Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 03:37 PM	copy-pasted from LGCS discussion... All right, I've taken a perusal of this thread, and it's about time to weigh in on the mistake that's being made by Closing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc. I'll start with a Triad quote: The day I saw a sorcerer cast polymorph into an Annis Hag and share it and all of his buff spells with his familiar and the play 2 Annis Hags for every combat in a mod, well that just took the cake. He made everyone in the group feel next to useless because he had a better AC and did more damage than the fighters in the group while still having a near full compliment of sorcerer spells. I cannot possibly believe this to be true. This sorcerer is at half BAB, with merely 25 Str ('mere' because that's as high as it goes for him unless he buffs EVEN MORE), max of three claws and a bite while under Haste. Since he had a full compliment of sorcerer spells, I will assume that he did not cast Tenser's Transformation. In order to have a second Annis Hag, he would also have to have a Medium-sized or larger familiar, which means he would have to have invested a feat slot on Improved Familiar, further expending resources. Even if he actually did cast Polymorph every combat, what we have is a very bad Sorcerer. Why? Look at what he's not casting. No Wall of Force, no Evard's Black Tentacles, not even a spike-damage Orb to take out the enemy spellcaster. We have a caster spending a round becoming a Half-BAB Fighter. I will even speak from my own experiences. My own Wizard constantly has Contingency active, keyed to cast Polymorph taking the form War Troll (which I have access to) when he shouts the phrase "You will die!" He has Quickened Enlarge Person memorized, so he can keep his equipment, mainly including his longsword, which he casts Extended Greater Magic Weapon on to make +3. The sorcerer in the above example isn't keeping any equipment. He also has Tenser's Transformation memorized, because I'm sorry, but even War Troll is not going to save a BAB of +5. If I wish, he can cast Quickened Enlarge Person, shout "You will die," then cast Tenser's Transformation, click his Boots of Speed, move into position and draw his longsword. His full-attack sequence becomes +26/+26/+21/+16, bite at +24, doing 2d6+21 damage, 1d8+12 on the bite. Each hit requires a DC 27 Fort save to resist being dazed for one round. His AC becomes 35, and he has 174 hp, plus False Life. Sounds scary, right? Too broken for a Wizard, right? "Wow, Polymorph is too good," right? I have never used this tactic. Assuming all those attacks hit, that's 1d8+8d6+96, averages to 122 points/round. Meanwhile, the Fighter has had two rounds, or at least five attacks (charge attack + full-attack), all having to deal at least 25 points, which as we all know, is not very hard for a 12th-level fighter-type. More importantly, I have shed my role at the table and spent a bunch of resources in order to make an attempt at mimicking a Fighter. Even more importantly, I am not casting Wall of Force, or Arc Lightning, or Quickened Benign Transposition, or a slew of other much more useful spells. And not just in the first round, but the entire combat. And this is the extreme example of the "brokenness of Polymorph" according to WotC. Notice how they even cite War Troll in their grand announcement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a). But I am digressing, on to the main point... If a wizard, or a druid, or a cleric (or a sorcerer, etc...) wants to spend gobs of resources to mimic a fighter, is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there some unwritten rule that wizards and druids are not allowed to join melee? Because that's the rule that's suddenly being enforced here. The sorcerer in the example, assuming he is built for Polymorph, is taking a roundabout method towards doing exactly what Fighters do, and that's melee. And last time I checked, D&D wasn't about restricting people's options and forcing all of us into particular roles. Yes, Living Greyhawk had the "Polymorph Problem," as WotC called it, under control, by limiting our forms to the MM, thus elminating WotC's complaint that every new book makes the spell more powerful. Our choices in 99% of cases don't change, (my own case being one of the 1%) so what's the problem? It sounds like the concept of an arcane spellcaster with an AC and a to-hit roll is too scary to stomach. Just the mere concept, regardless of whether or not it actually happens in play. Not only that, but it even sounds like a Druid with hit points is too scary as well! Once again, last time I played D&D it wasn't about forcing anyone into any one role; if a Wizard or a Druid wants to go into melee, he is allowed to! But apparently, they're not. Which is exactly why the decision is wrong: Restricting character choices is wrong. If this rule goes through, then this campaign is saying that only fighters are allowed to do melee, and wizards are only allowed to stand in the back. D&D is not about character classes and forcing them into certain roles; it's about building your character the way you want to. -Matt
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 03:49 PM	If this was true as explained in an earlier thread, what our dear Triad member was seeing and not noticing was a blatant example of cheating. No Familiar is larger than Tiny size, meaning that per 596 LGCS rules (no spell may increase you more than one size category) the largest it could be made was Small. As an Annis Hag is a Large creature, that was right out. Heck, a Troglodyte would be out. A Halfling, maybe, but that would have been a fairly useless thing to polymorph the pair of them into, as would most other Small creatures. Thus it's not even a valid criticism of Polymorph, though it's probably part of what convinced the Circle to penalize the entirety of LG.
bitznarf 02-08-07, 03:53 PM	If this was true as explained in an earlier thread, what our dear Triad member was seeing and not noticing was a blatant example of cheating. No Familiar is larger than Tiny size, meaning that per 596 LGCS rules (no spell may increase you more than one size category) the largest it could be made was Small. Bob, did you notice the part where Matt mentioned Improved Familiar? In order to have a second Annis Hag, he would also have to have a Medium-sized or larger familiar, which means he would have to have invested a feat slot on Improved Familiar
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 03:58 PM	Bob, did you notice the part where Matt mentioned Improved Familiar? Doesn't matter, the biggest Improved Familiar choice is still only Small. Annis Hags are Large.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 04:00 PM	Doesn't matter, the biggest Improved Familiar choice is still only Small. Annis Hags are Large. Incorrect. See Complete Warrior's Improved Familiar. I mentally assumed Krenshar (medium-sized) for my post, as it has the least requirements of the choices that would achieve the desired effect. -Matt
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 04:01 PM	Doesn't matter, the biggest Improved Familiar choice is still only Small. Annis Hags are Large. The biggest Improved Familiar one can get is Large. The Hippogryph.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-08-07, 04:04 PM	Doesn't matter, the biggest Improved Familiar choice is still only Small. Annis Hags are Large. Forgetting about the COmplete Warrior Version are we? Blink Dog, Hippogriff, etc....
Jon_N 02-08-07, 04:25 PM	The biggest Improved Familiar one can get is Large. The Hippogryph. And if you cast polymorph directly on the familiar, you can get a Hydra. ;)
trollbill 02-08-07, 04:27 PM	You basic argument is forgetting that Polymorph is a Touch spell. Hence you can cast it on others. Want to see true LG abuse, turn a grapple Monk into an Annis Hag.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 04:32 PM	Excuse me, but the point of the thread is to reiterate that Polymorph is not broken. To dispel arguments implying that it is, I will issue this blanket statement: It costs resources. If you Polymorph yourself, you are still at low BAB. If you Polymorph someone else into a Large creature, they lose their equipment. You are also electing to spend your action on something that may not even work, instead of casting a spell that will. -Matt
Jon_N 02-08-07, 04:36 PM	Excuse me, but the point of the thread is to reiterate that Polymorph is not broken. How is turning one of your party members into a Hydra broken? It's a perfect balanced use of the spell. You can ONLY do it on your familiar (it being a magical beast) and even with (a combination of quickened and normal) buff spells being cast on it will at least use up the first two rounds of ANY combat.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 04:36 PM	You are expressing a theoretical case, rather than a day-to-day occurrance. Yes, I have used Polymorph. The LONE case where it actually worked, out of 12 levels of adventuring, was a Greater Raging, Shock Trooper Barbarian whom I turned into a Cave Troll. In every other adventure, Polymorph was not the ideal candidate to spend my standard action casting. Once one actually has the ability, to use Polymorph, and after one actually crunches all the numbers, it is not a broken spell. -Matt You basic argument is forgetting that Polymorph is a Touch spell. Hence you can cast it on others. Want to see true LG abuse, turn a grapple Monk into an Annis Hag.
amnuxoll 02-08-07, 04:43 PM	I cannot possibly believe this to be true. This sorcerer is at half BAB, with merely 25 Str ('mere' because that's as high as it goes for him unless he buffs EVEN MORE), max of three claws and a bite while under Haste. Since he had a full compliment of sorcerer spells, I will assume that he did not cast Tenser's Transformation. In order to have a second Annis Hag, he would also have to have a Medium-sized or larger familiar, which means he would have to have invested a feat slot on Improved Familiar, further expending resources. I can't believe you can't believe it. I've seen the way a cheesed-out build like this can turn a fun combat into wet pancake. In fact, I've seen it with three different PCs. I've also heard people complain about other incidents like this one. I even know folks who use these spells, admit that they are cheesy and admit they are glad the spells are going away. I happen to be one of those people. Even if he actually did cast Polymorph every combat, what we have is a very bad Sorcerer. Why? Look at what he's not casting. No Wall of Force, no Evard's Black Tentacles, not even a spike-damage Orb to take out the enemy spellcaster. The sorcerer wouldn't use the spell if it wasn't uber-effective. It's not the sorcerer's fault that polymorph is better than those other spells. It's the spell's fault. We have a caster spending a round becoming a Half-BAB Fighter. You seem obsessed with half-BAB and the casting time. When a wizard casts the spell on himself he's usually doing it for the huge bonuses to AC and hit points. The real money (the true broken-ness) is putting that spell on the party tank. There's no half-BAB there and no loss of a round of actions. Combo that with your quickened enlarge person (a particularly effluent variety of gouda) and you've got yourself a monster (literally and figuratively). <snippped long drawn out example of abuse of polymorph> If a wizard, or a druid, or a cleric (or a sorcerer, etc...) wants to spend gobs of resources to mimic a fighter, is there something inherently wrong with that? Nope. One of my favorite PCs does this. There are even pclasses that support the idea. Is there some unwritten rule that wizards and druids are not allowed to join melee? Nope. My sorcerer, my wizard and my druid PCs are *all* melee combatants. Because that's the rule that's suddenly being enforced here. Nope. Polymorph is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a pre-requisite for entering melee. My melee PCs will continue as before ...just with a strikingly lower AC which is as it should be. The sorcerer in the example, assuming he is built for Polymorph, is taking a roundabout method towards doing exactly what Fighters do, and that's melee. And last time I checked, D&D wasn't about restricting people's options and forcing all of us into particular roles. Correct! My own sorcerer does this all the time. It's gobs of fun. But I'm still quite happy to see ALter Self and Polymorph go away. It's broken. I know it's broken because I've been unhappily abusing it for 2+ years. Yes, Living Greyhawk had the "Polymorph Problem," as WotC called it, under control, by limiting our forms to the MM, thus elminating WotC's complaint that every new book makes the spell more powerful. I've seen no evidence of this. Those wet pancake combats I've seen all happened under this "control". It sounds like the concept of an arcane spellcaster with an AC and a to-hit roll is too scary to stomach. Just the mere concept, regardless of whether or not it actually happens in play. Of course, it does happen in play. What's wrong with it is game balance. The folks at WotC who spend 40+ hours a week (probably much more) thinking about things like game balance say it's unbalanced. The Circle -- which also spends a lot of time thinkign about game balance -- agrees. A lot of LG folks -- who don't spend all that much time thinking about game balance -- also agree. I can see from your long description of the contingent war troll tactic that you have never used, that you have spent a lot of time thinking about how to abuse Polymorph. But I don't see any evidence that you've thought much about game balance. Not only that, but it even sounds like a Druid with hit points is too scary as well! Not a bit scary, as long as the druid has come by that Con score legitimately instead of abusing a rules mechanic. Once again, last time I played D&D it wasn't about forcing anyone into any one role; if a Wizard or a Druid wants to go into melee, he is allowed to! But apparently, they're not. Which is exactly why the decision is wrong: Restricting character choices is wrong. If this rule goes through, then this campaign is saying that only fighters are allowed to do melee, and wizards are only allowed to stand in the back. D&D is not about character classes and forcing them into certain roles; it's about building your character the way you want to. This, to me, is the most amazing statement of your treatise. "Restricting character choices is wrong." Really? You really believe that? Do you wonder why an 11th level PC shoudn't be able to rage, cast a quickened True Strike while in wildshape, then attack (with full BAB) and deal 6d6 of sneak attack damage? Every time I read your last paragraph my head hurts. The true beauty of your statement is that it's utterly irrefutable... I think the D&D I am playing is very different from the one you are playing. :AMN:
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 05:10 PM	I think the D&D I am playing is very different from the one you are playing. I stand by my 'treatise.' That 'long, drawn-out' example of utilizing Polymorph... I even crunched all the numbers to show how balanced it really is! And if 'turning combats into wet pancakes' through attack rolls and damage rolls (without even getting into winning combats with Evard's Black Tentacles or Wall of Force) is too much for you, then you might as well ask the Circle to Close the Wizard. And that's the big picture here. Over the course of the next year, people will still be complaining and complaining about the Wizard doing something "broken." What will happen, one year after removing Polymorph? What will be declared broken and go away next? Now before you scream too loudly that that means that we should also limit the rods of meta-magic, be careful what you wish for, because some of us in the Circle actually would love to get rid of those things and I always ask the Triads to think twice before granting access to those damned things in adventures. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns ...I think we already know. It won't stop until the Wizard becomes Closed. And that's why removing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc is the wrong decision. -Matt
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 05:10 PM	If you Polymorph someone else into a Large creature, they lose their equipment. You are also electing to spend your action on something that may not even work, instead of casting a spell that will.And if you send the polymorph with a Quicken enlarge person beforehand, much less just an enlarge person, your equipment stays with you. My highest level character has a transmuter 12 cohort who quicken enlarge person/polymorph to troll or annis hag upon the primary character in the first round of combat. The Str bonus puts his Shield Slam DC and Shield Charge trip DC into the silly zone.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 05:14 PM	And if you send the polymorph with a Quicken enlarge person beforehand, much less just an enlarge person, your equipment stays with you. My highest level character has a transmuter 12 cohort who quicken enlarge person/polymorph to troll or annis hag upon the primary character in the first round of combat. The Str bonus puts his Shield Slam DC and Shield Charge trip DC into the silly zone. A small aside, but there is variation on whether quicking spells like enlarge person is valid or not. The arguement against it goes that a 1 round casting time is more than one that is only a full round action. The former requires continued casting during the turn and comes into effect at the start of the caster's next turn while the later doesn't. -James
Munkwunk 02-08-07, 05:17 PM	The LONE case where it actually worked, out of 12 levels of adventuring, was a Greater Raging, Shock Trooper Barbarian whom I turned into a Cave Troll. Man, that was fun... once. One argument that I am seeing is "Polymorph is broken; I know because I use it all of the time." If everyone really feels that way, then they need to exercise a bit of self-control. As a Greater Raging Shock Trooper Cave Troll, I can certainly attest to the fact taht certain combinations of the spell can make some very broken situations. We did it once just to see it in action. Once. Self-control kicks in after that and we say "Yeah, that was fun. What else can we do?" Apparently not everyone has that level of self-control though. If you're saying "polymorph is broken and I know because I use it" then obviously you either: A) have no problems with broken mechanics being used in-game or B) are just trying to hurt my brain. If you truly didn't like it and thought it should be banned, you'd restrict yourself and kick the habit first, without waiting for such a ruling to come along. Polymorph isn't the problem here, it's the players who choose to abuse it time and again. Those are the types of players who will take anything they can get and use it to be a one-trick pony. If it's not Polymorph, it'll be the next big thing. If that's the way they want to play the game, who are we to argue? Some people find join in min/maxing and working out the numbers so that NO combat is a challenge, while othrs enjoy making builds that force every encounter to be difficult. The only real problem is when the two types of players sit down together at the same table. John likes to pound through every combat without anything getting in his way while Bob prefers a healthy challenge. Bob complains because John is making the game "un-fun" for everyone who thinks like Bob. That is, unfortunately, the nature of a Living campaign; you dont' always get to choose your party, and varying play styles may cause varying disputes. It's going to happen no matter what; the druid can no longer perform some of the craziest Wild Shape cheese? Okay, Summon Nature's Ally 6 + Animal Growth (two PHB spells) and you have 2-5 Gargantuan Crocodiles which grapple every enemy and make the combat a cakewalk. John's going to figure out how to play "dirty" one way or another.
trollbill 02-08-07, 05:18 PM	It costs resources. Everything cost resourses. It's not whether something doesn't cost resources to be Broken, its the return on the resource investment that makes it broken. If you Polymorph someone else into a Large creature, they lose their equipment. Not if you use the same Enlarge Person strick you mentioned above. Quickened Enlarge Person+Polymorph on grapple monk and they gain full benefit and can use it on the same round. So to use the resource argument. The above mentioned Monk gains the following from you do this trick: 25 Strength (plus item modifiers) Possible reduction in Dex and/or Con +10 natural armor bonus (with a -1 size bonus) +4 to Grapple for Size (not including bonus for enhanced strength) 10' Reach 3 Natural Attacks that can be used in conjunction with Flurry of Blows in a grapple thanks to Rake +10 ft. bonus to movement that stacks with Monk movement since it is a base improvement rather than an enhancement Improved Grab 2d6+10 Rend damage Now compare that to any other combination of quickened 1st-level plus 5th-level spell and see how it compares. That's how you determine if its broken. You are also electing to spend your action on something that may not even work, instead of casting a spell that will. You lost me. What doesn't work about casing Polymorph?
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 05:19 PM	You seem obsessed with half-BAB and the casting time. When a wizard casts the spell on himself he's usually doing it for the huge bonuses to AC and hit points. The real money (the true broken-ness) is putting that spell on the party tank. There's no half-BAB there and no loss of a round of actions. Combo that with your quickened enlarge person (a particularly effluent variety of gouda) and you've got yourself a monster (literally and figuratively). Quickened Enlarge Person = Standard action to cast. What's your point with this? Of course, it does happen in play. What's wrong with it is game balance. The folks at WotC who spend 40+ hours a week (probably much more) thinking about things like game balance say it's unbalanced. Have you seen the books they've come up with lately? I doubt any playtesting at all goes on at WotC these days. Polymorph is the least of their "game balance" worries. The Circle -- which also spends a lot of time thinkign about game balance -- agrees. Or alternately, WotC leaned on them because it was making WotC look bad that we fixed the issue better than they could. A lot of LG folks -- who don't spend all that much time thinking about game balance -- also agree. I can see from your long description of the contingent war troll tactic that you have never used, that you have spent a lot of time thinking about how to abuse Polymorph. But I don't see any evidence that you've thought much about game balance. 3.5 is hopelessly broken - between munchkin PrC's that are top-loaded with benefits and other cheesy niceties - anyways.
Britt 02-08-07, 05:21 PM	Or alternately, WotC leaned on them because it was making WotC look bad that we fixed the issue better than they could. Nope, this was totally our call.
Lomiat 02-08-07, 05:31 PM	I dislike the decision to remove Polymorph from the campaign. I'm not going to bang my head against a wall or anything because I doubt that anything we say or do will change the Circle's minds, but I want to voice my agreement with the opinion that they're making the wrong decision. While the idea is to remove a "broken" ability, it also has some severe repurcussions outside of the simple, intended effect. Despite Amnuxtroll's statements to the contrary, the ban on Polymorph (as well as Alter Self... especially Alter Self) drastically limits a wizard's ability to participate in melee. Without Alter Self and Polymorph it's just nearly impossible to get the wizard's AC high enough to survive full attacks at higher APLs (of course, there's miss chance from things like Mirror Image, Blink, etc.), and players who wish to sometime let their wizards participate in combat have to plan from day one in order to do so. There's simply no way, without Polymorph, to compensate for a low starting strength. Yes, I have personally invested quite a bit of two character builds in the use of Alter Self and Polymorph, so my argument is, therefore, understandably biased. But the issue is--and always has been--what is the most powerful use of resources in the limited time available to any encounter. As Mattastrophic noted, Polymorph is rarely the best option. And when it is, it tends to be the best option on the monk, not the wizard. Even so, since I've given our local monk Polymorph more than a dozen times, it WON'T make a monk scarier than a well-built tank. This is also something I know from experience in our local playgroup. What Polymorph WILL do is give the wizard options to deal with things when nearly every other option fails. Perhaps the wizard is running out of spells near the end of an adventure and has to enter into a final combat. In such a case, Polymorph might let that wizard contribute as a melee combatant. Not very well, but more than should he have only 1 other 4th-level spell to cast. Furthermore, as an example, my wizard has Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Greater Mage Armor, Heroism, Fireshield, Nightstalker's Transformation, Fires of Purity and was planning to take Extraordinary Spell Aim and Tenser's Transformation with his next level. ALL of these were taken with the idea in mind that he could turn himself into a melee combatant when necessary. The decision to Close Polymorph doesn't just sting because of Polymorph's removal; it stings because an ENTIRE MODE OF PLAY has been closed off to wizards who weren't built from day one (with combat-specific attributes) with the intention of walking into melee. It also tips the scales heavily in favor of the cleric when the wizard and druid can no longer participate in melee as effectively as they could in the past.
Lomiat 02-08-07, 05:35 PM	Oh, furthermore, as a totally unrelated argument (not about game balance at all): It's just FUN to turn one thing into something else. It's going to be a big bummer to lose that aspect of magic in the game. :weep:
Britt 02-08-07, 05:38 PM	Everyone seems to be focusing on the "broken"ness of these spells. While that might be an issue, that is not the only issue. Read the articles published by WotC R&D on the topic and you'll see what all the problems are. These spells create problems, plain and simple. The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. They are a problem for tables in general in that they slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. As more books are published, their range increases, exacerbating the issue (not really an issue in LG). Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Whether the spells are "broken" is only a small part of the argument for whether they should be in the campaign.
ZX670 02-08-07, 05:47 PM	The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. They are a problem for tables in general in that they slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. As more books are published, their range increases, exacerbating the issue (not really an issue in LG). Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Legitimate question: Are summon spells and Animal Growth next? If there is discussion with the possibility, could you let us know now please? The above reasons you list actually cause more of a pause in play from summon nature + animal growth than I've ever seen from the Wild Shape ability (honestly I don't think I've ever seen a player at a table I've run or played on use Polymorph). Almost everyone I know who runs a druid and Wild Shapes carries around a list of all animals they normally Wild Shape into with stat blocks modified for each one based on their level and BAB. Not so with summoned creatures and Animal Growth. I must admit I am a culprit on this one as well. I have all of my Wild Shapes statted out, but not summons with Animal Growth.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 05:48 PM	Everyone seems to be focusing on the "broken"ness of these spells. While that might be an issue, that is not the only issue. Read the articles published by WotC R&D on the topic and you'll see what all the problems are. These spells create problems, plain and simple. The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. They are a problem for tables in general in that they slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. As more books are published, their range increases, exacerbating the issue (not really an issue in LG). Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Whether the spells are "broken" is only a small part of the argument for whether they should be in the campaign. Does Alter Self really "slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing?" If slowing things down really is the issue, then we might as well Close Evard's Black Tentacles (multiple grapple checks, not every DM knows those rules by heart), Animal Growth (too many calculations, oh no!), Spiked Chains (since it takes way too long to resolve the chain fighter's turn, before spending more time on AoOs), Summon Monster (since it takes too long to figure out what a Celestial template means), Stone Shape (since figuring out the exact dimensions slows the game down) and the entire Summon Nature's Ally tree (takes too long to resolve summons, especially after buffs), and Wild Shaping, as sadly, it slows things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. If the diversity of options really is a problem for DMs, then honestly, LG is a campaign full of bad DMs, as by that logic, Summon Monster VI + Animal Growth is too great a deal of stuff to have sprung on us at any moment. -Matt
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 05:49 PM	Everyone seems to be focusing on the "broken"ness of these spells. While that might be an issue, that is not the only issue. Read the articles published by WotC R&D on the topic and you'll see what all the problems are. I've read the books that come out of WotC R&D lately too. Enough said on WotC R&D. These spells create problems, plain and simple. The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. So does every other class. I can abuse spells like Stone Shape, or Wish, or any number of spells like that. They are a problem for tables in general in that they slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. I've never seen this happen. Every caster that comes to a table is expected to know their spells ahead of time, their feats, how they work. Fighters are expected to be able to keep track of their attacks, damage, bonuses, etc. I don't know a single wild shaper or Polymorpher who doesn't have a reference sheet readily on hand for the forms they think they'll use. As more books are published, their range increases, exacerbating the issue (not really an issue in LG). Which is part of why, last year, the Circle didn't bother with this nonsense. Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Spells that are used to create extremely powerful effects need to be Closed... ok, magic is gone from LG, poof, problem solved. Yeah, that was silly to say, but that's the rub: anytime anything is nifty, the Circle comes around with the banhammer, and half the time they miss and hit the wrong item anyways. Whether the spells are "broken" is only a small part of the argument for whether they should be in the campaign. See above. The point of the game is to have fun. I'm not having fun if my characters are sitting around waiting to see if the campaign group are readying their gunsights to nerf my character into oblivion. If I wanted that kind of "fun" I could go play Evercrack or World of Warcrack.
Britt 02-08-07, 05:50 PM	Did I say that anything that possessed any level of similarity to any one of the listed problems should be treated the same way? No. These spells have a combination of problems, some of them to greater levels than others.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 05:53 PM	Did I say that anything that possessed any level of similarity to any one of the listed problems should be treated the same way? No. These spells have a combination of problems, some of them to greater levels than others. You've used the same justification for Divine Spellpower. Sigh.
Munkwunk 02-08-07, 05:53 PM	If it's slowing things down and confusing DMs, then the rule shouldn't be to Close Polymorph effects, it shoudl be to put the responsibility on the players who use them. I have been at many a battle itneractive where the rule has been: "You have six seconds to tell me what you're doing. Go!" I see no reason as to why this isn't, at the very least, an option for judges at non-BI tables (and, in fact, I've played under judges who have a "six second rule".) Players have a responsibility to know their characters. New players don't use spells like Polymorph (more often than not, they're okay just blasting thigns with fireballs), and people who play a Master of Many Forms rarely (in my experience) sit down at the table with no clue as to what they might be turning in to today. The fact is, people constantly abuse the Annis Hag, War Troll, etc. because those are builds they know to be "optimized" for the use of their spell. They come with the stats pre-calculated for all of their common forms, because they're min/maxers and they love spreadsheets and flowcharts. If they don't do these things, it is (or should be) completely within the GM's power to say: "if you're not reasonably prepared, I'm not going to let you do that." Maybe it's causing slow down, but I don't think the way to "fix" that problem is to Close it; if you do, then the "next big thing" is going to be the "next big culprit". Put the responsibility in the player's hands to know what their character is doing (a grapple monk knows how the grapple rules work; no slow-down) and put the power in the GM's hands to say "Look, you're taking too long. Do something now or you're done."
Britt 02-08-07, 05:54 PM	You've used the same justification for Divine Spellpower. Sigh. I used what same justification? DSP is a different issue in that it provides CL bumps, which is a problem. I don't see how that negatives anything I have said here.
ZX670 02-08-07, 05:55 PM	Did I say that anything that possessed any level of similarity to any one of the listed problems should be treated the same way? No. These spells have a combination of problems, some of them to greater levels than others. No, but it doesn't make my question any less legitimate. And you failed to answer it, by the way. :rolleyes:
Britt 02-08-07, 05:56 PM	If it's slowing things down and confusing DMs, then the rule shouldn't be to Close Polymorph effects, it shoudl be to put the responsibility on the players who use them. I repeat: these spells share a combination of problems. Do not focus on any one of them and say that if you don't agree with that one issue, the spell shouldn't be Closed. These spells all suffer from a combination of problems, some to a greater degree than others.
Britt 02-08-07, 05:58 PM	No, but it doesn't make my question any less legitimate. And you failed to answer it, by the way. :rolleyes: I wasn't responding to your post. No, summon spells are not going to be closed. They do not share the same set of problems. Similarly, animal growth also does not share the same set of problems and is not being Closed.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 06:01 PM	I wasn't responding to your post. No, summon spells are not going to be closed. They do not share the same set of problems. Similarly, animal growth also does not share the same set of problems and is not being Closed. "For Now." Dun dun DUNNNNNN!!!!
ZX670 02-08-07, 06:02 PM	I wasn't responding to your post. No, summon spells are not going to be closed. They do not share the same set of problems. Similarly, animal growth also does not share the same set of problems and is not being Closed. Ah, my bad then. And thanks for the answer. :)
Munkwunk 02-08-07, 06:09 PM	I repeat: these spells share a combination of problems. Do not focus on any one of them and say that if you don't agree with that one issue, the spell shouldn't be Closed. These spells all suffer from a combination of problems, some to a greater degree than others. I'm honestly not argumentative by nature, so forgive me for pushing the issue. We haven't been focusing on "any one issue". We have addressed no less than two of the major perceived issues with polymorph: game balance and time management. If our arguments have not adequately addressed these issues, then there's nothing we can do or say to change anyone's mind. If there are more issues at hand, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be glad to hear them; we can't make a case against the "several issues" which haven't coem to light and aren't being openly discussed. I suppose there isn't much we can do if the Circle says: "We want polymorph banned and we are not willing to yield, period." I think a lot of people just feel like they're being rubbed the wrong way when they're given a forum to openly discuss campaign issues but then have their ideas and arguments shot down at every turn.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 06:10 PM	Britt, The point we are trying to make here is that Closing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc is the wrong decision because of the direction the campaign is taking. If the Circle's solution to the latest "problem" is to Close it, then, over time, everything will become Closed. As munkwunk said better than I did, the problem isn't in the spells themselves, it's in the people who use them to constantly make the game not fun for others. As the campaign leadership, I am certain that you and the rest of the Circle realize that a problem player will exploit just about anything, from Polymorph to Power Attack, in order to get ahead and lessen the fun of others. However, there are plenty upon plenty of players who choose to refrain from utilizing these choices to lessen the fun of others. I happen to recall a treatise on the many things one can do with a Cube of Force by a wizard player who only broke it out during high-level Battle Interactives, an arena where we are encouraged to bring our A games and leave nothing behind. However, if the campaign leadership decides to take these problem elements away from all of us, the problem players will absolutely positively exploit another aspect of the system, and then next Dispel Confusion yet another legitimate aspect of the system will be removed. What the Circle must instead do for this campaign to survive is accept that players will continue to find combinations of elements that many other players believe lessen their fun, and the answer is not to remove those elements, but to instead encourage us to do what we can as players to make the game fun for all. -Matt
Britt 02-08-07, 06:18 PM	I frankly am not persuaded by a slippery slope argument with regards to Closing problem items. It has not borne out empirically and does not seem to be a likely result. As for addressing all the issues, here's what has been happening: 1. Me: this is an issue that has several problems - A, B, C, and D. 2. Someone: But A isn't an issue, so you shouldn't close it. 3. Me: this is an issue that has several problems - A, B, C, and D, not just A. 4. Someone: But B isn't an issue, so you shouldn't close it. etc. What needs to happen before the argument will have any weight for me is: 1. Me: this is an issue that has several problems - A, B, C, and D. 2. Someone: A is not an issue because of W. B is not an issue because of X. C is not an issue because of Y. D is not an issue because of Z. Since none of the issues you listed are really a problem, it shouldn't be Closed. Granted, we will likely still disagree about how the issues are examined, but addressing only one at a time and trying to rest an argument on only that statement is not convincing. I'm not trying to be condescending, just pointing out how the argument has to be handled to have any possibility of weight.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 06:21 PM	What needs to happen before the argument will have any weight for me is: 1. Me: this is an issue that has several problems - A, B, C, and D. 2. Someone: A is not an issue because of W. B is not an issue because of X. C is not an issue because of Y. D is not an issue because of Z. Since none of the issues you listed are really a problem, it shouldn't be Closed. All right, then. Tell us what ALL the problems are with the spell chain and we will happily explain why they are not issues. If our arguments appear to be 'slippery slopes,' it's because there has been no communication regarding what the issues actually are. We can't provide counterpoints if no points are given to counter. -Matt
ZX670 02-08-07, 06:22 PM	I'm not trying to be condescending, just pointing out how the argument has to be handled to have any possibility of weight. Understandable. Then, might I ask if Wild Shape had the same problem set as Polymorph? I know one has a wider effective range of choices, and therefore the problem set may be different. I'll have to look up the issues again and see what I can come up with.
Mortepierre 02-08-07, 06:23 PM	No, summon spells are not going to be closed. They do not share the same set of problems. I think I'm going to print this on a T-shirt which I'll wear whenever I play my Conjurer :D
Britt 02-08-07, 06:23 PM	All right, then. Tell us what ALL the problems are with the spell chain and we will happily explain why they are not issues. -Matt Post #23, above, lists most of them. I think someone else mentioned another, bu t I can't remember right now, sorry :( And it's "explain why YOU THINK they are not issues" ;)
Britt 02-08-07, 06:25 PM	Understandable. Then, might I ask if Wild Shape had the same problem set as Polymorph? I know one has a wider effective range of choices, and therefore the problem set may be different. I'll have to look up the issues again and see what I can come up with. Wild shape shared many of the same problems, but we can't really Close wild shape. The solution, per the errata, did a lot to address some of the issues, but there are still some with it. No matter, though, those are the new rules and I think all of the Circle agree that the new rules are better than the old, in general. There are ambiguities and problems in the new rules, but they seem better than the old.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 06:27 PM	Post #23, above, lists most of them. I think someone else mentioned another, bu t I can't remember right now, sorry :( And it's "explain why YOU THINK they are not issues" ;) I think I debunked #23 pretty well already.
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 06:32 PM	I think I debunked #23 pretty well already.I don't think you came close. :P
Munkwunk 02-08-07, 06:34 PM	I can't speak for anyone but myself, but perhaps I have missed where you have pointed out each of the issues of polymorph at once. I will admit that I have nto read every single post of every single thread on these forums to try to find that answer. If the Circle is at all willing to entertain the notion of considering the players' arguments to keep polymorph in the game, I would like to ask you to simply answer the following: What are polymorph issues A, B, C, and D (and E through Z, where applicable)? Post #23 discusses issues which, from what is apparently several peoples' perspectives, have already been addressed in one way or another. I'm willing to go back to the drawing board if it means having a calm and intelligent discussion.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 06:35 PM	Here we go, then, handling the argument so it can have possibility of weight... Everyone seems to be focusing on the "broken"ness of these spells. While that might be an issue, that is not the only issue. Read the articles published by WotC R&D on the topic and you'll see what all the problems are. These spells create problems, plain and simple. The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. They are a problem for tables in general in that they slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. As more books are published, their range increases, exacerbating the issue (not really an issue in LG). Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Whether the spells are "broken" is only a small part of the argument for whether they should be in the campaign. I have already countered the "brokenness" of the spells. Now I will counter the WotC article, as that is what has been presented. WotC: "Nothing grinds the game to a halt like somebody casting polymorph." -If responsibility is placed upon the player to come to the session prepared, then all it takes is enough time for a caster to flip to the sheet with their prepared stats on it. WotC: "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. [...] What’s more, every new monster published makes the spell slightly more powerful. Designers and developers who create a perfectly balanced and playable monster must still remember to compare that monster to all others of similar Hit Dice to see what effect that creature has on the power level of polymorph or shapechange." -Living Greyhawk has solved this issue by spelling out which forms we are able to choose from. This list does not change, with the exception of campaign documentation. WotC: "This means that players and DMs who don’t mind their spellcasters using the polymorph spell can continue to use it as written in their home games, but the number of times they come across the spell in other aspects of the game will greatly diminish." -The Core rules do not call for the removal of Polymorph, Alter Self, etc. They remove references to the spell. Britt Frey: "The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment." -Part of being a DM is knowing that you will be adjudicating plenty of scenarios both expected and unexpected. We grow as DMs through experience with adjudicating plenty of stuff sprung upon us at any moment, and as we learn how to adjudicate more and more elements of the game, we become better DMs. -Matt
Britt 02-08-07, 06:46 PM	I have already countered the "brokenness" of the spells. Now I will counter the WotC article, as that is what has been presented. WotC: "Nothing grinds the game to a halt like somebody casting polymorph." -If responsibility is placed upon the player to come to the session prepared, then all it takes is enough time for a caster to flip to the sheet with their prepared stats on it. WotC: "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. [...] What’s more, every new monster published makes the spell slightly more powerful. Designers and developers who create a perfectly balanced and playable monster must still remember to compare that monster to all others of similar Hit Dice to see what effect that creature has on the power level of polymorph or shapechange." -Living Greyhawk has solved this issue by spelling out which forms we are able to choose from. This list does not change, with the exception of campaign documentation. WotC: "This means that players and DMs who don’t mind their spellcasters using the polymorph spell can continue to use it as written in their home games, but the number of times they come across the spell in other aspects of the game will greatly diminish." -The Core rules do not call for the removal of Polymorph, Alter Self, etc. They remove references to the spell. In paragraph order: 1) I disagree that the power level has been countered. There are arguments both ways, and I tend to think they are a little overpowered for their level. 2) Just because it is someone's responsibility to do something doesn't mean it will happen that way every time. Sure, you can say it's their responsibility to have everything ready, but many people won't, and many judges won't deny them the ability because of it. Yes, a sufficiently competent judge can handle the situation to eliminate the problem, but that doesn't mean there is no potential problem. 3) The entire MM is still a very large set of creatures. As a DM, not knowing which monster out of the MM might be sprung on you is still a fairly large amount of doubt. Saying that there could be a larger set doesn't mean the set is sufficiently small to not be a problem. Granted, in LG you don't have the growing problem of more books creating an even bigger problem, but that just lessens the problem, not eliminates. 4) Yes, the removal of those spells is not a Core rule. However, it is suggested they be removed by R&D. Similarly, saying that it's not a core rule doesn't mean the problems go away.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 07:03 PM	In paragraph order: Britt: "I disagree that the power level has been countered. There are arguments both ways, and I tend to think they are a little overpowered for their level." -Yes, there are several combinations of elements of the game that happen to include Polymorph that may seem overpowered for their level... until we examine the resource costs involved with assembling all those components, as well as realize that there are so many other seemingly-overpowered combinations of components that to remove every individual component would leave us with a completely Closed game. Britt: "Just because it is someone's responsibility to do something doesn't mean it will happen that way every time. Sure, you can say it's their responsibility to have everything ready, but many people won't, and many judges won't deny them the ability because of it. Yes, a sufficiently competent judge can handle the situation to eliminate the problem, but that doesn't mean there is no potential problem." -Perhaps what is needed, then, is a rule in LGCS requiring that players be sufficiently prepared if they wish to utilize certain elements of the game? Taking away the need to be a responsible player is not a solution for the perceived problem of irresponsible players. Regardless, removing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc. from all of us is completely unneccessary simply because a portion of people won't have everything ready and many judges will choose not to deny them the ability because of it. Britt: "The entire MM is still a very large set of creatures. As a DM, not knowing which monster out of the MM might be sprung on you is still a fairly large amount of doubt. Saying that there could be a larger set doesn't mean the set is sufficiently small to not be a problem. Granted, in LG you don't have the growing problem of more books creating an even bigger problem, but that just lessens the problem, not eliminates." -This campaign has existed just fine for years now with that same 'very large' set of creatures as Polymorph choices. Part of what makes a good DM is being able to swiftly adjudicate the various types of monsters that can be sprung on you. Also, by that same logic, all Summon spells should be Closed, because the various lists are still a very large set of creatures. Britt: "Yes, the removal of those spells is not a Core rule. However, it is suggested they be removed by R&D. Similarly, saying that it's not a core rule doesn't mean the problems go away." -R&D never suggested they be removed. R&D modified the ruleset so a DM may have an easier time removing the spells from his game, by modifying the descriptions of everything that references Polymorph. The leadership behind Mark of Heroes, not R&D, decided to remove them from Mark of Heroes. -Matt
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 07:03 PM	In paragraph order: 1) I disagree that the power level has been countered. There are arguments both ways, and I tend to think they are a little overpowered for their level. "a little overpowered" is not a reason to ban. Some claim that Magic Missile is "a little overpowered" because every Mage takes it. We know for a fact Power Attack is broken, it's been so ever since 3.5 when they allowed it to do double damage on 2-handed swings. 2) Just because it is someone's responsibility to do something doesn't mean it will happen that way every time. Sure, you can say it's their responsibility to have everything ready, but many people won't, and many judges won't deny them the ability because of it. Yes, a sufficiently competent judge can handle the situation to eliminate the problem, but that doesn't mean there is no potential problem. Anything that can happen in the game is a "potential problem." I've seen hourlong arguments over how a new feat works, whether X spell is really a valid thing to counter Y ability, and on and on. To claim that Polymorph alone is a problem in this case is not so. It is a very simple thing to put into the LGCS: "It is the responsibility of players who plan to use Polymorph or similar effects to be ready with the stats and understanding of how they work in order to minimize disruption to the game." 3) The entire MM is still a very large set of creatures. As a DM, not knowing which monster out of the MM might be sprung on you is still a fairly large amount of doubt. Saying that there could be a larger set doesn't mean the set is sufficiently small to not be a problem. Granted, in LG you don't have the growing problem of more books creating an even bigger problem, but that just lessens the problem, not eliminates. The entire MM, MM2, MM3, MM4, Vile Darkness, Fiend Folio, Draconomicon, and Writer Imagination is a very large set of creatures. As a Player, not knowing which monster out of the whole shebang might be sprung on you is still a fairly large amount of doubt. In LG as a player you also have the growing problem of more books creating an even bigger problem, which makes the problem worse even before writers just start inventing monsters out of the blue. Is that getting silly yet? DM's don't know when a player is going to start casting Summon Monster X. They don't know when a templated critter is going to show up. They don't know any of these things. They don't necessarily know every little in and out of a PRC that someone is bringing to the table, or the minutiae of every rules item that the players may have bought/acquired in the form of spells, equipment, feats, abilities, whatever. A DM's job is to deal with what the players come up with, whether it's novel uses for mundane items, interesting new ways to try to use a spell, strange new PrC/class combinations that they haven't seen before, or weird NONC crap that they found at an Interactive in a convention somewhere else in the world a few months ago. They deal with it. If we didn't expect unpredictability, if we couldn't roll with it when crazy stuff happens on the table, we wouldn't be playing LG. I submit that this isn't a valid complaint regarding Polymorph, especially not with the former LG restrictions. 4) Yes, the removal of those spells is not a Core rule. However, it is suggested they be removed by R&D. Similarly, saying that it's not a core rule doesn't mean the problems go away. But they make it a "suggestion", and we the players are saying we don't like the suggestion. We didn't like it last year. We've seen enough weird nonsense out of "R&D" to know they do a whole heck of a lot of D or at least W ("writing"), a lot less of R, and absolutely zero PT (playtest). And their conception of the system has very little to do with our reality on the ground playing LG, their "recommendation" was for campaigns like MoH, Xen'drik, and anything-goes home campaigns.
Britt 02-08-07, 07:11 PM	Ok, I need to clarify. Counter-arguments should not be: Me: A, B, C, Or D. Someone: A isn't good enough, B isn't a big enough problem, C isn't that troublesome, D isn't enough of a problem, therefore it shouldn't be Closed. That is the same form of argument I mentioned several posts ago where you are focusing on one issue and saying that if that isn't enough, the item shouldn't be Closed. It is merely taking that form of argument, applying it multiple times, and then putting them all in one place. You have to be able to say either that each element is not a problem at all or that all elements together do not add up to enough of a problem to justify closing them. That means that saying 'A isn't as bad as X' does nothing to get to your desired conclusion. It is very possible that another spell could be more troublesome than polymorph on any one point, but not be as big of an issue overall. I'm not saying all the points made were in this format, just that some were and it causes the whole argument to break down. Again, I'm not trying to be condescending; I'm effectively just helping you make your arguments against me better :)
Istaran 02-08-07, 07:14 PM	Random rules lawyer attack! Enlarge Person has casting time of 1 round, which is more than 1 full round action. Therefore, it cannot be Quickened. Unless you also apply Rapid Spell. Natural weapons other than "Unarmed Strike" are not monk weapons. When you perform a flurry of blows, you can only use monk weapons during your entire full attack. If you use a natural weapon other than "Unarmed Strike" you cannot flurry. You also cannot flurry to gain extra attacks in a grapple, as the grapple rules give you a number of actions based on your BAB, not based on your maximum number of attacks in a full attack. (However, rake explicitly adds two additional attacks while grappling.) Now back to the topic at hand: It is not totally unreasonable to require the polymorphers (and summoners) to have stat blocks on hand for any critters they plan on introducing into the battle. This addresses the time at table issue fairly well. The character doesn't have 5 minutes to flip through several choices, carefully evaluate them, then pick one.. they need to be familiar with the choice they are going to chose already; the player should be too. In so much as a person might be planning to polymorph an ally, they should have a "template" ready with blanks for the target to fill out. Just my 2 copper.
Lomiat 02-08-07, 07:15 PM	Everyone seems to be focusing on the "broken"ness of these spells. While that might be an issue, that is not the only issue. Read the articles published by WotC R&D on the topic and you'll see what all the problems are. These spells create problems, plain and simple. The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. They are a problem for tables in general in that they slow things down many times as casters either compute or explain how they are doing what they are doing. As more books are published, their range increases, exacerbating the issue (not really an issue in LG). Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Whether the spells are "broken" is only a small part of the argument for whether they should be in the campaign. Britt, I want to repeat my earlier post when I say that I'm not trying to argue tooth-and-nail to keep Polymorph and related effects in the campaign. I understand the Circle's position, and though I don't like it, I can accept it. That said, I'll try to address the issues you mentioned. A) DMs don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. W--I don't think this is a major concern simply because DMs *never* really know what to expect from the PCs. They can expect certain things within a realm of possibilities, but even a the most basic fighter may try something wacky--she might suddenly try to Sunder a weapon, without the feat (and everyone has to look up the rules), or she might produce a specific alchemical substance that only appears on the AR which gave the player access. Then everyone has to sit around and study the AR if they really want to debate how it was meant to work. Ultimately, the DM has to decide how much he/she is willing to trust his/her players, versus how much minutae he/she wishes to control. Point A is more of an issue when players have access to non-MM forms; it places greater responsibility on the players to carry the reference books and to know the stats. But when the DM has the MM at hand--and options are limited to the MM--then the DM should have a fairly decent appreciation for what the spell can do. One way or another, Polymorph and the related spells will do the following: adjust AC and physical attributes. Also, they'll make a PC appear differently and can adjust the PC's size (for these reasons they might make clever roleplaying spells, but they pose the DM no more difficulty in those situations than illusions would). B) They slow the tables while casters compute or explain how the spells work. X--B certainly isn't an issue for Alter Self. 99% of that spell's use is devoted to Troglodyte form to gain +6 natural armor. Yes, the PC also gains two claw attacks and a bite, but that doesn't slow things down too badly, either. Polymorph certainly allows for more complicated forms and can slow the game more, especially when the caster decides not to Polymorph herself but, instead, to Polymorph the fighter who now has to figure out his/her new AC, attack bonus, damage, etc. Yet those same fighters have to do all that math for Heroes' Feast, Haste, Heroism, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, etc. The problem, here, is mitigated when the spell is employed by a player who knows what its effects will be for its recipient, and the problem is aggravated when it is employed by a player who doesn't have that information well in hand. However, this is also true of just about everything else in D&D, especially spells. Summoning spells are terrifically time-consuming as are (at least, in our latest sessions) mounted combat rules with mounts with less than perfect manueverability. B strikes me as a moot point because the frame of reference is shaky; we can say it's time consuming if we compare it to unmodified attack rolls, or we can say it's no more time consuming than most actions a wizard might take at that level if we compare it to a summoner employing mass combat tactics. C) As more books are introduced, the problem becomes exacerbated. Y--You admit this is not an issue in LG. I'll not debate the point. However, I will note that WotC decided to implement their "Core rules" errata largely because they wished to promote (as well as they should) their featured products, specifically Eberron and Forgotten Realms, which both introduce new monsters not included in the Monster's Manual. As a company with an investment in its product, they have to want to feature the new product as much as possible. When the old product has a loophole that becomes abusive with the introduction of the new product, does the solution become to stop making monsters that might feature a Polymorph problem? Or is their solution to limit Polymorph? I suspect that Wizards saw the spell as the problem simply because removing IT gave them greater creative freedom with their other products. WotC's decision makes the errata "Core" but does not necessarily make it LG-specific. D) The spells are used to create really powerful effects. Z--Yes, they are. If they weren't, many fewer of us would bemoan their disappearance. Nonetheless, they not only find balance in combats because of the limited number of actions any given character might take in a combat situation, but they provide FUN options that no other spell comes close to replicating. At any rate, I suppose I ought to address D toward the completeness of my argument: LG modules, as a rule, tend to feature a specific breakdown of non-combat and combat encounters. The combat encounters tend to be alike in their EL / APL natures, and they tend to appear with regular frequency (roughly 3 per adventure). Anyone who has played LG long enough to level a wizard to 7th and gain access to the Polymorph spell is likely to understand this. Meanwhile, combat encounters have finite durations. In X many rounds, the players will win, or their characters will die (or run away). The combat efficiency of any spell (or any PC option) is how much it can do in rounds 1 - X. Many powerful spells will simply end combat the round they're cast (Evard's, Dragon Breath, Hold Person/Monster, etc.). Others will immediately deal an amount of damage that contributes to the foes' downfall. Spells like Polymorph that spend one round doing nothing in order to do more in a subsequent round are always a gamble in LG. In my experience, there typically aren't enough rounds of combat to make self-buffing worthwhile, and when the spells are used to buff others, though they're more effective, they're directing the wizard's efforts away from the save-or-die, direct damage, and tactical control spells--all of which may or may not prove more effective than Polymorph. As a last point regarding "brokenness," I feel it's worth noting that the most abusive uses of Polymorph are for the caster to make SOMEONE ELSE more powerful. Our local monk, for example. Yes, when a wizard Enlarges, then Polymorphs a monk, the monk gains some rather extreme bonuses. However, that makes at least TWO players at the table happy. Most "broken" options benefit one charater (Elusive Target), and I, for one, find the shared nature of the reward of Polymorph quite refreshing. E) You didn't mention (in the post I quoted) that you were trying to keep the game Core, but you've mentioned it elsewhere. ---I feel this is the most well thought-out and difficult to repudiate of all the Circle's reasons, but as I mentioned above, it is worth considering whether the decision is to keep the game "Core" to the rules as presented in the PHB, MM, and DMG or to keep them "Core" as presented by WotC through its web enhancements. I guess if WotC is going to come out with reprints of the PHB that feature the new Polymorph errata, there will be little to expect for Polymorph in D&D 4.0 or whatever edition that might be, but the incarnation of LG I first encountered was one where wizards and druids could turn into other creatures (regardless of game effect), and it seems that it will soon be a world in which wizards and, to a lesser extent, druids no longer retain shapeshifting abilities. It's just disappointing to me to see that bit of the fantasy plucked from the world.
Munkwunk 02-08-07, 07:52 PM	I believe what we have been trying to say is just that: If A, B, C, and D aren't that big of a deal individually, then why are they that big of a deal as a whole? None of the issues with polymorph (in my opinion) is a gamebreaker by itself. When you take each of them and compound the problems, it certainly makes a more complex issue. However, there are several simple issues to help address each part of the complex problem. A: Polymorph is not broken by itself. Powerful, maybe, but not broken. B: Players should be held responsible for their own characters. C: Polymorph's relative power curve has been decreased by virtue of campaign restrictions on which forms a character may take; MM+Campaign Documentation D: R&D suggested they be removed from campaigns in which a virtually unlimitted number of options exist (such as Mark of Heroes) I could understand restricting polymorph were it simply the only way to resolve any one of these problems, let alone all of them. However, each problem does have a solution. If all four solutions could be implimented together, the "polymorph problem" could be, effectively, fixed. You can't compound the issues and then say there's no single solution to the problem. A multi-tiered problem calls for a multi-tiered solution. Banning polymorph is a single-tiered solution to a multi-tiered problem. The fact is that there are several ways to address "the polymorph problem". A: Accept that the spell itself is not "roken" (I realize this is subjective) B: Hold players responsible for their actions; don't whine when oen person is a jerk and ruins it for everyone. Instead of penalizing everyone, penalize the jerk. C: Maintain the restrictions to acceptable polymorph forms. If a single form, such as War Troll, is deemed "too powerful" you're more than welcome to restrict the specfic form, even though some people already have documentation (there are other rules which are being taken away despite having prior documentation). Accept that DMs of mid-to-high APLs need to think on their toes and know the rules to an extent; this is why we have different levels of DMs in LG (Herald, Master, etc.) Addressing the issue on this level ensures that all future issues may be resolved in a similar fashion D: See also, "C". The issue of polymorph's vast number of options is made less inhibitive by the fact that the number of forms available to players is restricted. I realize that some of these solutions are subjective. This begs the qusetion: If a given issue, either "brokenness" of the spell and the desire to hold players responsible, is purely subjective, should the Circle ban the spell just because their subjective views are the ones making the decisions? I fear I've tried to address too many things at once and have rambled so much that the point of my post may get lost. I have a tendancy to do that. Mostly, what I'm trying to say is that polymorph is not the game's problem, it's just a catalyst. It can be salvaged and put to good use, provided some simple rules and compromises are put in to place to ensure that polymorph -- and others spells, such as summon spells (which cause simlar problems with game slowdown, brokenness, too many options, etc.) -- can thrive. I propose that polymorph is not the issue and should not be Closed. Polymorph simply brings to light some very real concerns which can and should be addressed individually so that problems like this do not arise in the future.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-08-07, 08:31 PM	Excuse me, but the point of the thread is to reiterate that Polymorph is not broken. -Matt Wow. Let me know if this is how you really feel. I'll delete this post and start a thread more accepting of open discourse. The diversity of options are a problem for DMs, as they don't know what to expect and can have a great deal of stuff sprung on them at any moment. Again, wow. I think this is one of the few times where I completely disagree with you. My high level experience is limited, but I thought options were the name of the game. Just the sheer number of spells a caster has at their disposal should keep the DM on their feet. Any creative/clever caster will use spells for unexpected effects, whether it be wall of stone, polymorph, lesser planar ally, or even silent image. This doesn't even take into account non-casters who have jump checks of 30+, unload a dozen daggers per round, or compel opponents to attack only them. If the diversity of options is an issue, take a look at favors. I ran a particularly difficult mod for a group at a con and every time I thought the combat had the dwarf down, he pulled out another random favor that was perfect for the situation and proceeded to kick ass. As a judge I was scrambling, but I loved it. I think it made for a much more interesting play experience and I think everyone had more fun (and not just because they had a much greater chance of survival). I personally like to play characters who have options available. Polymorph was one I was greatly looking forward to. I went this far, lets see if I can try and address some of the other issues in #23. (Please tell me if you feel I did not address an issue adequately.) As for the time at table issue, anyone who regularly casts it should be familiar with it. If you cast it on someone else, they might have to spend a few minutes recalculating their stats, but I don't see it as that much more complex than figuring out what happens when an enlarged barbarian under the effects of recitation suddenly drops out of rage due to a calm emotions. Any unprepared summoner will spend the same time looking up information, especially if they have imbued summoning (now legal) mucking things up. Even some low level power attackers get slow with the math once charges and flanks come into play. Is polymorph powerful? Yes. Broken? I don't think as much as is claimed, but I can't come up with an argument that's worth presenting. I can think of many reasons, but none hit that sweet spot of being undeniable. Then again, none of the arguments for polymorph being too powerful hit that spot either, IMO. I think for this one, I might have to go with the argument that yes, it is powerful, but so is extra rage, protection from evil, and boots of haste. As far as range of options, I'd love to see access to more creatures, but I think restricting it to MM was a stroke of genius that kept this spell in check in the campaign. As long as the restriction stays, the range doesn't expand. There is the occasional AR access (which would be wonderful to see), but as long as this is kept under very strict supervision (i.e. no interactive/special mission access) and the forms handed out are less powerful/more for flavor then we should be good. Add on top of all that the fact that the spells are used to create extremely powerful effects, and you have a recipe for Closed. Contingency, limited wish, and telekinesis all fit this description. For power/level I might include blink, resurgence, and inspire courage. Again, yes, polymorph is powerful. More powerful than almost anything else in the game? I'd say no. Something that #23 didn't mention, but I'd like to touch on. Even though wizards says we can handle this how we want, I suspect there is desire to match up more in line with the way wizards is running it now. I'm guessing it would make things easier if we use their clarifications on polymorph spells and associated errata, but I think we've been doing OK by ourselves. I don't see how having polymorph/alter self remain in the campaign doesn't preclude us from being able to offer the new spells and/or feats. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if we switched to the way wizards does it, just please leave us our polymorph and alter self. I wouldn't mind if you just took them off the closed list and told us we need access to use certain forms, or even just restrict it to an iconic half dozen (something flying, a giant, something that swims, an orc, a bear, etc.). Very few things are more iconic to a wizard than being able to turn into something else. Pulling it all together, yes, it's a powerful, versatile spell that can slow combats, yet can be used in specific combinations for potent effects. Maybe I'm grossly misrepresenting the situation, but most of that could apply to power attack (yes I know it's a ludicrous comparison, but hear me out). It's a powerful feat, that slows combats for those unprepared, and can result in dramatic effects (sometimes almost doubling damage output). It's even adaptable depending on the situation. Not quite as grossly versatile, but I hope I showed above that versatility is to be expected in LG, despite the presence/absence of any one spell. Telekinesis might be another example: similar level, versatile, table slowing (figuring people's weights), and can be very powerful (flamed arrow, GMW, etc.), and can cause questions of what can and cannot be done. Overall I don't think either polymorph or alter self (alter self especially) are so power to warrant removal from the campaign. I've rambled enough. Please don't take this argument as an indication that I am unappreciative of all the effort that went into this decision, it's just that before you continue with it, I'd like to make sure you've considered these points. If I've missed a point or grossly misconstrued something, please point it out and I will attempt to redress. Thank you.
amnuxoll 02-08-07, 10:59 PM	Quickened Enlarge Person = Standard action to cast. What's your point with this? My point is that polymorph is at its worst when cast on the party tank. Have you seen the books they've come up with lately? I doubt any playtesting at all goes on at WotC these days. Polymorph is the least of their "game balance" worries. Yes, I have seen the books. I've seen remarkably little that's turned out to be unbalanced IMHO. In fact, I've been deeply impressed with some of the "out there" content they've created and how balanced it is. (Example: I'm a huge fan of the Tome of Battle...just not for LG.) I haven't seen your gaming resume but I'll bet there's nothing there that makes you an expert on game balance. Whenever the Circle makes a changes to the rules an awful lot of "experts" come crawling out of the woodwork to explain why WotC and the Circle are a pack of fools. There's an awful lot of screaming but not a lot of well reasoned argument. 3.5 is hopelessly broken - between munchkin PrC's that are top-loaded with benefits and other cheesy niceties - anyways. On the contrary, 3.5 has shown amazing resiliance as more rules have come out. I think the foresight invested in it amazing. Compare to 2nd edition. There were so many rules (many contradictory) that it was impossible to run a legit game unless you worked at TSR. Munchkinism was so easy it wasn't even the "sport" that it is in 3.5. A balanced game required heavy handed house rules.
Drezden 02-08-07, 11:03 PM	Ok, so I am convinced that there is just no way Polymorph can be saved. However, I think if we remove Polymorph from the discussion that Alter self is much easier to defend. As someone in Britt's future profession (lawyer, right?), let's see if I can craft my arguments to the form that he requested. Why Alter Self Should not Be Banned 1. Alter Self is Powerful, But Not Broken Yes, Alter Self is powerful. The +6 Nat. Armor to AC is a boon for arcane casters. However, as someone else mentioned ("Wizard's barkskin"), it is similar to Barkskin - which is also a 2nd level spell and lasts for 10/ minutes per level. Unlike Barkskin though, Alter self is personal only which makes it less powerful. You can't buff up the party tank with Alter self. Alter Self basically allows arcane casters to buff their ACs somewhat. However, arcane casters have no way to boost deflection bonus (like Shield of Faith); no way to boost enhancement bonus to armor or shields (like Magic Vestment); and they can't normally wear armor. In addition, they have the lowest hit dice in the game. Alter Self allows them to be a little less vulnerable. Even if you think Alter Self is more powerful than Barkskin, there is no doubt that there are plenty of other open access mechanics that are more broken than Alter Self. 2 Handed Power Attack, Pounce abilities, EWM - Uncanny Blow or Flurry of Strikes and some of the new PHB2 feats jump to mind. I don't believe Alter Self is near that level of power/brokeness. 2. In LG, There aren't Many Alter Self Options In more than 200 LG mods I have seen 2 Alter Self forms: troglodyte (95%) and locathah - for the swim speed. That's it. Not very hard to add +6 to AC or figure out your swim speed. Between the LG restriction on MM forms, the type restriction and the 5 HD cap, there just aren't a lot of forms someone is going to alter self into. In 3.5 there isn't even a legal form that grants flight - meaning that possible use is non-existent. In short, due to the limited number of options in LG, alter self does not a) spring things on DMs; or b) cause players to have trouble calculating its effects. 3. Polymorph, not Alter Self, Was The Problem Polymorph is castable on others, changes (physical) ability scores and opens up many more forms - due to no type restriction and upping the HD limit to 15. More important, because you gain more benefits from Polymorph the probable forms are greatly increased from the minimal ones that you will likely see with Alter Self. 4. PHB Spells, like Alter Self, Should Be Banned Sparingly As you (Britt) stated, "[Since] LG is a core campaign ... the closer [the Circle] can stick to the Core rules, the better." Alter self is in the PHB - the Core Rulebook 1. The bias should be towards keeping it; it should get the benefit of the doubt. Most of the spells closed from the PHB are due to unique issues/problems in the way they relate to a worldwide shared campaign (e.g. Lesser Planar Binding, Clone, simulcrum). Even the closed spells that are overpowered (Mordenkainen's Disjunction and Destruction) are mainly banned because of the way they impact LG - no easy access to True Resurrection, no way to make up for item loss due to highly regulated (i.e. "capped") GP awards. 5. Conclusion As noted above, with the removal of Polymorph, Alter Self should not be overly problematic to administer. Which brings us back to its power level - which is real reason many people support its banning. While powerful, Alter Self is not "gamebreaking," nor as powerful as other open game mechanics. Further, it goes against the spirit of a "core campaign" to ban a spell from PHB while simultaneously opening up a new expansive list of very powerful material from supplemental books. Thanks, Daren P.S. Did I mention that keeping Alter Self solves the tattoo monk problem? :)
amnuxoll 02-08-07, 11:06 PM	Apparently not everyone has that level of self-control though. If you're saying "polymorph is broken and I know because I use it" then obviously you either: A) have no problems with broken mechanics being used in-game or B) are just trying to hurt my brain. If you truly didn't like it and thought it should be banned, you'd restrict yourself and kick the habit first, without waiting for such a ruling to come along. In my case it's option B. Polymorph isn't the problem here, it's the players who choose to abuse it time and again. No argument here. That's why it's been banned. A good move, says I. Those are the types of players who will take anything they can get and use it to be a one-trick pony. If it's not Polymorph, it'll be the next big thing. If that's the way they want to play the game, who are we to argue? No argument here either except in the case where game balance is destroyed by it. Then it's time to step in. If anything, it does min-maxers a favor by giving them a greater challenge. Some people find join in min/maxing and working out the numbers so that NO combat is a challenge, while othrs enjoy making builds that force every encounter to be difficult. I've had fun playing with both types.
amnuxoll 02-08-07, 11:15 PM	Ok, so I am convinced that there is just no way Polymorph can be saved. However, I think if we remove Polymorph from the discussion that Alter self is much easier to defend. <snip, well reasoned and civil argument here> While I'd prefer to see Alter Self out of the game because +6 to natural armor is too much (IMHO) I can't deny your points are good ones. I wouldn't be deeply upset to see Alter Self made the exception here. But aren't you sick of all the troglodytes? It's downright silly. :bored: :AMN:
cycloptic_squirrel 02-08-07, 11:34 PM	But aren't you sick of all the troglodytes? It's downright silly. :bored: Maybe a touch. But if I stick to that rational, I'd groan every time I found out the latest thing a fiend procrated with or the fighter who's big thing is swinging around a chain with spikes on it or another barbarian who became 'civilized' at level two or the monk who fell from grace or etc. etc. etc. Alter self would be appreciated.
ShinAkuma2 02-08-07, 11:46 PM	Da Truth is here in Internet form Preach on brother! FREE ALTER SELF! FREE ALTER SELF!
bitznarf 02-08-07, 11:57 PM	Maybe a touch. But if I stick to that rational, I'd groan every time I found out the latest thing a fiend procrated with or the fighter who's big thing is swinging around a chain with spikes on it or another barbarian who became 'civilized' at level two or the monk who fell from grace or etc. etc. etc. Alter self would be appreciated. Hey now, barbarians don't have to be 'uncivilized', they merely cannot be lawful and retain their ability to rage. Being somewhat chaotic does not make someone uncivilized. At least, in my humble opinion.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-09-07, 12:27 AM	Hey now, barbarians don't have to be 'uncivilized', they merely cannot be lawful and retain their ability to rage. Being somewhat chaotic does not make someone uncivilized. At least, in my humble opinion. I was poking fun at all the melee types who take one, sometimes two, levels of barbarian and then none thereafter. ;)
bitznarf 02-09-07, 12:43 AM	I was poking fun at all the melee types who take one, sometimes two, levels of barbarian and then none thereafter. ;) Alright fair enough. I've seen enough grumbling on these boards with regards to that sort of thing that I get a bit twitchy. My best friend has a PC that went the opposite direction: he started out as a lawful good half orc fighter (with 11 int, 12 wis, and 8 cha) and slowly over the course of playing him, has happened to slip away from the lawful aspect of his initial plan. Must have been impressed by the high(er) level paladin smashing through assorted would products (doors, stairs, floors, etc.) with an adamantine longsword early in his career (trust me, it was funny as hell). He picked up a level of barbarian at 5th to reflect this. If it is possible to both rage and use the combat focus line of feats at the same time (I havn't looked at them closely) it could be the perfect combination of brute force and deadly precision for his character concept. However, this is all *slightly* off the topic of the thread. *gets off his soapbox*
twells 02-09-07, 01:17 AM	Not trying to hijack the discussion, but I wanted to put my two coppers in .... Regardless of the arguments for or against the spell ... I think it is sad that the “fix” accomplished last year could not be held over, or at least modified. I think it was reasonable to limit valid shapes to the MM, and possibly even limiting it further if necessary. But Polymorph has been with us since day one in the first edition, and has been a fundamental aspect of being a wizard. Everyone took it because that’s was what Magic Users (props to the old school) did. It was core to the RPG thing. After 24 years or so in my D&D playing career, through all the versions, I have had Polymorph to play around with. It’s just cool. I don’t even care about the arguments for or against, broken-ness or benign – it is a shame that we will be losing this spell. When a compromise is unavailable because no one is willing to work in the grey areas, we are forced to yield to the lowest common denominators. (The metaphors are piling up thick now.) I have said my peace ... Trevor Wells
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 01:46 AM	Ok, I need to clarify. Counter-arguments should not be: Me: A, B, C, Or D. Someone: A isn't good enough, B isn't a big enough problem, C isn't that troublesome, D isn't enough of a problem, therefore it shouldn't be Closed. First of all, regardless of polymorph or alterself, table slowdown is independant. Beyond simple indecision, summoning is a culprit here not polymorph which is simply a complicated buff spell. A rule or expectation that players should plan for these would be a boon regardless. Likewise this removal doesn't solve the problem, so it's associated at best. But as to desirable methods of debate, how about that certain of A-D are not applicable in LG? But regardless to that, for me polymorph is core 3.5 D&D and that is sufficient defense in my mind. The errata has not changed that polymorph is still a core spell. There should be pressing reasons for its being removed in LG. So far you have said A (subjective, but not compelling in your mind), B which is a general problem that this will not solve, C that is within Core knowledge requirements so shouldn't be a problem, and D I fail to understand as a factor (that R&D suggests something or another as an option for those who have problems with it). First and foremost things should not be removed because of problems elsewhere. Address the problem head on and deal with it directly. If there are issues that bog down playing timewise then they should be dealt with directly. This will then go to solve the entirety of the problem rather than one symptom(sp). The rest doesn't seem compelling in whole OR in part. Perhaps it's emotionally tied to polymorph in one way or another? -James
Maesto 02-09-07, 09:37 AM	Wow... my eyes hurt from reading too much of this thread. And I only read about half of it. I'm not sad to see polymorph go; it was confusing as hell and abuseable. I'm particularly happy that there are no more hydras wandering around. That being said, I would now like to compose my eulogy for polymorph and alter self. *being eulogy* I used polymorph three times, and each was quite enjoyable. The first was in a rescue mission, where the party needed to save somebody who was about to be sacrificed. We polymorphed a wizard into a small blue dragon with 150 feet flight speed, gave him an invis, and told him to get going and d'door the poor soul out of there! Unfortunately, the sacrifice was only an illusion, and so the poor wizard/dragon fell through the altar and made a clatter on the floor, alerting the yuan-ti's to his position. Ah, good days. The second was when we were going to assault a caravan headed by a vampire. Just for the fun of it, we loaded our fighter (who was playing up two levels) with annis hag and as many buffs as we possibly could. From memory, we used a ripped up tree for an improvised weapon, and kept a book on the side while the most dashingly handsome annis hag in all of Perrenland took on this vampire with a tree trunk. It was most amusing. The final use for polymorph that I got was to polymorph my familiar into a will'o'the'whisp, and then have it hasted with the rest of the party. Go Barty, the amazing Will'o'the'whisp of doom, who singlehandedly took out a golem of some sort! Polymorph, may you rest in peace. Amen *end eulogy* On the other hand, my wizard isn't so great at melee. In fact, he's pathetic. However, he is (or was) able to boost his AC up to about 40 using a bunch of spells, including alter self. Not having that available has reduced his repetoire of tactics significantly, especially when my favourite spell of the day is "Greater Fireburst", which really requires you to put yourself on the line and get an AC big enough that you can't poke a stick at it. I'm disappointed that this aspect will be going. Just my thoughts; hope you enjoyed reading this :) Cheers, Jolyon
Mattastrophic 02-09-07, 01:11 PM	Britt, We have established that Polymorph is not a problem for the campaign, and neither is Alter Self, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, or the Master of Many Forms. We have made a very reasonable suggestion (instituting an LGCS rule that requires preparedness) to solve the perceived problem of these spells taking up too much table time. They are also Core rules, as well as elements of the game that have been around since the birth of D&D. The campaign has thrived with them since year 1, proving that they do not disrupt the campaign. There is no reason to remove them, and there are plenty of reasons to keep them. -Matt
erickim 02-09-07, 04:38 PM	Hi All, First of all, I have only skimmed the 61 messages in this thread, so I apologize for any redundancy. Second, as a sorcerer, I use alterself a lot as a trog (+6 nat AC), and think the debate about ALTERSELF and POLYMORPH should be separated since they have different effects ALTERSELF is quite simple and you have limited choices, where polymorph is more difficult and there are many more choices of monsters and what you gain/don't gain. Again, I apologize if this ground has been covered. Related to this, is it possible to summarize the reasons why alter self is being closed AND the arguments for and against so we can see the strengths and weaknesses of each argument irregardless of our ability to evaluate these claims. One of the things I saw is the assertion that alterself slows the game down and players are not prepared. This is true for spellcasters in general. To address the problem of the difficulty of alterself preparations is to have some training on how to use alterself to make it easier. We should also practice preparing our actions and thinking of contingency actions. I have a table of the 20 or so humaniod forms that alterself can grant on one page. You look it up, it is easy. I have a friend who is a druid and carries all of her animal stats with her instead of searching for that info on her action. There are many factors that slow a game down that are unrelated to alterself or polymorph such as lot of things complicated rules, errata and ignorance. Another argument I saw is that these spells make it difficult for a DM to adjudicate. That certainly is true. However, this is also true for the many prestige classes that are out there including the new books, all the new spells and the addition of new base classes. I don't see these being limited, so it seems the argument isn't being applied consistently. For me, to learn the rules, it is a slow process. We learn the core rules and as we play, we add more detail and learn the nuances. WOTC should set a foundation for the core rules first as best as they can and THEN expand outward. WOTC should find ways of helping people learn the rules by reorganizing the information in a user friendly way. Eric Kim
Britt 02-09-07, 04:41 PM	We discussed alter self again, after the posts here, and have decided that it is going to stay Closed. We are discussing adding some of the poly subschool spells to the Open list, though. And 'irregardless' is not a word ;)
Reylance 02-09-07, 04:49 PM	Here's my solution to the Polymorph debate. 1. "Alter self is limited to these five forms, and here's what they give you." 2. "Polymorph is limited to these ten forms, and here's what they give you." 3. "Polymorph Any Object and Shapechange are only usable in the high level campaign, and at the sole discretion of your judge." If your judge does not want to deal with these issues, then you may not use these two spells. However, if your judge is familiar with these spells and can handle their effects on his game, then he may allow them. Britt, would that solution ease all your concerns? You'd be asking judges and players to be familiar with only fifteen iconic MM creatures, which is very manageable, while allowing a fair amount of flexibility for the players.
Reylance 02-09-07, 04:53 PM	American Heritage Dictionary ir·re·gard·less (ĭr'ĭ-gärd'lĭs) Pronunciation Key adv. Nonstandard Regardless. [Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.] Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Britt 02-09-07, 04:58 PM	As I posted in the same debate on the Triad list: "I do not pay homage to Mirriam-Webster anymore. They have betrayed the English language with their activist stance on "words". That they would include a sentence saying that "irregardless" is a word is just further evidence of this. Boycott Mirriam-Webster!" At least American Heritage does not attempt to claim it is a word. And alter self is staying Closed. Sorry. The discussions here prompted another discussion on the Circle list, but we decided to keep with the decision.
Alpha_Nerd 02-09-07, 05:01 PM	If you're gonna keep them closed you really should open up most of the "form" spells like Trollform and Displacer Beast form or whatever. They are obviously there to replace polymorph, so why not let them? It's not like polymorph was imbalanced as you've stated one of the only reasons you're doing it is to keep in line with core rules.
trollbill 02-09-07, 05:04 PM	If you're gonna keep them closed you really should open up most of the "form" spells like Trollform and Displacer Beast form or whatever. They are obviously there to replace polymorph, so why not let them? It's not like polymorph was imbalanced as you've stated one of the only reasons you're doing it is to keep in line with core rules. He sorta already answered that. They didn't have enough time to go over all the spells, so left things as they were. Convince your local mod writers to include them on ARs.
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 05:26 PM	And alter self is staying Closed. Sorry. The discussions here prompted another discussion on the Circle list, but we decided to keep with the decision. Just wanted to say a thank you for giving the thought the full weight it was due. I didn't want to hear that it's still going to be staying closed, but it is nice to know that it was given full consideration. A small note towards that being that I think the WOTC 'replacement's of form specific polymorphs do favor memorized casters like wizards over their sorcerer and bard counterparts. Alter self is a nice multipurpose utility spell which is the hallmark of a good spontaneous caster spell. While polymorph is a great multipurpose spell that would find homes with more sorcerers if they weren't overpressed for 4th level spells known. That all said, I do still think that Alter Self, being a personal spell, caters to a more specialized build and it's only there that it gets strong. But on that level, it's still basic core rules and thus should be included if possible. Such a removal should be seen as a sad loss for that reason and I'm happy atleast that the Circle is taking it's time with it (I would further hope that while it remains core that it be periodically considered for reintroduction for that very same reason). Thanks for all the great work that you've done here, both in communication and in revamping the LGCS from the ground up (it needed it, but like my house needs cleaning.. not a task just anyone would be up for doing), James
just_be_glad_now 02-10-07, 02:24 AM	It looks like the draft discussion closed early, so I think it is worth addressing this to the Circle now that the decisions have been made: It is too bad that this decision was made, nevermind reasons of campaign balance or gameplay ease or whatever else, because it clearly greatly belittles the opinions and efforts of your predecessors. The polymorph series has always been controversial in this campaign. The original 3.0 version was very poorly worded and was not used in play for fairly good reasons. However, the population, despite playing with PCs designed around the assumption that polymorph was impossible, desired this iconic spell effect. The Circle of those first few years struggled with some considerable effort to find a reasonable workaround for the spell, and eventually included it, having made the effort to create, balance and work through layers of clarifications in order to make it possible. Several times after that, issues arose with the spell and triads etc called for its ban, but the Circle took the effort to hammer out solutions. So, the maximum size clarification was put in place, the no flavor text abilities clarification was put in place, and the spell remained one of those needing additional information to work in a campaign of this size, but still available. Then came the errata of last year, and people reacted strongly in anticipation of the curtain falling, but the Circle and Chris T made a stand on behalf of the campaign and wrote in DC 2-2: "A: Unlike other pieces of official errata, the Living Greyhawk campaign will not be adopting any of the changes that came about from the polymorph errata update." and people were impressed with the daring and efficacy of the Circle as they took the issue to Wizards and returned with yet another, and in this case a highly unexpected, reasonable workaround. The strength behind this statement is that it publically proclaimed that the issue was closed and that nothing will be adopted. It was not a hesitant "is not currently" but instead a strong "will not." There's been a couple of changes in the composition of the Circle since then, and it seems like this Circle is intent to destroy a lot of good work here put together by several generations of campaign leadership by returning to square one. That is a sad thing, no matter what shape the campaign assumes. Brayden Glad PS: It may be necessary to formally declare the above statement from DC 2.2 void as I do not see anything that indicates what overrules what when the DC and the LGCS contradict one another.
scon40 02-10-07, 09:56 AM	Your interpretation of history is unfortunately incorrect. As a Circle member from before, during, and after all of these changes, I can assure you that the interpretation of the "new triad undoing the good works of the old one" is incorrect. In particular, I'll go on record as being one of the people who fought most loudly not to adapt to the new polymorph rules last year and the prime instigator of doing so this year. It's simply a matter of the weight of the exception. Last year, the simplest thing was to ignore the changes since they happened after the LGCS. It gave us a year to look at them; and I completely expected them to be not worth the bother of implementing. However, we continued to see issues with the use of the polymorph family in LG and the rules for DnD continued to develop along the lines of the new polymorph rules. Add this to the glaring inconsistency of not adapting a major rules change from the Core rules, and it was nearly too much to ignore. Add on top of this that they reprinted the MM with the new polymorph rules, and it was too much to ignore.
Lupo 02-10-07, 12:37 PM	Your interpretation of history is unfortunately incorrect. As a Circle member from before, during, and after all of these changes, I can assure you that the interpretation of the "new triad undoing the good works of the old one" is incorrect. In particular, I'll go on record as being one of the people who fought most loudly not to adapt to the new polymorph rules last year and the prime instigator of doing so this year. It's simply a matter of the weight of the exception. Last year, the simplest thing was to ignore the changes since they happened after the LGCS. It gave us a year to look at them; and I completely expected them to be not worth the bother of implementing. However, we continued to see issues with the use of the polymorph family in LG and the rules for DnD continued to develop along the lines of the new polymorph rules. Add this to the glaring inconsistency of not adapting a major rules change from the Core rules, and it was nearly too much to ignore. Add on top of this that they reprinted the MM with the new polymorph rules, and it was too much to ignore. at least we are not forced to buy a new book for the errata this time :cheer: as bad as the errata is in general that would really be hurting (they fixed the human druid to fish drowning problem BUT a druid of an aquatic race will die horribly when wildshaping into a dolphin or whale:(). <edit>under the new "alternate form" rules even a "druid's vestment" will become nonfunctional in animal form . . . . . . . and that is a DMG item :( </edit> i view it as a problem that you (the circle and triads) tell me as a player; ok we think that the errata on "wildshape and polymorph" is ok, therefore it is introduced BUT we think the errata on "polymorph and alter self" are not ok, so we take these two spells out. and can we now eliminate all the dreaded half-you-name-it templates from encounters?? no more advanced fiendish half-dragon oozes and the like??? as without "polymorph" there should be no more cross-breed offspring ;). (apart from some metallic dragons that have "alternate form") "alter self" and "polymorph" are a basic concept of any fairy tale, fantasy world or sword & sorcery role playing game, taking them away will take away a good deal of "plots" for good adventures as well. and they are part of D&D since the very start of it :) ciao martin m.
Majoru Oakheart 02-10-07, 12:43 PM	copy-pasted from LGCS discussion... I cannot possibly believe this to be true. This sorcerer is at half BAB, with merely 25 Str ('mere' because that's as high as it goes for him unless he buffs EVEN MORE), max of three claws and a bite while under Haste. Since he had a full compliment of sorcerer spells, I will assume that he did not cast Tenser's Transformation. In order to have a second Annis Hag, he would also have to have a Medium-sized or larger familiar, which means he would have to have invested a feat slot on Improved Familiar, further expending resources. Yep, he had a 25 Str. So +7 to hit plus 4 from his BAB (he was an 8th level sorcerer) for a total of 11. The fighter in question was a 6th level fighter with an 18 Strength(I believe) for a total of +12 to hit. Of course, the fighter only gets 2 attacks per round for less damage than the sorcerer. The Sorcerer gets 2 claws and a bite in Annis Hag form. Plus, he informed me his AC was 28 or so with his buffs up(Mage Armor, Shield, and the Natural Armor and Dex he got from Polymorphing). This fighter prided himself as a tank, he's been taking nothing but AC items to get the best AC he can. The Sorcerer beat him without a single item. Even if he actually did cast Polymorph every combat, what we have is a very bad Sorcerer. Why? Look at what he's not casting. No Wall of Force, no Evard's Black Tentacles, not even a spike-damage Orb to take out the enemy spellcaster. We have a caster spending a round becoming a Half-BAB Fighter. Evard's? The spell that according to the FAQ grapples people once, and as soon as they escape stops? Even when it keeps them in the grapple, it prevents the fighters from going into melee with enemies and does damage VERY slowly. No thanks, I'd prefer the fighters to attack for 2 or 3 rounds and beat the enemies than watch the DM roll grapple checks for 10 rounds while I sit and watch. Wall of Force? Last time I checked, all it did is block the party from the enemies preventing us from killing them. Orbs are handy, I admit. However, Polymorphing into an Annis Hag doesn't prevent you from casting spells, you still have hands, etc. So, after getting an AC of 28 and 25 strength and reach, you are perfectly able to cast the orb spells the next round. Sounds scary, right? Too broken for a Wizard, right? "Wow, Polymorph is too good," right? I have never used this tactic. Good for you, other people have. If a wizard, or a druid, or a cleric (or a sorcerer, etc...) wants to spend gobs of resources to mimic a fighter, is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there some unwritten rule that wizards and druids are not allowed to join melee? Because that's the rule that's suddenly being enforced here. The sorcerer in the example, assuming he is built for Polymorph, is taking a roundabout method towards doing exactly what Fighters do, and that's melee. And last time I checked, D&D wasn't about restricting people's options and forcing all of us into particular roles. Umm, that's the entire reason to have classes. So that each class can have their own role. Each class is meant to have their own niche that they perform better than any other member of the party. That's what makes a table balanced. Each person contributes their skills to the whole and everyone has fun since they feel useful. When you have a member of the party who goes on and on before the mod starts about how they have bought every last item they could afford and had access to so they could up their AC to 26 then the sorcerer of the group says "26? That's nothing, I can cast 3 spells to get 28 AND I can fly, and cast fireballs and turn invisible. And I can cast enough spells per day to do it every combat during the mod." It sounds like the concept of an arcane spellcaster with an AC and a to-hit roll is too scary to stomach. Just the mere concept, regardless of whether or not it actually happens in play. Not only that, but it even sounds like a Druid with hit points is too scary as well! Once again, last time I played D&D it wasn't about forcing anyone into any one role; if a Wizard or a Druid wants to go into melee, he is allowed to! But apparently, they're not. I'm not sure what D&D you are playing then. In Basic D&D Dwarves couldn't cast spells no matter what they did. Elves had to cast spells. In 1st Edition AD&D Wizards could not use swords no matter what. The designers considered a classless system for 3rd Edition D&D, but decided that they wanted your class to still define your archetype. You can move within your archetype by taking feats or casting certain spells, but you shouldn't be able to do another archetype better than it can. This is one of their principle design policies. Before anyone mentions clerics. Yes, they were purposefully made too powerful by WOTC, since their primary role and archetype is healer. Which is almost universally considered boring. So, they gave the cleric a lot of powerful abilities to convince people to play them. This is due to the fact that in previous editions it was normally pulling teeth to convince anyone to be a cleric. A druid with hitpoints isn't scary if they had to put points into their con to get it. A wizard who goes into melee isn't scary as long as they have to use a significant amount of their resources to accomplish what a fighter can and they don't exceed the fighter. My point is that each person in a group SHOULD, all things being equal, feel that they are just as powerful as everyone else in their group. Every positive over another party member should come with a negative. If you can fight really well, you can't cast spells, if you can cast spells really well, you can't fight. You can mix these abilities, but it should make you worse at both in exchange for versatility. Also, Britt is right, this is not the ONLY reason to change to the new errata. I can think of a number of them: 1. Using the old version of all abilities based on Polymorph confuses people who are used to using the official errata, and requires that everyone playing LG keep a copy of the FAQ and errata right before the Polymorph errata was made to make sure we are still using all the official errata to these abilities that was in effect before this errata. 2. Game slow down due to picking forms in the middle of a game. 3. LG being an official game and not using the official rules. 4. Balance reasons, mostly listed above, but in addition to being able to find a form that is pure power, the ability to emulate about 20 different spells with ONE spell (fly, barkskin, bull's strength, water breathing, etc). Each time you cast it, you get to decide what spell it is, essentially. This should essentially be broken up into about 10 different points based on the number of balance issues caused, but I'll list it as one. 5. Polymorph causes a lot of rules arguments due to the amount of forms you can take and the amount of table variation on its interpretations. The above example is a good one, people are saying that a spell can't increase your size more than one size category. Given this isn't in the core rules and I've met people that interpreted that to mean spells that change size rather than form(meaning they didn't think it applied to Polymorph), some tables it is applied at and some it isn't. It wasn't at ours, since none of us remembered. Chris Wachal POC - Ket Triad
Mortepierre 02-10-07, 01:52 PM	Evard's? The spell that according to the FAQ grapples people once, and as soon as they escape stops? Even when it keeps them in the grapple, it prevents the fighters from going into melee with enemies and does damage VERY slowly. That change in the FAQ is pretty recent. Before it was published, most (if not all) allowed the tentacles to attack anyone in the AoE, no matter how many times the latter had been attacked by the former already. Outside, where you can just run around, it's not scary. In a contained environment (corridor, hall, room), it is.
thorinXXX 02-10-07, 02:06 PM	Yep, he had a 25 Str. So +7 to hit plus 4 from his BAB (he was an 8th level sorcerer) for a total of 11. The fighter in question was a 6th level fighter with an 18 Strength(I believe) for a total of +12 to hit. Of course, the fighter only gets 2 attacks per round for less damage than the sorcerer. The Sorcerer gets 2 claws and a bite in Annis Hag form. Plus, he informed me his AC was 28 or so with his buffs up(Mage Armor, Shield, and the Natural Armor and Dex he got from Polymorphing). This fighter prided himself as a tank, he's been taking nothing but AC items to get the best AC he can. The Sorcerer beat him without a single item. Evard's? The spell that according to the FAQ grapples people once, and as soon as they escape stops? Even when it keeps them in the grapple, it prevents the fighters from going into melee with enemies and does damage VERY slowly. No thanks, I'd prefer the fighters to attack for 2 or 3 rounds and beat the enemies than watch the DM roll grapple checks for 10 rounds while I sit and watch. Wall of Force? Last time I checked, all it did is block the party from the enemies preventing us from killing them. Orbs are handy, I admit. However, Polymorphing into an Annis Hag doesn't prevent you from casting spells, you still have hands, etc. So, after getting an AC of 28 and 25 strength and reach, you are perfectly able to cast the orb spells the next round. Good for you, other people have. Umm, that's the entire reason to have classes. So that each class can have their own role. Each class is meant to have their own niche that they perform better than any other member of the party. That's what makes a table balanced. Each person contributes their skills to the whole and everyone has fun since they feel useful. When you have a member of the party who goes on and on before the mod starts about how they have bought every last item they could afford and had access to so they could up their AC to 26 then the sorcerer of the group says "26? That's nothing, I can cast 3 spells to get 28 AND I can fly, and cast fireballs and turn invisible. And I can cast enough spells per day to do it every combat during the mod." I'm not sure what D&D you are playing then. In Basic D&D Dwarves couldn't cast spells no matter what they did. Elves had to cast spells. In 1st Edition AD&D Wizards could not use swords no matter what. The designers considered a classless system for 3rd Edition D&D, but decided that they wanted your class to still define your archetype. You can move within your archetype by taking feats or casting certain spells, but you shouldn't be able to do another archetype better than it can. This is one of their principle design policies. Before anyone mentions clerics. Yes, they were purposefully made too powerful by WOTC, since their primary role and archetype is healer. Which is almost universally considered boring. So, they gave the cleric a lot of powerful abilities to convince people to play them. This is due to the fact that in previous editions it was normally pulling teeth to convince anyone to be a cleric. A druid with hitpoints isn't scary if they had to put points into their con to get it. A wizard who goes into melee isn't scary as long as they have to use a significant amount of their resources to accomplish what a fighter can and they don't exceed the fighter. My point is that each person in a group SHOULD, all things being equal, feel that they are just as powerful as everyone else in their group. Every positive over another party member should come with a negative. If you can fight really well, you can't cast spells, if you can cast spells really well, you can't fight. You can mix these abilities, but it should make you worse at both in exchange for versatility. Also, Britt is right, this is not the ONLY reason to change to the new errata. I can think of a number of them: 1. Using the old version of all abilities based on Polymorph confuses people who are used to using the official errata, and requires that everyone playing LG keep a copy of the FAQ and errata right before the Polymorph errata was made to make sure we are still using all the official errata to these abilities that was in effect before this errata. 2. Game slow down due to picking forms in the middle of a game. 3. LG being an official game and not using the official rules. 4. Balance reasons, mostly listed above, but in addition to being able to find a form that is pure power, the ability to emulate about 20 different spells with ONE spell (fly, barkskin, bull's strength, water breathing, etc). Each time you cast it, you get to decide what spell it is, essentially. This should essentially be broken up into about 10 different points based on the number of balance issues caused, but I'll list it as one. 5. Polymorph causes a lot of rules arguments due to the amount of forms you can take and the amount of table variation on its interpretations. The above example is a good one, people are saying that a spell can't increase your size more than one size category. Given this isn't in the core rules and I've met people that interpreted that to mean spells that change size rather than form(meaning they didn't think it applied to Polymorph), some tables it is applied at and some it isn't. It wasn't at ours, since none of us remembered. Chris Wachal POC - Ket Triad All of the above reasons, except 3, and especially 5 are why I want Polymorph gone. The table variation on this spell is heinous and leads to all sorts of arguemnts. In short the spell is not worth the problems it creates.
Mattastrophic 02-10-07, 02:27 PM	Yep, he had a 25 Str. So +7 to hit plus 4 from his BAB (he was an 8th level sorcerer) for a total of 11. The fighter in question was a 6th level fighter with an 18 Strength(I believe) for a total of +12 to hit. Of course, the fighter only gets 2 attacks per round for less damage than the sorcerer. The Sorcerer gets 2 claws and a bite in Annis Hag form. Plus, he informed me his AC was 28 or so with his buffs up(Mage Armor, Shield, and the Natural Armor and Dex he got from Polymorphing). This fighter prided himself as a tank, he's been taking nothing but AC items to get the best AC he can. The Sorcerer beat him without a single item. Strangely enough, your example proves my point. That sorcerer (8th, by the way) could have done more damage than that fighter (two levels behind!) before spending two rounds to buff himself. Polymorph actually hinders his damage. Also, your statement on the relative uselessness of Wall of Force and Evard's Black Tentacles... I won't even start. This sorcerer has spent two rounds buffing while the fighter could be four attacks ahead of him. This sorcerer is also a very bad sorcerer, because of what he isn't casting to end the combat in 2-3 rounds. Evard's, Haste, heck, even Orb of Force would have been superior options to Shield! And if you're complaining about a Sorcerer8 being able to get more AC than a Fighter6 "without purchasing a single item..." I think I now see the mentality behind removing Alter Self, as well. It sounds like the Circle is taking the standpoint of people like you. I fear for the future of this campaign, as, over time, if the Circle continues to take that standpoint, the Wizard will be Closed, "because they're broken." And it's already starting... Now before you scream too loudly that that means that we should also limit the rods of meta-magic, be careful what you wish for, because some of us in the Circle actually would love to get rid of those things and I always ask the Triads to think twice before granting access to those damned things in adventures. Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns How sad. I'm done now; I've more than said my piece, knowing that at least I put a good effort into saving this campaign. -Matt
Piuro 02-10-07, 03:01 PM	All the rulesmongering is breaking LG the other way. Mod writers cater to powergames so much so that non-powergamers can't survive more than a few mods if they want to play an active roll in combat. If you're going to start banning core things because they're good, then start yelling at mod writers and make the game more roleplaying centric.
clik_ml 02-10-07, 03:43 PM	I tried to find the proper place among the varied polymorph threads, but failing that here goes a quick query. How does the Bonded Summoner ability to change into an elemental form (based on polymorph) function in a CY597 world?
Majoru Oakheart 02-10-07, 03:47 PM	That change in the FAQ is pretty recent. Before it was published, most (if not all) allowed the tentacles to attack anyone in the AoE, no matter how many times the latter had been attacked by the former already. Outside, where you can just run around, it's not scary. In a contained environment (corridor, hall, room), it is. I know it's fairly recent. Our group of people discovered that's the way the spell worked a year ago. A trap with it went off in a mod, someone in our group asked "Does it regrapple you after you escape?" I knew the answer, "Of course it does, but to make you happy, I'll look it up in the PHB to be sure." Then I looked and could find no wording saying it regrappled after someone got out. The whole group read it 2 or 3 times to be sure. Then we realized that we, along with everyone we'd ever played with had just assumed and not actually read the spell. So, since January of last year, we've been playing like that. A bunch of people from out of region(from 3 other regions, actually) visited us in June of last year and it came up during those games as well and I informed them all how it worked. I like to think I might have had something to do with getting people to ask the question to WOTC and eventually get it added to the FAQ, but that's just wishful thinking. However, yes, since we found out that all the tentacles ignore you after failing to grapple you, almost no one I know has prepared the spell. Most creatures break out after a short while and it isn't worth casting compared to other spells. The other thing that stopped us from preparing it was a session where the enemies WERE in a contained room and had over 120 hitpoints. The wizard cast Evard's and the fighters could no longer get within range of any of the enemies. So, they had to stand there while the Evard's kept doing 3 damage a round to the enemies(on rounds that it did any damage at all, since it needed to succeed in a grapple each round to do damage). The rest of the party was annoyed at having to sit around and wait for somewhere around 50 minutes real time before they could take actions that weren't delaying. This is because when there is 5 enemies and 2 PCs stuck in an Evard's, you have to roll a LOT of opposed grapple checks every round. Chris Wachal POC - Ket Triad
Samwise 02-10-07, 04:08 PM	I realized the issue with Evard's over 2 years ago, and I've been running it that way since then. The text is very clearly different from that of entangle.
Timlagor 02-10-07, 05:50 PM	..And none of the delayers had missile weapons?
Drezden 02-10-07, 06:16 PM	Well, I am disappointed that alter self is staying closed, but thanks for at least looking at it again. I hope you liked my legal-like memo on alter self. I would have made it even better, but I didn't think my firm would let me bill for it. :) Daren As I posted in the same debate on the Triad list: "I do not pay homage to Mirriam-Webster anymore. They have betrayed the English language with their activist stance on "words". That they would include a sentence saying that "irregardless" is a word is just further evidence of this. Boycott Mirriam-Webster!" At least American Heritage does not attempt to claim it is a word. And alter self is staying Closed. Sorry. The discussions here prompted another discussion on the Circle list, but we decided to keep with the decision.
Britt 02-10-07, 06:26 PM	I hope you liked my legal-like memo on alter self. That depends on if you can get me an internship for this summer. If not, I hated it ;)
Vamroc 02-10-07, 10:28 PM	I just got Polymorph damn it. I haven't had time to come up with any creature lists. I was really hoping to see how cool and effective a Spider Eater is in combat.
solbergb 02-11-07, 01:29 PM	However, yes, since we found out that all the tentacles ignore you after failing to grapple you, almost no one I know has prepared the spell. Most creatures break out after a short while and it isn't worth casting Speaking as someone who still uses the spell (sorcerer) it's still very useful but it is maybe not the kind of thing that ends up on a wizard's picks. It is guaranteeed half-movement. Lets your fighter full attack, 5' step back and be immune to full-attack counterattack. It's still devastating combined with silence against spellcasters of any kind who don't already have FoM up, which is a lot of them. If you can cast it again, you can usually chase the guy with one contingency or dim-door around till he's out. If you place it right, what your fighters can still whack away, especially if they are sensible melees who pack a reach weapon. If you can enlarge them, it's better. As with any movement reducer, it stacks well with things like solid fog or grease to inhibit movement. you WANT monsters to break out in a round or two, but not all at the same time. That's picture perfect behavior for a battlefield control spell...it means the bad guys come at your fighters one at a time and get shredded. solid fog and wall of force can situationally do this too, but evards is still pretty good, and appropriate for its level. It was a touch too powerful before. If you sculpt it, 100% of the downside of "interferes with fighters" goes away. But again, that's way more likely on a sorcerer or warmage than on a wizard. Situationally advantagous spells usually aren't taken by a wizard without prior knowledge of the opposition. Spells that are only good vs specific things, but several specific things are often excellent sorc picks, and of course warmages get it and don't get other options...it stacks nicely with their stinking cloud..anyone already grappled and then nauseated isn't breaking out of an evards, not till the spell is dismissed or wears off.
Gelth 02-11-07, 08:04 PM	I just got Polymorph damn it. I haven't had time to come up with any creature lists. I was really hoping to see how cool and effective a Spider Eater is in combat. Well, my only comment on this comes from my 13th level character who had a warhorse on his very first AR (River of Blood), and has consistently had a warhorse ever since. Only once was his warhorse ever polymorphed into a non-horselike form, a spider-eater. Only once has his warhorse been killed during a module (I'm pretty proud of that). It was the same module. Power attacking fire giant crits suck. Spider-eater polymorphs are bad luck. :) --Penn, Ket Triad