dracolich, an Alhoon (also called an illithilich).

Is that now abundantly clear? A Dracolich is only a kind of lich if we are NOT using game terms, but "normal English". I was unclear the very first time I said it, but WAAAAAAYYYYYY back in post #93 I clarified. That you have STILL harped on that point

Anyway, if someone at my table should become a 20th-level DN, be becomes a lich. With all the stuff a lich has.

Me too! I've said so a number of times. Brova thinks he's having an argument with someone who says doing so is wrong.

RedMage125

2015-04-17, 04:06 PM

Brova

2015-04-17, 04:29 PM

Now, reading everything as Rules Text, we know "humanoid" means something, but it is not clear if it means "humanoid type" or not, right?

All that can be done is, when examining each individual case on an individual basis is to look at the stat block and see if the word "humanoid" is indicated anywhere in its official text block.

Mind Flayers distinctly LACK this word.

Those beings that DO have it in their stat block have it under the designation of "type".

There are instances within D&D of multiple rules concepts being referred to by the same word. For example, Mountebank/Mountebank (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?226552-Mountebank-Mountebank-What). Just as you could not tell whether text referring to Mountebanks referred to the base class or the prestige class without clarifying text, you equally cannot tell if the word "humanoid" refers to type or not.

Also, you have yet to explain why this line of logic doesn't also apply to "lich -> lich template".

Which doesn't noticeably "allow you to do things with class skills you can't do with all skills". It just effectively expands your class skill list.

Actually, that is both literally and exactly what Skill Knowledge allows you to do. It allows you to expand your class skill list by adding skills which are class skills but not by adding any skill.

By default a Feat (regardless of how it is obtained) requires you to meet the prerequisites.

By default you can't add a skill to your class list with Skill Knowledge. However, you can add a class skill (for another class) to your class list.

Which falls right under "by default you do need to meet prerequisites, but the Monk is a Specific Exception to the General Rule on feats".

You don't actually have evidence to back this up. You don't know whether the general rule on bonus feats is "yes prereqs" or "no prereqs". You claim it inherits from feats, but you don't actually point to anything to prove that.

NEITHER 2 or 3 is correct, although 3 is closer to the truth. Instead of "the Monk is poorly written", it's "the Monk is an exception to the rule". I really don't understand why that's difficult.

Because:

A) You are bluntly wrong. Your conclusion is literally and exactly the opposite of RAW. Here's a section from the MM:

Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B. Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

By RAW you explicitly do not have to have the prerequisites to use a bonus feat. End of story.
B) Even if you weren't literally wrong, the sections under discussion do not list a general rule for bonus feats or demonstrate inheritance from feats to bonus feats. So your claim is no more true than the opposite, even ignoring the part where it is explicitly overruled by RAW.

So you agree RAW can be ambiguous?

So if the RAW is ambiguous, how is it that you can seriously claim any authority on the question of the Dread Necromancer capstone?

There's a difference between "the RAW does something it shouldn't" (i.e. wish for a ring of infinite wishs) and "the RAW isn't clear" (i.e. Factotum IP gain).

And furthermore, "supposing that prerequisites don't have to be met unless it is explicitly stated that they do" IS Munchkin Fallacy.

{scrubbed}

I'm asking you to suppose that the rules definitively rule in a particular way. Just as it is not the Munchkin Fallacy to summon an Efreet with planar binding despite the fact that there is no specific allowance for summoning an Efreet with it, it is not the Munchkin Fallacy to claim you don't need to meet the prerequisites for bonus feats if that is what the rules actually say. Now, it happens that the rules do actually say that, so stop being wrong.

Except that your number of undead controlled from Undead Mastery is off of your class level, as in levels of Dread Necromancer. Not your CASTER level, not your CHARACTER level. So if you're going for a minionmancer with an army of undead bent to your will, sticking with DN is still a good idea.

Wait, you though the important part of that ability was getting more undead? I hate to break it to you, but the reason that ability is good is that it makes your undead are super hardcore. I mean, the extra mooks are nice, but animate dead scales to caster level, which hilariously easy to boost.

Enervating Touch is also not so bad. Especially because it says it is delivered upon using your Charnel Touch (and so is Scabrous Touch). Inflicting Negative levels is always nice, especially since so many Necromancy spells allow saving throws.

Because exactly what I want to be doing at level 20 is moving into melee as a caster without so much as enlarge person to your name.

Brova

2015-04-17, 04:31 PM

{scrubbed}

With a box

2015-04-17, 04:38 PM

When I said that they were a "kind of lich" I was using "normal parlance" or "conversational tone" or "normal English usage", whichever term you prefer.

I did so because Brova had made the assertion that in "normal parlance" the only thing that the word "lich" could mean was a creature with the lich template. I pointed out that in "normal parlance", you have a Dry Lich, a Dracolich, an Alhoon (also called an illithilich).

Is pineapple a kind of apple?:smalltongue:
they are both fruits.:smallbiggrin:

danzibr

2015-04-17, 05:13 PM

Okay. I have said this multiple times, and you don't get it.

*deep breath*

I AM FULLY AWARE, AND HAVE EVEN SAID SO MYSELF that all those monsters are not "liches" proper in game terms.

Is that clear?

I hope that's clear.

When I said that they were a "kind of lich" I was using "normal parlance" or "conversational tone" or "normal English usage", whichever term you prefer.

I did so because Brova had made the assertion that in "normal parlance" the only thing that the word "lich" could mean was a creature with the lich template. I pointed out that in "normal parlance", you have a Dry Lich, a Dracolich, an Alhoon (also called an illithilich).

Is that now abundantly clear? A Dracolich is only a kind of lich if we are NOT using game terms, but "normal English". I was unclear the very first time I said it, but WAAAAAAYYYYYY back in post #93 I clarified. That you have STILL harped on that point
Hmm, I'm afraid you didn't understand my previous post. Let me put it this way. To the best of my knowledge:

In all of 3.5, lich = a creature with the lich template.
According to you, lich = a creature with the lich template *OR* any one of several similar powerful undead spellcasters.

By introducing your ``normal parlance,'' you are introducing ambiguity where there should be no ambiguity.

nolongerchaos

2015-04-17, 05:37 PM

Well the Dragon Disciple bit was mostly a comment that even the Core template-granting PrC lacks the desired "acquires the X template" phrase, so it seems highly unreasonable to expect something in a splatbook to adhere to a standard that isn't even met in a Core rulebook.

The Walker in the Waste however:

Dry Lich:On reaching 10th level, you learn to apply the secrets of waste preservation to your own body, becoming a dry lich. You must undergo the Sere Rite, overseen by another dry lich, which includes preserving your flesh, removing your organs and storing them in special canopic jars, and imbuing your body with foul magic to make it undying. See the dry lich template, page 155, for more information.As a dry lich, you cannot be permanently killed unless the canopic jars containing your life essence are destroyed.
It seems to me that the ability could validly be read as the following:

"Upon reaching level 10, you learn fluff about dehydrating your body, the secret to becoming a dry lich. Part of this dehydrating process includes the Sere Rite and everything that entails, at which point you become undead. See the dry lich template, page blah blah blah, for more information."

I see that characters learn the secret to becoming to becoming a dry lich. I see that you must undergo the Sere Rite to become a dry lich. I see that if I want more information about dry liches, that I can look on page 155.
What I fail to see anywhere is text that says either "character gains template" or "character becomes dry lich" (interestingly, note that such text is present in DN, yet lacking in WitW).
There is certainly text about learning the secrets to become a dry lich, but RAW I don't see where the ability actually causes your character to use the knowledge. They even kindly point me to the page the template is on. But I don't see any text saying that I get to put the template on my character.

I know where to find it now though, so that's cool, I guess.

sideswipe

2015-04-17, 07:40 PM

As a point of interest, neither Dragon Disciple nor Walker in the Wast contain the text "acquire the [Half-Dragon/Walker in the Waste] template."

Dragon Disciple says you "take on" the template, which is fairly equivalent.
OR, since "take on" isn't an officially defined game term, one could argue that RAW you immediately do battle with the template itself.

Walker in the Waste also lacks explicit text about template acquisition: "you learn to apply the secrets of waste preservation to your own body, becoming a dry lich... See the dry lich template, page 155, for more information." In fact, RAW, it looks like all you gain from the class feature is the knowledge to apply Dry Lich to yourself, since at no point does it even say you become one, as the language is such that only by applying the knowledge to yourself (with the assistance of a Dry Lich) do you gain the template, but the class feature worded in such a way that a character does jot explicitly gain anything other than the knowledge/ability to gain the template themself. (Agreed, it requires an obtusely strict RAW reading to reach such a conclusion, but again, RAW and common sense...)

they do however point you to the exact page of the template you aquire. whereas this is never stated in DN, which is the only reason i believe it is not aquired.

there are RAW for and against. some have been perfectly worded so far and others have been spouted out full of insults and packaged in a way to turn RAW into opinions. both arguements have RAW reasons as to why they are true. both have opinion reasons as to why they are true.

summing up

for RAW - says become a lich, which has game definitions.
RAW against - never says to aquire a template and in fact points to only a type change and a free magic item ONLY. and although has page references never ever mentions the template it briefly mentioned before.

opinion for - come on, its a capstone and the theme of the class. you get the prerequisits and everything. you deserve a treat for 20 base class levels.
opinion against - if the designers intended the template rather than you become something call a lich with just undead type and phalactory they would have put the page refference in.

IMHO the RAW against is the stronger RAW arguement. and the opinion for is the strongest logical outcome.

answer to the OP. there is no official answer. if you count wizards of the coast coming out and saying "you do not gain it" as an official ruling (a lot of regulars do not) then that is your official answer. or at least the closest thing to it.

also i have posted this because i have been very close to flagging brova earlier in this thread for flamming. he even admited to it, saying he was calling red mage stupid. if he does it again in any point after this i am flagging him. this is his chance. this thread should be over.
i think this thread is over because, its long been going in circles due to different views on exactly what specific placements of words mean and nothing except clarification of old posts has happened in two pages. again this thread is over.

people arguing for the template, you are correct.
redmage and me and a few regulars who saw this and said "oh god not again, im staying away from that one" are also correct.

this is becaue there cannot be a fully correct answer on this subject. jut points scoring until the tally's are so overwhelmed nobody cares anymore. i don't even think the OP is reading it.

please. can this thread end!

thank you all for your time.

Brova

2015-04-17, 08:02 PM

RAW against - never says to aquire a template and in fact points to only a type change and a free magic item ONLY. and although has page references never ever mentions the template it briefly mentioned before.

That's not really "RAW against". It's not like your type wouldn't change to Undead if you acquired the lich template. It totally would, because that's something the template totally does. If it said you turned into a Construct or a Dragon, there'd be a case for that counting as "RAW against", because those are things the lich template doesn't do.

I find the argument "it says you explicitly get one of the things you get, therefore you don't get the others" to be hilariously weak

if you count wizards of the coast coming out and saying "you do not gain it" as an official ruling (a lot of regulars do not) then that is your official answer.

Honestly, I could go either way on FAQ rulings. On the one hand, they're the only actual clarifications on the rules. On the other hand, I don't really know if they should be counted for a couple of reasons (relative obscurity, not in the text, designers of 3.5 are not the most competent of people when it comes to rulings).

Sidebar: Is standard moderation policy here really to completely scrub offending phrases without consulting the accused? Because that appears to be what has happened, and I am frankly uncomfortable with that kind of censorship.

sideswipe

2015-04-17, 08:11 PM

[QUOTE=sideswipe;19126966]RAW against - never says to aquire a template and in fact points to only a type change and a free magic item ONLY. and although has page references never ever mentions the template it briefly mentioned before./QUOTE]

That's not really "RAW against". It's not like your type wouldn't change to Undead if you acquired the lich template. It totally would, because that's something the template totally does. If it said you turned into a Construct or a Dragon, there'd be a case for that counting as "RAW against", because those are things the lich template doesn't do.

I find the argument "it says you explicitly get one of the things you get, therefore you don't get the others" to be hilariously weak

Honestly, I could go either way on FAQ rulings. On the one hand, they're the only actual clarifications on the rules. On the other hand, I don't really know if they should be counted for a couple of reasons (relative obscurity, not in the text, designers of 3.5 are not the most competent of people when it comes to rulings).

i agree on a lot of the things you have said in this thread, that is the thing. i just feel the way you came across was inappropriate.

as for the arguement against im not circling. like i said it was a sum up. read back through if you want clarification. your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it. as are we. and BOTH should be respected. whether something seems silly is not a reason for it to be wrong. take 99% of any real law or court case. its abolutely absurd that they exist and are the way they are. but no matter how silly/pathetic/wrong it seems, it is correct. if for no other reason then some self important idiots decided so because they had power and decided it.

danzibr

2015-04-17, 08:14 PM

Sidebar: Is standard moderation policy here really to completely scrub offending phrases without consulting the accused? Because that appears to be what has happened, and I am frankly uncomfortable with that kind of censorship.
Huh? When did this happen? People can edit their posts, but I'm quite certain if a mod removes something they replace it with {scrubbed}. And if they do that to you, you'll get a message about it.

sideswipe

2015-04-17, 08:19 PM

Huh? When did this happen? People can edit their posts, but I'm quite certain if a mod removes something they replace it with {scrubbed}. And if they do that to you, you'll get a message about it.

i just looked through and a few of brova's more offending posts have scrubbed bits. and mentions the mod who did it. i am surprised that you did not get a message, but i guess that is a good thing as it means you shouldn't get an infraction i guess. and it happened before i posted what i did. i rarely read through old bits.

in fact it doesn't look like it was onee of the mentioned mods for the 3.5 section...

Brova

2015-04-17, 08:24 PM

Huh? When did this happen? People can edit their posts, but I'm quite certain if a mod removes something they replace it with {scrubbed}. And if they do that to you, you'll get a message about it.

I appears that I did get a warning.

But the phrase that got picked up on was me calling RedMage's argument stupid in the middle of a paragraph explaining the problems with it. Not a personal attack or anything. I mean, that's less terrible than what I had thought had happened, but it still seems rather excessively thin-skinned.

Whatever. /tangent

sideswipe

2015-04-17, 08:26 PM

shall we all agree to disagree and thread is over?

danzibr

2015-04-17, 08:32 PM

your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it. as are we. and BOTH should be respected.

shall we all agree to disagree and thread is over?
That's the thing. You are arguing that there are two reasonable interpretations to DN's capstone ability, and others are arguing that there is only one reasonable interpretation, and the other is unreasonable (whether it's yes for sure they become a lich by RAW, or no for sure they don't become a lich by RAW).

In some cases, there are two reasonable ways to read it. In some cases, there are not. At this point, I am quite convinced this situation is the latter.

sideswipe

2015-04-17, 08:42 PM

That's the thing. You are arguing that there are two reasonable interpretations to DN's capstone ability, and others are arguing that there is only one reasonable interpretation, and the other is unreasonable (whether it's yes for sure they become a lich by RAW, or no for sure they don't become a lich by RAW).

In some cases, there are two reasonable ways to read it. In some cases, there are not. At this point, I am quite convinced this situation is the latter.

to help clear things up i have cast summon regular, hopefully he helps us out. i want to see this through to close. but i want that close to be soon.

danzibr

2015-04-17, 08:44 PM

to help clear things up i have cast summon regular, hopefully he helps us out. i want to see this through to close. but i want that close to be soon.
Summon regular?

sideswipe

2015-04-17, 08:47 PM

Summon regular?

summoning a regular of the playground, with great mastery and experience of this type of thread and with this bloody and bruised dead horse of a topic and its history probably knows the exact answer that has been decided after nearly a decade of debate.

in this case i asked rubik.

RedMage125

2015-04-17, 10:55 PM

There are instances within D&D of multiple rules concepts being referred to by the same word. For example, Mountebank/Mountebank (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?226552-Mountebank-Mountebank-What). Just as you could not tell whether text referring to Mountebanks referred to the base class or the prestige class without clarifying text, you equally cannot tell if the word "humanoid" refers to type or not.
I would check to see if the text was published BEFORE or AFTER the 3.5e revision, because the Mountebank base class came from a Dragon Magazine in the 3.0 era.

Also, you have yet to explain why this line of logic doesn't also apply to "lich -> lich template".
I believe that the INTENT was that it should.

But my belief put aside, the text does not say so explicitly. Anyone can see that.

Actually, that is both literally and exactly what Skill Knowledge allows you to do. It allows you to expand your class skill list by adding skills which are class skills but not by adding any skill.
This is circular. What do you mean by "not by adding any skill"? Do you mean add Skill points?

By default you can't add a skill to your class list with Skill Knowledge. However, you can add a class skill (for another class) to your class list.
You mean...a Specific Exception to a general default rule?

That's kind of the THING with the rules.

Furthermore, the skills you add to your class list must be class skills to ONE of your classes in order to get 2 (so you have to be multiclassed for that). Otherwise you only get to add one skill to your class skill list.

You don't actually have evidence to back this up. You don't know whether the general rule on bonus feats is "yes prereqs" or "no prereqs". You claim it inherits from feats, but you don't actually point to anything to prove that.
Straight up: Is a Bonus Feat a Feat, yes or no?

Because:

A) You are bluntly wrong. Your conclusion is literally and exactly the opposite of RAW. Here's a section from the MM:

Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B. Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

By RAW you explicitly do not have to have the prerequisites to use a bonus feat. End of story.
B) Even if you weren't literally wrong, the sections under discussion do not list a general rule for bonus feats or demonstrate inheritance from feats to bonus feats. So your claim is no more true than the opposite, even ignoring the part where it is explicitly overruled by RAW.
This time you are quoting a different page of the MM and claiming it supports your point.

When do players "customize creatures"?

Furthermore, those are bonus feats which cannot be customized by the DM (while remaining withing RAW), because those are traits of the monster. It did not gain them through class features, those are INHERENT traits of that type of monster, just like how if you play a Muckdweller, you cannot choose a DIFFERENT bonus feat other than Weapon Finesse. That is the bonus feat that cannot be changed because it is a racial trait of the monster.

So if the RAW is ambiguous, how is it that you can seriously claim any authority on the question of the Dread Necromancer capstone?
Do you seriously live in a vacuum? This has been a major bone of contention on the Dread Necromancer for YEARS. And the baseline text is simply missing exact language.

Do you really believe that you are somehow privy to some higher truth about it than anyone else has thought of or examined from looking at this for the last 10 years? (HoH was published in 2005)

There's a difference between "the RAW does something it shouldn't" (i.e. wish for a ring of infinite wishs) and "the RAW isn't clear" (i.e. Factotum IP gain).
...but you agree that the RAW are not as clear as they could be on the DN capstone matter? SOLELY in terms of what is written on the page?

{scrubbed}
Reported.

Again.

I'm asking you to suppose that the rules definitively rule in a particular way. Just as it is not the Munchkin Fallacy to summon an Efreet with planar binding despite the fact that there is no specific allowance for summoning an Efreet with it, it is not the Munchkin Fallacy to claim you don't need to meet the prerequisites for bonus feats if that is what the rules actually say. Now, it happens that the rules do actually say that, so stop being wrong.
The planar binding is not Munchkin Fallacy, because the spell says "an outsider with 12 or less HD", and Efreet are outsiders with 10 HD.

The "rules on bonus feats" that you claim supports you came from the Monster Manual on the "how to make your own Monster" section. And more recently, in the section of how to read and make sense of monster entries. the Monster Manual is considered a DM book, like the DMG. Almost all 3.5e products at the back say something to the effect of "DMs will need all 3 core books, players will need only the PHB".

Wait, you though the important part of that ability was getting more undead? I hate to break it to you, but the reason that ability is good is that it makes your undead are super hardcore. I mean, the extra mooks are nice, but animate dead scales to caster level, which hilariously easy to boost.
I was just making a point that there are things to be gained from further DN levels. I am not interested in your person opinion on the value of those abilities.

Because exactly what I want to be doing at level 20 is moving into melee as a caster without so much as enlarge person to your name.
You do know that all of the DN's "touch" abilities explicitly say they can be delivered by a Spectral Hand, right? Also, the DN has a familiar to deliver such spells.

Hmm, I'm afraid you didn't understand my previous post. Let me put it this way. To the best of my knowledge:

In all of 3.5, lich = a creature with the lich template.
According to you, lich = a creature with the lich template *OR* any one of several similar powerful undead spellcasters.

By introducing your ``normal parlance,'' you are introducing ambiguity where there should be no ambiguity.
And I apologized for the ambiguity.

Brova's argument was "in 'normal English' 'lich' ONLY means 'lich template'". I was just countering that point.

That's it.

All I was saying.

I appears that I did get a warning.

But the phrase that got picked up on was me calling RedMage's argument stupid in the middle of a paragraph explaining the problems with it. Not a personal attack or anything. I mean, that's less terrible than what I had thought had happened, but it still seems rather excessively thin-skinned.

Whatever. /tangent
No, you explicitly called me stupid.

Then you (when addressing another poster) said "this is what Redmage is 'debating'", trying to be as condescending and offensive as possible.

Which you immediately followed up with saying that "Redmage fails at reading comprehension"

I have directly confronted you on ALL of these instances, and not only did you not apologize, or offer to stop in future posts, you copped to it, ADMITTING you were calling me stupid, and then continued to engage in flaming.

shall we all agree to disagree and thread is over?

The funny thing is, he seems to agree that the RAW needs to be interpreted and extrapolated from in order to gain benefit from the text.

So he basically agrees with the premise, but is just not on board with what it means to have a detailed RAW discussion. Keeps insisting that RAW says something more than the words that are in print.

Brova

2015-04-18, 12:06 AM

But my belief put aside, the text does not say so explicitly. Anyone can see that.

And I believe that the intent of the word "humanoid" was to apply to the humanoid type, but the text does not say so explicitly. Seriously, you don't have a bright line. Your entire argument is that you, personally, think that "humanoid" is clear but "lich" is not.

What do you mean by "not by adding any skill"?

I mean that it allows you to add skills which are currently class skills as class skills. It allows specific operations on class skills but not on all skills, indicating that there is not total inheritance. The exact text is "Choose any two skills from one of your current classes' skill lists. You now know these skills as class skills. (http://dndtools.pw/feats/unearthed-arcana--90/skill-knowledge--3196/)".

Straight up: Is a Bonus Feat a Feat, yes or no?

Yes. But that does not imply that it has all the traits of feats. Another example would be the shadow jaunt series of maneuvers. While maneuvers in general are Strikes, Boosts, Counters or Stances, shadow jaunt is not. It does not inherit all the traits of maneuvers, despite the fact that it is a maneuver. Or the polymorph line of spells.

When do players "customize creatures"?

Any time they chose abilities. A PC is a creature, as opposed to an object or a spell or a philosophy.

SOLELY in terms of what is written on the page?

You mean like "becomes a lich"?

Reported.

Again.

{scrubbed}

You do know that all of the DN's "touch" abilities explicitly say they can be delivered by a Spectral Hand, right? Also, the DN has a familiar to deliver such spells.

Alright, I'll cop to forgetting that. Still seems a lot worse than the 4th level spell enervation, but you are correct that you can use spectral hand.

Brova's argument was "in 'normal English' 'lich' ONLY means 'lich template'". I was just countering that point.

This is the literal and exact opposite of my argument. I made two arguments regarding "normal English" and the word lich:

1. In "normal English" the word "lich" refers to an undead spellcaster.
2. The closest "rules English" phrase to the "normal English" phrase "becomes a lich" is "acquires the lich template".

No, you explicitly called me stupid.

I never said that didn't happen, I said that the warning I got was for calling your argument stupid. Its possible I should get another warning. Frankly, I think a warning for calling your argument stupid is ridiculous and if I was going to get a warning at all, it should have been for calling you stupid. After all, I might actually offend you by calling you stupid, but I can't offend your argument.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if my challenging your reading comprehension is worth reporting, so is:

I'm beginning to assume you don't understand the distinction between "let's use common sense" and "let's look ONLY at the text of what is written and ONLY assume what is written is true".

I'm not going to report you, because I don't actually care. But the only difference between that and what I've said is that I'm not dancing around the insult.

I'm done discussing this point, because the thread is off track enough already. I will admit that I have broken the form rules, and will endeavor not to do so again. While my opinion on the subject of what kinds of speech are permissible differs from the moderators of this form, they are in charge and it is well within their rights to enforce whatever set of rules they see fit. Further, this is neither the time nor the place for a discussion of the relative advantages of restricting various kinds of speech.

One final thing I will say is that I'd appreciate the opportunity to edit in a "bullet points" of the arguments I made in the posts that were entirely scrubbed. If the mods feel those arguments were themselves in violation of forum rules, I won't push the point, but right now significant portions of the discussion are lost, making the debate that much harder to follow.

With a box

2015-04-18, 12:39 AM

1. In "normal English" the word "lich" refers to an undead spellcaster who uses a phylactery.

fixed that for you.
I don't think necropolitan wizards or vampire clerics are qualified as a lich.

Brova

2015-04-18, 01:00 AM

fixed that for you.
I don't think necropolitan wizards or vampire clerics are qualified as a lich.

Fair is fair, but I think most people would omit the phylactery. I don't know though, as I would imagine many people who know what a lich is at all have their opinion colored by D&D.

The test I'm using for "normal" definitions of "lich" and "humanoid" is "what do I think a random person with no D&D knowledge would define these as?" By that test, I imagine most people who could define lich at all would say "undead spellcaster", but I also imagine most people don't have any particular idea what a lich is.

danzibr

2015-04-18, 06:08 AM

Brova's argument was "in 'normal English' 'lich' ONLY means 'lich template'". I was just countering that point.

That's it.

All I was saying.
Oh. Well right, in normal English (a quick google search tells me it appears in fantasy fiction, but it's all over the place) I totally agree.

The thing is, when reading crunch you shouldn't use normal English. You use D&D English, and by what I said earlier (the whole in D&D lich = a creature with the lich template), in the D&D English there is no ambiguity.

D&D English -> DN capstone grants lich template.
Regular English -> DND capstone may or may not grant lich template.

That's why I asked why people were throwing normal English into the mix.

sideswipe

2015-04-18, 06:40 AM

It's fairly clear that the point of the capstone is to gain the lich template (since there is no other way to "become a lich," not even with the dry lich template). However, since most of the lich's abilities overlap with what the dread necromancer already has, there's no point to giving the DN a level adjustment. After all, a level in wizard or sorcerer doesn't grant LA, and level 17 is much, MUCH more powerful than a level in dread necromancer, so I'd say no LA is required.

As to the RAW of the situation, my crystal 8-ball received a blue screen of death. Honestly, the entire thing is so hazy that there really is no way to detangle it without houserules either way.

this is rubik's private message to me. and is a long standing thing in the playground.

as he said, it should be a free template with no LA. just as most of us believe. but the RAW is so messy/even in each way you can't decide on a RAW. it comes down to which RAW arguement you believe. i personally believe no template is the RAW and others believe template RAW.

niether side can conclusivly win this. ever. no matter your tenacity or your determination. having a real life charisma of 100 or quoting as many rules as you want will not prove you correct. only continue proving that both arguements are incorrect and correct.

take your opinion and know it is correct. whatever your opinion is. and turn all that hate on the writter of the class.

Chester

2015-04-18, 07:26 AM

IHas this been officially answered by WOTC? Or anyone else?

As the OP, I think I need to mention that my question has actually been answered. Thank you!

I knew there would be some debate, just not this much. :smalleek:

RedMage125

2015-04-18, 09:16 AM

Brova,

I was thinking abiout this last night, and I realized the major disconnect in what we are both saying here.

You are arguing about what the RAW means.

I am arguing what the RAW says.

You argue that "becomes a lich" MEANS "acquires the lich template".

And I agree. It probably does. I've said so from the beginning.

But are the words "acquires/gains/takes on the lich template" IN THAT EXACT SYNTAX in the DN capstone ability, yes or no?

That's it. That's the whole point. And that is what is meant by a RAW discussion. In a straight-up RAW discussion, what the RAW mean is less important than what they say. It's minutiae. It's a technicality. You don't try and INTERPRET what you read in a RAW discussion.

The developers have said something interesting recently about the weight of RAW. It was about 5e (which is a lot more in the DM's hands than 3.5e was), but it still applies here. It basically boils down to this: There are 3 ways to look at the rules: Rules As Written (RAW), Rules As Intended (RAI), and Rules As Fun (RAF).

In this instance, RAI and RAF seem to align and point us to granting the lich template.

Oh. Well right, in normal English (a quick google search tells me it appears in fantasy fiction, but it's all over the place) I totally agree.

The thing is, when reading crunch you shouldn't use normal English. You use D&D English, and by what I said earlier (the whole in D&D lich = a creature with the lich template), in the D&D English there is no ambiguity.

D&D English -> DN capstone grants lich template.
Regular English -> DND capstone may or may not grant lich template.

That's why I asked why people were throwing normal English into the mix.

You asked ME why. You never questioned Brova (who was the one insisting we use "conversational" or "normal" English) on why it was being thrown into the mix. His whole arugment (which you lauded and said had "removed your doubt") hinged on mixing "normal" language with "rules" language. Why you are questioning me on this now is puzzling.

Brova

2015-04-18, 10:03 AM

But are the words "acquires/gains/takes on the lich template" IN THAT EXACT SYNTAX in the DN capstone ability, yes or no?

No, but it says something exactly equivalent. The phrase "becomes a lich" means "acquires the lich template". That's no more interpretation than reading it at all is.

danzibr

2015-04-18, 10:16 AM

You asked ME why. You never questioned Brova (who was the one insisting we use "conversational" or "normal" English) on why it was being thrown into the mix. His whole arugment (which you lauded and said had "removed your doubt") hinged on mixing "normal" language with "rules" language. Why you are questioning me on this now is puzzling.
Yes, because if memory serves me right, you were the one saying the capstone is ambiguous due to normal English. Brova was saying it was not. I asked you why you were throwing normal English into the mix. And yes, I went back and reread my post you referenced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19114259&postcount=88), and I still think Brova's argument clears it up.

By the way, the following is meant to be comical only.
Veggie Tales D&D
Larry the Cucumber is about to become a level 20 Dread Producemancer. The capstone ability reads as follows:

Apple Transformation: When a dread producemancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a transformation and becomes an apple. Her type changes to fruit, and she gains all the traits of the fruit (see page 317 of the Book of Baddies).
Note the capstone does not say ``she gains the apple template.'' Now, in Veggie Tales D&D, there are three types of apple: apple, pineapple, and potato (aka apple of the earth). Because the capstone gives the page number for the fruit type rather than the apple template (which are found in the same book), by RAW, Larry becomes an apple without gaining the apple template.

RedMage125

2015-04-18, 01:57 PM

But are the words "acquires/gains/takes on the lich template" IN THAT EXACT SYNTAX in the DN capstone ability, yes or no?

No, but...
*snip*

That's it then.

Thank you for your time.

This has been my point the entire time. RAW discussions are not about what the rules MEAN, but just what they say (hence Rules As Written). Is it myopic and anal-retentive? Yes. Does it have any bearing on how the game should or should not be played? No. Part of the DM's job is to interpret rules and make adjudications. This one's a fairly straightforward interpretation, too (as you've been so fond of pointing out).

I was not attacking you when I said you were having difficulty with what a "RAW discussion" really means. You keep wanting to insist on what the text MEANS, instead of ONLY taking in what the text SAYS. I gather from your arguments that this kind of discussion is not what you would prefer to engage in, and that's OK. It's not a failing, and thus it's not a personal attack.

But a lot of us have a lot of fun with such nitpicky discussions. The only constructive thing it does is point out holes in the RAW. For the most part it's just a fun little exercise wherin we find amusing inconsistencies in the manner in which the text was written.

Even the rest of your post that I cut out shows what I am talking about. You insist on debating what the written text MEANS. But that's not what a RAW discussion IS.

I hope, at the very least, this has cleared up any confusion.

Veggie Tales D&D
Larry the Cucumber is about to become a level 20 Dread Producemancer. The capstone ability reads as follows:

Note the capstone does not say ``she gains the apple template.'' Now, in Veggie Tales D&D, there are three types of apple: apple, pineapple, and potato (aka apple of the earth). Because the capstone gives the page number for the fruit type rather than the apple template (which are found in the same book), by RAW, Larry becomes an apple without gaining the apple template.

Ahh, but the Dry Fruit from the Raisin In The Wastes prestige class (Saltstorm, page 89) DOES say the template is gained.

As does the Juicer Disciple for the Half-Smoothie prestige class (which is, of course in the Vegan Master's Guide).

How can we resolve this issue?

danzibr

2015-04-18, 02:04 PM

Ahh, but the Dry Fruit from the Raisin In The Wastes prestige class (Saltstorm, page 89) DOES say the template is gained.

As does the Juicer Disciple for the Half-Smoothie prestige class (which is, of course in the Vegan Master's Guide).
:D

Hope you got a smile out of it.

RedMage125

2015-04-18, 02:13 PM

:D

Hope you got a smile out of it.

Now I want a smoothie.

Maybe some dried pineapple.

Just hope it doesn't have an army of undead vegetables* at it's beck and call.

*See? It's funny because a D&D zombie is a "vegetable" mentally.

Brova

2015-04-18, 02:34 PM

Even the rest of your post that I cut out shows what I am talking about. You insist on debating what the written text MEANS. But that's not what a RAW discussion IS.

First, no. Any discussion of anything is necessarily a discussion of meaning rather than text. You interpret the text on a vary basic level by assuming that the phrase "becomes a lich" means "becomes a lich" and not "I'd like a coke and a small side of fries".

Second, just as the meaning of the phrase "a dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature" is that a Mind Flayer Dread Necromancer does not transform into a lich, the meaning of the phrase "becomes a lich" is "acquires the lich template".

RedMage125

2015-04-18, 03:13 PM

First, no. Any discussion of anything is necessarily a discussion of meaning rather than text.
Not in-depth RAW discussions. That has been what sideswipe and I have been saying about this for several pages now. And that's the core of your misunderstanding about what we have been saying.

Like I said, you have shown that this kind of discussion is not he kind you wished to engage in. That's not a failing, but when that is the discussion others are having, you refusing to adhere to those tactics is why this thread went on as long as it did.

You can keep repeating your stance as long as you like, but I don't know why you would.

You insist that "becomes a lich" MEANS "gains the lich template", and I AGREE. Have for six pages now.

But that isn't what I have been saying. By a strict RAW discussion, the text that is WRITTEN is not "you gain the lich template", which you have acknowledged.

There really isn't anything more to it.

Brova

2015-04-18, 03:18 PM

RedMage125

2015-04-18, 06:18 PM

RedMage, the issue with your position is your stance on "humanoid". If you accept that both humanoid and lich have no rules meaning, you're fine. If you don't, you aren't. Either "not a humanoid" can have rules meaning and "becomes a lich" does too, or neither does. If you're willing to accept that Mind Flayers get the capstone, you can have a totally consistent position that has it not granting the lich template. But you don't seem to be willing to do that, so your entire case is just special pleading on "humanoid".
Really? You've just now decided that "the issue with my position" is something else now? And now you think my "entire case" is something else now?

Thanks for the unsolicited projection of your opinion into my thought process, but I know what I've been saying.

Ok, once again. This time in bold with large print.

I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT WHAT THE RULES MEAN

I was only arguing what the text SAYS.

I thought about humoring you by reviewing, once again, what my point is regarding the "humanoid" issue. But I have said it like 3 or 4 times already, and you still do not understand, because you keep responding with the EXACT SAME THING.

Everything other than the lich template issue was tangential.

We agree on what the text in the RAW means, in terms of intent. I think that much is clear.

You do not wish to participate in the kind of RAW discussion sideswipe and I were trying to have. That much is also clear.

What else can be said?

I have no wish to discuss the other tangents.

danzibr

2015-04-18, 06:22 PM

Waaaait a minute. What RAW means as far as intent? Isn't that exactly RAI?

Brova

2015-04-18, 06:27 PM

Really? You've just now decided that "the issue with my position" is something else now? And now you think my "entire case" is something else now?

You have yet to present a compelling case for why "humanoid" means "humanoid type" rather than nothing, but "lich" means nothing rather than "lich template". I'm not even trying to convince you your position is wrong any more, as you seem to be unwilling to budge on that issue. I'm just claiming it's not internally consistent. I would be totally satisfied (from a logical perspective, if not in relation to the words on the page) with the position "you become undead but not a lich" as long as that came with the caveat that it happened for anyone who looked basically like a human.

Waaaait a minute. What RAW means as far as intent? Isn't that exactly RAI?

RedMage is strawmanning my position. My position has always been that "becomes a lich" is part of the rules text and the only thing "becomes a lich" means in rules text is "acquires the lich template." In the same vein, we're all assuming the ability is written in English and "becomes a lich" should be parsed as meaning "becomes a lich" rather than "apples are a fruit" or "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Now, if RedMage was arguing that "becomes a lich" was fluff he'd be fine. If you parse it as fluff, it doesn't do anything from a rules perspective. But the issue is that (as mentioned above) he isn't willing to give up the humanoid debate, which is a necessary precondition to making that argument.

sideswipe

2015-04-18, 07:12 PM

Now I want a smoothie.

Maybe some dried pineapple.

Just hope it doesn't have an army of undead vegetables* at it's beck and call.

*See? It's funny because a D&D zombie is a "vegetable" mentally.

is a rotten apple just an apple with the undead template?

sideswipe

2015-04-18, 07:22 PM

Waaaait a minute. What RAW means as far as intent? Isn't that exactly RAI?

i think he mis-spoke. we all do it from time to time.

he meant the intention of the sentance. the intention of "becomes a lich" is that it replicates the sentance, and therefore MEANS the same as, "aquire the lich template."

but they are not the words that are written. i hope i have reworded it for you in a way that makes more sense. i had to double take too.

the hilarious thing about the whole debate is that i agree with the opposing arguement that every one else is saying, but that i recognise the dysfunction and the bad wording which gives birth to what me and red mage are saying. it takes a real anal retentive lawyer (or my ability to argue points of view i do not believe to be true) to argue RAW like this.

i have enjoyed most of this thread. i only wish it were a RL debate. they are always so much better.

danzibr

2015-04-18, 07:32 PM

i think he mis-spoke. we all do it from time to time.

he meant the intention of the sentance. the intention of "becomes a lich" is that it replicates the sentance, and therefore MEANS the same as, "aquire the lich template."

but they are not the words that are written. i hope i have reworded it for you in a way that makes more sense. i had to double take too.
So you're saying

RAI = gain the lich template
RAW = become a lich but do not gain the lich template,

right?

btw, is your avatar Lucas?

sideswipe

2015-04-18, 07:46 PM

So you're saying

RAI = gain the lich template
RAW = become a lich but do not gain the lich template,

right?

btw, is your avatar Lucas?

yes. you become an undead and call yourself a lich and therefore are a lich. but you do not gain the templates benifits. honestly its not much of a difference at lvl 20.

yes it is lucas. in all his pixilated glory.

General Sajaru

2015-04-19, 01:53 AM

Redmage, you seem to have ignored the passage I quoted from the MM a page or two ago (or I didn't see your response to it, in which case I apologize- all of the walls of text are getting to me).

From MM, Pg. 167: “Lich” is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery".

This is the only definition of the word lich in crunch text that I can find. As such, if we're looking at RAW, that's the only thing that lich can mean, and the phrase "becomes a lich" means that you either become a template or acquire it (depends upon just how you want to stick the definition into that sentence).

sideswipe

2015-04-19, 04:16 AM

danzibr

2015-04-19, 06:45 AM

RedMage125

2015-04-19, 08:09 AM

Brova:

I have sufficiently elucidated on the "humanoid" issue multiple times.

You have continued to misinterpret that as me saying "humanoid means 'humanoid type' because I say so". I have given you the complete run-down of HOW you can determine whether or not something is "humanoid" (in game terms) WITHOUT making any assumptions as to the MEANING of the word.

You could read post #127 again. It's the first part of that post.

General Sraju:

I did not respond because that exact point has already been made and addressed.

That was not the issue. The issue was that I was attempting to have a RAW discussion on a purely theoretical level, going ONLY off what words are printed in the text. Brova is attempting to have a discussion about how RAW should be APPLIED, which requires one to think and interpret from the text.

Is "becomes a lich" SUPPOSED to mean "lich template"? Probably. I'd certainly rule it that way in practice. But "becomes a lich" are not the same words as "gains/acquires/takes on the lich template". That's it. That's why this discussion had gone on as long as it had.

But now that I realize Brova is trying to have a separate discussion, I'm ready to call it good at that.

the hilarious thing about the whole debate is that i agree with the opposing arguement that every one else is saying, but that i recognise the dysfunction and the bad wording which gives birth to what me and red mage are saying. it takes a real anal retentive lawyer (or my ability to argue points of view i do not believe to be true) to argue RAW like this.
I have the same ability. And that's been what I've been doing the whole time. I've even admitted to it as soon as I realized that people were thinking I was actually "insisting" that DN's shouldn't get the template.

Anal-retentive rules-lawyering like this is fun in the vacuum of forum debate. Its not fun at the table. Which is why RAW discussions are a great outlet for those of us who can and like to do so. When it happens at a gaming table, someone's in danger of being hit with a hardcover book:smallwink:.

i have enjoyed most of this thread. i only wish it were a RL debate. they are always so much better.
Sometimes.

I like being able to take my time and re-think what I've been saying. Also, people who make personal attacks in RL debates is fequently a sign that they are losing their cool and getting angry. I have a good, solid grip on my temper, but even I have buttons and a limit to my patience. If I was in a RL debate over this and my opponent insulted my intelligence as often as it has been done in this thread, I might not have maintained a level head. And that's not something I enjoy.

Brova

2015-04-19, 08:14 AM

danzibr

2015-04-19, 08:42 AM

Is "becomes a lich" SUPPOSED to mean "lich template"? Probably. I'd certainly rule it that way in practice. But "becomes a lich" are not the same words as "gains/acquires/takes on the lich template". That's it. That's why this discussion had gone on as long as it had.
The only reason RedMage says this is because he's throwing in his so-called normal parlance.

It's as simple as this:
In 3.5, lich = a creature with the lich template.
Thus in 3.5, ``become a lich'' = ``become a creature with the lich template.''

In 3.5, the word lich is not used as a generic undead spellcaster with a phylactery. RAW doesn't care about this normal-parlance hogwash.

RedMage125

2015-04-19, 09:08 AM

You have both missed the point so much, I am beginning to suspect I am being trolled.

Bottom line: you either understand the distinction between "what the RAW say" and "what the RAW mean", or you don't.

Even if you believe "becomes a lich" equates to "gains the template", you can see that they are not the same words.

"Humanoid" in this context is not clearly "humanoid type" by the same argument regarding "lich".

HOWEVER, until you can prove to me that by RAW a Mind Flayer is a humanoid in game terms, your mind flayer argument falls flat.

And danzibr:
None of this has anything to do with the "normal parlance". You even quoted what I said about it is NOT about the meaning of the word "lich".

Read the part of what I posted that you quoted again.

I AGREE that "becomes a lich" is intended to mean "lich template"

But they are not the same words. Different syntax, and in RAW, syntax matters.

danzibr

2015-04-19, 09:22 AM

Wait wait...

Why does lich not mean a creature with the lich template? Assuming you don't invoke normal parlance.

Brova

2015-04-19, 09:41 AM

HOWEVER, until you can prove to me that by RAW a Mind Flayer is a humanoid in game terms, your mind flayer argument falls flat.

So why are we assuming "humanoid" is being used as a game term? I mean, a Mind Flayer is totally a humanoid in the causal/normal/regular/whatever sense of the word. It's got a head, the right number of limbs, and it doesn't even have wings or anything.

Seriously, apply the same exactly line of logic to the word "lich":

1. All things are liches or they are not.
2. All things which are liches are described by the lich template.
3. Therefore "lich" means "lich template".

That's the same argument you made with humanoid. Except it's made with lich. I don't understand how you can claim with a straight face that "lich" doesn't mean "game rules lich" but "humanoid" means "game rules humanoid". There is exactly the same level of ambiguity in both instances, but you equivocate only on the one consistent with your position. You are being intellectually dishonest and I would appreciate if you would stop.

Now, a new line of reasoning:

1. Consider the conclusion if the ability was only "When a dread necromancer attains 20th level, she undergoes a hideous transformation and becomes a lich." Obviously, the Dread Necromancer would become a lich.
2. Obviously, for this conclusion to become false by adding new text to the ability, it would have to contradict what happens when you become a lich.
3. Consider the next sentence in the ability: "Her type changes to undead, and she gains all the traits of the undead (see page 317 of the Monster Manual)." A lich becomes undead, the Dread Necromancer becomes undead, no contradiction, no change in meaning.
4. Consider the next sentence: "She no longer has a Constitution score, all her existing Hit Dice become d12s, and she must reroll her hit points." No contradictions here as undead lose their constitution score and have d12 hit dice (actually, its possible the reroll thing is a contradiction, but the lich template is silent on it and I don't know the default).
5. Now the next sentence: "A dread necromancer need not pay experience points or gold to create her phylactery." This one is actually a contradiction, as liches generally have to pay the XP cost for their phylactery. However, the lich template describes phylactery creation as a precondition to becoming a lich.
6. And the final sentence: "A dread necromancer who is not humanoid does not gain this class feature." Well, the lich template can only be applied to humanoids. I don't see a contradiction here.
7. Therefore, the DN becomes a lich at level 20.

Back on the original topic, I should note that the lich template has an instance of "humanoid" being used to describe things which are not actually of the humanoid type - namely, liches. Here's the quote:

A lich is a gaunt and skeletal humanoid with withered flesh stretched tight across horribly visible bones.

That sort of seems to undermine the argument that humanoid is used only to describe creatures of the humanoid type.

RedMage125

2015-04-19, 02:04 PM

Brova, I'm really confused what you THINK you are debating here.

Everything in your last post if what the RAW means, which I am not contesting. I have made that clear.

You have acknowledged the point that the RAW -in the text- does not say "gains/acquires/takes on the lich template"

That's it. Argument over.

You can THINK that you're somehow explaining to me how it works, but you are not.

What sideswipe and I have been saying is that from a strict RAW, rules-lawyer, nitpicky point of view, going SOLELY off the words written in the text, the words do not EXPLICITLY grant said template. And that's truth. You have acknowledged that those EXACT WORDS are not in the DN's text.

We ALL agree about what the text MEANS and WHY. That's not what we've been saying.

What it comes down to is that I have been trying to have a type A conversation with you, and you have been trying to have a type B conversation with me. That was the disconnect.

You can stop re-hashing your points, because they are not relevant. I AGREE with what you are saying already. You don't have any desire to engage in the kind of RAW discussion sideswipe and I have been talking about. That's okay, no one's forcing you to.

danzibr:
It's not about using "normal parlance". That only came up when I contested Brova's point about "normal parlance".

The RAW perspective is that nothing that is not explicitly granted by the rules is granted. Any deductive reasoning about the intent or meaning is not relevant in such a discussion, which is the kind of discussion I was attempting to have. For example, it is indisputable, by RAW, that a level 20 DN becomes an undead creature, loses CON score and re-rolls HD as 2d12s.

Everything written in the description of abilities for a class or PrC is game text. Ideally, said text SHOULD be explicit and unambiguous. In reality, it is not always. Which is why people like myself and sideswipe can have fun with them, because we can find (and argue for) points of view we don't actually agree with, but are still true on bare technicalities. It shows some weird dysfunction in the rules.

It's like the "humanoid" bit. It doesn't say "humanoid type" does it? No. But it does still say that only "humanoids" get the capstone. As game text, it's still a rule, even if it is not clear which creatures are excluded and which ones are not. HOWEVER, the word "humanoid" IS used in some creatures' stat blocks, and not in others'. So only on a case-by-case basis could that be made clear. Mind Flayers say "humanoid" exactly nowhere in their stat block, so there is no support to claim that they are. Elves, Humans, Dwarves, etc. DO say it. So only creatures that have a GAME TERM DESIGNATION of "humanoid" qualify. That DOES NOT MEAN that one just goes and says "well, that's going to be all creatures of the 'humanoid type', so I'll just correctly assume that 'humanoid' in that sentence means 'humanoid type'". That's not how you operate in that kind of RAW discussion. You know a Mind Flayer doesn't get it because Mind Flayers do not say "humanoid" in game terms.

The same anal-retentive rules lawyering that says "the text must EXPLICITLY SAY that the template is gained to get the template" is what also entails "a creature's stat block must EXPLICITLY SAY somewhere on it that said creature is a humanoid". Hence why it is consistent. It's the LACK OF SPECIFIC TEXT in the Mind Flayer entry that tells you that Mind Flayers do not get the capstone.

Is that more clear danzibr?

Brova

2015-04-19, 02:21 PM

RedMage, no one is making you continue. If you don't want to respond to my arguments, you can just not do that. Don't try to drop a red herring about "real RAW debates". For the last three or four posts, your entire argument has been "it doesn't say exactly 'acquires the lich template'" which is responsive to exactly zero arguments.

Now before you talk about how I need to be more nitpick-y, I want you to answer one question: What would happen at level 20 in the ability stopped at "becomes a lich"? No reference to undead, nothing about rerolling HP, just "becomes a lich".

You also seem hung up on what "means" means. You are conflating "meaning" and "intent". Both of those things can be ambiguous. In this case, the intent is clear but the meaning is not. The fundamental question isn't about "intent" its about whether parts of the rules that are written in terms other than "game language" are rules. I contend that they are, you seem to disagree.

Except for the part with "humanoid", which apparently means "humanoid type" despite not citing to the rules for the humanoid type, or having the word type, or anything that would make it any less ambiguous than "lich".

I have no problem with you disagreeing about the meaning of the RAW. There are two perfectly valid interpretations. You could easily pick the one where Dread Necromancers don't get the template. Then we could have a debate about which methodology was "better" for various reasons.

But you're not doing that. You're being intellectually dishonest and pulling slight of hand on "humanoid". And that is a problem, because it makes any actual debate with you impossible.

danzibr

2015-04-19, 02:39 PM

danzibr:
It's not about using "normal parlance". That only came up when I contested Brova's point about "normal parlance".

The RAW perspective is that nothing that is not explicitly granted by the rules is granted. Any deductive reasoning about the intent or meaning is not relevant in such a discussion, which is the kind of discussion I was attempting to have. For example, it is indisputable, by RAW, that a level 20 DN becomes an undead creature, loses CON score and re-rolls HD as 2d12s.

Everything written in the description of abilities for a class or PrC is game text. Ideally, said text SHOULD be explicit and unambiguous. In reality, it is not always. Which is why people like myself and sideswipe can have fun with them, because we can find (and argue for) points of view we don't actually agree with, but are still true on bare technicalities. It shows some weird dysfunction in the rules.

It's like the "humanoid" bit. It doesn't say "humanoid type" does it? No. But it does still say that only "humanoids" get the capstone. As game text, it's still a rule, even if it is not clear which creatures are excluded and which ones are not. HOWEVER, the word "humanoid" IS used in some creatures' stat blocks, and not in others'. So only on a case-by-case basis could that be made clear. Mind Flayers say "humanoid" exactly nowhere in their stat block, so there is no support to claim that they are. Elves, Humans, Dwarves, etc. DO say it. So only creatures that have a GAME TERM DESIGNATION of "humanoid" qualify. That DOES NOT MEAN that one just goes and says "well, that's going to be all creatures of the 'humanoid type', so I'll just correctly assume that 'humanoid' in that sentence means 'humanoid type'". That's not how you operate in that kind of RAW discussion. You know a Mind Flayer doesn't get it because Mind Flayers do not say "humanoid" in game terms.

The same anal-retentive rules lawyering that says "the text must EXPLICITLY SAY that the template is gained to get the template" is what also entails "a creature's stat block must EXPLICITLY SAY somewhere on it that said creature is a humanoid". Hence why it is consistent. It's the LACK OF SPECIFIC TEXT in the Mind Flayer entry that tells you that Mind Flayers do not get the capstone.

Is that more clear danzibr?
Perhaps I don't understand what ``explicitly'' means. The text does explicitly say at level 20, a DN gains the lich template. Not in those exact words, but it is very explicit, given you know the one and only definition of ``lich.'' Lich = creature with the lich template. Become a lich = become a creature with the lich template. There is no room for interpretation, no room for ambiguity.

RedMage125

2015-04-19, 04:20 PM

For the last three or four posts, your entire argument has been "it doesn't say exactly 'acquires the lich template'" which is responsive to exactly zero arguments.
Actually...it's been the bone of contention since page 1.

Go back and see for yourself.

Except for the part with "humanoid", which apparently means "humanoid type" despite not citing to the rules for the humanoid type, or having the word type, or anything that would make it any less ambiguous than "lich".

But you're not doing that. You're being intellectually dishonest and pulling slight of hand on "humanoid". And that is a problem, because it makes any actual debate with you impossible.

If you look and re-read what I have posted regarding the "humanoid" bit, including my last post-and read it with open mind, just take in what I am saying and not just assume that it's some kind of deflection-you will see that I did, in fact, answer this question on terms that address it being JUST AS ambiguous as "lich".

Perhaps I don't understand what ``explicitly'' means. The text does explicitly say at level 20, a DN gains the lich template. Not in those exact words, but it is very explicit, given you know the one and only definition of ``lich.'' Lich = creature with the lich template. Become a lich = become a creature with the lich template. There is no room for interpretation, no room for ambiguity.

"Explicit" means: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning.
or
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

So it would need to use the EXACT WORDS "lich template" to be explicit.

The text does not EXPLICITLY say "gains the lich template".

For example, what I said before: The text EXPLICITLY says that the DN becomes undead, loses CON score, and re-rolls all HD as d12s.

Brova

2015-04-19, 04:28 PM

Actually...it's been the bone of contention since page 1.

Go back and see for yourself.

No, your contention started out as "it says your type changes to undead, therefore that's all it does". You also mentioned the whole "no pointer to lich" thing, but that was not (at least in my perception) your primary argument.

If you look and re-read what I have posted regarding the "humanoid" bit, including my last post-and read it with open mind, just take in what I am saying and not just assume that it's some kind of deflection-you will see that I did, in fact, answer this question on terms that address it being JUST AS ambiguous as "lich".

I understand your argument about the word humanoid. You're starting from the premise that "humanoid" is being used as part of the rules, checking to see where else it shows up in the rules, and concluding the things where it shows up count as humanoids. The problem is twofold:

1. You haven't demonstrated why we should assume humanoid is being used in a rules context.
2. You haven't explained why the same line that determines "humanoid" has a meaning of "humanoid type" doesn't prove "lich" has a meaning of "creature with the lich template"

You know, for all your ranting about how RAW debates are super technically, you seem to be ignoring some very obvious issues with your logic.

danzibr

2015-04-19, 04:49 PM

"Explicit" means: very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning.
or
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

So it would need to use the EXACT WORDS "lich template" to be explicit.

The text does not EXPLICITLY say "gains the lich template".

For example, what I said before: The text EXPLICITLY says that the DN becomes undead, loses CON score, and re-rolls all HD as d12s.
Nope nope nope. Explicit does not necessitate using exact words.

For example, someone calls me on the phone and asks what I'm doing. I say every day without fail I eat supper from 5:00 to 5:30 pm. I then say it is now 5:15 pm.

Did I say I am now eating supper? No.

Did what I say make it explicit that I am eating supper? Yes.

With a box

2015-04-19, 05:11 PM

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
Will discovery of this sentence make difference?
it means become a lich gets all things that lich template grants, isn't it?

danzibr

2015-04-19, 05:47 PM

Will discovery of this sentence make difference?
it means become a lich gets all things that lich template grants, isn't it?
Ahh. I quoted that earlier, but not with the thought that it says "a lich" rather than "a creature with the lich template."
Nice.

Brova

2015-04-19, 07:43 PM

Will discovery of this sentence make difference?
it means become a lich gets all things that lich template grants, isn't it?

It does seem that way. It's kind of impressive how many different arguments there are for yes in this case.

danzibr

2015-04-19, 07:50 PM

Oh yeah, while I'm at it... I asked in the simple RAW Q&A thread.

[...] given, according to the MM (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm), lich = template (it makes more sense to think lich = a creature with the lich template, but anyway), and this seems to be the only definition in all of 3.5 for lich, could the phrase ``you become a lich'' mean anything other than you gain the lich template?

And yes, I'm thinking of the DN capstone ability.

[...] Yes, the lich template is applied to the character who takes the 20th level of dread necromancer.
"Lich" is an acquired template that can be added to any humanoid creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature), provided it can create the required phylactery.Without explicitly giving another method of becoming a lich, this is what the Lich Transformation does.

danzibr

2015-04-20, 06:27 PM

I'm quite curious to see the responses to the last few posts.

atemu1234

2015-04-20, 07:09 PM

I'm quite curious to see the responses to the last few posts.

Please don't double post. It hurts me.

General Sajaru

2015-04-20, 07:10 PM

Redmage seems to not be responding to this line of argument, for whatever reason.

danzibr

2015-04-20, 07:30 PM

Please don't double post. It hurts me.
My deepest and sincerest apologies for hurting you, atemu1234.

Redmage seems to not be responding to this line of argument, for whatever reason.
I bet he'll be back.

atemu1234

2015-04-20, 07:38 PM

My deepest and sincerest apologies for hurting you, atemu1234.

Thank you.

I bet he'll be back.

He always comes back.

danzibr

2015-04-20, 07:55 PM

Thank you.
:D

He always comes back.
This made me lol.

I admire his resolve.

On a side note, this thread inspired me to make/ask for some DN homebrew. A slightly stronger version, with Wizard-like spell progression (getting stuff earlier, since although they're spontaneous casters, their list isn't great), and rather than any minionmancy spells, do something with like an undead AC (this is because, in large groups, having many minions makes combat much slower than it already is).

RedMage125

2015-04-20, 08:30 PM

No, your contention started out as "it says your type changes to undead, therefore that's all it does". You also mentioned the whole "no pointer to lich" thing, but that was not (at least in my perception) your primary argument.

Then that was unclear. "type changes to undead" is explicit and has exact wording. "gains the lich template" is not there in exact words, which is what I was saying.

I understand your argument about the word humanoid. You're starting from the premise that "humanoid" is being used as part of the rules, checking to see where else it shows up in the rules, and concluding the things where it shows up count as humanoids. The problem is twofold:

1. You haven't demonstrated why we should assume humanoid is being used in a rules context.
2. You haven't explained why the same line that determines "humanoid" has a meaning of "humanoid type" doesn't prove "lich" has a meaning of "creature with the lich template"

1. I have been saying that everything in the section explaining the mechanical benefits of class features is "game text"
2. Again, we don't determine that "humanoid" MEANS "humanoid type". But a Mind Flayer's stat block does not say that it is a "humanoid" anywhere. An Elf/Dwarf/Human stat block WOULD.

You know, for all your ranting about how RAW debates are super technically, you seem to be ignoring some very obvious issues with your logic.
I am ignoring nothing.

And you continue to be condescending and insulting, even when not making personal attacks.

I have to honestly ask: is it not enough to be right, but that you also must be "better" than someone else?

Nope nope nope. Explicit does not necessitate using exact words.

For example, someone calls me on the phone and asks what I'm doing. I say every day without fail I eat supper from 5:00 to 5:30 pm. I then say it is now 5:15 pm.

Did I say I am now eating supper? No.

Did what I say make it explicit that I am eating supper? Yes.

The dictionary definition of "explicit" includes: "leaving nothing merely implied". "lich" meaning "lich template" is IMPLIED, albeit very strongly.

Will discovery of this sentence make difference?
it means become a lich gets all things that lich template grants, isn't it?
No. That's been covered a bunch of times.

Redmage seems to not be responding to this line of argument, for whatever reason.
Because I have things to do.

Sunday is my Game Day, when I actually get to PLAY D&D (Pathfinder in this case).

Today I have been busy at work. Last week was totally dead at work (seriously, like nothing to work on), so I could play around on the internet. For those of you who don't know, I'm currently active duty in the Navy. I'm an electrician on aircraft. Most of our planes were off-station last week, but they're back now.

But thanks to everyone for all the passive-aggressive smack talk about why I "wasn't responding".

Back on topic:

We can all see with our own eyes that the words "gains/acquires/takes on the lich template" are not in the text, right?

That's it.

That's the point.

For those of you joining the conversation and may have skipped some of the pages in the middle, I AGREE that the DN's ability should grant the template. But from a strictly "rules-lawyer" point of view, the only thing explicitly gained is that the DN's type changes to undead and she gains a phylactery.

danzibr

2015-04-20, 08:40 PM

The dictionary definition of "explicit" includes: "leaving nothing merely implied". "lich" meaning "lich template" is IMPLIED, albeit very strongly.
My example need not fit every definition of the word.

Regardless... I think at this point there's nothing more to be said. With everything that's been presented, it's very clear by RAW that the DN gains the lich template (as was affirmed in the RAW Q&A thread, and has gone uncontested).

With a box

2015-04-20, 09:04 PM

Back on topic:

We can all see with our own eyes that the words "gains/acquires/takes on the lich template" are not in the text, right?

That's it.

That's the point.

For those of you joining the conversation and may have skipped some of the pages in the middle, I AGREE that the DN's ability should grant the template. [B]But from a strictly "rules-lawyer" point of view, the only thing explicitly gained is that the DN's type changes to undead and she gains a phylactery.[B]

No. I was not talking about whether DN 20 gives you Lich template.
What I was try to say was just being a lich is enough to get what Lich template gives.(turn resistance, etc...)
I don't know whether DN 20 get actual Lich template, but I'm sure they get what lichs get.

danzibr

2015-04-20, 09:08 PM

No. I was not talking about whether DN 20 gives you Lich template.
What I was try to say was just being a lich is enough to get what Lich template gives.(turn resistance, etc...)
I don't know whether DN 20 get actual Lich template, but I'm sure they get what lichs get.
Right. And his no-it's-been-covered-a-bunch response doesn't make it clear what we talked about. It was brought up, but never focused on.

I dunno if it's worth repeating, but it does *not* say a creature with the lich template gains blah blah blah. It says a lich gains blah blah blah.

Brova

2015-04-20, 09:27 PM

1. I have been saying that everything in the section explaining the mechanical benefits of class features is "game text"
2. Again, we don't determine that "humanoid" MEANS "humanoid type". But a Mind Flayer's stat block does not say that it is a "humanoid" anywhere. An Elf/Dwarf/Human stat block WOULD.

1. Okay, so why doesn't "becomes a lich" imply, you know, becoming a lich? Interestingly, someone has pointed out that the lich entry in the MM includes the text:

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

Emphasis mine. Note that it doesn't say "a creature with the lich template" or "someone who has a acquired the lich template". It says "a lich", which is exactly what the Dread Necromancer becomes.

2. And we would also observe that only those creatures with the lich template say they are liches. An undead spellcaster with the lich template (such as Lady Vol) is described as a lich, but other undead spellcasters (such as the 3.5 Count Strahd von Zarovich) are not described as liches. Ergo, the term lich can only be taken to refer to creatures with the lich template. Thus any creature that "becomes a lich" must acquire the lich template, as surely as any creature which is a "humanoid" must have the humanoid type.

RedMage125

2015-04-20, 09:27 PM

My example need not fit every definition of the word.

Regardless... I think at this point there's nothing more to be said. With everything that's been presented, it's very clear by RAW that the DN gains the lich template (as was affirmed in the RAW Q&A thread, and has gone uncontested).

And CustServ said you don't.

Neither is "official", and IF either one was, CustServe trumps a public forum.

But no, "a thread on these forums" does not constitute an official answer.

j_spencer93

2015-04-20, 09:48 PM

I literally don't see how anyone can read this and be like "it doesn't turn you into a lich, you become a lich." In the game lich = lich template. Every other time i can think of the second interpretation happening, it directly says "except as stated her, or you do not gain X instead you gain X".
You become a lich.

General Sajaru

2015-04-20, 10:07 PM

Well, I suppose to some extent, it comes down to whether you think the first sentence of the class feature is fluff text or crunch text. If it's fluff, then I agree with you, Redmage; you become an undead and nothing else, because the phrase "you become a lich" has no mechanics meaning. If it's crunch, then I disagree; you can't just say "oh, cool, I become a lich." No, you have to ask, what exactly is a lich? What is it that I've become? And you find the definition in the MM description- it's an acquired template added to a base creature with a phylactery. Therefore, when you become a lich, you acquire that template.

Xsatra

2015-04-20, 10:46 PM

7 pages of arguments over what "You become a lich" can possibly mean.

Elderand

2015-04-21, 03:45 AM

7 pages of arguments over what "You become a lich" can possibly mean.

No, it's 2, maybe 3 post worth of argument with any substance and the rest is purely going roundabout going "huhuh" "nuhuh" Such is the nature of internet arguments.

danzibr

2015-04-21, 06:06 AM

And CustServ said you don't.

Neither is "official", and IF either one was, CustServe trumps a public forum.

But no, "a thread on these forums" does not constitute an official answer.
Of course the RAW Q&A thread isn't official. And CustServ is known to make mistakes.

Also, what's your response to this fact that 3 or 4 people brought up?

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
You agree a DN becomes a lich, right? But you say it doesn't gain the lich template? Apparently it doesn't need the lich template to get the abilities, only be a lich.

sideswipe

2015-04-23, 05:00 AM

No, it's 2, maybe 3 post worth of argument with any substance and the rest is purely going roundabout going "huhuh" "nuhuh" Such is the nature of internet arguments.

that is the whole reason that after 2-3 posts i stopped arguing my point. i said my piece. no amount of "no its not" "yes it is" is worth my time. they gave thier point and i gave mine. if a new point is raised rather than trying to find failings in the wordings of previous posts i will contribute.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-04-23, 06:46 AM

This is why I just give DN the Death Master capstone. Explicitly gets the template and will illegally apply the template if needed. Perfect.

RedMage125

2015-04-23, 09:50 AM

that is the whole reason that after 2-3 posts i stopped arguing my point. i said my piece. no amount of "no its not" "yes it is" is worth my time. they gave thier point and i gave mine. if a new point is raised rather than trying to find failings in the wordings of previous posts i will contribute.

I've decided to follow that sagacious advice. I've made my points, people disagree. That's fine.

danzibr

2015-04-23, 02:55 PM

I'm still waiting to hear this explained:

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
Even if a DN somehow does not gain the lich template, he/she still gains all the qualities something with the lich template would have.

Segev

2015-04-23, 03:31 PM

I've decided to follow that sagacious advice. I've made my points, people disagree. That's fine.

Heresy! Your quest is incomplete while somebody remains wrong upon the internet!

RedMage125

2015-04-23, 04:19 PM

Heresy! Your quest is incomplete while somebody remains wrong upon the internet!

That's one of the optional objectives. So mission's complete, I just don't get the scene where the cloaked guy zaps my arm with lightning to make the purple symbol cooler (bonus points for the reference).

danzibr

2015-04-23, 07:28 PM

With people leaving, I'm afraid I'll never hear a reason as to why a DN wouldn't get all the stuff listed under the lich template due to

A lich has all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

With a box

2015-04-23, 10:47 PM

Maybe Dread Necromancer are Dreadful because of this.
(Can DN 20 cast animate thread? :smallsmile:

sideswipe

2015-04-24, 05:51 AM

With people leaving, I'm afraid I'll never hear a reason as to why a DN wouldn't get all the stuff listed under the lich template due to

not picking holes in your logic to attack you, using your logic.

if you become a half fey you would gain all the abilities in the half fey template (van richtens guide to shadow fey) and half fey (fiend folio), if you became a ghost you would gain all the abilities of ghost (monster manual) ghost (ghostwalk) and ghost (WoTC web enhancement).
same with most of the templates in 3rd/3.5 (not all of them are different editions, a lot are all 3.5 or all 3rd).

if you look at nearly all of these templates they mostly say "a *blank* gains all the abilities as listed here in addition to its old abilities" or something similar.
by your reading if there are multiple instances of a template with teh exact same name you need to apply ALL of them if you gain a template of the same name.
the counter to this is if they say "ally *blank* template from page *blank* of book *blank*.

lich may have a game definition, so do all of these. so if you became a ghost you would go from level 1 to (on the spot non checked math) an epic level creature. and you would have to gain them all simultaneously and not in a set order.

this is why you must have a defined and completely unambiguous written set thing to follow. otherwise you get a huge mess. take an example of the one i gave a few pages ago, the one that adds draconic creature template. there are 2 or 3 instances of draconic creature accross all 3rd/3.5. you would gain all of them... except it specifically states that you gain the one in that set book on that set page. so that rules out gaining any of the other templates that have THE EXACT SAME GAME DEFINITION. only in capitols for emphisis, not to degrade you in any way. you have been polite, only overshadowed by another trying to provoke us. this is probably why you may have been missed on many occasions. and i apologise for that.

the above reasons are why i am saying you need to specifically state the page the template exists on. otherwise it points to everything and nothing at the same time and can only be used by "interperating the rules". which is the correct thing but is not RAW. as by RAW you may gain 2-3 templates and huge LA. maybe being unplayable. sorry that this took so long to say. i was gathering information and i am a very busy man, i forgot about it a few times.

have i cleared up anything for you? or at least put forth a good arguement in your eyes? even if you remain unconvinced?