Pun Pun, Sarrukhs and Manipulate Form

[RadiantPhoenix]

No you retard. You can't give yourself "Win D&D Forever (Su)" because no such ability exists.

So what? Dragon-blooded human with Manipulate Form didn't exist before either, and Manipulate Form has exactly as much rules support for granting one as for granting the other.

(Also, you would totally make it an (Ex) ability)

[Slade]

My opinion is the ability grants nothing because it is incomplete.

What they did is akin to the candy store owner saying "take one of anything kid" and then just silently watching in dismay as you take his cash register. But yeah, who the hell going to be so stupid as let their players get away with this kind of crazy?

I'd applaude the cajones on that kid. Smart and follows directions.

[nockermensch]

REALLY SHORT GUIDE TO WINNING D&D:
1) be a reptile, and give your familiar the Manipulate Form ability of a Sarrukh
2) have your familiar grant you the "Win D&D Forever (Su)" ability you just wrote. This ability gives you any power you already read about in a Pun-Pun thread.
3) try not to cry
4) cry a lot

No you retard. You can't give yourself "Win D&D Forever (Su)" because no such ability exists.

I see you remain adorable. Keep up the good work!

[Mistborn]

The sample abilities are not, to my knowledge, to be found on any monster anywhere.

Those sample abilties are not (Ex) (Su) or (Sp) abilites those are "physical alterations" examples of what the first few lines of the ability is used for. This is because "has x limbs/eyes/tentacles/cocks" is not a (Ex) (Su) or (Sp) ability. Manipulate form has three "modes". Physical alteration which is what that list of things describes, alter ability scores, and add or remove (Ex) (Su) or (Sp). That last part is subject to no inhenent limiting factors and that's insane but that doesn't mean the abiltiy dosen't say what is says.

The reason Manipulate form can not grant "Win D&D(Ex)" is it dose not exist. It can how ever grant for example Evasion(Ex) because that's a real (Ex) ability with real rules text.

[ishy]

That last part is subject to no inhenent limiting factors and that's insane but that doesn't mean the abiltiy dosen't say what is says.

The reason Manipulate form can not grant "Win D&D(Ex)" is it dose not exist. It can how ever grant for example Evasion(Ex) because that's a real (Ex) ability with real rules text.

But if it has no inherent limiting factors, why do you think it needs to be something that already exists?

[Username17]

The reason Manipulate form can not grant "Win D&D(Ex)" is it dose not exist. It can how ever grant for example Evasion(Ex) because that's a real (Ex) ability with real rules text.

This is a completely incoherent argument. Manipulate Form does not give function calls to the master ability list. There is no such thing as a master ability list. Manipulate Form does not give function calls to character classes or specific monsters either.

It just grants abilities that you negotiate with your DM. That's all it does. Since writing a new ability and negotiating that with the DM is exactly the same as copypastaing a ability that someone has already written in another context and negotiating that with the DM, you don't have an argument. All you're saying is that the fact that some ability is written down in a published book makes it somewhat easier to convince the DM that you should be allowed to make an ability that is similar to it. But that's not a RAW argument in the slightest - that's an DM psychology argument.

You're essentially arguing that it is easier for a Wizard to use the spell creation rules to write a "new" spell that happens to mimic an existing Wu Jen spell than it is for them to use the spell creation rules to write a new spell that is legitimately new. And while that might be true, it doesn't make either spell proposal more or less RAW legal in any meaningful sense of the term.

-Username17

[Mistborn]

But if it has no inherent limiting factors, why do you think it needs to be something that already exists?

How do people not understnad this you can not take the level 1 wizard spell spell "Win D&D" because no such spell exists. You can not polymorph into the Winium Elemental or the Purple People Eater because those monsters do not exist. In order you you to do anything with you character abilites those things have to be predefined in the rules.

Fine though if you want to consider the ability you gran has to already exist a "limitation" to manipulate form than I guess it is.

[Username17]

But if it has no inherent limiting factors, why do you think it needs to be something that already exists?

How do people not understnad this you can not take the level 1 wizard spell spell "Win D&D" because no such spell exists. You can not polymorph into the Winium Elemental or the Purple People Eater because those monsters do not exist. In order you you to do anything with you character abilites those things have to be predefined in the rules.

Fine though if you want to consider the ability you gran has to already exist a "limitation" to manipulate form than I guess it is.

You actually can write new spells. It's in the rules. Just as you can write new abilities. That's in the rules too. The fact that the proposed spells and/or abilities are stupid and broken means that the DM obviously won't let you have them, but by the same logic that you use Manipulate Form to get magic immunity you could just write and select "Win D&D Forever" instead.

-Username17

[nockermensch]

But if it has no inherent limiting factors, why do you think it needs to be something that already exists?

How do people not understnad this you can not take the level 1 wizard spell spell "Win D&D" because no such spell exists. You can not polymorph into the Winium Elemental or the Purple People Eater because those monsters do not exist. In order you you to do anything with you character abilites those things have to be predefined in the rules.

Fine though if you want to consider the ability you gran has to already exist a "limitation" to manipulate form than I guess it is.

Yes, Misty. You're right. The Rules of D&D descended from heaven brought by Monte Cook and Skip Williams in cherub cosplays (naked other than the small white wings and halos), amidst a blast of horns and a kick-ass light show.

[Mistborn]

This is a completely incoherent argument. Manipulate Form does not give function calls to the master ability list. There is no such thing as a master ability list. Manipulate Form does not give function calls to character classes or specific monsters either.

Da fack.

Polymorph dose not give funtion calls to the master list of aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin with less than X HD. Extra Spell does not give funtion calls to a master list of all spells. Manipulate From has no need to give funtion calls to classes or specific monsters that's not how D&D works.

Sigh I have no idea why anyone is still on about this.

[Username17]

This is a completely incoherent argument. Manipulate Form does not give function calls to the master ability list. There is no such thing as a master ability list. Manipulate Form does not give function calls to character classes or specific monsters either.

Da fack.

Polymorph dose not give funtion calls to the master list of aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin with less than X HD.

Yes it does. It tells you that you choose monsters and that you get certain abilities and not others from the entries of those monsters. That is a function call.

Extra Spell does not give funtion calls to a master list of all spells.

Yes it does. It tells you to get an extra spell from specific spell levels, which are -get this- on a big list.

Manipulate From has no need to give funtion calls to classes or specific monsters that's not how D&D works.

Yes it would. If you don't gain an ability from somewhere, there is no ability to gain. There is no master ability list. There are feat lists, there are monster lists, there are spell lists. And things can and do let you make selections off those lists (bonus feat, polymorph, and extra spell, for example). There is no ability list, and there is nothing in the game that would allow you to dumpster dive off of one if there was.

Sigh I have no idea why anyone is still on about this.

Because you keep posting your double standard bullshit.

-Username17

[Mistborn]

You know what I don't even care.

[Mistborn]

Yes, Misty. You're right. The Rules of D&D descended from heaven brought by Monte Cook and Skip Williams in cherub cosplays (naked other than the small white wings and halos), amidst a blast of horns and a kick-ass light show.

Go suck a barrel of cocks nocker. The Rules As Writen is totally a thing that exists. Noone uses them and few people actually know them but that dosen't mean that those rules don't exist. For example Monks are not proficent with their unarmed strikes. This is a true fact of the rules as writen and no amount of handwaving, houserules, or willful ignorence will make that not pure 100% real and true reality.

[Dean]

Go suck a barrel of cocks nocker. The Rules As Writen is totally a thing that exists.

No it's not.

"On Denoting" is a book by Bertrand Russell. "Naming and Necessity" is a book by Kripke. They are some of the most important pieces on the function of language ever written. "On Denoting" in particular is considered wholly revolutionary and is one of the most important works I've ever read in my life.

In summary and in relation to this point they point out the imperfections of language. That there is no such thing as an absolute when using human language. There is no statement you can make which has any truth value. Even statements you might think are clean and clear like "There is a chair 2 meters to my left" are so fraught with ambiguity and discrepancy as to be literally scientifically meaningless. There is no satisfactory way to define the use of even scientific terms like "Meter" when using human language to do so. In non-mathematical use all terms are ambiguous concept relating tools with NO inherent or definable meaning.

To put it simply if we're going to treat something as scientific, absolute, or factual knowledge then it absolutely can't be declarative statements made by some writer. We can talk about the likelihood of a statement meaning a certain thing but we absolutely cannot say that some words someone used accessed some higher True Meaning that cannot be interpreted differently or altered by anyone.

All language is ambiguous. The closest we can come to arguing it's truth value is arguing things as if legally. Through precedent, evidence, and inference. People arguing RAW vs RAI are inherently misinformed and are usually just covers for people arguing with BETTER evidence and LESS evidence.

In my opinion, for this ruling and in general. I have the stance that open ended or unfinished language cannot be used to create viable rulings. I know the rules homie, I know how fucking weird they are. But I think if we brought this case to court it'd be thrown out.

[nockermensch]

Yes, Misty. You're right. The Rules of D&D descended from heaven brought by Monte Cook and Skip Williams in cherub cosplays (naked other than the small white wings and halos), amidst a blast of horns and a kick-ass light show.

Go suck a barrel of cocks nocker. The Rules As Writen is totally a thing that exists. Noone uses them and few people actually know them but that dosen't mean that those rules don't exist. For example Monks are not proficent with their unarmed strikes. This is a true fact of the rules as writen and no amount of handwaving, houserules, or willful ignorence will make that not pure 100% real and true reality.

You know, you forgot to actually make your point. I posted that to make fun of your slavish respect for "The Rules". The very same rules made by a band of incompetent hacks this site keeps making fun of.

Then you answered like that. To which my answer is: Yes, and? It's quite obvious that documents were composed by hacks at some point of the past and constitute the rules as written of D&D. Now tell us something we don't know, by completing the following sentence:

"When the RAW produces undesired or plainly stupid results, we totally should ____________________________."

[Kaelik]

Improving Monsters:

You can add any sort of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to a creature.

1) Note the use of the word any instead of a.

2) Do you really think the above line only allows DMs to add abilities that are present on some other monster to monsters? Or can he just make up whatever he wants?

If the second one, then oops, you are wrong, D&D does have rules for making up any extraordinary ability.

[wotmaniac]

First, @ Kaelik:
I just had a real "doh!" moment just now -- for some reason, I kept thinking that your reference to "gives you a strength score" was literal, as opposed to a substitution for "gives you an ability". My bad -- I don't know what got in to me. I assure you that any resemblance to strawmanning on my part was completely unintentional (so, apparently, the acridity of my last post was probably misplaced).

But now that I'm (hopefully) on track, that leads me to this: It has now occurred to me that you, Frank, et.al., have been parsing the sentence in question incorrectly (at least in regards to the author's apparent intent). Here's where y'all are fuckin' up:
"grant the target an extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability" isn't the equivalent of saying "grants you a strength score" -- this a limitation on action economy. What this is saying is that it can only grant 1 single ability per single use of Manipulate Form. Also (and I'm sure much to Frank's chagrin, and despite his protest), this sentence is actually making a function call to a master list -- and since there are no other qualifiers, that "master list" would indeed be "the set of all abilities that would be classified as either Ex, Su, or Sp" or "the set of all Ex, Su, and Sp abilities".
Presumably, a given sarrukh chooses when and how it uses its own abilities; ergo, it chooses what ability to grant upon activation of Manipulate Form. Fuck, why did the sarrukh happen to pluck animal trance seemingly out of thin air and slap it on the yuan-ti? Because they could. Maybe they just thought it seemed like a good idea at the time -- who the fuck knows.

And then there's this:

My impression was that wotmaniac was, in fact, attempting to use interpolation and/or extrapolation as an argument:

• There are things which Sarrukhs allegedly modified
• Some of those things have spell-like abilities
• Therefore, Sarrukhs can use manipulate form to grant those spell-like abilities
• ???
• Therefore, Sarrukhs can grant all sorts of spell-like abilities

Apparently, I need to try to connect more dots so that step 4 makes more sense:
Instead of so narrowly focusing on just the monster entry for the sarrukh and using just that to figure out what the fuck this thing does, hows about we step back and notice that the entirety of the previous chapter was dedicated solely to this creature. After reading that entire chapter, the reader should now be in the frame of mind to put this creature in to its proper perspective. When we take in the totality of this creature and its place in the world, we do see that in fact the Manipulate Form is a goddamned plot ability of a fucking Epic-level creature. And we do know that Manipulate Form is the sarrukhs' general mechanic for mutagenesis -- and since this is D&D-Land -- and thus aren't exactly restricted to such jejunity as irradiating fruit flies -- this is an ability with which, it appears, they can do whatever the fuck they set their minds to. "But how are you able to divine such a thing?", you might say. Well, fuck .... "How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work? It just does." (yes, that just happened)
Granted, we still don't get much more than "This technique allowed the sarrukh to permanently transform a creature’s physical body and also grant it new extraordinary and supernatural abilities". But, to me, this only emphasizes the idea that this is a "Plot Power", to be implemented at the user's discretion.
The literature suggests that sarrukh did whatever they did, however they did it, simply because they could.

Look, if you're gonna devote an entire chapter to describing the Progenitor fucking Race and what they do, wouldn't you think that if they wanted to further restrict that ability, they would have went ahead and added the extra 2-3 sentences? Besides, the list of abilities that appear across the various scaly-ones is simply too short to not consolidate to an actual list; that is, iff Manipulate Form was actually meant to be that narrow in scope.

Now, I'll go ahead and say this: given what these guys are capable of, and the fact that these guys have god-like intellects, you really have to question the basic nature of their motivations, or possibly their sanity.

Given the reputations of these authors, it stands to reason (i.e., jumps out like a flashing neon sign) that shit like pun-pun is yet just another unintended result of their long-documented naivety and openly-admitted myopia when designing new abilities. Fuck, Mearls wrote an entire article talking about how they couldn't even be bothered to keep shit like fucking polymorph in mind when creating monsters, let alone some happenstance feat that was thrown in to some not-really-even-meant-to-actually-be-used book (a feat, btw, that was also written with the same level of naivety and myopia-- i.e., the only shit they had in mind was crap like troll regeneration and pixie invisibility). Not to mention that not only were these 2 books written a whole 1.5 years apart, but involved completely different writing/design teams (the only commonality was Gwen Kestrel and Penny Williams were part of both editing teams .... but I'm sure that doesn't even really mean shit).

And let's be honest -- at the point where PCs were actually expected to be able to access Manipulate Form, (even a liberal interpretation of) the ability is actually fairly level-appropriate. So why bother giving a fuck?

[Kaelik]

Also (and I'm sure much to Frank's chagrin, and despite his protest), this sentence is actually making a function call to a master list -- and since there are no other qualifiers, that "master list" would indeed be "the set of all abilities that would be classified as either Ex, Su, or Sp" or "the set of all Ex, Su, and Sp abilities".

No, that is not a function call to a master list, because no master list exists.

Feats are composed in lists. Spells are composed in lists. (Ex) abilities are not ever in lists. There are literally zero lists anywhere of Ex abilities, and literally every single Ex ability that has ever existed is not contained in a list anywhere in D&D.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Well, if you want to get into what's reasonable, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

And Pun-Pun as generally understood is definitely not one of those fish, and not in that kettle.

[wotmaniac]

while said list has not been formally compiled; said list is definitely compilable.
and actually consolidating such a list would take several volumes; thus doing so is impractical, at best.

EDIT: wait -- that's all you got? I just gave you a mountain of material, and that's what you went with?
I figured that the bit about correctly parsing sentences might have got your attention.

Weak sauce, man. Weak sauce.

[Username17]

I don't actually like Kaelik's example of "give a strength score", because Strength scores are composite entities and thus the overlap is not total. Let us instead use the example "give an enhancement bonus to strength". If the sentence does not specify the all-important parameter of what the actual "+X" is for that enhancement bonus to strength, are you really claiming that this defaults to having the player choose a number granted by an already existing effect somewhere in the game (including for some reason, epic effects of essentially arbitrary power)?

That is the equivalent error you are making. There is no fucking "strength enhancement bonus number list" that strength enhancements default to making function calls to when their parameters are unspecified. Just as there is no "extraordinary ability list" that function calls are being made to. These just aren't lists that actually exist, and having an unfinished ability that claims it would totally give you one but doesn't tell you which does not default to letting you select from the big list. There is no big list for them to offer you selections from.

-Username17

[Stubbazubba]

What they did is akin to the candy store owner saying "take one of anything kid" and then just silently watching in dismay as you take his cash register. But yeah, who the hell going to be so stupid as let their players get away with this kind of crazy?

That's one interpretation, but the other one is that the candy store owner says, "take one of," and leaves it at that, and they decide he was going to say "everything," so they take a cash register. That's even more problematic.

Overall I'm not sure which one I agree with, there are compelling arguments on both sides.

However, I have to pick at Kaelik's conclusion that since it doesn't specify a certain list, that it would necessarily include made-up abilities. The Cleric spell list is technically a finite list, but since new spells are added to it the same way new abilities could be added to the game, it is essentially infinite, as well. A Cleric could then say they're preparing the homebrew Cleric spell Win D&D at level 1, which is on the Cleric spell list because you just made it and you're putting it there. This is not the same as making a new spell in a Wizard's spellbook, and, for all intents and purposes, poses the same issue as the ability in question here. Just because there is an incomplete list in the rulebook doesn't make it substantially different, since you can make up a new Cleric spell just as easily as you can make up a new (Ex), (Su) or (Sp) ability.

[John Magnum]

So, wotmaniac is arguing that this rule--despite the actual text--is making an implicit call to some sort of master list of extraordinary abilities. A list that even he admits does not exist. But since someone could, hypothetically, come up with such a list, then clearly it's plausible that Manipulate Form is indeed referring to just such an imaginary list. And just as clearly, this imaginary list would be "any ability published in D&D", nothing more or less restrictive.

This isn't RAW. This really is deep into "The rules don't say you CAN'T, so maybe they really do mean..." because the rules as written are fucking incomplete.

[...You Lost Me]

wotmaniac is not doing that, he pretty much openly stated that he's talking about RAI, and his source for RAI is the chapter in Superlizards that's all about how the sarrukh made scalykind with their progenitor powers.

[Kaelik]

Point the first: Frank's refinment of my Strength score example is more correct, and a much better example. Retroactively replace all my hypotheticals with that.

However, I have to pick at Kaelik's conclusion that since it doesn't specify a certain list, that it would necessarily include made-up abilities. The Cleric spell list is technically a finite list, but since new spells are added to it the same way new abilities could be added to the game, it is essentially infinite, as well. A Cleric could then say they're preparing the homebrew Cleric spell Win D&D at level 1, which is on the Cleric spell list because you just made it and you're putting it there. This is not the same as making a new spell in a Wizard's spellbook, and, for all intents and purposes, poses the same issue as the ability in question here. Just because there is an incomplete list in the rulebook doesn't make it substantially different, since you can make up a new Cleric spell just as easily as you can make up a new (Ex), (Su) or (Sp) ability.

Actually, you are totally wrong.

See, the Cleric can choose from the Cleric list. And there are a finite number of entries on the Cleric list: 1-867. So the Cleric can pick one of those abilities. When a new book is published, it adds entries to the list.

But see, Wizards pick from a different list. And their list goes from 1-868. And they can always choose to add spell 868. And entry 868 on the list is "Make up any spell you want." Including of course "Win D&D."

And I am saying that if there was a "all ex abilities" list. And Manipulate Form was a function call to that list. Entry 4687 on that list is very specifically, from the "Improving Monsters" section: "Or anything else you can think of."

So Wizards can Win D&D and if Manipulate Form actually was a function call, so could Sarruks.

while said list has not been formally compiled; said list is definitely compilable.
and actually consolidating such a list would take several volumes; thus doing so is impractical, at best.

The fact that you could compile such a list does not change that a) the list doesn't exist, and b) Manipulate Form is not a function call to that list, so you are still fucked.

EDIT: wait -- that's all you got? I just gave you a mountain of material, and that's what you went with?
I figured that the bit about correctly parsing sentences might have got your attention.

Implicit in my correction of your failed parsing of the sentence was that you failed to parse the sentence and I correctly parsed the sentence. Why do I need to spell this out?