Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Serge_P 04-24-07, 01:19 PM	A Pixie may cast Polymorph as spell-like with CL 8. Does that mean that he may turn into a "Lolth tuched Shadow Half (or quarter) troll, half (or quarter) Chaos dragon pyroclastic Dragon Wyrmling" who has 7 HD and str 41, Dex 14, Con 33 and a lot of extraordinary attacks, for 8 minuites? :plotting: :lightbulb :devil: :evillaugh
NobodyRemembersThis 04-24-07, 01:20 PM	You cannot add templates to creatures - it is in the spell description.
Serge_P 04-24-07, 01:25 PM	:headexplo
tarkin 04-24-07, 01:26 PM	According the SRD, the Pixie has no innate ability to cast Polymorph, he has to to have taken quite a few levels of Wizard to do that. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie And he has no extra power than any other caster. I.E. A pixie cannot turn into any creature that human of the same caster level could not also turn into. -------- However, the SRD (and I ) appear to be wrong, according to people below. Sorry
Serge_P 04-24-07, 02:41 PM	Also note, the Pixie has no innate ability to cast Polymorph, he has to to have taken quite a few levels of Wizard to do that. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie And he has no extra power than any other caster. I.E. A pixie cannot turn into any creature that human of the same caster level could not also turn into WRONG! Monster Manual page 236: Spell-like abilities: ..... Polymorph (Self Only)....
NobodyRemembersThis 04-24-07, 02:47 PM	You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype.As Alterself except... You cannot acquire templates.
penchant 04-24-07, 03:09 PM	Also note, the Pixie has no innate ability to cast Polymorph, he has to to have taken quite a few levels of Wizard to do that. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm#pixie And he has no extra power than any other caster. I.E. A pixie cannot turn into any creature that human of the same caster level could not also turn into Hey Tarkin, I've noticed you always refer to the SRD for references in your posts. As I've come to notice there are ever growing differences between the published books and the SRD. Do you consider the SRD to be a more canon source than the books?
Cricket_God 04-24-07, 03:15 PM	Hey Tarkin, I've noticed you always refer to the SRD for references in your posts. As I've come to notice there are ever growing differences between the published books and the SRD. Do you consider the SRD to be a more canon source than the books? The important thing is that the SRD has more of the errata. Check the MM errata here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) and you will see that polymorph has been removed from the pixie. From the errata: Sprite, Pixie Monster Manual, page 236 Remove “polymorph (self only)” from spell-like abilities.
tarkin 04-24-07, 03:16 PM	Not really. But as I am at work most of the time when I post, I neither a. have my books b. would feel comfortable consulting them if I had them In addition, it is VERY easy to post a direct link to the SRD. -------- It is true that there are distinct differences, as apparently shown here when I checked the Pixie on the SRD and it clearly did not mention anything about Polymorph, when the Monster Manual did. I should at least preface my quotes with "The SRD says"
ArcTan 04-24-07, 03:21 PM	WRONG! Monster Manual page 236: Spell-like abilities: ..... Polymorph (Self Only).... WRONG! Monster Manual errata, 2/17/06. Page 5. "Sprite, Pixie. Monster Manual page 236. Remove polymorph (self only) from list of spell-like abilities." I can't believe we all made such a big deal over the polymorph errata when it came out and so many people seem to continue to be blissfully aware of it. WotC *does not like the polymorph spell* and *does not want you to use it*, and has removed it wholesale from every part of the game that used to reference it. How could it be more clear?
ArcTan 04-24-07, 03:25 PM	Also, polymorph *never* had the power to change you into beings with templates. And the Pixie could never be polymorphed into a creature with more HD than it possesses itself -- which means that a non-advanced standard Pixie could only ever turn into things with 1 HD. Seriously, half the problem with polymorph wasn't the brokenness of the spell as written but the fact that people seem to love misinterpreting how it works.
penchant 04-24-07, 06:20 PM	hmm. Erratas are nice to clear up problems, but when we play we use the books. We sit at a table, looking across from each other and pull a book off the shelf whenever a rule comes into question. The errata binder is growing ever thicker, but printing the SRD out would not be a happy thing. I don't know, maybe they should save all the changes for 4.0 rather than amending core rules with errata (rather than just posting typo corrections) and later non core books (see polymorph subschool amendments in several books). Its getting to be that when I make a statement here I have to reference it online first to make sure nothing has changed again.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-24-07, 06:33 PM	In game, use the changes you are most comfortable with. However, here on the boards (as everyone here has access to the SRD + eratta) the SRD + Eratta is the final say and the only reference that matters when discussing the CORE.
Thane26425 04-24-07, 06:37 PM	I just don't see the problem. A pixie would most likely be transforming into something like a bird or a chipmunk to remain unnoticed rather than a monster to get into a fight. Small animals also play better into their role as jokers than big fighting monsters. An adventurer would cuss and fuss if a bird flew over and "bombed" him in the head and flew away, but if a bear came charging at them, they'd kill it. So, the Pixie would choose the bird over the bear: have fun and live longer. Another reason I don't get it is because I never really used polymorph in the first place. Alter Self was good for getting around, especially in cities. Turn into a bird, fly over the crowds, turn back again to take care of errands and fly home again. The combat forms were generally not quite as good as my mage backing up the fighters with his magic. It came in handy sometimes, but the enemy's reaction was much like ours to polymorphing: that's where the power is on that side, now let's kill it. One "fix" is to make those under the effects of such spell subject to anti-shape shifter attacks or the other proper bane weapons. A mage in a group I DMed like turning into red dragons. He didn't like the archer with the haste, Greater Invisibility and strong, shapeshifter bane bow.
NoldorForce 04-24-07, 10:24 PM	Considering that pixies have Greater Invisibility as an always-on SLA, they're still good, though not crazy. Amusingly, there is still one monster that can cast Polymorph as a SLA, the brachina devil (FC2). If the right hand isn't watching what the left is doing...
Squirrelloid 04-25-07, 03:25 AM	Considering that pixies have Greater Invisibility as an always-on SLA, they're still good, though not crazy. Amusingly, there is still one monster that can cast Polymorph as a SLA, the brachina devil (FC2). If the right hand isn't watching what the left is doing... The SRD is the reference material for all D+D supplements, and *nothing else is*. Thus, as all the new polymorph spells are not in SRD material, they never get referenced by new supplements (well, rarely, CM did, and had to have a huge box of text to do so to reprint all the relevant rules). But while polymorph may have been stripped from the MM, its still a valid spell in the PHB/SRD, and therefore still exists in the referant used by those people writing new splats, and therefore is impossible to remove from the game.
runestar 04-25-07, 03:34 AM	I typically rely on the SRD as well, for reasons similar to tarkin(lack of ready access to books, easier to reference/verify and provide relevant quotes). I am not sure how often it is updated though(divine favour still caps at +6 over there last time I checked).:P It is also kind of conspicuous when you are seen pouring through dnd books in work or at school...:embarrass
Thane26425 04-25-07, 04:57 AM	Considering that pixies have Greater Invisibility as an always-on SLA, they're still good, though not crazy. Amusingly, there is still one monster that can cast Polymorph as a SLA, the brachina devil (FC2). If the right hand isn't watching what the left is doing... They do? Well that's not so bad then. Still don't see all the fuss over polymorph though and I'll probably keep it in my campaigns.
Merestil Haye 04-25-07, 07:12 AM	I typically rely on the SRD as well, for reasons similar to tarkin(lack of ready access to books, easier to reference/verify and provide relevant quotes). I am not sure how often it is updated though(divine favour still caps at +6 over there last time I checked).WotC do not update the SRD on their site. As far as I can remember, the only errata documents incorporated into the WotC SRD are the first PHB and first DMG errata. Nothing else. I strongly advise using the d20SRD or Sovelior online SRDs. The maintainers make efforts to incorporate errata into the content (and in at least one case when an update fouled up an existing spell, an email to the maintainer resulted in the site being corrected within about an hour). So in the areas covered by the SRD, what you see is what WotC would print if they were printing the books now.
Naderion 04-25-07, 09:01 AM	D&D has the fortunate fact, that in the end, the rules are as the players agree on them. If you don't like it as it's in the books, do it different. If you don't like what's in the erratas, don't use it. And even if a player want's to say "But pixies can't polymorph!", you can always say, "Yes, pixies can't, but this homebrew creature (that interestingly is completely the same as a pixiw with polymorph) can."
penchant 04-25-07, 09:25 AM	D&D has the fortunate fact, that in the end, the rules are as the players agree on them. If you don't like it as it's in the books, do it different. If you don't like what's in the erratas, don't use it. And even if a player want's to say "But pixies can't polymorph!", you can always say, "Yes, pixies can't, but this homebrew creature (that interestingly is completely the same as a pixiw with polymorph) can." You don't even have to say its a homebrew creature. You just say, "My Monstrous Manual says they can. And since thats what I paid $30 for, thats what we are using!"
nameneeded 04-25-07, 09:55 AM	You don't even have to say its a homebrew creature. You just say, "My Monstrous Manual says they can. And since thats what I paid $30 for, thats what we are using!" hehe......... But I paid a few hundred for my tablet PC so I could access the SRD while gaming so mine trumps yours! :P On another polymorph note.....I'm about to restart my game where one of the players has based his mage around poly. I am planning to institute a rule that you have to make a knowledge check equal to the highest DC given for a creature using the newer stepped DC's given in the books now. So DC's would be 30+CR. One of my fellow players suggested the DC be for the highest DC that lists an ability one would get. I also want to include a rule that you must have had interaction with a creature before polymorphing into it. Thoughts?
ArcTan 04-25-07, 12:35 PM	The SRD is the reference material for all D+D supplements, and *nothing else is*. That's incorrect. The SRD is reference material for what 3rd-party sourcebook writers can put in new books without having to ask or pay WotC. Thus, as all the new polymorph spells are not in SRD material, they never get referenced by new supplements (well, rarely, CM did, and had to have a huge box of text to do so to reprint all the relevant rules). In other words, you're wrong, and WotC frequently does reference non-SRD material in sourcebooks -- like the whole idea of the Warlock class and Warlock invocations, or the Artificer class, etc. But while polymorph may have been stripped from the MM, its still a valid spell in the PHB/SRD, and therefore still exists in the referant used by those people writing new splats, and therefore is impossible to remove from the game. It's impossible to remove from the game in the sense that they will not produce a new PHB and SRD with a whole spell completely removed until the next edition (though the brouhaha with polymorph is a sign that 4e is looming). However, none of the new WotC splats reference the old polymorph spell, barring some fairly obvious mistakes like the Brachina Devil. Non-WotC writers can, as always, do what they like.
ArcTan 04-25-07, 12:41 PM	I just don't see the problem. A pixie would most likely be transforming into something like a bird or a chipmunk to remain unnoticed rather than a monster to get into a fight. Small animals also play better into their role as jokers than big fighting monsters. An adventurer would cuss and fuss if a bird flew over and "bombed" him in the head and flew away, but if a bear came charging at them, they'd kill it. So, the Pixie would choose the bird over the bear: have fun and live longer. As I pointed out before, the ordinary Monster Manual Pixie, who has only 1 HD, *has* to be the bird instead of the bear. It can only pick from other 1 HD forms. Another reason I don't get it is because I never really used polymorph in the first place. Alter Self was good for getting around, especially in cities. Turn into a bird, fly over the crowds, turn back again to take care of errands and fly home again. The combat forms were generally not quite as good as my mage backing up the fighters with his magic. It came in handy sometimes, but the enemy's reaction was much like ours to polymorphing: that's where the power is on that side, now let's kill it. Well, polymorph (as opposed to alter self) can be used to buff the Fighters (it's a Touch-range spell). Nothing's quite as good as giving your Fighter a boost to his Str *and* his Dex *and* his Con *and* his size *and* his natural armor *and* maybe give him access to a poisonous natural attack, all at the same time. Even just sticking to the MM, turning Fighters into Trolls or Ogres or child Dragons is a pretty good use of magic -- lots of bang for your buck compared to bull's strength or the just plain awful Tenser's transformation. And that's without combing through splats to look for the specifically really broken forms. One "fix" is to make those under the effects of such spell subject to anti-shape shifter attacks or the other proper bane weapons. A mage in a group I DMed like turning into red dragons. He didn't like the archer with the haste, Greater Invisibility and strong, shapeshifter bane bow. It could work, but it smacks too much of rock-paper-scissors play -- having just one specific counter to one specific move and using it a lot. I don't like the idea of the bad guys miraculously turning out to have shifterbane arrows every time the mage uses polymorph -- it's one step above AMFs popping up everywhere.
Squirrelloid 04-27-07, 01:11 AM	That's incorrect. The SRD is reference material for what 3rd-party sourcebook writers can put in new books without having to ask or pay WotC. Most books WotC asks its writers to only reference core material. In other words, you're wrong, and WotC frequently does reference non-SRD material in sourcebooks -- like the whole idea of the Warlock class and Warlock invocations, or the Artificer class, etc. "frequently".... There are like 3 splats in every splat published I can think of that references material not in itself or core. And then they have to reprint all the relevant rules again. Yeah, there are probably a handful more that I don't own, but its a really rare event. (The ones that come to mind: CM - Warlocks and Polymorph subschool referencing CA and SC, CV - swift and immediate actions referencing CA). That's hardly frequently. And the only one of those that actually counts as a 'reference' in the technical sense is CM and warlock, the other two are reprintings of the relevant rules because they wanted to introduce new spells relevant to those rules, and thus *needed to reprint those rules because they weren't in core*. WotC's assumption is that everyone will own core, and therefore rules which appear only in splats tend to only be referenced in the splat it occurs in, or *rarely* the rule will be reprinted in a specific other book they wish to use those rules for. Name three other books since SC was published that reference the polymorph subschool or use any material related to it? All those books that don't? They're assuming core material with regards to polymorph. It's impossible to remove from the game in the sense that they will not produce a new PHB and SRD with a whole spell completely removed until the next edition (though the brouhaha with polymorph is a sign that 4e is looming). However, none of the new WotC splats reference the old polymorph spell, barring some fairly obvious mistakes like the Brachina Devil. Non-WotC writers can, as always, do what they like. Its impossible to remove from the game because the standard instructions to writers are "reference only material in the core books" (and associated errata, of course). Brachina Devil is not a "mistake" in any technical sense - the writer was allowed to reference only core material, and polymorph is core material. Its only a mistake if you think that WotC has actually removed polymorph from the game (which they haven't). It would be pretty easy to issue an errata saying "alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object, and shapechange are removed from the wizards spell lists, all domains in which they occur, and are no longer spells. They are replaced with the following:" (a selected few of the new polymorph subschool spells at the appropriate levels). Also, errata the polymorph subschool into the core (along with swift and immediate actions already). Errata is a wonderful thing, they should use it more often.
ArcTan 04-27-07, 07:55 PM	Name three other books since SC was published that reference the polymorph subschool or use any material related to it? All those books that don't? They're assuming core material with regards to polymorph. Name one monster other than the sole exception of the Brachina Devil that's included polymorph rather than Alternate Form and Change Shape, two new abilities that seem to have been invented for *no other reason* than to replace polymorph as an SLA. Its impossible to remove from the game because the standard instructions to writers are "reference only material in the core books" (and associated errata, of course). Brachina Devil is not a "mistake" in any technical sense - the writer was allowed to reference only core material, and polymorph is core material. Its only a mistake if you think that WotC has actually removed polymorph from the game (which they haven't). It's a mistake in the sense that the Polymorph Problem editorial makes it really, really clear that they want to remove polymorph but can't, because that would disrupt existing campaigns and such too much. The last time they wanted to actively remove or change stuff in Core they released a new edition (3.0->3.5). It's a mistake in that it's clearly a huge deviation from policy in the rest of the core -- why would they work that hard to take away polymorph from creatures who've always had it, like the Doppelganger, only to "decide" to just give it back to the Brachina Devil? Especially since the alternative to giving it polymorph is *not* giving it a Polymorph subschool spell, but giving it Alternate Form or Change Shape, which *are* core SLAs? It would be pretty easy to issue an errata saying "alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object, and shapechange are removed from the wizards spell lists, all domains in which they occur, and are no longer spells. They are replaced with the following:" (a selected few of the new polymorph subschool spells at the appropriate levels). Also, errata the polymorph subschool into the core (along with swift and immediate actions already). Errata is a wonderful thing, they should use it more often. Did you notice that they *haven't* been using errata at all recently? When was the last time a new errata came out? Stuff like Immediate Actions and things have all been introduced in new sourcebooks rather than errata. Like it or not, errata are becoming increasingly infrequent as a way for changing the game. Look, for whatever it's worth, there was no point to the polymorph errata if you assume that they didn't want to get rid of polymorph. If polymorph is still supposed to "exist", then they wasted enormous amounts of time rewriting half the game, including tons of monster entries, to do nothing else but remove polymorph from their descriptions. They even released an editorial *with* the errata that *said* they didn't like polymorph, didn't want you to use it, that the only point of the errata was to remove polymorph's "stranglehold" on the rest of the game. What more do you want?
ArcTan 04-27-07, 07:59 PM	By the way, as I was saying, an easy way to fix the Pixie if you don't like that its polymorph was taken away is to give it the Alternate Form or Change Shape SLAs, both of which are less broken than polymorph and were invented as a standard replacement to polymorph. (I think Alternate Form makes more sense since I imagine Pixies using one or two specific forms like a bird or a human to spy on people rather than constantly shifting shapes to fight, but whatever.)