Problems with the word "inherent"

[Raishoiken]

So i feel the word inherent most is most commonly interpreted to mean "born with". The other day while discussing a 3rd party effect that uses the word (also important for use of the supernatural transformation feat), however, i found that some of the online definitions of the word allow a backdoor work around where things (items) closely associated with someone, such as Asmodeus' ruby rod or the Wand of Orcus, are also technically an "inherent" part of someone

1: Is there anyone more well versed in engrish than i that can either confirm or refute this as true?

2: where would you personally draw the line?



edit: the specific dictionary found online to allow this was in the merrium-webster definition of inherent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent

then following the term character
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character

into attribute
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribute#h1

[noob]

Inherent bonuses are obtained on birth only for species created through epic spells.
Yes it looks absurd but it is how it works: inherent have nothing to do with birth unless you are an epic spell created creature.
There is no definition of inherent abilities however natural, class, extraordinary, supernatural and spell like abilities are all described.

[ExLibrisMortis]

"Inherent" is one of a few words that express the close relation between or "natural" belonging of something to something else (viz. intrinsic/essential/natural/innate). The meaning of "Y is inherent to X" is something like "Y is part of X such that X [isn't really X without/doesn't make sense without/can't reasonably be considered separate from] Y".

Edit: That means "born with" isn't part of the definition at all, and it certainly isn't what I think of when I read "inherent". Of course, depending on what you're talking about precisely, inherent and inborn qualities may overlap, but that's the only association.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Luckily, psionics is inherently inherent innate*. It says right in the XPH.





*Close but no synchronicity. Oops.

[Biggus]

"Inherent" is one of a few words that express the close relation between or "natural" belonging of something to something else (viz. intrinsic/essential/natural/innate). The meaning of "Y is inherent to X" is something like "Y is part of X such that X [isn't really X without/doesn't make sense without/can't reasonably be considered separate from] Y".

Edit: That means "born with" isn't part of the definition at all, and it certainly isn't what I think of when I read "inherent". Of course, depending on what you're talking about precisely, inherent and inborn qualities may overlap, but that's the only association.

Yeah, I don't think of inherent as meaning "born with" but pretty much exactly how you define it.

@OP As far as I can see, inherent bonuses in D&D (the kind you get from Wish) are meant in the sense of "permanent, can't be removed from". Without knowing the third party source you're referring to, I'm not sure if they're using it in the same sense.

As for what I'd allow: if an item is literally a part of someone, in the sense that the One Ring is a part of Sauron for example, I'd call that inherent. If it's just something strongly associated with them I wouldn't personally.

[Crake]

With regards to supernatural transformation, I take it to mean racial SLAs, considering the context of the book being player races and exotic race options.

[Troacctid]

Supernatural Transformation does not, in fact, use the word "inherent."

[Crake]

Supernatural Transformation does not, in fact, use the word "inherent."

True actually, it uses innate.

[Segev]

As has already been said, an inherent property is something that simply IS part of that which it is a property of. There might be weird edge cases, but for most purposes, you’re not sensibly separating them.

Water is inherently wet. Sand is inherently gritty. Fiends are inherently evil.

To say that Asmodeus’s ruby rod is inherently his is to say that nobody else can truly own it. It’s his and will act like it’s his no matter who else holds, wields, or manipulates it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Would grafts be considered inherent?

[Doctor Awkward]

Inherent is an adjective describing a quality that exists as, quote, "an essential, permanent, or characteristic attribute" of something else. In this context a "characteristic" attribute is an adjective describing a distinguishing or noteworthy trait or property.

A character's inherent bonuses to statistics are a permanent, inseparable part of the character.

Things within the game are only an inherent part of something else when they are explicitly described as such within the text. Because the rules are a positive-statement, exception-based set. They are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do, and any exceptions to what can be done are always explicitly called out as such.

[Vizzerdrix]

Would grafts be considered inherent?

If it was left to you in the will of the donor, yes.

[Segev]

Would grafts be considered inherent?

I'm pretty sure graft is inherent to any large organization, especially those affiliated with government powers. It's probably why there are so many evil viziers.

[the_tick_rules]

then there are the stat boosting books/wishes that give you inherent.

[NigelWalmsley]

First: the word you want is "innate", not "inherent". Inherent is a type of bonus, and is clearly defined in that there are things that grant it and limits on how big it can be.

As far as what things count as "innate", the term is not (to my knowledge), explicitly defined. You can infer from Spell Immunity that it is probably supposed to apply to class SLAs:


Spell immunity protects against spells, spell-like effects of magic items, and innate spell-like abilities of creatures.

So unless you want to argue that Spell Immunity would protect you from a Barbed Devil's Scorching Ray SLA, but not a Archmage's Scorching Ray SLA, class-based SLAs are "innate".