Ikea Tarrasque Update

[Maat Mons]

The thread is over on the old boards, so I'm posting a new thread here. 

The pugilist fighter variant (Dragon 310, p37) lets you take an ability called “shake it off” instead of a feat.  Shake it off has the following benefit “The pugilist develops non-lethal damage only and reduces the duration of all stunning effects by 1 round, with a minimum of 1 round. The pugilist can take this ability multiple times; its effects stack.” 

This ability is kind of like regeneration, but it can't be overcome by anything, and it doesn't grant any healing.  More importantly for our purposes, it's not classified as regeneration by RAW. 

The improved resiliency feat (Races of Eberron, p119) has the following benefit: “You are immune to nonlethal damage but lose the ability to benefit from regeneration or fast healing, even if you would gain those qualities through magic or the application of a template.”  The only prerequisite is being a warforged. 

Technically, shake it off isn't among the things that conflict with improved resiliency.  So … immunity to damage at 1st level? 

[Jackinthegreen]

Yes.

[dman11235]

Is there a duration on that ability?  Or is it constant?  Either way that's hilariously awesome, but if it's constant, wow.  That's overpowered even without the blatant abuse being handed out.  Nice.

[Maat Mons]

It's constant. 

[Jackinthegreen]

Yup, Shake it Off is a constant, permanent ability.

Shake it Off: The pugilist develops non-lethal damage only and reduces the duration of all stunning effects by 1 round, with a minimum of 1 round.  The pugilist can take this ability multiple times: its effects stack.

In response to the original thread though, there's a template in Bestiary of Krynn that makes the creature immune to acid.

[Kerrus]

...

Verb

develop (third-person singular simple present develops, present participle developing, simple past and past participle developed or developt)

    (intransitive) To change with a specific direction, progress.

        Let's see how things develop and then make our decision.

   
    (transitive) To create.

        I need to develop a plan for the next three weeks.


Thus, the sentence does not, nor has ever stated that the pugilist becomes immune to lethal damage and only vulnerable to non-lethal damage. It says, rather.

The pugilist develops non-lethal damage only and reduces the duration of all stunning effects by 1 round, with a minimum of 1 round.

A Pugilist trains his non-lethal damage ability, and (the actual effect) reduces the duration of all stunning effects by 1 round with a minimum of 1 round.



At best you are attempting to use the definition:

 (intransitive) To progress through a sequence of stages.

        Isabel developed from a tropical depression to a tropical storm to a hurricane.
        An embryo develops into a fetus and then into an infant.

To suggest that the use of "A pugilist [progresses through a sequence of] non-lethal damage only", but even this does not refer to taking damage or specify hit points or anything of that sort. Without such specification, the statement is meaningless and thus from a RAW reading cannot be used as such.

[Jackinthegreen]

The problem with that is, how else can the rule there be interpreted in this context?  Non-lethal damage is a slightly different form of hit point damage and can mean nothing else.  The meaning of it can better be shown by swapping "develops" with "takes."  "The pugilist takes non-lethal damage only" which is understood to mean "The pugilist only takes non-lethal damage."  Like to speak with you Yoda would if whining about word placement you do.

Likewise, the pugilist cannot develop/take lethal damage because he can only develop/take non-lethal damage.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

 

  ... umm ... so Fighters don't suck anymore ?!

[Maat Mons]

…

I believe the definition being used here would be along the lines of “to become infected or affected by,” “To come to have gradually; acquire,” or “To become affected with; contract.” 

The meaning is then “the pugilist [is affected by] nonlethal damage only,” which is roughly equivalent to “the pugilist isn't affected by damage that isn't nonlethal.” 

As an aside, I suspect the intention was to convert regular damage to lethal damage, but that doesn't matter, both because the end result would be the same when immunity to nonlethal damage is introduced, and because You Break it You Buy It isn't generally concerned with RAI. 

[ariasderros]

…

As an aside, I suspect the intention was to convert regular damage to lethal damage, but that doesn't matter, both because the end result would be the same when immunity to nonlethal damage is introduced, and because You Break it You Buy It isn't generally concerned with RAI.

That is how I read it too.

Which returns us to:

To suggest that the use of "A pugilist [progresses through a sequence of] non-lethal damage only", but even this does not refer to taking damage or specify hit points or anything of that sort. Without such specification, the statement is meaningless and thus from a RAW reading cannot be used as such.

[Nytemare3701]

I posted this on the old boards a while back. People seemed unimpressed by it though, as it was so obviously broken it was entirely disregarded.

[Maat Mons]

All the other times I looked at it, I ignored it for just that reason.  This time, I looked at it, remembered the Ikea Tarrasque thread, and thought “Eh, why not.” 

Edit:

In response to the original thread though, there's a template in Bestiary of Krynn that makes the creature immune to acid.

I poked at the book a bit.  I assume you mean taint-blood creature, unless there's another template in there that does that.  It's only +1 LA and also gives poison immunity, which takes care of troll bane.  Also, Imix-blooded (Monster Manual V, p65) gives the fire subtype for +1 LA.  So, it looks like a legitimate Ikea tarrasque can be had at ECL 3. 

[Cyclone Joker]

Dude, immunity to fire costs, what, 1200 or so, thanks to Sandstorm. You lose it in an AMF, or to dispel, unless you pay a little more, but  meh, it lets you play the CR system better.

[Maat Mons]

I forgot about mantle of the fiery spirit.  However, it costs 16,200 gp to pay someone to cast it, due to the 2,000 xp cost and 5,000 gp material component. 

[Kerrus]

…

I believe the definition being used here would be along the lines of “to become infected or affected by,” “To come to have gradually; acquire,” or “To become affected with; contract.” 

The meaning is then “the pugilist [is affected by] nonlethal damage only,” which is roughly equivalent to “the pugilist isn't affected by damage that isn't nonlethal.”   

The problem with that interpretation, aside from its obscurity, is that the 'is affected by' is actually 'is affected by [a disease; a contagion]', and is supported by the example "He developed pneumonia after a bout of flu."- the synonyms are also supporting- stricken, came down with.

A person comes down with the flu, or is stricken with pox. They're not stricken with a bad case of the knife wounds, or come down with fifty degree burns.

Non-lethal damage isn't a disease or a contaigon- or an ongoing deabilitating process.

Moreover, taken each and every possible definition as a whole, all but the singular, misused definition of 'is affected by' support that the meaning is not 'he is immune to lethal damage'.


EDIT: You've also, in your own quote, modified the RAW. The example you're using is "To become affected with;", but then in your quote you alter it to "To become affected by"

So it's not 'I've found a definition that makes this feature make you immune to lethal damage', but I've found that a definition of a word used in a defintion for a word used in this feature allows me to make this feature make you immune to lethal damage'- at this point we're two steps removed from the feature itself.


So yeah, it doesn't mean you become immune to lethal damage. It doesn't *say* you become immune to lethal damage even under a strict reading. It only says that by your homebrew alteration to the definition of the definition of the word used in the feature.

[Cyclone Joker]

I forgot about mantle of the fiery spirit.  However, it costs 16,200 gp to pay someone to cast it, due to the 2,000 xp cost and 5,000 gp material component.

Crap. You're right. I totally forgot it had those.

[Maat Mons]

The example you're using is "To become affected with;", but then in your quote you alter it to "To become affected by"

Oops, a bit of a reading comprehension failure on my part.  Very well, there doesn't seem to be RAW support for that text actually doing anything. 

[EjoThims]

The example you're using is "To become affected with;", but then in your quote you alter it to "To become affected by"

Oops, a bit of a reading comprehension failure on my part.  Very well, there doesn't seem to be RAW support for that text actually doing anything.

Yea, that's exactly the point though...

RaW that text in the feat either literally has no meaning at all, or (if you assume it's merely bad word choice - the far more logical conclusion) can be used to grant total immunity.

Pick your poison, but this is TO, guess which way we're gonna lean. 

[SAI Peregrinus]

Well, "The Pugilist develops non-lethal damage only" could also be read as "The Pugilist [trains to deal] non-lethal damage only" and thus takes damage normally but only deals non-lethal damage. Or both deals and takes. Nothing in the phrase indicates that it's about taking non-lethal damage and not about dealing it.

That leads to other amusements, such as mixing it with D20 Modern to have non-lethal thermonuclear weapons.

[EjoThims]

Well, "The Pugilist develops non-lethal damage only" could also be read as "The Pugilist [trains to deal] non-lethal damage only"

For that to be the intended reading, it would imply an even greater degree of poor wording, especially since nothing else in the feat implies the context of dealing damage versus receiving it.

Any way around this editor of said feat did a piss poor job.

But the dun of TO is that such ambiguity allows much wriggle room in what is actually written.