If you cast Fission, kill yourself, then revive yourself, is your fission permanent?

[alexstrasa81]

So you manifest fission, right before the duration lapses you kill yourself. Then the duration lapses and the fission now has 1 level loss and 1 negative level. The fission then manifests psionic revivify on you to bring you back to life.

Is the rejoining permanently stopped? Is your fission duplicate permanent? or shall I say, Instantaneous?

If so, what happens when you manifest Fission a second time? Does your duplicate disappear? Does a rejoining suddenly happen? Do you get a 2nd duplicate? Can my duplicate manifest fission? The rules say your duplicate cannot manifest fission, but doesn't say you can't, only that you can only have 1 duplicate in existence.

[tyckspoon]

Pun-Pun manifests behind you, Gibbs-slaps you, and advises you stop trying to break the universe.


More seriously, what I would take from this

If you die, your duplicate remains in existence, and is for all intents you, but with two negative levels. (Once the duration expires, one of the negative levels immediately converts to one lost level; the other negative level can be removed by standard means.)

Is that if you happen to be dead and the duplicate is still active when the power expires, then you are effectively raised/transferred entirely into the duplicate, similar to being raised by a Clone spell. So you -can't- Revivify 'your' corpse, because you aren't dead. You're alive, you're just using the duplicate body now - it has your mind and soul in it, so it's not available to try to recall into the corpse.

[alexstrasa81]

Pun-Pun manifests behind you, Gibbs-slaps you, and advises you stop trying to break the universe.

If it's infinite duplicates it breaks the universe.
If it's just one duplicate then it's still significantly subpar compared to spellcasting so there really is no problem.

At level 13 i play malconvoker who gets mariliths. I think a permanent duplicate of myself is worse than a single marilith so I don't think this is even remotely good enough. I've been looking over psionics and they kinda suck. No metamagic reducers. Maximum metamagic limit of 2. Compensating that with more actions kills your entire pp per day. And they got no orbs so spell resistance screws em up real bad. So yeah, I'd take a marilith over a 11th level psion anyday.

Now make it 13 round duration 11th level psion and I'm just gonna go malconvoker.


Is that if you happen to be dead and the duplicate is still active when the power expires, then you are effectively raised/transferred entirely into the duplicate, similar to being raised by a Clone spell. So you -can't- Revivify 'your' corpse, because you aren't dead. You're alive, you're just using the duplicate body now - it has your mind and soul in it, so it's not available to try to recall into the corpse.

My take is he's your clone so he's basically you for all intents and purposes. No soul transfer or whatever. You original is dead and soul gone to hell or heaven and whether a duplicate has a soul or not is gray area.

Maybe yes because he's a fraction of your soul (represented by negative level) and then grows to a real soul after you're dead cause magic?

But I think trying to invoke soul stuff in this discussion is not relevant because there are no rules here so essentially we're just making stuff up with no basis to argue what we want.

[Crake]

there are no rules here so essentially we're just making stuff up with no basis

Tyckspoon literally quoted the rules on what happens in the exact circumstance you asked about.

[alexstrasa81]

Tyckspoon literally quoted the rules on what happens in the exact circumstance you asked about.

yes and I fail to see any word of soul transfer like in the clone spell.
"its soul immediately transfers to the clone, creating a replacement (provided that the soul is free and willing to return)"

from where I stand "for all intents and purposes you" means he's essentially you as in he's not you but basically you.

[Crake]

yes and I fail to see any word of soul transfer like in the clone spell.
"its soul immediately transfers to the clone, creating a replacement (provided that the soul is free and willing to return)"

from where I stand "for all intents and purposes you" means he's essentially you as in he's not you but basically you.

I dunno, "for all intents" is pretty all encompassing.

[alexstrasa81]

I dunno, "for all intents" is pretty all encompassing.

Go google every spell and ability description that says "for all intents and purposes" and see if you still feel that way.

For example. Leap into Animal spell
"For all intents and purposes, you no longer exist while merged with the animal"

[Crake]

Go google every spell and ability description that says "for all intents and purposes" and see if you still feel that way.

For example. Leap into Animal spell
"For all intents and purposes, you no longer exist while merged with the animal"

And why would that change my mind? The spell makes a general statement (that you effectively don't exist), and then adds specific examples that override it (as in, you're able to control the animal despite effectively not existing), which is pretty common rules conventions in dnd, hence the moniker specific trumps general.

[alexstrasa81]

And why would that change my mind? The spell makes a general statement (that you effectively don't exist), and then adds specific examples that override it (as in, you're able to control the animal despite effectively not existing), which is pretty common rules conventions in dnd, hence the moniker specific trumps general.

I'm not here to change your mind. You're here to convince me for all intents and purposes means soul transfer. And you failed to do that.

If there is a soul transfer, 100% sure the rules would've been explicit on that subject matter. They always are.

Back to the subject, as I said in the other thread, simulacrum is yet another example souless copies. So saying duplicates must have souls after original's death is a baseless argument.

So I think speculating on souls and duplicates when there is 0 rules on the subject matter is not relevant.

If anything, resorting to speculation is gonna make me think it does in fact work and people who don't want it to work are now coming up with novel reasons.

[Crake]

I'm not here to change your mind. You're here to convince me for all intents and purposes means soul transfer. And you failed to do that.

I mean, if the words "for all intents" doesn't convince you, then I think you're fishing for an answer you want, rather than seeking the truth.

[alexstrasa81]

I mean, if the words "for all intents" doesn't convince you, then I think you're fishing for an answer you want, rather than seeking the truth.

I really shouldn't be responding to this but

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-for-all-intensive-purposes-intents
"For all intents and purposes is a phrase meaning "essentially" or "in effect." It is often mistaken as for all intensive purposes because when spoken aloud these two phrases sound very similar. These mistakes, where incorrect words and phrases are replaced but the meaning remains the same, are known as eggcorns."

You're projecting. You're not the one seeking the truth. You're trying to lawyer in soul transfer in the fission spell description.

[Crake]

I really shouldn't be responding to this but

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-for-all-intensive-purposes-intents
"For all intents and purposes is a phrase meaning "essentially" or "in effect." It is often mistaken as for all intensive purposes because when spoken aloud these two phrases sound very similar. These mistakes, where incorrect words and phrases are replaced but the meaning remains the same, are known as eggcorns."

You're projecting. You're not the one seeking the truth. You're trying to lawyer in soul transfer in the fission spell description.

Well, firstly, it doesn't say "for all intents and purposes", it just says "for all intents", secondly, there's a difference when a phrase is used as a colloquialism, and when a phrase is used as rules text.

[alexstrasa81]

Well, firstly, it doesn't say "for all intents and purposes", it just says "for all intents", secondly, there's a difference when a phrase is used as a colloquialism, and when a phrase is used as rules text.

"For all intents and purposes is a phrase meaning "essentially" or "in effect." It is often mistaken as for all intensive purposes because when spoken aloud these two phrases sound very similar. These mistakes, where incorrect words and phrases are replaced but the meaning remains the same, are known as eggcorns."

So first you accuse me of being a bad faith actor for ignoring the bolded words INTENTS.
Now you say that phrase only talks about INTENTS and not INTENTS and purposes when it does.
Now you also say for all intents and purposes is not english, but actual in-game terminology and therefore the english definition must be disregarded when there is no glossary entry or the like.

Just, whatever man. I'm not gonna argue this anymore. Call me a fisher or whatever you want. I'll let other readers be the judge of that.

intents and purposes doesn't mean "essentially" but instead soul transfer because this is not english but secret hidden rule terminology somewhere and I'm arguing in bad faith because I'm trying to fish an answer that says intents and purposes does mean "essentially".

[Crake]

Now you say that phrase only talks about INTENTS and not INTENTS and purposes when it does.

I was talking about the fission spell:


If your duplicate dies before the duration expires, no rejoining occurs, and you gain one negative level. If you die, your duplicate remains in existence, and is for all intents you, but with two negative levels. (Once the duration expires, one of the negative levels immediately converts to one lost level; the other negative level can be removed by standard means.)

My bad for being ambiguous on what "it" was referring to i guess.

[redking]

If one side of the fission dies, it's gone. There's nothing to revive, resurrect, manipulate, turn into undead by any means including spawn abilities, and so on.

[alexstrasa81]

My bad for being ambiguous on what "it" was referring to i guess.

Are you... are you seriously saying "For all intents" and "For all intents and purposes" have completely polar opposite meanings?
Are you seriously saying "intents" is an in-game mechanical term defined somewhere when the literal only 3 times the word "intents" was used in this entire edition is in Leap into animals, True Creation, and Acolyte of the skin, and in all 3 times it uses the full phrase "For all intents and purposes"?

You know what, I'm done. I'm not gonna sit here and argue with someone that "For all intents" and "For all intents and purposes" have literally polar opposite definitions.
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with someone who says the word "intents" is a in-game mechanical term that describes soul transfer.
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with someone who thinks the game will not explicitly say something as important as soul transfer and have to be inferred.
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with someone who makes completely baseless claims like intents is an in-game mechanical term without providing a single rule source, glossary definition, or a spell description that helps his case.

You call me a fisher? I'm calling you a rule lawyer who makes up rules that don't exist anywhere and try to lawyer them to avoid calling it a house rule without doing any research at all. I'm not allowed to refer to other threads I found of you doing this exact thing so I'm not gonna, but I'm done talking to you. You're on my ignore list. Good bye.

"You can't use psionic revivfy to revive a corpse before its psyche fully leaves the corpse because "intents" is an in-game mechanical term that indirectly describes immediate soul transfer." Get out of here.


If one side of the fission dies, it's gone. There's nothing to revive, resurrect, manipulate, turn into undead by any means including spawn abilities, and so on.

I'm really afraid to ask here but since I haven't seen you post I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask. Where's your rule quotes?

[Gruftzwerg]

@ alexstrasa81


While I get where you are coming from, you are missing the extend of "for all intents".

Even if you where right and its not the real soul, it doesn't matter.

Because as it's been pointed out, when you wanna revive your character "for all intents" kicks in. You would still not count as "dead" and wouldn't be able to revive. Because the revive attempt would still think that you are alive and not dead.

"for all intents" is a very polarizing term that doesn't leave any room for anything else.

[Zombimode]

I don't get what the fuzz is about :smallconfused:

What we know directly from the spells text:

If you die, your duplicate remains in existence, and is for all intents you, but with two negative levels.

Now, we can ask the question: "For the intent of reviving your original body, would that mean reviving 'you'?"

We can answer this question using the simple understanding of sets: if something applies to all members of a set, it also applies to this particular member of the set.
Plus the notion of identity: the designation of "you" can only apply to at most one thing at any time.

Do I miss something here? :smallconfused:

[alexstrasa81]

@ alexstrasa81


While I get where you are coming from, you are missing the extend of "for all intents".

Even if you where right and its not the real soul, it doesn't matter.

Because as it's been pointed out, when you wanna revive your character "for all intents" kicks in. You would still not count as "dead" and wouldn't be able to revive. Because the revive attempt would still think that you are alive and not dead.

"for all intents" is a very polarizing term that doesn't leave any room for anything else.

What? That's only true if there can only be one of me. Fission defies that from the very start. There's two of me from the start. From the very start you have to treat your duplicate as yourself with two negative levels. So how can I be both me and myself with two negative levels if there can only be one of me? Not to mention the rest of the spell description says under no uncertain terms that the fission is me. Me plus me is still me so it doesn't work with fusion and metaconcert and the like.

For all intents and purposes I am me and I can revive me with two negative levels when it dies. So why would the reverse be impossible? Why would me with two negative levels who is for all intents and purposes me be unable to revive me that doesn't have the two negative levels?

The only thing you can argue is that my original me becomes an NPC, but seeing how original me would behave exactly as I would, and since myself with two negative levels wasn't an NPC either, that argument fails too. And even if it didn't, it still wouldn't stop the resurrection because dead me, being no longer me, doesn't stop me from reviving the no longer me. To put it simply, if this argument is not wrong, then original me is for all intents and purposes, not me. Therefore me being alive doesn't affect resurrection at all because dead me is no longer me.

For all intents and purposes one is me because it's actually me, and the other is also me because for all intents it's me as well.

Like I said, the only way you're right is if you can't have more than one me at any time and fission proves that wrong right from the get go.

[JNAProductions]

Quick question, are you the DM or a player?

Because if you're the DM, make a ruling, talking with your players if it's contentious, and then stick to that ruling unless it causes issues. If it does cause issues, then reopen the discussion and get it addressed.
If you're a player, ask your DM to make a ruling, presenting arguments as you wish, but accept their ruling.

[alexstrasa81]

What I said was confusing so let me try to clean it up.
1. If there can only be one of me, then for all intents and purposes original me is no longer me therefore my duplicate being alive has no impact on whether original me can be revived or not.
2. Nowhere in the rules does it say there can only be one of me.
3. Fission directly says there can be two of me.



Quick question, are you the DM or a player?

Because if you're the DM, make a ruling, talking with your players if it's contentious, and then stick to that ruling unless it causes issues. If it does cause issues, then reopen the discussion and get it addressed.
If you're a player, ask your DM to make a ruling, presenting arguments as you wish, but accept their ruling.

I'm a player, the DM encouraged me to give psion a try saying you can make a permanent duplicate of yourself and have infinite free reality revisions, and I decided to ask this forum to verify whether these are true or not. If not I go back to playing malconvoker.

Free reality revisions is confirmed.
Permanent fission by killing and reviving fission is unclear. Darg made a nice point.
Permament fission by killing and reviving myself seems to be all green too except you got people talking about inferred indirect soul transfer as the reason it doesn't work.

What's this DM making a ruling? We're all players trying to play the same game so we all come to a consensus based on the rules. If the DM is wrong he needs to correct himself. We vote at our table if the rules are unclear. 3-2 Majority wins.

[JNAProductions]

Because this isn't a competitive game. This isn't a wargame or board game where there's a winner and loser and no arbiter of the rules-those kind of games need clear rules, because people are working at cross purposes.

This is a tabletop RPG, where everyone plays together. Moreover, because it's a TTRPG, that means that you can do more than what's explicitly laid out in the rules.
There is not, to my knowledge, rules that state you may make a sandwich in a well-stocked kitchen in D&D 3.5. But you can do that-if it was a board game or wargame, you'd need explicit rules letting you do so. But it isn't.

Additionally, Wizards of the Coast are not perfect at writing rules-far from it, both back then and nowadays. There are cases where rules flat-out don't work properly, or where multiple interpretations of the written word are all valid. Not to mention, this game is just shy of two decades old (measured from when it released-more like 15 years from when it ended). If you're still playing it, you probably have a good grasp of what works for your table-so do what works. If it isn't correct by RAW, it really doesn't matter much.

[alexstrasa81]

Because this isn't a competitive game. This isn't a wargame or board game where there's a winner and loser and no arbiter of the rules-those kind of games need clear rules, because people are working at cross purposes.

This is a tabletop RPG, where everyone plays together. Moreover, because it's a TTRPG, that means that you can do more than what's explicitly laid out in the rules.
There is not, to my knowledge, rules that state you may make a sandwich in a well-stocked kitchen in D&D 3.5. But you can do that-if it was a board game or wargame, you'd need explicit rules letting you do so. But it isn't.

Additionally, Wizards of the Coast are not perfect at writing rules-far from it, both back then and nowadays. There are cases where rules flat-out don't work properly, or where multiple interpretations of the written word are all valid. Not to mention, this game is just shy of two decades old (measured from when it released-more like 15 years from when it ended). If you're still playing it, you probably have a good grasp of what works for your table-so do what works. If it isn't correct by RAW, it really doesn't matter much.

First this is off topic.

Second, why do only competitive games require you to follow the rules? D&D is a game. There is no game without rules. You want to play, you follow the rules otherwise you might as well just larp and roll dice for random reasons.

Third, where do you get off telling me and my table how to play the game?

Fourth, why the hell are you even bringing this up? Why the hell are you lecturing me on the proper way of playing D&D in the middle of a rule discussion?

If you don't want to discuss the rules then fine, don't. If you don't want to follow the rules and make stuff up on the fly then go right ahead. Why are you here? WTF are you trying to do here? Why are you bringing this up in the middle of a rule discussion?

[JNAProductions]

First this is off topic.

Second, why do only competitive games require you to follow the rules? D&D is a game. There is no game without rules. You want to play, you follow the rules otherwise you might as well just larp and roll dice for random reasons.

Third, where do you get off telling me and my table how to play the game?

Fourth, why the hell are you even bringing this up? Why the hell are you lecturing me on the proper way of playing D&D in the middle of a rule discussion?

If you don't want to discuss the rules then fine, don't. If you don't want to follow the rules and make stuff up on the fly then go right ahead. Why are you here? WTF are you trying to do here? Why are you bringing this up in the middle of a rule discussion?

Because I'm trying to offer practical advice.

I did not say "Toss all rules out the window, ignore everything, and go full free-form." Free-form roleplay is fun! But it's not D&D.
But for places where the rules are not clear, it's best to get a ruling and stick to it. And this is a place where the rules aren't fully clear. Arguments can be made for different interpretations-and ultimately, what matters isn't "Are the rules followed perfectly?" but "Is the table having fun?"

In my experience, prolonged rules debates are not fun at the actual session. It can be fun to look at RAW wonkiness outside of a game, but in the actual game, get a ruling and move on. Talk with your DM outside of the game if you need to-from what you've said, they're pretty chill with powerful shenanigans, so I can't imagine getting them to agree with your ruling will be overly difficult.

[alexstrasa81]

Because I'm trying to offer practical advice.

I did not say "Toss all rules out the window, ignore everything, and go full free-form." Free-form roleplay is fun! But it's not D&D.
But for places where the rules are not clear, it's best to get a ruling and stick to it. And this is a place where the rules aren't fully clear. Arguments can be made for different interpretations-and ultimately, what matters isn't "Are the rules followed perfectly?" but "Is the table having fun?"

In my experience, prolonged rules debates are not fun at the actual session. It can be fun to look at RAW wonkiness outside of a game, but in the actual game, get a ruling and move on. Talk with your DM outside of the game if you need to-from what you've said, they're pretty chill with powerful shenanigans, so I can't imagine getting them to agree with your ruling will be overly difficult.

I'm having the prolonged rule debate outside of the session. You see that right? This is not my table. I'm not in the middle of a session. And I'm having this prolonged rule discussion right here.

What are you trying to do here?

I'm here trying to double check my DM's ruling outside my table outside a session and here you are lecturing me about how to properly play d&d.

What are you trying to do here?

[JNAProductions]

I'm having the prolonged rule debate outside of the session. You see that right? This is not my table. I'm not in the middle of a session. And I'm having this prolonged rule discussion right here.

What are you trying to do here?

I'm here trying to double check my DM's ruling outside my table outside a session and here you are lecturing me about how to properly play d&d.

What are you trying to do here?

Yes, I can see that. It's not advice solely for you-it's also advice for anyone who might stumble on this thread.

Do you think your DM ruled wrong? If yes, then talk with your DM. Asking random forumites isn't the proper answer to your DM.
Do you think your DM ruled right? If yes, then have fun playing.

Is there some kind of actual issue that needs solving? Is gameplay being negatively impacted?

[Eldonauran]

For what it matters, I'd rule that there is nothing to revivify or resurrection once your Fissioned duplicate is the last remaining 'you'. You've merely got an inert bit of flesh in the shape of 'you' but your soul (having been 'stretched between two bodies) is not free to return to the new body. That might not be explicitly called out within the specific mechanics of the spell, but we are already working outside of the specific mechanics of the spell once we involved another spell that dabbles with life/death and the soul.

[Wintermoot]

Why are you getting so worked up? You came here and asked a question. Several people have given you opinions that seem to differ from your opinion, or your DMs opinion, or whatever and you have immediately gone combative and increasingly erratically angry.

If all you want from a posting is validation of your own opinion, you aren't going to like this forum very much.

I agree with the posters who state that you can't raise someone from the dead who is still alive. And thanks to the language of the power/spell you are using, it goes to the trouble to verify that if one of the doubles (the original in this case) dies, the second (clone) qualifies as you still being alive. *shrug* It seems pretty clear to me that they wouldn't have bothered putting that line in there if it wasn't meant to help clear up questions like this that naturally arise from the spell. Since they couldn't address every single possible question, they did their best.

But, hey, you and your table can do whatever you want. it sounds like your DM has already MADE THAT DECISION, so I guess I'm not sure what-you- are hoping to get from this. other than finding someone to tell you your DM is doing it the right way? Well good luck. I'm sure someone will come along and agree with him sooner or later. This forum is full of people.

[loky1109]

How I read Fission.
One who remain is you. One who not - was a copy. Rules use words "copy", "duplicate" and so on with the purpose of simplicity, but actually it isn't copy or some separate creature, you are one in two bodies.

[alexstrasa81]

Yes, I can see that. It's not advice solely for you-it's also advice for anyone who might stumble on this thread.

Do you think your DM ruled wrong? If yes, then talk with your DM. Asking random forumites isn't the proper answer to your DM.
Do you think your DM ruled right? If yes, then have fun playing.

Is there some kind of actual issue that needs solving? Is gameplay being negatively impacted?

I don't know whether he ruled wrong. I'm new to psionics. So I made a question in a third party website to gather opinions. And here you are, telling me to stop talking with forumites and go back to my DM.

Are you telling me to shut the **** up? Are you telling me having rule discussions on this forum is not welcome?

If you want to play in a game where nobody follows the rules and the DM just makes up stuff willy nilly and everyone follows it then be my guest. But my table actually wants to play the game so we stick to the rules and correct each other when we're wrong.


For what it matters, I'd rule that there is nothing to revivify or resurrection once your Fissioned duplicate is the last remaining 'you'. You've merely got an inert bit of flesh in the shape of 'you' but your soul (having been 'stretched between two bodies) is not free to return to the new body. That might not be explicitly called out within the specific mechanics of the spell, but we are already working outside of the specific mechanics of the spell once we involved another spell that dabbles with life/death and the soul.

Yet another person making up rules about the soul.


Why are you getting so worked up? You came here and asked a question. Several people have given you opinions that seem to differ from your opinion, or your DMs opinion, or whatever and you have immediately gone combative and increasingly erratically angry.

If all you want from a posting is validation of your own opinion, you aren't going to like this forum very much.

I agree with the posters who state that you can't raise someone from the dead who is still alive. And thanks to the language of the power/spell you are using, it goes to the trouble to verify that if one of the doubles (the original in this case) dies, the second (clone) qualifies as you still being alive. *shrug* It seems pretty clear to me that they wouldn't have bothered putting that line in there if it wasn't meant to help clear up questions like this that naturally arise from the spell. Since they couldn't address every single possible question, they did their best.

But, hey, you and your table can do whatever you want. it sounds like your DM has already MADE THAT DECISION, so I guess I'm not sure what-you- are hoping to get from this. other than finding someone to tell you your DM is doing it the right way? Well good luck. I'm sure someone will come along and agree with him sooner or later. This forum is full of people.

Seeking for validation of my opinion? Are you serious?

You know what, i think i got it.

This forum doesn't give a **** about the rules so when they see someone like me asking about the rules they
a. completely make **** up with 0 basis anywhere. Literally 0.
b. When their complete made up rules' baselessness is pointed out, then they gather in large numbers and start saying the same made up bull**** is right with, once again, no rules or basis anywhere.
c. When that fails to convince me because it's completely made up and completely baseless, then they lecture me on how to properly play d&d.
d. When that fails because our table actually plays d&d instead of some made up larp **** then they tell me to go to my DM and convince him I'm right when I don't give a **** about convincing him of anything. I'm here to convince myself he's right because if I'm not then I'm going back to malconvoker.
e. When I relay that I don't give a **** about convincing my DM and I'm here to verify if he's right or not, then they tell me I'm seeking validation of my own interpretation?

You know what, screw this. Go make up more rules about souls being stretched or souls being transferred secretly.

I'm gonna wait for someone like Darg or Beni-Kujaku to give their opinion. Everyone else who makes up random rules about souls goes on my ignore list immediately.

Can't believe trying to understand the rules is such an alien concept. Everyone here must be making **** up willy nilly on every ruling decision for this to be an alien concept.

[alexstrasa81]

Seriously.

Schism splits your mind literally in two.

Your mind splits into two independent parts

Psyche is soul, mind, and spirit. So schism splits your psyche in two.

Why would fission be any different? Why wouldn't fission fracture your soul/psyche in two? I got two fractured partial souls while fissioned. If one dies I lose it which is represented by negative levels which need to be repaired via restoration. I repair my fractured damaged soul with restoration.

Does Fission say your soul gets fractured? No. It doesn't say anything. So I don't bring it up as an argument because it's baseless.

Does Fission say souls are stretched? No. It doesn't say anything.
Does Fission say duplicate is souless and your soul is transferred to it? No. It doesn't say anything.

But despite this, The soul is transferred because "I say so." Actually, it's because For all intents is not a shortened form of For all intents and purposes and is in fact a secret hidden terminology referencing soul transfer because I say so and that's why the soul is transferred.

Or The soul is stretched between the two because... "I say so." Revivify stops the soul inside a corpse from leaving but nope it already left because the soul is stretched because... "I say so".

or The soul is not fractured but transferred or stretched because... "I say so". And schism has nothing to do with anything.

"The conclusion to this rule discussion is whatever I say it is and if you disagree then you're wrong because.... I say so."

Where are the rule quotes?
Where are the precedents?

Nowhere. Just... Soul is stretched or transferred instead of fractured because... "I say so".

And when i reject such a flimsy argument its... "You're seeking validation. Go back to your DM. You're playing d&d wrong. This is not a competitive game. Rules don't matter, make up whatever you want."

Everyone except Gruftzwerg and Zombimode is on my ignore list in this thread. They're the only people here who didn't talk about made up arbitrary soul rules. I didn't fully understand what Zombimode said but Gruftzwerg's post is 100% rule based.

Schism is a stronger precedent than anything any of you provided yet you don't see me using it as an argument to a rule discussion about an ability that literally does not mention soul, mind, or psyche at all in its description.

No no no, I'm a fisher seeking validation for rejecting absolutely arbitrary baseless **** with no precedent.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Closed for review