Post/Author/DateTime	Post
1 ton ghost 12-13-07, 07:32 PM	this was brought up in numerous campaigns and most recently under the Races forum today. essentially, this conerncs tieflings and assimar of the Lesser variety (Player's Guide to Faerun) and the unique issue that they possess both humanoid and (native) outsider as race. so, having said that, what the Hell happens to them when subject to Banishment? pure outsiders are beamed back to planet 'x' and what have you, humanoids, somewhere on the Prime i'm wagering or nothing at all (if cast on the Prime), but this is conflicting. presumably, most tieflings/assimar are born on the Prime to their humanoid host parents, raised, etc., but Prime is their homeworld in a manner of speaking despite planar lineage/history. if that is not the case, then does it become necessary to determine infernal or celestial genology geographicallly in terms of the planes? more specifically, do you need to know which plane mysterious "grandpa brimstone" was from to figure out where you're shunted to in the event of Banishment?
Bopple 12-13-07, 07:45 PM	It does not have anything to do with your race or your bloodline. Banishment send away extraplanar creatures - which means any creature out of their home plane is subject to it.
seker 12-14-07, 06:55 AM	It does not have anything to do with your race or your bloodline. Banishment send away extraplanar creatures - which means any creature out of their home plane is subject to it. Problem is, that in the Player's Guide to Faerun book on page 191 it specifically lists that they are targetable by banishment. And as this book was released later than the PHB it takes precedence. (i.e. it makes those with the planetouched subtype effected by the spell even though they are not considered extraplanar.) By how it is worded it gives the impression that creatures with the planetouched subtype (it says they are treated as humanoid and outsider, not native outsider btw) is treated as having 2 "home" planes... which is nasty as it would mean they could be banished from literally any plane...
Bopple 12-14-07, 07:04 AM	That is a plain mistake. Seriously, with that interpretation, every outsider can be banished from its home plane.
seker 12-14-07, 07:38 AM	That is a plain mistake. Seriously, with that interpretation, every outsider can be banished from its home plane. No by how it is written, any creature that is native to one plane but linked by the essence to another could be banished on any plane... as their physical nature is linked to 2 seperate planes. a tiefling is linked by its nature to 2 planes... the prime and whichever evil outer plane that their heritage is of (thus the native outsider aspect.) however a true outsider, like a baatezu/devil, is linked to only 1 plane... baator in this case. In the tieflings case that would mean (in the case of one descended from baator for example) if it were on the prime, it could be banished to baator, and vice versa... as it is linked to both planes. however a devil/baatezu can only be banished to baator, not from it.
Seeker95 12-14-07, 10:37 AM	Problem is, that in the Player's Guide to Faerun book on page 191 it specifically lists that they are targetable by banishment. And as this book was released later than the PHB it takes precedence. (i.e. it makes those with the planetouched subtype effected by the spell even though they are not considered extraplanar.)It does not take precedence over the PHB. First, a non-core source only supercedes a core source when it explicitly indicates that it does so. Second, it does not contradict anything in the PHB. Explicitly stating that a native outsider is targetable by banishment does not change the effects of banishment, which indicates that the target is sent to his/her home plane. A native outsider on the prime material is already there. The ad hoc explanation offered above regarding "two planes" is not supported in the rules. It sounds perfectly reasonable, but mechanically, it doesn't stand up. Even the planetouched have only one home plane. For those with the [native(outside)] type, that plane is the plane to which they are native. For most games, this would be the Prime. That said, I like seker's suggested houserule, and believe it would make for a reasonable balance to impose on tiefling and aasimar PCs. Risk of banishment. :D
seker 12-14-07, 11:22 AM	The problem is that using your statements on how it is worded it makes no sense at all for them to even include banishment in the description of planetouched. As by how it is written in the player handbook, any creature with the extraplanar subtype can be targetted by it... which includes humans that just happen to be on an outer or inner plane. The relevent portion of page 191 of the Player's Guide to Faerun specifically states this: "They are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. Charm person works against them, and so does banishment." Now unless this is a change in the standard rules on how humanoids are effected there is no reason for the second part of the statement. And as humanoids can be targetted by that spell if they are on a plane other than their home plane... And here are the definitions of native and outsider from the SRD: "Native Subtype: A subtype applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane (hence the subtype’s name). Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep." "Outsider Type: An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence." These two definitions if taken together shows that a "native outsider" is a native to the prime material plane (or has a strong connection to it.) as well as being at least partially composed of the essence of a non Material Plane. So my explanation of them being linked to two planes is per the rules. Note in the prior post I said it gave the impression of having 2 home planes not that it did... however in my actual explanation I stated that they are linked (have a connection to) to 2 planes, which is by the rules. *chuckle* btw love the comment on the Sword of True Striking, though honestly it would only be usable every other round to get the +20 to hit, as you have to activate it which gives you the bonus on the next attack.
yrogerg 12-14-07, 12:59 PM	The problem is that using your statements on how it is worded it makes no sense at all for them to even include banishment in the description of planetouched. As by how it is written in the player handbook, any creature with the extraplanar subtype can be targetted by it... which includes humans that just happen to be on an outer or inner plane. The relevent portion of page 191 of the Player's Guide to Faerun specifically states this: "They are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. Charm person works against them, and so does banishment." Now unless this is a change in the standard rules on how humanoids are effected there is no reason for the second part of the statement. And as humanoids can be targetted by that spell if they are on a plane other than their home plane... Yes. It's in error. Banisment is not an example of a spell that targets Outsiders specifically, and as such, mentioning it as an example was a mistake. That's what Bopple meant. The only core spells I can think of that *can* target outsiders specifically are Calling spells. It might have been better to say that a lesser Tiefling can be targeted by Planar Binding, instead. (And, yes, I'm aware that this makes even less sense than Banishment, if you think about it for a minute. All the same, there ya go.) And here are the definitions of native and outsider from the SRD: "Native Subtype: A subtype applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane (hence the subtype’s name). Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep." "Outsider Type: An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence." These two definitions if taken together shows that a "native outsider" is a native to the prime material plane (or has a strong connection to it.) as well as being at least partially composed of the essence of a non Material Plane. Not so much; you're reading the two definitions backwards. The type describes the *general*, and the subtype can modify that in any number of ways. To read otherwise is to infer that Constructs (living construct) are both alive (subtype) and nonliving (type) simultaneously, for example, rather than simply alive. The native subtype *changes* this trait of the Outsider type, meaning that native Outsiders, unlike "true" outsiders, have a strong connection to the Material Plane, *rather* than an extraplanar connection. This should be fairly clear, once we've looked at some *other* example Native Outsiders, like the Rakshasa, Couatl, or Tritons, none of which are described as having any sort of extraplanar ancestry. Or the Janni, who, again, don't have a strong connection to *any* one elemental plane, having been formed from all of the elements.
Seeker95 12-14-07, 01:11 PM	*chuckle* btw love the comment on the Sword of True Striking, though honestly it would only be usable every other round to get the +20 to hit, as you have to activate it which gives you the bonus on the next attack.Depends on which DM you have. The player-pawn DM who allows it to be "use activated" or the DM who recognizes his campaign is not set in Oz? :devil: However, even if what you describe were allowed (complete with that restriction), who wouldn't want a +20 to hit every other round?
Taren 12-14-07, 01:43 PM	However, even if what you describe were allowed (complete with that restriction), who wouldn't want a +20 to hit every other round? isn't it a 400,000gp sword?
1 ton ghost 12-14-07, 02:02 PM	so, apart from the unrelated verbiage and the comical sword aside, lesser planetouched can or are sent to plane 'x' upon a failed save vs. Dismissal/Banishment?
Sigma34561 12-14-07, 02:07 PM	Yes, where plane X is thier home plane, which is Prime. If they are there, then they are immediately sent to the prime material plane. In a spectacular display, they are ripped from the cosmos, and dumped back to exactly where they are, in less than a second.
seker 12-14-07, 04:33 PM	Not so much; you're reading the two definitions backwards. The type describes the *general*, and the subtype can modify that in any number of ways. To read otherwise is to infer that Constructs (living construct) are both alive (subtype) and nonliving (type) simultaneously, for example, rather than simply alive. The native subtype *changes* this trait of the Outsider type, meaning that native Outsiders, unlike "true" outsiders, have a strong connection to the Material Plane, *rather* than an extraplanar connection. Yes a subtype modifies a type, however you are the one who is reading native outsider backwards... A native outsider is someone born from a mortal anscestor or who has a strong tie to the material plane that still "is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane."... This is the link to another plane i am reffering too. Otherwise you are saying that a tiefling or aasimar is the equivielent of a celestial or a fiend that is only partially composed of the prime plane. Versus someone who is for all intesive purposes a human with a little bit of celestial/fiend (i.e. part of the essence of another plane in them.) This should be fairly clear, once we've looked at some *other* example Native Outsiders, like the Rakshasa, Couatl, or Tritons, none of which are described as having any sort of extraplanar ancestry. Or the Janni, who, again, don't have a strong connection to *any* one elemental plane, having been formed from all of the elements. Actually you are wrong on all 3 of the first ones you listed: Rakshara have always been originally from the infernal planes in D&D, (save erberon where they are still originally from another plane) they just have lived so long on the Prime that they have become native outsiders. Same with Couatl and the celestial planes... this has always been in their backgrounds... and in both cases they are known to be in the appropriate outer planes as well. And Tritons actually are listed in their description in the MM on page 245 as being "thought to originate from the Elemental Plane of Water, but have migrated to the Material Plane for some unknown purpose." And Janni are listed as being formed from all 4 of the elements and therefor must spend the majority of their time on the Prime Material Plane... i.e they are actually linked to all 4 elemental planes. (again this has always been in their history, and all genies are originally at least from the Elemental Planes.) Seeker my response if anyone ever tried the sword of true strike in my game is let them do it... it would not last long though... because as soon as they started using it, other opponents would start targetting it for sunder or dispel as soon as they saw its effect once. And only getting to hit ever other turn, even if assured to hit is a horrible thing for a tank... I would say a death sentence in my game, but then again I am a sadistic DM. (but my players seem to love the games *shrug*)
ArcTan 12-14-07, 07:37 PM	this was brought up in numerous campaigns and most recently under the Races forum today. essentially, this conerncs tieflings and assimar of the Lesser variety (Player's Guide to Faerun) and the unique issue that they possess both humanoid and (native) outsider as race. Lesser Tieflings don't have two Types, IIRC. They are simply Humanoids who have Outsider blood -- i.e. their Type is Humanoid, period. so, having said that, what the Hell happens to them when subject to Banishment? To either a Lesser Tiefling or a regular Tiefling, the answer is "nothing". Banishment targets *extraplanar creatures*, not Outsiders. A Humanoid from another plane is banished just as much as an Outsider native to that plane -- and the most Outsider-y of Outsiders -- say, a Modron -- is completely unaffected by banishment when you're on his home plane of Mechanus. pure outsiders are beamed back to planet 'x' and what have you, humanoids, somewhere on the Prime i'm wagering or nothing at all (if cast on the Prime) If the Humanoid in question comes from the Prime, *nothing happens to him at all*. but this is conflicting. presumably, most tieflings/assimar are born on the Prime to their humanoid host parents, raised, etc., but Prime is their homeworld in a manner of speaking despite planar lineage/history. Native Outsiders, by definition, are Outsiders who have become native to the Prime Material and taken on its characteristics (like body/soul duality and the need to eat and sleep). Tieflings and Aasimars who were born on the Prime world of your campaign are just as native to it as anyone else.
ArcTan 12-14-07, 07:40 PM	The ad hoc explanation offered above regarding "two planes" is not supported in the rules. It sounds perfectly reasonable, but mechanically, it doesn't stand up. Doesn't sound that reasonable to me. It sounds like a campaign-killer, actually, given that the average Lesser Fire Genasi who was sent to the Elemental Plane of Fire would catch fire and die within a few rounds.
yrogerg 12-14-07, 07:40 PM	And Janni are listed as being formed from all 4 of the elements and therefor must spend the majority of their time on the Prime Material Plane... i.e they are actually linked to all 4 elemental planes. (again this has always been in their history, and all genies are originally at least from the Elemental Planes.) Yes, I'm aware. And they end up being native outsiders because the Material Plane is the only place where the elements all mix. ::sigh:: I guess I should have made my point clearer. Unless you have an exhaustive library of earlier edition resources, there is no reason to *assume* Rakshasas and Couatl have a link to any specific Lower or Upper plane. Likewise, Janni *don't* have a link to any *particular* Inner plane. Would you suggest rolling randomly to determine where they end up? And then there's the issue of 20th level Monks who have a link to *what* plane, exactly? The much more reasonable thing to do is to read Dismissal et al. as-written, where the works on *any* creature that's not on its home plane, and *no* creatures that are.
yrogerg 12-14-07, 07:44 PM	Doesn't sound that reasonable to me. It sounds like a campaign-killer, actually, given that the average Lesser Fire Genasi who was sent to the Elemental Plane of Fire would catch fire and die within a few rounds. Much more effectively than an equal-CRed extraplanar baddie, even, since the extraplanar monster's likely to have a few more Hit Dice. Which might be, y'know, why there aren't many low-LA extraplanar races out there.
ArcTan 12-14-07, 07:52 PM	The problem is that using your statements on how it is worded it makes no sense at all for them to even include banishment in the description of planetouched. Yes. The writers of PGtF royally screwed up. Understandable, since they were basically translating freely from 2e sources about Forgotten Realms to 3e rules. This is why there *is* a "primary source rule" -- so that when someone writing a secondary source totally misremembers a rule that doesn't even really exist from a primary source, we're free to simply ignore it instead of having to desperately figure out how to make that rule work. As by how it is written in the player handbook, any creature with the extraplanar subtype can be targetted by it... which includes humans that just happen to be on an outer or inner plane. The relevent portion of page 191 of the Player's Guide to Faerun specifically states this: "They are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. Charm person works against them, and so does banishment." They made a really big mistake. How big, I don't know -- it is a well-known fact that none of us can read Rich Baker's mind -- but it was, clearly, a mistake. The wording of the banishment spell never even mentions the word "Outsider", only the word "extraplanar". Now unless this is a change in the standard rules on how humanoids are effected there is no reason for the second part of the statement. Right. Rich Baker and James Wyatt simply screwed up. It wouldn't be the first time. And as humanoids can be targetted by that spell if they are on a plane other than their home plane... [quote]These two definitions if taken together shows that a "native outsider" is a native to the prime material plane (or has a strong connection to it.) as well as being at least partially composed of the essence of a non Material Plane. So my explanation of them being linked to two planes is per the rules. Note in the prior post I said it gave the impression of having 2 home planes not that it did... however in my actual explanation I stated that they are linked (have a connection to) to 2 planes, which is by the rules. They are "linked" to two planes, but they only have one home plane. You can only be Extraplanar at the time or not. The rules don't allow you to be both Extraplanar and not-Extraplanar. And many Native Outsiders are *not listed* with any particular home plane. It's not just a problem with Tieflings, where you don't know exactly what plane their longago Demon ancestor came from -- the whole race of Rakshasa has no known home plane other than the Prime, for example, and it would be incongruous with the mythology they come from to say they do. (There was some crap in 2e about them coming from Acheron that has rightly been dropped.) Allowing banishment to work on Lesser Planetouched goes against its intent. The point of sending people back to their home planes is that it sends them back to a position of *safety* from whence they can possibly threaten you again, which is why this spell is not treated as an insta-kill spell. Planetouched, *especially* Lesser Planetouched, are a lot more suited to this plane than the one their ancestors came from -- sending a Lesser Fire Genasi to the Elemental Plane of Fire is effectively a death sentence. Moreover, it raises a whole lot of issues. You're basically saying there's nowhere a Lesser Planetouched would be safe -- even if a Lesser Tiefling *did* make it to the Abyss, and liked it, he could be zapped to the Prime by banishment there as he could to the Abyss here. And what do we do when he's on another plane entirely? Flip a coin? Figure out which plane is "closer"?
seker 12-15-07, 08:23 AM	Yes, I'm aware. And they end up being native outsiders because the Material Plane is the only place where the elements all mix. ::sigh:: I guess I should have made my point clearer. Unless you have an exhaustive library of earlier edition resources, there is no reason to *assume* Rakshasas and Couatl have a link to any specific Lower or Upper plane. Likewise, Janni *don't* have a link to any *particular* Inner plane. Would you suggest rolling randomly to determine where they end up? And then there's the issue of 20th level Monks who have a link to *what* plane, exactly? The much more reasonable thing to do is to read Dismissal et al. as-written, where the works on *any* creature that's not on its home plane, and *no* creatures that are. Ahhh... but I do have the exhaustive library :P And Rakshasas are found on multiple lower planes as are Couatl found on multiple celestial planes... so it is no different than banishing or dismissing an angel (which are also from several planes)... DM's perogative. Honestly Janni are an exception to the rule as they are linked to several planes, in my personal games I would send them to the ethereal... (though again, as with any creature that could be from multiple planes, it would be DM's perogative) as the actual purpose of banishment is to force a creature from your home plane. Lol and monk is a really bad choice as an example, as per page 42 of the PHB "she is forevermore treated as an outsider (an extraplanar creature) rather than a humanoid for the purposes of spells and magical effects." The PHB does not actually state native outsider, nor does the SRD... and the PHB actually reffers to them as extraplanar... which could be said to make monks really really vulnerable to those spells. But then it would be DM's peragotive as to where they go. IMHO it would likely be one of the planes of law, or the astral... (I would go astral myself, just like ethereal for Janni but that is just my own opinion on that.) Yes. The writers of PGtF royally screwed up. Understandable, since they were basically translating freely from 2e sources about Forgotten Realms to 3e rules. This is why there *is* a "primary source rule" -- so that when someone writing a secondary source totally misremembers a rule that doesn't even really exist from a primary source, we're free to simply ignore it instead of having to desperately figure out how to make that rule work. Problem with using primary source in this case is this... All of the rules of using planetouched as pc's in 3.5, save for a side mention in the MM, is in secondary sources... particularly in the Forgotten Realms series for the most part. And the particular thing we are looking at is an optional rule from one of the main books of the secondary source. Using the "primary source rule" we can ignore everything whatsoever of even the concept of lesser planetouched... But as that is what we are actually discussing, that would seem odd. Feat, special stats in a race, etc.. are listed to show how a particular character varies from the normal rules they tell what the exceptions are. For instance Corpsecrafter feats from Libris Mortis changed the effects of how animate dead spells effected a future undead, not to mention tomb tainted soul and the tomb-born feats and how they change how spells and energy types effect a character. You are making an assumption that the part in the lesser planetouched was a mistake. As it is the only actual change on the planetouched to balance them, then making them more susceptible to these spells actually balances it more... and thus it becomes more logical that this was the intent vs. a "mistake" They made a really big mistake. How big, I don't know -- it is a well-known fact that none of us can read Rich Baker's mind -- but it was, clearly, a mistake. The wording of the banishment spell never even mentions the word "Outsider", only the word "extraplanar". Right. Rich Baker and James Wyatt simply screwed up. It wouldn't be the first time. Again, it is an assumption on your part that it was a mistake is arguable... and unless they specify in an errata (or even a thread) that it was an error, then you stating it was a mistake is a bit odd. Again, given that this was the only change made to balance them to becoming a +0 LA creature for characters with energy resistance, spell like abilities, and positive attribute changes... it seems more likely that this change would need to have a significant game effect for it to balance them. They are "linked" to two planes, but they only have one home plane. You can only be Extraplanar at the time or not. The rules don't allow you to be both Extraplanar and not-Extraplanar. Again; racial abilities, feats, etc... allow for the normal rules to be over-ridden all the time in this game. (Again the feats from Libris Mortis is a great example.) And many Native Outsiders are *not listed* with any particular home plane. It's not just a problem with Tieflings, where you don't know exactly what plane their longago Demon ancestor came from -- the whole race of Rakshasa has no known home plane other than the Prime, for example, and it would be incongruous with the mythology they come from to say they do. (There was some crap in 2e about them coming from Acheron that has rightly been dropped.) I answered this already to yrogerg... it is no different than determining what plane an angel (or other outsider with several possible planes of origin) that was dismissed was sent to. And again, Rakshasa are found on multiple lower planes in D&D, mainly the lawful evil ones... Allowing banishment to work on Lesser Planetouched goes against its intent. The point of sending people back to their home planes is that it sends them back to a position of *safety* from whence they can possibly threaten you again, which is why this spell is not treated as an insta-kill spell. Planetouched, *especially* Lesser Planetouched, are a lot more suited to this plane than the one their ancestors came from -- sending a Lesser Fire Genasi to the Elemental Plane of Fire is effectively a death sentence. First off, there was nothing about the target being sent somewhere "safe" in the spell descriptions... (heck no one is safe in the abyss, for instance... the demons hunt each other.) And the Elemental Plane of Fire is not just all fire there are plains of obsidian, cities, all kinds of stuff... it would not be comfortable to most lesser fire genasi... but would not ness. be a death sentence unless your DM was particularly mean. And the only difference between planetouched and lesser planetouched is their type and subtype. So saying "especially" to the lesser planetouched is a false statement. And given the abilities of all the other planetouched vs. the planes the anscestor came from, no other planetouched would have that big of an issue. Moreover, it raises a whole lot of issues. You're basically saying there's nowhere a Lesser Planetouched would be safe -- even if a Lesser Tiefling *did* make it to the Abyss, and liked it, he could be zapped to the Prime by banishment there as he could to the Abyss here. And what do we do when he's on another plane entirely? Flip a coin? Figure out which plane is "closer"? That is exactly the point, they would not be safe anywhere from the spell... and it would be easy to say where they go when the spell is cast on them. They are primarily from the prime with a small portion from another... So on the prime, they get sent to the other Plane. Anywhere else they go to the Prime.
Knightblde 12-15-07, 10:01 AM	Actually, the PHB and SRD 3.5 came AFTER the FR Campaign guide.
seker 12-15-07, 10:09 AM	Actually, the PHB and SRD 3.5 came AFTER the FR Campaign guide. But not after Player's Guide to Faerun, which is the update for forgotten realms to 3.5... which is where the lesser planetouched come from. Which is where this whole debate comes from. PHB 3.5 was july 2003 Player's Guide to Faerun was march 2004 Oh and one thing, there is a huge difference between banishment and dismissal. Dismissal forces a creature back to it's proper plane. The spell does not actually state home plane, it says "proper plane" on page 222 of the PHB... And even goes on to say there is a 20% chance that it will end up on a plane other than it's own. (Feel sorry for that Tanar'ri you just accidently sent to Baator) However banishment only says that it let's you force them from your home plane... no actual mention is made as to where they go. And in the original Forgotten Realms Campaign guide they mentioned this is why banishment affected native outsiders, but dismissal did not. And this was refferenced in each Forgotten Realms book that went over planetouched since... including the ones for 3.5
yrogerg 12-15-07, 11:47 AM	Oh and one thing, there is a huge difference between banishment and dismissal. Yeah, huge difference. A banishment spell is a more powerful version of the dismissal spell. Dismissal forces a creature back to it's proper plane. The spell does not actually state home plane, it says "proper plane" on page 222 of the PHB... And even goes on to say there is a 20% chance that it will end up on a plane other than it's own. (Feel sorry for that Tanar'ri you just accidently sent to Baator) Which is great, but it still doesn't happen to things native to they plane they're on. In that they can't be targeted. Because they're not extraplanar. And it ends up, extraplanarity is defined, as well: A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow. I bolded the important bits. All creatures that are extraplanar have the Extraplanar subtype, and all creatures with the Extraplanar subtype are extraplanar. Creatures that are native to the material plane do not have the Extraplanar subtype, and are not extraplanar. Furthermore, all Extraplanar creatures indicate their home plane in their monster description. Couldn't really be any clearer, could it? Given this, let's jump back to the Couatl, Rakshasa, Tieflings, Aasimar, and monks. Notice anything missing? Like a home plane in the monster description? Or a certain notable subtype? I don't actually care if FR got a rule wrong and kept on repeating it. At best, you've made the case for it being an FR-specific setting change that doesn't reflect the way the rules actually interact. However banishment only says that it let's you force them from your home plane... no actual mention is made as to where they go. However, since it says it's a more powerful version of Dismissal, one may infer that the rules for Dismissal still apply, except as noted. Because, otherwise, you'd have to a) Completely ignore that one line as well as the whole thing about targeting extraplanar creatures, and b) Make random crap up out of whole cloth. They do, after all, have to go somewhere.
ArcTan 12-15-07, 08:14 PM	Oh and one thing, there is a huge difference between banishment and dismissal. No, not really. Banishment even says that it's nothing but a more powerful version of dismissal right in the text. Dismissal forces a creature back to it's proper plane. The spell does not actually state home plane, it says "proper plane" on page 222 of the PHB... And even goes on to say there is a 20% chance that it will end up on a plane other than it's own. (Feel sorry for that Tanar'ri you just accidently sent to Baator) However banishment only says that it let's you force them from your home plane... no actual mention is made as to where they go. ...Because the spell specifically states that it's a more powerful version of the dismissal spell, and follows the same rules. And in the original Forgotten Realms Campaign guide they mentioned this is why banishment affected native outsiders, but dismissal did not. And this was refferenced in each Forgotten Realms book that went over planetouched since... including the ones for 3.5 I don't have the FRCS, but the primary source rule surely still applies here, unless they really meant to say that things work totally differently in the Realms. In any case, as yrogerg points out, this is all moot. Ambiguity over where the creature *goes* still has nothing to do with the definition of the term "extraplanar", and the term "extraplanar" is used in both dismissal and banishment while the term Outsider is NOT. And the term "extraplanar" has a clear definition in the rules, and Native Outsiders, by definition, don't fit it. EDIT: It appears that the FRCS does, in fact, contain a rather huge and glaring error -- not uncommon in the spaghetti-like mess of the 3.5 rules -- by assuming that banishment just sends people "elsewhere" rather than sending them back to their home plane (even though it SAYS RIGHT IN THE TEXT that banishment IS dismissal but more powerful). It's still stupid, because they seem to have assumed that banishment says something about banishing *Outsiders* when it says no such thing, and they've made the stupid newbie mistake of confusing "Outsider" with "Extraplanar".
seker 12-15-07, 09:01 PM	Okay, I am going to ask a couple of simple questions of you. 1. Can feats, and or racial abilities, descriptions of subtypes alter how spells can effect a target? 2. What official 3.5 books other than the monster manual and the forgotten realms books go into details about native outsiders and/or planetouched in detail? If the answer to number one is yes, then your arguement of the definition of the term extraplanar is useless for this arguement. (and if you claim no, how many sources do you want me to give that show you that the answer is actually yes.) And on number 2 the answer is (as far as all the books I can think of offhand, as the planar handbook was 3.0 if I remember right) that only the MM and the Forgotten Realms books go into them in detail, and the Forgotten Realms books are the ones that fully describe them as characters, as well as how spells, effects, and feats alter/effect them. So while you can claim that the Forgotten Realm books are not core and need to be ignored for this conversation, it would remove the entire conversation... as all of the rules about lesser planetouched are from an optional rule in the Forgotten Realms book. But what you are doing is trying to pick and choose the rules. First off you keep bringing in other types that have literally nothing to do with the actual discussion... Couatl, Rakshasa, Tritons... which are native outsiders not planetouched. Which by what is specifically written they are not included in the quoted section of the Player's Guide to Faerun, and are in fact only listed in the 3.0 FRCS book under information on the banishment spell for being native outsiders. (and dismissal is clearly exempted by this definition.) Also monks are an entirely different animal, as per the PHB and the SRD they are outsiders not native outsiders. And in the PHB it even mentions that meaning they are an extraplanar creature. And I am sorry, you are both making an assumption on the banishment vs. dismissal... as a statement that something is a more powerful version of a spell, does not mean it is identical in all respects but stronger... It can mean any number of things. (You are assuming that banishment sends them to their home plane, but that is an assumption only as it does not actually say that anywhere in the spell.) power word sleep is a more powerful version of the sleep spell, but they are totally different in just about every aspect. banishment and dismissal both have a similiar effect... they both remove a target from the plane you are on. However banishment is very different in several ways, it can effect more targets, and you can modify the resist DC, etc... So your claim seems to be that every Forgotten Realms book has been wrong about an exception on how a specific spell works, that they have included in each edition and book that refferences planetouched. When they seem to be the primary source for additional information on the planetouched. Though I find it funny that you are claiming it is newbie mistake in books written by the following people... Greenwood, Reynolds, Williams, Heinsoo, Boyd, Forbeck, Jacobs, Baker, Stout, and Wyatt. What is really funny is at least one of them was listed involved on the original design of all 3 of the 3.0 core books as well at least 2 were part of the redesign team for 3.5 core books. I find that to be a little arrogant.
ArcTan 12-15-07, 09:15 PM	Okay, I am going to ask a couple of simple questions of you. 1. Can feats, and or racial abilities, descriptions of subtypes alter how spells can effect a target? If it specifically says that they do. 2. What official 3.5 books other than the monster manual and the forgotten realms books go into details about native outsiders and/or planetouched in detail? Depends what you mean by "detail". Manual of the Planes and Planar Handbook have a lot to say about it, and are definitely more "primary" sources for this purpose (especially for non-FR games) than the FRCS and PGtF. The FRCS and PGtF's "interpretation" are additionally damned by the fact that they seem to be literally based on a *mistake* rather than a conscious decision to make things work differently in Faerun -- the rules don't say they're changing the rules, they just blithely assume the PHB says something it doesn't say. If the answer to number one is yes, then your arguement of the definition of the term extraplanar is useless for this arguement. (and if you claim no, how many sources do you want me to give that show you that the answer is actually yes.) What feat, subtype, or whatever-the-hell *specifically says* that it changes the definition of "extraplanar"? The definition of a Native Outsider *never* changes the definition of "extraplanar". Nor does anything in the racial entries for Lesser Planetouched (an obvious fact given that it gives you no way to determine what the "proper" plane would be if dismissal did work on them). And on number 2 the answer is (as far as all the books I can think of offhand, as the planar handbook was 3.0 if I remember right) You remember wrong. It's 3.5. that only the MM and the Forgotten Realms books go into them in detail, and the Forgotten Realms books are the ones that fully describe them as characters, as well as how spells, effects, and feats alter/effect them. So while you can claim that the Forgotten Realm books are not core and need to be ignored for this conversation, it would remove the entire conversation... as all of the rules about lesser planetouched are from an optional rule in the Forgotten Realms book. But not about Planetouched in general. And, again, a *mistake* made by the FRCS doesn't count as an official "change" to the rules, especially when it seems obviously to be a mistake. (Difference between mistakes and changes -- changes *say that they are changes*.) But what you are doing is trying to pick and choose the rules. First off you keep bringing in other types that have literally nothing to do with the actual discussion... Couatl, Rakshasa, Tritons... which are native outsiders not planetouched. Which by what is specifically written they are not included in the quoted section of the Player's Guide to Faerun, and are in fact only listed thine 3.0 FRCS book under information on the banishment spell for being native outsiders. (and dismissal is clearly exempted by this definition.) Also monks are an entirely different animal, as per the PHB and the SRD they are outsiders not native outsiders. And in the PHB it even mentions that meaning they are an extraplanar creature. And I am sorry, you are both making an assumption on the banishment vs. dismissal... as a statement that something is a more powerful version of a spell, does not mean it is identical in all respects but stronger... In this context, it means that it's identical in all respects except for those specifically stated. In this case, banishment is different from dismissal in that it can affect multiple monsters at once (2 HD per caster level). However, anything else about banishment that is not specified in the text itself must be taken from dismissal -- you can't randomly say that banishment has the power to send anyone anywhere instead of "to their proper plane" because banishment's own text doesn't specify where they go. It can mean any number of things. power word sleep is a more powerful version of the sleep spell, but they are totally different in just about every aspect. Power word sleep does *not* say that it is a more powerful version of the spell sleep. Deep slumber does. Notice that deep slumber, like banishment, therefore *only* tells you in what way it *differs* from sleep: This spell functions like sleep, except that it affects 10 HD of creatures. It doesn't even tell you what it does! By your lights, this means that deep slumber, since it's clearly a different spell from sleep, must put creatures to sleep as well as teleporting all Tieflings and Aasimar to the Negative Energy Plane while setting them on fire. banishment and dismissal both have a similiar effect... they both remove a target from the plane you are on. However banishment is very different in several ways, it can effect more targets, and you can modify the resist DC, etc... So your claim seems to be that every Forgotten Realms book has been wrong about an exception on how a specific spell works, that they have included in each edition and book that refferences planetouched. When they seem to be the primary source for additional information on the planetouched. How is the FRCS the "primary source" for Planetouched? Planetouched aren't even a particularly notable feature of the Forgotten Realms. Manual of the Planes and Planar Handbook would both take precedence there.
ArcTan 12-15-07, 09:26 PM	Honestly Janni are an exception to the rule as they are linked to several planes, in my personal games I would send them to the ethereal... (though again, as with any creature that could be from multiple planes, it would be DM's perogative) as the actual purpose of banishment is to force a creature from your home plane. By that logic I can force Elminster from my home plane using banishment too. Or any random peasant I meet on the street. After all, they're *just as much* native to this plane as any Tiefling, Aasimar, or 20th-level Monk. Lol and monk is a really bad choice as an example, as per page 42 of the PHB "she is forevermore treated as an outsider (an extraplanar creature) rather than a humanoid for the purposes of spells and magical effects." Yes. It's badly written and misleading. "Outsider" and "Extraplanar" are spoken of as synonyms even when they can't actually be. Acknowledging that things in the PHB can be badly written and that we should therefore try to impose a reading that makes sense on them is more logical than running wild with every loophole created by sloppy writing. The PHB does not actually state native outsider, nor does the SRD... and the PHB actually reffers to them as extraplanar... which could be said to make monks really really vulnerable to those spells. But then it would be DM's peragotive as to where they go. IMHO it would likely be one of the planes of law, or the astral... (I would go astral myself, just like ethereal for Janni but that is just my own opinion on that.) Which is stupid, and wrong, since in no way is the Astral the "home plane" of a 20th-level Monk (he may never have even been to the Astral, how can it possibly be his home plane?). Problem with using primary source in this case is this... All of the rules of using planetouched as pc's in 3.5, save for a side mention in the MM, is in secondary sources... particularly in the Forgotten Realms series for the most part. Planar Handbook. And the particular thing we are looking at is an optional rule from one of the main books of the secondary source. Using the "primary source rule" we can ignore everything whatsoever of even the concept of lesser planetouched... But as that is what we are actually discussing, that would seem odd. The primary source rule is relevant especially when contrasting *rules* with *examples*. Nowhere does it give you a specific rule that tells you what happens to Lesser Planetouched when you cast banishment on them. Indeed, if they wanted to *make up* a rule like this, they would *have to* create a specific rule -- they would have to let us know what they had in mind, since Planetouched are not defined as coming from any specific Outer Plane. They didn't. They, instead, *refer to* a *nonexistent rule* that *does not exist* -- they say to "treat Lesser Planetouched as Outsiders for the sake of banishment", even though there is no special rule for Outsiders (as opposed to all Extraplanar creatures) for the sake of banishment. Feat, special stats in a race, etc.. are listed to show how a particular character varies from the normal rules they tell what the exceptions are. For instance Corpsecrafter feats from Libris Mortis changed the effects of how animate dead spells effected a future undead, not to mention tomb tainted soul and the tomb-born feats and how they change how spells and energy types effect a character. And this is clearly not one of those cases, because the actual, specific rule: "What happens to a Tiefling on which I cast dismissal?" nowhere exists. It's a mistake. You are making an assumption that the part in the lesser planetouched was a mistake. As it is the only actual change on the planetouched to balance them, then making them more susceptible to these spells actually balances it more... and thus it becomes more logical that this was the intent vs. a "mistake" If it weren't a mistake, the rule they're referring to -- that Tieflings react "normally" to banishment just like other Outsiders -- would actually exist, and tell us where to send the Tiefling. It doesn't. It's a mistake. Again, it is an assumption on your part that it was a mistake is arguable... and unless they specify in an errata (or even a thread) that it was an error, then you stating it was a mistake is a bit odd. They make lots of mistakes in books that they never errata. Indeed, the number of books that ever receive official errata is a minority (and claiming that the majority of books that don't get errata'd don't because they're perfect is rather odd, because it's the less-popular, less-commonly-purchased books that don't get errata). Again, given that this was the only change made to balance them to becoming a +0 LA creature for characters with energy resistance, spell like abilities, and positive attribute changes... it seems more likely that this change would need to have a significant game effect for it to balance them. Except that they aren't *adding* a rule to Lesser Planetouched, as can be seen by the fact that they nowhere write this entirely new rule in full. They state it as though Lesser Planetouched are *retaining* a rule from Planetouched, when real Planetouched have never had such a rule. I answered this already to yrogerg... it is no different than determining what plane an angel (or other outsider with several possible planes of origin) that was dismissed was sent to. And again, Rakshasa are found on multiple lower planes in D&D, mainly the lawful evil ones... Not in 3.5. In any case, Outsiders have a home plane, and when it's not the Prime Material, it specifies which plane in their entry (the entry for Angels *tells you* to pick one of the Upper Planes). Planetouched don't -- their home plane is the Prime. First off, there was nothing about the target being sent somewhere "safe" in the spell descriptions... (heck no one is safe in the abyss, for instance... the demons hunt each other.) "Safe" is a relative term. The assumption of your home plane is that its planar traits itself won't kill you. And the Elemental Plane of Fire is not just all fire there are plains of obsidian, cities, all kinds of stuff... it would not be comfortable to most lesser fire genasi... but would not ness. be a death sentence unless your DM was particularly mean. The Elemental Plane of Fire is Fire-dominant. This is defined as meaning that anyone anywhere on the plane takes 3d10 fire damage every round. What the area around you looks like makes no difference to this. A Fire Genasi does not have sufficient fire resistance to survive this. That is exactly the point, they would not be safe anywhere from the spell... and it would be easy to say where they go when the spell is cast on them. They are primarily from the prime with a small portion from another... So on the prime, they get sent to the other Plane. Anywhere else they go to the Prime. This is a neat-sounding rule. Too bad it *never actually says this in the rules* and you made it up to account for a *hole* in the rules.
seker 12-15-07, 09:39 PM	Well the planetouched subtype specifically states that banishment effects them... In response to your answer of question number 1 of "If it specifically says that they do." you are right planar handbook is 3.5... it has been a while on that book, however manual the planes is not... it was 3.0. I was wrong on that in response to that part of question 2. However the planar handbook did not go into anywhere near as much detail on the planetouched as the FR books do. And the feat/subtype does not have to change the definition of extraplanar to have banishment affects the character... all it has to say is that it does. Just like tomb-born soul reverses the effects of positive and negative energy on a living creature, it does not change the definitions of either... it just makes an exception. I still find it incredibly arrogant for you to say that it is a mistake when these specific books were written by 2 of the primary redesigners of the 3.5 series... 2 of the 5 people on the revision team were the ones who wrote the forgotten realms books in question, and one of them was one of the original designers of D&D 3.0. You are assuming it is a mistake vs. clarification/change. and your own example of deep slumber vs. sleep disproves your statement... Because deep slumber uses the wording of "This spell functions like" which is not a phrase used in banishment however it is used in spells like delayed blast fireball and in other cases they will just say as (specific spell name)... Neither of these are done in the case of banishment. And btw your example of me adding features to a spell was innaccurate... I have only stated that as the subtype specifically says 1 spell effects them that they would be effected by it. And have even stated the fact that the spell itself does not list a destination, you are the one insisting that there is a defined destination. (which is not supported by the actual spell.) And I was saying FR as a primary source as while planetouched may not be a large portion of Faerun, they literally have more written on them in the FR books than all the other books combined.
yrogerg 12-15-07, 09:46 PM	I answered this already to yrogerg... it is no different than determining what plane an angel (or other outsider with several possible planes of origin) that was dismissed was sent to. And again, Rakshasa are found on multiple lower planes in D&D, mainly the lawful evil ones... See, I missed this one, because I would have given the obvious answer: how do I determine where an angel is from? I look up its entry in the MM, under Environment. *Why* would I look in the monster's entry? Why, because that's where the Extraplanar text promises that the home plane will be listed! And lo, For Angels, it's "any good-aligned plane", so I'd have to choose from one of the good-aligned outer planes. And hey! It even tells me how to in the text of the entry! Lawful angels are from Celestia, Neutral from Elysium or the Beastlands, and Chaotic from Aborea! That sure was difficult! I needed to read all of three lines into the entry! For Couatls, it's "Warm forests" No further indication of planar origins in the text. For Rakshasa, it's "Warm marshes" No further indication of planar origins in the text. For Aasimar and Tieflings -you'll love this- it's "Temparate Plains". Note that that's Plains, not Planes. And, yet again, *no further indication of planar origins anywhere in the text* Guess which entry is identifying a planar origin, and which ones aren't?
ArcTan 12-15-07, 10:26 PM	Well the planetouched subtype specifically states that banishment effects them... In response to your answer of question number 1 of "If it specifically says that they do." If you want to be literal, it says that it affects them the same way it affects Outsiders. Since *all* Outsiders, by the rules, are not affected by banishment unless they are off their home planes, the same must be true of Lesser Planetouched. And a Lesser Planetouched's home plane is the Prime. *Everything* you're saying is pure inference and implication, not something stated in the rules. The rules, literally, say nothing other than that we must treat Lesser Planetouched as Outsiders when banishment is cast on them. In the core rules, Outsiders are treated exactly like all other creatures when banishment is cast on them. Therefore, Lesser Planetouched are treated like all other creatures when banishment is cast on them. QED. This is the only thing the rules can *literally* say. The rules *imply* that Outsiders are treated specially by banishment compared to other creatures, but this is *false*. It is a mistake. You can't claim a rule actually *exists* in the rules simply because a mistaken reference *implies that such a rule MIGHT exist* -- especially when the rule you're claiming "exists" is a rule you've made up out of whole cloth entirely on your own. you are right planar handbook is 3.5... it has been a while on that book, however manual the planes is not... it was 3.0. I was wrong on that in response to that part of question 2. However the planar handbook did not go into anywhere near as much detail on the planetouched as the FR books do. Have you even read it? Several types of Planetouched (the Zenythri and Chaonds, for example) are introduced in 3.5 form in Planar Handbook. And the feat/subtype does not have to change the definition of extraplanar to have banishment affects the character... all it has to say is that it does. Just like tomb-born soul reverses the effects of positive and negative energy on a living creature, it does not change the definitions of either... it just makes an exception. But no exception is specifically made. It never says what plane to send the Tiefling or Aasimar or Zenythri or Chaond to. It assumes an exception has already been made, when it hasn't. It has MADE A MISTAKE. This is why the primary source rule exists. I still find it incredibly arrogant for you to say that it is a mistake when these specific books were written by 2 of the primary redesigners of the 3.5 series... 2 of the 5 people on the revision team were the ones who wrote the forgotten realms books in question, and one of them was one of the original designers of D&D 3.0. You are assuming it is a mistake vs. clarification/change. Because if it were a clarification, it would have *clarified*. It would *tell* you what to do to a Lesser Planetouched who had banishment cast on it, instead of leaving it to clever people to find a discrepancy and try desperately to explain. Besides, is it really arrogance to claim that they can make mistakes? They *do* make mistakes, all the time. The number of mistakes Skip Williams (who was also a primary designer in D&D 3e) made in his time as the Sage are innumerable, and often are incredibly simple errors (like forgetting that Dwarves can wear heavy armor with no movement penalty, and then *telling people heavy-armor Dwarf builds are weak because of low movement*). It doesn't necessarily mean they're sloppier than anyone else. I'd make mistakes too, if I had a huge workload (and "primary" designers inevitably have a lot more work to do than freelancers or us dilettantes on the boards) and had to juggle more than one edition's rules in my head at once. (Like I said, this is probably because they were translating directly from 2e to 3e, and 2e had different rules for this.) In any case, the primary source rule *exists* because they make mistakes. They *say* they make mistakes and that's why they gave us this rule, in the errata documents, to give us permission to *ignore* their mistakes. There are mistakes like this *within the space of a single book* -- notice, for instance, that spell turning says that it doesn't work on Touch-range spells, and then the *example* given for using spell turning is inflict critical wounds, which is a Touch-range spell! How would you treat this? Spell turning appears later in the same book than inflict critical wounds -- does that mean it's "newer"? Does that make it a "correction/clarification"? Should we now assume that the intent is to make inflict critical wounds *non*-Touch-range and try to figure out a range to assign to it (say, 60 ft)? Or do we assume that the writer of spell turning *made a mistake*? and your own example of deep slumber vs. sleep disproves your statement... Because deep slumber uses the wording of "This spell functions like" which is not a phrase used in banishment however it is used in spells like delayed blast fireball and in other cases they will just say as (specific spell name)... Neither of these are done in the case of banishment. Okay. So you think that, because of this, you're free to both *ignore* the text in banishment that *still* says that it only functions on Extraplanar creatures, *and* to make up a whole new rule out of nowhere to try to tell me where banishment *does* send you? Because banishment doesn't specifically say that it sends you back to your "proper plane" the way dismissal does, it is a spell that has the power to send *anyone* to *any plane* at your discretion? Is that what you're telling me? See, in plain English, "This spell is a more powerful version of X" and "This spell functions like X" aren't as different as you seem to think. The former is, if anything, a stronger statement. And btw your example of me adding features to a spell was innaccurate... I have only stated that as the subtype specifically says 1 spell effects them that they would be effected by it. ...Except it doesn't. It says that they're affected by banishment the way Outsiders are. Outsiders are affected by banishment the same way everyone else is. Therefore no special rule exists. QED. And have even stated the fact that the spell itself does not list a destination, you are the one insisting that there is a defined destination. (which is not supported by the actual spell.) Sure there is. *How else would it work?* Dismissal tells you how to find the destination. Banishment says it's a more powerful version of dismissal, and then tells you how it differs specifically from dismissal. You find it more credible that banishment therefore was meant to have *no listed rules on destination at all* -- leaving the task for creating one to clever people like you to invent -- than that they meant you to use the one from dismissal?
blade265 12-16-07, 06:11 AM	Planetouched are a native of the material plane and are not classed as extra-planar and so Banishment cast by someone from the material plane on the material plane will not work on a planetouched creature. If the planetouched were on one of the other planes, shall we say one of the Celestial Planes, they are then classed as extra-planar. So someone from the celestial plane then cast banishment or dissmisal on the planetouched they would then be sent back to the material plane. Banishment PHB p203 Targets: One or more extraplanar creatures, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart. A banishment spell is a more powerful version of the dismissal spell. It enables you to force extraplanar creatures out of your home plane. Native: MM p297 Despite it's outsider type, the creature is actually a native of the material plane. Extraplanar MM 3.5 p309 and SRD. Subtype: A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow. Extra-planar:MM p297 The creature (usually an Elemental or Outsider) is not native to the material plane, which determines how it is effected by spells that banish or dismiss extra-planar creatures.
seker 12-17-07, 08:48 AM	I am going to have to break this into 2 posts, one to answer most of your responses, and a second (just so it is readable) that will go over the actual topic without all the sidetracks a couple of you keep adding, which literally have nothing to do with the topic. By that logic I can force Elminster from my home plane using banishment too. Or any random peasant I meet on the street. After all, they're *just as much* native to this plane as any Tiefling, Aasimar, or 20th-level Monk. now you are just being sad... first off... 20th level monk is entirely different than the rest as it is considered an outsider by the rules (and not even an outsider unless you decide as a dm to add that to them... as the rules say nothing about them being "native outsiders" just outsiders.) Please note, that while the planetouched subtype specifically states that they can be targetted by banishment, there is not a 3.5 source for stats on aasimar/tiefling when they are classified as native outsiders that specifically states they are subject to it. I will clarify this for you in my next post. Yes. It's badly written and misleading. "Outsider" and "Extraplanar" are spoken of as synonyms even when they can't actually be. Acknowledging that things in the PHB can be badly written and that we should therefore try to impose a reading that makes sense on them is more logical than running wild with every loophole created by sloppy writing. I agree that we should, each for our own games, translate it how we want... however you are trying to force your particular translation on others... I am listing them per Rules As Written, and you are saying basically "that they are in error and should be read this way instead of how they are written." Which is stupid, and wrong, since in no way is the Astral the "home plane" of a 20th-level Monk (he may never have even been to the Astral, how can it possibly be his home plane?). I stated that it was IMHO on where a monk would go, as in it is my personal opinon only... And again, no where in the description of the spell banishment does it say that they go to their home plane. That is in the spell dismissal and even then there is only a 80% chance that they will go to the home plane and the spell gives no information on where they go if they are in the 20% part. The primary source rule is relevant especially when contrasting *rules* with *examples*. Nowhere does it give you a specific rule that tells you what happens to Lesser Planetouched when you cast banishment on them. Indeed, if they wanted to *make up* a rule like this, they would *have to* create a specific rule -- they would have to let us know what they had in mind, since Planetouched are not defined as coming from any specific Outer Plane. Given that the banishment spell does not tell you where anyone goes when you cast it on them, it only states that it forces them out of your home plane. That kind of makes your point moot. They didn't. They, instead, *refer to* a *nonexistent rule* that *does not exist* -- they say to "treat Lesser Planetouched as Outsiders for the sake of banishment", even though there is no special rule for Outsiders (as opposed to all Extraplanar creatures) for the sake of banishment. Actually you are wrong, that is not what they said in the planetouched subtype... I will be posting it in the next post verbatim. And this is clearly not one of those cases, because the actual, specific rule: "What happens to a Tiefling on which I cast dismissal?" nowhere exists. It's a mistake. Again you are confusing spells... dismissal is a seperate spell. They make lots of mistakes in books that they never errata. Indeed, the number of books that ever receive official errata is a minority (and claiming that the majority of books that don't get errata'd don't because they're perfect is rather odd, because it's the less-popular, less-commonly-purchased books that don't get errata). Actually all 3 books in question have been errata'd... the 3.5 PHB, the Player's Guide to Faerun, and the FRCS (though the last is 3.0 so it is not as viable a source and so it's specific information is not as useful) And there was no correction of what you are calling a "mistake" ... and all of these books have been out for over 3 years. This is a neat-sounding rule. Too bad it *never actually says this in the rules* and you made it up to account for a *hole* in the rules. I did not claim it was a rule, I was just answering your question Have you even read it? Several types of Planetouched (the Zenythri and Chaonds, for example) are introduced in 3.5 form in Planar Handbook. In answer to your question yes I have read it, I own a copy... I personally was really disappointed with it. But no exception is specifically made. It never says what plane to send the Tiefling or Aasimar or Zenythri or Chaond to. It assumes an exception has already been made, when it hasn't. It has MADE A MISTAKE. This is why the primary source rule exists. Again, per the spell banishment it does not specify that it sends the target back to it's home plane, it only says it forces them from the caster's home plane. So your arguement is moot. Besides, is it really arrogance to claim that they can make mistakes? They *do* make mistakes, all the time. The number of mistakes Skip Williams (who was also a primary designer in D&D 3e) made in his time as the Sage are innumerable, and often are incredibly simple errors (like forgetting that Dwarves can wear heavy armor with no movement penalty, and then *telling people heavy-armor Dwarf builds are weak because of low movement*). It doesn't necessarily mean they're sloppier than anyone else. I'd make mistakes too, if I had a huge workload (and "primary" designers inevitably have a lot more work to do than freelancers or us dilettantes on the boards) and had to juggle more than one edition's rules in my head at once. (Like I said, this is probably because they were translating directly from 2e to 3e, and 2e had different rules for this.) In any case, the primary source rule *exists* because they make mistakes. They *say* they make mistakes and that's why they gave us this rule, in the errata documents, to give us permission to *ignore* their mistakes. There are mistakes like this *within the space of a single book* -- notice, for instance, that spell turning says that it doesn't work on Touch-range spells, and then the *example* given for using spell turning is inflict critical wounds, which is a Touch-range spell! How would you treat this? Spell turning appears later in the same book than inflict critical wounds -- does that mean it's "newer"? Does that make it a "correction/clarification"? Should we now assume that the intent is to make inflict critical wounds *non*-Touch-range and try to figure out a range to assign to it (say, 60 ft)? Or do we assume that the writer of spell turning *made a mistake*? Yes they can, and do, make mistakes, however you are claiming they made a mistake with nothing backing you up on it... (save for your translation of the spell in question being identical in where it sends the target, and saying that they obviously did not intend the spell to make an exception on extraplanar with them.) This wording has been used in several books allowing one specific spell to effect planetouched. And your translation of the spell on destination is questionable at best, as you are making a leap in assumption to state it. Okay. So you think that, because of this, you're free to both *ignore* the text in banishment that *still* says that it only functions on Extraplanar creatures, *and* to make up a whole new rule out of nowhere to try to tell me where banishment *does* send you? Because banishment doesn't specifically say that it sends you back to your "proper plane" the way dismissal does, it is a spell that has the power to send *anyone* to *any plane* at your discretion? Is that what you're telling me? See, in plain English, "This spell is a more powerful version of X" and "This spell functions like X" aren't as different as you seem to think. The former is, if anything, a stronger statement. Sure there is. *How else would it work?* Dismissal tells you how to find the destination. Banishment says it's a more powerful version of dismissal, and then tells you how it differs specifically from dismissal. You find it more credible that banishment therefore was meant to have *no listed rules on destination at all* -- leaving the task for creating one to clever people like you to invent -- than that they meant you to use the one from dismissal? First off dismissal does not tell you where a target goes all the time... there is only an 80% that the target goes to it's home plane. so using your version, stating that banishment would send targets the same as dismissal are you saying it also has only a 80% to send them to the home plane... note there is nothing in the dismissal spell that says where they go if they are part of the 20%... Oh wait that would mean the DM would have to choose... but you are saying they would spell stuff like that out in the books, aren't you?
seker 12-17-07, 09:26 AM	okay, since people keep trying to bring side topics up that actually have nothing to do with the conversation I am going to break it down. 1st. We are discussing an optional rule from a specific campaign setting. Specifically it is in the Player's Guide to Faerun. So technically the whole arguement is moot anyway as it is an optional rule, i.e. it is at DM's descretion if it is ever used. 2nd. We are discussing lesser planetouched not the standard varient of tiefling, aasimar, etc.. 3rd. Lesser planetouched are not Outsider (native) they are humanoid (planetouched). So bringing up other native outsiders does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand... nor does bringing up level 20 monks (which are just outsiders) 4th. The actual wording of the planetouched subtype is as follows: (as found on page 191 of the Player's Guide to Faerun) Planetouched: Planetouched are humanoids (not outsiders) with the planetouched subtype. They are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. Charm person works against them, and so does banishment. This trait replaces the outsider entry in each planetouched description. -Note the text does not state that dismissal effects them, or that banishment effects them like outsiders, or anything like that. It only states they are effected by it. And while some could say that it is implied that is what they meant, that is not the rules as they are written in the subtype. 5th. While there was a similiar statement made for all native outsiders in FRCS, that is a 3.0 book so all rules therein would only be used if the DM chose to make them a houserule. (as the regional feats and such were updated in later books.) So just because this subtype is an exception on how the specific spell effects it (in 3.5 as an optional rule) would not change how other types/subtypes are effected... i.e. native outsiders. 6th. The spell dismissal states that it sends the target back to its proper plane, but also states that there is a 20% (1 in 5) chance that it will send the target to a plane other than its own. (and gives no refference as to where they would go, i.e. leaving it to DM discretion) Note also this spell is not refferenced as effecting the planetouched subtype. 7th. The spell banishment however lists no destination for the target, it only states that it forces them out of the caster's home plane. 8th. In cases where a spell is simply a more powerful version of another, they use the terms "functions like" or "as {spell name}". However spells with similar effects but different manners of getting to the effect normally use the wording "similar to" or "is a more powerful version of" and in these cases are much more general. For instance augury and divination are like this, however their actual effects are significantly different. The first only saying if it is bad or good, the second giving useful advice. Both dismissal and banishment remove the target creature from the plane... one specifies where they might go (again, there is a 1 in 5 chance that they go to a plane of the DM's choosing by the RAW) the other does not specify, allows multiple targets, and gives method for making it harder to resist.
risner 12-17-07, 09:52 AM	First, a non-core source only supercedes a core source when it explicitly indicates that it does so. Second, it does not contradict anything in the PHB. Explicitly stating that a native outsider is targetable by banishment does not change the effects of banishment, which indicates that the target is sent to his/her home plane. A native outsider on the prime material is already there. Agree with both. Outsider (Native) is a native to whatever plane it was born. If prime, then banishment on the prime plane does nothing to an Outsider (Native).
Seeker95 12-17-07, 10:30 AM	seker, is it safe to summarize all of the above and saying that you believe native outsiders are not "associated" with the plane to which they are native, thereby making them subject to banishment to a plane other than the one to which they are native? If so, we will simply disagree with how the spells are applied. Fair enough.
seker 12-17-07, 03:17 PM	seker, is it safe to summarize all of the above and saying that you believe native outsiders are not "associated" with the plane to which they are native, thereby making them subject to banishment to a plane other than the one to which they are native? If so, we will simply disagree with how the spells are applied. Fair enough. actually I mentioned in my last post and have gone over it in several others, that the actual point of contention in 3.5 has actually nothing to do with native outsiders... Lesser planetouched are not native outsiders they are humanoid (planetouched)... and the actual planetouched subtype is where it says that they are subject to the spell banishment specifically. (And using lesser planetouched is an optional rule from Forgotten Realms) It was other people who kept bringing in questions of other native outsiders, which I kept trying to answer for them. Now as a houserule I extend banishment to native outsiders, as it was an exception in 3.0 as well. But as all of the refferences to it being an exception for normal native outsiders (versus the planetouched subtype) were in 3.0 books, that is not even what I have been trying to explain. I was not the one bringing up native outsiders into this conversation. (though I got dragged into debates on native outsiders.) And to specifically explain my view on native outsiders (again not the point of the initial thread) it would be this: Native outsiders are born/associated with the Prime Material Plane, however they still are composed at least in part of the essence of a different plane. (This is by the definition of their type and subtype.) So while their home plane is the Prime for all intensive purposes, a spell that specifically forces extraplanar substance out of a given plane can target them... as while they are native to the plane, part of their essence is not. *note there is a difference between dismisal which attempts to send a creature back to it's native plane, and banishment which is just attempting to force creatures from the caster's home plane.
risner 12-17-07, 07:12 PM	Lesser planetouched are not native outsiders they are humanoid (planetouched)... and the actual planetouched subtype is where it says that they are subject to the spell banishment specifically. Now as a houserule I extend banishment to native outsiders, as it was an exception in 3.0 as well. How do you reconcile your house rules with the fact that neither of them have the Extraplanar type?
seker 12-17-07, 08:45 PM	How do you reconcile your house rules with the fact that neither of them have the Extraplanar type? The being planetouched subtype specifies that banishment specifically effects creatures with the subtype, so this would just make an exception. (i.e. treat as if it had the extraplanar subtype for this specifc spell. Note this particular spell does not require you to identify the other plane in question unlike spells like dismissal.) This is no different than the way that negative and positive energy spells effect a character with tomb tainted soul as a feat. The feat/subtype makes an exception to the rule... period. (Note that is not a houserule but rather following the RAW of the planetouched subtype.) On my houserule of native outsiders and the specific spell of banishment, again this was a specific exception that was made in the rule books for 3.0 and I keep it as a hold over. It was mentioned in several books from FR, most notably the FRCS book itself. As that particular spell effecting them. I can give explanations behind the reasoning as I see it, however the actual reason that specific spell would effect them is due to it being a specific exception as it was written in the rules. Note both the FRCS and the Player's Guide to Faerun, have both been errata'd. And in neither case was this specific exception removed.
Legdiwena 12-17-07, 09:13 PM	Taking into account that monks must be lawful and the capstone is called Perfect Self, I would say they would be linked to a Plane of Law. This is further reinforced by Chaos Monk gaining the chaotic subtype at 20.
risner 12-17-07, 09:50 PM	Note both the FRCS and the Player's Guide to Faerun, have both been errata'd. And in neither case was this specific exception removed. I believe you believe that is some sort of endorsement of the line? It isn't, since by definition, this type of error is something they would never fix in the errata. In short, even if the word is in error and it should have been something different than Banishment, it would never (by definition) be changed in the Errata.
CrimsonDeath 12-17-07, 10:12 PM	-Note the text does not state that dismissal effects them, or that banishment effects them like outsiders, or anything like that. It only states they are effected by it. And while some could say that it is implied that is what they meant, that is not the rules as they are written in the subtype. Actually, the text states that they are affected by spells that affect Outsiders, and provides Banishment as an example of such a spell. The problem is that Banishment doesn't target Outsiders; it targets Extraplanar creatures. So the question becomes, "Can the definition of the racial traits of Lesser Planetouched modify how the Core spell banishment affects all creatures of the Outsider type?"
ArcTan 12-18-07, 01:06 AM	I am going to have to break this into 2 posts, one to answer most of your responses, and a second (just so it is readable) that will go over the actual topic without all the sidetracks a couple of you keep adding, which literally have nothing to do with the topic. now you are just being sad... first off... 20th level monk is entirely different than the rest as it is considered an outsider by the rules (and not even an outsider unless you decide as a dm to add that to them... as the rules say nothing about them being "native outsiders" just outsiders.) Ultimately, this is irrelevant. It is technically true that an Outsider native to the Prime Material is usually listed as a Native Outsider, but "Native" is not actually the opposite of Extraplanar. In theory, you could make a non-Native Outsider (Outsider not subject to resurrection or to eating/sleeping) who was still native to the Prime Material Plane (and therefore not Extraplanar while there), just as Native Outsiders become Extraplanar when they go to other planes. It doesn't matter whether the Monk is an Outsider or a Native Outsider. He still can't become Extraplanar to the plane he's actually from. Please note, that while the planetouched subtype specifically states that they can be targetted by banishment, there is not a 3.5 source for stats on aasimar/tiefling when they are classified as native outsiders that specifically states they are subject to it. I will clarify this for you in my next post. It doesn't need to "clarify" anything. The spell says "Extraplanar", and they aren't Extraplanar. I agree that we should, each for our own games, translate it how we want... however you are trying to force your particular translation on others... I am listing them per Rules As Written, and you are saying basically "that they are in error and should be read this way instead of how they are written." The RAW says Lesser Planetouched are subject to banishment. Which they are -- when they're off the Prime, like any other creature native to the Prime. Again, from a strict literal, no-interpretation-necessary reading, there's no need for a change to the core rules. Lesser Planetouched are, indeed, subject to banishment. When they step off the Prime they're just as subject to it as anyone else. You're claiming that Lesser Planetouched are vulnerable to banishment WHEN THEY'RE ON THE PRIME, which is *not* actually stated in the rules and is something you're reading into them. Again you are confusing spells... dismissal is a seperate spell. No, it's not. It's a spell of which banishment is a more powerful version. Actually all 3 books in question have been errata'd... the 3.5 PHB, the Player's Guide to Faerun, and the FRCS (though the last is 3.0 so it is not as viable a source and so it's specific information is not as useful) And there was no correction of what you are calling a "mistake" ... and all of these books have been out for over 3 years. They often don't correct their mistakes. I wasn't saying that "If they errata a book, they're totally conscientious and meticulous, but if they don't they're not". I'm using the fact that there's tons of books they haven't errata'd *at all* to point out that WotC is kind of sloppy. (Am I not allowed to point that out? Is that disrespectful? Because it's true, and obvious to anyone who seriously examines how they do their thing.)
ArcTan 12-18-07, 01:11 AM	-Note the text does not state that dismissal effects them, or that banishment effects them like outsiders, or anything like that. It only states they are effected by it. And while some could say that it is implied that is what they meant, that is not the rules as they are written in the subtype. They *are* affected by it. When they leave their home plane, they can be forced off of it by banishment. No one is questioning that. However, your quotation says *nothing* about changing the definition of a Lesser Planetouched's home plane to say that it's not the plane they were born on (or, even more drastically, to say they don't really have a home plane at all, or have two home planes, or other crap with no precedent in the rules). It literally says this: Charm person works against them, and so does banishment. Which is true. Charm person works on them the same as on anyone else -- if they fail their Will save, they can be directed within the limited confines of the charm person spell. It does not make them any *more* vulnerable to charm person than anyone else, though. Similarly, banishment works on them -- if they ever step off their home plane, they can be banished from it. It doesn't *change* the rules for banishment to make them *more* vulnerable to banishment, though. You're operating from the false assumption that "[i]banishment works against them" must mean "banishment works against them on the Prime", or even "banishment works on them always". Notice that I'm arguing from a strictly obtuse reading of what the rules actually, literally say, rather than pointing out what I think the *wording* of the rules *implies* (which is that they made a huge mistake and thought that banishment has to do with being an Outsider rather than Extraplanar), since you apparently object to that. If you come back and argue with me that the rules *imply* that Lesser Tieflings are *supposed* to be able to be banished FROM THE PRIME, well, now we're in the realm of interpretation (rather than strict RAW) and the interpretation is obviously that a mistake was made (they think banishment has to do with Outsiders, when it doesn't, or else the line just before this is meaningless).
ArcTan 12-18-07, 01:12 AM	Actually, the text states that they are affected by spells that affect Outsiders, and provides Banishment as an example of such a spell. The problem is that Banishment doesn't target Outsiders; it targets Extraplanar creatures. So the question becomes, "Can the definition of the racial traits of Lesser Planetouched modify how the Core spell banishment affects all creatures of the Outsider type?" This is obviously what the rules *mean*, but seker doesn't want to go by what they mean but what they *say*. Which means he ought to be willing to accept that since the rules say nothing more than "banishment works on Lesser Planetouched", that that's all we should take them to mean. Banishment does, in fact, work -- with its *normal rules* and its *normal effect* and its *normal limitations* -- on Lesser Planetouched. (Which is to say, it only works on Lesser Planetouched who are, at the time, Extraplanar.)
blade265 12-18-07, 02:46 AM	Any creature that is not on their home plane would be classed as as extra-planar, it wouldn't matter if they were outsider, fiend, human, planetouched, lesser planetouched, elf or just about anything, as long as it is classed as extra- planar it can be banished using Banishment or Dismissal.
seker 12-18-07, 09:23 AM	Actually Legdiwena, I would agree with you on it being a plane of Law, or possibly the ethereal after relooking at the monk class... after all they gain the ability to shift to the ethereal plane... but then again the monks really have nothing to do with the conversation. Risner, actually wording like this was exactly the kind of thing that they corrected in the errata for the PGtF, check out what they errata'd pertaining to feats, races, and PrC's in it. CrimsonDeath, It does not state they are examples, only that they are effected by these spells, no reference to these being an example is given... though you can infer it... but that is not per RAW. ArcTan, again I was not even the one trying to say that it made all native outsiders able to be targeted by the rules, other people in the thread kept bringing them up. (Also you seem to be ignoring the wording in the monks power description where it describes them as an outsider {an extraplanar creature}) So by your read of what they said there is no actual change in the rules by them listing that banishment effects them... that it effects them exactly as all other creatures in the game. If that was the intent of the writers, then there is literally no reason whatsoever to list that there. So they wrote it there for no reason... and never removed it even when the books in question were errata'd. That is you claiming that you know the writers intent and want to actually ignore the fact that they even wrote that part of the description. Because by your view of this, there is no reason whatsoever for them to have listed that spell as it effects all creatures exactly the same no matter the type (only the specific subtype matters). Without the spell being treated as an exception, there is no reason for it to be listed. I mentioned the fact the books are errata'd as you were the one saying that many books were not even errata'd, thus implying that no one had gone over the books to find mistakes... and as all of the books with this wording had been errata'd it would be likely if this was in error it would have been noticed. So now I want to get you right, you are saying that because they do not errata all books therefor we can assume that any possible exceptions can actually be errors? Again, you are being arrogant. And again, the wording of the spells dismissal (which draws a target back to its home plane) and banishment (which forces targets from the casters home plane.) Does not tell you to treat banishment as the lower level spell... there is specific wording in cases of that, and these spells do not have that wording. This means that you dismiss extraplanar material back to it's home plane... But you banish extraplanar material by forcing the material that is not from your plane out of it. (this is paraphrased from the actual description of the spells)
risner 12-18-07, 10:07 AM	Risner, actually wording like this was exactly the kind of thing that they corrected in the errata for the PGtF, check out what they errata'd pertaining to feats, races, and PrC's in it. So you are saying you know more about WotC Errata policy than those that work for WotC in the errata department? What I mean by this, is they have said in forums and in personal communications that simple typos are not things they would consider changing. I was pointing out that this could be a typo (if used to interpret it your way) and something they would consider unimportant to fix in errata. I happen to agree with ArcTan and others, that the line itself doesn't prove your side by RAW, so for me the argument over whether or not it is errata worthy is pointless since it doesn't change the mechanics.
Seeker95 12-18-07, 10:28 AM	Banishment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/banishment.htm) A banishment spell is a more powerful version of the dismissal spell. It enables you to force extraplanar creatures out of your home plane. As many as 2 Hit Dice of creatures per caster level can be banished. You can improve the spell’s chance of success by presenting at least one object or substance that the target hates, fears, or otherwise opposes. For each such object or substance, you gain a +1 bonus on your caster level check to overcome the target’s spell resistance (if any), the saving throw DC increases by 2. Certain rare items might work twice as well as a normal item for the purpose of the bonuses (each providing a +2 bonus on the caster level check against spell resistance and increasing the save DC by 4). Dismissal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dismissal.htm) This spell forces an extraplanar creature back to its proper plane if it fails a special Will save (DC = spell’s save DC - creature’s HD + your caster level). If the spell is successful, the creature is instantly whisked away, but there is a 20% chance of actually sending the subject to a plane other than its own. The only mechanical differences between the two is: banishment can affect more than one creature dismissal has a fixed DC seker, you are creating differences that do not exist in an effort to support a broad interpretation of a single sentence in a non-core supplement. You can play it that way if you wish, but your interpretation and distinction requires a lot of houseruling and explicitly ignoring core spell mechanics.
Legdiwena 12-18-07, 11:28 AM	Charm person works on them the same as on anyone else -- if they fail their Will save, they can be directed within the limited confines of the charm person spell. It does not make them any *more* vulnerable to charm person than anyone else, though. Incorrect, once your type changes to Outsider, you are no longer humanoid and thus not a valid target for Charm Person. This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
CrimsonDeath 12-18-07, 01:05 PM	CrimsonDeath, It does not state they are examples, only that they are effected by these spells, no reference to these being an example is given... though you can infer it... but that is not per RAW. I suppose you've never heard of "parellelism" then. Look at what's actually written: "They are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. Charm person works against them, and so does banishment." They say that lesser planetouched are affected by spells that target humanoids and outsiders. Then they list two spells, the first of which specifically targets humanoids. If that weren't an example, why waste the ink? You've already stated that they're susceptible to spells that target humanoids; charm person is not an exception to any rules at this point. So, for anyone who's remotely familiar with the manner in which people communicate with one another, it's blindingly obvious that the authors' intent was for the second spell to specifically target Outsiders. Except it doesn't. It targets "extraplanar creatures". That's not limited to Outsiders. I can list Dragons, Undead, Elementals, Oozes, Constructs, and even Humanoids that it will affect, even when they're present on the Prime Material Plane. But, if you want to go by a strict reading of the rules and completely ignore intent, we can do that too. Note that the spell never mentions where the Lesser Planetouched are located when banishment affects them. If they're not on their home plane at the time, then they are legal targets, and banishment certainly will affect them, just as the book claims (and just as it would affect animals, aberrations, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, giants, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, undead, or vermin). The book does not specifically state that banishment will affect them regardless of what plane they're on. So, if the creature in question is on its home plane, banishment will not affect it at that time, because that's not how banishment works. The fact that the creature is treated as an Outsider doesn't matter; the creature must be treated as being Extraplanar, and PGtF says nothing about the home plane of Lesser Planetouched. Consider a similar question: "Are Kobolds affected by holy word?" If we look in the Monster Manual, we notice that Kobolds are "usually Lawful Evil", so our first impulse would be to answer "Yes". However, if we look in the Monster Manual, we see that this only means that over 50% of Kobolds are Lawful Evil; it doesn't indicate how many more than 50% are Lawful Evil, nor what alignment the balance of the population holds. So, it is possible that some individual Kobolds will be Good, and thus could completely ignore a holy word. Likewise, the majority of Outsiders are Extraplanar and would be subject to banishment, but they aren't always. Is a Kobold affected by holy word? Only if he's not Good. Is an Outsider affected by banishment? Only if he's extraplanar. Incorrect, once your type changes to Outsider, you are no longer humanoid and thus not a valid target for Charm Person. Lesser Planetouched are Humanoid.
Legdiwena 12-18-07, 01:19 PM	I was referring to native outsiders in general, never looked at the lesser planetouched.
ArcTan 12-18-07, 06:58 PM	ArcTan, again I was not even the one trying to say that it made all native outsiders able to be targeted by the rules, other people in the thread kept bringing them up. (Also you seem to be ignoring the wording in the monks power description where it describes them as an outsider {an extraplanar creature}) That was probably a mistake. The fact that they didn't go into the many details of what would have to be clarified if a Monk were Extraplanar (like where he's *not* Extraplanar, since no one can be Extraplanar everywhere) suggests to me that they just misused the word "Extraplanar" to mean "Outsider", as people often do on the boards (remembering that the two terms *were* basically synonymous in 2e). What you're quoting is, after all, a parenthetical that seems to serve no purpose but to define the word "Outsider". So by your read of what they said there is no actual change in the rules by them listing that banishment effects them... that it effects them exactly as all other creatures in the game. Yep. Notice that once we've already defined Lesser Planetouched as being a subtype of Humanoids, saying charm person works on them is also not a change in the rules. If that was the intent of the writers, then there is literally no reason whatsoever to list that there. So they wrote it there for no reason... and never removed it even when the books in question were errata'd. That is you claiming that you know the writers intent and want to actually ignore the fact that they even wrote that part of the description. No. I'm playing your stupid little game of worshipping RAW above all else and saying "That's the RAW! No interpretation allowed!" By the literal, RAW interpretation of what it says, banishment works the same as it does on everyone else. By a *non*-literal interpretation, it's really obvious that they *thought* banishment worked on regular Planetouched and were simply extending that to Lesser Planetouched -- *not* making up a whole new rule specifically for Lesser Planetouched. In other words, they made a mistake. And yes, they frequently fail to fix their own mistakes. I mentioned the fact the books are errata'd as you were the one saying that many books were not even errata'd, thus implying that no one had gone over the books to find mistakes... and as all of the books with this wording had been errata'd it would be likely if this was in error it would have been noticed. No, it wouldn't, because they are sloppy. The PHB, for instance, has been errata'd multiple times, but that one mistake I pointed out to you? The deal with them accidentally saying inflict critical wounds isn't Touch-range and can be turned? Never fixed. The reason all errata files start with the Primary Source Rule is that the Primary Source Rule reduces the work they have to do. They *only* need to comb through the material that's "primary" for that sourcebook when editing it for errors. They don't have to go through quoted material from other books or example text rather than rules text or anything they consider "secondary", because the Primary Source Rule covers that. Hence many such things are never, ever fixed. So now I want to get you right, you are saying that because they do not errata all books therefor we can assume that any possible exceptions can actually be errors? Again, you are being arrogant. Not all possible exceptions. Just unexpected "exceptions" that crop up out of nowhere, directly contradict the rules and don't state that they *are* exceptions or explain *why* they are exceptions. If they actually wanted to create the kind of exception you state, they'd say "In Forgotten Realms, unlike the core rules, Tieflings and Aasimar are considered native to a plane other than the Prime Material and are therefore Extraplanar when on the Prime." This bold statement occurs nowhere in the rules. Instead, we see a bunch of *half*-references to this concept *as though* it were written this way in the rules when it weren't. In other words, a *mistake*, not a correction. Just like there's a difference between your DM explicitly saying "In my campaign, Dwarves do suffer a heavy armor movement reduction" and instead going "No, no, don't you remember? You can't charge that far 'cause you're wearing heavy armor". The former is a conscious statement of a new rule. The latter is clearly a *mistaken* understanding of an existing rule. And again, the wording of the spells dismissal (which draws a target back to its home plane) and banishment (which forces targets from the casters home plane.) Does not tell you to treat banishment as the lower level spell... there is specific wording in cases of that, and these spells do not have that wording. The game designers are human. They're not required to always consistently use the "specific wording" you insist on, especially when they nowhere actually outright *defined* it that way (saying that a spell only uses material from other spells when it specifically states "Treat as X" or "Functions like X"). This means that you dismiss extraplanar material back to it's home plane... But you banish extraplanar material by forcing the material that is not from your plane out of it. (this is paraphrased from the actual description of the spells) Of course, Lesser Planetouched are still not Extraplanar, so this is still all a totally moot point that you've nonetheless managed to derail the conversation on for way too long.
blade265 12-18-07, 08:35 PM	Of course, Lesser Planetouched are still not Extraplanar, so this is still all a totally moot point that you've nonetheless managed to derail the conversation on for way too long. Why can't they be extraplanar?
ArcTan 12-18-07, 08:43 PM	They *can be* Extraplanar. If a Lesser Planetouched comes from Baator and is now on the Prime, she is now Extraplanar. However, a Lesser Planetouched who was born on the Prime and is on the Prime now is, by definition, not Extraplanar.