| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| WotC_Bart02-16-06, 01:57 PM | Hi folks, The following thread is for feedback regarding 02/16's Design & Development (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) article discussing polymorph (going live momentarily). Many thanks, Bart Carroll |
| WaaMatt02-16-06, 02:15 PM | I admit that I only skimmed the article, but a DM with a lot of time could a) create a list of polymorphable forms and/or b) decide, with or without the polymorph casting player's assistance, what creatures the caster would even know exist in order to polymorph a target into! Now, throw in some wild magic chances and that all goes out the window... Caster: "I want to polymorph the orc chieftan into a gnome." DM: "OK... The chieftan turns into a young red dragon." Rest of Party: "Good job!" |
| Mercurius02-16-06, 02:35 PM | I haven't had any high level spellcasters who were able to cast this spell yet, let alone any players canny enough to really hunt for the best forms (and many monsters simply don't exist in my games), but I had noticed that the spell had the potential to really mess with a game. I'm interested in seeing what "substitutions" to the polymorph family shall become available, and wonder if any of them will be like the "Displacer Beast Form" or "Body of War" that are in the Spell Compendium... |
| Pay2Flay02-16-06, 02:39 PM | My thoughts would be a Knowledge (Nature) or (Monsters) or (SomeThingOrOther) check, combined with a "has the magic user in question seen the monster in question" house rule would fix it in most cases. That would require a magic user to do some in character research regarding monsters. Plus, what if he or she tried to polymorph into a creature he/she had read about but never seen? The comedic effects a 2-D "medusa" with garden snakes for hair, and improperly proportioned could be fun. And interesting. |
| True Cavalier02-16-06, 02:52 PM | I guess removing it hits the problem at its root :P No issues have come up with it in our games. There are so many great spells out there, and our gaming group doesn't powercreep for monsters to polymorph into- but even if they were, I'd be very reluctant to just remove all things polymorph completely - knowledge checks sound good. Polymorph mishaps are just too great to get rid of :D We generally go for a "magic is magic" feel, we just don't have restrictions/house rules made on out-of-character problems. |
| Jack Greylock02-16-06, 03:10 PM | Holy ****, how can you do this to the poor underplayed Druid. Actually to be honest the Errata and the article really don’t explain what has been done very well. The first big change that sticks out at me is that all gear that can’t be worn in the new shape no longer disappears into the new form but instead falls to the floor. Great so now my druid can’t even wear leather armor without the need to constantly go back and pick it up after the encounter, hell he can’t even wear a back pack or carry a weapon now. Sorry but this was not really a problem to begin with so why change it. Second…well to be honest the rest of the changes didn’t even seem like changes to me. I don’t really see how these changes have fixed Polymorph in the slightest. I mean really they in no way stop a spellcaster from becoming that Cave Troll. Maybe I am not really understanding the changes correctly. Can some one explain the changes in plain English please. |
| Lord_Naerik02-16-06, 03:10 PM | The simplest (and, in my opinion best) fix for Polymorph is to allow forms from a limited list, like the Summon Monster line, and allow other forms to be researched as if they were new spells. This solves the core dilemma and also places freedom in the hands of the DM and Players at home simultaneously. DMs are free to say yes or no on specific forms while players still have substantial freedom of choice with the options provided. |
| Razz02-16-06, 03:21 PM | Woah woah, I am conufsed by this article. I assume that rather than deal with the issue of polymorph (personally, I have yet to ever come across any issue) they decided to just delete it entirely from the game? So the whole "I can change my shape" thing is just gone? Kaput? That sounds rather silly and controversial. I don't understand what the hell is the problem with polymorph? Why don't they take out shapechange and baleful polymorph while they're at it? Oh, let me guess, baleful polymorph is the only way someone could change their shape now is it? So why didn't they just bump polymorph's level to 5? I find it funny of all the things this game needs to be fixed with, they spend all their time and research on ONE trivial spell. :rolleyes: There are so many fixes for polymorph. All they had to do was say the caster can choose only x + key ability modifier amount of forms to be able to polymorph into. If they want to polymorph into more they need to spend time and research as if researching a new spell, but for the purpose of adding more mobs to the list. And base the time and money spent for the research on the monster's Hit Dice and it requires the monster's whole body. See! A fix right there. Simple. Straightforward. Balanced. Non-power gaming. It was done with Permanency. See, they need to take out Permanency next then. Because its one of those spells that gets better with each new book with spells. More spells to make permanent! Or Summon Monster should go too. More monsters, bigger summoning table. But they solved that problem already, and rather simple too. You replace the new monster with one on the table. They need to delete ALL spells! Why? You know the more spells released the bigger the combinations for uber-power for spellcasters? Mixing scrolls/wands/scepters/staffs and natural spellcasting, not to mention certain feats, and anyone can find something game breaking in due time. They're making such a big deal over something so minor. And what do they do? Run away from it. "AHHH!! Polymorph is chasing me with its myriad of forms! It's CR is nigh unstoppable!! Help meeee!" :P |
| DanjaNinja02-16-06, 03:27 PM | No, they didn't remove polymorph or that family of spells (shapechange included). They did ban it from an RPGA campaign. They didn't remove related effects, like a Druid's Wild Shape, they simply removed any references to polymorph from them. Read the errata. Edit: Try reading the article, too. |
| Jack Greylock02-16-06, 03:34 PM | Iread both the errata and the the article and I have to say at the risk of sounding dumb, that other than the part where you lose everyting you own, I don't see much change. |
| StormCrow4202-16-06, 03:37 PM | This may be one of the most confusing errata ever. Instead of simply including the entire updated alternate form entry in the errata, they made the more confusing choice of referencing multiple disconnected changes (including the whole "gear falls off" bit). It's going to take a lot more effort to go back and figure out exactly what changed than if they produced a more clear-cut description of what the effect is supposed to do (which was what I thought part of the point of the change was, to reduce confusion). (Edit: just spelling fixes) |
| DanjaNinja02-16-06, 03:40 PM | Iread both the errata and the the article and I have to say at the risk of sounding dumb, that other than the part where you lose everyting you own, I don't see much change. I would tend to agree. My previous post was directed more to Razz than to you. I motion that they create a single polymorph errata document, that contains all the changes to all the books concerning polymorph in one package. |
| Annaylli02-16-06, 03:49 PM | Hopefully it'll be more clear when it filters through to the SRD. |
| Tamelo02-16-06, 03:50 PM | For all those who feel this is not the solution, click: http://www.giantitp.com/Func0012.html Another way to fix polymorph, and one that I rather prefer. I have nothing more to say. |
| Mula02-16-06, 03:51 PM | The Big Change: All references to polymorph have been dropped. This means all creatures that have had polymorph as a spell-like ability do not have it anymore. Instead, they have alternate form or change shape, both of which received very minor changes. Polymorph itself, the spell, hasn't been altered in any way, but apparently, WotC no longer uses it in future products. Instead, I believe we will get spells that give you a specific form; Spell Compendium, to my understanding, already has a couple of examples. Using magic/psionics/whatever to change your physical form is still a part of the game. |
| Giant Turtle02-16-06, 03:57 PM | See, they need to take out Permanency next then. Because its one of those spells that gets better with each new book with spells. More spells to make permanent! First, you might want to read the whole spell description there. It has a list of spells you can permanancy and says any other spells that the DM allows, keeping it balanced. As far as polymorph goes, I play in a group with 2 other people, 2 of which have been playing since box sets and the other 2 since 2e, so my group knows how to abuse the rules. It was never really an issue since we all knew how to do it so everyone, including the bad guys were more-powerful than normal, and since we had all those years of experience under our belts, we know how to tone it down and jusr roleplay more then power-game. Polymorph never worked that way. We stopped a game for 3 hours looking for a monster with appropriate stats to use, included the requirement of knowledge checks to confirm if you can use such a creature, and limited the number of forms (which was already limited since we were playing in the Iron Kingdoms campaign setting). Even with the restrictions, the spell was well over-powered. Polymorphing into huge creatures and just eating the enemy, or picking something with an immunity and grappling the enemy so we can toss reflex-save based spells of that element at the enemy, or just using it for utility such as gaining the scent feat, darkvision, or light-light vision. Something needed to be done with polymorph and alterself, which is equally heinous. But, all in all, Shapechange takes the cake. When you can turn into a pit fiend and solo entire armies without worrying about even getting scratched with a single spell, somethings wrong. Sure a fighter can cleave through the army, but Nat 20's will come up, the druid can wildshape, but he isn't getting near the attack power, natural armor, or DR that shapechange will give, the rogue can sneak past them, but could never actually stand up to an entire army, the bard might sweet-talk his way around them, the barbarian will be meet the same fate as the fighter, the cleric could cause a lot of havoc, storm of vengeance and what-not, but still risks death, the ranger and paladin has less of a chance then the fighter or barbarian from the lack of ability in such mass fights, and the monk would probably fall on par with the fighter and barbarian depending on how it went about it! But sorcerers and wizards? Solo armies and walk away! Thats retarded! And you hit epic? Now what? Why play, I can run an epic game, come up with epic challenges, but what about when the wizard/sorcerer says "I shapechange into X epic critter." There is absolutely NO point to play at that point with shapechange. I will have to agree with the RPGA rules on this, and never before have I banned anything in my games. |
| P33KAJ3W02-16-06, 04:17 PM | Poor fix |
| Amadan02-16-06, 04:19 PM | My thoughts would be a Knowledge (Nature) or (Monsters) or (SomeThingOrOther) check, combined with a "has the magic user in question seen the monster in question" house rule would fix it in most cases. That would require a magic user to do some in character research regarding monsters. Plus, what if he or she tried to polymorph into a creature he/she had read about but never seen? This is what I do in my campaign: limit it to creatures they have knowledge of. I haven't read the erratta, but the equipment not melding into the form is not a rule I would impliment. |
| tiercel02-16-06, 04:20 PM | What would be nice is to get something like this article into the FAQ as an Official Cautionary Statement to people who do want to keep using polymorph and its siblings, cousins, and feral half-step-nieces-in-law. As it is, this article is both hopeful (in addressing issues that have long been extant with the spell) and frustrating (insofar as it really doesn't do anything about polymorph outside of a specific RPGA game, except say "whoops, the spell is too good, even after all the changes and FAQs and Rules of the Game, sorry people"). Note: it is baleful polymorph, not polymorph, that is getting changed in the errata. Other polymorph-flavored mechanics are just being "unhooked" from the mechanics (such as they are) of polymorph. I saw another thread which brought me to the article, and responded there before I looked here. I will hook in that response here: It would seem to me after multiple versions of the spell and wave after wave of FAQs and Rules of the Game and so and so forth, someone is considering giving the situation the more serious attention it deserves. Na na na na Namely, the spell is a mechanical mess -- figuring what it (or anything based upon it) does required flipping back and forth between multiple spells, not to mention looking up other mechanics, not to mention issues that weren't clearly addressed (what forms allow what equipment to be usable, whether advanced forms of monsters could be assumed, etc). Even when some of these issues were addressed in supplements, it is just that many more things one has to refer to when attempting to use the spell. na na na na There is the "familiarity" problem -- what forms could reasonably be assumed? DMs who attempt to limit the spell by familiarity face PCs seeking zoos, libraries, and sages... not to mention paranoia every time they use a new monster type (because now they are opening that up as a potential polymorph form). DMs who declare "open season" increase the power of spell with every book they allow to be used. hey hey-ey One could easily make the argument that even at its most basic, the spell is, at least, very strong for its level. A spell which only allowed the assumption of the troll shape, for instance, would still be a powerful 4th level spell -- Large size, natural attacks and rend, free weapon proficiencies, no longer targettable as Humanoids, hefty Str and Con, nice natural armor.... (And, one can maintain use of one's items in a humanoid-shaped form!) Polymorph, of course, can do far, far more, even at the level you first get it -- and it only gets more powerful as higher-HD forms become accessible (and, presumably, you obtain familiarity with more forms). go-od-bye-eye A reasoned analysis would seem to indicate that a phaseout has long since been overdue, and that one can only hope that in the future a stronger statement in the FAQ or errata specifically relegating polymorph to some kind of "optional" status with large, red warning flags attached. As of right now, though the article linked to contains some nice language, it does not actually have any direct effect upon the polymorph clan outside of a specific RPGA campaign -- one can only hope that that the "new spells" hinted at in the future will be more reasonable and tractable than the current predicament. As such, we can only greet this announcement with guarded optimism and hope that the phaseout will continue in broader terms until this problem is relegated to the past. |
| Xorial02-16-06, 04:47 PM | My problem with the article & the errata is that it implies there is a change to the Polymorph spell itself, but there isnt. Ther change is just to all references to it in various other spells, spell-like abilities, and racial/class abilities. That is all fine & dandy, but are they hinting at eliminating the existing spell? I dont care either way. I dont allow players to abuse it in my game, anyway. Just that little DM has the final say clause in the game. Druids have to know the animal they change into, so do wizards & clerics that cast a spell. I dont let them get all the neat abilities. I just limit it to what I think of as the "racial" abilities of the animal. Change to a wolf & get scent. Change to an owl & get lowlight. Change to a bear to become strong as a...well bear. That is a staple of fantasy/sci fi. The point is not to let the players try to "lawyer" their way into something that you dont want to allow. I also dont always base it off the hit dice....alot of times I base it off the ECL. That is supposed to be there to gauge basic power, so use it that way. It isnt perfect, but hey, thats life. |
| MarkB02-16-06, 04:54 PM | The Big Change:Polymorph itself, the spell, hasn't been altered in any way, but apparently, WotC no longer uses it in future products. Instead, I believe we will get spells that give you a specific form; Spell Compendium, to my understanding, already has a couple of examples. Coming soon: Complete Metamorphosis...? ;) |
| Saric02-16-06, 05:12 PM | I can hear the sounds of lots of more vow of poverty druids now... I think they should just say, if you polymorph into this type of creature you can't wear this item period. Abberation? can't wear anything, Animal? just your boots.. Having to come up with a diffrent stat block and list of items you can wear and which ones drop to the ground gets tedious. And now druids saving themselves from falls turning into birds will now lose either all or 75% of their items as they fall into the abyss below of lava.. bye bye +5 vorpal scimitar... All kidding aside, I'm all for the changes against wild shape and polymorph, they should just try to be more specific about it in terms of what can be worn and make polymorph run by the rules of change shape, all the monsters with polymorph (self only) had that changed. Also the idea of polymorphing into creatures by ECL is nice. Something I also noticed, Since they recomend banning certain features in the article from every game, and if you play in the mark of heroes campaign, what happens to the druids's ability "a thousand faces" ? if alter self is removed from the game, they have to put an entry detailing if its change shape or alternate form into humanoids of medium or small size. |
| king_Snurre02-16-06, 05:39 PM | Woah woah, I am conufsed by this article. I assume that rather than deal with the issue of polymorph (personally, I have yet to ever come across any issue) they decided to just delete it entirely from the game? So the whole "I can change my shape" thing is just gone? Kaput? That sounds rather silly and controversial. I don't understand what the hell is the problem with polymorph? Why don't they take out shapechange and baleful polymorph while they're at it? Oh, let me guess, baleful polymorph is the only way someone could change their shape now is it? So why didn't they just bump polymorph's level to 5? I find it funny of all the things this game needs to be fixed with, they spend all their time and research on ONE trivial spell. :rolleyes: There are so many fixes for polymorph. All they had to do was say the caster can choose only x + key ability modifier amount of forms to be able to polymorph into. If they want to polymorph into more they need to spend time and research as if researching a new spell, but for the purpose of adding more mobs to the list. And base the time and money spent for the research on the monster's Hit Dice and it requires the monster's whole body. See! A fix right there. Simple. Straightforward. Balanced. Non-power gaming. It was done with Permanency. See, they need to take out Permanency next then. Because its one of those spells that gets better with each new book with spells. More spells to make permanent! Or Summon Monster should go too. More monsters, bigger summoning table. But they solved that problem already, and rather simple too. You replace the new monster with one on the table. They need to delete ALL spells! Why? You know the more spells released the bigger the combinations for uber-power for spellcasters? Mixing scrolls/wands/scepters/staffs and natural spellcasting, not to mention certain feats, and anyone can find something game breaking in due time. They're making such a big deal over something so minor. And what do they do? Run away from it. "AHHH!! Polymorph is chasing me with its myriad of forms! It's CR is nigh unstoppable!! Help meeee!" :P I must agree whit you, i am confused and dont se why they didnt make this change in D&D4.0 i dont want to have to loock at an erata list for so many monsters, it was easer for me before :mad: . but i do think that the changes could work but they could have more easely changed it whit a restricted list... and reaserch. that would have kept the spirit of the spell and didnt couse so much erata. But i realy like that druids have to drop their equipment, that makes sense and is great since druid is broken any way whit spikes and bramble. |
| K02-16-06, 05:41 PM | I've always believed that polymorphing would be fixed with these three simple rules: 1. Don't use HD, use CR. Then we could use templated forms like vampires and fiendish X's, like we really want Use empty typed-HD for things like vampires with HD requirements(meaning you'd get a minimum of 5 Undead HD for a vampre form). 2. Make it require a focus component per form, and an investment of 2 skill points per form. Then we don't get any dumpster diving for monsters and people who want to be dedicated shapechangers can just do that. The spell is then just as flexible, but not abusable. 3. Make it total character replacement, with only HPs(old base and old Con, so no new HPs with a new form), ability damage, and ongoing statuses and spell effects carrying over from old forms. This means no class abilities, no stats, no abilities....nothing. Magic items can stay on or not, depending on if they fit with the new form, or even be absorbed if the character wishes (don't change encumberance, based on the old form, to prevent the spell becoming a way to transport large amounts of swag). This frees up most the book-keeping that we have now when someopne polymorphs and all the abuse of monsters who have glass jaws but have laser beams on their heads. You can just open up a page of the MM and know exactly what your stats are (with templated forms, you have an extra character sheet for the form when you got a focus for it and spent skill points). Also, have a character use only his own HD, type and subtypes for spell effects and PrCs/feats/magic items. This prevents cheese where you Polymorph to get something you weren't supposed to get, like access to Beholder Mage. It also let him stay an Arcane Archer if he turns into dwarf for a disguise. |
| evilagram02-16-06, 05:43 PM | I believe that the polymorph spell ought to be fixed by adding a focus. not just any focus, but a piece of the creature removed while it is still alive (doesn't matter if it dies afterwards. or you cna require gentle repose to be cast upon it to kep it fresh to make interesting game. sorrrty for speeling at end!!!!!) |
| sukael02-16-06, 05:56 PM | From the ENWorld boards. The "naked druid" issue will be fixed post-haste. Totally unintentional, and my bad. __________________ Andy Collins RPG Developer Wizards of the Coast R&D www.andycollins.net |
| EytanBernstein02-16-06, 05:58 PM | It would help if we could just condense the changes in a few lines: Are the changes basically: - Delete all "polymorph" SLAs from monsters - Alter the alternate form abilities listed in monster entries to reflect the changes below - Your new attributes affect save modifiers and attack bonuses (and perhaps Con bonus to HP, that's not clear) - Your type remains as what it originally was, and does not change to your new form (so a human druid in the form of an eagle is still a human). - No Polymorph tribe spells, Master Transmogrifist, or Master of Many forms in Mark of Heroes Did I miss anything? It seems like the best solution would be to delete polymorph entirely (and would basically cap off this entire move). Turn it into in shapechange I-IX in the same way as Summon Monster. Then, grant a list of creatures from the MM that can be used for each level. Then, with monsters from other books, you make a little sidebar about use with polymorph (kindof like what is done with monsters as familiars familiars, spells that can be made permanent, summoning). Say that the Shapechange level 5 ability used to turn into a manticore, can instead be used to turn into an ambush drake. It's a replacement, not an addition. Then, you could develop a whole series of feats based on this. For Master of Many Forms, the change to alternate form works just fine. That character is all about turning into countless forms, so no one should really object. Perhaps they should need to prepare their forms at the beginning of the day, and then get some lattitude to swap out for favored forms. This would save lots of time. Thoughts? |
| WotC_Bart02-16-06, 06:01 PM | As mentioned, the following section was meant to have been included in the PHB errata, and can now be found there: "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet." |
| Borris02-16-06, 06:07 PM | Now that I'm done reading the article, the Mark of Heroes announcement, all the new errata, and every post in this thread, I'm finally ready to write y comments on the matter. First, I have to admit it's nice that D&D designers acknowledge the problem to game balance that polymorph and co. was and took tthe time to look for a possible solution. Unhooking half of the shapeshifting abilities ever published from the polymorph rules is a pretty good thing. Not only does it removes the confusion when using monsters with the change shape or alternate form abilities, but it also means you no longer have to flip back through polymorph's and then alter self's description whenever you're not sure how one monster's special ability works. However, despite the extensive coverage, the truth is that this errata wave does absolutely nothing to solve the problem at the source. It's a step in the right direction, but it barely changes anything. Polymorph wasn't changed at all, and neither were alter self, shapechange, or polymorph any object. The whole thing looks like ahalf disguised confession that they have no idea how to solve the issue and that the best solution is simply to ban the polymorph family of spells. The spell was just removed from the Mark of Heroes campaign, with no alternative option provided. And most monsters who had alter self as a spell or spell-like abilty just had it replace with disguise self, which doesn't really keep the flavor, and really nerfs those monsters power. Hopefully, once the new announced shapeshifting spells do come out, we'll be able to use them as some sort of polymorph substitute but, for the moment, with stuck with either giving up the idea of playing a transmuter wizard, or keep using rules that are just as bad as they ever were despite this "errata document of unprecedented scope." |
| Jack Greylock02-16-06, 06:08 PM | As mentioned, the following section was meant to have been included in the PHB errata, and can now be found there: "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet." YEAH! Glad to see the errata finally got an errata. :D Seriously though, thanks guys as this was seriously messed up. |
| Amurayi02-16-06, 06:15 PM | So there are three big announcements that "Polymorph" has been changed. Yet when I look at the errata "Polymorph" hasn`t changed at all. WotC changed all other polymorphing spells BUT "Polymorph" or "Alter Self". How is this helping the D&D sessions out there? The players STILL have to go through dozens of books to find their wanted form slowing down the game. I don`t get it. |
| Prism02-16-06, 06:25 PM | As mentioned, the following section was meant to have been included in the PHB errata, and can now be found there: "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet." Shouldn't that be "Any gear worn or carried by the druid that can't be worn or carried in the new form, melds into.........." Or is the intention that no items remain functional (unless the wilding clasp is updated to 3.5)? |
| davethebrave37102-16-06, 06:29 PM | So there are three big announcements that "Polymorph" has been changed. Yet when I look at the errata "Polymorph" hasn`t changed at all. WotC changed all other polymorphing spells BUT "Polymorph" or "Alter Self". How is this helping the D&D sessions out there? The players STILL have to go through dozens of books to find their wanted form slowing down the game. I don`t get it. Maybe they're fishing for ideas. Razz had a good one up there. |
| Saric02-16-06, 06:30 PM | As mentioned, the following section was meant to have been included in the PHB errata, and can now be found there: "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet." If items become nonfunctional, does natural spell work the same in regard to material components and divine focuses melded into the form with this ruling? And in reference to some people not getting the big change about polymorph, its because WOTC is suggesting you take it out of the game period...along with alter self and other spells of the sort, like they did with the mark of heroes RPGA setting |
| MarkB02-16-06, 06:46 PM | Shouldn't that be "Any gear worn or carried by the druid that can't be worn or carried in the new form, melds into.........." Or is the intention that no items remain functional (unless the wilding clasp is updated to 3.5)? That's going to be especially inconvenient when it comes to Periapts of Wisdom, if so. Bye-bye to bonus spell slots whenever you wild shape. If items become nonfunctional, does natural spell work the same in regard to material components and divine focuses melded into the form with this ruling? Since such items already merged and became non-functional under the previous rules, no, there won't be any change to this. |
| Karelzarath02-16-06, 07:10 PM | Shouldn't that be "Any gear worn or carried by the druid that can't be worn or carried in the new form, melds into.........." Or is the intention that no items remain functional (unless the wilding clasp is updated to 3.5)? In addition, I've been over the changes several times, and now it looks like druids no longer lose or gain racial abilities during wildshape. Was this an oversight, or is it intentional? I have a game in two days, and my druid's suddenly worried by the shift in the multiverse. :) |
| darth murphy02-16-06, 07:11 PM | So is this in anyway going to effect the fey'ri and the alter self ability? |
| ClobberinTime02-16-06, 07:30 PM | So can I just summarize here: Alter Self, and Polymorph are gone, removed until further notice. Baleful Polymorph and Wild shape are changed, Wild shape such that your animal form cannot wear items even if they have the proper body parts? Should get rid of the Dancing Bear Druid with the hat of disguise. |
| Xorial02-16-06, 07:35 PM | Everyone knows how broken the whole Polymorph spell family is. The only way I see to fix it is to look at other spells. I dont mean modeling after the various Summoning spells. They dont apply, because the power of calling animals, who are invariably weaker than the summoner, doesnt equate. You need to to look at other transformational spells. The ones that come to mind are the various ability boosting spells. If you can change into something that gives you a better boost than just casting Divine Might, or similiar spell, then the level of the spell would need to be boosted. The fix will propably end up being more narrowly focused. You may even see spells that only change you into ONE form. You would just about have to take each creature at a case by case basis in order to judge the power of the spell. Polymorph into Dire Wolf could be an option. That would let you have the advanced form of dire wolf, based on your hit dice. The complicated method would be to use ECL, but not as many would think. You may need to use it & total it with the caster's character level. Using this method would severely limit the type of creature you changed into. Nobody would be able to change into the powerful creatures anymore. The ECL would be too high. I'm talking about adding you level to the ECL. If you limit the ECL total while polymorphed, you would only be able to choose lower level creatures. |
| Borris02-16-06, 07:35 PM | So is this in anyway going to effect the fey'ri and the alter self ability? That's not very hard to update once you understand how the errata works. Fey'ri Remove “alter self” spell-like ability. Change Shape (Su): A fey'ri can assume the form of any Small or Medium humanoid. |
| ShakaUVM02-16-06, 07:49 PM | 1) So polymorph didn't actually change whatsoever? This huge announcement is that Poly has been removed from NPCs and monsters? And from a campaign that has a fraction of the player base of LG? 2) PAO is incredibly, amazingly more problematic than polymorph. 3) Shapechange is ridiculous. 4) Polymorph is/was an obscenely powerful spell, mainly because you can dump all your physical stats and run around with the stats of a War Troll. (Reference: Taking Cake, Eating Cake.) What is actually needed is a fix to the spell. Because there's two types of parties: parties that have polymorph, and parties that don't. 5) I'm the campaign coordinator for Living Planar (www.livingplanar.com). How I fixed it is by capping the maximum stat gain / natural armor gain based on caster level. So it's completely future proofed. You know that a 10th level wizard will never be able to pick up more than +X to str. And instead of it setting your BASE stats, it provides a SIZE modifier to the stat based on the modifier of the creature. So your 8 str wizard polying into a 24 str troll gets a +7 size bonus to str. (If I had to redo the spell again, I'd only allow the bonus to take you up to the normal strength of the new form.) Notably, this makes Polymorph not work with Righteous Might and other forms of +size bonuses to stats. You also can't pick up multiple enlargement effects by using Poly to set your base size and then enlarging or RMing on top of it. So, it's future proofed, it no longer stacks with everything by setting your base stats, removes the possibility of two size changes, and power scales up smoothly as the character gains caster levels. 6) Fix PAO by ONLY allowing it to replicate the other spells. Polymorph replicated by it can go up to 17HD. Open ended "I turn that boulder into a gold dragon" (minimum duration is 1 round per level) or "I turn the dungeon into a sea of acid" or "I turn this arrow into a 10 mile by 10 mile by 10 mile flow of magma which will fill up the entire dungeon, dealing 20d6 per round to everyone but me because I'm fire immune" (the size restriction is only on the target). Or the more mundane uses of PAO, which is to get a Permanencied Polymorph spell without the type category restrictions on Polymorph. A wizard (same or less intelligence) or cleric (similar creature) can become an astral deva or planetar permanently. Other party members can only become them for a week at a time. Great prep spell while travelling. :p 7) Fix Shapechange by making it "as per" Polymorph with a 20HD limit, while retaining the ability to change shapes as a move equivalent action. Believe me, it's still a 9th level spell. This removes the "I become a 200'x200'x200' block of granite and fall on him" or "I become a ghost, float inside his heart chamber and become green slime" or any of the thousand other abusive uses for shapechange there are extant. I give you permission to use these changes, as long as credit for them is provided. If you need to contact me off-list, my email address is wkerney@ucsd.edu -Bill Kerney |
| sukael02-16-06, 07:52 PM | Alter Self, and Polymorph are gone, removed until further notice. No. As said in this thread already, Polymorph itself has not been changed. Nor has Alter Self. Baleful Polymorph and Wild shape are changed, Wild shape such that your animal form cannot wear items even if they have the proper body parts? Yes. |
| Timlagor02-16-06, 08:01 PM | I believe the point was to make it possible to remove Polymorph from a campaign without having a whole load of other things that referenced it. Seems like a completely pointless change to me -the spell is in teh PHB anyway so referencing it for other abilities isn't problematic even if you remove the spell itself. sensible restrictions on what can be polymorphed into deal very nicely with the spell itself: things the wizard has actually seen and studied make a nice start (you an require more intensive study than just having killed one). |
| jazzman83102-16-06, 08:01 PM | I don't think this has been answered yet, but a druid's equipment doesn't all fall off when you revert, just equipment you *added* while in animal form. |
| blargney the second02-16-06, 08:20 PM | This whole thing left me scratching my head until I read this: I believe the point was to make it possible to remove Polymorph from a campaign without having a whole load of other things that referenced it. That's an eminently reasonable explanation. It would be nice if Wizards stated it explicitly somewhere. (Here even!) I've gotten used to the Design & Development column explaining the inner workings of the game, so it was odd for me that the errata weren't explained there. From the tone & the content of the article, I was expecting there to be changes to polymorph itself. (Which would be fantastic!) -blarg |
| Annaylli02-16-06, 08:39 PM | As part of our continuing effort to ensure a fair and equitable play experience for all participants, the polymorph spell and several related game elements have been designed as “restricted,” meaning that they are now unavailable for use in that campaign [Mark of Heroes]. If you’ve found these game elements to be problematic in your home game, we recommend that you implement the same change[in other words Ban them from your game] The change is definately so you can yank out the problem spells (if you think they are an issue). If you don't then they are officially still available. |
| Kodfish02-16-06, 08:41 PM | I've made a wildshape based druid since 3.5 came out, and the change hurts. Since I always intended to be in animal form fighting, I had no reason to spend invest in physicall stats that would be useless. In 3.5 the way poloymorph was based on alter self meant that when you shape shifted your hitpoints would readjust based on con. This was because Alterself had the "retain hitpoints" text, which was over-ridden by the polymorph con changing text. With this new change a druid can no longer wild shadpe into something with a higher con to gain hit points. The "retains hitpoints" text over-rides the con change. Check out the example Werebear to see this. |
| Nialo02-16-06, 08:46 PM | The polymorph removal is just from Mark of Heroes, nothing more. I don't think polymorph should be indefinetly removed; despite the fact that it can be too good, shapechanging has always been iconic in magic. What I find helps balance out polymorph is disallowing Wizard's to gain bonus hit points from the change in their constitution score. So a wizard with 21 health in the shape of a war troll would still need to watch himself. Another possible fix would be limiting form by both HD and CR, the net ability score modifiers of the new shape, natural armor or the number of attacks. |
| ClobberinTime02-16-06, 09:12 PM | The ECL idea above is just excellent and adjusts the spells power not just for shape but for special abilities as well. Or just be more strict and switch out all of the wizards spells and make it so he just turns into a vanilla version of the monster with no class levels allowed whatsoever. Also make either the 'concentration' or 'control shape' skill play into things so that when its time to change back he has to make a skill check to do so that depends on the ECL of the creature, if he fails, well he likes being a troll more than a wizard and decides to stick with it. Or if he fails the check he starts acting like a troll rather than a PC. Or make some kind of skill check mandatory whenever the PC takes damage or he reverts to his natural form same as concentration checks during spell casting. Or do the same thing but force the PC into the effects of a confusion spell when he fails his check. This will just make the whole thing less broken and more interesting from a game perspective. i.e. sure its great to have your wizard buddy turn into a war-troll and start busting Giant butt next to your fighter, that is until he gets hit in combat, fails his 'control shape' or 'concentration' check and goes berserk with his big stick on your head for one to ten rounds. :) I like that ruling. Might use it. |
| Azazyll02-16-06, 10:22 PM | On the outset this looks like a "we give up, let's cut our losses" policy. I imagine, or at least hope, that they are working to correct the problem. Shapechanging is a staple of magic and fantasy for as long as there has been magic and fantasy. Saying that now only druids have even remote access to that in the official RPGA campaign is weird. Meanwhile, check out Rich Burlew's fix at www.giantitp.com, as previously stated on this thread. The man has a masterful understanding of the game's mechanics, as he should as a runner up in the campaign setting sweepstakes. I also like people's ideas about making it like the summon monster spells, with lists of options that would allow even low level casters to have a few shapes. Low level casters should have some ability to shapechange as well, as they did with alter self. Looking at most legend and fiction, you don't see magicians who can turn into any of a a hundred shapes, usually they have a few shapes that are somehow meaningful to them. Fundamentally, like all "balance" issues, it's whether your group understands how the player-GM relationship should work, and whether your GM is lazy. Nothing is unbalanced unless the GM allows it to be. He or she can always make the game impossibly hard or impossibly easy a lot faster than a "broken" rule. That doesn't mean a rule shouldn't be elegant, but that is an aesthetic touch for people who enjoy the rules side of the game as much as the role playing side of the game. |
| ShakaUVM02-16-06, 10:29 PM | The ECL idea above is just excellent and adjusts the spells power not just for shape but for special abilities as well. The trouble is, there's a lot of templates that are undervalued. When polymorphing, you will often have extra hit dice "left over" under the cap. Stock PHB: I'm polymorphing into a troll (6HD+5ECL), so I have four levels of ECL to play around with. For free (versus the normal spell), essentially. Also, many monsters dont have ECLs at all listed, and are already overpowered for their HD. Players would just avoid the forms that have the additional level adjustments. Stone Giants wouldn't be possible (ECL 18) But half-fiend or half-dragon trolls would be. Some other great options (i.e. abusive templates this would open up): Monster of Legend (+2 CR): +10 Str, +6 Dex, +10 Con, +2 Int, +2 Wis, +4 Cha and infinite haste and spell turning (among other options). Half-Golem is a +3 CR template that grants immunity to most spells in addition to DR, and stat bonuses. Titanic is a +13 template. Titanic fiendish halfling wizards with the +30 to strength FTW. -Bill |
| Keenath02-16-06, 10:32 PM | On the outset this looks like a "we give up, let's cut our losses" policy. I imagine, or at least hope, that they are working to correct the problem. Shapechanging is a staple of magic and fantasy for as long as there has been magic and fantasy. If you read the article all the way through, he mentions that they will be releasing new spells in the PHB2 and other products to start replacing the shapechanging effects, without the ugly mess that is Polymorph. My suspicion is that we'll be seeing something very closely related to Rich's solution: You'll see a "Dragonform" spell that lets you take the form of one of a list of selections (for example, it may allow Adult White, Juvinile Gold, Juvenile Red, Young Adult Black, and so forth), a "Giantform" spell that lets you pick from Ogres, Hill Giants, Stone Giants, etc., based on caster level... You get the idea. It's polymorph without the bounding problem. Later released creatures may specify, "You may take this form with Dragonform, this form with Abberant Body, and this one with some other spell." My opinion: You can't tell, but I'm applauding from my desk. This is a change that's been a long time coming -- but it's been coming. When you get to the third massive rewrite of polymorph and it still doesn't work, it's about time to admit that something is going very wrong. This also reflects my group's fix, which has been to essentially cover our eyes and swear we never saw any polymorph, unless we really *have* to reference it (e.g., wildshape). |
| PonTelon02-16-06, 10:35 PM | They don't need to change Polymorph. Check out the spells in the Spell Compedium. Dispacer Beast Form, Bite of the Weretiger, ect. They are going for one spell for one form idea on various levels. They are also going for the +X to your existing stats, rather than the normal stats of that race. It makes more sense to me, and keeps druids away from the Str: 8, Dex: 8, Con:8 ideology. |
| Raven Dark02-16-06, 10:37 PM | To avoid further confusion (and to continue my quest of outdoing the vile Jaela), I have compiled the pertinent errata changes right here: Easy to Read Polymorph Errata (Updated 2/18/06 @ 4:00 a.m. Eastern) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=589497) |
| Dragonteuthis02-16-06, 11:00 PM | In 3.5 the way poloymorph was based on alter self meant that when you shape shifted your hitpoints would readjust based on con. This was because Alterself had the "retain hitpoints" text, which was over-ridden by the polymorph con changing text. Actually, polymorph didn't change your hit points in 3.5 (see here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060106a) for why). So no change there. I'd like to point out a particularly important fact for druids: You now retain your original type when wild shaping. Thus, that eliminates a huge portion of the Druid's overpoweredness. Now, of course, the ranting by opponents of the Druid will be replaced by complaints of "nerfing" by druid proponents. Hey, at least it's something new. The changes are great. Naturally, polymorph is still in the game, and isn't a problem for DM's with half a brain, or blessed with a group of mature players (I'm glad to be the latter). However, I am glad that they are taking these steps, as even if you ignore the problems, they are still there. Bravo, Wizards! Bravo. |
| Milo HoBo02-16-06, 11:56 PM | Players may be honestly confused about how the rules work in your campaign, and where your house rules may deviate from or expand upon the rules as written, so do your best to explain. And your players may also spot a rule that just doesn't add up. For example, the alter self spell description stipulates that the caster's hit points don't change when she changes shape. Her ability scores stay the same, but her Hit Die size could change if she turns from a human sorcerer with d4s into a lizardfolk or bugbear with a humanoid's d8s. Nevertheless, her hit points don't change. Polymorph works like alter self, except that the subject's physical ability scores do change, and the Hit Die size of his new form could change all over the map, from fey d6s to dragon d12s. But nowhere does it contradict the alter self stipulation that hit points don't change. It seems a little strange that a character's hit points would remain constant whether he turns into a house cat or a dire bear, but that's the literal interpretation of the rule. Yeah, here we go. At first I thought you just ment that D.M.'s have final say; but this is the text you were refering to. |
| Razz02-17-06, 12:46 AM | SIMPLE POLYMORPH FIX 1) Have a common list of monsters, basing its accessability on caster level, HD of creature and CR of creature. 2) Allow player to choose a maximum of key ability modifier for spellcasting plus 3 to have as creatures he can polymorph into. 3) The player can "hold" slots for polymorph monsters until later levels to get the bigger baddies. 4) If the player wishes to add more beyond this list, then he has to spend time, money and research. A Knowledge check of the appropriate type must also be made. Also, the GP cost of the new monster in question that was added counts towards the Gear Value of the character, thus forcing him to lose out on other magic/psionic gear. The GP cost is based on monster's HD and/or CR. The End. |
| rekres02-17-06, 12:52 AM | No, they didn't remove polymorph or that family of spells (shapechange included). They did ban it from an RPGA campaign. They didn't remove related effects, like a Druid's Wild Shape, they simply removed any references to polymorph from them. Read the errata. Edit: Try reading the article, too. I read the errata. Points of interent regarding the changes to Baleful Polymorph. A) No limitations on size of new form. B) No limitations on type of new form. c) No limitations on new form whatsoever! D) Target restriction "one creature" (gaseous/incorporeal immune, shapechanger effectively immune) "I transform the orc chief into a ham sandwich and eat him." "I spit on the ground and transform one of the microbes into the world's largest diamond and sell it!" "I transform the kobold into a +25 dragon-bane demon-bane devil-bane fiery-burst shocking burst icy-burst ghost-touch longsword." "I transform, Jorvald the Barbarian into a Red Dragon." "I transform myself into the god Boccob." Hello! Munchkin's wet dream! As an aside, the DM can always say no... but as a DM I try to allow whatever is not specifically disallowed by the rules. |
| Razz02-17-06, 01:02 AM | EVEN SIMPLER SOLUTION Have it where there is an XP COST for the game-breaking shapechanging spells. Base the amount of XP lost on the HD and CR of the creature in question. Make it a high one. Simple! |
| Kodfish02-17-06, 01:07 AM | Actually, polymorph didn't change your hit points in 3.5 (see here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060106a) for why). So no change there. Bravo, Wizards! Bravo. According to the Rules of the Game your hp changes based on con, "he also gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of a typical troll (as noted in the Monster Manual). The ability score changes give him many more hit points " Bottom of the page http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a There was no conflict between alter self and polymorph, the superseding spell takes precedence. |
| lucas_william02-17-06, 01:25 AM | So, basically they fixed the naked druid problem, but we still have a lot of naked sorcerers, wizards, and such. In the first errata we had alter self, alternate form, change shape, polymorph, and wild shape drop all usable equipment in a new form. Now, we have a single difference between them. This matter needs to be addressed on several issues that the writers may have overlooked or had insight that we have missed. These are merely a few of those ideas, others on this list may see more issues dealing with this subject. 1. Like the previous versions of polymorph, what can be use in different non-humanoid forms? This is still an issue that has yet to be fixed. The errata didn’t fix the issue in dealing with items and what are usable items in different non-humanoid forms. 2. Polymorph, for instance, may now only be useful to a high level caster who has time (because of the longer duration of the spell) to change into a non-humanoid form and don the equipment they are able to wear in that particular form “OR” has time to prepare or hide their equipment before a fight. 3. You are unable to use polymorph to escape via a non-humanoid form without losing your equipment. This causes some players to be more reluctant than before to flee a encounter, which could be a bad call on their part. It will become just another reason not to flee a encounter. This also works against the villains within a campaign because they cannot escape without losing all their equipment also. 4. At higher levels transforming into non-humanoid form while in combat could have far-reaching problems for the campaign. A character’s items become unattended and vulnerable to area effect spells or outright theft or any number of other horrible fates. Should the character lose said items, what effects will this have on the campaign storyline if that player is always losing their items? (More shopping anyone?) Fixes: 1. Return all shape changes to before in regards to the fate of worn items. 2. Make all shape changes similar to the druid’s new wild shape ability. 3. Use these new errata, but write more specifics as to what items different forms would be able to use, and therefore hold. Right now, it is very ambiguous. |
| Ogmug02-17-06, 01:37 AM | So, basically they fixed the naked druid problem, but we still have a lot of naked sorcerers, wizards, and such. In the first errata we had alter self, alternate form, change shape, polymorph, and wild shape drop all usable equipment in a new form. Now, we have a single difference between them. This matter needs to be addressed on several issues that the writers may have overlooked or had insight that we have missed. These are merely a few of those ideas, others on this list may see more issues dealing with this subject. From what I have read, the only change is to the baleful polymorph spell and there is no eratta regarding the Orignial Polymorph spell, or Alter Self. Polymorph is unchanged. That means these sentences are still in effect, until such time that they issue erratta for it: When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When you revert to your true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on your body they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items you wore in the assumed form and can’t wear in your normal form fall off and land at your feet; any that you could wear in either form or carry in a body part common to both forms at the time of reversion are still held in the same way. 1. Like the previous versions of polymorph, what can be use in different non-humanoid forms? This is still an issue that has yet to be fixed. The errata didn’t fix the issue in dealing with items and what are usable items in different non-humanoid forms. 2. Polymorph, for instance, may now only be useful to a high level caster who has time (because of the longer duration of the spell) to change into a non-humanoid form and don the equipment they are able to wear in that particular form “OR” has time to prepare or hide their equipment before a fight. 3. You are unable to use polymorph to escape via a non-humanoid form without losing your equipment. This causes some players to be more reluctant than before to flee a encounter, which could be a bad call on their part. It will become just another reason not to flee a encounter. This also works against the villains within a campaign because they cannot escape without losing all their equipment also. 4. At higher levels transforming into non-humanoid form while in combat could have far-reaching problems for the campaign. A character’s items become unattended and vulnerable to area effect spells or outright theft or any number of other horrible fates. Should the character lose said items, what effects will this have on the campaign storyline if that player is always losing their items? (More shopping anyone?) Fixes: 1. Return all shape changes to before in regards to the fate of worn items. 2. Make all shape changes similar to the druid’s new wild shape ability. 3. Use these new errata, but write more specifics as to what items different forms would be able to use, and therefore hold. Right now, it is very ambiguous. Why do people read the words "baleful polymorph" and only see Polymorph? |
| Thindelock02-17-06, 01:51 AM | That's an eminently reasonable explanation. It would be nice if Wizards stated it explicitly somewhere. (Here even!) This problem goes well beyond what can reasonably be fixed by errata... (snip) The latest errata doesn’t seek to “fix” polymorph. Instead, it seeks to end polymorph’s stranglehold on other elements of the game... (snip) by revising those elements so that they can function without referring to the problematic polymorph spell. Not to single you out, Blargney. You were one of many. I bear no ill will, I'm just pointing it out. Polymorph isn't always a big problem. Whether or not it grinds your game to a halt depends on your players, your DM style, your knowledge of the rules, the number of books you have access to, your house rules, and other auspicious astrological portents. By and large, though, the spell is infinitely more problematic in your average game than, say, fireball. Most of the time, even Wish and upper-level divinations are less problematic than polymorph, and polymorph was referenced far more in monster and class descriptions. Having a poorly-designed spell in the core book is bad, but forgiveable. Referencing that spell repeatedly in monster, class, and other spell descriptions in almost half your core books (9 of 19 erratas for 3.5) is poor game design. They're ammending that. This announcement seeks to remove the interdependence of the game on a poorly-written rule. If that spell isn't a problem in your game, keep using it (I am). If you've houseruled it, great. If it is a problem, you can now toss it out completely with no ill side-effects since it is not tied to half the iconic monsters in the game, and one core class. Fixing the spell would have been the best solution in theory, but so many gamers have so many current characters based on their own local houserules or the inherent brokenness of the rules as written on that spell, it's probably cleaner NOT to really fix the spell at this point; introducing an all-new Polymorph would shake up a LOT of characters in a LOT of games. |
| Razz02-17-06, 02:48 AM | One rule would stop all Polymorph breaking and even Shapehcange breaking. XP COST = 50 XP per HD Of course, this would've be problematic for making the spell into a Wand, so maybe a straight 100 XP or even 500 XP per casting would be sufficient? Big question, does anyone know if Shapechange is errata/altered/omitted? Or are they saying it is fine the way it is and they have no problems with it? I think that spell needs an XP cost of 50 XP per HD for each creature you transform into. |
| DragonChild_02-17-06, 05:16 AM | Sad. Just sad. THIS is what WOTC does? All they did was remove the Awaken abuse when combined with Wildshape, and made things MORE confusing. Now, to cast wildshape, I need to look into my Player's Handbook for the ability, look at the errata for wildshape, look in my MM for alternate form, look in the MM errata for alternate form changes, and then switch around stats mid-game. Sad, just SAD that this was seen as an improvement. However, we believe that it represents a reasonable compromise between the legacy of what’s come before and the needs of the game environment moving forward. Compromise? Reasonable? What was fixed? Nothing at all. Wildshape is still as blatantly overpowered as it once was, only now it's more complicated. Polymorph is still as overpowered, Shapechange is still as overpowered, and Baleful Polymorph still has the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. Polymorph CAN be fixed. There are plenty of ways. For a good polymorph that stays true to the original source, GITP's polymorph is the best around: http://www.giantitp.com/Func0012.html On the other hand, some people want a bit more flexibility, and a bit less spells. Josh Kablack polymorph is extremely flexible, and can do forms and things that even the core polymorph can't... while remaining balanced: http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=6&thread=78 Or, for an example of how to do a decent shifter based class, Frank Trollman's Final Fantasy d20 has a great 5-level shifter. It would be very easy to adapt this for normal D&D. http://www.scshop.com/~ritaxis/ff/shifter.html Razz, as to your idea... XP costs don't work. They screw with the level system, and in 3.5 it's possible to get AHEAD of your party XP-wise by spending XP. You obviously don't want that. Instead, instead of saying "I'll let you ruin the game, but it'll kinda sorta cost you", just DON'T LET PEOPLE RUIN THE GAME! |
| Quintessence02-17-06, 07:08 AM | Alternate Form: "Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space." I don't understand why this approach was chosen for alternate form while a druid's equipment melds along with him when he changes. I'm playing a gold dragon hatchling (using the monster advancement class from Dragon 320) in an ongoing campaign. No animal or humanoid form beats my natural dragon form in combat; I usually just change into animal forms to move around stealthily or human forms to blend in while in town. Now I have to start worrying about things dropping when I change shape, retrieving them when I change back, arranging for other characters to carry my equipment for me. My alternate form ability has gone from fun and useful to more trouble than its worth. Melding equipment makes changing shape easier and faster. This change is terribly inconvenient. It's just a pain in the ass and doesn't add anything to the game except hassles. :mad: I hope the errata is updated soon to address this problem as the change in the wildshape was changed quickly to avoid the similar 'naked druid' issue. |
| Zodar602-17-06, 07:26 AM | As a druid player in the Living Greyhawk campaign, I'll now have to rethink my strategies (which have served me well - mind you not overpowered -, ever since I got wildshape and Natural Spell). Since size-stacking wild shape with animal growth has been a no-no in LG for a long time and I don't use nature's favor anymore (I need my 2nd level slots for stuff like barkskin and bull's strength), not being of the animal type won't hurt so much. Of course, I'm now susceptible to spells such as charm person etc. which only affect humanoids. Other animal affecting spells are limited or restricted in LG, afaik. What hurts most is that I won't be able to use my periapt of wisdom or any other item (unless I take the time to take them off before wildshaping) and therefore lose my highest level bonus spells. And since at least one encounter in just about every adventure I've played has been an ambush, that effectively means we're losing one or more high damage/battle control spells. This also means that I won't be able to contribute as much to my group as the party wizard using polymorph or even alter self could. This also means that the Master of Many Forms - already a weak class in LG with only MM forms allowed and obsolete after level 16, when shape change becomes available - is further hosed. Naked MoMF anyone? So it is my hope that the errata will be errataed again - so that druids will at least be able to use items that are usable by any form (like amulets and cloaks). A comprehensive table listing all available itemslots by form (bipedal, quadruped, no arms, two arms, more than two arms, etc.) would of course help to diffuse the item problem and make shapeshifting easier to adjucate for player and GM alike. I'd also like to see it spelled out excactly what the changes in ability scores affects: Only attack, damage and saves? What about AC, hitpoints and lifting capacity? If my dex is modified to below 13 (12) will I be able to use my feats like dodge, combat reflexes etc.? Can I still use power attack in a low strength form? All of these questions should be answered in one comprehensive errata that rewrites the polymorph chain of spells. |
| Razz02-17-06, 12:01 PM | What happened to Shapechange? |
| dogolopee02-17-06, 02:34 PM | Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. I really don't like this, mostly because without a periapt of wisdom a number of druids will lose spell slots. It also doesn't make sense that a necklace wouldn't remain around the neck. Also the Alternate Form ability says Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. It really seems like the druid entry should read: "Any gear that can not be worn or carried in the new form melds into the new form and becomes nonfuctional" |
| Mystic Mouse02-17-06, 03:13 PM | Wow, I almost feel like I'm in a MMORPG, there is so much change. They should include a sticker saying "Warning! Game play may change during course of... etc., etc., etc.". |
| Keenath02-17-06, 03:44 PM | I've just finished analyzing the differences between old-school Wildshape and shiny new wildshape, so I can post my thoughts about the actual changes. Old version: You gain the type and subtype of your new form. New version: You retain your own type and subtype (if any). That's a big one, right off the bat. This may need some editing, because technically this means a Druid can't benefit from Animal Growth, among other spells and effects. Perhaps that's intentional, I don't know. It's probably a good idea not to have types jumping around, especially with racial feats and classes and stuff like that. Old version: You "retain your class and level". New version: You "retain your hit dice". All to the good. A strict reading of the old version meant that a druid, though he did not lose actual HP, was always ping-ponging around on the number of HD he had for purposes of being affected by spells and such. Wildshape into a wolf, you have two wolf hit dice plus eight druid levels... now you're two HD higher than the rest of the party. All sorts of weird effects from that. Old version: Retain SU attacks (except those requiring a body part you now lack) New version: Retain supernatural attacks (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks) The old version meant a polymorphed dragon could still use his breath weapon as long as he had a mouth. The new version disallows breath and gaze attacks completely when wildshaped. Probably not going to come up very often, but worth noting. I don't know if that's an intentional change, or if Alternate Form has a typo. Old version: Retain supernatural special qualities, but lose extraordinary SQs that do not come from class levels New version: Retain all SQs I would personally prefer if Wildshape gave you all the SQs of your animal form, so that a human who turns into a wolf can use Scent, but this sort of goes the other way -- if you have Darkvision or Scent naturally, you still have it in animal form. My preference is based on the idea that allowing animal (but NOT plant) SQs will give a druid reasons to use his wildshape power for purposes other than just damage output in melee. Old version: Gear melds or remains active when shaping, and remains active or falls off when un-shaping, depending on whether it is "usable" by your new form. New version: All gear melds, and gear worn in animal form all drops off when un-shaping. On one hand, this is unfortunate for the users of Periapts of Wisdom -- loss of bonus spells, and all that -- but it's WAY easier to rule on, and now the Wilding Torc has a purpose for existence. By the old rules, a neck slot item could ALWAYS be used, as long as your new form had a head. A few last notes: There are one or two bits that don't have direct changes. First, the new version explicitly states that you lose your natural weapons, armor, and movement modes when you wildshape. The old version never said that clearly, though most people took it as written. So that's good. Second, the old version of wildshape (via polymorph) stated that you gained the racial skill bonuses and racial bonus feats of your new form. This is no longer true, but it doesn't explicitly say you DON'T get them, either. It sort of makes sense that a human who turns into a wolf doesn't get Track if he doesn't get Scent, but it's pretty illogical that a human wildshaped as a tiger wouldn't get the hide bonus for his species, which comes from coloring. Of course, I think the wolf should grant Scent AND the Track bonus feat. But that's my opinion. Also, this means that a druid wildshaping into something with lousy strength -- say, a raven -- will be practically incapable of landing a hit, because he'll no longer get the Weapon Finesse bonus feat. |
| Palomides02-17-06, 03:55 PM | The should be a knowledge skill roll to see if the pc know the creature. There should be also a roll (save or knowledge) so see if there is success (failing could mean death or mistransformation; if you can die from stone to flesh after being turn to stone, why not from polymorph). The dc woud need to be adjusted according to the rarity of the creature (ie rarity in the world, or if an oustider, magical beast, aberation, etc.). |
| DragonChild_02-17-06, 04:09 PM | I keep hearing the same hideous, HORRIBLE fix ideas again and again. The caster needs to have seen the monster first. All you've done now is prevent the DM from using cool monsters, because you're too lazy to fix the spell. Good job. It should cost XP! That doesn't work. XP costs never work. All you've done is throw in a loop where the caster can possible gain MORE xp compared to the rest of his party. Good job! It should maybe kill the caster. Oh, this is a really smart one. I use overpowered polymorph, and if I fail... I get to bring in a new wizard, who can use the same old overpowered polymorph. What exactly did you fix again? |
| Razz02-17-06, 04:32 PM | I keep hearing the same hideous, HORRIBLE fix ideas again and again. It should cost XP! That doesn't work. XP costs never work. All you've done is throw in a loop where the caster can possible gain MORE xp compared to the rest of his party. Good job! Um, dude, explain how the caster can possibly gain more XP? Did you mean "can't" gain more XP? I assume you did. And, um, the XP cost is the best fix ever for polymorph (and also shapechange, while we're at it). You have a choice as a player: CHOICE 1: Figure out another way to get out of your current situation without resorting to the uber-polymorph type spells or CHOICE 2: If you're really in a jam and need the spell, you cast it but suffer the loss of XP. They use XP to prevent abuses for all spells that are pretty strong or easily abusable. If you're the player that likes to play munchkin, the XP loss is your punishment. I personally think granting yourself the type and abilities and shape of an entirely new creature should drain personal energy from the caster. You have yet to explain the problem with using an XP cost. So far, I see only pros, no cons other than "poor baby player character can't cast the spell too much or he is stuck behind the others". GOOD! Stop abusing it. How would you like it if all the spells with an XP cost DIDN'T have a cost attached to it? Ah, let's see how long you'll keep those spells in your campaign after that. :rolleyes: |
| DragonChild_02-17-06, 05:42 PM | Um, dude, explain how the caster can possibly gain more XP? Did you mean "can't" gain more XP? I assume you did. Very simple. Cast enough XP draining spells so that the rest of the party gets a level higher than you. Then, when you get the next boost of XP, you'll end up getting more (this is a 3.5 change, first introduced in FRCS). If the XP is big enough, you very well could end up with MORE XP than the rest of the party. Some penalty, huh? You have yet to explain the problem with using an XP cost. So far, I see only pros, no cons other than "poor baby player character can't cast the spell too much or he is stuck behind the others". GOOD! Stop abusing it. No. You just can't do math. How would you like it if all the spells with an XP cost DIDN'T have a cost attached to it? Ah, let's see how long you'll keep those spells in your campaign after that. Did you see the links I post above? I use the GITP polymorph. THAT is the best fix. There are no abuses, and it works fine. There's even a character FOCUSED around polymorph, who tries her hardest to abuse it - but absolutely can't. As for other spells that require XP, I use a bunch of houserules on them. I don't support any mechanic where you're supposed to give up XP, but can end up gaining it. |
| DragonChild_02-17-06, 05:44 PM | Allow me to add something onto my previous post... if you have a spell with an XP cost, two possible things will happen. -The XP cost will be so low that it doesn't actually prevent the character from leveling up with the rest of the party, and ends up becoming totally useless. -The XP cost will be high enough that the player WILL lag behind - but then make up XP while he's lower level, possibly ending up AHEAD in XP. If you thought losing XP was bad, you can in no way think this is a good idea. Neither of these are acceptable. |
| MarkB02-17-06, 08:13 PM | Just to mention, the PHB and MM errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) have now been updated again. The PHB errata addresses the Druid's Thousand Faces ability (making it function pretty much identically to the Changeling's Minor Change Shape ability), and corrects the text of the Baleful Polymorph spell, restoring the information as to what kind of creature you can turn the target into. The MM update clarifies that Alternate Form does not alter the subject's hit points even if a form of greater or lesser CON is chosen, and specifies that targets gain the Aquatic subtype when choosing a form with this subtype - so if you Wild Shape into a shark, you won't drown underwater. |
| Nialo02-17-06, 08:45 PM | I think the xp cost is a bad idea, just because Polymorph is an iconic spell; and most Transmuters find themselves using it a loy for combat purposes. The problem lies is really the fact that monster hit die does not always corrispond well with their actual power level, as we can see from the war troll. The best solution is to find a better way to scale the power level of monsters for the spell (CR perhaps?), or use ECL as suggested earlier. |
| jaelis02-17-06, 09:13 PM | So suppose a druid who normally has Con 10 is wildshaped into a bear with Con 19. She keeps her normal hit points. Fine. Now she gets poisoned and takes six points of Con damage. Does she lose any hp? |
| Raven Dark02-17-06, 10:24 PM | ANNOUNCEMENT: The end all be all thread for the final errata changes can be found right here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8501839#post8501839. It is easy to read and includes all of the changes inserted into their appropriate places within the text blocks. |
| Blinky96902-17-06, 11:47 PM | I'm too lazy to see if someone suggested either of these, but why don't we do this to correct polymorph: Give it a list of forms it can access, like Summon Monster I-IX. That way when a new creature is made, the creator can designate it as polymorphable or not. Also, you can say that each wizard has one or a couple of designated alternate forms. They can choose these, but can't change them willy-nilly. They might be able to change them out of combat, but in combat they'll only be able to access a small, preselected list of creatures. Basically let them polymorph into anything, but they can only keep three or four forms accessible at any one time, and they can only change those forms like... once a day when they prepare spells/meditate for 15 minutes. |
| Mystic Mouse02-17-06, 11:55 PM | Try Raven Dark's thread, let's try to group the articles into one instead of many. The cross posting is driving me batty. Get it, I'm shaping into a bat... Wildshape... the thread topics... Oh, heck! You get my point, I never said I was a comedian. And yes, I said "heck"! |
| Samwise02-18-06, 01:00 AM | How about just changing it back to AD&D (1st/2nd ed.) version? One might expect that the reason there are so many problems is that the 3.5 version is indeed massively more powerful than back then. For those who don't know or don't recall what the spell was like back then: Alter Self did not grant natural armor or natural attacks, or any other special abilities, except for the ability to fly if the new form had wings (at 1/3 speed and 2 maneuverability classes lower), or to breathe water if the new form had gills. Alter Self first appeared in Unearthed Arcana as an Illusionist spell. (Illusionist was a completely separate base class at the time.) In UA, it had the note that "larger" form did not grant additional attacks unless the illusionist was "familiar" with the form. This was removed in 2nd ed where the spell became a wizard spell (and illusionist became a specialization as it is now), and the size change was limited to 50% of normal form, or staying medium sized. (Or small sized for gnome and similar casters.) Polymorph was Polymorph Self. It affected only the caster, and lasted 2 turns (20 minutes)/level. (This would likely become 2 rounds/level in 3.5.) You could become anything from the size of a wren to a hippopotamus. (Diminutive to Large.) You gained only the natural movement abilities of the new form, nothing else. (Wings and a fly speed, swim speed, climb speed, and so forth.) No attack forms. No special attacks. No senses. Nothing. You healed 1d12 damage when returning to your new form. Baleful Polymorph was (mostly) part of Polymorph Other. It affected one creature, was permanent!, and a saving throw negated it. You needed to make a system shock roll to survive it. (70% for a 10 Con, 99% for an 18 Con.) You checked every day to see if you assumed the mind of the new form. The chance was 100%, -5% per point of starting Int, +/-5% per HD/level of difference. If your mind changed, you became the creature completely. Otherwise you just had the "physical" abilities of the new form. The 1st ed PHB wasn't clear on this, the 2nd ed PHBlimited it to: "Form includes natural Armor Class (that due to skin toughness, but not due to quickness, magical nature, etc.), physical movement abilities (walking, swimming, flight with wings, but not plane-shifting, blinking, teleporting, etc.), and attack routines (claw/claw/bite, swoop, rake, constriction, but not petrification, breath weapons, energy drain, etc.). Hit points and saving throws do not change from the original form." (For 3.5, you get natural armor, movement, attack forms, and extraordinary attack abilities (other than paralysis or poison?). You don't get stats, extra senses, or any supernatural abilities unless your mind changes.) If your mind changes, you become an NPC. Creatures (and thus NPCs) would always prefer their own forms, and resist being changed. Polymorph Any Object has effectively the same description, but the power is different as it is still tied to Polymorph Other/Self. Shapechange did not grant innate magical abilities or spell resistance. Polymorph Self was balanced against Polymorph Other by not requiring a system shock roll, or having a chance of losing your mind, but you gained nothing but a movement type. 3E made Polymorph Self unbalanced by granting it the full range of abilities of Polymorph Other. It unbalanced Polymorph Other by removing both the system shock and the chance of losing your mind. Tome & Blood merely added a HD cap, with minimal additional cosmetic changes. 3.5 separates out Baleful Polymorph for enemies, and merges Polymorph Self and Polymorph. The duration drops to what Polymorph Self used to be. Unfortunately, it still allows you to polymorph your friends with no negative consequences. It still gives the physical stat bonuses. It gives all extraordinary attack types (including paralysis and poison). So despite the changes, the spell is still overpowered. So how could it be turned back? 1. Polymorph affects only the caster. 2. It grants only normal movement abilities. 3. Baleful Polymorph remains as it is. We don't need to worry about adding system shock (Con checks) and mind retention (Int boosted level checks) just so someone can flirt with being a dragon from time to time. 4. Alter Self grants only reduced flying ability and gills if applicable, and no other bonuses. 5. Shapechange has some of the bonus abilities it grants heavily toned down. 6. Polymorph Any Object is fixed by the changes to Polymorph. This won't break any characters other than sorcerers who have alter self, polymorph, or polymorph any object as their sole spell of a level. Reasonable DMs can simply let them replace the spell with something else. Yes, that is a massive change. The spell, as written, is massively broken. That requires a massive change to correct it. |
| dogolopee02-18-06, 02:10 AM | cross posted from Raven Dark's thread: When all the changes to this are final, will wizards be putting all this in the SRD? I know as it is it is inconvienient to say the least to have to be looking back and forth with all the various changes and references. It also makes it much more difficult for anyone producing OGL content or playng in some living campaigns (it is often easier to have a print out of the relevent sections reguarding your character than having to keep flipping through the books durring events that are limited to four hours of game play. |
| bonethug010802-18-06, 02:14 AM | My fix would be for the caster to pick a number of forms they can change into equal to their modifier they use to determine number of spells(cha for sorcerers, int for wiz, etc.). This could work for mostly all the shape changing abilities/spells. This way you only have to look for forms once, or if your modifier changes. Ex: Wizard has Int 18(mod.+5). He can pick 5 forms he can change into whenever casting a shape changing spell. This fix allows you to be flexible in what you can become, and at the same time restricting the number of things any one spellcaster can become. It would also prevent a whole lot of book flipping. |
| Razz02-18-06, 10:14 AM | Even if they're behind one level from the XP loss, they're not going to be higher level than the party, they'll just catch up to the others. I did the math. It won't do any harm. |
| DragonChild_02-18-06, 11:43 AM | The problem is not when they're being a "whole level". The problem is when they're behind a minor amount of XP (say, two castings of polymorph, or three of limited wish) and are still one level behind the party. Then, after the next chunk of XP, they WILL catch ahead and the pendulum WILL start. Now, assume something like this never happens. Well, either you've spent such a huge chunk of XP on an overpowered spell that you've absolutely dominated combat, and now they're getting more XP, you can STILL dominate combat and catch up to the rest of the party - one level doesn't make much difference if you're tossing around an overpowered spell like that. Or, alternatively, you use the spell so infrequently that the XP cost never makes you behind a level of the rest of the party. Thus, it never actually matters. The character has used an overpowered spell, and you didn't even want to try to fix it. Why not just use one of the three BALANCED links I had above? |
| Ogmug02-18-06, 01:54 PM | your arguement about lagging behind on xp is not a very good one. Let's look at an example. Assume a 15th level party, and they all have JUST enough exp to get 15th. Meaning that even 1 point of exp loss will result in being 14th level. Assume an even CR encounter. If the party defeats it, they will receive 4500/4 exp or 1125 each. Now your arguement is that the druid (or whomever) can abuse this by losing that one point of exp, making himself 14th level. Now instead of getting 1125 exp like the rest he will get 6300/4 or 1575 exp. A net gain of 450. The party would be at 106,125 exp while the druid would be at 106,574 exp. However now he is the same level as the rest of the party. This is a ridiculous arguement because even if he did this, he would never outlevel the party. 450 exp is not even enough to get a 1st level character to 2nd, much less a 15th level character to 16th. Your pendulum would be a broken, simply because now the druid must lose 1,575 exp, an will only gain back a net of 450 while the rest of the party continues upwards. example: Druid now loses enough exp to get back to 14th, and the party kills the next 15th CR encounter. They again get 1,125 exp, while the druid only get 1,574. So guess where the druid is? He is again at 106,574, while the party is now at 107,250. Even if the druid was already 16th, and the rest of the party at 15th, then the net gain he would get is only 300 exp, and the party would still be catching up. IN a different scenario, lets pretend the druid only does it once per level (dropping back). So he reaches 16th level 450 exp before the party, and by some miracle they all get enough exp to just make 16th.. meaning the druid is now only a max of 450 (actually much less because of the nature of the exp chart). Now the druid drops back down again, (to 119,999). The next encounter the party defeats an even CR, and gain 1200 exp, while the druid gains 1688 exp. Druid is at 121,686 and the party is at 121,200. Ok so the "pendulum" is increased by 36 exp.. Wow. we are cooking with gas now! Sorry, but your arguement against exp cost is a poor one. |
| DragonChild_02-18-06, 02:28 PM | I never claimed that the druid would be ahead in levels, only XP. If you think that losing XP is a sufficient punishment, then gaining XP has to be a reward, right? This invalidates the argument of XP costs. Your analysis also makes a mistake. You don't hand out XP after each encounter. It's handled out in clumps - you'd hand out XP for killing three or four of an equal CRed creature at a time. Not that this in any way impacts my argument. |
| Ogmug02-18-06, 02:41 PM | Handing out exp is the domain of the DM, and if he choses to hand out exp at the end of the evening, or after each encounter it is entirely upto him/her. Some nights don't even have any encounters, yet exp is given for roleplaying. Other nights you might have 4-8 encounters, depending on how long you play. The arguement is moot. Regardless of how much you hand out, you will never exceed the party. You can only do this trick once per level, and only at the very beginning of the level. This "reward" would even itself out, and even reverse itself over the course of a level. Your arguement is flawed. Exp is not the only reward a party receives. Money, accomplishment of the goals, etc. If you live your life for that paltry 450 exp boost over your other party members.. .. .. Lets just say that is a pretty sad way to live. |
| DragonChild_02-18-06, 02:45 PM | You said: Druid is at 121,686 and the party is at 121,200. You ALSO said: Regardless of how much you hand out, you will never exceed the party. Look! That's MORE XP! It is, I dare say, EXCEEDING! Exp is not the only reward a party receives. Money, accomplishment of the goals, etc. If you live your life for that paltry 450 exp boost over your other party members.. .. .. Lets just say that is a pretty sad way to live. Geeze. Where the crap are the personal insults coming from? I'm not arguing this is how you should play, or that roleplaying is stupid, or whatever you seem caught up on. All I'm arguing is that XP costs for spells are not a good idea, especially if we know these spells are WAY too powerful. And again, I ask: What's wrong with the three alternatives I listed? Why do we HAVE to keep the overpowered spells? |
| Ogmug02-18-06, 02:50 PM | You said: You ALSO said: Quote: Druid is at 121,686 and the party is at 121,200. Look! That's MORE XP! It is, I dare say, EXCEEDING! Quote: Regardless of how much you hand out, you will never exceed the party. Sorry you did not undestand that when I said you will never exceed the party I was talking about Level. Geeze. Where the crap are the personal insults coming from? I'm not arguing this is how you should play, or htat roleplaying is stupid, or whatever you seem caught up on. All I'm arguing is that XP costs for spells are not a good idea, especially if we know these spells are WAY too powerful. Did I say YOU were sad? No, I said the concept of comparing yourself based on how much exp is a sad way to live. Now if you took it personally, that is your business. Perhaps there is something that might be striking a little close to home for you. If you want a personal insult, I most certainly could. I however was commenting on the idea, not the person. The penalty to exp may or may not be a good idea based on the level and power of the spell. Personally I don't have a problem with the spell the way it is. But to insinuate that an xp cost is not a valid method without actually thinking all the way through the scenario is taking a myoptic view of how exp actually works. |
| DragonChild_02-18-06, 03:00 PM | Sorry you did not undestand that when I said you will never exceed the party I was talking about Level. Apologies, and I'll agree to this. It just seems strange that you want to punish someone through XP, and that'll end up giving them less XP... then more XP... then less XP... then more XP. Did I say YOU were sad? No, I said the concept of comparing yourself based on how much exp is a sad way to live. Now if you took it personally, that is your business. Perhaps there is something that might be striking a little close to home for you. It seemed to come out of nowhere, and in case you haven't noticed, "ZOMG YOU'RE A ROLLPLAYER!" is a common insult used on this board when people can't think of anything somewhat intelligble to say. I apologize for being jumpy, I just don't see how that applies to the conversation at all. Edit: Not to say that you don't have anything intelligble to say. The fact that you did the math on the XP proves to me that you are a smart, reasonable person. But to insinuate that an xp cost is not a valid method without actually thinking all the way through the scenario is taking a myoptic view of how exp actually works. Allow me to argue something weird for a moment. You should ONLY gain XP. Let's think of it this way for a second - level is essentially a measuring stick for the DM, so that he knows how strong monster he needs to use. He sees that the party is level 11, so he pulls monsters who are CR 11. But if I spend XP to gain treasure, I'm suddenly a level 11 who is too powerful for a CR 11 - yet maybe even still too weak for a CR 12. If I spend XP for powerful spells, the same thing happens. I'm no longer "level 11" so to speak. So yes - I don't think you should spend XP for benefits. You should only spend it for levels. Most RPG systems work this way. Personally I don't have a problem with the spell the way it is. Polymorph is filled with problems. Stat replacement doesn't work - I can be a druid who ignores Strength and Dexterity, and then just polymorph into a bear, being able to fight just as well if not better than the fighter. That's bad. Polymorph Any Object has a slew of problems. In order for the spell to work how it says it does, and based on a strict reading, it no longer follows HD caps. There's nothing preventing my wizard from using Polymorph Any Object to become a Great Gold Wyrm, and gain a huge amount of intelligence. Or, if you believe that HD caps still exist, to perminently polymorph himself and the rest of the party into humanoids with better physical stats then themselves. Shapechange has a lot of problems. Giving Supernatural abilities is a bad idea. There are lots of overpowered supernatural abilities - from gaining permanent HD with Barghest's Feed, to giant freaking pheonix fireballs (40d6 damage, be sure to use Magic Jar), to the double whammy of the Zodar; double your strength, and get a no-XP cost Wish. |
| Raven Dark02-18-06, 04:43 PM | On the XP subject: A character can forego gaining a level when they have enough XP to advance. This is so they can have a huge pool of XP to create magical items and cast spells from. EXAMPLE OF ABUSE: A player opts to forgo his 6th level. He will then have the XP pool of a 6th level character, the stats of a 5th level character. As a 5th level character he will be gaining more XP per encounter than the rest of his party. At can at any later time gain his 6th level (assuming he has the XP for it). Short of DM fiat, what is to stop a player from deliberately having his character lag one, two, or three levels behind his party as he gains enough XP to suddenly jump ahead of his comrades by a level or ten? I'm going to call it the "KotOR XP Gain" trick (since you could do the exact same thing in the Knights of the Old Republic video games). Using the XP system as written can and will put your level ahead of your comrades. The tricky part is surviving the encounters with subpar stats. :P Just the same, I like the system as is--my spellcasters make an average of 10 reusable magical items for EACH level of the party AND I still manage to keep up in relative power and XP. |
| ShakaUVM02-18-06, 05:01 PM | One rule would stop all Polymorph breaking and even Shapehcange breaking. XP COST = 50 XP per HD Eh, XP costs are a bad solution. Either the spell is broken or it's not. Making a really high XP cost is equivalent to banning a spell, making a low one is irrelevant, and a medium one means that you as a DM don't anticipate poly making a reappearance but then Shapechange pops off on the final combat and owns the final encounter you spent a day designing. Big question, does anyone know if Shapechange is errata/altered/omitted? Or are they saying it is fine the way it is and they have no problems with it? I think that spell needs an XP cost of 50 XP per HD for each creature you transform into. I'd recommend just reading the official PHB errata. The entire document is like three pages long, and the only change that non-druids care about is to Baleful polymorph. They didn't touch any of the other spells, not even PAO which is an order of magnitude more problematic than Poly. |
| ShakaUVM02-18-06, 05:05 PM | I read the errata. Points of interent regarding the changes to Baleful Polymorph. A) No limitations on size of new form. B) No limitations on type of new form. c) No limitations on new form whatsoever! Must be an animal of 1HD or less. Size restriction of small or smaller. Since you posted this after my post, I know that this was in the errata file already when I read it. =) |
| Hubert de Balderoc02-18-06, 05:14 PM | OK the whole "polymorph anouncement" totally changes Wild Shape... but that may not be a bad idea. So if I get it right: - no more animal growth-like spells - no more special qualities (lowlightvision, scent...) - no more additional hp for increased Constitution - and so on One of my player is playing a very standard multiclass druid that usually wildshapes into a standard brown bear. The "polymorph anouncement" totally changed its stats and abilities under wildshape. And raises a bunch of questions. First concerning equipment, we understand that: "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional" means ANY! Even if the animal form could use it. It means he now must remove the equipment (let's say a belt) first before wildshaping if he does not want it to meld. OK if he wildshapes in a monkey, he can still grab the belt and put it back. If he wildshapes in a tiger, someone can grab the belt (not him... paws...) and put it back cause it should fit. BUT if he wildshape in a bears, no belt : the belt is not changing size. Are we right? So pretty much he can forget about equipment under wild shape now. Now few things puzzle us: Let's say he is a 14HD character with 8 levels of Druid He can wild shape in a Large animal. he can wild shape in a standard brown bear (MM P269). And he is still 14HD. But Brown bears are limited to 10HD. A) What levels does he have in skills (listen, spot...)? Does he get bear's bonus and loses his previous racial bonus? Does he keep his ranks? Does he get additional skill points as per Table 4-1 (PHB page 290) because he is a 14HD bear? Are they limited to a 10HD bear? blablabla B) Same : what feats does he have? Does he keep his previous feats from his levels (one every 3HD)? Does he keep his bonus feats from his race? From his classes? Does he get the standard 6HD bear feats (Endurance, Run, Track)? Does he get additional feats as per Table 4-1 (PHB page 290) because he is a 14HD bear? Are they limited to a 10HD bear? blablabla C) The errata says "The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although...". OK but what happen to my different other classes features? Supernatural abilities? Extraordinary abilities? Sperll-like abilities? Others? It seems from "The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature)." that the idea of the "design & development" team was that he would keep ALL class features except when changes are specifically mentionned (like spellcasting). But this interpretation is not certain. CAN THE SAGE BE CLEAR ON THAT please? Your DM, sincerely... |
| Samwise02-18-06, 05:38 PM | Are we right? So pretty much he can forget about equipment under wild shape now. Well except for a large tiger wearing a medium belt, you have it right. [/QUOTE]Now few things puzzle us: Let's say he is a 14HD character with 8 levels of Druid He can wild shape in a Large animal. he can wild shape in a standard brown bear (MM P269). And he is still 14HD. But Brown bears are limited to 10HD.[/QUOTE] Well first, no. He is limited to 8 HD. See the third sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Wild Shape ability in the PH. HD are based on Druid level, not character level. A) What levels does he have in skills (listen, spot...)? Does he get bear's bonus and loses his previous racial bonus? Does he keep his ranks? Does he get additional skill points as per Table 4-1 (PHB page 290) because he is a 14HD bear? Are they limited to a 10HD bear? None. Check the MM errata for alternate form. He retains his skill ranks. He does not gain any racial skill bonuses. B) Same : what feats does he have? Does he keep his previous feats from his levels (one every 3HD)? Does he keep his bonus feats from his race? From his classes? Does he get the standard 6HD bear feats (Endurance, Run, Track)? Does he get additional feats as per Table 4-1 (PHB page 290) because he is a 14HD bear? Are they limited to a 10HD bear? Again the same. He retains his feats. He does not gain any racial feats. C) The errata says "The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although...". OK but what happen to my different other classes features? Supernatural abilities? Extraordinary abilities? Sperll-like abilities? Others? Again the same. You retain your supernatual and spell-like abilities other than a breath weapon or gaze attack. You lose extraordinary attacks but retain all other extraordinary abiltiies. You retain your sepcial qualities. It is prety clear. You just need to refer to the PH, MM, and both erratas to see everything you get. |
| Hubert de Balderoc02-18-06, 05:47 PM | If I get it right Alternate Form now looks like "Alternate Form (Su): A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using alternate form reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature: —The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. —The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature). —The creature gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form. —The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form. —The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or supernatural attacks of its new form. —The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. —The creature retains its HD, hit points, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses, although its total attack and save modifiers may change due to a change in ability scores. —The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components. —The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and it gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise. —Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and viceversa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped." Although I am ready to accept that keep skills and feats and Class features (Su, Ex,...) as before wildshaping, I do not see where it is really written (but it's midnight here in France, I may just be tired....) |
| Samwise02-18-06, 06:06 PM | In the MM errata: Replace Line 7 of the changes with the following text: — Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses. You also seem to be missing a few other things in the MM errata. You might need to download both the PH and MM errata documents again to be sure you have the last ones, and then check the changes. (And of course wait until morning. After midnight? ACK!) |
| Wrong02-18-06, 06:21 PM | Maybe that the solution is to completly rewrite de polymorph spells and forgo the use of monster manuals. What the spellcaster wants by casting polymorph is divided in several options easily discernible like : - specific form - movement mode - type or subtype - Size - Natural attack - bonus on ability score - retain the ability to speak and so on. By listing them, it's easier to control their parameters with a sort of point system based on the caster level, and based on the spell level for the options available. A list of drawbacks could allow the caster to gain more "polymorph points" to use to create the form. A specific rule to handle disguise into existing forms (to base all on knowledge checks only favors the wizard). There could be general polymorph rules, the big part, like the general illusion rules, and spells giving access to more options with spell levels. Of course creating this requires some work, time and playtesting, but it would remove all the polymorph's problems. The maximum flying speed with or without wings for a caster level XX would be fixed once and for all, same for the maximum ability score, the better combination of special attacks, and so on. And it offers the possibility to give access to special qualities without fear for the next Monster Manual release. My opinion is that the solution is to control all the parameters of the transformation. No Monster Manual to use the spell, just the spells and stable polymorph rules. |
| Palomides02-18-06, 07:14 PM | I keep hearing the same hideous, HORRIBLE fix ideas again and again. The caster needs to have seen the monster first. All you've done now is prevent the DM from using cool monsters, because you're too lazy to fix the spell. Good job. Familiarity is needed for the druid, why not for the spell. Also to have read, heard about or seen a monster does not give you familiarity It should cost XP! That doesn't work. XP costs never work. All you've done is throw in a loop where the caster can possible gain MORE xp compared to the rest of his party. Good job! Agree with you here It should maybe kill the caster. Oh, this is a really smart one. I use overpowered polymorph, and if I fail... I get to bring in a new wizard, who can use the same old overpowered polymorph. What exactly did you fix again? Since the spell is at a so low level, it need a draw back. I base this idea on Stone to Flesh where you can die if you fail your fort save. But it can be constitution damage if you fail a fort save when you polymorph into the creature or revert to your original form for all I care. |
| Hubert de Balderoc02-19-06, 04:38 AM | Wild Shape (Su): At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the alternate form special ability (see the Monster Manual), except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. Each time you use wild shape, you regain lost hit points as if you had rested for a night. Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with. A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.) A druid can use this ability more times per day at 6th, 7th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level, as noted on Table: The Druid. In addition, she gains the ability to take the shape of a Large animal at 8th level, a Tiny animal at 11th level, and a Huge animal at 15th level. The new form’s Hit Dice can’t exceed the character’s druid level. At 12th level, a druid becomes able to use wild shape to change into a plant creature with the same size restrictions as for animal forms. (A druid can’t use this ability to take the form of a plant that isn’t a creature.) At 16th level, a druid becomes able to use wild shape to change into a Small, Medium, or Large elemental (air, earth, fire, or water) once per day. These elemental forms are in addition to her normal wild shape usage. In addition to the normal effects of wild shape, the druid gains all the elemental’s extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. She also gains the elemental’s feats for as long as she maintains the wild shape, but she retains her own creature type. At 18th level, a druid becomes able to assume elemental form twice per day, and at 20th level she can do so three times per day. At 20th level, a druid may use this wild shape ability to change into a Huge elemental. A Thousand Faces (Su): At 13th level, a druid gains the ability to change her appearance at will, as if using the disguise self spell, but only while in her normal form. This affects the druid’s body but not her possessions. It is not an illusory effect, but a minor physical alteration of the druid’s appearance, within the limits described for the spell. Alternate Form (Su): A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume one or more specific alternate forms. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using alternate form reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. Assuming an alternate form results in the following changes to the creature: —The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well. —The creature loses the natural weapons, natural armor, and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature). —The creature gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form. —The creature retains the special qualities of its original form. It does not gain any special qualities of its new form. —The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or supernatural attacks of its new form. —The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution. — Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses. —The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components. —The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and it gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise. —Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and viceversa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped. Change Shape (Su): A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A true seeing spell or ability reveals the creature’s natural form. A creature using change shape reverts to its natural form when killed, but separated body parts retain their shape. A creature cannot use change shape to take the form of a creature with a template. Changing shape results in the following changes to the creature: —The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. —The creature loses the natural weapons and movement modes of its original form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its original form not derived from class levels (such as the barbarian’s rage class feature). —The creature gains the natural weapons, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form. —The creature retains all other special attacks and qualities of its original form, except for breath weapons and gaze attacks. —The creature retains the ability scores of its original form. — Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses. —The creature retains any spellcasting ability it had in its original form, although it must be able to speak intelligibly to cast spells with verbal components and it must have humanlike hands to cast spells with somatic components. —The creature is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise. —Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and viceversa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped. Animal Shapes Transmutation Level: Animal 7, Drd 8 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: Up to one willing creature per level, all within 30 ft. of each other Duration: 1 hour/level (D) Saving Throw: None; see text Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) You transform up to one willing creature per caster level into an animal of your choice; the spell has no effect on unwilling creatures. Use the alternate form special ability in the Monster Manual to determine each target’s new abilities. All creatures must take the same kind of animal form. Recipients remain in the animal form until the spell expires or until you dismiss it for all recipients. In addition, an individual subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends the spell for that subject alone. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to the subject’s HD or your caster level, whichever is lower, to a maximum of 20 HD at 20th level. Baleful Polymorph Transmutation Level: Drd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One creature Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes You change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD (such as a dog, lizard, monkey, or toad). The subject takes on all the statistics and special abilities of an average member of the new form in place of its own except as follows: • The target retains its own alignment (and personality, within the limits of the new form’s ability scores). • If the target has the shapechanger subtype, it retains that subtype. • The target retains its own hit points. • The target is treated has having its normal Hit Dice for purpose of adjudicating effects based on HD, such as the sleep spell, though it uses the new form’s base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and all other statistics derived from Hit Dice. • The target also retains the ability to understand (but not to speak) the languages it understood in its original form. It can write in the languages it understands, but only the form is capable of writing in some manner (such as drawing in the dirt with a paw). With those exceptions, the target’s normal game statistics are replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features. All items worn or carried by the subject fall to the ground at its feet, even if they could be worn or carried by the new form. If the new form would prove fatal to the creature (for example, if you polymorphed a landbound target into a fish, or an airborne target into a toad), the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save. If the subject remains in the new form for 24 consecutive hours, it must attempt a Will save. If this save fails, it loses its ability to understand language, as well as all other memories of its previous form, and its Hit Dice and hit points change to match an average creature of its new form. These abilities and statistics return to normal if the effect is later ended. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to baleful polymorph, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype (such as a lycanthrope or a doppelganger) can revert to its natural form as a standard action (which ends the spell’s effect). |
| Hubert de Balderoc02-19-06, 04:44 AM | What happens to extraordinary abilities and the like.... whether they impact or not combat. Example: if I have a biclass Druid/Monk He wildshapes in a bear - does he still have the Wisdom AC bonus of the monk? - can he still stuns (as per the monk) with his claws? - can he use flurry of blows? - can he bypass damage reduction with the paws (as the ki styrike ability)? - does he still have slow fall, purity of body and other non combat abilities? - does it depend whether they are Su or Ex or spell-like abilities? If anyone is more awake that I am to help me read the errata in relation to the above questions? |
| jaelis02-19-06, 09:17 AM | What happens to extraordinary abilities and the like.... whether they impact or not combat. Example: if I have a biclass Druid/Monk He wildshapes in a bear - does he still have the Wisdom AC bonus of the monk? - can he still stuns (as per the monk) with his claws? - can he use flurry of blows? - can he bypass damage reduction with the paws (as the ki styrike ability)? - does he still have slow fall, purity of body and other non combat abilities? - does it depend whether they are Su or Ex or spell-like abilities? If anyone is more awake that I am to help me read the errata in relation to the above questions? He keeps all his class features. Thus he keeps his Wis bonus to AC. He keeps his unarmed attack benefits, but natural weapons are not unarmed attacks so he can't get any bonuses with his claws. Presumably, even as a bear he can make an "unarmed strike" dealing damage appropriate for a large creature. He keeps all the other non-combat abilities. Also, there's a nicely formated and mostly correct compilation of the new rules at the top of this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=589497) thread, for easy reference. |
| Samwise02-19-06, 10:30 AM | Just as a side observation, I think this also demonstrates that errata of this sort should be formatted as a complete rewrite of the relevant entries, and not just line replacements. It might be a bit longer to print out, but it would be a lot easier to read and understand. |
| The_DM_54602-19-06, 11:06 AM | I admit that I only skimmed the article, but a DM with a lot of time could a) create a list of polymorphable forms and/or b) decide, with or without the polymorph casting player's assistance, what creatures the caster would even know exist in order to polymorph a target into! Now, throw in some wild magic chances and that all goes out the window... Caster: "I want to polymorph the orc chieftan into a gnome." DM: "OK... The chieftan turns into a young red dragon." Rest of Party: "Good job!"i like that. good idea |
| rkr197002-19-06, 11:09 AM | Since no one mentioned this, I thought I would interject a thought... The errata, based on the shear volume of changes and time involved, whether we individually like the changes or not, do provide one thing. They give us a big ugly stick to smash over the heads of those morons who start "forth ed, end of year i herd?" threads. There is no way Andy & the gang would have gone to all this trouble if a 4th Edition was ANYWHERE on the horizon. Beyond a filing cabinet somewhere so people can drop in notes or ideas for future editions, it appears that there's nothing even remotely connected to a 4th edition, and I'm not even sure about the filing cabinet. I will take great comfort in knowing that any D&D purchases I make in the foreseeable future will not become obsolete overnight. Now... How long before the errata's done. I want to get my players ready for a good game of D&D v.3.6!! :D |
| Raven Dark02-19-06, 12:26 PM | Also, there's a nicely formated and mostly correct compilation of the new rules at the top of this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=589497) thread, for easy reference. Key word being mostly. Jaelis already knows where it is, but for the rest of you, you can find my thread right here: EASY TO READ ERRATA THREAD (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=589497). It is fully updated with all of the newest changes to the rules and is by far the most well formatted and easy to read errata on these forums. Please use it as a resource for when you quote the new Polymorph Errata in your future discussionss. |
| DragonChild_02-19-06, 01:19 PM | Familiarity is needed for the druid, why not for the spell. Also to have read, heard about or seen a monster does not give you familiarity I'm not arguing that my wizard should be able to turn into a creature he's never heard of. I'm arguing that just saying "You need familiarity" is not a fix in and of itself. What you seem to be suggesting, in that the DM decides what familiarity is, is more of a Summon Monster list. Having the spell's balance be open-ended, depending on the DM, is just a bad idea. Since the spell is at a so low level, it need a draw back. I base this idea on Stone to Flesh where you can die if you fail your fort save. But it can be constitution damage if you fail a fort save when you polymorph into the creature or revert to your original form for all I care. It's hardly "low level"... and I wouldn't say it needs a draw back, but a complete rework. The problem is, everyone keeps trying to add a quick fix. Quick fixes DON'T WORK. The spell has way too many abuses to fix with just a single sentence change. For Con damage, that's canceled just by having a cleric ready with Restoration or a potion of Lesser Restoration. Not too big of a draw-back, really. I admit that I only skimmed the article, but a DM with a lot of time could a) create a list of polymorphable forms and/or b) decide, with or without the polymorph casting player's assistance, what creatures the caster would even know exist in order to polymorph a target into! Option a) is a good one. b) is not... b) implies that it changes from character to character. We don't want fireballs do to more damage in one wizard's hand unless he pays a feat for it. Likewise, we don't want polymorph to give some wizards bigger, badder forms. If you want to keep things to a set list, just keep them to a set list. Now, throw in some wild magic chances and that all goes out the window... Caster: "I want to polymorph the orc chieftan into a gnome." DM: "OK... The chieftan turns into a young red dragon." Rest of Party: "Good job!" Bad, bad idea. This is pretty much just "Wizard might die". Besides, it's easily abusable. Just keep casting it over and over onto the party paladin, until you eventually hit a freaking powerful form like a gold dragon or furbolg... |
| Hubert de Balderoc02-19-06, 02:26 PM | A Monk/Druid wildshaping: He keeps all his class features. Thus he keeps his Wis bonus to AC. He keeps his unarmed attack benefits, but natural weapons are not unarmed attacks so he can't get any bonuses with his claws. Presumably, even as a bear he can make an "unarmed strike" dealing damage appropriate for a large creature. He keeps all the other non-combat abilities. So we have a bear using flurry of blows... Hum.... All in all the idea of WotC was that alternate form changes ONLY - movement - combat - physical abilities (within limits since skills or hp are not changed) replacing de druid ones by the animal ones Would have been easy but.... But then they kept the barbarian rage (someone was whining I guess), so to be fair you have to keep all combat oriented class features and that's a mess (flurry of blows...) Worse, they made it simple by not changing skills But then, a fish with a Climb Skill? or a Slow Fall ability? Or a disable device Skill? Well all in all as DM, I will have to pretty much house rule 50% of the errata.... |
| LeadMagnet02-19-06, 07:56 PM | Screws up errata and throws it into the "too hard basket" Polymorph will stay the same in my current campaign. Hopefully by the time it ends all this confusion will be fixed. I am just sad for the Transmography Sorc I was going to make up for the next campaign :weep: |
| Alac Luin02-19-06, 08:12 PM | Strange as it sounds,Polymorph did not change. Things related to Polymorph changed, but Polymorph itself did not change. (Animal Shapes and Baleful Polymorph did change) |
| clannagh02-19-06, 08:33 PM | One thought coems to mind. The declared errata is suposedly to fix polymorph and the effect on druids is a side effect. Yet some changes seem to be stricter for druids than they are for polymorphed individuals ? For example it seems polymorphing lets you still wear amulets etc but in the case of druids they stop working ? Its all a bit odd. |
| Alac Luin02-19-06, 08:40 PM | Since polymoph was not changed, it didn't fix polymorph. A wizard polmorphing into a say a wolf has always has it's magic items non-functional. Incedently, same with the druid wildshapeing into a wolf. |
| Wandering_Kender02-21-06, 02:01 AM | The group I play with has any easy fix to the problem. 1. Has the charactor seen the creature that they wish to polymorph themselves or another into. 2. Has the Character seen that creature in battle. with these two things we don't have any problems with polymorph. |
| DragonChild_02-21-06, 02:37 AM | 1. Has the charactor seen the creature that they wish to polymorph themselves or another into. 2. Has the Character seen that creature in battle. with these two things we don't have any problems with polymorph. Again... all this really does is prevent the DM from using cool monsters. |
| Raven Dark02-21-06, 02:38 AM | Screws up errata and throws it into the "too hard basket" I have just the thing (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=589497) for you! |
| Cardinal Teplin02-21-06, 02:41 PM | The naked druid problem hasn't really gone away, even with the recent errata. It's simply been pushed out to the druidic prestige classes. See Master of Many Forms from the Complete Adventurer. This allows you to turn into a humanoid, fey, giant, monstrous humanoid, etc. All of which are entirely naked. I can see no possible good reason for any character to ever be forcibly parted from their clothes. Andy, please don't do this to us. H |
| DoveArrow02-21-06, 04:19 PM | The simplest (and, in my opinion best) fix for Polymorph is to allow forms from a limited list, like the Summon Monster line, and allow other forms to be researched as if they were new spells. This solves the core dilemma and also places freedom in the hands of the DM and Players at home simultaneously. DMs are free to say yes or no on specific forms while players still have substantial freedom of choice with the options provided. Amen. |
| rkr197002-21-06, 06:17 PM | I just realized something. The recent changes make Andy Collin's polymorph article, where he said humans lose their extra feat & skills while polymorphed, a complete mess!!! Now they just need to change the polymorph spell itself, and make the whole article nothing but the worthless tripe it was. (Sorry Andy. I love your work, but that call was too poorly executed for words) :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: |
| The Simple Seeker II02-21-06, 10:56 PM | Wow...this is painful. |
| foonly02-21-06, 11:45 PM | Just limit Polymorph to the forms available in the Monster Manual (and perhaps MM2 and MM3, at the DM's discretion), plus whatever other forms the DM allows. As for the Druids' wild shape abuses; a shapechanged druid isn't really an animal, is it? Make it either (a) the druid's original type, (b) a magical beast, or (c) a shapechanger. |
| DoveArrow02-22-06, 11:18 AM | The group I play with has any easy fix to the problem. 1. Has the charactor seen the creature that they wish to polymorph themselves or another into. 2. Has the Character seen that creature in battle. with these two things we don't have any problems with polymorph. My group uses the same house rule. However, you know when it breaks down? When the player hasn't played their character up from 1st level. That very thing happened in our game. Meanwhile, it doesn't much work for the RPGA, because how do you know if the player has actually seen the monster if you've never played with them before. The only way I can see of implementing something like that is if the RPGA starts listing what monsters were encountered by the character on their tracking sheet. However, that's a lot of work, and so I don't see it happening anytime soon. Honestly, I think the best solution would be to give a list of monsters you can turn into. That way, there can be no dispute. |
| Vigorous Ape02-22-06, 12:15 PM | The simplest (and, in my opinion best) fix for Polymorph is to allow forms from a limited list, like the Summon Monster line, and allow other forms to be researched as if they were new spells. This solves the core dilemma and also places freedom in the hands of the DM and Players at home simultaneously. DMs are free to say yes or no on specific forms while players still have substantial freedom of choice with the options provided. My thoughts exactly. Polymorph can be split up into numerous other spells, like summon monster. Or the forms available can be limited by caster level. Druids could get an effective bonus to their level when shaping into natural animals. No need to worry about balancing all the forms with each other, that's what the list is for. It fixes an appropriate and definite power level, but gives some freedom if people want to add to the list. When new monsters come out, DMs and players can fit them into the spell form-list if need be. There are plenty of monster write-ups that have information detailing how they fit into the summon monster spells, why is polymorph any different? You can even have feats that allow you to shift into different forms, like 'Celestial Shifter': you can shift into the celestial form of any usual choice, as long as the new CR doesn't exceed your caster level (or whatever, you get the idea). Better balance, but still loads of choice. Also helps personalise different shifters. "A fox burning with demonic fire? That must have been Artorax the Unruly!" |
| OberonTheElfKing02-22-06, 02:20 PM | i agree with evilagram i make my players come up with a part of the moster they want to be with the exception on the basic races |
| dorpond02-22-06, 02:40 PM | Let us look at this line: "Except as described elsewhere, the creature retains all other game statistics of its original form, including (but not necessarily limited to) HD, hit points, skill ranks, feats, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses." I don't think that means what everone is making it to be. I think what it is saying is that we keep all the things that we GAINED as our original character. Another words, we gained RANKS and we assigned them ranks to certain skills. We also GAINED HP, FEATS, BAB, ETC. All that stuff was gained over the life of our character. That doesn't mean that we don't receive the Racial Bonus Skills and Feats of the creature we are shaping into. Yes, we keep our RANKS but RANKS are totaly different from Racial Bonuses. Where in the description of Alternate Form does it say we do not gain those abilities? Those are not specified anywhere so is that to be left up to the DM to decide? I can't believe that if we change into a Cat, we wouldn't get the following: Cats have a +4 racial bonus on Climb, Hide, and Move Silently checks and a +8 racial bonus on Jump checks. Cats have a +8 racial bonus on Balance checks. They use their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength modifier for Climb and Jump checks. Could you imagine our climb and jump with a STR of 3 if we couldn't use our DEX instead of our STR? We wouldn't be able to climb well, jump like they do or anything! That would be silly - just silly. |
| rubendogs02-22-06, 06:21 PM | Here's my thought's on Polymorphing - from reading the spell, and article, and skimming the errata. A lot of the posts I've seen on here are suggesting systems that would basically remove the desire for having Polymorph, or make it so that your PCs spend all their time studying and/or rolling checks instead of adventuring/role playing. the major problem I see with Polymorph isn't that it's overpowered - a decent GM should be able to handle a powerful player, I think - and searching through a book for 15 minutes during combat is always a mistake - if you are reading you aren't paying attention - and neither is your character. Anyway, discussion is always good, so keep it up. The Errata changes are all fine. I see no problem with them. Polymorph itself is a problem, though, I guess. Unlike Baleful Polymorph or Alter Self or the like, polymorph has vary little limits. A creative play can become any creature in any book with ease (the rules for advancement are there, and reversing them is a lot easier than I thought - I even have a friend with a ECL 6 Minotaur, took about 20 minutes.) My suggestions are based on the game's system, don't require too much book wrangling, and I think are perfectly fair - though no one has seen them as of this typing, so they may simply suck. First the druid. The whole point of a druid is being one with nature. Taking away his most basic power is bunk. Druids are already a laughing stock in my group because a Wis/Sor can do everything they can do, but better - and a ranger is far less restrictive for role playing purposes. Wild shape is the Druid's only saving grace. If you can manage to get from 1-4 with a druid, you are sitting pretty. (1-4 are surprisingly tough in my group - we frequently TPS, Total Party Suicide. Wild shape should be it's own ability, fully listed in the Druid entry, with no need for a second book until you actually change shape. You should gain most abilities of the animal shape: STR, CON, DEX, Skill bonuses, natural weapons, special attacks, special qualities and monstrous feats. And some stuff is just obvious - if you have no hands, you cannot make Somatic gestures, if you have no ability to speak, you cannot recite a spell... If you have no hands, you can't use spell components. But you should still be able to use certain magic items - Rings and amulets and headgear - provided you have the proper body slots (if a ring that my human rogue takes off can fit on a dragon, than I think it can deal with a wolf, OK?) Other items are melded into your body. Polymorph's family is broken a bit, but then again, almost any spell can seem broken. Here are my thoughts. Keep in mind that I am a strong proponent of the rule "The DM has the final say in everything." Meaning that no mater what a book says, if the DM says no, then NO. You can feel free to discuss with the DM after the session, so but the damn book away or you are getting a smack down. Polymorph Require the caster to select a type - aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant or vermin - when the spell is learned. Each time a new type is wanted, a new Polymorph is learned. Add the restriction that for each Polymorph spell known can only have a limited number of forms, all from within the type selected. He need not select the maximum allotment immediately - at any time he has a free slot, he may add a creature to it. The caster starts knowing only 1 form, but gains a new form at caster level 8, and another every 2 caster levels beyond that, up to a max of 5 at level 16. Change the HP restriction to a CR restriction - Cannot change self or other into a form who's CR is more than the CR of the target. No creature can be Polymorphed into a creature with CR 12 or higher (CR 12 seems balanced to me, but I welcome any comments - no MM handy to look through). Make the change complete, but temporary. It becomes that creature, and is unable to make use of any it's natural form's abilities, but has access to all the abilities of the new form. When the time elapses, the target changes back immediately. Add Focus based on the creature Type selected. I think that makes the spell more fun, anyway. Polymorph Any Object To understand my overall feeling of this spell, think on this: I if you have to contradict yourself to make the spell balanced, then the spell should not exist! Removals Get rid of the classification system unless you are going to use it everywhere. You have a system in place, use that. - Type (subtype) works just as well as Family and Class, and would make a lot more sense in the DnD universe. Remove the duration charts. They are neat, but don't work. For example: I can change a high intelligence Human into a Medium Sized Outsider that has Hair and is built like a human for 2 days. They aren't the same kingdom, but they are the same size, similar intelligence, and the same class (mammal). But, using the tables I could change lead to gold permanently - same family, same class, same size, related, same intelligence. The ONLY thing that stops me is a restriction in a paragraph at the end of the spell. remove any references to Polymorph, change the name to something else, perhaps Greater Transmutation. Remove any restrictions that simply make no sense. Example: "This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special qualities of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures" This contradicts the basic guidelines of the spell, and makes the spell feel like... well, not like magic. There's no reason for this paragraph except the fear that a PC would just go around changing everything into gold all the time - a reasonable fear, no doubt, but one that can be fixed in a more elegant way. See below. Ok, after you remove all that, you are left with this: A spell that can change anything in to anything else, with almost no controls. So we need to add a few things. Also, this spell could use a family of it's own. But we can talk about that for a later DnD edition. Additions A Spellcraft check DC for every casting, variable based the duration wanted by the caster and the amount of change required. Yes, tables will be needed, but I happen to like tables. they are easy to use and frequently self explanatory. Spellcraft isn't generally used in this way, but the caster is using magic to force a physical transformation, and the DC check can be explained by the caster having to actively shape the target. For creatures, lower DCs are gained through Type and Subtype similarities. A base XP cost. This spell is powerful, and doesn't cost anything. Give it a base cost of say... 500xp, plus 100 times the spellcraft DC of the spell. Variable casting time. have a base casting time of 1 minute, allow for the casting time to be dropped to 1 round for a +5 to the DC check. Shapechange Easy, have Shapechange be a more powerful Polymorph, increase the CR, make the Focus harder to get, reduce the number of forms allowed to be selected, increase the duration. Maximum CR is 18 (again, no MM to check, so comment please) As Polymorph, the caster starts with 1 form, but gains another form at level 18, and another at level 20. As Polymorph, Shapechange is limited to a single type, and can be learned repeatedly. Tell me what you think! Respond here, PM me, or email me. -Keith |
| Prophetd02-22-06, 09:49 PM | Polymorph is incredibly easy to fix and balance for the most part. Material component: A talisman which was created using some part of the creature you are trying polymorph into worth 1gp. This makes the character acquire some item from the creature or purchase said item from same merchant, all of which you essentially control. It also removes the object from the eschew material loophole. For Poly any Object Material component: A miniature model of the object you are polymorphing the target into made of the same material as the object/creature. ShapeChange Material Component: A talisman specially crafted and worth approximately 10gp and containing something from each type of creature you are changing into. * essentially if its not apart of the talisman then you can not access that form. |
| Weeds02-23-06, 09:29 AM | What I don't understand is that all this hoopla was because of the overpowered Polymorph and Alter Self yet those two spells remain in effect as written. What I am saying is that if your going to swing the "Nerf" bat swing for the fence and not try and line drive one specific player. |
| MarkB02-24-06, 06:28 AM | What I don't understand is that all this hoopla was because of the overpowered Polymorph and Alter Self yet those two spells remain in effect as written. What I am saying is that if your going to swing the "Nerf" bat swing for the fence and not try and line drive one specific player. Basically, we shouldn't regard the changes we've seen as the complete solution - all of this is simply the necessary first step. What they've done by isolating the spells is to ensure that, from now on, anything they do to re-balance, change or otherwise overhaul Alter Self, Polymorph and Polymorph Any Object can be done without having knock-on effects to any other aspect of the rules. I'm sure we'll be seeing such changes in the near future. |
| Lupo02-24-06, 09:41 AM | to me the whole errata is a big mess: first, the whole article talks about a problem with "polymorph", than the errata do change everything else BUT "polymorph". apart from confusing that smells rotten :( . a druid is now no longer wildshaping but just disguising as an animal. as shown with the aquatic subtype errata of the errata, it wasn't thouroughly thought about the consequences. (what about an aquatic-elf druid, wildshaping into an land animal, what subtype does he get????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? :rolleyes: ) and than, suddenly, with the ability to wildshape into en elemental, the druid GETS special abilities and qualities of the new form, very strange :confused: . now a druid is worse off than anyone else who "alternates form", as druids loose acces to ALL items, even those that could be used by the new form. even those that are only need in possession like metamagic rods and pearls of power (according to the text, anyway in a homegame i wuld grant use). even worse, a sandstorm druid wildshaping into a camel, wouldn't get any of the heat endurance of the desert animal. so "wildshape" has lost a lot of its versatility. i doubt that many home gamers will follow this errata. anyway as i am a player and sometimes gm in living greyhawk i have to follow the new rules (or at least i should). ciao martin m. |
| Weeds02-24-06, 01:40 PM | So with the new rules.. Wild shape into a cat, assume you had the same ranks in jump as a cat. -4 because of strength. -1 size because of 4 legs Vertical jump of 1 So to jump up on a 3' high table 2 foot high jump DC 8 Double DC for not running 20 foot 2 ranks in jump DC 18 A real cat needs a 6 or better. Just doesn't seem right. |
| dorpond02-24-06, 03:01 PM | I could be wrong but it is more like this: DC To jump on table without running start: 3’ high table = DC12 No running jump = double DC12 or DC24 (Assuming the cat is making a clear jump and not grabbing hold of the table.) My Druid: Cat STR = 3 or -4 Modifier No Racial Bonus allowed. Can't use DEX instead of STR like a normal CAT can. Ranks = None (because my Druid never bought any) Total Jump Skill: -4 Druids Jump Skill at CAT: -4 Jump DC: 24 Result: Impossible to jump up on the table. |
| dorpond02-24-06, 03:14 PM | Lets climb a tree as a CAT: DC15 for climbing a tree Cat STR = 3 or -4 Modifier (can't use DEX instead of STR like a cat can) No Racial Skill Bonuses anymore. Ranks = None – never took any as Druid. Need to roll a 19 or 20 to climb a tree as a cat. Roll a 14 or less and I fall. Result: VERY difficult to make progress. Close to 75% chance of falling while climbing the tree. Boy, this CAT ROCKS!!!!! I guess I won't need the fire department saving me - I just won't be able to climb that oak tree anymore! :D |
| Weeds02-24-06, 03:16 PM | I could be wrong but it is more like this: DC To jump on table without running start: 3’ high table = DC12 No running jump = double DC12 or DC24 (Assuming the cat is making a clear jump and not grabbing hold of the table.) My Druid: Cat STR = 3 or -4 Modifier No Racial Bonus allowed. Can't use DEX instead of STR like a normal CAT can. Ranks = None (because my Druid never bought any) Total Jump Skill: -4 Druids Jump Skill at CAT: -4 Jump DC: 24 Result: Impossible to jump up on the table. You get your Tiny vertical jump heigth for free, dont forget your -1 size because of 4 legs. So it is really only a 2-foot jump, thus DC 8 or DC 16, but without any ranks your looking for a 20. Whats even funnier is that if your a Gnome Druid.. your Strength is really a 1 so that so you can't do it. |
| dorpond02-24-06, 03:35 PM | You get your Tiny vertical jump heigth for free, dont forget your -1 size because of 4 legs. So it is really only a 2-foot jump, thus DC 8 or DC 16, but without any ranks your looking for a 20. Whats even funnier is that if your a Gnome Druid.. your Strength is really a 1 so that so you can't do it. :confused: Confused :confused: |
| Weeds02-24-06, 04:19 PM | page 77 phb Read sentence that starts with Quadrupedal. Basically treat vertical jump as one size smaller. You add vertical jump to actual jump DC to get height. So Diminutive Vertical = 1 foot Jump = 2 foot ------------------- Total Height = 3 foot DC 8 or 16 - 4 because of Strength DC 12 or 20 If your a Gnome Alternate Form "The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form" Gnome racial modifiers are -2 Str +2 Con -2 to Strength because of racial modifiers Strength becomes 1 Stats Now Str 1 Dex 15 Con 12 - 5 because of Strength DC 13 or 21. |
| dorpond02-24-06, 04:40 PM | *ouch* I overlooked all that. Thanks! |
| Alac Luin02-24-06, 08:30 PM | You don't apply the base racial ability modifiers to the creature you polymorped into. What that means instead of (in the case of cat-gnome) Tiny Animal you are a tiny Humanoid (gnome). That way you can't have awaken cast on you. |
| rubendogs02-25-06, 11:05 AM | You don't apply the base racial ability modifiers to the creature you polymorped into. What that means instead of (in the case of cat-gnome) Tiny Animal you are a tiny Humanoid (gnome). That way you can't have awaken cast on you. If they were trying to do-away with Awaken being used on a Wild-shaped druid, why not just add that awaken "has no effect on creatures with higher than animal intelligence"? Why gimp the whole class just to break one not particularly overpowered combo? -Keith |
| DragonChild_02-25-06, 01:43 PM | Not to mention the fact that awaken can still be cast on creatures who use Shapechange. The problem wasn't fixed, it was just pushed back. |
| Legendarius02-25-06, 06:53 PM | I haven't seen too much abuse of the polymorph spell in the games I've run or played in. I guess our group just prefers spells that blow things up. :-) On a more serious note, I think it's a fairly easy thing to adjust with home rules to avoid abuse. Getting rid of the polymorph spell all together (and its relatives) is just wrong for D&D and fantasy gaming in general. How many times in books and movies do you see magic that changes the shape of the caster or their victim? All the time, especially for witches. Some things I'd consider, some of which I'm sure were mentioned above. 1. Make certain the caster is unable to polymorph into a creature with a higher challenge rating. 2. Limit the caster to knowing only a few select forms, starting with one with each new form being learned as if learning a new spell. 3. Allowing the polymorphed creature to use all of the natural/extraordinary abilities of the new form. So cats can jump up on tables, wolves can smell good, owls can see well in the dark, etc. Higher level spells in the family could allow for the use of spell-like, psi-like or supernatural abilities. 4. Force the caster to have some kind of focus and/or material component. An example might be a tattoo drawn as part of a ritual with the creature or that uses a piece or the blood of the creature. 5. Make it so the caster has had to have seen/encountered the creature in question before they can learn to polymorph into the creature. 6. The creature can be any that meets the DM's approval and which meets the conditions above. 7. All equipment is absorbed unless useable by new form. Exceptions to the rules above might exist as well. For example, a master of forms prestige class that is known for the ability to change their shape shouldn't be quite as restricted. And that would force the character down a specific narrower path of advancement to gain that improved ability, thus limiting the chance for abuse and/or making for more interesting role playing. As a DM I'd probably insist that the details of the new form be spelled out on a sheet for easy reference prior to the game or it can't be cast to save time. No hour of searching mid-game. Game time is too precious. L |
| Alac Luin02-25-06, 07:46 PM | If they were trying to do-away with Awaken being used on a Wild-shaped druid, why not just add that awaken "has no effect on creatures with higher than animal intelligence"? Why gimp the whole class just to break one not particularly overpowered combo? -Keith That was only one thing that wouldn't work, it also wasn't the biggest issue. (it takes 24 hours for an animal to be awakened, it would take a 24th level druid to be able to do that, lets face it, an epic druid has better things to do with his time) The list of what this means is extensive and far reaching. The wild shaped druid is still vulnerable to Hold Person instead of the higher level Hold Monster. An arrow of cat slaying would not effect the for mentioned wildshaped gnome into cat (besides normal arrow damage), but an arrow of gnome slaying still would. Favored enemy, etc etc etc. I could not possibly list every conceivable issue this could relate to. (But applying the drids racial ability score modifiers is not one of those things :P ) |
| Gnorish02-26-06, 09:45 AM | I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but the new rules for wildshape has made Master of Many Forms (Prc) useless. The whole idea that all your items meld when you use wildshape is straight forward as a druid since you will be changing into either an animal or an elemental. However, as a MoMF you can change into humanoid forms and since you are using wildshape all your gear melds. Hence if the MoMF decides to change in to an Orc, for example, he is suddenly a naked Orc. The alternative is to take off all your gear and then change form and then put it all back on again - so much for the class feature of changing forms as a move action. I can understand what people were trying to do with these changes and I am happy that wildshape is no longer tied to polymorph but erratas are meant to help balance the game so we don't have to house rule so much. As soon as this one came out we had to put a new house rule in place so that this Prc would not be useless. |
| Objulen02-26-06, 12:27 PM | I am not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but the new rules for wildshape has made Master of Many Forms (Prc) useless. The whole idea that all your items meld when you use wildshape is straight forward as a druid since you will be changing into either an animal or an elemental. However, as a MoMF you can change into humanoid forms and since you are using wildshape all your gear melds. Hence if the MoMF decides to change in to an Orc, for example, he is suddenly a naked Orc. The alternative is to take off all your gear and then change form and then put it all back on again - so much for the class feature of changing forms as a move action. I can understand what people were trying to do with these changes and I am happy that wildshape is no longer tied to polymorph but erratas are meant to help balance the game so we don't have to house rule so much. As soon as this one came out we had to put a new house rule in place so that this Prc would not be useless. I second this. The MoMF gives up spell casting to be able to turn into giant and monstrous humanoid forms that can use all items, weapons, and armor normally. They also give up spellcasting progression for the ability. Given this, MoMF should most importantly keep their items when turning into giant and monstrous humanoid forms, and probably also keep the HP increase from constitution, given that they are giving up 10 levels of spell casting and other abilities just so they can gain more use from wild shape. |
| Testigopolis02-26-06, 05:43 PM | I have a suggestion. Perhaps I'm looking at it too simply though and I'm sorry if someone already suggested this. If the polymorph spell is too powerful because you can transform yourself and your allies into powerful creatures, why not just limit the power of the creature one can transform into to be equal to that of the person being transformed? And how do we measure the power of a creature? With the challange rating of course, it's all ready spelled out for us. The challenge rating given is supposed to be in reference to a party of four. An orc has a rating of 1/4, meaning that it is equal to a normal, first level character. An ogre, with a challenge rating of 2 is equivalent to a level eight character. The DM book says that an ogre's level adjustment is 5, so maybe that should be the guide instead instead of just dividing by four. Some things would have to be at the DM's discretion in regards to creatures with supernatural abilities. A level five human with all of their magic items and developed powers would be more than equivalent to a giant praying mantis (CR 2) with none. So when a creature polymorphs, its pool of monsters can be limited to a monster who's abilties are equivalent or less than those of the transformee. That way no one turns into something crazy that goes beyond their level, and the spell keeps up with the caster and other PCs as they advance in levels. So if a wizard transformed the group's fighters into ogres or trolls, they would have to be at the right level to make it equivalent to starting a first level monster-character with a level adjustment. That way it evens out and they can play as those creatures for the rest of the game, no balance problem. This way you could even allow all the different supernatural abilities of those creatures because they would be level-equivalent to what the PCs can already do. I don't know how you would set it up for certain, but the challange rating already exists and could be used to regulate how the polymorph spell functions without denying it its versatility. P.S. I think the polymorph self spell is weird. It would be cooler if you had to pick a form and then stick with it for the duration of the spell, which should not be an hour per level! |
| Litejedi02-27-06, 12:45 PM | The real problem that I have has nothing to do with the changes to wild shape, it has to do with the completely unnecessary change to the Thousand Faces ability. Did they deem that druids were overpowered at 13th level because they could turn themselves in to troglodytes? Wizards at third level and tatooed monks at first level can do the same. It's entirely out of left field and severely limits a druids survivability at higher levels. Druids can't wear certain types of armor, so their AC is hurting already. If you compare a druid to a Cleric of similar level after the change, the cleric has much more AC now, and can get a lot more through spells (recitation, shield of faith, etc.) wheras a druid only has barkskin. |
| Objulen02-27-06, 05:51 PM | Here are my suggestions: -Polymorph: Personal only. Caps at 8 HD. For every spell slot that Polymorph is prepaired in above 4th (with or without Heighten Spell), this cap increases by 2 HD. Thus, to turn into a 14 HD creature, you must use a 7th level spell slot. -Polymorph Any Object: "Greater Polymorph". Personal only. Like Polymorph, but the caster can turn into a creature of any type. Can assume forms of 16 HD or less. -Shapechange: 1 minute/lvl duration. -Alter Self, Polymorph, and Greater Polymorph can only be used to assume forms of size large or smaller, and only used to become creatures from the MM 3.5 without direct permission from the DM. Alternativly, Polymorph can't be used to assume forms of large size or larger until level 12, or Polymorph can not be used to assume forms larger than large at all (though Greater Polymorph and Shapechange should allow this IMO). -Alter Self, Polymorph, Greater Polymorph, and Shapechange can not be used gain natural armor bonuses greater than the character's caster level, and the difference between the characters stats in her/his base form and the new form can not exceed her/his caster level, per stat. |
| clik_ml02-28-06, 08:33 AM | This isn't a nerf to druids, it's a power shift. The Con dumping druids are getting their come-uppance (maybe). All hail the gnome druid. Now you can start with a 20 Con, and at level 5, cast Bear's Endurance to bring it to 24 Con, and then Wildshape into whatever you please, and keep your original HP. That's a Dire Weasel that can hang on a long long time (so long as the BBEG doesn't know how easy it is to grapple and pin it). As an aside, don't worry about your Amulet of Health, it's still good. It melds and becomes "useless", but you still keep the original HP before wildshaping, so all is well. At higher levels the druid with a +6 amulet of Con who keeps Con as their primary stat is looking pretty buff (Con 30 on a wildshaped critter is nothing to sneeze at). You may even prevent the loss of bonus spells by casting Owl's Wisdom, removing one's periapt, and then having a buddy place the periapt back on your wildshaped form before the Owl's Wisdom wears off. Constitution draining poisons? The undead? Puh-lease. You retain the original HP of your form. So that wild-shaped gnome doesn't have any worries from drains until his Con hits zero- and shame on any druid who lets that happen to himself. Either you're allowed to super buff HP right before wildshaping, or worse yet there is the alternative ruling which seems just as legal RAW. 1) Your HP are recalculated whenever your Con modifier changes, with the one exception of the assumption of an Alternate Form. 2) So Wildshape into a Dire Badger- Con modifier changes to 19, but caveat of Alternate Form prevents a recalculation of HP. 3) Cast Bear's Endurance and now we have another change in Con modifier that is not a direct result of Alternate Form, so we have to recalculate the HP based upon this new number... and we're back in crazy town HP for the Con dumpers. Even when Bear's Endurance wears off, we have to recalculate HP based on a Con modifier change that was not the result of assuming an Alternate Form, so keep those ill gotten HP gains. One last note. Wildshape used to allow stacking different size changes (larger wildshape form+animal growth), but is this still the case? I.E. can a wildshaped druid (to medium size critter) drink a potion of Enlarge Person and gain 10' reach upon gaining large size as the spell's description states? |
| Objulen02-28-06, 09:53 AM | As an aside, don't worry about your Amulet of Health, it's still good. It melds and becomes "useless", but you still keep the original HP before wildshaping, so all is well. At higher levels the druid with a +6 amulet of Con who keeps Con as their primary stat is looking pretty buff (Con 30 on a wildshaped critter is nothing to sneeze at). How do you figure? If it melds with the form, it deactivates, so you lose the +6 (or whatever) CON boost. It would be just like taking it off -- including losing your HP. You may even prevent the loss of bonus spells by casting Owl's Wisdom, removing one's periapt, and then having a buddy place the periapt back on your wildshaped form before the Owl's Wisdom wears off. As long as it's a +4 or less periapt, yes. Then again, the item change wasn't a very well developed change. Constitution draining poisons? The undead? Puh-lease. You retain the original HP of your form. So that wild-shaped gnome doesn't have any worries from drains until his Con hits zero- and shame on any druid who lets that happen to himself. An interesting interpretation, though I'm not certain how well that will fly, you could argue a good case for it. Either you're allowed to super buff HP right before wildshaping, or worse yet there is the alternative ruling which seems just as legal RAW. 1) Your HP are recalculated whenever your Con modifier changes, with the one exception of the assumption of an Alternate Form. 2) So Wildshape into a Dire Badger- Con modifier changes to 19, but caveat of Alternate Form prevents a recalculation of HP. 3) Cast Bear's Endurance and now we have another change in Con modifier that is not a direct result of Alternate Form, so we have to recalculate the HP based upon this new number... and we're back in crazy town HP for the Con dumpers. Even when Bear's Endurance wears off, we have to recalculate HP based on a Con modifier change that was not the result of assuming an Alternate Form, so keep those ill gotten HP gains. That's bending the rules quite a bit, since the offical text says, IIRC, that you don't gain extra HP for the change in CON, so the CON change from the new form wouldn't give you anything, while Bear's Endurance would. One last note. Wildshape used to allow stacking different size changes (larger wildshape form+animal growth), but is this still the case? I.E. can a wildshaped druid (to medium size critter) drink a potion of Enlarge Person and gain 10' reach upon gaining large size as the spell's description states? I don't remember what the text on Enlarge Person says specifically, but when you increase to large size, I believe you gain 10ft. reach. Also, since your type doesn't change, if Enlarge Person simply states that you increase your size by one, a Druid in a large animal form can have the potion fed to her/him to increase size again, because type doesn't change. Similarly, if this holds, one can have Enlarge Person simply cast on the druid. Go errata! What I don't get is why spells that Awaken Animal weren't simply errataed so they only effect creatures with the animal type as their natural type. |
| clik_ml02-28-06, 11:51 AM | How do you figure? If it melds with the form, it deactivates, so you lose the +6 (or whatever) CON boost. It would be just like taking it off -- including losing your HP. Except that if the act of taking it off is brought about by Alternate Form, then we disregard that change in Con with reference to your HP. Your original form had HP based upon the Con from a +6 amulet. It deactivates, sure, but by the time it does so, one can easily argue that the phrase, "the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution" means that whether it deactivates or not is irrelevant. The changes in Con caused by Alternate Form (whether the changes are due to form changes or item deactivation) do not influence HP calculation. As long as it's a +4 or less periapt, yes. Then again, the item change wasn't a very well developed change. As opposed to the monstrously different +6 periapt? (apologies if the reference to item changes not being well developed refers to the *errata's* poor development. It sounds like you're saying that +4 is not worth worrying about, when the only better option is +6) |
| Objulen02-28-06, 01:39 PM | Except that if the act of taking it off is brought about by Alternate Form, then we disregard that change in Con with reference to your HP. Your original form had HP based upon the Con from a +6 amulet. It deactivates, sure, but by the time it does so, one can easily argue that the phrase, "the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution" means that whether it deactivates or not is irrelevant. The changes in Con caused by Alternate Form (whether the changes are due to form changes or item deactivation) do not influence HP calculation. That's true. As opposed to the monstrously different +6 periapt? (apologies if the reference to item changes not being well developed refers to the *errata's* poor development. It sounds like you're saying that +4 is not worth worrying about, when the only better option is +6) It was a reference to the errata. |
| Junpei02-28-06, 08:12 PM | Constitution draining poisons? The undead? Puh-lease. You retain the original HP of your form. So that wild-shaped gnome doesn't have any worries from drains until his Con hits zero- and shame on any druid who lets that happen to himself. That brings in another question... whenever Constitution loss causes a negative alteration of its modifier (ie. from 18/+4 to 16/+3), the PC loses a number of hit points equal to his level as well. Since hit points are not recalculated with wild shapes that grant bigger Constitution scores, what happens when some enemy starts to drain away our newly acquired Constitution? For example, a 10th level druid with, say, 60 hit points and a Constitution score of 16 transforms into a critter with a Constitution score of 30. Suddenly, he encounters a nice undead who drains 2 Constitution points per round, and after 6 rounds of attacks our druid's hit points will drop to 0 even if he still has a Constitution score of 24. What's more important, another undead's caress and he'll be knocked off for good, and that's long before his Con would reach 0. So, I'm right to assume that, while a wild shape's increased Constitution score does not modify druids' hit points, it STILL influences them when something drains their Con? If that's true, it's a bigger problem than I thought it was, especially during heavy undead-oriented campaigns (and, since I'm playing a druid in City of the Spider Queen, I'm a little worried... :P ). |
| clik_ml03-01-06, 08:23 AM | Interesting theory on Con drain's affect on HP, but I can't imagine that there is any RAW to back it up. How's bout it- cite for Con draining imposing a penalty to HP equal to (HP equal to HD)*(change in Con modifier)? You're not gonna find it. There is no mechanic for assigning penalties to HP based upon changes in Con. There is only the mechanic for recalculating HP based upon a new Con modifier. So far as I know, anything that drains Constitution does only that. Any reading into what happens when Con is drained will have to refer to the start of the PHB where the Constitution ability is described. And in that description, the nitty gritty comes down to that HP is only affected by changes in Con such that you recalculate HP based upon the new Con modifer. So if you want to allow poisons to affect Alternate Forms under the new errata, then you have to open the floodgates which may have HP totals *increase* as a result of losing some Con points to poison, as a recalculated Con may well be better than the original form's Con (especially for the Con-dumper druids). |
| FallenArchon03-02-06, 03:11 AM | Yes polymorph has it's problems, but I don't see the benefit of completely removing it from the system (lets not kid ourselves that's the next step). First of all there's nothing wrong with its current state that cant be fixed by the average DM. I've been playing/DMing since 2nd E and there always have always will be problems with the system (Infinite loops, badly written rules, etc.). That is where the job of the DM comes in. IT IS THE DM'S JOB TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. The solution to polymorph and like spells is simple. Limit the transformation only into creatures/characters that the PC has seen closely. Therefore if the DM uses creatures monsters as he should (with a CR never too much higher than the PC's) the spells(abilities) progress much like any other, slowly improving as the character gains levels and faces harder monsters. I've noticed some people complaining that it takes up too much game time to look up monsters stats. This also has a simple solution, do it before the game recording the most usable ones on a blank sheet stapled to your character sheet. If it is still slowing down the game your DM should only give you a moment (less than a min.) to decide, your character wouldn't have 20 min. in a battle to figure out his spell. Polymorph is important both as a historical aspect to fantasy literature and D&D. To remove it from the game system would have a horrid effect on how characters experience their favorite campaign setting (such as Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc. which have frequent reference to the ability). Please the is no reason to eliminate an important aspect of D&D history. SAVE POLYMORPH! |
| rubendogs03-02-06, 12:26 PM | No one's going to delete Polymorph from the core rules - there would be a bloody revolt! 4th edition wouldn't even sell if they started deleting staples like polymorph. No need to panic. Although, I believe that they need to wait - I even think the errata was a mistake - a change to the core rules this big could have waited. For the (hopefully) far distant 4th edition, or even another book release (PHB2 might work). Either way, the errata just makes things very complicated, and doesn't really fix the issue for the home gamer. Polymorph is still there, bogging down games and annoying groups, only now instead of just one thing the DM needs to contend with, everything in the errata that was changed becomes an issue. -Keith |
| Kalatash03-03-06, 03:22 AM | Wow, six pages. Of course, it is an older article which deals with a big change, but it's late here and I don't want to read through all of those messages. All I want to say is this: I'm used to Wizards banning spells, since I'm a Magic player. But them banning a spell in D&D? That just... blows my mind. EDIT: I also find the art used in the article header especially hilarious. Why? It's a Magic card called 'R&D's Secret Lair'. And it states that you play all spells as written, and ignore all errata. :D |
| rubendogs03-03-06, 07:43 AM | Wow, six pages. Of course, it is an older article which deals with a big change, but it's late here and I don't want to read through all of those messages. All I want to say is this: I'm used to Wizards banning spells, since I'm a Magic player. But them banning a spell in D&D? That just... blows my mind. EDIT: I also find the art used in the article header especially hilarious. Why? It's a Magic card called 'R&D's Secret Lair'. And it states that you play all spells as written, and ignore all errata. :D The main difference between banning a spell in magic and DnD is that in Magic, a home game can rarely stalls for 3 hours because of a single spell - the card tells you exactly what to do. Polymorph doesn't do that, so removing it is an easy fix. That's what the errata was doing, making removing polymorph easy. -Keith |
| Objulen03-03-06, 09:51 AM | The main difference between banning a spell in magic and DnD is that in Magic, a home game can rarely stalls for 3 hours because of a single spell - the card tells you exactly what to do. Polymorph doesn't do that, so removing it is an easy fix. That's what the errata was doing, making removing polymorph easy. -Keith This isn't so difficult to fix. It takes some up-front work, but after that, the onus is on the player. 1) The RPGA makes some fixes like LG and what I suggested. A scaling version of Polymorph that increases the HD limit as you use higher spell slots would help with the problem of a 4th level spell scaling past what other spells allow, as well as putting caster level caps on how much you can get to NA and stats so you don't get anythng disgusting. 2) The RPGA gives the stats for a list of common, legal forms as a supplement (what you get and what you lose). If the player doesn't bring a stat card (that the DM checks quickly to make certain it's legal) the player can only pick official forms. This is just an extention of player-DM curtousy made official, really, like having notecards with the description of spells you use alot so you don't have to constantly flip open the PHB to find things. 3 hour adjucation problem solved. |
| meabolex03-07-06, 01:16 PM | The core problem is not necessarily polymorph itself, it's how various aspects of the game combine to make polymorph so annoying. Spells should not reference other spells unless the reference is trivial. I can see the various versions of cure/inflict X wounds referencing each other, but not spells that significantly alter the effects of referenced spells. If they really wanted a cleaner design, they should write the spells to where they never reference each other. Referencing other spells means flipping from spell to spell trying to figure out what's going on. For instance, the Visage of the Deity spells are also problematic and probably should be modified accordingly. Spells should NOT have open-ended effects. The Wish and Miracle spells are not open-ended. They are specifically limited by the DM's whim, which is fine. Polymorph's monster selection (minus a few minor restrictions such as type, corporeal, etc.) is limited only by non-written, interpreted, assumed ideas. You're only allowed to assume forms you've seen? Really? Show me in the PH exactly where it says that. It's a huge design constraint as Andy mentioned because its dependent on material external to the core rules. Spells and abilities that muck up the game with constant rules lookups involving multiple spells (see above) and multiple books should be streamlined to avoid massive time-wasting. There's really no benefit to having a spell that takes 10+ minutes out of game to resolve mechanically. It damages the roleplaying experience and saps the fun out of the game. While I'm not asking for a simplified set of rules that makes the game boring, I'd like it if the rules that are defined that don't waste hours over the course of a campaign. Polymorph is simply a personification of some design problems inherent in D&D. Hopefully these can be worked out in the future. |
| FallenArchon03-07-06, 11:16 PM | I agree with most of what you had to say. However without drastically changing the nature of polymorph it will always be somewhat open ended (which in my opinion is not such a bad thing). You are correct by the rules as written you could change into a creature you haven't seen. What I stated earlier was a suggestion on how to fix the problem. Allowing change only into a creature that a character is at least somewhat familiar with (seen or has sufficient knowledge thereof) isn't a new idea though. That fix has been around since 2E (Skills and Powers I believe but I'm not going to drag out my old books). If you other DMs are allowing players to change into creatures that they are completely unfamiliar with think of the consequences. The forms they change into then could be thought of as coming from their imagination. If the forms are from the players (or DMs) imagination they don't have to stop with a monster in one of the books, they can invent their own with ability scores going into infinity (this is technically legal with RAW rules). So yes polymorph is damaged because it set too few limitations. However it is not completely broken. There is nothing in the rules that says a DM cannot tweak a rule when he sees it needs fixing. :) AS FAR AS SHAPECHANGE GOES BY RAW RULES YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE INTO A CREATURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH. "You can become just about anything you are familiar with". |
| meabolex03-10-06, 11:47 AM | Being "familiar" with a creature doesn't mean anything mechanically. I can read about a blue whale all my life and be intimately 'familiar' with its anatomy, habits, and appearance, but I wouldn't necessary have to fight one in combat. You can assume they meant you had to have a combat with a creature, and that's a logical assumption. However, no spell should require you to make guesses about what it actually means. |
| FallenArchon03-10-06, 03:03 PM | Indeed it doesn't mean anything mechanically and is open to interpretation. I actually like it that way. When I have to create a ruling mid-game for situations that are not clearly defined, it just part of the fun of being DM. Of course that is my personal prefrence and won't be everyones. I agree with you that you don't have to fight a creature to be able to take its shape. However in that situation I employ a character knowlege check or failing that a research cost for the creature in question. |
| Sylvain03-19-06, 07:39 PM | The Polymorph Act I am posting this thread in response to an article entitled “The Polymorph Problem”. link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a I’m only 26, pretty young in comparison to many people who have been playing D&D since the 1st edition, (I’ve been playing 2nd edition since I was around 12) but right now I feel like old Obi-wan, talking about the good old days of the Republic. Before the dark times. Now before I get blown away by everyone telling me that second edition sucked and times have changed and blah blah blah, I want to say that I sincerely love most everything about 3rd edition. 3.5 adds a lot of information and clarification that was essential and tremendously useful. Most of what the latest edition has done for the game has been spectacular - invaluable. I’ve read the latest errata, and much of it doesn’t seem like too big a deal. It seems to make things easier for DMs, as long as they don’t mind having the capabilities of their monsters diminished just a little. Just a little. The latest trend though, geared toward “equality and fairness” has been endangering the game itself by restructuring it, one rule, one ability, one spell at a time, and those of us who valued the older aspects of the game - the freeform, the danger, the uncertainty - have to speak up a little bit. At some point there has to be a time where one of us says “Stop worrying about this abstract concept of balance!” Balance is not important, at least, not as important as some might think it is, assuming it’s doable to begin with. People are going to have trouble if they try to equate the science of spells to the sharpness of a sword. Polymorph is criticized for having an “unbounded effect”. I say isn’t that what magic is? An unbounded effect? A bunch of weird craziness that some kooky mathematician/alchemist/scientist/singer/poet/philosopher/whatever put together and shot out hoping that nothing goes wrong? Magic is supposed to be weird and powerful and “problematic”. In the previous editions, each character class was not supposed to be equivalent to any of the other character classes. It takes twice as much experience for a 2nd edition wizard to reach level two than it does for a 2nd edition rogue (2500 compared to 1250), and the other editions had experience level inequalities as well. Since when does everything need to be balanced? I mean, it’s nice for reference. It’s nice for the DM to know how challenging the monsters are so that he doesn’t railroad the PCs. But honestly, who cares if one spell makes it possible that a character might not be perfectly set at the same “power level” (if such a thing could be truly and accurately measured anyway) with all the other ones? I mean, if you have here something that is, in a sense, limited only by the imagination of the player, isn’t that D&D? Isn’t that the nature of magic? How is “balance” supposed to make the game better? Does it cheer up the fighter to know that due to mathematical calculations and play-testing, his wizard friend has been modified, diminished and nerfed so that he now (assuming none of those random outside “variables” based upon human decisions and thought, as well as blind happenstance, get involved in the equation) has as close a chance as theoretically possible to 50% of defeating him in a one-on-one fight? How many hit points of damage is a knock spell equivalent to? Not everything can be equated to numbers. Not everything should be equated to numbers. I recall reading a brief mention about one of the designers working on Star Wars d20, that he had deliberately not included Force powers he had come up with in a book because they seemed “too good”, “too powerful” and would possibly throw off the game balance. That kind of thinking to me seems completely absurd, and contrary to the entire spirit of gaming! Every idea worth mentioning should be mentioned somewhere, especially the ones that are “too good”. (Besides, force-users could always use flashiness in an RPG of intergalactic heroism and drama.) I have faith in the DMs and players of the game to decide how they wish to play for themselves, which ideas to include and which not to, without being restrained by the hard, methodical movement that is taking place recently. The knock spell, actually should probably be banned too. It’s just not fair to the rogue character. And what about the fly spell? Since other classes can’t fly, it’s not fair that wizards and sorcerers get to, while the poor aforementioned fighter has to boot it. D&D has been in a period of tremendous flux for the last couple years, and I don’t think it’s all a change for the better. Eventually we may be left with a game with no choices, no uniqueness - where all save bonuses are exactly the same, everyone will have the same ability scores and skills, and somehow, after a nice saccharine imperial speech about “equitable play experience”, all mundane two-handed weapons will be removed from game-play, and somehow axes and hats (not magic hats - just hats) will have interfered somehow, and they’ll have to go too. I’m not sure what exactly Mark of Heroes is. I don’t know or care much about the living campaigns or RPGA. When I play D&D, it’s usually with a small group of close friends. If Mark of Heroes is supposed to be a form of D&D though, I find it ridiculous, obtuse, and almost profane that polymorphing effects are restricted in the campaign. This is wizardry! Magic! One of the trademark signature telltale signs that you can tell a wizard is a wizard is that he/she/it can turn people or things into other people or things. The same applies to the other spells in the “polymorph family” and their respective casters. “As part of our continuing effort to ensure a fair and equitable play experience for all participants, the polymorph spell and several related game elements have been designed as “restricted,” meaning that they are now unavailable for use in that campaign. If you’ve found these game elements to be problematic in your home game, we recommend that you implement the same change.” Recommendation noted. NO THANK YOU! Just a few years ago, under the rules for spell research (rules that are too often overlooked, which allow any player or DM to concoct his or her own unique spell based off of nothing but your own personal imaginative ideas), a typical player could come up with a spell similar to Polymorph Self or Polymorph Other (not the nerfed Baleful-you can only turn people into rabbits-Polymorph or whatever), place it at fourth level, or so, and expect no hassle about it. Now any spell suggestive of polymorphing capability is “restricted”, simply for being “too darn good”. I honestly don’t see what the hassle is about. And even if I did, I still would not restrict polymorphing in my games because it’s simply what spellcasters do. When I design an adventure, I always spend a little time cross-referencing the new material with the older stuff. I do this because much of the time I find that older spells and monsters have been softened up, dummied down from the previous, “truer” editions. I do this to give my players back the power that was originally meant for them (as well as for the monsters and NPCs) but has in recent years been taken away. I guess the designers feel the game has gotten “too dangerous” or something, I don’t know. I got tired of Sleep spells not working on peasant girls, Sanctuary not working on half-witted orcs because they beat the easy-as-pie DC 13 Will save (3.0 DMG page 93, 3.5 DMG page 31) even with a Wisdom score of 7 (30% chance of spell failure for what should be a more than ideal target). Save DCs level out quite a bit more for 3rd or 4th level spells and above, but low-level spells are virtually useless against the kind of targets that low-level spells should be directed at. (The response of my players, by the way, after seeing how ineffective magic had become, was to kill those that they would have left alive had their spells worked. Later they’d find it necessary to “power-game” or “min-max” so that they had one unbeatable skill or ability {have to get those numbers up} - and of course, they’d make sure to play a “more effective” class next time, like a fighter or barbarian. They see spellcasting characters a few levels ahead of their own go down pretty quickly now. All you really have to do is get them into melee range.) I’m not saying that it isn’t tremendous fun to have high numbers so your character can kick butt (because we all know that it is), however I find it disheartening when my players seem almost forced to abandon their original character concepts and creative ideas because of the unreasonability of the system, which favors a more brutal, numeric approach. This is part of another topic, but it is representative of the other more imperative problems the game faces. I’m not implying that spellcasters are not balanced in relation to other classes. And I’m not necessarily saying that spellcasters should be the most powerful classes either. I’m saying let a spellcaster be a spellcaster. If a rogue’s ability to disarm traps or pick locks interfered with the game, I would have to work around it. I wouldn’t say, “Well, that ability is obviously broken. No more of that.” *slaps hand* Let the heroes be heroes. If having a trademark ability of a wizard makes a wizard a little too powerful, a little unbalanced, don’t do anything in retaliation to him. Don’t make the wizard less of a wizard, or the druid less of a druid. I’ve seen spells get gradually weaker in power, Sleep, for example, used to require no save. 3rd Edition reduced it’s effectiveness by nearly 50%, and 3.5 cut it from 2d4 HD to “up to 4 HD” (on average the 3.0 version would effect 5 HD of creatures, and have maximum effectiveness of 8 HD). I’ve seen spells disappear with no explanation also. What’s the deal? Many would say that this is for the sake of “balance” - that reducing the spell’s power, levels things out, but many of these spells already had inherent limitations. I think there are more important issues for the designers to worry about. Aside from the DC thing with low-level magic, the biggest issue that I’ve seen that hasn’t yet been dealt with (unless there’s an errata I’ve missed) is the ridiculous base saving throw bonuses that multi-class characters receive. A 4th level Barbarian1/Fighter1/Cleric1/Druid1 (an extreme example, but it works in many situations where many classes - prestige or otherwise - are present) would have a base Fortitude save of +8. Normally you don’t see that kind of base save bonus until level twelve. This character would also have a base Will save of +4 (that of a single classed 4th-level Cleric or Druid), and Reflex base saving throw of +0. “Polymorph turns this situation on its head. Rather than its potency being defined by its rules text, its power level is defined by the entire catalog of available forms that the caster can assume. In essence, to know how powerful polymorph is, you must consult every single sourcebook that includes an aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin of 15 HD or less. Your options when using the spell are limited only by the number of books at hand (and how long the rest of the table is willing to wait for you to find the right choice).” Maybe if Wizards of the Coast were as concerned with putting out complete and condensed books (which would make things easier on the players - something the makers of GURPS have always aspired to do) as it is with making profits, I wouldn’t have forty two books on my table. Also, if one of my players actually shelled out the 20 to 40 bucks for a book so he could use material from it (no matter what his motivations might be, and as long as it’s canon material), I’m not going to tell him he can’t use it. Taking time from the game to look through books has always been an issue for D&D, and that problem has to do with preparation, not with one solitary spell. I feel like I did the first time I was told I couldn’t carry my backpack into 7-Eleven or the police would be called, the first time I heard about the Patriot Act, and recently, when I heard about South Dakota. You may say that I’ve really lost it, gone off the deep end, ranting about something that is simply just a game. But this is similar because it is all about restriction. And restricting the world of imagination is maybe one of the worst kinds. Did you guys ever stop and think before you go stomping off sterilizing everything with these precise and fastidious “corrections”, that maybe these “flaws” aren’t really flaws? For the love of everything fun, Andy Collins, please leave core D&D alone for a little while. Especially the spellcasters. I know I’m going to get a lot of flak for this post. I might even be banned from the boards (though I don't think I've done anything to violate the code of conduct). All I ask is that the depth of my words be taken into consideration before responding. People all over the world look to the designers of D&D for guidance in these imaginary dreamscapes. That is why this is an important subject. No matter how much effort is made to patch up these supposed “holes”, you’re always going to find the sorts of players who spend their time looking for new ones that they can exploit, and when they can’t find them, they’ll make them, ignoring the books, and the rules, and the DM, and the other players if they have to. I wonder if those in charge of D&D’s design are catering to the least mature gamers, frantically searching for methods to put a halt to devious nonsense like “Awaken Familiar Charisma grind”, and “2000-whatever-d6 damage hulking hurler thrown balls of iridium” (problems that can usually be resolved with a little bit of common sense on the part of the DM). People are going to act obnoxious. My advice to the game design team is to ignore them. Dealing with them is a job for the people at the game table, not the design table. If you are still that concerned with balancing the game out, to promote that feeling of fairness for everyone, give the wizard and sorcerer a +3 level adjustment, give the other spellcasting characters a +2 level adjustment, and call it a day. Just leave their existing spells and abilities alone. Thank you. |
| clik_ml03-20-06, 09:55 AM | That's a lot of effort and words, just to be invalidated by the fact that a level 7 wizard gets to out-fight the fighter in the fighter's *only* area of expertise after casting one spell. This isn't an obscure ruling, little known spell, or extreme cheese. This is bread and butter, meat and potatoes that invalidates half of the character classes in the PHB. That's a problem. It is a problem especially in the living campaigns (which have many thousands of active members who are likely much more consistent purchasers of wotc products) which are concerned with things such as balance since it can ruin the experience when half the table is turning into giants for combat and the traditional fighting types have to sit down and cry as their inferiority in their *only* schtick is flaunted. If you enjoy a total lack of balance where one player at the table is likely to consistently show up everyone else while they are forced to sit on their thumbs, might I suggest palladium books' games? :-) |
| FallenArchon03-20-06, 02:48 PM | I agree with Sylvian, this whole issue is nonsense. clik_ml I seriously doubt that anywhere close to half the the purchasers of of wotc products are active members of the "living campaigns." If you are worried about your fighter being out fought by a non "fighter type character" then you have a lot more than polymorph to worry about. Polymorph is just as much a part of the essence of D&D as say magic missile. Removing it or dumbing it down any form of the game is just in bad taste. |
| Rhysem03-24-06, 05:14 PM | I've read a number of threads about this and I can't believe how poorly this was done. Wildshape and you keep your old HP. But your equipment melds into your form and becomes useless. So if you have a +con item, your HP now goes to your base, unmodified HP. Your AC has probably dropped due to the change (most of the forms have fairly weak AC, which was compensated by the HP gains before), so it has left you more vulnerable. Plus the double-whammie of all your AC boosting items that might have worked before ceasing to function. (which, reading the rules ironically includes ioun stones now. They are part of "all of your equipment.") Were you using an amulet of mighty fists or similar before? None for you anymore: all your attacks in the new form will always be non-magic. Forget being effective against anything that is incorp or has a decent DR X/magic. Yet this change has still left open the abuse of: wildshape into a dire bear and cast bite of the werebear (Spell Compendium) and apply the bear's racial mods... twice! Sure, you don't get the con bonus to HP, but maybe the str 43 (or would it be 47? I forget if bite is +12 or +16. The latter for bear, I think -- I think +12 is tiger) will fix that. I'd go so far as to say you've made the druid a sub-par class compared to spirit shaman. With a dip for profencies (or feats), the shaman can wear heavy (metal) armor. You retain MOST of the druid's spell versitility (3 spells known at each level, chosen that morning so you can swap out spells known), gain casting abilitys (including your spirit guide, who nicely can call lightning bolts for you while you do... whatever you want), and absolutly rock anything that's considered a spirit for you (incorps, fey, elementals). As the shaman you lose: animal companion, wildshape, and spontanious summon nature's are the biggies. With this hit to wildshape, wouldn't you be better off just casting bite of the X or aspect of the X? As a side benefit, you have enough spells to do that all day too. I've been running a druid shapeshifter/spirit shaman mix in a gestalt module-crawl I'm in. It has been a good time, but if my DM wants to implement these rules... wildshape just became useless -- I can't afford the armor hit of it with my measly base ~60 hp at level 12 (I suck at rolling HP, DM insisted I do. Wildshape con boosts helped nicely, even with a base 10 con(+2 magic = 12 con)!) I, for one, welcome our new spirit shaman overlords. |
| Alac Luin03-25-06, 06:21 PM | (which, reading the rules ironically includes ioun stones now. They are part of "all of your equipment.") Actually, the line from the errata says... "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional." Technically, Ioun Stones are not worn or carried. :) |
| Amneth04-10-06, 11:07 AM | I'm not using this change. I don't like having to download eratta for what seems to be an excessive number of mistakes by WotC employed editors, much less a change of this magnitude. I've had to download enough errata with the 3.0 to 3.5 changes. I don't feel like altering my books because Andy Collin's and those who agree with him decided a spell is too good. To be quite honest, I'm hoping Andy Collin's is gone by the time Edition 4.0 comes out. He is the biggest culprit in the weakening of magic. It was his change that made Hold Person good for only coup de gras. No more setting up adventures to capture people with Hold Person or using it to eliminate an opponent while you dispatch his teammates, too much room for a lucky roll to break the spell. Better to cast it and set up a coup de gras so you don't feel like you wasted a spell. Invisilbility was neutered as a long range scouting spell. Short duration makes it little better than good for a room or two. Disintegrate change I didn't mind, but not the reason for it. Death spells should be in the game. Magic is powerful, it can snuff your life out. Weakening of powerful Shapechange spell without providing a workable alternative for casters who don't have immense coin. In fact, the entire Epic Spell System is poorly designed and overly reliant on huge sums of coin to make a few spells to use at epic level while saving throws and resistances increase at a much faster rate than spell DCs making non-epic spells almost useless against epic creatures. I'm getting real tired of the neutering of arcane casters, while warriors are doing ever increasing damage with arcane casters merely there as a support class to make sure they can actually get to their opponent to do damage. Right now in the campaign I run, the 2 h warrior is the king of damage in our group. No one even holds a candle to him. |
| Cardinal Teplin04-10-06, 01:35 PM | I've got to go with Sylvan here.... First off, balance isn't all that important. Pursuit of balance is largely self-defeating, because the more 'balanced' you make the game, the less restraint people feel when they find a combination that gives them an 'edge'. The less balanced the game is, the more people examine their choices (or are aimable to them being examined by a DM), to make sure they aren't part of the problem. If nothing else, I personally guarentee that I or my players can twink any combination of rules on earth. Trust me, you can't stop it, and it isn't worth messing the game up to try. Second, I appreciate what you're trying to do. Getting rid of one, rather bland, but variable spell, in favour of a great multitude of spells, each of which turns you into a different creature, and be balanced individually, published in splat books individually, and generally given it's own flavour, restrictions etc. Great. But you're not creating all that wonderful design potential. You're taking it from the player. I know several game designers who are obssessed with the idea of providing flavour for the player. In the end, however, the player is a better designer than you can be, because he's the one playing his character. Player options lead to better games, which is one of the reason why providing more and more options has become the main WOTC money-spinner, and why books that contain new capabilties are always so eagerly devoured. But the reason why players want these options is so they can design their own characters, not so they can have characters designed for them. It's why setting and background don't tend to sell so well. About half the gamers I know won't touch AD&D with a bargepole. I can't convince them to play it, because it's too restrictive. It's more concerned with balance than with imagination. It's more concerned with balance than with anything. But because 'balance' assumes a certain style of play (without that assumption you can't balance options against eachother) the range of games you can play with AD&D gets less and less as time goes on. I've used AD&D to run murder mystery games, anime style heroic adventure, high fantasy, low fantasy, political intrigue and personal horror. But I'm finding it harder and harder to vary the game style with each new update. I can run murder mystery minatures combat, anime style minature's combat, high fantasy minatures combat, personal horror minatures combat. It's not killing the game for me, largely because I'm a wargamer too, but I'm certainly getting increasing numbers of players who don't want their game dominated by the concern of what would be balance if we happened to be 6 adventures wandering down a hole in the ground. Balance only works in a particular context, and the harder you hammer home your own vision of what players do and don't do, the harder time we have actually using the game as anything other than a wargame. Has it occured to you that we need polymorph in the game for reasons totally unconnected to combat? I'm glad that everything was decoupled from polymorph, because trying to make all shapeshfiting work off the same mechanic was always a simplification that ignored the very different reasons that changing shape comes up in the game. But getting rid of it entirely, is just putting control over the product ahead of the interests of the players. If you think it's unbalanced, make it higher level. If you think it's too varied, emphasise restrictions (tying to personal experience or knowledge skills is an obvious mechnanic). But it should remain a player-defined effect. Its one of the last few left, and people want to keep it for good reason. |
| sukael04-10-06, 04:12 PM | Uh... they're not getting rid of Polymorph. All they've done, really, is specifically separate out ability definitions from the multiple layers of reference-to-this-other-thing they were using. |
| Objulen04-11-06, 09:20 AM | Uh... they're not getting rid of Polymorph. All they've done, really, is specifically separate out ability definitions from the multiple layers of reference-to-this-other-thing they were using. A more appropriate statement would be, "They're not getting rid of Polymorph, yet." This is simply a prelude to large changes to the spell. |
| Sylvain04-12-06, 11:37 AM | To be quite honest, I'm hoping Andy Collin's is gone by the time Edition 4.0 comes out. He is the biggest culprit in the weakening of magic. It was his change that made Hold Person good for only coup de gras. No more setting up adventures to capture people with Hold Person or using it to eliminate an opponent while you dispatch his teammates, too much room for a lucky roll to break the spell. Better to cast it and set up a coup de gras so you don't feel like you wasted a spell. 3.5 Hold Person is completely useless. I can imagine no scenario where a semi-intelligent spellcaster would even think to cast it. A nice length of rope, or a net, or any kind of a bow to just shoot the person, is far more reliable. The target of the spell doesn't even need to be lucky. Statistically the 3.5 version is hardly good for one round. Summon Monster I is pretty laughable too. Who really needs (or wants) a celestial badger for 6 seconds? With spells like these, I would literally (absolutely no sarcasm here whatsoever) just rather throw a rock at the enemies. Seriously, how much damage does a rock do? Depending on the target, trying to subdue him/her/it with a thrown rock might be more effective, and it wouldn't use up the spell. Regardless of which is better, the problem with the way magic in the game is headed is already apparent simply because of the fact that I can reasonably compare the two. I'd much rather play a peasant with a rock than a spellcaster with 3.5 Hold Person, if only to prove a point. I really like everything Cardinal Teplin said too - especially the last two paragraphs about balance and assumptions. I like the words "wargame", and "player-defined", and "hammer home your own vision of what players do and don't do". |
| Samwise04-12-06, 12:06 PM | 3.5 Hold Person is completely useless. I can imagine no scenario where a semi-intelligent spellcaster would even think to cast it. A nice length of rope, or a net, or any kind of a bow to just shoot the person, is far more reliable. The target of the spell doesn't even need to be lucky. Statistically the 3.5 version is hardly good for one round. Summon Monster I is pretty laughable too. Who really needs (or wants) a celestial badger for 6 seconds? Me. First, that one round of celestial badger is one round of free flanking. That +2 to hit means your fighter buddy gets to power attack for an extra 2 damage, and your rogue buddy get and extra d6 of sneak attack damage. Of course, that doesn't include if the badger hits (with a +4 on its claws, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility) for another point or two damage, augment summoning (another 2 damage per hit), Good or Summoning domain (so it hangs around for 2-4 rounds instead of 1 at 1st level), rapid spell (so at 3rd level you don't have to wait a full round for it to show up), or any other enhancements I'm sure I haven't thought of yet. As for hold person, the solution is obviously to cast it right before the other party members go so they can unleash the mega-beat down on him before he gets to try another save. Those spells are excessively easy to use if you are willing to make the effort to use them, instead of just looking at how much raw damage you can inflict with them yourself. Oh, and if you have played AD&D (1st and 2nd), then you should be well aware that polymorph was absurdly supercharged in 3E from what it was in those editions. I've pointed that out before, including full quotes as to just what polymorph, self and polymorph, other was capable of in the PHB 1. As I said then, there is absolutely nothing "iconic" about those spells from then, and nothing overly iconic about them now. All they are is overly powerful for their level. That doesn't make them iconic, just an obvious choice to overuse. |
| Sylvain04-12-06, 03:48 PM | First, that one round of celestial badger is one round of free flanking. That +2 to hit means your fighter buddy gets to power attack for an extra 2 damage, and your rogue buddy get and extra d6 of sneak attack damage. Of course, that doesn't include if the badger hits (with a +4 on its claws, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility) for another point or two damage, augment summoning (another 2 damage per hit), Good or Summoning domain (so it hangs around for 2-4 rounds instead of 1 at 1st level), rapid spell (so at 3rd level you don't have to wait a full round for it to show up), or any other enhancements I'm sure I haven't thought of yet. You're assuming that the wizard has a fighter buddy and a rogue buddy, and numerous feats or domains, and even with all that the spell is still pretty lame in my opinion. I don't have anything against extra-planar badgers :rolleyes: but it just seems a little silly to me - maybe because it seems like this is supposed to be a combat-oriented spell. It seems like it devalues magic. Like, I could just train an attack dog or bring a familiar or hire a soldier for the day for a gold piece and it would be better. It just doesn't seem very heroic. It's more like comic relief. As for hold person, the solution is obviously to cast it right before the other party members go so they can unleash the mega-beat down on him before he gets to try another save. Those spells are excessively easy to use if you are willing to make the effort to use them, instead of just looking at how much raw damage you can inflict with them yourself. Sleep does the same thing with a longer duration (without the numerous repeated saves), and it works on living creatures other than humanoids (it doesn't work on creatures with more than 4 HD, but neither will Hold Person if the creature has any kind of positive number for a save bonus). If all you want to do is beat the person up anyway, you might as well just attack him/her to begin with, and most likely with a higher chance of success. I'm not talking about raw damage at all. The spell inflicts no damage, and I would simply like for it to work (like it did in 2nd and other previous editions), so I'm actually talking about inflicting the least amount of damage in the case of Hold Person. Oh, and if you have played AD&D (1st and 2nd), then you should be well aware that polymorph was absurdly supercharged in 3E from what it was in those editions. I've pointed that out before, including full quotes as to just what polymorph, self and polymorph, other was capable of in the PHB 1. As I said then, there is absolutely nothing "iconic" about those spells from then, and nothing overly iconic about them now. All they are is overly powerful for their level. That doesn't make them iconic, just an obvious choice to overuse. I have played 2nd edition and I'm not at all sure what you mean by "absurdly supercharged". The 3.0 duration for Polymorph Self is longer than in 2nd edition, and the chance for the polymorphed creature to adopt the mentality (as well as spell-like, supernatural and extraordinary abilities) of the assumed form had been removed from the 3.0 version of Polymorph Other (essentially the polymorphed creature had a chance to eventually lose itself and become the new creature). In 3.0 "the subject regains lost hit points as if having rested for a day". Otherwise the spell seems to be exactly the same as 2nd edition. These are the only changes I've noticed, and they don't seem that tremendous to me. I'd like to see your analysis though. Do you have a link? I also don't see how you can refer to the existence of the spell in every other edition of D&D (a 35 year history for D&D - not to mention countless other unrelated movies, fairy tales, legends, and books) and then say that the spell isn't iconic. I can tell you that whatever spells WotC intends on replacing the main Polymorph spells with, (Displacer Beast Form or whatever) certainly won't be. |
| Samwise04-13-06, 12:23 AM | You're assuming that the wizard has a fighter buddy and a rogue buddy, and numerous feats or domains, and even with all that the spell is still pretty lame in my opinion. I don't have anything against extra-planar badgers :rolleyes: but it just seems a little silly to me - maybe because it seems like this is supposed to be a combat-oriented spell. It seems like it devalues magic. Like, I could just train an attack dog or bring a familiar or hire a soldier for the day for a gold piece and it would be better. It just doesn't seem very heroic. It's more like comic relief. As opposed to assuming the wizard is all alone, using a spell he doesn't have the build to support? I'm pretty sure every spell is pretty silly on that level. You may as well say magic missile is useless because it tops out at 25 damage. And as for silly effects, any spell with a mere 15 ft. cone strikes me as rather absurd, especially if you wind up facing creatures with reach. Sleep does the same thing with a longer duration (without the numerous repeated saves), and it works on living creatures other than humanoids (it doesn't work on creatures with more than 4 HD, but neither will Hold Person if the creature has any kind of positive number for a save bonus). If all you want to do is beat the person up anyway, you might as well just attack him/her to begin with, and most likely with a higher chance of success. I'm not talking about raw damage at all. The spell inflicts no damage, and I would simply like for it to work (like it did in 2nd and other previous editions), so I'm actually talking about inflicting the least amount of damage in the case of Hold Person. Sleep takes a full round to cast. And Hold Person from an 18 Int is DC 17. Barring any items, which you seem to disdain, an 8th level Fighter or Rogue has a base Will Save of +2. That is a 70% chance of failing the save. That seems pretty dang good to me. I agree, the repeat saves are more than a tad lame, and severely weaken the spell. (Just as making Sleep a full round and only 4 HD instead of 2d4 HD weakens it severely.) But it doesn't make it so utterly useless as you are suggesting. I have played 2nd edition and I'm not at all sure what you mean by "absurdly supercharged". . . . Otherwise the spell seems to be exactly the same as 2nd edition. These are the only changes I've noticed, and they don't seem that tremendous to me. I'd like to see your analysis though. Do you have a link? Just pull your PHB 1 out again. In both 1st and 2nd ed AD&D, the Polymorph spell was Polymorph (self). It worked only on the caster, and it granted only appearance and natural movement. No AC. No natural attacks. No hp. No anything other than appearance and natural movement. Baleful Polymorph was Polymorph (other). Yes, it had a chance to assume the mentality of the creature changed into. It also had a chance for outright death. If you had a 5% chance of death every time Polymorph was cast on you, as well as a 5% chance of losing your mind each time (assuming high enough saves of course), would you still use the spell every chance possible? I also don't see how you can refer to the existence of the spell in every other edition of D&D (a 35 year history for D&D - not to mention countless other unrelated movies, fairy tales, legends, and books) and then say that the spell isn't iconic. Just because the spell has been in every version doesn't make it iconic. Iconic means that every wizard always learned it, and always used it. Given the dangers of Polymorph (other), and the limits of Polymorph (self), neither was all that iconic. Magic Missile, Mage Armor, Shield, Fireball, they were iconic. Polymorph? Not even close. As for shapechanging in movies, books, and legends, I suggest you look again. It is hardly common among mortals, and most often appears as lycanthropy or something trickster deities engage in. Rarely does some evil person turn into a dragon or the like. |
| Tecrogue04-13-06, 06:55 AM | A Varient that my DM uses is that to be abe to polymorph something, they have to make a knowledge (Creature Type) to decide if the caster is familiar enough with something to change something else into it. A vaient of this would be decreasing the check DC depending on how often the character has encountered what they are wanting to polymorph the target into. |
| DIESCUMDIE04-13-06, 08:39 AM | If all you want to use polymorph for is for a combat boost I recomend the unearthed arcana aspect of nature wildshape variant. That way you can use your wild shape to fly and still cast spells, or gain natural attacks and strength bonuses etc. Basically everything polymorph does but with sensible numbers. Its what I've always used as a druid. Changing into a troll or whatever for free is nuts when if a fighter wants to be a troll he has to pay a level adjustment. Otherwise if you want polymorph for flavour then why are you bothered about the rules: My proposed house rule for my next game (now that these boards have pursuaded me polymorph is a bad idea) is just that you become completely a monster of the challenge rating of the spell level (you can use heighten spell for boost) including inteligence and charisma. You become the alignment and so on. You keep your memories and can end the spell at any time. Obviously thats a large powerloss, but you still have good utility. You can become a bird to fly away or an ogre to grapple etc. You cant cast spells other than another polymorph when as a monster (unless that monster has spells). This seems like the way it worked in that disney movie the sword in the stone, or whatever it was called. I'm quiete sure the only reason you want polymorph to stay the same is that your found of being the most powerful one at the table |
| FallenArchon04-13-06, 10:42 PM | Changing into a troll or whatever for free is nuts when if a fighter wants to be a troll he has to pay a level adjustment. Fighters have to pay a lvl adjustment because they are always a troll and have all the abilitys of a troll. Polymorph has a duration and the caster doesn't even gain the main advantage of being a troll regeneration. Otherwise if you want polymorph for flavour then why are you bothered about the rules: My proposed house rule for my next game (now that these boards have pursuaded me polymorph is a bad idea) is just that you become completely a monster of the challenge rating of the spell level (you can use heighten spell for boost) including inteligence and charisma. You become the alignment and so on. You keep your memories and can end the spell at any time. Obviously thats a large powerloss, but you still have good utility. You can become a bird to fly away or an ogre to grapple etc. You cant cast spells other than another polymorph when as a monster (unless that monster has spells). This seems like the way it worked in that disney movie the sword in the stone, or whatever it was called. OMFG. You really need to redesign your house rule. Since you are getting your inspiration from Disney, I guess that explains your wacky rules and POV. Disney has a long history of misrepresentation and defemation of the stories it has used in its movies (look up the definition of those words and see if you can find a simular situation). :D I'm quiete sure the only reason you want polymorph to stay the same is that your found of being the most powerful one at the table.The reason I dont want massive changes to polymorph is because not only does it give lots of options to players and DMs alike. But Polymorph is important both as a historical aspect to fantasy literature and D&D. To remove it from the game system would have a horrid effect on how characters experience their favorite campaign setting (such as Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc. which have frequent reference to the ability). |
| DIESCUMDIE04-14-06, 05:09 AM | Fighters have to pay a lvl adjustment because they are always a troll and have all the abilitys of a troll. Polymorph has a duration and the caster doesn't even gain the main advantage of being a troll regeneration. Alright bad example, but many monsters have a large lvl adjustment based purely on their improved strength and many attacks. Basically hit dice is a bad way of gauging powerlevel. With natural spell and polymorph you become an instant gish with no loss of caster level as far as I see. The reason I dont want massive changes to polymorph is because not only does it give lots of options to players and DMs alike. But Polymorph is important both as a historical aspect to fantasy literature and D&D. To remove it from the game system would have a horrid effect on how characters experience their favorite campaign setting (such as Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc. which have frequent reference to the ability). From my reading experience, polymorph in fantasy lit is mainly for the purpouse of blending in, dragons hiding as humans, or gaining advantages of the form other than purely combat advantages, such as flight or the ability to get into small cracks. Possibly my house rule is an absolute turd, no one in the group seemed like they wanted to use it for their character, oh well, leave it to the professionals I guess :) |
| Sylvain04-14-06, 07:18 AM | As opposed to assuming the wizard is all alone, using a spell he doesn't have the build to support? I'm pretty sure every spell is pretty silly on that level. You may as well say magic missile is useless because it tops out at 25 damage. And as for silly effects, any spell with a mere 15 ft. cone strikes me as rather absurd, especially if you wind up facing creatures with reach. Eh, yeah 15 feet is pretty short I agree. I have no clue how to interpret anything else you said though. A summoning spell with that short of a duration seems designed for combat. And one usually "calls for reinforcements" when they're outnumbered. Flanking seems like a nice tactical idea but if that's all you can do with it, (assuming the spacing and conditions even allow for it).... ? It's kind of like this Power Word: Distract spell mentioned on another thread. Did the designer of that spell even hear the irony in the title? It's turning spellcasters into comic relief characters. For 0-level spells that's fine: apprentice stuff, whatever. Level 1 and up should be actual magic. Sleep takes a full round to cast. And Hold Person from an 18 Int is DC 17. Barring any items, which you seem to disdain, an 8th level Fighter or Rogue has a base Will Save of +2. That is a 70% chance of failing the save. That seems pretty dang good to me. I agree, the repeat saves are more than a tad lame, and severely weaken the spell. (Just as making Sleep a full round and only 4 HD instead of 2d4 HD weakens it severely.) But it doesn't make it so utterly useless as you are suggesting. Intelligence (or any ability) of 18 (at any level below epic) is really high. And since Hold Person is also a 2nd level spell for Bards and Clerics, the average DC is much closer to 15 or 16. I think an 8th level character/creature should have a reasonably nice chance of saving against a spell, but this is about a 40% chance of spell failure for the target's "poor" saves. Against "good" saves, things are even worse. With a nearly 50% chance (or higher) of having every/any spell you cast fail, it's easy for me to see how a spellcasting character could easily go through an entire session and have nothing work against anything. With a spell like 3.5 Hold Person, when they get to attempt a save first when you cast it, and then every round.... !? You're lucky if they stay frozen for even one round. This is like, not even tolerable for a 0-level spell. It might make an ok first level spell if the DC were substantially higher. Like I've said though, I think there's a big problem with the whole spell DC thing at lower levels, and then again at really high levels. Things are kind of balanced with mid-level magic at mid- caster levels (like 10-20). After and before that they're all screwed up. You can suggest feats and items and ability increases if you want, but the enemies/targets can use them to the same or greater effect in defense of magic. Furthermore, if we players are "expected" to use such "options", then they aren't (as Cardinal Teplin pointed out earlier) really options. Just pull your PHB 1 out again. In both 1st and 2nd ed AD&D, the Polymorph spell was Polymorph (self). It worked only on the caster, and it granted only appearance and natural movement. No AC. No natural attacks. No hp. No anything other than appearance and natural movement. Baleful Polymorph was Polymorph (other). Yes, it had a chance to assume the mentality of the creature changed into. It also had a chance for outright death. If you had a 5% chance of death every time Polymorph was cast on you, as well as a 5% chance of losing your mind each time (assuming high enough saves of course), would you still use the spell every chance possible? Those risks might discourage a person from using the spell on allies in a fight I suppose, but many spellcasters in literature and movies and such often use the spell against their enemies, and then those minor risks (which usually aren't present in polymorphing in places other than D&D) would technically be considered advantages (though I've seldom heard of a wizard being worried about a transformation outcome of death- unless the caster were worried about his/her own skill at magic, and even then the target doesn't ever die). As for polymorph self, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. If it only granted appearance, movement and breathing, without granting anything else physical, than this would be something more like a messed up illusion spell. In the description for 2nd edition polymorph self (which is shorter than, and comes directly after polymorph other), it states in the first sentence, "...the wizard is able to assume the form of any creature..." The polymorph other description (right before polymorph self) states, "Form includes natural Armor Class (that due to skin toughness, but not due to quickness, magical nature, etc.), physical movement abilities (walking, swimming, and flight with wings, but not plane shifting, blinking, teleporting, etc.), and attack routines... but not petrification, breath weapons, energy drain, etc.)" It also states under polymorph self: "Naturally, the strength of the new form is sufficient to enable normal movement." It sounds like both polymorph spells let you assume the basic physical form of the creature, but leave out all supernatural, spell-like, and extraordinary abilities - just like in 3.0. If this still doesn't make sense, you just have to think: does the caster actually have the claws/feet/gills/wings/skin/scales/mass/ability scores/whatever, or doesn't he/she? If he/she doesn't, then this is an illusion. If he/she does, then it makes sense that the polymorphed caster can use them, even if awkwardly. I mean, if you polymorph into a creature that, for no reason whatsoever, is missing it's teeth and tail and claws and doesn't have enough strength to support it's own body weight, or enough dexterity to flap it's wings fast enough to fly (and if it has wings and can fly, but for some reason has no wing attacks), then you have some sort of contradictory problem. I just think 2nd edition wasn't as thorough as 3.0 - they didn't list ability scores for monsters or as easily distinguish between "natural" and "extraordinary" - they weren't as physically defined. Since this is an alteration spell and not an illusion - and it states it in the text, and reason seems to follow it, I'm inclined to think that natural attacks/abilities/whatever are allowed, or at least that they should be. So even if there is a change in 3.0, it seems like an essential one, just for the sake of logic. Just because the spell has been in every version doesn't make it iconic. Iconic means that every wizard always learned it, and always used it. Given the dangers of Polymorph (other), and the limits of Polymorph (self), neither was all that iconic. Magic Missile, Mage Armor, Shield, Fireball, they were iconic. Polymorph? Not even close. As for shapechanging in movies, books, and legends, I suggest you look again. It is hardly common among mortals, and most often appears as lycanthropy or something trickster deities engage in. Rarely does some evil person turn into a dragon or the like. Wow, uh... You're just flat-out wrong on this point. Circe? Merlin? Maleficent? Grimm's Fairy Tales? Willow? I wasn't even thinking of him at first, and it's completely ironic for me to say this (given your name), but even Samwise Gamgee pleads to Gandalph "don't turn me into anything - unnatural". There's even a proverbial expression, like, in America, about "witches turning children into toads" or some such? And in these stories, polymorph doesn't have any chance of killing the target, so I agree with that change in 3.0. I do like the idea of retaining the mentallity of the creature and becoming lost in it though. That should be kept. Why are magic missile and shield iconic (which appear almost exclusively in D&D), and polymorph self and polymorph other - which are in like, everything (including D&D) - not iconic? Magic in very old legends (where none of the mortals have magic, or those that do have magic get it from deities or some other source) is usually what some spirit or fairy or deity does, but it is still magic. |
| Samwise04-14-06, 03:22 PM | For 0-level spells that's fine: apprentice stuff, whatever. Level 1 and up should be actual magic. Power is in the ability of the user. I can use 0-Level spells to exceptional effect. It all depends on what you can come up with to make the spells useful. If you constantly think in terms of direct damage, you will always find them less than useful. As for the value of flanking or other benefits of an otherwise "useless" 1st level summoning spell, I've used them to extreme effect in Living Arcanis adventures, both providing flanking for rogues, to have a chance to trip when critical, to throw out a creature than can swim on a moment's notice, or just to have something to rush forward to suck up an AOO. Intelligence (or any ability) of 18 (at any level below epic) is really high. Intellgence (or any key ability for spellcasting) below 18 above 4th level is REALLY LOW. At least in all games that I play. And when the gray elves start showing up, the Int 20 1st level wizards start to swarm. You can suggest feats and items and ability increases if you want, but the enemies/targets can use them to the same or greater effect in defense of magic. Furthermore, if we players are "expected" to use such "options", then they aren't (as Cardinal Teplin pointed out earlier) really options. You are expected to use options to increase the power of your chosen character concept. You may as well insist that Power Attack isn't really an option for Fighters using two-handed weapons at that rate. Any such example can be taken to an absurd level. It is not outrageous to imagine that someone who wants to focus on summoning creatures is going to take summoning enhancement feats any more that it is to expect that someone who will fight with a particular weapon will have feats to enhance the use of that weapon. Those risks might discourage a person from using the spell on allies in a fight I suppose, but many spellcasters in literature and movies and such often use the spell against their enemies, . . . Which would probably be why nobody has any issues with the Baleful Polymorph spell. As for "many spellcasters in literature and movies," perhaps you would care to offer a list.I recall very, very few. As for polymorph self, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. [QUOTE] Given how you cut what you quoted, I'm quite sure you don't. When this spell is cast, the wizard is able to assume the form of any creature, save those that are incorporeal, from as small as a wren to as large as a hippopotamus. Furthermore, the wizard gains its physical mode of locomotion and breathing as well. No system shock roll is required. The spell does not give the new form's other abilities (attack, magic, special movement, etc.), nor does it run the risk of changing personality and mentality. When the polymorph occurs, the caster's equipment, if any, melds into the new form (in particularly challenging campaigns, the DM may allow protective devices, such as a ring of protection, to continue operating effectively). The caster retains all mental abilities, including spell use, assuming the new form allows completion of the verbal and somatic components and the material components are available. A caster not used to a new form might be penalized at the DM's option (e.g., a -2 penalty to attack rolls) until he practices sufficiently to master it. Thus a wizard changed into an owl could fly, but his vision would be human; a change to a black pudding would enable movement under doors or along halls and ceiling, but not the pudding's offensive (acid) or defensinve capabilities. Naturall, the strength of the new form is sufficient to enable normal movement. The spellcaster can change his form as often as desired for the duration of the spell, each change requiring a round. The wizard retains his own hit points, attack rolls, and saving throws. The wizard can end the spell at any time; when voluntarily returning to his own form and ending the spell, he ragins 1d12 hit points. The wizard also will return to his own form when slain or when the effect is dispelled, but no hit points are restored in these cases. Now all that seems exceptionally clear to me. You get nothing but movement and breathing and appearance. No attacks. No extra powers. As for Strength, it must be remembered that prior to 3E, the Strength statistic, particularly for monsters, did NOT provide many active damages bonuses. It would instead appear solely as a higher base damage range. (For instance, hill giants did 2d8 damage.) So claiming a change to allow a damage bonus in 3E/3.5 would be an error. Instead, the intent is clearly that Strength is proportionate to the form for allowing movement, much as a 10 Str Centaur can still walk around, and isn't a quivering, helpless, hulk on the floor, despite not being able to lift the body weight of a horse. [QUOTE]Wow, uh... You're just flat-out wrong on this point. Circe? Merlin? Maleficent? Grimm's Fairy Tales? Willow?[QUOTE] Circe used Baleful Polymorph, and is one character in all of Greek Myth. Merlin uses polymorph when? A few minor instances in The Once And Future King version? When in the older versions? Maleficent is part of the cartoon, and not the original story. Further, that level of ability is clearly on the lines of the shapechange spell, which is acceptable for a 9th level spell. Grimm's Fairy Tales is much too general a term. How many people run around polymorphing instead of being were-wolves and the like? Willow is again more modern, popular fantasy, and hardly indicative of anything iconic. As for being wrong, if that is your entire list, you prove just how atypical such abilities are. [QUOTE]I wasn't even thinking of him at first, and it's completely ironic for me to say this (given your name), but even Samwise Gamgee pleads to Gandalph "don't turn me into anything - unnatural". There's even a proverbial expression, like, in America, about "witches turning children into toads" or some such? And in these stories, polymorph doesn't have any chance of killing the target, so I agree with that change in 3.0. I do like the idea of retaining the mentallity of the creature and becoming lost in it though. That should be kept. In other words, baleful polymorph. Again, I don't think there are any issues with baleful polymorph. Feel free to run around changing yourself and other party members into toads and fluffy bunnies and what not all you like. Why are magic missile and shield iconic (which appear almost exclusively in D&D), and polymorph self and polymorph other - which are in like, everything (including D&D) - not iconic? Except they aren't in like, everything. Polymorph (other)/Baleful Polymorph is pretty ubiquitous. The weak form of Polymorph/(self) is significantly more rare. And full Shapechange is quite unusual, although apparently more favored than Polymorph/(self). What they aren't is actually iconic. They do not define magic. They are not absolutely mandatory to appear to define the presence of "magic" in a story. Even when they appear, they are often caught up with an alternate explanation, like lycanthropy, rather than being just learned magic. |
| Qube04-15-06, 11:05 AM | i think the best way of balancing the polymorph spell is just give a list of monsters that are aceptable. This is based on the balance of summon monster: it does not say 'summon a CR 1 creature' or 'summon a 1HD creature' it gives a list. my group uses the following house rule for polymorph/shapechange stuff: only polymorph in creatures your character knows in-game (1) any normal animal your character knows cat, dog, horse, mule, donkey, wolf, bear... the creatures anyone knows. this list is bigger for druids and people with knowledge(nature), where it is extended to any 'normal' animal ( all creatures from the MM animal setting exept polar bear, ... ) (2) any monster you've seen (2a) from encounters if you encountered a centaur or battled a minotaur; this creature is added to the list (it is the players responsability to remember); if you battled a specific character (the half-dragon minotaur from the blue hills), this specific creature is added (you can't change into a half-dragon minotaur but the specific NPC is added to the list (2b) from roleplay point of view if you play the son of a famous dragon-slayer, and you've been hunting with your father/mother, this allows iconic creatures in your list (so this rule gives a player the oppertunity to make a wizard who only/mostly polymorphs in one kind of creature) (3) any normal* monster below a CR, decided by the DM this is when you start high level, this gives you a starting list for rule (2); you could say this that a lvl 5 character has seen all CR 1 creatures*. templates are not allowed with this rule (to many powerplay possibilities) (3a) some other stronger monsters if the starting area is infested with trolls, your lvl 10 character may have seen all CR 5 creatures* and any troll (cave troll, ...) with CR 8 of below this adds some flavor to rule (3) the * notes that a lvl 5 character has not yet seen all creatures so some exception will probably be made (example a CR 1 devil for a lvl 5 character (if the devil is not summonable) |
| Qube04-15-06, 11:41 AM | Sylvain Why are magic missile and shield iconic (which appear almost exclusively in D&D), and polymorph self and polymorph other - which are in like, everything (including D&D) - not iconic? (A) because all PC wizards know magic missle, and only a small group of PC wizards know polymorph ( -> only the high level ones) (B) every NPC wizard knows magi missle. If the DM wanted you to fight a troll, he would have sent a troll, not a high level polymorphed wizard Samwise Intellgence (or any key ability for spellcasting) below 18 above 4th level is REALLY LOW. At least in all games that I play. for min/maxed PCs that is. And i 'dd shay INT 18 at lvl 4 is normal, not really low. not everybody gets rolls 18, not everybody saves avery penny to buy a headband of INT+2. (some of us save every penny to by a headband of INT +6 :) ) Someone Circe used Baleful Polymorph, and is one character in all of Greek Myth. Yeah sure DONT look at the gods. your talking about greek mytholigy here: Zeus anyone??? golden rain, bulls, ... can anyone guess the 3 things he didn't polymorph in? <plz don't awnser this> polymorph is the favorite mythology spell, because this means people can claim to have seen <fill in a god/devine beeing> / or because the writer uses an image to identiy a devine beeing (ex. saton 10-horned/7-heanded dragon) same someone Grimm's Fairy Tales is much too general a term. How many people run around polymorphing instead of being were-wolves and the like? first thing that comes to mind: - the witch turned into an apple-salesperson (i don't know (nor care) if thise is actually a Grimm's Fairy Tale) polymorph is the spell most used for people who are hiding their presence because they don't want to attraced attention ex. the apple sales person ex. mythology ex. Sesshoumaru/Naruko/ (for manga/anime-fan's) ex. Naruto's Henge (shape change technique) (for manga/anime-fan's) (oke, perhaps not Naruto's Henge is NOT because he doesn't want the attention) |
| Samwise04-15-06, 12:06 PM | for min/maxed PCs that is. And i 'dd shay INT 18 at lvl 4 is normal, not really low. not everybody gets rolls 18, not everybody saves avery penny to buy a headband of INT+2. (some of us save every penny to by a headband of INT +6 :) ) The default assumption of the rules is point buy, not rolling. And the most common point buy for spellcasters is an 18 in their spellcasting ability. As for saving to buy a headband +6, upgrade. Yeah sure DONT look at the gods. your talking about greek mytholigy here: Zeus anyone??? golden rain, bulls, ... can anyone guess the 3 things he didn't polymorph in? <plz don't awnser this> None of which changes were for fighting. He used them for disguise (and naughtiness) only. Which would be what Polymorph (self) used to be for. first thing that comes to mind: - the witch turned into an apple-salesperson (i don't know (nor care) if thise is actually a Grimm's Fairy Tale) That sounds significantly more like Disguise Self than Polymorph to me. It is really quite simple. Polymorph is for sneaking around or turning enemies into toads. Shape change is for fighting. That is how it is portrayed in myth. (For the few individuals that actually shapechange that is.) There are special abilities to get the shape change effect. And there is a significant difference in the level of spell involved. |
| Qube04-15-06, 01:16 PM | The default assumption of the rules is point buy, not rolling. And the most common point buy for spellcasters is an 18 in their spellcasting ability. actually i think thats incorrect: i don't think that many not-powerplayers are prepared to put 16 points in for just one stat; especially if with the last 6 points from (16 to 18) you could boost a stat from 8 (-1) to 14 (+2) PB25 only leaves 9 points: - for health (i've seen 8 con wizards: they come, but go realy fast: 3hp start, 1d4-1 hp per level; at low level: toughness rules for wizard: the difference between 1 attack kills you and 1 attack gives you the oppertunity to run), - for AC and ranged touch attack (unless you go for area attacks, you've got a couple of good defenders, and dumb enemies), - good look ("but hey, who need charisma?"), - strength (but we all know that enemies don't grapple;you don't need carring capacity; you'll never get in mellee ; and you always have POLYMORPH ... oh wait) - wisdom (but your a spellcaster: you already have a good will save; so no need for wisdom, no need to be thinking straight) with INT 18, you make a wiz good at nothing but casting spells: sounds dangerously like powerplaying to me... As for saving to buy a headband +6, upgrade. i though you could only upgrade weapons It is really quite simple. Polymorph is for sneaking around or turning enemies into toads. Shape change is for fighting. That is how it is portrayed in myth seeing that shape change is just a high level variant of polymorph; i don't quite get the remark? perhaps sneaking around is a little bit easier as a incroporeal creature (difrence polymorph <-> shape change) ? would only near epic (lvl 17+) wizards be able to change and fight? perhaps someone then should make a spell 'lesser shape change'. lesser shape change transmutation level: Sor/Wiz 4 This spell functions like Polymorph. |
| Samwise04-15-06, 02:29 PM | . . . with INT 18, you make a wiz good at nothing but casting spells: sounds dangerously like powerplaying to me... And? Something is wrong with powergaming? And it has to be powergaming if you don't have all average stats? Only people with the default array (15 14 13 12 10 8) are playing "right"? I don't think so. i though you could only upgrade weapons You can upgrade anything that has multiple levels of the same basic form. seeing that shape change is just a high level variant of polymorph; i don't quite get the remark? perhaps sneaking around is a little bit easier as a incroporeal creature (difrence polymorph <-> shape change) ? The difference is the level of spell required. For what it does now, Polymorph is barely weaker than Shapechange, yet it is only a 4th level spell. That is simply too much. |
| Qube04-15-06, 03:27 PM | And? Something is wrong with powergaming? And it has to be powergaming if you don't have all average stats? Only people with the default array (15 14 13 12 10 8) are playing "right"? I don't think so. you have walked into a trap my friend the original point was that when you calculate effects from (ESPECIALLY with statistics) you should do this with an average character; you responded that in your campaign the average int for a wiz is 18; i replayed that an 18 on int is powerplay; and now you are dangerously close to admitting that 18 is not an average ability score. and by the way: when calculating DC's and comparing spells the default array IS used, not an base of 18 for the spellcasting stat. to return the the original point: if you calculate your DC at INT 18; why not presume the fighter or rogue has iron will (each of my characters will low will base has this feat for fear aura's and such and yes i take it on level 1 or 3) and a wisdom of 14? (4th most important stat for fighters; 3rd for rogues) The difference is the level of spell required. For what it does now, Polymorph is barely weaker than Shapechange, yet it is only a 4th level spell. That is simply too much. question: if Polymorph(lvl4) is barely weaker than Shapechange(lvl9), why is it not a level 6/7/8 spell? the disigners of the revised core 3.5 have a little more experience then you i think and they still put it on level 4. that is 5 LEVELS difference for a spell that is barely weaker? this spell level is NEVER changed in errata's. diferences: polymorph: - only aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin - HD limit 15 - extraordinary special attacks, but does not extraordinary special qualities shapechange: - any nonunique creature (allows incorporeal / gaseous form) - HD limit 25 - extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) - You can change form once each round as a free action the fact that you gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities is WAAAAY bigger than only the extraordinary special attacks ex. attacks: sneak attack, improved grab, ... ex./su. attack/quality: everything that isn't a spelllike ability (every ability that isn't a word of 2 away from a default PHB spell like summon wine or summon tanarri) : ex. aura of fear, blindsense, ... chapechange can be reverted at will: you can cast it in preperation of combat -----> BIG + : combat vs dragon and minions: sorcerer casts shapechange pre-combat and start as balor: combat round 1: aura of fear(charisma based !! Bye Bye minions) + own spellcasting + change to a creature immune to the type of the dragon dragon grapples you: POOF: your now a incorpreal ghost -> problem solved dragon flys away: go after him with a form that flies faster + shapechanges lasts 10x as long as polymorph (around 3 houres per spell) -> cast once if you start dungeon crawling |
| Samwise04-15-06, 03:50 PM | you have walked into a trap my friend the original point . . . No, the original point was that Polymorph has been made way overpowered in 3.5, especially compared to AD&D, and comparing the save DC on Charm Person as a way of saying that spell has been made useless as some sort of justification for something or other, is irrelevant. question: if Polymorph(lvl4) is barely weaker than Shapechange(lvl9), why is it not a level 6/7/8 spell? For the same reason so many other spells were changed from 3E to 3.5, and more spells changed from whatever book they appeared in to the Spell Compendium: They made a mistake. the disigners of the revised core 3.5 have a little more experience then you i think and they still put it on level 4. Despite it being fashionable for everyone and their brother to claim to have played D&D from the moment it was released, if not giving a date that means they were part of Gygax's or Arneson's playtest groups, or having started to play when they were 5 years old, I rather doubt that. And the fact that they have seen fit to declare the spell broken now rather proves that experience aside, they have come to the same conclusion I have - They made a mistake. that is 5 LEVELS difference for a spell that is barely weaker? this spell level is NEVER changed in errata's. Several spells have had their levels changed from 3E to 3.5, and other books to the Spell Compendium. So you are still mistaken about the degrees of change. And while making such mistakes is indeed irritating, it only becomes a problem when nobody is willing to correct it. At least with Polymorph they have finally admitted the problem. Hopefully, just as they realized they broke Shield when changing it for 3E, they will eventually revert Polymorph to be more like the old version as well. |
| Qube04-16-06, 04:45 AM | I keep hearing the same hideous, HORRIBLE fix ideas again and again. The caster needs to have seen the monster first. All you've done now is prevent the DM from using cool monsters, because you're too lazy to fix the spell. Good job. have you ever looked at some monsters: - the outsides <- good choice to shape change for their abilities; polymorph (=only ex. attacks) doesn't do much - the others <- masive HD's (check the dragons, and the undead° and by the way: now players are yust as resourcefull as DMs to find cool monsters, even beter ones, so this houserule gives the DM more control over the spell not many monsters have lower HD then challenge rating, and if they do its mostly NOT because of their extraordinary attacks. so if you've got a wiz who research each monster they encountered (even outgame) to see if it would be a good choice, i say rewared that person So suppose a druid who normally has Con 10 is wildshaped into a bear with Con 19. She keeps her normal hit points. Fine. Now she gets poisoned and takes six points of Con damage. Does she lose any hp? yep, because if you shapchange back to druid, you are still poisoned The best solution is to find a better way to scale the power level of monsters for the spell (CR perhaps?), or use ECL as suggested earlier. solved if you let them polymorph only if they 've encoutered it now HD's and CR are acounted for -> limits the spell, but has a good roleplay aspect: WIZ: i polymorph in a cave troll. REST OF THE PARTY: what the heck is a cave troll? either the wiz knows from encounter or from history (see my house rule about 7 posts back ) Sorry you did not undestand that when I said you will never exceed the party I was talking about Level. yes it will: my character was behind the party about 100 XP. this was realy lame, because the rest of the party was at (new level +50 XP) BUT then we had a heavy encounter (heavy minions + boss) and swoosh, my character had about 2000 XP more then the rest of the party -> nez session I level uped before they did The caster needs to have seen the monster first. All you've done now is prevent the DM from using cool monsters, because you're too lazy to fix the spell. Good job. Familiarity is needed for the druid, why not for the spell. Also to have read, heard about or seen a monster does not give you familiarity good idea, but it is paritally done when a PCs encounters a monster, they also studies what it can do. the player playing the polymorphed wizard will probably want to know the name to study it out game so you could say the time the player studies it out game, his PC uses the in-game time to reseach, ... the monster -> if he doesn't you get situations like WIZ: i polymorph in a beholder and aim my antimagic eye on the evil spellcaster (i assume here that the antimagic cone is (su), for the sake of this example) DM: Oke; now its the evil spellcaster's turn. he casts fireball This isn't a nerf to druids, it's a power shift. The Con dumping druids are getting their come-uppance (maybe). i personnaly think thats fantastic: it gives the druid a hole other build: instead of primary spellcaster, you can become a primairry shape shifter (perhaps this could also give an idea for the futher druid: yust like the ranger: make 2 possible paths: one of powerfull spellcasting/ lesser shapechange and one of more shapechange/lesser spellcasting That's a lot of effort and words, just to be invalidated by the fact that a level 7 wizard gets to out-fight the fighter in the fighter's *only* area of expertise after casting one spell. two problems: (1) your way of thinking does not include barbarians who can out-fight the fighter, and the cleric, who can out-fight the fighter (thx. to his spells: boost + cures if needed) (2) the fighter is the one who dissarms, trips, dodges, spring attacks, whirlwind attacks ... and has great hit points i don't see a druid doing that Technically, Ioun Stones are not worn or carried. :) Technically, they are: when worn they float around your head. otherwise the iouns stones would yust float away someware, or mid grapple, start going around the enemy's head :) 3.5 Hold Person is completely useless. I can imagine no scenario where a semi-intelligent spellcaster would even think to cast it. A nice length of rope, or a net, or any kind of a bow to just shoot the person, is far more reliable. The target of the spell doesn't even need to be lucky. Statistically the 3.5 version is hardly good for one round. 3 words: coup the grace (1st save: paralysed) -> almost no AC: the enemy is 'removed from combat' for a round, everyone can kick its ass, i think even reflex saves fail rogue moves behind target and starts a coup the grace if 2ed save fails coup the grace succeds the spell is bether than fantasmal killer: it take 2 willsaves instead of 1 fort and 1 will And if the first one fails, the NPC loses a turn |
| Sylvain04-17-06, 02:48 AM | Samwise, just read my signature please. I think I remember talking to you about this same sort of issue on another thread about a year and a half ago, and I'm not prepared to tire myself out going over what I see as very basic game information. Please don't tell people that the "elite array" (15 being the highest number in that set) isn't elite, or that the only method of character stat generation listed in the 3.0 and 3.5 PH, isn't the preferred method over "point-buy", or that 18 is a normal stat at level 4. At the absolute most, you can assume that a character of elite status starts with a score of 15 in the most relevant stat for that class. My players haven't even looked at "point buy", since it doesn't even state that other methods are even available just from reading the PH. They haven't looked at grey elves either (I don't know why anyone would think they would be "swarm"-ing), and when an average ability score for any human is a 10 or 11, (the standard array being six numbers 8-13), the "elite array" (which is actually used for all the characters referred to in many of the books; Mialee, Tordek, Jozan, Lidda, etc. - their character sheets are on the Character Generator disc that came with the first 3.0 PH) has got to be what we're looking at in terms of most characters. Page 93 of the 3.0 DMG and page 31 of the 3.5 DMG also have "average difficulty classes" for some spells. You can also see how rare these scores really are by comparing them to Strength - and we can see how that score works because it has specific numerical information on table 9-1 in the Player's Handbook. Do you know anyone who can lift 300 pounds clear over his/her head?? I would certainly not call that (an 18 in Strength) "really low"! An 18 ability score in anything is phenominal for a human being. Concerning spell DCs, the game certainly doesn't "expect" any warrior to have an 18 ability score in order to get his/her sword to work against an ideal target, and it seems highly necessary for certain spellcasters to have a decent chance of getting their magic to work against the same. All the information I've mentioned is clear evidence of what the averages are. Therefore, at the very most, it can be assumed that most players are on par with the elite array (which should be considered "elite", particularly in comparison to the "standard array") and that the highest score you can expect anyone to have (maybe) at level 4 might be 16. Like I (and Qube) said, throwing items and feats into the equation is useless because they can apply to either side, and +2 from Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude beats the stupid +1 you get from 3.5 Spell Focus (and that's only for one school of magic). I also find it silly that you would completely discount polymorph among iconic spells (I personally can't think of how any other type of spell could take precedence over it as an icon of magic) and then quote up magic headbands and grey elves. I don't care if you are a "power-gamer" or whatever. We all probably are at some point. But there are so many options to choose from that you can't assume that everyone plays (or even power-games, if they are so inclined) in the exact same way, with the exact same character. It's those assumptions that are wrecking the game. There is no "right" way to play. That's why I've quoted averages from the books. If the average characters are "really low" or bad, or suck or whatever, in my opinion that indicates a problem with the basic rules. The elite heroic heroes should be heroic. And as I stated earlier, the wizards should be able to be wizards, and the druids should be able to be druids. I've been trying to emphasize that I don't think that it's a good thing to try to equate everything numerically, so I don't think that I look at spells entirely in terms of raw damage either. If Hold Person is only good for coup de grace, then I think that statement emphasizes the point that Amneth, Cardinal Teplin, FallenArchon, and myself have been trying to make. I've got to go with Sylvan here.... ... you're not creating all that wonderful design potential. You're taking it from the player. ... I can't convince them to play it, because it's too restrictive. It's more concerned with balance than with imagination. It's more concerned with balance than with anything. But because 'balance' assumes a certain style of play (without that assumption you can't balance options against eachother) the range of games you can play with AD&D gets less and less as time goes on. ... I'm a wargamer too, but I'm certainly getting increasing numbers of players who don't want their game dominated by the concern of what would be balance if we happened to be 6 adventures wandering down a hole in the ground. Balance only works in a particular context, and the harder you hammer home your own vision of what players do and don't do, the harder time we have actually using the game as anything other than a wargame. I can, however, see how our interpretations of 2nd edition polymorph could easily differ, since 2nd edition polymorph self states (as you quoted) "The spell does not give the new form's other abilities (attack...", (indicating no natural attack forms) and it gives no information on armor class (which might indicate no natural AC). Ideally, you might see how my interpretation is plausible as well though, since the caster actually does assume a physical form, it therefore must actually have (at the very least) the form (not just the appearance) of the creature, meaning that it must have the composition and implements of AC and natural attacks (which fits with the more refined 3.0 interpretation). A size increase or decrease would logically affect AC as well though this is not stated specifically in 2.0 either, because those rules were not present. In other words, rules-lawyering or not, it simply doesn't make sense for a creature with claws to not have them. Something either is or it isn't, unless it's something else. And this form must have, in at least some cases, a strength increase, since "Naturally, the strength of the new form is sufficient to enable normal movement." By your own interpretation, a stength increase must be given to the caster under some circumstances where it would be appropriate: "...the intent is clearly that Strength is proportionate to the form..." The numerical damage information (if any - like a size penalty to AC) is almost like a side-effect from the newer more definitive system. I don't think it was meant to be dramatically consequential, it's just necessary for clarity, to portray what has actually happened after the spell has been cast. |
| Samwise04-17-06, 12:22 PM | Samwise, just read my signature please. I think I remember talking to you about this same sort of issue on another thread about a year and a half ago, and I'm not prepared to tire myself out going over what I see as very basic game information. Since it isn't very basic game information, you can't. The reality of the game as played is what matters, as opposed to some baseline assumptions that are continually and thoroughly exploded by subsequently released products. As for your complaints about feats, the last I checked, feats were standard level based abilities. To even attempt to dismiss them is simply unreasonable. You might as well dismiss even the elite array and demand that everything be calculated from the default array. Of course, that means nobody could cast spells above 1st level, just as the elite array would limit PCs to 5th level spells eventually (since if we can't assume certain feats we obviously can't assume adding level based stat bumps). Your entire argument collapses beyond recovery at that point. I can, however, see how our interpretations of 2nd edition polymorph could easily differ, since . . . Sure I can. You just wish to selectively ignore inconvenient parts of thet text, and reinterpret other sections to try and change the intent completely. No attack means no attack. No defense means no defense. The form could easily be simple coloring and texture without strength (for armor), or shape without support (for claws and fangs). Given that the text clearly states that such abilities are not granted, the simplest conclusion is that they are not granted. Your interpretation is not rules-lawyering by a long shot. A rules lawyer (like myself) does not try to ignore rules that get in the way of a pet theory, but considers all the rules, and their interactions. Those who do so see that polymorph is broken, and know exactly why. |
| Qube04-18-06, 02:25 AM | As for your complaints about feats, the last I checked, feats were standard level based abilities. To even attempt to dismiss them is simply unreasonable. You might as well dismiss even the elite array and demand that everything be calculated from the default array. Of course, that means nobody could cast spells above 1st level, just as the elite array would limit PCs to 5th level spells eventually (since if we can't assume certain feats we obviously can't assume adding level based stat bumps). Your entire argument collapses beyond recovery at that point. well, a normal spellcasting character at lvl 4 has INT 16 (base 15, +1 from lvl 4) lvl 4 is to soon for a 4000 gp item i think (i should check the table for starting gold) if you say that an 18 int is really low at lvl 4, because you have an moster-race (race from the MM, not from the PHB) that gives you +2 int, than i start arguing that base STR 28 is really low for barbarians at lvl 4, because i got a half-dragon/ half-orc barbarian(or an other ECL+0 race with +2 strength, because technically a halforc allways has a human and orc parent) -> roll 18 + 2 str halforc + 8 str half dragon i did not even put my level 4 stat in str :) |
| Qube04-18-06, 02:39 AM | i just noticed i got way off point here, sorry. ether way comments on my house rule. plz :weep: |
| Samwise04-18-06, 02:45 AM | well, a normal spellcasting character at lvl 4 has INT 16 (base 15, +1 from lvl 4) lvl 4 is to soon for a 4000 gp item i think (i should check the table for starting gold) Well, I said above level 4. And a PC should have 9,000 gp at 5th level. |
| Sylvain04-18-06, 03:34 AM | Since it isn't very basic game information, you can't. The reality of the game as played is what matters, as opposed to some baseline assumptions that are continually and thoroughly exploded by subsequently released products. As for your complaints about feats, the last I checked, feats were standard level based abilities. To even attempt to dismiss them is simply unreasonable. You might as well dismiss even the elite array and demand that everything be calculated from the default array. Of course, that means nobody could cast spells above 1st level, just as the elite array would limit PCs to 5th level spells eventually (since if we can't assume certain feats we obviously can't assume adding level based stat bumps). Your entire argument collapses beyond recovery at that point. I don't know what you mean by "entire argument" and "exploded". I'm not making any assumptions about how people play. I make it a point to make as few assumptions as possible. It sounds to me like you're the one trying to impose your suppositions on how you believe the game is (or should be) played and calling it "reality of the game". There are 109 feats in the 3.5 Player's Handbook alone. Even if we were to bring them in (and we're not - I'm not anyway), what relevance would they have? Whatever feat, stat increase, or magic item you bring into the equation, they can all be countered by another one in the opposing direction. You can assume that at level 4, the character gets a stat increase. If I can have any help in the matter, I will do my best to disallow you from believing you can decide where that increase goes for anyone who has ever played the game, Samwise. That's not your decision. That's not WotC's decision either. You've basically already said with your "18 is REALLY LOW" comment, that you think all "normal" wizards are going to start with at least a 17 in Intelligence, and then that they will all put their first stat increase into it as well, and that they will all be wearing bright obvious headbands. I don't care if this is standard or normal in "all games" you play. I'm telling you that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily play in the exact same way that you do, and you don't seem to be hearing that. Sure I can. You just wish to selectively ignore inconvenient parts of thet text, and reinterpret other sections to try and change the intent completely. No attack means no attack. No defense means no defense. The form could easily be simple coloring and texture without strength (for armor), or shape without support (for claws and fangs). Given that the text clearly states that such abilities are not granted, the simplest conclusion is that they are not granted. Your interpretation is not rules-lawyering by a long shot. A rules lawyer (like myself) does not try to ignore rules that get in the way of a pet theory, but considers all the rules, and their interactions. Those who do so see that polymorph is broken, and know exactly why. Yeah you are doing a good job rules-lawyering. I've spoken on the terms of common sense and reason, which I believe should overrule any contradictions or unreasonabilities in the rules. That's supposedly why we have DMs. If the caster "assumes the physical form", then it stands to reason that the caster "assumes the physical form" - not some kind of hollow, cardboard imitation. Coloring and texture are visual and tactile terms, and since it's not an illusion, I highly doubt that polymorph self is supposed to give you some kind of paper mache mock-up of the intended shape, since it also uses the words "of any creature" (not, "of some weird facsimile of any creature"). Besides that, you, and the text you're defending, have already stated that sufficient/proportionate strength is, or should be, granted for this spell. No attack does mean no attack and no AC does mean no AC, but physical form means physical form, and physical form inherently includes certain things. You can't say that the spell grants physical form, and then say that it doesn't. If I turn myself into a mouse, and my DM says that I've become a toothless, clawless mouse (mice use their claws to move also - and we both agree that the spell grants movement capabilities), with a disproportionate strength, weight, and mass, I'm going to tell him straight out that he's an idiot. In other words, you are ignoring parts of the texts also. The parts that (when looked at with a little bit of common sense) completely contradict your interpretation. One question: does your mouse have claws? |
| Qube04-18-06, 03:54 AM | Well, I said above level 4. And a PC should have 9,000 gp at 5th level. well, normally an item of 4000 gp would not be allowed. |
| Sylvain04-18-06, 04:38 AM | well, normally an item of 4000 gp would not be allowed. I agree. In all likelihood, any 4000 gp item is simply not going to be available for sale in most areas, let alone a specific, magic item. First, you'd have to assume that magic items are regularly available for sale at all in the campaign world, then you'd have to find a small city (or any place with a population of over 5000 people), which might be very difficult since "Small communities are much more common than larger ones. In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all." (In other words, you might expect to travel to 20 different places before finding a locale where such a thing is even possible.) Then you'd have to hope you could find a magic shop (or whatever), and then you'd have to be lucky enough to find that exactly what you're looking for is actually available there for sale, and then you'd have to assume that the PCs are looking for it, and that they are able to identify it, and that they have enough money to purchase it. These are far too many assumptions for me. I'd also think that one might also have to explain how this great magical item trade system works economically, if that is what's supposedly going on. An average commoner/laborer makes like a silver piece a day. No one is going to be supporting the sale of magic items except for very wealthy adventurers, or very eccentric members of nobility. Also, I would think that those sellers of magical items that set up shop trying to make some sort of business would get robbed instantly. And why would they spend all that money, effort, energy, and experience into something so they could just sell it? On top of the overall questionability of it (certain feats, money, XP, ingredients, etc would be needed to "manufacture" these items - a ton of effort and resources with no demographic to sell to), the whole idea of magic item shops tends to devalue magic quite a bit for me personally, even if it were economically sound. |
| Cardinal Teplin04-18-06, 09:18 AM | Not sure all this detail is really relevent, is it? The problem, as I mentioned before, is that 'balance' is a fairly slippery concept, since the more you caculate, the more you have to make assumptions about how people play. Surely the disagreement about what is and isn't a proper assumption for the intelligence of a wizard shows this? Firmly fixing AD&D to one particular style of play, and one particular set of assumptions, and repeatedly refining that, is not necessarily a good thing. In practical terms it's almost impossible short of some kind of mind-meld between individual developers - hence the mismatch between Sage, FAQ, and published rules. Even if it is sucessful it will annoy everyone who doesn't play in the prescribed manner. Some styles of play benefit greatly from open-ended, player-defined spells that need DM arbitration. Why rule against them? |
| Samwise04-18-06, 10:32 AM | I don't know what you mean by "entire argument" and "exploded". I'm not making any assumptions about how people play. No, you are simply declaring a particular way to play, and refusing to acknowledge anything a PC might have, feats or otherwise, that might enhance his abilities. You also want to declare when items are available, even if a PC should have the gp available to buy it or the ability to create it. There is nothing unreasonable about a 4,000 gp item. Yeah you are doing a good job rules-lawyering. I've spoken on the terms of common sense and reason, which I believe should overrule any contradictions or unreasonabilities in the rules. So you acknowledge that you are reading things into the rules and descriptions that are not otherwise there. Unfortunately, that isn't how you use the D&D rules. I can read the name "stinking cloud" and say it just smells bad, it doesn't actually make you sick, even if the rules say it does. |
| Jhaelen04-18-06, 06:59 PM | Well, I said above level 4. And a PC should have 9,000 gp at 5th level. Well, the same section that contains the table for determining the wealth for characters above level 1 also mentions, that it might be a good idea to limit the maximum cost for any single item. The examples given use a maximum of 5000gp for level 8 and recommends to compare items with what could be gained from an appropriate encounter for a certain level. But of course none of these things represent hard and fast rules. In my campaign the biggest city for hundreds of miles around has a gp limit of 5000. So, that's what the PCs are stuck with, at least until they get the means to, say, teleport wherever they want to go shopping... YMMV. |
| Qube04-19-06, 01:58 AM | Yeah you are doing a good job rules-lawyering. I've spoken on the terms of common sense and reason, which I believe should overrule any contradictions or unreasonabilities in the rules. So you acknowledge that you are reading things into the rules and descriptions that are not otherwise there. Unfortunately, that isn't how you use the D&D rules. I can read the name "stinking cloud" and say it just smells bad, it doesn't actually make you sick, even if the rules say it does. Fortunately, that IS how you use the D&D rules (al be it in extreme): may i refer to rule 0 here: if your DM says that "stinking cloud" yust smells bad, it yust smells bad. it is a DM's job to keep it fun for everyone, and that can only be done with some form of realism and common sense: if you have a party with characters 5 lvl above the bodak, and the the powerplayed fighter wants to get the bodak in a hold-grip, pusshing its face in the wall (sothat the bodak can't look at the rest of the party). what should a DM do: (A) saying: you can't because it isn't in the rules (B) say Oke and make up some quick rule (possibly in favor of the Bodak, because the player wants to do something that shouldn't be done. DnD should be played as followed: - the rules are the basics - the DM has the final saying if you only use the rules, no DM intervension/interpretion, it isn't DnD anymore, but a quiz of Who Knows The Most Rules |
| Samwise04-19-06, 11:12 AM | Fortunately, that IS how you use the D&D rules (al be it in extreme): may i refer to rule 0 here: if your DM says that "stinking cloud" yust smells bad, it yust smells bad. . . . if you only use the rules, no DM intervension/interpretion, it isn't DnD anymore, but a quiz of Who Knows The Most Rules While Rule 0 is a popular appeal to authority, it ignores one critical reality: If you always default to House Rules, it isn't D&D any more, but a bunch of random games with only a vague connection. At that point, any discussion becomes completely moot, particularly in regards to the rules. Functionally, there are no rules. At least none that can be reliably expected to be in common. By the Rule 0 standard, I can simply declare that a change to polymorph is irrelevant because I've already reverted it to the AD&D version, and thus all complaints about the changes are not needed. So when discussing the rules, Rule 0 can never apply. |
| Sylvain04-19-06, 10:18 PM | There is nothing unreasonable about a 4,000 gp item.No, nothing at all unreasonable, I agree. There is an unreasonability of assuming that a PC will have any specific item though (magical or not), and the same applies to feats as well. There are just too many outside variables and choices. Since the D&D game includes rules for spell research, you can't assume that any spellcaster will automatically have access to any spell that you can come up with yourself that is appropriate to the caster level (even though it could be possible), you know? So you acknowledge that you are reading things into the rules and descriptions that are not otherwise there. Unfortunately, that isn't how you use the D&D rules. I can read the name "stinking cloud" and say it just smells bad, it doesn't actually make you sick, even if the rules say it does. It doesn't actually say in the rules (3.5 PH) that "the cloud smells bad", but since it nauseates the characters, and the name of it has the word "stinking" in it, it can be inferred that the cloud does smell bad. I'm not making up things that aren't there. I will agree that I am using a form of reasoning to draw a conclusion, but since my conclusion is so close to what is written in the text, I wouldn't say that I'm "reading into" anything. As far as Rule 0, I have always tried to cite the rules, and to find the most basic (least extreme) evidence in the rulebooks when trying to make my points. |
| Samwise04-19-06, 11:17 PM | No, nothing at all unreasonable, I agree. There is an unreasonability of assuming that a PC will have any specific item though (magical or not), and the same applies to feats as well. There are just too many outside variables and choices. Not in the least. Rather, the default assumption should always be that the PC will have items and feats that enhance their chosen concept, and, in the case of wizards, specifically enhancing their spell selection. Since the D&D game includes rules for spell research, you can't assume that any spellcaster will automatically have access to any spell that you can come up with yourself that is appropriate to the caster level (even though it could be possible), you know? Nice try. Unfortunately, as I noted in regards to Rule 0, such an argument specifically destroys any common ground in respect to the rules, effectively destroying any possibility of useful commentary. As such, it must be excluded from any basic discussion of the rules. Yes, you can add an unlimited amount of anything to the game, at any time, without consultation or consideration of the effect. It is still a moot point. It doesn't actually say in the rules (3.5 PH) that "the cloud smells bad", but since it nauseates the characters, and the name of it has the word "stinking" in it, it can be inferred that the cloud does smell bad. Yes, but that isn't the game effect the spell has. That is the relevant element. I'm not making up things that aren't there. I will agree that I am using a form of reasoning to draw a conclusion, but since my conclusion is so close to what is written in the text, I wouldn't say that I'm "reading into" anything. Obviously you wouldn't say that. That does not change that it is precisely what you are doing, specifically ignoring other text when doing so. The AD&D version of polymorph (other) very clearly states that it provides no attack or defense ability. No matter what else is said, not said, or inferred by the use of the term "form", that basic prohibition must remain as overriding any attempt to grant such abilities under any circumstances. More technically, what this demonstrates is the clear difference between flavor text and rules text. At the end, a rules set must be absolutely and unequivocally clear, and all flavor text must yield to that requirement. And, as such, any rules interpretations must always be made with an eye to the text being rules and not flavor. As far as Rule 0, I have always tried to cite the rules, and to find the most basic (least extreme) evidence in the rulebooks when trying to make my points. Then go with the most basic evidence of the AD&D polymorph (self) spell, and don't point to spell research as making basic character builds "impossible." If you want the most basic (least extreme) evidence in the rulebooks about why D20 D&D Polymorph is broken compared to AD&D Polymorph (self), the text is clear in that the old version granted appearance and movement only, no attack or defense capabilities. If you want the most basic (least extreme) evidence that a celestial badger is useful, play a wizard who summons them to support his friends, and take feats that enhance such spells. |
| Qube04-20-06, 02:22 AM | The AD&D version of polymorph (other) very clearly states that it provides no attack or defense ability.. (1) then why would you want to poymorph: what is the difference between polymorph an a great disguise check? (2) what happens to the stuff you were waring? stuff that only works if your a human (for agruments sake a human wizard), will it still work if you are polymorphed (3) what happens to the stuff you were waring? stuff that only works if your an ogre (for agruments sake polymorph in an ogre), will it work? and if so did't polymorph then (all be it not directly) give you a defence ability (if it gave ogres a defence ability). (4) doenst any size increase give you the [b]ability[\b] to wield greater weapons? and if it doesn't; does the spell give you the ability to fly if you polymorph in a bird: it only gives the appearance of wings (5) if it only gives appearence and movement, the spell is not worth: a diguise self or a low level illusion together with haste can does the same. More technically, what this demonstrates is the clear difference between flavor text and rules text. At the end, a rules set must be absolutely and unequivocally clear, and all flavor text must yield to that requirement. And, as such, any rules interpretations must always be made with an eye to the text being rules and not flavor. yust give me one set of rules that are absolutely and unequivocally clear, for everyone. their will always be some form of interpretation: - the developers idea must be transformed to a set of rules - the rules must be transformed to text (unless you use mathematics and stuff, language can be interpreted (ex. you gain +2 attack and +2 defence for 1 round: I say the +2 attack stays indefenatly and only the +2 defence stays for 1 round) ) - the text must be translated, because my native language is NOT english, and so if i want to understand the rules completely, it must be in a language i understand completely - all the previously rules must be known by the reader (or otherwise the reader must seach back and forth what he was looking for, making the fault to easy to occur) |
| Qube04-20-06, 02:24 AM | While Rule 0 is a popular appeal to authority, it ignores one critical reality: If you always default to House Rules, it isn't D&D any more, but a bunch of random games with only a vague connection. then don't ALWAYS default to House Rules. only for parts where there is (note i didn't say 'can be') discussion |
| Sylvain04-20-06, 04:59 AM | Not in the least. As I said, there are 109 feats in the 3.5 Player's Handbook. I'm not sure how many magical and mundane items are listed in PH and DMG, but it's alot. I've already gone into (using basic information from the books) why it's ridiculous to make any assumptions about the whole headband scenario, and why any score of 18 is really high at level 4. If you want to ignore all that stuff from the books (3.0 & 3.5 PH and DMG), be my guest. I'm sure every PC fighter in your game has the exact same weapon, with the exact same armor, and the exact same name and the exact same purple-colored shirt, and they all always have the exact same amount of money and buy the same magic item from the same town from the same magic shop keeper named Al "Lightning Bolt" Stevenson. Because, ideally, these things are all very effective, and we all know everyone wants to play as "effectively" as possible. (Al "Lightning Bolt" has the best prices in the game world, so every PC logically must buy from him. - Oh wait, there are no exceptions to the prices listed in the book, nevermind.) I think you really need to allow room for blind random chance, varying circumstances, and personal choice in your interpretations of "the reality" of D&D. It doesn't sound very fun from your angle. It sounds incredibly restrictive. That's just my opinion, I mean, I actually don't know how the game is for you, but I'd feel sad if you weren't having fun with it. D&D is always fun for me. I think my friends and I prefer it because it isn't restrictive like a video game is. It can be anything. ...the default assumption should always be that the PC will have items and feats that enhance their chosen concept... You have no idea what the "chosen concept" is though, the player of the character does. You can't just "default" to maximum everything, to maximum effect, even though that might be ideal for enhancing a character concept. Spell research is in the book also, and those rules most definitely are capable of enhancing. Obviously you wouldn't say that. That does not change that it is precisely what you are doing, specifically ignoring other text when doing so. The AD&D version of polymorph (other) very clearly states that it provides no attack or defense ability. Ok, here's a scenario. And after this I'm giving up trying to talk to you. :) PC: I turn into a rat. DM: Ok. You turn into one. There's a bug in front of you. PC: I scratch at it with my claws. DM: Uh... no, you can't. It says you can't in the book. PC: Why? Don't I have claws? DM: Uh, yeah... but you can only use them for climbing. PC: WHAT!? Alright... I'll uh... Hit it with my tail. DM: The tail uh... well, you can't. PC: Come on! I know I have a tail. Rats use their tails for balance in moving across ropes and other narrow objects. Uh.... Isn't this an alteration spell? I do have a tail, don't I? DM: Yes. PC: And not just the illusion of a tail? DM: Uh, yeah. PC: And I do have control over it? DM: Well.. yeah. You uh, you just can't use it to hit stuff with. PC: This doesn't make any sense. I mean, am I a rat or not? Can I bite it? That should be the easiest thing to do. I smash it with my face. Come on, anything. DM: No. Face attacks count as an attack form. The insect bites you for 1 damage while you've been struggling to try to will yourself to attack it. Roll a Fortitude save. You're poisoned. You die. PC: You're kidding. Maybe we should use the 3.0 version of the spell. It seems to make more sense. The way this is now, it really frustrates me. DM: You should have chosen to trample or overrun it, or step on it. The book doesn't say anything about weight change. You could have crushed it instantly. PC: Doesn't weight change have to do with altering my physical form? And doesn't stepping or trampling count as an attack form also? DM: Technically all this stuff could be included in "physical form". Too bad it's not in the rules. Hmm... yeah, you're right. You can't attack at all. Any attack would be considered an attack form. Nevermind. PC: So I'm a hundred and forty pound rodent, 7 inches in length, who can't use any of his appendages? You're the DM, can't you do something about this? DM: You can use them, just not for attacks. If I let you have the weight of a little rat, that would be house-ruling. PC: Despite my weight, I can still run across pieces of string? DM: Yes, because that involves movement. Well, since you died, you've reverted to your original form, so you don't need to worry about it anymore anyway. PC: This is really stupid. Let's use 3.0. DM: No way dude! 3.0 polymorph is totally broken! PC sadly leaves the table in defeated frustration. No matter what else is said, not said, or inferred by the use of the term "form", that basic prohibition must remain as overriding any attempt to grant such abilities under any circumstances. ...any rules interpretations must always be made with an eye to the text being rules and not flavor. I think all interpretations should yield to common sense and reasonability. I'm not saying it's good to let people cheat (because sometimes the technical text rules let you do that also, not just the flavor rules - though I still don't see interpreting "physical form" as "physical form" as flavor or house-ruling). I'm saying it's good to go with what makes the most sense, despite imposed restrictions. We're supposedly supposed to be able to go with what would work if the situation were real. If you want the most basic (least extreme) evidence that a celestial badger is useful, play a wizard who summons them to support his friends, and take feats that enhance such spells. One would hope that the spell would be useful (for combat) even without optional enhancements. (In other words, in it's most basic form.) |
| valientar04-20-06, 08:43 AM | Hallo As a DM I always had considerations about the polymorph spell! Both about Power, Uses, and Realism of this spell!!! I agree that the creatures that have polymorph-like powers would be different from polymorph spell limiting their choices and uses but certainly increasing the time that they can stay polymorphed and the uses of it. 1. I believe that first polymorph shouldn’t change Item’s but only the creature affected so no melding items either they drop or if can be used from the form they stay! 2. I believe that changing your morph is straining and should have difficulties like! Being dazed, disoriented or of the like. At least at the beginning of the change and certainly for forms that are completely different from yours. 3. I thing that HD’s shouldn’t matter to what you change into but Size is very important!! 4. I believe also that when you changed the duration from 3rd edition to 3.5th edition from 1h/level to 1min/level you destroyed the spell!!! Reading this you might think that I suggest a polymorph that gives allot of fighting uses! No I want to suggest a polymorph not used for combat only for role-playing and scenario uses. So I would like a polymorph that would allow me to take any form for a great duration but that I wouldn’t be able to use it in combat! But having the physical changes like the improved STR so the polymorph would be believable! So I suggest that the game needs two polymorphs one for combat and one for misc. uses. The combat polymorph would be with certain forms and for small durations! For example the Animal Polymorph that you change to animals (even multiple times per casting) without hindrances and gaining fighting abilities! But for only 1rnd/level Shapechange I believe with the HD limitation is balanced for a 9th level spell! To be used in a way over powering it’s required for a very tricky player to find a way to use it better than the others with the creatures he has met! The non combat polymorph brings some problems I know… How can you make it hinder the player so he won’t use it for combat? Well the best thing I have thought is disorienting him and giving him great penalties for combat and strenuous actions… Concentration DC’s to cast even the simplest spells, and great penalties to hit/dam/AC. |
| Samwise04-20-06, 10:50 AM | (1) then why would you want to poymorph: what is the difference between polymorph an a great disguise check? (2) what happens to the stuff you were waring? stuff that only works if your a human (for agruments sake a human wizard), will it still work if you are polymorphed (3) what happens to the stuff you were waring? stuff that only works if your an ogre (for agruments sake polymorph in an ogre), will it work? and if so did't polymorph then (all be it not directly) give you a defence ability (if it gave ogres a defence ability). (4) doenst any size increase give you the [b]ability[\b] to wield greater weapons? and if it doesn't; does the spell give you the ability to fly if you polymorph in a bird: it only gives the appearance of wings (5) if it only gives appearence and movement, the spell is not worth: a diguise self or a low level illusion together with haste can does the same. (1) Because you can't fly, breathe water, or walk on ceilings with a disguise check, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent it might be. Further, a disguise can be penetrated by a simple opposed spot check. A polymorph can't. (2) It is absorbed into your form. That is very clear. (3) Same as (2). (4) A size change, and resulting ability to use a larger weapon without a penalty, is not an attack or defense ability. The ability to fly is clearly stated. (5) Not in the least. First and foremost, only a specific illusion like disguise self can change your appearance in a similar manner. A minor image can not. Second, haste lets you move faster. It doesn't give you a climb, fly, swim, burrow, or other special movement type. yust give me one set of rules that are absolutely and unequivocally clear, for everyone. their will always be some form of interpretation: - the developers idea must be transformed to a set of rules - the rules must be transformed to text (unless you use mathematics and stuff, language can be interpreted (ex. you gain +2 attack and +2 defence for 1 round: I say the +2 attack stays indefenatly and only the +2 defence stays for 1 round) ) One would hope that is what they are doing. - the text must be translated, because my native language is NOT english, and so if i want to understand the rules completely, it must be in a language i understand completely That is a separate business decision. - all the previously rules must be known by the reader (or otherwise the reader must seach back and forth what he was looking for, making the fault to easy to occur) It is not required, but it definitely helps if you are going to design, or comment on the design of the rules. However, it is not required by the company to make such available in general. |
| Samwise04-20-06, 10:54 AM | then don't ALWAYS default to House Rules. only for parts where there is (note i didn't say 'can be') discussion Well, since this is "Design & Development", one would expect the discussion is focused on the rules as written, and there is no place for House Rules other than as suggestions for addition or alteration of the current rules. |
| Samwise04-20-06, 11:03 AM | As I said, there are 109 feats in the 3.5 Player's Handbook. I'm not sure how many magical and mundane items are listed in PH and DMG, but it's alot. And? That in no way suggests that the default assumption should be no feats or items to enhance the character power. Spell research is in the book also, and those rules most definitely are capable of enhancing. Except spell research, by its nature, introduces non-standard material. It is not the same as presuming basic feats. Ok, here's a scenario. And after this I'm giving up trying to talk to you. :) Let's see . . . Rats don't get claw attacks in AD&D or D20 D&D. Rats don't get tail attacks in AD&D or D20 D&D. So right there, your entire "scenario" shows nothing except that you simply don't like the rules. I think all interpretations should yield to common sense and reasonability. This is D&D, not the real world. Science therefore goes out the window. As for common sense and reasonability, they are subsumed in game balance. It is not "reasonable" that a human can ever take more damage than a tyrannosaurus rex. One would hope that the spell would be useful (for combat) even without optional enhancements. (In other words, in it's most basic form.) Why? It is not a combat spell. If you want that, wait for shapechange. Polymorph was, and should be, a movement and hiding/disguise only spell. Or are all non-combat spells useless? |
| ravidubey04-20-06, 03:08 PM | Polymorph and its open-endedness make being a wizard truly fun and interesting. Please don't nerf wizards and sorcerors just because you feel like it. The power is one of the all-time classic wizard abilities. The power is unlimited only if a player is allowed to run roughshod through all the supplements. But for the actual characters it takes ranks in almost all Knowledge skills (nature, dungeoneering, arcana, psionics, local, planar) just to know anything at all about most monsters. To know anything about a 7th level creature takes a DC 17 check, for example. You could make a simple rule that to actually polymorph into a creature it takes a knowledge check DC of 20 plus the creature's hit dice, and having encountered the creature gives you a +10 circumstance bonus to this check. Assuming something's form takes a highly detailed understanding of how a creature is put together. I would also say it's fair to allow the wizard to compile a list of forms equal in number to his class level that he can assume without making a knowledge check. A 7th level magic user has a decent selection while a 20th level wizard is a true master of shapechanging. |
| Qube04-21-06, 02:15 AM | PC: I turn into a rat. ... <to save smoe place, i won't quote the hole conversation between PC/DM> DM: No way dude! 3.0 polymorph is totally broken! PC sadly leaves the table in defeated frustration. :rofl: :heehee |
| Cardinal Teplin04-21-06, 08:44 AM | :rofl: :heehee Amen to that! Really does demonstrate the problem quite nicely. |
| Qube04-22-06, 03:58 AM | (1) Because you can't fly, breathe water, or walk on ceilings with a disguise check, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent it might be. Further, a disguise can be penetrated by a simple opposed spot check. A polymorph can't. - will you really sacr. a 4th level spell, for that? breath water (perfect for potion: never neede, except once), fly (a 3ed lvl spell, and at high level a flying carpet) spider climb, ... at low level, a 4th level spell is much more important then a 3ed, a 2nd and some potions; at high level, this doesn't matter anymore - yes it can: polymorph gives a +10 on disguise checks: you still must act in character. what with the -X on attack/defrence from size? indd, sry, need an other low level spell for that. either way, do you really want to sacrefice a lvl 4 spell for that? bigger mellee weapons and some movement bonus?? One would hope that is what they are doing. i don't get your reply That is a separate business decision. so you are actually saying only English speaking people may play DnD ? It is not required, but it definitely helps if you are going to design, or comment on the design of the rules. However, it is not required by the company to make such available in general. i was talking about the reader of the books, not the copmagny Why? It is not a combat spell. If you want that, wait for shapechange. Polymorph was, and should be, a movement and hiding/disguise only spell. Or are all non-combat spells useless? basicly, bluntly? YES. DnD is a combat oriented game. when push comes to shuv, spells are used for combat (divinations for combat preperations, ...) and by the way: check invisiblity (2ed lvl) THIS is a hiding spell (1) when people want to changes into creatures, they pick polymorph, they don't want to wat till lvl 17. (2) when they want to hide they become rogue or choose invisiblity, impr. invisibility, reduce person, and yes polymorph, but this does not solve problem (1) (3) WotC changed polymorph from ADnD to 3.0; is it possible because people didn't like the ADnD version (even if it is balanced) ? |
| Samwise04-22-06, 11:32 AM | - will you really sacr. a 4th level spell, for that? breath water (perfect for potion: never neede, except once), fly (a 3ed lvl spell, and at high level a flying carpet) spider climb, ... Except . . . With polymorph, you can do all that with one spell instead of three. And that doesn't include the other limitations of those spells: that you need to prepare each of them, that spider climb requires a hand to hold on with and won't let you drop something, that you can't switch between movement modes with those spells, and that they don't provide any disguise effect. at low level, a 4th level spell is much more important then a 3ed, a 2nd and some potions; at high level, this doesn't matter anymore Given that 7th level isn't low level, it seems we default immediately to it not mattering any more. - yes it can: polymorph gives a +10 on disguise checks: you still must act in character. You must act in character with any disguise, so that is a moot point. what with the -X on attack/defrence from size? In AD&D? None. If something needs to be added for D20 D&D, it certainly shouldn't need to include every natural attack form of the creature. indd, sry, need an other low level spell for that. either way, do you really want to sacrefice a lvl 4 spell for that? bigger mellee weapons and some movement bonus?? As opposed to what? Arcane Eye? You just get to look around. Assay Spell Resistance? One spell to make another spell have a chance to work, if you fight something with spell resistance. Floating Disc, Greater? So you can ride around on a magic plate. Leomund's Secure Shelter? So you can have a snooze. A spell is as useful as you make it. If you can't use non-combat spells that is you. Lots of other people get lots of use from them. so you are actually saying only English speaking people may play DnD ? Not in the least. i was talking about the reader of the books, not the copmagny Yes, I know. You (or anyone else) is not one of the game designers. You aren't required to know anything about the history of the rules. The company is under no obligation to inform you. basicly, bluntly? YES. DnD is a combat oriented game. when push comes to shuv, spells are used for combat (divinations for combat preperations, ...) and by the way: check invisiblity (2ed lvl) THIS is a hiding spell Basically, bluntly, YOU ARE WRONG! While D&D is a combat oriented game, it is also a role-playing game, and thus has role-playing elements. That is why there are more skills than just Tumble and Move Silently. Spells, like skills, feats, and everything else, are used for more than just combat. (1) when people want to changes into creatures, they pick polymorph, they don't want to wat till lvl 17. And getting all the combat bonuses is unbalanced. [/QUOTE](2) when they want to hide they become rogue or choose invisiblity, impr. invisibility, reduce person, and yes polymorph, but this does not solve problem (1)[/QUOTE] Actually, it does. It keeps a 4th level spell at an appropriate power level. (3) WotC changed polymorph from ADnD to 3.0; is it possible because people didn't like the ADnD version (even if it is balanced) ? Except the new version is obviously unbalanced. |
| rubendogs04-22-06, 12:20 PM | I agree. In all likelihood, any 4000 gp item is simply not going to be available for sale in most areas, let alone a specific, magic item. First, you'd have to assume that magic items are regularly available for sale at all in the campaign world, then you'd have to find a small city (or any place with a population of over 5000 people), which might be very difficult since "Small communities are much more common than larger ones. In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all." (In other words, you might expect to travel to 20 different places before finding a locale where such a thing is even possible.) Then you'd have to hope you could find a magic shop (or whatever), and then you'd have to be lucky enough to find that exactly what you're looking for is actually available there for sale, and then you'd have to assume that the PCs are looking for it, and that they are able to identify it, and that they have enough money to purchase it. These are far too many assumptions for me. I'd also think that one might also have to explain how this great magical item trade system works economically, if that is what's supposedly going on. An average commoner/laborer makes like a silver piece a day. No one is going to be supporting the sale of magic items except for very wealthy adventurers, or very eccentric members of nobility. Also, I would think that those sellers of magical items that set up shop trying to make some sort of business would get robbed instantly. And why would they spend all that money, effort, energy, and experience into something so they could just sell it? On top of the overall questionability of it (certain feats, money, XP, ingredients, etc would be needed to "manufacture" these items - a ton of effort and resources with no demographic to sell to), the whole idea of magic item shops tends to devalue magic quite a bit for me personally, even if it were economically sound. By your logic, there are no DnD style heroes, monsters, wizards, gods, or anything else. No great cities with towers that defy gravity, no arcane towers, or hordes of gold and lore. In a world where a lone old ma can destroy a city; where a squid headed monster will suck your brains out; where there are DRAGONS; where gods are something you can actually hit with a sword - a magic item shop is not rare. Yes, the are not going to be found in hamlets, but your world does have CITIES, right? Why would you assume that a PC who is looking for a specific item would look in a HAMLET? Alternately, the PC could quest for the items, spending days researching though libraries, for hints as to it's location. In DnD this is only a die roll, representing time spent, so the other PCs know exactly how much time they have to spend fooling around. As for explaining the economy? Cities, hubs of trade and travel, are fully able to support magic items shops. They pay taxes, bring in trade, and the government has access to an veritable arsenal of magic items, if under siege. No, you are simply declaring a particular way to play, and refusing to acknowledge anything a PC might have, feats or otherwise, that might enhance his abilities. You also want to declare when items are available, even if a PC should have the gp available to buy it or the ability to create it. There is nothing unreasonable about a 4,000 gp item. Also, the DMG Starting Gold table gives 9000gp at lvl 5, with no single item able to be bought at more than 4500gp. This table has always been balanced in my own games, never causing a newly made character to be too powerful. Besides, if the character takes the right feats, he can MAKE one at that level. Ignoring abilities that a PC may have is never a good idea. You can't just say that because an item costs 4000gp that it will be unavailable. The ability to create items is taken into account as part of the core system, so all arguments that are within the rules should include the capability. Besides THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT POLYMORPH. THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ITEMS PCs IN YOUR WORLD CAN USE. nott every setting has the same level of magic, not every wizard learns polymorph. Polymorph is broken because, simply, it is too complex, and too useful(powerful) - and uses up too much real time. |
| rubendogs04-22-06, 12:32 PM | I think you really need to allow room for blind random chance, varying circumstances, and personal choice in your interpretations of "the reality" of D&D. It doesn't sound very fun from your angle. It sounds incredibly restrictive. That's just my opinion, I mean, I actually don't know how the game is for you, but I'd feel sad if you weren't having fun with it. D&D is always fun for me. I think my friends and I prefer it because it isn't restrictive like a video game is. It can be anything. You just argued with yourself. You can not tell anyone to allow for random chance and varying circumstances, when you are unwilling to allow those 109 feats and several hundred items/spells/powers that are available. Yes, the enemies are able to have them as well, but that does not preclude the PC from wanting them. You are making the same mistakes that you are using as barbs against Samwise - assuming that your view is the view of every gamer. Point Buys: I recall earlier someone talking about standard point buy systems. I understand that in official settings restrictive point buy systems are used – I find that I understand the need for those systems, but doesn't allow for characters that are as fun to RP using a die roll variant. It is also good to note that the PHB standard rules for generating stats is 4d6, drop the lowest per roll, and arrange to taste. This gives averages of 12 and 13, anything under 9 is rare, and 18s are more common than 3's. |
| Qube04-22-06, 03:03 PM | Basically, bluntly, YOU ARE WRONG! While D&D is a combat oriented game, it is also a role-playing game.That is why there are more skills than just Tumble and Move Silently. Spells, like skills, feats, and everything else, are used for more than just combat. their is 1 page in the PHB that is role-play oriented, and 1 chapter in the PHB about combat, a hole book with monsters. who are you kidding: if it was a roleplay game, why is every class combat oriented, and why is it that your wizards have at least 18 int in your campaign? and by the way, what you are saying is not an awnser to my quote: i said that non-combat spells (or at least spells not used relating to combat) are virtually useless. example: passwall: use fireballs/lighning balls instead (you said that to follow the rules: you can destroy the rock (hardness/hp) either way, this hole part of the discussion i'm going to close by saying: "I think you are wrong." Even if you quote me on this, i won't quote back: there has been enouph flaming on this thread now back to the point: (3) WotC changed polymorph from ADnD to 3.0; is it possible because people didn't like the ADnD version (even if it is balanced) ? Except the new version is obviously unbalanced. that was already established (post nr. 0). that doesn't mean we should go back to the ADnD version. Besides, from what you tell me, the ADnD version is inconstistant with the 3.0/3.5 rules: how can you become larger without taking the attack/AC penalties? large creatures (ALL large creatures, NO exception) gain -1 attack, -1 AC. because you know so much of the rules, would you please post spell you had in mind (translated to 3.0/3.5) ? and with an exampe (say a elf wizard 10/14/8/20/15/12 with a ring of protection +4, a ioun stone that give +1 luck bonus to saves and a (really strong)bag with 2000lb of stuff , transforms into a troll and a small monstrous spider) to see what the rules trully do? |
| Qube04-22-06, 03:09 PM | oh yeah, and what happens to the wizard, if he started with the ring and the ioun stone, gave it to a friend, polymorphed the creature, and then the friend gave the stuff back. (and could you wear 8 rings as a spider?) |
| sukael04-22-06, 03:14 PM | (and could you wear 8 rings as a spider?) By the RAW, you can only ever use two rings at once--even if you have more limbs that would work with them. It takes other magic items or special abilities to get around that limit. |
| Samwise04-22-06, 03:23 PM | their is 1 page in the PHB that is role-play oriented, and 1 chapter in the PHB about combat, a hole book with monsters. who are you kidding: if it was a roleplay game, why is every class combat oriented, and why is it that your wizards have at least 18 int in your campaign? There is 1 page on role-play because you should be able to know how to use your imagination without being given step by step instructions. While someone has obviously decided that this is wrong, and that the majority of players do actually need to be reminded how to "play pretend" (based on the page count wasted on such in subsequent products anyway), that doesn't the fact that if you really don't know how to use your imagination, you really shouldn't be playing a fantasy role-playing game in the first place. There is 1 chapter on combat because the rules of a game are needed to resolve interactions, and combat is the most significant interaction present. Finally, consider that D&D is a "Fantasy Role-Playing Game." I don't think either "fantasy" or "role-playing" would be in there if it wasn't either. That doesn't mean such games don't exist, or aren't fun. But they are more commonly called "Combat Simulation Games" and not "Fantasy Role-Playing Games." and by the way, what you are saying is not an awnser to my quote: i said that non-combat spells (or at least spells not used relating to combat) are virtually useless. It is an answer to your quote. It is the answer I have given several times. You are wrong. Any spell is as useful as the person using it makes it. If you can not use spells except directly for combat, then that is you. Others find lots of uses for spells outside of combat. example: passwall: use fireballs/lighning balls instead (you said that to follow the rules: you can destroy the rock (hardness/hp) With stone having a hardness of 8 and 15 hp per inch, you will need to do 180 + 8 per spell used points of damage to blast through 1 foot of stone with those spells. Passwall is minimum 10 feet deep. That is more than 1,800 points of damage. How many spells will take you to do that much damage? that was already established (post nr. 0). that doesn't mean we should go back to the ADnD version. First, several people continue to refuse to acknowledge that the 3.5 D&D is actually unbalanced. So that statement bears repeating. And while it does not mean we should go back to the AD&D version, by looking at that version and comparing the differences, we can get an idea of where it became unbalanced. Besides, from what you tell me, the ADnD version is inconstistant with the 3.0/3.5 rules: how can you become larger without taking the attack/AC penalties? large creatures (ALL large creatures, NO exception) gain -1 attack, -1 AC. That doesn't make it incompatible though. It just means it includes something not previously accounted for. There is a difference. because you know so much of the rules, would you please post spell you had in mind (translated to 3.0/3.5) ? and with an exampe (say a elf wizard 10/14/8/20/15/12 to a troll and a small monstrous spider) to see what the rules trully do? I've posted the original, and the suggested changes. |
| Qube04-22-06, 04:21 PM | Just pull your PHB 1 out again. In both 1st and 2nd ed AD&D, the Polymorph spell was Polymorph (self). It worked only on the caster, and it granted only appearance and natural movement. No AC. No natural attacks. No hp. No anything other than appearance and natural movement. Baleful Polymorph was Polymorph (other). Yes, it had a chance to assume the mentality of the creature changed into. It also had a chance for outright death. If you had a 5% chance of death every time Polymorph was cast on you, as well as a 5% chance of losing your mind each time (assuming high enough saves of course), would you still use the spell every chance possible? oke, thx First: the polymorph other is simple to solve: change target to the harmless creature permanently (note: not an instant effect, so dispellable) put it on the level of save or die spells: - negative: the enemy still lives (and can be polymorphed back, the next round if it is a spellcaster, or by minions/bosses/allies) - positive: capturable -> you can question the enemy (ex. speak with animal to speak with the newly squirl) or turned in to the authorities (good if your party has a Paladin). - dispellable / counterable: the basic things (dispel magic, greater dispell magic, ...) and polymorph (self): dispel: polymorph (self) can revert you to your old self, for the duration of the spell. counter: polymorph (self) / polymorph (other): are only diffrent spells for game balance, they actually use the same 'magic' (or however counterspell works) Second: the big problem: polymorph (self). if you want to use the 2ed Ed. version, my I give the following sugestion - HD limit (your spellcaster level, max 15 HD) - creature type limit as polymorph 3.0 (so no ghosts, or special things) - granting appearance => adds +10 to diguize check => adds/removes size -> changes str/dex/AC/attack/defence/hide-check/grapple check ... (<- their is a table for this in one of the cores. example: medium->small: +1 at, +1 AC ). these are the only bonusses given: you only get the appearance. thes bonusses represent reality: no rat that can carry a normal stuff of human, but rats are dificult to get hit / to see. i don't know if hide/grapple are on that table, but they should be include: a hide bonus isn't big if you know that invisibiliy is only lvl 2. stats use base 10 (an ordenairy monster) (minimum 1), so if you become a large gaint, the new str/dex is NOT that of the large gaint (you only get appearance), but rather str 18 (10 + 8 from size) and dex 8 (10 -2 from size). if you polymorph in a gelatunous cube (i don't know if you can because of the limits i set (point 1 and 2), but for arguments sake), you look like a cube, you can move like a cube, and you can 'wiggle' a bit, but it is to dificult for you to absorb enemies, .... Any acids a cube would secrede are just harmless liquids. Etc. => note that this also affects ears, eyes, mouth, ... (as gelatunous cube you are blind, deaf, and can't cast any spells with vocal or somatic components: you have don't have ears, eyes, ... and don't have the mindset to interprete the blindsendse stuff (although you could cast blindsense before you cast polymorph) ) - natural movement fly if a bird or beholder (i thought he floated naturally), burrow if burrowing creatue, ... the speeds become that of the new creature. this gives: Big creatures: realy strong and fast, but very easy to hit (very low dex, size penalty to defence) Little creatures: difficult to hit, but slow and weak duration: 1 minute per level (enouph for 1 combat, and pre-combat casting) is this balanced enouph ? |
| Samwise04-22-06, 07:09 PM | oke, thx First: the polymorph other is simple to solve:[QUOTE] It already has been with baleful polymorph. [QUOTE]Second: the big problem: polymorph (self). if you want to use the 2ed Ed. version, my I give the following sugestion . . . duration: 1 minute per level (enouph for 1 combat, and pre-combat casting) is this balanced enouph ? Generally, yes. Actually, the duration can easily be increased if it is removed from being a combat transformation spell. |
| Qube04-23-06, 02:47 AM | Actually, the duration can easily be increased if it is removed from being a combat transformation spell. i wouldn't: 'fly' (lvl 3) also has 1 min/lvl; i wouldn't allow it to have 10 times the duration for a spell of 1 lvl higher and more versitile (compare fly to polymorph in winged elf or fey'ri or something stronger, and remember that polymorph has much more options) + metamagic could extend the duration at lvl 7, it helps you to get in a camp unnoticed (if you are not stopped) at higher level (meta-magic duration x2) you could be stopped once polymorph still is yust a spell, it doesn't make you a shapeshifter |
| rubendogs04-23-06, 12:55 PM | their is 1 page in the PHB that is role-play oriented, and 1 chapter in the PHB about combat, a hole book with monsters. who are you kidding: if it was a roleplay game, why is every class combat oriented, and why is it that your wizards have at least 18 int in your campaign? The whole series is roleplaying. The entries in the MM give basic behavior and social structure. The DMG give basics on building non-combat locations and NPCs. The PHB, though, it is the best. Every chapter EXCEPT combat has roleplaying elements. Skills determine what your character knows and does. Feats explain what training your character has had. Races give you a family, and your class gives you a template for you mindset - and casters get the best of this! Wizards can create their role every day, one day a thief, another day a fighter - the wizards can be played to the point where he never has to show that he is a wizard. Sorcerers are more restrictive, but your spells are then used toe define your history - you can give a story of every spell. Even the spells themselves are each a role playing element. The PHB states that no two casters cast the same spell the same way - not even their spells books, which couold contain teh same spells, look alike - once caster's Magic Missile is green blobs, another is radiant blue energy, and another's is a spark of vile red light. Polymorph is, perhaps, the WORST spell for Roleplaying, simply because it is too open ended. It's lack of restriction leaves it with no background. It's level is low enough that, to gain the amazing level of power it allows, you barely have to break a sweat (7th level isn't that hard, if you play smart). Even your precious combat is a role playing experience. Each character behaves differently in combat, handles threat a different way, moves around her opponents differently. It saddens me to think you aren't getting the level of enjoyment from the game that many of the rest of us are. If you can't see that roleplaying is integral to the game, then you shouldn't be addressing it. Do your hack n' slash and enjoy, really, I wish you well; but leave the game mechanics to those who can see what the game is actually about - and that is a lot more than just combat. -Keith PS: Sorry to get off topic. |
| Cardinal Teplin04-23-06, 01:42 PM | Polymorph is, perhaps, the WORST spell for Roleplaying, simply because it is too open ended. It's lack of restriction leaves it with no background. It sounds like you have an interesting point to make there. I'm not convinced I can make out what it is though. Care to elaborate? How does an open ended spell make for poor roleplaying? For reference, I've been arguing almost exactly the reverse.. |
| Sylvain04-24-06, 10:11 AM | By your logic, there are no DnD style heroes, monsters, wizards, gods, or anything else. No great cities with towers that defy gravity, no arcane towers, or hordes of gold and lore... As for explaining the economy? Cities, hubs of trade and travel, are fully able to support magic items shops. They pay taxes, bring in trade, and the government has access to an veritable arsenal of magic items, if under siege. ... Besides, if the character takes the right feats, he can MAKE one at that level. Ignoring abilities that a PC may have is never a good idea. You can't just say that because an item costs 4000gp that it will be unavailable. The ability to create items is taken into account as part of the core system, so all arguments that are within the rules should include the capability. I'm not saying that these things should be ignored, only that it should be considered a fact that not everyone has them (even if they theoretically might have adequate level and money and desire to have whatever it is you feel they should be having). I'm certain that the frequency of magic, and magic items, and magic item shops, and even money, varies greatly between campaigns and worlds and regions. If you're in Forgotten Realms, it's not as big a problem. If you're in Har'Akir, in Ravenloft, with the borders closed, it's a completely different scenario! What I've been saying about feats is that there is too wide a range to assume that every PC wizard is going to have Craft Wondrous Item, or any other specific feat. In addition to the 109 I mentioned in the 3.5 PH, The Player's Handbook II promises "more than 100 additions" to feat selection. I'm not saying that D&D shouldn't have a feel or a style. I'm saying that there shouldn't be set uniform standards that every character has to, or should be expected to follow. If there is one specific item (or monster, or feat, or ability, or castle, or spell, or magic toothbrush) that is mandatory and not optional (for whatever reason), then I think that's a flaw, either in design or in perception (or in both). D&D should be all about freedom and creativity in my opinion. This has to do with polymorph only because I believe that the designers, as well as many board members, seem to think that there's a particular way that everyone "should be" playing, and I disagree with that idea. The 3rd and 3.5 editions have been great because of their definitiveness and detail, but WotC has been making judgments based on unknowable information, which is gradually making the game much more restrained and confined (almost more like a video game) - in addition to completely nerfing up magic. In DnD this is only a die roll, representing time spent, so the other PCs know exactly how much time they have to spend fooling around. What die roll are you referring to? |
| Sylvain04-24-06, 10:22 AM | Amen to that! Really does demonstrate the problem quite nicely. :heehee Thanks. :) |
| Sylvain04-24-06, 10:46 AM | And? That in no way suggests that the default assumption should be no feats or items to enhance the character power. ... Except spell research, by its nature, introduces non-standard material. It is not the same as presuming basic feats. What do you think are the basic feats? Why do you think there even is such a thing as a presumed, assumed, basic, standard feat that everyone of a certain class must (or should be assumed to) have? By talking about spell research, I'm just suggesting that the entire game is made up of outside variables that are not easily measurable. If you make assumptions about player choices (which are pretty much impossible to determine), why draw the line at feats and items and spells? By designating those for me, you've already presumed half my character anyway, in addition to spending his money for him. You might as well just throw in appearance and a background, and e-mail me my players' new character sheets and campaign setting so I can get started on it. I'm not saying these things can't be considered, I'm saying that if you want to go by a basic, typical character, in a basic typical world, you can assume very little, since there might not even be such things. And like I said (a couple times) the power these things grant you usually works in both directions, making them inconsequential in a discussion about "balance" and "power-levels". (Those parts of the equation mostly cancel each other out.) Why? It is not a combat spell. If you want that, wait for shapechange. Polymorph was, and should be, a movement and hiding/disguise only spell. Or are all non-combat spells useless? (Just for clarification) We were referring to Summon Monster I and the celestial badger. I was thinking that that spell is designed for combat because the duration is so short that it seems unlikely to be useful for anything else. I could be wrong though, I suppose. |
| Samwise04-24-06, 11:28 AM | What do you think are the basic feats? Why do you think there even is such a thing as a presumed, assumed, basic, standard feat that everyone of a certain class must (or should be assumed to) have? Nice try, but I didn't say that. People will build characters they like to play. People will make those characters effective at whatever it is they like to do in game. People will take feats that will enhance their effectiveness. That is not a big jump, it presumes, assumes, and standardizes nothing except for useful characters. While I am quite aware of a certain school of character design (and army design for constructed army games) that places some abstract, theoretical concept of "Whatever I choose MUST ALWAYS be as effective as the most abusive power play of a cheating weasel or your game SUCKS AND IS TOTALLY BROKEN!" it remains that such is in fact absurd, and does not need to be given any consideration in any serious discussion of rules or balance. That leaves us where I said it would, with any spell being taken and used for a purpose by an individual player, and with the expectation that the feats of the character using the spell will likely enhance it in some manner. (Just for clarification) We were referring to Summon Monster I and the celestial badger. I was thinking that that spell is designed for combat because the duration is so short that it seems unlikely to be useful for anything else. I could be wrong though, I suppose. Which is why the spell can only summon a celestial badger of course. Oh wait, it can summon other things. Which is why as a 1st level spell it should be expected to do more than about 1-6 damage, like any other 1st level spell. Oh wait, it shouldn't. So again, what were you expecting from a 1st level spell? As much damage as Power Word Pain? |
| Sylvain04-24-06, 12:07 PM | That leaves us where I said it would, with any spell being taken and used for a purpose by an individual player, and with the expectation that the feats of the character using the spell will likely enhance it in some manner. Yes... But I'd like magic to be (reasonably) effective with no optional enhancements - and for the most part it is. In other words, every fireball cast isn't going to be assumed to be maximized. So again, what were you expecting from a 1st level spell? As much damage as Power Word Pain? I wasn't expecting a badger. :D :heehee I'm glad you don't believe in "army design". :) |
| Cardinal Teplin04-24-06, 01:17 PM | ... People will build characters they like to play. People will make those characters effective at whatever it is they like to do in game. People will take feats that will enhance their effectiveness. That is not a big jump, it presumes, assumes, and standardizes nothing except for useful characters. Still a jump, mind. Some people like their characters to fail at things. Others have character concepts which aren't about being effective or ineffective. Last game I played a player wanted his character to be a cat. There were long and complicated reasons for why he wanted to be a cat, but they weren't about stealth, agility, or claws. They were about being small, furry, and not taken seriously. And chasing mice. Similarly, the ballerina duck, one the stranger Living Greyhawk* characters I've ever seen. Assuming people will take feats to enhance their effectiveness is an assumption, and as we all know it doesn't always work out. Similarly, assuming a wizard wants to be good at casting spells is also an assumption, and again it doesn't always work out. One of my main objections to removing polymorph is that it, and player-defined effects in general, are very good for serving character concepts not well served by the assumptions made during the design process. Not making assumptions at all leads to a rather formless structure for the game. Hardening assumptions to absolute rules, can similarly spoil things. Player-defined effects strike me as the only sensible middle route between these two extremes. *Living greyhawk - An RPGA game known for it's strict adherence to the letter of the rules with little or no campaign variations. The one exception being, interestingly enough, the latest ruling on polymorph. |
| Samwise04-24-06, 01:18 PM | Yes... But I'd like magic to be (reasonably) effective with no optional enhancements - and for the most part it is. In other words, every fireball cast isn't going to be assumed to be maximized. Is maximized the most effective way to use fireball? I'm glad you don't believe in "army design". :) To clarify, I was referring to numerous complaints I see about Mage Knight, a collectible miniatures game. People constantly complain that the game design is "broken" because they can't make their favorite theme armies be effective. Well, basically, no, they can't. The reason, when you look at some of their theme armies, is apparent, and it isn't the game design. It is the sucky armies. They are trying, in generally equivalent terms, to make fighter with all of his feats in Skill Focus (craft), then complaining that he can't craft items as well as a wizard with all of his feats as item creation feats. Or they want a force of all 1st level commoners to be able to take out a 20th level fighter (tank build) because "they have the same number of levels because of xp." Or they want a BDF build with no save bonuses, then complain they never get to do anything in combat because he constantly fails all his Reflex and Will saves. Or they make a party of all grey elves, then whine because everyone has a sucky Strength and Constitution. Meanwhile, the group I play with spends more time just playing, and we manage to make obscenely powerful theme armies by simply playing to the power of the theme we are using. 1st level commoners vs 20th level tank? He can only kill one per round if we move on him properly. Meanwhile, all his buddies die horribly. All wimpy grey elves? When you finish fighting through the storm of magic, we'll slap-fight the survivors to death. BDF who sucks up tons of damage? Spell-caster buddy to throw tons of protections on him, necromancer buddy to bring him back after he dies so you can try to kill him again. Fighter with all item creation feats? Well, we just choose better feats. :P The same principles apply to D&D. Your character will only be as effective as you design it to be, for whatever purpose you design it for. If you design for raw damage output, you will have raw damage outpt, but you won't have much else. If you design for interaction, everyone will do what you want, but you won't inflict the punishment. Or whatever else you design for. I fail to see a problem when a game lets you design the character you want and it can perform to your requirements. I also fail to see a problem when the game doesn't let you design a character that does everything, and lets you make everyone else in the group into a worthless hanger on, with no purpose other than to admire you. If you want that, there are plenty of CRPGs designed to build a team that way, D&D is a group game. And thus we come back to polymorph. More than whether it does "everything" is the problem that it simply does "too much." In this sense, saying the spell is "iconic" is actually a bad thing. If you can not imagine playing a wizard who doesn't have the spell, then it obviously needs to be looked at again. And before you ask, my most recent wizard, who happens to like summoning celestial badgers, is just short of 5th level, and has used mage armor once, shield never, sleep never, and magic missile less than summoned badgers or color sprays. So no, I don't think they are any iconic spells that all wizards must always have. |
| Samwise04-24-06, 01:38 PM | Still a jump, mind. Some people like their characters to fail at things. Others have character concepts which aren't about being effective or ineffective. Last game I played a player wanted his character to be a cat. There were long and complicated reasons for why he wanted to be a cat, but they weren't about stealth, agility, or claws. They were about being small, furry, and not taken seriously. And chasing mice. Similarly, the ballerina duck, one the stranger Living Greyhawk* characters I've ever seen. Assuming people will take feats to enhance their effectiveness is an assumption, and as we all know it doesn't always work out. Similarly, assuming a wizard wants to be good at casting spells is also an assumption, and again it doesn't always work out. And so we have some prime examples of what I was talking about. If you want to fail at things, don't take abilities to be able to do it. I quite assure you, that if you have no ranks in any Knowledge skill, you won't know all that much. Likewise a lack of ranks in Charisma skills will make people ignore you, a lack of rank in Dexterity skills will make you clumsy, and so forth. Similarly, if you don't want to be taken seriously, fine. But don't expect the game systems to treat you seriously either. Great, you are a small furry cat who chases mice. Unfortunately you are supposed to be fighting a dragon. How would you like your next character to die? Feel free to have a 10 Int Wizard with no Concentration Skill. I'm sure the group will value the contributions you make with endless castings of detect magic. One of my main objections to removing polymorph is that it, and player-defined effects in general, are very good for serving character concepts not well served by the assumptions made during the design process. Not making assumptions at all leads to a rather formless structure for the game. Hardening assumptions to absolute rules, can similarly spoil things. Player-defined effects strike me as the only sensible middle route between these two extremes. They are rather poor at serving such character concepts. They encourage a lack of consideration for the actual game rules, and an expectation of special cases to cover any intentional flaws they design into the characters, completely negating any role-playing intentions they claimed to want. "Well, I want to be a classic feeble old wizard. Of course, I intend to use polymorph as soon as I can so I can run around with huge physical stats, making my own Str 8, Dex 8, and Con 8 irrelevant. But my concept is a feeble old wizard!" Yeah, right. *Living greyhawk - An RPGA game known for it's strict adherence to the letter of the rules with little or no campaign variations. The one exception being, interestingly enough, the latest ruling on polymorph. Of course the opposition to the rule, including the threats to quit if it wasn't ignored, demonstrated rather clearly both what I describe here (false appeals to role-playing and using unbalanced powers to cover for poor character concepts), previously (calling the system broken because every concept and build isn't better than perfect for every task), as well as exposing the presence of other severely broken prestige classes and abilities that take advantage of the flaws in polymorph itself. |
| rubendogs04-24-06, 08:04 PM | It sounds like you have an interesting point to make there. I'm not convinced I can make out what it is though. Care to elaborate? How does an open ended spell make for poor roleplaying? For reference, I've been arguing almost exactly the reverse.. Think about other spells. Iconic spells like Fireball and Magic Missile - for a Sorcerer, selecting these is saying that your character had a hard life. Had to learn how to defend himself. For a Wizard, they are practically guaranteed learning. Magic Missile is a core spell, used by wizards to learn how to shape magic into a robust damage dealing spell. Almost every spell book has it, because it's one of the first spells a wizard is taught. Illusions are a better choice for a sorcerer or wizard, if he wants to hide. They are easier to create, and are customizable. And this is what illusions are for. And they are not overpowered because their nature makes them easily overcome, once they are found to be false. Polymorph on the other hand is... potentially a great resource for roleplaying, I admit. But it has no definition. Without needing to preselect creatures (maybe treat it like an ability that grows with time. Every 2 caster levels is a new creature, and every 4 you can exchange out a creature), it has no real, permanent impact on the character. They don't have to live with their choices for more than a combat round. If you turn into a rat to sneak away one time, but you teh realize that, for some reason, that was a huge mistake, you aren't stuck with it. so while you as a player learn from it, your character has no lasting effect. He never has to change into a rat again. He doesn't have to stare at the Polymorph: Rat entry on his spell list. Having to live with your choices, and the consequences of them, is part of reality, and in an RPG, for the character to feel real, he needs to have to deal with the same things. I don't think I'm explaining this very well... do you understand? -Keith |
| rubendogs04-24-06, 08:37 PM | I'm not saying that these things should be ignored, only that it should be considered a fact that not everyone has them (even if they theoretically might have adequate level and money and desire to have whatever it is you feel they should be having). I'm certain that the frequency of magic, and magic items, and magic item shops, and even money, varies greatly between campaigns and worlds and regions. If you're in Forgotten Realms, it's not as big a problem. If you're in Har'Akir, in Ravenloft, with the borders closed, it's a completely different scenario! What I've been saying about feats is that there is too wide a range to assume that every PC wizard is going to have Craft Wondrous Item, or any other specific feat. In addition to the 109 I mentioned in the 3.5 PH, The Player's Handbook II promises "more than 100 additions" to feat selection. I'm not saying that D&D shouldn't have a feel or a style. I'm saying that there shouldn't be set uniform standards that every character has to, or should be expected to follow. If there is one specific item (or monster, or feat, or ability, or castle, or spell, or magic toothbrush) that is mandatory and not optional (for whatever reason), then I think that's a flaw, either in design or in perception (or in both). D&D should be all about freedom and creativity in my opinion. I agree with you to a point. The core rules should allow for freedom, and I do disagree with the errata, because it makes druids feel about 2 levels lower than the rest of the party. And it's true than not all wizards will take XXXX feat. But it's available, which makes the issue have thousands of shades of gray. Generalizing by assuming than a wizard that casts 4th level spells has no feats and no ability increases is foolish. No one is assuming that every wizard is the same, but I am willing to bet that most (80%) wizards put their first couple ability increases in Intelligence. And while they aren't all going to make them, or buy them, there is no denying that magic items that increase the intelligence of a wizard are VERY useful. This has to do with polymorph only because I believe that the designers, as well as many board members, seem to think that there's a particular way that everyone "should be" playing, and I disagree with that idea. The 3rd and 3.5 editions have been great because of their definitiveness and detail, but WotC has been making judgments based on unknowable information, which is gradually making the game much more restrained and confined (almost more like a video game) - in addition to completely nerfing up magic. The designers, and the board members, including you and me, are all biased. It's human nature. We all feel that the way we like things to be is the best. As a whole, the task is to find a way to fix the broken bits without alienating anyone other than the munchkins. Breaking the spell into categories, requiring that the caster make permanent choices - these are good ideas, I think. Turing it, basically, into a slightly more convincing illusion, or removing it, and breaking one of the most interesting ideas behind a core class (druid) - bad ideas. I agree with you about the game becoming too video game like, and WotC is a touch guilty of this, but they react to the market, and the gaming industry is dominated by video games. Where people in their 30's played DnD and then made video games, those born in the 80s - like me - were video gamers first, and DnD gamers second, and their influence is to make DnD more like what they know. I think it sucks, because I like DnD as a social setting, and I loath MMOs - which are trying to replace DnD. Except that Polymorph really does need work. Few of the suggestions I've seen here are really going to help, including my own post on one of the earlier pages. What die roll are you referring to? Researching in DnD is a Die Roll. To see how successful you are is a d20+Int.Mod. check, DC based on how rare/difficult the topic is. If you are researching a new form, it takes time. The time is represented by how well you succeed or fail at researching. the rest of the party is then doing what? while your character spends 4 days in the library, they are stuck wasting time that could be spent adventuring. At least I believe that's what I was referring to. -Keith |
| Samwise05-01-06, 07:48 PM | Just in case anybody hasn't had enough of this (and since this message will be lost with the board revision anyway) - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=5 The PHB II apparently has the actual polymorph revision. The two key elements are: 1. Using the new form's BAB and Base Saves. 2. Losing ALL class features, even if the new form would let you use them. So fighters are thoroughly hosed on the first, and partially hosed on the second, while pretty much all other classes are just completely hosed on the second. |
| Objulen05-02-06, 11:25 AM | So fighters are thoroughly hosed on the first, and partially hosed on the second, while pretty much all other classes are just completely hosed on the second. Not quite as much. While some things don't make much sense to me (changing mental abilities, not gaining HP based on the new CON score and just getting a flat temp HP instead), the fact that you gain all the abilities of the new form (including Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-Like abilities) means that there's much more of a point to these sorts of spells. For example, the new Trollform spell gives you regeneration, and 30 bonus HP. However, the "equipment melds into your new form" is definantly going to be Rule 0-ed, under the same reasoning and perogitives that it is generally applied to the MoMF; if the new form can reasonably use the item, it keeps it. This is especially true for giant shapes, or anything else that is largely humanoid in shape. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland05-02-06, 11:43 AM | Don't worry about fighters being hosed, they'll never use the new school because the monomorph spells all seem to be personal. |
| Samwise05-02-06, 12:42 PM | Not quite as much. While some things don't make much sense to me (changing mental abilities, not gaining HP based on the new CON score and just getting a flat temp HP instead), the fact that you gain all the abilities of the new form (including Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-Like abilities) means that there's much more of a point to these sorts of spells. For example, the new Trollform spell gives you regeneration, and 30 bonus HP. That depends. Note the "Unless stated otherwise in the spell's description," sentence. That means you still don't get the mental abilities, or other special abilities with a Polymorph spell. You would only gain those with the special X-form spells. This achieves some significant balance by removing the majority of the overpowered combat stacking effects of polymorphing, while still giving the "inherent" abilities of the new form. Go ahead, polymorph into a rat. You can walk like a rat, talk like a rat, and yes, bite like a rat. Just like a rat. BAB 0 and all. However, the "equipment melds into your new form" is definantly going to be Rule 0-ed, under the same reasoning and perogitives that it is generally applied to the MoMF; if the new form can reasonably use the item, it keeps it. This is especially true for giant shapes, or anything else that is largely humanoid in shape. I think that can be safely left as purely a special ability of a MoMF. It gives the prestige class an actual, distinct, special ability, as opposed to just something common to everyone polymorphing. (Or wild shaping or whatever.) |
| MrkGrismer05-02-06, 03:10 PM | Just in case anybody hasn't had enough of this (and since this message will be lost with the board revision anyway) - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=5 The PHB II apparently has the actual polymorph revision. The two key elements are: 1. Using the new form's BAB and Base Saves. 2. Losing ALL class features, even if the new form would let you use them. So fighters are thoroughly hosed on the first, and partially hosed on the second, while pretty much all other classes are just completely hosed on the second. This only applies to the new spells, the old spells still work the same way (Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange) because of this: Spells That Have Come Before For the purpose of adjudicating effects that apply to polymorph spells, any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool. However, note that the spells' existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool. Alter self, for instance, does not change the target's ability scores (unlike normal for spells of the polymorph subschool). |
| Raven Dark05-02-06, 04:37 PM | This only applies to the new spells, the old spells still work the same way (Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange) because of this: Until the book is officially released, how do you know they didn't make further changes to the spells? All we have so far is a preview of select limited material. At this point you could be absolutely right jsut as easily as you could be absolutely wrong. Also, I have updated my Easy to Read Polymorph Errata Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9079400&posted=1#post9079400) if anyone wishes to see the implemented changes in a clear and precise format. I am also backing up my errata thread on my harddrive so that I may re-update it after the board finishes its "snapshot" revisions. |
| MrkGrismer05-02-06, 05:29 PM | Until the book is officially released, how do you know they didn't make further changes to the spells? All we have so far is a preview of select limited material. At this point you could be absolutely right jsut as easily as you could be absolutely wrong. Also, I have updated my Easy to Read Polymorph Errata Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9079400&posted=1#post9079400) if anyone wishes to see the implemented changes in a clear and precise format. I am also backing up my errata thread on my harddrive so that I may re-update it after the board finishes its "snapshot" revisions. Based purely on the web preview I am absolutely right. The idea that they may have made further changes to the spells is baseless speculation that seems about as valid to me as saying "How do you know they didn't remove the fighter class from the game?" |
| Samwise05-02-06, 06:56 PM | This only applies to the new spells, the old spells still work the same way (Alter Self, Polymorph, Shapechange) because of this: Right. And Polymorph doesn't include a thing about BAB, Base Saves, or class abilities. (Among other elements affected by this change.) In contrast, it clearly states that you gain only the physical ability scores of the new form while retaining your mental ability scores. Compare this to Alter Self which specifically notes that none of these change. So no, the old spells don't all still work the same way, particularly Polymorph. As for whether or not there is a specific rewrite of the Polymorph spell to reflect all this, or to directly exclude it from one or more of those cases, that does indeed remain to be seen. I would strongly suspect not, as that would rather defeat the whole purpose of presenting the changes as a Polymorph subschool. This way, they don't have to actually change the text of the Polymorph spell, all the relevant changes in effect are subsumed within the subschool text. |
| Raven Dark05-02-06, 08:16 PM | Based purely on the web preview I am absolutely right. Maybe so, but it is still too early to tell what WotC is really going to do. Tell you what, if I am wrong and they make no further changes to the Polymorph spell or its ilk other than what is previewed already, I shall apologize to you. However, if they do change something important, you can give a friendly nod in my direction. How's that sound? For now, we can just agree to disagree. |
| Raven Dark05-02-06, 09:18 PM | The new Rules of the Game: Polymorphing Revisited (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060502a) article attempts to deal with the new polymorph errata. :P What say you on the matter? |
| MrkGrismer05-02-06, 11:09 PM | I think some people might be getting blind spots: The polymorph spell itself hasn't changed at all; see the announcement for details. Specifically: Spells That Have Come Before For the purpose of adjudicating effects that apply to polymorph spells, any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool. However, note that the spells' existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool. Alter self, for instance, does not change the target's ability scores (unlike normal for spells of the polymorph subschool). Let's try to apply this to the entire chain thru shapechange: (Dark Red indicates sections overriden, Navy indicates sections that override) THE POLYMORPH SUBSCHOOL A spell of the polymorph subschool changes the target's form from one shape to another. Unless stated otherwise in the spell's description, the target of a polymorph spell takes on all the statistics and special abilities of an average member of the new form in place of its own except as follows: The target retains its own alignment (and personality, within the limits of the new form's ability scores). The target retains its own hit points. (Overriden by alter self) The target is treated has having its normal Hit Dice for purpose of adjudicating effects based on HD, 95 such as the sleep spell, though it uses the new form's base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and all other statistics derived from Hit Dice. (Overriden in Alter Self) The target retains the ability to understand the languages it understands in its normal form. If the new form is normally capable of speech, the target retains the ability to speak these languages as well. It can write in the languages it understands, but only if the new form is capable of writing in some manner (even a primitive manner, such as drawing in the dirt with a paw). In all other ways, the target's normal game statistics are effectively replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all of the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features (even if the new form would normally be able to use these class features). (Overridden by Alter Self) If the new form's size is different from the target's normal size, its new space must share as much of the original form's space as possible, squeezing into the available space (see PH 148) if necessary. If insufficient space exists for the new form, the spell fails. Any gear worn or carried by the target melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When the target reverts to its true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on its body they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the target's feet. (Overridden by Alter Self) The spellcaster can freely designate the new form's minor physical qualities (such as hair color and skin color) within the normal ranges for a creature of that kind. The new form's significant physical qualities (such as height, weight, and gender) are also under the spellcaster's control, but they must fall within the norms for the new form's kind. The target of a polymorph spell is effectively camouflaged as a creature of its new form, and gains a +10 bonus on Disguise checks if it uses this ability to create a disguise. If the target of a polymorph spell is slain or rendered unconscious, the spell ends. Any part of the body that is separated from the whole remains polymorphed until the effect ends. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to polymorph spells, as are creatures of the plant type. A creature with the shapechanger subtype (such as a lycanthrope or doppelganger) can revert to its natural form as a standard action. Shapechange Transmutation Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) This spell functions like polymorph, This spell functions like alter self, You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. You can change into a member of your own kind or even into yourself. You retain your own ability scores. Your class and level, hit points, alignment, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses all remain the same. You retain all supernatural and spell-like special attacks and qualities of your normal form, except for those requiring a body part that the new form does not have (such as a mouth for a breath weapon or eyes for a gaze attack). You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels. If the new form is capable of speech, you can communicate normally. You retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly (that is, speak a language) to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulation to use somatic or material components. You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal. You do not gain any extraordinary special attacks or special qualities not noted above under physical qualities, such as darkvision, low-light vision, blindsense, blindsight, fast healing, regeneration, scent, and so forth. You do not gain any supernatural special attacks, special qualities, or spell-like abilities of the new form. Your creature type and subtype (if any) remain the same regardless of your new form. You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype. You can freely designate the new form’s minor physical qualities (such as hair color, hair texture, and skin color) within the normal ranges for a creature of that kind. The new form’s significant physical qualities (such as height, weight, and gender) are also under your control, but they must fall within the norms for the new form’s kind. You are effectively disguised as an average member of the new form’s race. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check. When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When you revert to your true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on your body they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items you wore in the assumed form and can’t wear in your normal form fall off and land at your feet; any that you could wear in either form or carry in a body part common to both forms at the time of reversion are still held in the same way. Any part of the body or piece of equipment that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form. except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form. Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further). If slain, the subject reverts to its original form, though it remains dead. The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action. except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD). Unlike polymorph, this spell allows incorporeal or gaseous forms to be assumed. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. You can become just about anything you are familiar with. You can change form once each round as a free action. The change takes place either immediately before your regular action or immediately after it, but not during the action. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check. Focus: A jade circlet worth no less than 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head when casting the spell. (The focus melds into your new form when you change shape.) |
| MrkGrismer05-02-06, 11:11 PM | Maybe so, but it is still too early to tell what WotC is really going to do. Tell you what, if I am wrong and they make no further changes to the Polymorph spell or its ilk other than what is previewed already, I shall apologize to you. However, if they do change something important, you can give a friendly nod in my direction. How's that sound? For now, we can just agree to disagree. That's fine. Odd that the Rules of the Game is just now addressing the PREVIOUS errata changes. |
| Raven Dark05-03-06, 12:10 AM | Odd that the Rules of the Game is just now addressing the PREVIOUS errata changes. I agree. It is very odd indeed. |
| Objulen05-03-06, 12:17 AM | That depends. Note the "Unless stated otherwise in the spell's description," sentence. That means you still don't get the mental abilities, or other special abilities with a Polymorph spell. You would only gain those with the special X-form spells. True, but it would certainly seem that the X-forms spells are going to be replacing general Polymorph spells for combat applications, which is where it matters most. This achieves some significant balance by removing the majority of the overpowered combat stacking effects of polymorphing, while still giving the "inherent" abilities of the new form. Go ahead, polymorph into a rat. You can walk like a rat, talk like a rat, and yes, bite like a rat. Just like a rat. BAB 0 and all. Definantly. However, losing access to spells should give some benefit, and Ex Sq, Sp, and Su of a creature are good compensation. I think that can be safely left as purely a special ability of a MoMF. It gives the prestige class an actual, distinct, special ability, as opposed to just something common to everyone polymorphing. (Or wild shaping or whatever.) Not really. There's no purpose what so ever to giant forms and most humanoid forms unless you keep your equipment, nevermind the massive logical SNAFU that you'd need to try and use it as a disguise. Trying to sneak past bugbear gaurds with a form-changing spell doesn't work so well when you've been rendered naked by some spell. "How exactly were you stripped of your armor and clothes?" |
| dorpond05-23-06, 11:07 AM | Look at the recent Rules of the Game: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060523a It looks like we gain the skills of the form? I happen to look at the Druids before and after skills and it looks like they are gained. Is this specified anywhere? If Skip is correct with this, I am pleasently surprised :) |
| MrkGrismer05-23-06, 02:25 PM | Maybe so, but it is still too early to tell what WotC is really going to do. Tell you what, if I am wrong and they make no further changes to the Polymorph spell or its ilk other than what is previewed already, I shall apologize to you. Well, now the Rules of the Game: More Polymorphing series is complete and we all have our PHB2s, no changes to the Polymorph spell or its ilk other than what was previewed already... :waits: :D |
| MrkGrismer05-23-06, 02:57 PM | Look at the recent Rules of the Game: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060523a It looks like we gain the skills of the form? I happen to look at the Druids before and after skills and it looks like they are gained. Is this specified anywhere? If Skip is correct with this, I am pleasently surprised :) This has been covered before in the polymorph RotG articles, you get Racial Bonuses to skills. But it looks like Skip made some errors (I think). Also the getting racial bonuses was for polymorph and such, the new Alternate Form makes no mention of skills. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). Skills: Leopards have a +8 racial bonus on Jump checks and a +4 racial bonus on Hide and Move Silently checks. Leopards have a +8 racial bonus on Balance and Climb checks. A leopard can always choose to take 10 on a Climb check, even if rushed or threatened. Abilities Str 10, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 11 Skills Climb +4, Concentration +8, Handle Animal +7, Heal +10, Knowledge (nature) +12, Listen +5, Ride +4, Spot +5, Survival +14 (+16 above ground), Swim +1 Abilities Str 16, Dex 19, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 11 Skills Balance +12, Climb +19, Concentration +9, Handle Animal +7, Heal +10, Hide +8, Knowledge (nature) +12, Listen +5, Move Silently +8, Ride +6, Spot +5, Survival +14 (+16 above ground), Swim +12 Differences: Balance +12 (+8 racial, +4 new dex), Climb +15 (+8 racial, +3 new strength, +4 ???), Concentration +1 (+1 from new con), Hide +8 (+8 racial), Move Silently +8 (+8 racial), Ride +2 (should be +4 from new dex), Swim +11 (should be only +3 from new strength, I don't know where the other +8 comes from) |
| Raven Dark05-23-06, 04:52 PM | Well, now the Rules of the Game: More Polymorphing series is complete and we all have our PHB2s, no changes to the Polymorph spell or its ilk other than what was previewed already... :waits: :D Be patient friend. WotC has been known for pulling strange things out of their pants without warning. :P Maybe when they release both the next Core Errata and the Main FAQ, I will apologize to you--assuming no changes to the form altering rules are released along with them. :) |
| MrkGrismer05-23-06, 05:58 PM | Be patient friend. WotC has been known for pulling strange things out of their pants without warning. :P That's just wrong... Maybe when they release both the next Core Errata and the Main FAQ, I will apologize to you--assuming no changes to the form altering rules are released along with them. :) I wonder what odds are being given on whether that will be before or after the PHB2 erratta? :D |
| Raven Dark05-23-06, 11:09 PM | I wonder what odds are being given on whether that will be before or after the PHB2 erratta? :D I wonder... :heehee |
| MrkGrismer05-26-06, 02:12 PM | Maybe when they release both the next Core Errata and the Main FAQ, I will apologize to you--assuming no changes to the form altering rules are released along with them. :) Well, there's one, the Main FAQ ;) But did you notice the mistake saying that Alternate Form refers to polymorph? |
| Raven Dark05-26-06, 03:47 PM | Well, there's one, the Main FAQ ;) But did you notice the mistake saying that Alternate Form refers to polymorph? Yes I did, actually. |
| rubendogs05-29-06, 11:26 AM | Maybe what we need is a 'Complete Polymorph' book. If it's so confusing that it literally can't be a balanced spell, remove it (make a balanced version with a different name) and make classes, abilities, races, feats, and prestige classes that center on the ability to change shape. Atmidedly a little drasstic, and will need some serious errata to many many books, but it would certainly give the designers a chance to make polymorph both optional, and balanced. |
| dragonzardman06-03-06, 06:01 AM | could some one please do me the favor of sending me an email on how to make characters as the only bit i've found is vage so all i know is i'm a spellcasting dwarf apart from that i'm in the dark send to- dragonzardman@hotmail.co.uk |
| Lord Lorac Silvanos06-03-06, 07:25 AM | could some one please do me the favor of sending me an email on how to make characters as the only bit i've found is vage so all i know is i'm a spellcasting dwarf apart from that i'm in the dark send to- dragonzardman@hotmail.co.uk There are some very good chapters on that in the Player's Handbook. :) Different methods for generating ability scores can be found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. |
| Shaggy07-31-06, 09:35 AM | The group I play with has any easy fix to the problem. 1. Has the charactor seen the creature that they wish to polymorph themselves or another into. 2. Has the Character seen that creature in battle. with these two things we don't have any problems with polymorph. Personally, I much prefer requiring a part of the creature as a focus. It seems much more reasonable to me than being able to obtain a lot of unknown abilities from merely the sight of a creature. It also solves the problem for RPGA games, since you can use the normal item list to demonstrate that you have the ability to polymorph into it. Several people have suggested replacing HD by CR. That seems to be a really good and easy fix to me. Have Wizards said anything about why this wouldn't work? |
| SidneyHK12-30-06, 12:37 PM | Hi folks, The following thread is for feedback regarding 02/16's Design & Development (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) article discussing polymorph (going live momentarily). Many thanks, Bart Carroll I was wondering if any thought had been given to changing the 15HD limit to the CR of the creature? Take a dragon that has 15HD but an ECL of +8. That's a total of 23. Wouldn't this help? Sidney Kuhn sidneykuhn@cox.net |
| Objulen01-02-07, 04:14 PM | I was wondering if any thought had been given to changing the 15HD limit to the CR of the creature? Take a dragon that has 15HD but an ECL of +8. That's a total of 23. Wouldn't this help? Sidney Kuhn sidneykuhn@cox.net Except that ECL and CR aren't calculated the same way. While this would work great for creatures that have ECL's already (say, a 15th level caster turning into a Mind Flayer), CR's don't always work. |
| demmood01-27-07, 11:14 AM | :confused: Being a Druid really is poor now, I have been doing some reading and non of my spell offensive powers can ever match another characters now, and no way can a druid now stand its own in a melee battle. Majority of monster chararacter come up against would kill many druids outright with the damage they deal fom one round of combat. The Reason is because my Druid has no con bonus, this was due to the wild shape taking con of the animal you became. I understand why they have changed the wording and description "Alternative form now" if this is to control wizards and sorcerers from abusing the polymorph spell then they need to change the wording in the druids text to state any differences from polymorph and not effect a characters class ability. (Wild shape is a traint of being a druid its not a spell). Again wild shape is a class ability and not a spell ( I know the text says as polymorph, but isn't that incorrect now?) I now have a class ability that is really under powered now against my companions, no way will I be going into any melee combat now. I am going to stay well back and fire my arrows in from my bow. A druids spell selection is all based around nature / understanding and his / hers ability to change its enviromental aspects, ie summon animals, animal growth and call lightning all element controls in some degree of nature. Even with my Druids most offensive spells I am really limited in my ability to contribute to a large combat now that I am lacking in Hp. Flame strike is not a bad spell but I really can only afford to have it twice / day maximum due to group comitments) How can a Druid now be a backup fighter/healer when his / her combat ability is greatly deminished, Not when my a/c is drastically reduced and I will no doubt always be hit during animal form, thus I will be going down now in one round from full hp. Seams a little unfair to druids to remove part of its class feature because of other classes abusing the guidelines in polymorph, It like saying to a paladin that his smite will now only enables him to add his bonus to his attack but not to his damage, or a clerics turning undead no longer works in the way it should. In animal form a druid still retains the risk of dieing whilst in that form with its new con if I am forced to change back. (They are not temporary hit points). In the end as stated by our DM, in a world where you can change into a bear and the gnome can hide in a field of grass, with only buttercups and daisies to hide behind the world can be enterprited in diffrent ways, rules and guide lines are there to aid DM's and characters. It should be those DM controling there group from abusing the polymorph spell. I the end all players will follow what ever is changed and the what ever these abilities and functions now do, I am just a little shocked on how much this change has limited my character. Yours Demmood |
| demmood01-27-07, 11:20 AM | :confused: Being a Druid really is poor now, I have been doing some reading and non of my spell offensive powers can ever match another characters now, and no way can a druid now stand its own in a melee battle. Majority of monster chararacter come up against would kill many druids outright with the damage they deal fom one round of combat. The Reason is because my Druid has no con bonus, this was due to the wild shape taking con of the animal you became. I understand why they have changed the wording and description "Alternative form now" if this is to control wizards and sorcerers from abusing the polymorph spell then they need to change the wording in the druids text to state any differences from polymorph and not effect a characters class ability. (Wild shape is a traint of being a druid its not a spell). Again wild shape is a class ability and not a spell ( I know the text says as polymorph, but isn't that incorrect now?) I now have a class ability that is really under powered now against my companions, no way will I be going into any melee combat now. I am going to stay well back and fire my arrows in from my bow. A druids spell selection is all based around nature / understanding and his / hers ability to change its enviromental aspects, ie summon animals, animal growth and call lightning all element controls in some degree of nature. Even with my Druids most offensive spells I am really limited in my ability to contribute to a large combat now that I am lacking in Hp. Flame strike is not a bad spell but I really can only afford to have it twice / day maximum due to group comitments) How can a Druid now be a backup fighter/healer when his / her combat ability is greatly deminished, Not when my a/c is drastically reduced and I will no doubt always be hit during animal form, thus I will be going down now in one round from full hp. Seams a little unfair to druids to remove part of its class feature because of other classes abusing the guidelines in polymorph, It like saying to a paladin that his smite will now only enables him to add his bonus to his attack but not to his damage, or a clerics turning undead no longer works in the way it should. In animal form a druid still retains the risk of dieing whilst in that form with its new con if I am forced to change back. (They are not temporary hit points). In the end as stated by our DM, in a world where you can change into a bear and the gnome can hide in a field of grass, with only buttercups and daisies to hide behind the world can be enterprited in diffrent ways, rules and guide lines are there to aid DM's and characters. It should be those DM controling there group from abusing the polymorph spell. I the end all players will follow what ever is changed and the what ever these abilities and functions now do, I am just a little shocked on how much this change has limited my character. Yours Demmood |
| rekres02-22-07, 08:45 AM | I was wondering if any thought had been given to changing the 15HD limit to the CR of the creature? Take a dragon that has 15HD but an ECL of +8. That's a total of 23. Wouldn't this help? Sidney Kuhn sidneykuhn@cox.net No, its ECL isn't +8. That's its level adjustment. Its ECL would be 23. ECL (Effective Character Level) is the total of HD, all class levels, and any level adjustments. It amazes me that 4 years after the concept was introduced, that people still get it wrong! |
| Thane2642504-24-07, 03:44 PM | I've never really had trouble with the polymorph spells. Mages I have played never really used it except for transportation or intimidation. A city dwelling mage could cast Alter Self into a bird and fly directly to their destination over all the hustle and bustle. Or, to make people wonder about them, occasionally be seen changing to or from a draconic form. Personally and the other mages I have played with, don't like like the spells because they usually require you to get up close and personal, relying on the creatures abilities. That can be impressive, but it is still easy to get killed by a prepared foe or just by dumb luck. I always considered using this spell to also make one vulnerable to weapons that worked against shapeshifters. An archer with a tricked out bow of shapeshifter bane, haste and Improved Inivisibility could really ruin a Polymorhped mage's day. |