The creature "X" abilities (Revived) [Archive] - Wizards Community

The creature "X" abilities (Revived) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lokiyn
09-24-07, 02:20 AM The old thread got archived, so to add to its lifespan...

Ok this is a quick question on the general opinion on this creature x abilities.

For example

Death Throes (Ex)When killed, a balor explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the balor is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based.

If you gained this ability through one method or another, (lets use Illithid savant) Do we treat it now as if the illithid (or whatever) cannot use the ability since it’s a balor or do we now view the text as thus

Death Throes (Ex)When killed, an illithid savant explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the illithid savant is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based.
The reason this question is important is with the ever increasing ways to acquire abilities from monsters it is important to determine the acceptable readings of these abilities.

While I am aware that this has been discussed in many other threads they have almost always been secondary to the actual discussion at hand.
Most of the time this comes up when people use the split ability to produce copies of themselves.

Now just to point out my views I’m of the opinion that the abilities are read thusly

Death Throes (Ex)When killed, an X explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the X is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Where the Blank is the name of the creature with the ability.

Amen to that brother. I typed myself blue in the face with Caelic on my Legion thread a while back... I don't think we were able to resolve that debate. Caelic, IIRC, thought that RAW interpretation meant one does not edit out the creature's name in the ability description for the name of the bearer of the ability. I thought that this was asinine and presented the solution you give, perhaps in less eloquent words. Anyways, I still don't know how to get around the literal interpretation argument. The way you put it is so intuitive that I never thought twice about it, until Caelic put in his two cents worth.

Well, by the literal interpretation, Illithid Savant is pretty much useless, as is Pun-Pun, because Manipulate Form refers to a Saruhk.

Well, by the literal interpretation, Illithid Savant is pretty much useless, as is Pun-Pun, because Manipulate Form refers to a Saruhk.

I wouldn't say useless, but certainly toned down to the point that a DM would consider actually allowing one into the game.

Edit: By our standards of course that does mean useless...

No, I mean literally. There is no ability in the game that doesn't somehow point to its user.
Master Transmogrifist also becomes partially useless under that interpretation, as does any other ability that gives you the abilities of a form without the type.

It seems obvious that abilities are worded that way simply for clarity, not as some bizarre restriction, and would be adapted to fit the new user, the same way that when you polymorph or shapechange the DCs on abilities change based on your HD.

No, I mean literally. There is no ability in the game that doesn't somehow point to its user.

Well, in the case of the Surukh, the familiar / power crystal can stay in that form [via whatever shape changing magic you choose to utilize] and target you with manipulate form. It means you are severely limited compared to before as far as what you can do. [All feats / Quite high stats - instead of infinite everything with an "I win" contingency prepared]

The Savant is still able to acquire skills, use his lore ability, acquire feats, acquire class feature [these don't signify a creature in their description, they just point to the user]. There are also plenty of abilities that simply say "This is a cone 60 ft long that does ...." or what have you [under special attack / quality]. Sure you won't be rocking around with total magic immunity and regeneration 40 that works against anything. But it’s far from a useless class.

Just not great by CharOp standards if you can't do the ludicrous with them.

Death Throes is fun, but why waste your own body? Magic Jar a commoner from a bar, cast Death Throes, then a couple Delayed Blast Fireballs before walking into the enemy camp (or house or whatever).

Ah, but class feature descriptions DO point to something -- class level. IE: A 1st-level Sorcerer can summon, etc. Therefore, all you can munch is skills and feats, plus lore. So unless you really need some skill obscenely high, there's no reason not to just be a feat rogue/bard, which will net you spellcasting anyway.

Ah, but class feature descriptions DO point to something -- class level. IE: A 1st-level Sorcerer can summon, etc. Therefore, all you can munch is skills and feats, plus lore. So unless you really need some skill obscenely high, there's no reason not to just be a feat rogue/bard, which will net you spellcasting anyway.

Spells only point to caster level, not to class. A 1st-level sorcerer can't summon, he has to take an option that puts him in a position to summon. Summoning is not a class ability of a 1st-level sorcerer, spellcasting is. The obtain class ability specifically states how it interacts with spellcasters that you extract, so I'm not going to go into it here. With the logic of "unless you need xxx just be an xxx" you can say that about anything, - "Unless you need bonus feats just be a paladin instead of a fighter" - "Unless you need spellcasting just be a ranger instead of a wizard".

The reasons to play an illithid savant are obvious to me [plus I see it as a legitimate way to spring a mind flayer encounter on the pcs with some unique twists as to his abilities].

Class features… don't signify a creature in their description, they just point to the user.

If you look at the sample NPCs, you’ll see that their names are substituted for more generic terms in all cases within class feature descriptions. Furthermore, the creature’s name is substituted for the phrase “this creature” (or its equivalent) whenever a generic ability is given in a creature’s entry. To my mind, this makes it impossible to say that the creature’s name doesn’t mean “this creature” in some particular instance; we have a ludicrous number of situations where it means precisely that. The best you could do to argue against the view we all seem to have is to claim that the particular ability under consideration is the only one known to us that is different from all the others. That never struck me as being a defensible argument.

Ah, the Legion thread. That brings back memories. Fun fact: the Legion build was originally devised as a villain for a one-shot. You see, two of my friends had just held one-shots at fifteenth and twentieth level, only to complain bitterly that there was no way to create a challenging encounter for such characters. I planed to prove them wrong. This was, of course, before I had ever visited these boards.
tsuyoshikentsu
09-26-07, 03:57 AM To clarify something, when I said "A 1st-level Sorcerer can summon..." I was referring to the Summon Familiar class ability.

That said, I also feel that I should clarify that I agree with Lokiyn on this and that abilities such as this do read as "X can do this."
EjoThims
09-26-07, 08:10 AM Also, all abilities that reference other abilities (both classes and monsters) stop working unless they're read this way.

How absurd not reading abilities as 'creature X' is:

"Sure, your PrC grants sneak attack as a rogue, but the rogue ability only mentions rogues, so you can't use your sneak attack."
Shiladie
09-26-07, 10:17 AM Death Throes (Ex)

When killed, a balor explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the balor is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based.

stretching the english language a bit:

"When killed (refering to the bearer of the ability), a balor explodes..."
well, it would seem we have a way to make balor's randomly explode!

in all seriousness though, all you need to do is look through the MM and you can see the "creature X" logic used all throughout it (like Maat_Mons says)
Lokiyn
09-26-07, 05:13 PM While it seems silly, this concept has, historically been a point of contention and misunderstandings.

Similar in many ways to the concept that unconcious creatures automatically fail thier saves because they are "willing", it usually a misunderstanding that fails to take other text into acount, for example above, the rules for willing, actually specifies that willing is different that voluntary save failure, and applies only to spells with the word willing in thier target line.
Think0028
09-26-07, 10:20 PM While it seems silly, this concept has, historically been a point of contention and misunderstandings.

Similar in many ways to the concept that unconcious creatures automatically fail thier saves because they are "willing", it usually a misunderstanding that fails to take other text into acount, for example above, the rules for willing, actually specifies that willing is different that voluntary save failure, and applies only to spells with the word willing in thier target line.

So, do unconscious characters automatically fail their save, or do they count as willing?
Callix
09-27-07, 12:28 AM So, do unconscious characters automatically fail their save, or do they count as willing?

They count as willing. This means that they can be targeted by "willing-only" effects, and also that they get no save against a number of part-win/part-lose effects, like Share Pain. They don't for example, autofail against Dominate Person, but they do against Plane Shift.
EjoThims
09-27-07, 07:16 AM CharOp: Proving onec again that unconcious girls can't say no.

:eek:
BillTheManiac
09-29-07, 08:39 AM See, this is an ability that matters in ordinary play. Because this comes up in ordinary play, it must work the sane way. Therefore it should work in ordinary play.

I would consider it errata'd.
Evil DM Mk3
01-30-08, 10:31 AM Can I just say that untill I had seen this thread it had never occured to me that it ought to be any other way. Seems kinda obvious really.
archerpwr
01-30-08, 06:23 PM CharOp: Proving onec again that unconcious girls can't say no.

:eek:

This is going in my funny pad faster than you can say LogicNinja.
Heliomance
02-03-08, 09:19 AM You know, I've learnt something today. When Sarda casts a spell that makes you puke up your guts, and you copy it, you learn a spell that makes you puke up your guts.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lokiyn 09-24-07, 02:20 AM	The old thread got archived, so to add to its lifespan... Ok this is a quick question on the general opinion on this creature x abilities. For example Death Throes (Ex)When killed, a balor explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the balor is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based. If you gained this ability through one method or another, (lets use Illithid savant) Do we treat it now as if the illithid (or whatever) cannot use the ability since it’s a balor or do we now view the text as thus Death Throes (Ex)When killed, an illithid savant explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the illithid savant is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based. The reason this question is important is with the ever increasing ways to acquire abilities from monsters it is important to determine the acceptable readings of these abilities. While I am aware that this has been discussed in many other threads they have almost always been secondary to the actual discussion at hand. Most of the time this comes up when people use the split ability to produce copies of themselves. Now just to point out my views I’m of the opinion that the abilities are read thusly Death Throes (Ex)When killed, an X explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the X is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based. Where the Blank is the name of the creature with the ability. Amen to that brother. I typed myself blue in the face with Caelic on my Legion thread a while back... I don't think we were able to resolve that debate. Caelic, IIRC, thought that RAW interpretation meant one does not edit out the creature's name in the ability description for the name of the bearer of the ability. I thought that this was asinine and presented the solution you give, perhaps in less eloquent words. Anyways, I still don't know how to get around the literal interpretation argument. The way you put it is so intuitive that I never thought twice about it, until Caelic put in his two cents worth. Well, by the literal interpretation, Illithid Savant is pretty much useless, as is Pun-Pun, because Manipulate Form refers to a Saruhk. Well, by the literal interpretation, Illithid Savant is pretty much useless, as is Pun-Pun, because Manipulate Form refers to a Saruhk. I wouldn't say useless, but certainly toned down to the point that a DM would consider actually allowing one into the game. Edit: By our standards of course that does mean useless... No, I mean literally. There is no ability in the game that doesn't somehow point to its user. Master Transmogrifist also becomes partially useless under that interpretation, as does any other ability that gives you the abilities of a form without the type. It seems obvious that abilities are worded that way simply for clarity, not as some bizarre restriction, and would be adapted to fit the new user, the same way that when you polymorph or shapechange the DCs on abilities change based on your HD. No, I mean literally. There is no ability in the game that doesn't somehow point to its user. Well, in the case of the Surukh, the familiar / power crystal can stay in that form [via whatever shape changing magic you choose to utilize] and target you with manipulate form. It means you are severely limited compared to before as far as what you can do. [All feats / Quite high stats - instead of infinite everything with an "I win" contingency prepared] The Savant is still able to acquire skills, use his lore ability, acquire feats, acquire class feature [these don't signify a creature in their description, they just point to the user]. There are also plenty of abilities that simply say "This is a cone 60 ft long that does ...." or what have you [under special attack / quality]. Sure you won't be rocking around with total magic immunity and regeneration 40 that works against anything. But it’s far from a useless class. Just not great by CharOp standards if you can't do the ludicrous with them. Death Throes is fun, but why waste your own body? Magic Jar a commoner from a bar, cast Death Throes, then a couple Delayed Blast Fireballs before walking into the enemy camp (or house or whatever). Ah, but class feature descriptions DO point to something -- class level. IE: A 1st-level Sorcerer can summon, etc. Therefore, all you can munch is skills and feats, plus lore. So unless you really need some skill obscenely high, there's no reason not to just be a feat rogue/bard, which will net you spellcasting anyway. Ah, but class feature descriptions DO point to something -- class level. IE: A 1st-level Sorcerer can summon, etc. Therefore, all you can munch is skills and feats, plus lore. So unless you really need some skill obscenely high, there's no reason not to just be a feat rogue/bard, which will net you spellcasting anyway. Spells only point to caster level, not to class. A 1st-level sorcerer can't summon, he has to take an option that puts him in a position to summon. Summoning is not a class ability of a 1st-level sorcerer, spellcasting is. The obtain class ability specifically states how it interacts with spellcasters that you extract, so I'm not going to go into it here. With the logic of "unless you need xxx just be an xxx" you can say that about anything, - "Unless you need bonus feats just be a paladin instead of a fighter" - "Unless you need spellcasting just be a ranger instead of a wizard". The reasons to play an illithid savant are obvious to me [plus I see it as a legitimate way to spring a mind flayer encounter on the pcs with some unique twists as to his abilities]. Class features… don't signify a creature in their description, they just point to the user. If you look at the sample NPCs, you’ll see that their names are substituted for more generic terms in all cases within class feature descriptions. Furthermore, the creature’s name is substituted for the phrase “this creature” (or its equivalent) whenever a generic ability is given in a creature’s entry. To my mind, this makes it impossible to say that the creature’s name doesn’t mean “this creature” in some particular instance; we have a ludicrous number of situations where it means precisely that. The best you could do to argue against the view we all seem to have is to claim that the particular ability under consideration is the only one known to us that is different from all the others. That never struck me as being a defensible argument. Ah, the Legion thread. That brings back memories. Fun fact: the Legion build was originally devised as a villain for a one-shot. You see, two of my friends had just held one-shots at fifteenth and twentieth level, only to complain bitterly that there was no way to create a challenging encounter for such characters. I planed to prove them wrong. This was, of course, before I had ever visited these boards.
tsuyoshikentsu 09-26-07, 03:57 AM	To clarify something, when I said "A 1st-level Sorcerer can summon..." I was referring to the Summon Familiar class ability. That said, I also feel that I should clarify that I agree with Lokiyn on this and that abilities such as this do read as "X can do this."
EjoThims 09-26-07, 08:10 AM	Also, all abilities that reference other abilities (both classes and monsters) stop working unless they're read this way. How absurd not reading abilities as 'creature X' is: "Sure, your PrC grants sneak attack as a rogue, but the rogue ability only mentions rogues, so you can't use your sneak attack."
Shiladie 09-26-07, 10:17 AM	Death Throes (Ex) When killed, a balor explodes in a blinding flash of light that deals 100 points of damage to anything within 100 feet (Reflex DC 30 half). This explosion automatically destroys any weapons the balor is holding. The save DC is Constitution-based. stretching the english language a bit: "When killed (refering to the bearer of the ability), a balor explodes..." well, it would seem we have a way to make balor's randomly explode! in all seriousness though, all you need to do is look through the MM and you can see the "creature X" logic used all throughout it (like Maat_Mons says)
Lokiyn 09-26-07, 05:13 PM	While it seems silly, this concept has, historically been a point of contention and misunderstandings. Similar in many ways to the concept that unconcious creatures automatically fail thier saves because they are "willing", it usually a misunderstanding that fails to take other text into acount, for example above, the rules for willing, actually specifies that willing is different that voluntary save failure, and applies only to spells with the word willing in thier target line.
Think0028 09-26-07, 10:20 PM	While it seems silly, this concept has, historically been a point of contention and misunderstandings. Similar in many ways to the concept that unconcious creatures automatically fail thier saves because they are "willing", it usually a misunderstanding that fails to take other text into acount, for example above, the rules for willing, actually specifies that willing is different that voluntary save failure, and applies only to spells with the word willing in thier target line. So, do unconscious characters automatically fail their save, or do they count as willing?
Callix 09-27-07, 12:28 AM	So, do unconscious characters automatically fail their save, or do they count as willing? They count as willing. This means that they can be targeted by "willing-only" effects, and also that they get no save against a number of part-win/part-lose effects, like Share Pain. They don't for example, autofail against Dominate Person, but they do against Plane Shift.
EjoThims 09-27-07, 07:16 AM	CharOp: Proving onec again that unconcious girls can't say no. :eek:
BillTheManiac 09-29-07, 08:39 AM	See, this is an ability that matters in ordinary play. Because this comes up in ordinary play, it must work the sane way. Therefore it should work in ordinary play. I would consider it errata'd.
Evil DM Mk3 01-30-08, 10:31 AM	Can I just say that untill I had seen this thread it had never occured to me that it ought to be any other way. Seems kinda obvious really.
archerpwr 01-30-08, 06:23 PM	CharOp: Proving onec again that unconcious girls can't say no. :eek: This is going in my funny pad faster than you can say LogicNinja.
Heliomance 02-03-08, 09:19 AM	You know, I've learnt something today. When Sarda casts a spell that makes you puke up your guts, and you copy it, you learn a spell that makes you puke up your guts.