Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Seeker95 04-15-07, 02:38 PM	In numerous other threads, DungeonMaster and ArcTan have insisted that shapechange is broken. I have noted that I disagree with their opinion on this, and they have both become quite angry that I would dare refer to this as an opinion. (At least I assume they are angry that I am calling it an opinion. It does not seem very reasonable for them to grow angry that I disagree with them.) Anyway, they both insist that the brokenness of shapechange is fact. So here's the challenge: Prove it. More specifically, disprove that "shapechange is broken" can be an opinion. I would ask that you consider the following "restrictions" in this attempt. 1. Shapechange is a core spell. Please keep examples within the three core books: DMG, PHB, Monster Manual. The reason for this is that things you can do with non-core material should not be the measure of the utility of the core rule. Rather, such examples are more a measure of the balance of the new mechanic/design idea. 2. No epic blah blah blah. 3. Stick with 3.5 as the default rule set. I have nothing against "3.0" (I put it in quotes only because the pre-3.5 rule set was known only as 3e, yet this term now applies to all third edition material, both pre- and post-3.5 rules). I think that's it. Ladies and Gentlemen, start your proofs.
Gnarl 04-15-07, 04:33 PM	Brokenness is always a matter of opinion; you know these boards well enough ;). Being one of the top 10 best 9th level spells ever published 3.5 is good enough to make it broken to most standards.
SpoonyBard 04-15-07, 04:44 PM	Rule 1- Shapechange is only a fraction as powerful in Core. As talked about in the Erratta. The bigges problem is coming out with NEW MONSTERS and NEW BOOKS while keeping them in mind. Shapechange becomes better with every book that comes out. Rule 2- Epic's another problem. You can Shapechange into an EPIC POWER LEVEL monster while you're only level 17. How is that not broken? And even without Epic... 17th level character casts a spell, has all the abilities of a CR 20+ monster, like a Balor? How is that not broken?
Infinitum 04-15-07, 05:07 PM	The only way it can be called "fact" is if WotC said themselves that it was broken. If this was the case, it would be changed regardless. Thus, board members stating, without any official source stating thusly as well, is an opinion. The weight of the opinion varies with the person stating it.
Richmud 04-15-07, 05:21 PM	The only way it can be called "fact" is if WotC said themselves that it was broken. If this was the case, it would be changed regardless. Thus, board members stating, without any official source stating thusly as well, is an opinion. The weight of the opinion varies with the person stating it. Wasn't shapechange changed as part of the polymorph nerf because the designers decided that polymorph was broken?
Drachasor 04-15-07, 05:21 PM	Rule 1- Shapechange is only a fraction as powerful in Core. As talked about in the Erratta. The bigges problem is coming out with NEW MONSTERS and NEW BOOKS while keeping them in mind. Shapechange becomes better with every book that comes out. Rule 2- Epic's another problem. You can Shapechange into an EPIC POWER LEVEL monster while you're only level 17. How is that not broken? And even without Epic... 17th level character casts a spell, has all the abilities of a CR 20+ monster, like a Balor? How is that not broken? You're not really providing an example. Also, a Balor requires that you are level 20 to be able to Shapechange into it. Anyhow, I don't think a Balor is that broken for a level 20 Wizard. He'd only have an attack bonus of +22 (no weapon focus, presumably, +10 BAB, and +12 Str, -1 Size, +1 Vorpal Longsword). He gains a bunch of defensive buffs, certainly. He has DR 15 (we'll assume no one bypasses it). Immunity to two elements, resistance to two others. Spell Resistance 28 isn't that big a deal for level 20 or higher enemies. True Seeing is very potent though, and this lasts for a long time (10 min/level). He also gains a good AC, but probably loses the benefits of much of his equipment (anything that doesn't change size). I am not sure this AC is that big of a deal. However, a lot of these bonuses are roughly equivalent to much lower level spells. Stoneskin and True Seeing have been around for a long time already (and any problems with True Seeing are primary problem with that spell, not a monster form that gives you that ability). On the other hand, if you add in one non-core feat, Practiced Spellcaster, then the Balor is probably too good (especially if you throw in some melee-boosting spells). A Wizard 8/Fighter 2/ Eldritch Knight 10 has a BAB of 16, so the Balor bonus becomes extremely good. He could also use other, better weapons quite easily. That with the spellcasting he already has is a bit crazy, imho. Reach never hurt anyone either. Of course, a Druid can turn into a Balor and gain a lot of benefits. So that might be too potent a form for them. They can be in it much of the day at level 20, and easily out-fight the fighters. Part of that is a problem with the warrior classes though. The Balor does give you certainly vulnerabilities, so there are probably other forms that are a bit more suitable if you are min-maxing your forms. Overall, from Core, I don't see that much that is abusable for a Wizard. Overall I think the spell is too unwieldy. Polymorph and the like should give you a list of allowable forms, and you choose something from that list. That or give you a list of allowable abilities you can gain (or some other limitation), but this is more complicated. -Drachasor
DrMorganes 04-15-07, 05:29 PM	First: Seeker specifically disallowed Epic content in all its forms. Epic content is it's own game. Next: Shapechange caps the new form's Hit Dice at your Caster Level. Your Level 17 Wizard cannot Shapechange into a 20HD balor. Try again.
Seeker95 04-15-07, 05:34 PM	Wasn't shapechange changed as part of the polymorph nerf because the designers decided that polymorph was broken?Neither alter self nor its line of spells (polymorph and shapechange) were changed by the errata. The only change the errata really made was to separate almost all monsters and classes from the spell line in representing what "new form capabilities" they have.
Etharion 04-15-07, 06:43 PM	Ok..before i post a comment of any kind, could someone post the full Shapechange spell here? So i can see exactly whats diffrent in 3.5 edition... Cause i use 3. edition..
Infinitum 04-15-07, 07:17 PM	Here you go, a link to the Shapechange spell as it currently stands: http://http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm)
1stCainite 04-15-07, 07:32 PM	hmm... tell me. does a Focus function as a magical item? [edit: Specifically, do it take up a slot if you have to put it on]
Nephlite 04-15-07, 07:53 PM	In numerous other threads, DungeonMaster and ArcTan have insisted that shapechange is broken. I have noted that I disagree with their opinion on this, and they have both become quite angry that I would dare refer to this as an opinion. (At least I assume they are angry that I am calling it an opinion. It does not seem very reasonable for them to grow angry that I disagree with them.) Anyway, they both insist that the brokenness of shapechange is fact. So here's the challenge: Prove it. More specifically, disprove that "shapechange is broken" can be an opinion. I would ask that you consider the following "restrictions" in this attempt. 1. Shapechange is a core spell. Please keep examples within the three core books: DMG, PHB, Monster Manual. The reason for this is that things you can do with non-core material should not be the measure of the utility of the core rule. Rather, such examples are more a measure of the balance of the new mechanic/design idea. 2. No epic blah blah blah. 3. Stick with 3.5 as the default rule set. I have nothing against "3.0" (I put it in quotes only because the pre-3.5 rule set was known only as 3e, yet this term now applies to all third edition material, both pre- and post-3.5 rules). I think that's it. Ladies and Gentlemen, start your proofs. Infinite money broken: Shapechange into a Balor: possible around level 18-20 due to Core items that increase Caster level. Also Death Kneel also increase caster also helping you reach Balor by level 17. What do I mean by infinite wealth? Shapechange gives you the Balor's valor sword. You do'nt use to fight, you use it for cash. Drop (Sell, you'll want a ton before selling). Shapechange into a human and than again into a Balor fort a second sword. Drop (again), repeat till dutration runs out. If DM doesn't let you turn back into a Balor with same shapechange: do it with your other spell slots. You can make a lot due to fact that valor sword are worth alot. And best part, there is no limit due to each shapechange giving you at least 1. You'll want to spread the wealth over numerous towns though. That is only 1 broken aspect. Next, shall we try an Effreti to get wishes for free all the party members? Hmm, I think free wealth and wishes are all I can do by memory.
1stCainite 04-15-07, 07:59 PM	When you shapechange, you get neither the monsters equipment, nor do you get it's spell like abilities (ie. Wish)
Drachasor 04-15-07, 08:12 PM	When you shapechange, you get neither the monsters equipment, nor do you get it's spell like abilities (ie. Wish) Technically, a Balor's sword is a supernatural ability. As such one should consider it as part of the creature. If you drop the sword it disappears. Any reasonable DM would have a ruling like this, and it certainly doesn't violate RAW. -Drachasor
1stCainite 04-15-07, 08:14 PM	could you link me to somewhere it says this? ive always been of the impression that the sword is just what most Balor carry, not something they are actually "born" with. [Edit: NEver mind, i just have to open my eyes when i read the MM. but i'd still rule otherwise, but that is just me, not something that should be taken into account here ofcourse ;)]
Drachasor 04-15-07, 08:19 PM	could you link me to somewhere it says this? ive always been of the impression that the sword is just what most Balor carry, not something they are actually "born" with. [Edit: NEver mind, i just have to open my eyes when i read the MM. but i'd still rule otherwise, but that is just me, not something that should be taken into account here ofcourse ;)] The point is no DM is going to let the players make infinite money from this. At the very least a DM should rule the sword disappears when you shift from being a Balor. As written, it is part of the creature, so you can't just stock-pile them, anymore than you could stockpile troll body-parts by shifting into a troll and cutting your arm off. -Drachasor
1stCainite 04-15-07, 08:26 PM	Yes. At the very least, being a supernatural ability, the sword would disapear at the end of the spell, and there would either be some very angry merchants, or a surprising lack of vorpal swords in the armoury. You are correct.
Richmud 04-15-07, 08:27 PM	Neither alter self nor its line of spells (polymorph and shapechange) were changed by the errata. The only change the errata really made was to separate almost all monsters and classes from the spell line in representing what "new form capabilities" they have. Okay, wasn't that done so polymorph and company could be stripped from the game without interfering with everything else due to it causing major problems for both the designers and the players?
Seeker95 04-15-07, 09:09 PM	Okay, wasn't that done so polymorph and company could be stripped from the game without interfering with everything else due to it causing major problems for both the designers and the players?Maybe. It is certainly a valid and legitimate assumption. Except, "interfering with everything else" is exactly what they did. And they still didn't drop it from the game. Regardless, the spells are still there.
Nezkrul 04-15-07, 09:29 PM	once you have a high enough caster level, shapechanging into a White Slaad sure is nice. :D
unusualsuspect 04-15-07, 09:40 PM	What is the definition we're using for "broken", out of curiosity? Would the ability to cast 3 Wishes as a Spell-like ability (thus sans XP cost), even for someone other than oneself, be considered broken? (Noble Djinn) How about an unrestricted single Wish once a day as a Spell-like ability (still sans XP cost) without the "other person" restriction? (Solar - harder to qualify for, probably 20th level) Would a minimum of 3 2/3 hours of potential to cast 2 standard action spells each round be broken? (Choker's "Quickness(su)" ability) Should arcane casters be able to use Healing magic? How about 1 use of the Heal spell and 7 uses of Cure Light Wounds, CL 12. Heck, how about making up to 1700 Everburning Torchs at the minimum caster level? (Astral Deva's Spell-like abilities) All of these purely core abilities mentioned (Balor isn't, because I really don't want to delve into that particular can o' worms - unlike the Wish as a Spell-like ability cheese, which I mention because of its relevancy). Are they broken, though? It all depends on the definition... If a spell is able to bypass a stated virtual impossibility like Arcane Healing with a bare minimum of expense (2000 gp for a focus), isn't that mechanically breaking a barrier that the Core books seem so adamant about? What about a 9th level spell that not only duplicates another 9th level spell, but does so WITHOUT AN INCREDIBLY HIGH COST and AMONGST OTHER VERY POWERFUL BENEFITS? To a certain extent, of course the term "broken" is opinion, but only insofar as interpretation of what the often-used, just-as-often-used-inconsistently term "broken" actually stands for. You've defined the challenge, Seeker, so I think it really is up to you to define a term bandied about by 100 different posters using 101 different definitions. What, for your challenge, constitutes "broken"?
IceFractal 04-15-07, 09:55 PM	... you gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, ... The Solar's wish ability is spell-like, thus not gained. Ditto the Astral Deva's healing abilities. The Noble Djinn ability is not specified, but would most reasonably be called a spell-like ability. The only one of your exploits that works is the Choker one. I'm not convinced that one monster with a rather unnecessary ability makes polymorph-type magic broken. And for the record - if divine casters get better BAB, HD, proficiencies, and special abilities than arcane casters, and generally more spells per day, then there are two possible conclusions: 1) Divine spells are weaker than arcane. In which case, any Wizards using spells for healing are weakening themselves. 2) The divine classes are just broken. In which case, they don't deserve a protected niche. So anything that enables arcane healing is a good thing, IMO.
Catseal 04-15-07, 10:22 PM	Here,here I agree wholehearedly. I was going to make the same comments myself. But you beat me to the point.
Catseal 04-15-07, 10:22 PM	Since I own the WOTC monster manuals I wil do a grand search and find all the broken abilities I can. I think it may well turn out to be a lone choker problem.
Catseal 04-15-07, 10:25 PM	As for a definition broken would imply it gives you abilities beyond those available to someone of your level. I've quickly searched through ALL of the WOTC monster manuals and can find only 2 examples that seem to fit the bill as broken: 1) The choker as stated 2) The spellweaver (MM2) who's spell weaving ability would allow a caster to use up to 6 spells per round not just two like the choker (1 spell level per arm) Two instances don't equal broken. If this was the case I'm sure if looked into it enough detail, there are many instances where things could be "broken". The biggest problems seem to stem from the idea that you get spell like abilities, remove this from the equation and their really is no problem. As for epic creatires, like the white slaad mentioned, I would probably come up with a house rule requiring an depic version of the spell to gain epic creature qualities. I suppose the best definition of broken really should be, something that ruins or detracts from play for your group. If its fun, no ones worried and it doesn't get in the way of the adventure it aint broke.
runestar 04-15-07, 10:28 PM	You might want to repost this in the CO boards. The solution should be both expedient and accurate.:P Shapechange SU thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-226959)
DungeonMaster 04-15-07, 10:30 PM	Direct quotes from the SRD with emphasis. This spell functions like polymorph, except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD). Unlike polymorph, this spell allows incorporeal or gaseous forms to be assumed. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form , but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. You can become just about anything you are familiar with. You can change form once each round as a free action. The change takes place either immediately before your regular action or immediately after it, but not during the action. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check. Focus: A jade circlet worth no less than 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head when casting the spell. (The focus melds into your new form when you change shape.) BALOR Special Attacks: Death throes, entangle, spell-like abilities, summon demon, vorpal sword Vorpal Sword (Su) : Every balor carries a +1 vorpal longsword that looks like a flame or a bolt of lightning. There are more detailed wealth per level guidelines in the DMG but that isn't open content so here's what I have: On average, the PCs should earn one treasure suitable to their level for each encounter they overcome. Every time you change into a balor, you can make a vorpal sword. This is unambigous. It is classified as a Su special attack. It is likewise unambigous that once that sword is dropped it does not disappear, it does not revert to its original form of nothingness. This is unambigous. This spell allows you to get (I dare not say earn) a treasure 1/round which is worth by the book 72 000 GP. At minimum caster level of 20 (easily acheived at level 17 by a single bead of karma) 1 casting of this spell, changing into a balor once every two rounds let's say, yeilds: 72 000 x 10 x 10 x 20 / 2 = 72 000 000 GP treasure. 72 000 000 GP worth of treasure. QED. There are many other examples (barghests, etc...) but one is sufficient.
sineous blackspell 04-15-07, 10:42 PM	shapechange is the same level as wish. wish alters reality if altering reality isnt broken people ought to lay off shapechange. if someones the kind of person to abuse shapechange more than likely theyre charcters are already super munchkins. but that ought to fall on the dm to handle not change the whole system too often stuff is changed in the name of "game balance" but again some people like rollercoasters
runestar 04-15-07, 10:49 PM	If you want to argue it that way(about vorpal sword being SU), I could similarly argue that the SU ability refers to the balor's ability to make its vorpal sword look like a bolt of lightning. Seriously, you all know jolly well that this is simply a matter of poor editing, and that is obviously not what the designers meant. Why do you all insist on fixating on this one booboo to justify all your points. It seems that just about every argument against shapechange revolves around vorpal longsword factories.:confused: 'No, I won't allow shapechange because then, all my players can get infinite vorpal longswords!!!":rolleyes:
Drachasor 04-15-07, 10:50 PM	Every time you change into a balor, you can make a vorpal sword. This is unambigous. It is classified as a Su special attack. It is likewise unambigous that once that sword is dropped it does not disappear, it does not revert to its original form of nothingness. This is unambigous. First, I'd say that it certainly is far from unambiguous that when you change FROM a Balor into something else, the sword stays. Since its existence is a supernatural ability of the Balor, then the supernatural ability disappearing should cause the sword to disappear too. Secondly, the ability is not very clearly stated. It says Every balor carries a +1 vorpal longsword that looks like a flame or a bolt of lightning. It is far from clear that the Balor can drop this sword on the ground or get disarmed. It is always carrying this sword as long as the Supernatural ability is in effect. That at least means it should always be on the Balor's person. An odd ability to be sure. Like a number of abilities in D&D, you can develop an interpretation of what is written that breaks the game. That's far from the only interpretation, and in this case I think your view is an unreasonable interpretation. Are these sorts of examples the only ones that exist which break the game? Surely you can pick something that isn't objectionable. -Drachasor
CryoSilver 04-15-07, 10:57 PM	Note that in order to sell a sword for 72,000 gp requires a community of 14,400 people (large city), and that totally depletes the cash reserves of the city. Selling one thousand of them requires a total global population of at least 14,400,000, assuming they all live in increments of 14,400. Pg. 98 of the FRCS states that Faerun is collectively home to more than sixty eight million (68,000,000) inhabitants.
DungeonMaster 04-15-07, 11:00 PM	First, I'd say that it certainly is far from unambiguous that when you change FROM a Balor into something else, the sword stays. Since its existence is a supernatural ability of the Balor, then the supernatural ability disappearing should cause the sword to disappear too. Here's another line from the SRD: BALOR Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items, plus +1 vorpal greatsword and +1 flaming whip No dice. Balor is long gone and his sword remains. Are these sorts of examples the only ones that exist which break the game? Surely you can pick something that isn't objectionable. It isn't objectionable. It's 100% legitimate. That's the object of this little exercise. No sane DM would or should allow it but as written the spell is broken. I find objectionable that both you and your familiar can shapechange into dragon of type X and use (SU) breath weapons that easily dwarf any damaging spell 1/round, every round for hours but hey, that's really just "opinion".
Infinitum 04-15-07, 11:01 PM	shapechange is the same level as wish. wish alters reality if altering reality isnt broken people ought to lay off shapechange. if someones the kind of person to abuse shapechange more than likely theyre charcters are already super munchkins. but that ought to fall on the dm to handle not change the whole system too often stuff is changed in the name of "game balance" but again some people like rollercoasters I gotta agree, despite the block of text making my eyes bleed. You have spells such as Wish and Gate that can be exploited in many more devious ways. In truth, Shapechange itself is not the problem, it's what came after. Books and articles that are published introduce a vast number of possibilities for people to play with. However, despite all of this, ignoring the increasing number of choices, there is a limit to what you can become. Shapechange allows you to assume the form of a creature who's HD does not exceed your caster level. The cap is at level 25, with 25HD. Assuming you are working with epic monsters at level 25, you cannot assume the shapes of any worthwhile epic creatures with only 25HD at your disposal. At level 25, it is also doubtful that the forms you may assume have the potential to become overpowering against the foes you will then face. Remember, Shapechange only replicates extraordinary abilities and supernatural abilities, not spell-like abilities. For those of you who argue that you can change into a form for it's unique capabilities, you first must ask: What can I do in that time I spent polymorphing myself instead? And which abilities may I actually use? Do not assume that because you can shapeshift into a beholder, you are of deific power. Many, many, many creatures will exceed your powers, even in the new form. If you want real shapeshifting action, go Druid, Master of Many Forms, or something along those lines. They offer many more possibilities in that field. However, if you are going to complain about a 9th level spell that gives you only a portion of the creature's actual power, find a different hobby.
Catseal 04-15-07, 11:11 PM	I'd get around the Balor sword problem like this. Since it is not described as a item (except as treasure) I would assume it is a supernatural extension of the Balors will. It can't be dropped, simply dissapearing. If it is sundered or disarmed, similarly it dissapears, and the Balor can recreate it using his supernatural ability. Once the Balor is killed it becomes a physical, real object, a crystalization of his fiendish power. Quote: BALOR Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items, plus +1 vorpal greatsword and +1 flaming whip No dice. Balor is long gone and his sword remains. If you want 100 of them then kill your wizard 100 times to get them - he won't be using too many shapechanges by this time. Interpret the rules with flavour. Of course this is just my interpretation of the situation but I certaily wuldn't assume a supernatural object is a permanant physical item - treasure implies it's there as a reward once the Balor is defeated. As I said before broken probably means it ruins your fun and enjoyment of the game in most peoples minds. Trying to use shapechange to make money is plain stupid and goes completely against the idea of heroic adventure. No one would ever use it this way, and if they did they best find a different hobby.
1stCainite 04-15-07, 11:32 PM	Here's another line from the SRD: BALOR Treasure: Standard coins; double goods; standard items, plus +1 vorpal greatsword and +1 flaming whip No dice. Balor is long gone and his sword remains. Why is what the Balor is carrying important? you don't get treasure along with the shapechange. If you are going to read it like it in a "Rules Lawyer" kind of way, the Balor actually is carrying around two swords (when it's not a shapchanged wizard) one from it's treasure, and one that is a supernatural ability. the one from it's treasure, you don't get with Shapechange, and the one that is a (Su) disapear when you shange out if the form.
Ryll 04-16-07, 12:20 AM	It isn't objectionable. It's 100% legitimate. That's the object of this little exercise. No sane DM would or should allow it but as written the spell is broken. I find objectionable that both you and your familiar can shapechange into dragon of type X and use (SU) breath weapons that easily dwarf any damaging spell 1/round, every round for hours but hey, that's really just "opinion". We played into epic for one campaign, we used shapechange as written in the errata (HD = Caster Level) except we removed the max HD part. I was able to eventually turn into dragons with HD over 30....and my Breath Weapon not only did not dwarf any damaging spell, they were often pitifully weak...the DCs were nowhere NEAR my spells DCs and the enemy almost always saved versus the breath... as to using that weak vorpal sword argument...using that logic for the (su) ability to have a vorpal, any intelligent enemy that is either 1) a Balor, or 2) has a Balor as one of it's minions, your interpretation of the ability would conclude with the ENTIRE ENEMY population would have +1 vorpal swords... from 1 HD demons to 20 HD Blackguards to everything that can use a sword! Since I would never DM a legion like that, nor do I know a DM that would do so, it MUST mean that none of us play the (su) vorpal sword = unlimited instant creation of vorpal swords so THAT exploit is out. === It has already been noted that all the SLA arguments are null and void since you do not get those abilities === the Choker argument lacks some teeth, since when you FIRST can be a choker using 2 spells a round may make you shine in one battle, it will quickly deplete your resources for subsequent battles making you less effective, and being in choker form is often a risky and dangeroud form to be in. === We never had ANY issue with shapechange being overpowered...it was just a VERY powerful defensive spell in that I could chose a form like Solar or Balor to supe up my AC, and since I had by far the lowest hitpoints in the group...this was often what kept me alive... :) === We have never seen this to be 'broken' nor have I seen an example online yet that wasn't either a complete cheat (giving SLAs to the shapechanger), or a bit of an exaggeration. === (edited to add): As to why I would use the breath weapon, I ended up only using it when I thought the battle was sufficiently won in our favor to not want to waste any spells, and was trying to conserve them for whatever we were going to face next.
ArcTan 04-16-07, 12:36 AM	The only way it can be called "fact" is if WotC said themselves that it was broken. *ahem* http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a
ArcTan 04-16-07, 12:37 AM	In numerous other threads, DungeonMaster and ArcTan have insisted that shapechange is broken. I have noted that I disagree with their opinion on this, and they have both become quite angry that I would dare refer to this as an opinion. (At least I assume they are angry that I am calling it an opinion. It does not seem very reasonable for them to grow angry that I disagree with them.) Anyway, they both insist that the brokenness of shapechange is fact. So here's the challenge: Prove it. More specifically, disprove that "shapechange is broken" can be an opinion. I would ask that you consider the following "restrictions" in this attempt. 1. Shapechange is a core spell. Please keep examples within the three core books: DMG, PHB, Monster Manual. The reason for this is that things you can do with non-core material should not be the measure of the utility of the core rule. Rather, such examples are more a measure of the balance of the new mechanic/design idea. 2. No epic blah blah blah. 3. Stick with 3.5 as the default rule set. I have nothing against "3.0" (I put it in quotes only because the pre-3.5 rule set was known only as 3e, yet this term now applies to all third edition material, both pre- and post-3.5 rules). I think that's it. Ladies and Gentlemen, start your proofs. Given that we've spent multiple threads going on and on doing exactly this, I see no point in repeating myself. The fact that you can choose to disagree whenever you want simply by choosing to disagree doesn't make the proofs you've disagreed with invalid.
ArcTan 04-16-07, 12:39 AM	Neither alter self nor its line of spells (polymorph and shapechange) were changed by the errata. The only change the errata really made was to separate almost all monsters and classes from the spell line in representing what "new form capabilities" they have. Yes, this is all that changed in the crunch, but saying that this is the "only thing that changed" is disingenuous and willfully avoiding the point. Again, read the editorial that says *why* polymorph was errataed this way.
Vaelan 04-16-07, 12:41 AM	Here are a few of the better core abilities I can think of... Barghest: Feed to gain hitdice. Kolyarut: Enervation at CL 13, 200' range. Anything without spell resistance gets blasted with negative levels until it falls to a save-or-die. Shadow: Ever wanted an army? Create Spawn will give you one. It states, and I quote, "Any humanoid reduced to Strength 0 by a shadow becomes a shadow under the control of its killer within 1d4 rounds." You don't stop being its killer when Shapechange ends. Anything that isn't immune to Strength damage is going to die quite quickly to your endless army of Shadows. Spectre: See Shadow, replace Strength damage with negative levels. Dread Wraith: See Shadow, replace Strength damage Constitution damage. --- Limiting myself to individual action rather than working as a team, I'm going to have to go with incorporeal death squads. I'm not going to claim that it is impossible to create an opponent that the incorporeal death squads are ineffectual against, but deploying the incorporeal death squads doesn't consume any /day resources, so you have your entire normal arsenal to devote to that which your death squads do not trivialize.
Catseal 04-16-07, 12:46 AM	The fact that you can choose to disagree whenever you want simply by choosing to disagree doesn't make the proofs you've disagreed with invalid. And quoting very specific, almost unique situations doesn't present a convincing argument either. The point is debatable and their is no correct answer. Maybe its broke and maybe it aint - it a personal decision. I could present statistics and examples that highlight tomatoes as one of the deadliest materials on Earth.
ArcTan 04-16-07, 12:50 AM	And quoting very specific, almost unique situations doesn't present a convincing argument either. How is quoting monsters from the Monster Manual with really powerful things they can do "specific, almost unique situations"?
Jaxgaret 04-16-07, 02:06 AM	I could present statistics and examples that highlight tomatoes as one of the deadliest materials on Earth. And watch out for that Hydrogen Oxide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
ArcTan 04-16-07, 02:09 AM	By the way: I would ask that you consider the following "restrictions" in this attempt. 1. Shapechange is a core spell. Please keep examples within the three core books: DMG, PHB, Monster Manual. The reason for this is that things you can do with non-core material should not be the measure of the utility of the core rule. Rather, such examples are more a measure of the balance of the new mechanic/design idea. I disagree with this fundamental concept. I don't think it's at all necessary or a good thing for the game that every time someone wants to make up a cool new monster they *have* to consider how it works as a PC race as well. That said, of course, some of the monsters that were most obviously not designed with shapechange in mind are Core, like the Barghest or the Balor.
ArcTan 04-16-07, 02:16 AM	If you want to argue it that way(about vorpal sword being SU), I could similarly argue that the SU ability refers to the balor's ability to make its vorpal sword look like a bolt of lightning. Seriously, you all know jolly well that this is simply a matter of poor editing, and that is obviously not what the designers meant. Why do you all insist on fixating on this one booboo to justify all your points. It seems that just about every argument against shapechange revolves around vorpal longsword factories.:confused: 'No, I won't allow shapechange because then, all my players can get infinite vorpal longswords!!!":rolleyes: Not really an example so much as an illustration. It's a sign that the designers *never* balanced shapechange. For shapechange to be balanced, you'd have to think up the whole monster system *centered around shapechange*. Every time you made up a monster, you'd have to ask yourself "Can I alter self into it? Can I polymorph into it? Can I shapechange into it?" Every (Su) ability would have to be carefully balanced so as not to outshine casting an ordinary 9th-level spell. They clearly did not do this. They did not even *start* to do this. The fact that the Core MM contains the equivalent of program-crashing bugs when you try to combine shapechange with it -- not just things that are too powerful, but things that make *no sense* (do I get the sword or do I not? If I eat a corpse, do I get an extra HD or not? Does that affect my ECL or not?) proves that the designers have never really bothered to think about shapechange when balancing new monsters -- and small wonder, since trying to make shapechange-balanced monsters is a pain in the ass and prevents you from ever using certain cool ideas. Having the Banshee be a monster that can use wail of the banshee at will makes *sense* given what the spell is called, after all, and is a cool idea. It's not so cool that shapechange means the introduction of this monster is more or less the death knell of anyone ever bothering to prepare wail of the banshee ever again. You see why people might consider this, in fact, a problem?
redraven 04-16-07, 06:08 AM	More specifically, disprove that "shapechange is broken" can be an opinion. This line really makes the thread a complete waste of time. Hate, greed, racism, terrorism, et tal are all things that can be considered "opinions" and no manner of logic will dissuade those that wish to not be dissuaded. Furthermore, no definition of "broken" has been offered anywhere, so how is anyone suppose to even fulfill the first part of the challenge? If you would like reasons why I have banned Shapechange for being overpowered, I have provided a list: "You can change form once each round as a free action." "Duration: 10 min./level (D)" "Range: Personal, Target: You" In other words, your familiar will get the full effects of the spell individually as well as yourself. The spell automatically scales indefinitely, at no personal cost to the mage. Each new supplement adds new forms to possible option, and nothing in RAW limits the number of forms known. I suppose this may or may not be a meaningful point given your restriction to Core, but most everyone else buys other D&D books at some point. Some monster forms create bizarre or wholly disruptive gameplay scenarios: Creatures with "Create Spawn" abilities. Barghest's Feeding power. Aforementioned Balor's Vorpal Sword. Regardless of how any sane DM would rule the effect, the point is that it was obviously not a scenario covered by RAW itself. Devourer's Trap Essence. Does the soul simply go away? Split effects, such as Black Pudding. Will split off sections become independent creatures indefinitely? Any creature with Regeneration. What happens to the nonlethal damage once the character shifts into a construct or undead? Does the nonlethal damage vanish instantly since the form cannot possibly have nonlethal damage? Does it stick around, and immediately take effect again once the character changes back into a form that is affected by nonlethal damage? Some monster forms grant access to virtually unlimited casting of other spells. Any archon --> Greater Teleport. Beholder --> Disintegrate, Telekinesis, Inflict Moderate Wounds (cure undead). Blink Dog --> Blink, Dimension Door. Couatl --> Ethereal Jaunt. Balor --> True Seeing. Bebilith --> Plane Shift. Phase Spider --> Ethereal Jaunt (as free/move actions). Storm Giant --> Freedom of Movement (always active). Any Guardinal --> Lay on Hands (e.g. full HP healing). Kolyarut --> Enervation. Invisible Stalker --> Improved Invisibility (always active). Nightmare --> Astral Projection (!!!), Etherealness. Ravid --> Animate Objects. Some monster forms grant fantastically powerful buff effects, way beyond the power of any other spell or item in the book to grant. Some examples: Solar form. Movement: 50 ft/120 ft fly (good) [assuming the limits from Alter Self remain]. +21 Natural armor, Large size (reach), Str 28, Dex 20, Con 20. DR 15/epic and evil. Regeneration 15 (epic and evil). SR 32. Darkvision 60 ft, low-light vision, Acid/Cold/Petrification Immunity, Resistance to electricity and fire 10. Protective Aura: +4 deflection bonus to AC and +4 resistance bonus to save versus attacks/effects from evil creatures, magic circle against evil and lesser globe of invulnerability. Tongues. Titan form. Movement: 60 ft. +19 Natural armor, Huge size (reach), Str 43, Dex 12, Con 39. DR 15/lawful. SR 32. Darkvision 60 ft. Aforementioned Choker form: Extra standard action per round. Derro form. Pretty weak, but grants Sorcerers using Shapechange a free, unnamed +6 to Charisma via the Derro's madness extraordinary quality. Stacks with enhancement and inherent bonuses. Plus, allows Sorcerers to use their Charisma mod to their Will save instead of Wisdom. Nymph form. As with the Derro, relatively weak, but Sorcerers can apply their (likely high) Charisma bonus as an unnamed bonus to saving throws and a deflection bonus to AC. Will-o'-wisp form. Spellcasting is probably impossible outside of Silent and Stilled spells, but gains Extraordinary Invisibility and Immunity to all spells that allow SR except Magic Missile and Maze. Also gains fly 50 ft (perfect). All of the above is Core and comes from just the MM - things can get even more ridiculous once the MM2 and MM3 are added (I do not have MM4, so I cannot speak on that), let alone Libris Mortis, et tal. Just using Core, Shapechange will allow me to cast two other 9th-level spells at will, including the other obscene, poorly written and/or balanced Astral Projection. So, I can turn my character into an archon, Greater Teleport to some remote outpost, turn into a Nightmare and cast Astral Projection. From there, turn into a Bebilith to Plane Shift back to the Material Plane still in my astral form. Turn back into an archon, Greater Teleport into some BBEG lair, and transform into any number of combat forms. Perhaps I'll stay as a Beholder and undermine the castle or building by casting Disintegrate a few hundred times. Or because I do not fear death (who has a silver sword on the Material plane?), I'll just use my Solar form with epic damage reduction which is impossible to overcome Core (no epic weapons!), regeneration 15, fantastic mobility and ability scores, and ability to not only cast spells per normal but also wear all my normal gear. Getting low on HP (impossible due to epic regeneration, but for the sake of argument)? Go ahead and cast a spell or whatever, shift into a Phase Spider as a free action, and go to the Ethereal Plane as a move action. Shift into a 12-headed hydra to gain Fast Healing 22, or simply a Guardinel and Lay on Hands yourself to regain all your HP in a round. Shift into a Phase Spider again and wait another round. Next turn, go to the Material plane as a free action, shift into a combat form as a free action, and then go to town. If you die or get Dispelled, cast Astral Projection again as a Nightmare, and press the attack in about half an hour (casting time of Astral Projection). All of this was made possible with a single casting of Shapechange. A single casting that is lasting a minimum of 170 minutes and costs absolutely zero resources to repeat ad infinitum. Sure, you are using your own spells once you start attacking the BBEG in the example, but you could easily just go as a Titan or 12-headed hydra or any other "brute force" attack form for free. And remember: the whole time you are under the effects of Astral Projection, which means you are practically immune to death, if the epic DR and epic regeneration is not doing enough for you. At the very least, go the Kolyarut route and Enervate them to death, unless they are undead and/or have Death Ward active. No SR to save them, since it is a (Su) ability. Given the above, do you honestly believe that Shapechange is on par with Crushing Hand? Dominate Monster? Hell, let's drop the direct comparisons altogether: would you, as a DM, be able to handle a character that did the above starting at around 17th level (with aid of Karmic Beads and other caster-level bonuses)? How would you challenge a character that can cast Astral Projection, Plane Shift, Greater Teleport, Etherealness, and all the rest at will? All with a single casting of 9th-level spell? Tell me that, and perhaps I will unban the spell in my games.
Seeker95 04-16-07, 09:06 AM	Although I have never had a problem with shapechange, redraven has provided the best argument for why shapechange can be a problem. By explaining that it reflects the reasons he has barred the spell from his game, he has also avoided insisting that what he has done is a requirement that others must follow. I still do not have a problem with shapechange, even if my players attempted to use every example redraven provided. But his style and method are superior to every "shapechange is broken" proponent I have encountered in my years on the Boards. I will continue to claim that the charge "shapechange is broken" is more Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling rhetoric than a statement of fact. I believe a perfectly appropriate (and more legitimate) charge is "I have problems with shapechange". I would lastly ask that if you (the generic you) have a problem with shapechange, simply disallow it in your game. But don't get all defensive and prickly just because someone else doesn't have a problem with it. You (the generic you) are no less of a man (or woman) for having such a problem than someone who does not. You have no reason to feel that you are.
Seeker95 04-16-07, 09:11 AM	Given the above, do you honestly believe that Shapechange is on par with Crushing Hand? Dominate Monster? Hell, let's drop the direct comparisons altogether: would you, as a DM, be able to handle a character that did the above starting at around 17th level (with aid of Karmic Beads and other caster-level bonuses)? How would you challenge a character that can cast Astral Projection, Plane Shift, Greater Teleport, Etherealness, and all the rest at will? All with a single casting of 9th-level spell? Tell me that, and perhaps I will unban the spell in my games.However, this last paragraph requires addressing. Regarding "on par": There is no doubt that shapechange is the best or second best 9th level spell. (I think miracle is more powerful because it has absolutely no limit on what it can do if your deity permits and you spend the 5,000xp). However, there are best or second best spells at every spell level. Regarding the "how would you challenge" aspect... the same way I challenge a PC that can do any of these things one spell at a time. 17+ level play is not the same as early- and mid-level play. Adventures cannot be made the same, and challenges cannot be the same. The PCs, by these levels, can already do just about anything, even without shapechange. I would ask that you address for yourself how you handle a PC being able to do any of these things (even one at a time) that can be accomplished with shapechange. The only thing shapechange does is give your party (via the caster) access in a single casting to strategy and tactics they could access in 24 hours with a little planning. Whether the challenge takes a day or a minute in game time to overcome, it is still a challenge the DM must create. At the same time, I see no reason to convince you to unban it from your games.
runestar 04-16-07, 10:00 AM	Doesn't that effectively boil down to "Its fine so long as it is not abused?":P
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-16-07, 10:13 AM	As far as this thread goes, I doubt anyone is going to be able to convince you of the spell being broken, because you haven't actually defined what broken means. Until you actually define "broken", you can hand-wave anything anybody says, so there's really no point in arguing until you actually state a definition. So... what makes a spell broken?
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 10:14 AM	If you are going to read it like it in a "Rules Lawyer" kind of way, the Balor actually is carrying around two swords (when it's not a shapchanged wizard) one from it's treasure, and one that is a supernatural ability. There is absolutely no indication for the balor to be carrying two swords or two whips. None. You're making it up. It doesn't qualify as an interpretation, you have no fact to back up your argument. There is a direct correlation with what's in the stat block and with the detailed description of the creature. If you do not beleive so then I'm afraid we cannot discuss further because that's lunacy.
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 10:20 AM	I will continue to claim that the charge "shapechange is broken" is more Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling rhetoric than a statement of fact. As stated in the previous thread someone who does not even begin to address facts presented to them is merely intellectually dishonest. There can be no further discussion with such a person as no discussion will tear down the wall of faith blocking out reason.
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 10:40 AM	We played into epic for one campaign, we used shapechange as written in the errata (HD = Caster Level) except we removed the max HD part. Epic rules are not on topic. I'll note however that I consider them very very poorly written. I was able to eventually turn into dragons with HD over 30....and my Breath Weapon not only did not dwarf any damaging spell, they were often pitifully weak...the DCs were nowhere NEAR my spells DCs and the enemy almost always saved versus the breath... I'm surprised because SU breath weapons don't get a SR check while everything and its pet has SR at the highest levels. You can easily reach 30 HD dragons like say a very old blue dragon using core items and prestige classes in 3.5 (say archmage5 + bead of karma + orange iouns stone). That's at level 20, no need for epic levels. That means you and your familiar deal a combined 36d8 damage reflex half DC 31 with no SR checked. Then next round you turn into a old red and do 32d10 DC 30. Then next round ... This would break my game very very quickly. Having 2 wizards and a druid in current campaign I can guarantee that ~90d8 damage each and every round in large areas with alternating elemental effects and no SR checked will obliterate all semblance of game balance. as to using that weak vorpal sword argument...using that logic for the (su) ability to have a vorpal, any intelligent enemy that is either 1) a Balor, or 2) has a Balor as one of it's minions, your interpretation of the ability would conclude with the ENTIRE ENEMY population would have +1 vorpal swords... from 1 HD demons to 20 HD Blackguards to everything that can use a sword! Nope, because an individual balor carries a single sword. The supernatural ability allows him to carry a single vorpal sword, not make many of them at will. It is the clause in shapechange that parts seperated from the whole do not revert that allows the shapechange abuse. That's why it's the spell that's broken and not the ability.
Zherog 04-16-07, 10:45 AM	I'll just use my Solar form with epic damage reduction which is impossible to overcome Core (no epic weapons!) I totally can be overcome in core - a +4 weapon with the appropriate bane ability has an effective enhancement bonus of +6. Voila! :D
Zherog 04-16-07, 10:59 AM	And a real quick history lesson, for whatever it's worth... In 3.0, shapechange was a really good spell. But it wasn't uber. Specifically, it didn't grant Su abilities. When the Design Team performed the 3.5 upgrade, shapechange was intentionally altered to make it more powerful. The reason? Ed Stark thought his druid needed more oomph at high levels.
Nezkrul 04-16-07, 11:14 AM	Just my 2cp but. Shapechange is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. If he is incappable of making decisions on balance or what is allowed in his campaign/game, then why the heck is he the DM? seriously, argueing on a forum over something because of personal opinion is moot when it comes to Rule 0. If your DM doesn't use Rule 0, then I'm sorry; and we'll leave it at that.
Seeker95 04-16-07, 11:43 AM	Until you actually define "broken", you can hand-wave anything anybody says, so there's really no point in arguing until you actually state a definition. what makes a spell broken?First, I am not "hand-waiving" anything. Second, I am not making the claim that anything is broken. I only know that I have had no problems with shapechange in my game. If "broken" means "causes problems in my game" then I can factually state that it is not broken. However, this is not helpful to the case anyone else may try to make. I've seen many uses of the term broken, and very few definitions. I am beginning to suspect it is more akin to the term obscene: people claim they know it when they see it, but such knowledge (and subsequent claims) are quite personal in degree and existence. I am not claiming something is broken; I do not have the burden of defining it. Those who claim it is broken bear the responsibility for defining the term upon which their claim is built. redraven has done the best thus far. Although he did not actually provide a definition of "broken", he did provide a list of reasons he has banned it. I suspect the underlying definition would hinge on the assumption that these things have caused problems in his game, but I concede that this is indeed an assumption on my part.
Seeker95 04-16-07, 11:46 AM	There can be no further discussion with such a person as no discussion will tear down the wall of faith blocking out reason.Yet here you are, still discussing, again. You can claim that there can be no further discussion, in multiple threads, multiple times. Your continuation of the discussion *is* the irony of such a claim, and belies the honesty of such a claim.
Lucas Blackstone 04-16-07, 12:09 PM	I'm surprised people don't understand the term "broken". They don't mean it doesn't function. Broken means very overpowered. After reading this thread I would have to agree with the camp that says Shapechange is broken. Noone is saying that DM's won't adjust things they feel are over/underpowered in their games, but that wasn't the point. That's a given that DM's can change whatever they want in their worlds. This was just talking about the spell as it is presented to us unmodified. On a sidenote what constitutes "Being familiar with a creature" for the purposes of the polymorph/shapechange spells?
Kursk 04-16-07, 12:10 PM	Just my 2cp but. Shapechange is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. If he is incappable of making decisions on balance or what is allowed in his campaign/game, then why the heck is he the DM? seriously, argueing on a forum over something because of personal opinion is moot when it comes to Rule 0. If your DM doesn't use Rule 0, then I'm sorry; and we'll leave it at that. Agreed. Some parts of the game require you to have a DM that is NOT just the equivalent of a rules database engine. Probably why there are also no real CPU based RPG's. Interesting...
Yaeri 04-16-07, 12:15 PM	Seeker95, you started this thread saying you disagree with their opinion that shapechange is broken. Now you say that you don't know what "broken" means? How can you disagree if you don't know what it's about? Or have they stated a definition of "broken" in that other thread? The more I was reading of this thread, the less I understood the point of it. I'm really not sure what the purpose of this thread is. My best guess is that you're trying to show: "X is broken" is inherently a subjective statement. Is that it?
1stCainite 04-16-07, 12:15 PM	There is absolutely no indication for the balor to be carrying two swords or two whips. None. You're making it up. It doesn't qualify as an interpretation, you have no fact to back up your argument. There is a direct correlation with what's in the stat block and with the detailed description of the creature. If you do not beleive so then I'm afraid we cannot discuss further because that's lunacy. My point was, though it obviously did not come through to you for that i apologize, that weather or not the balor have a sword in it's treasure or not is in fact irrelevant because treasure, i say again, is not granted by the shape change spell. So, weather or not you choose to see the sword as an effecy of treasure or of a Supernatural Ability, the sword will not be there after the spell ends because with the spell ending, the supernatural effect cease to exist. and please, calling someones statement luncay is hardly conduct for a good discussion.
Scion of Coldshard 04-16-07, 12:35 PM	Shapechange takes some pretty major arbitration to keep from destroying a game. I see disjunction as actually being worse but being worse than something that must be changed or ignored is not really much of a distinction. the sword will not be there after the spell ends because with the spell ending, the supernatural effect cease to exist. The supernatural ability does go away, but all that was doing was saying that the balor always has one. If a creature had a supernatural ability which granted another creature a +10 insight bonus to AC for an hour and before that hour was up shapechanged ended would you say that the other creature woudl lose its AC bonus? What other supernatural abilities with lasting effects end in your opinion? Do spawn created suddenly die? Do you lose control of them even though the ability you had before said that you will always have control of them? What ends and what does not? I would go the easy way and have continuing and lasting effects actually do so. But then I also see the need to change shapechange ;)
Zherog 04-16-07, 12:51 PM	I'm surprised people don't understand the term "broken". They don't mean it doesn't function. Broken means very overpowered. "Broken" is also regularly used for things that are very underpowered. It's also used to reference things that just don't work - some of those things are neither underpowered nor overpowered; they're just so poorly composed that it's just about impossible to determine what it means. That's why defining "broken" is important in a discussion like this. Just my 2cp but. Shapechange is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. If he is incappable of making decisions on balance or what is allowed in his campaign/game, then why the heck is he the DM? seriously, argueing on a forum over something because of personal opinion is moot when it comes to Rule 0. If your DM doesn't use Rule 0, then I'm sorry; and we'll leave it at that. So, what you're saying is that because a DM can house rule away the problems, the problem doesn't exist? If so, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Oberoni. And here we come to my personal definition of "broken." For me, "broken" means a DM must apply houserules in order for sanity to exist. Whether the DM is upping the power on something weak or decreasing the power on something too powerful or filling in gaps in the rules (like what happens to the balor's sword after you shapechange into something else). If a DM has to use a houserule, for whatever reason, the original rule is broken.
Kursk 04-16-07, 01:05 PM	...the power on something too powerful or filling in gaps in the rules (like what happens to the balor's sword after you shapechange into something else). If a DM has to use a houserule, for whatever reason, the original rule is broken. It is an interesting question. If you SC into a dragon for instance. If you were to take scales off yourself would they still exist if you changed back?
Drachasor 04-16-07, 01:06 PM	There is absolutely no indication for the balor to be carrying two swords or two whips. None. You're making it up. It doesn't qualify as an interpretation, you have no fact to back up your argument. There is a direct correlation with what's in the stat block and with the detailed description of the creature. If you do not beleive so then I'm afraid we cannot discuss further because that's lunacy. I am curious, DungeonMaster, do you generally ban any PrCs that can be interpreted as granting an infinite caster level? Do you casually ban other things in the game that can be fixed just be simply using an alternative interpretation of the rules? The game is far from clear on many things. As for the Balor, the fact his Sword is a supernatural ability and he has a sword as treasure is certainly an indication that he is wielding one sword and carrying another, identical, sword. That or something else odd is going on, such as the sword becomes real if you kill the Balor. Your interpretation certainly leaves a problem with the Balor. Baleful Polymorph, or any Polymorph subschool spell you can cast on someone or place on a magical item would allow Balors to make infinite vorpal swords. The Outer Planes would be overflowing with such weapons. So generally, I don't consider it a very reasonable interpretation. Generally I think most of the problems can be fixed if you end the effects of Supernatural abilities when the caster shifts to another form*. The certainly gets rid of the vast majority of problems, anyhow. -Drachasor *Any supernatural ability whose effect has a duration (including implied permanent durations such as the Vorpal Sword of the Balor).
Drachasor 04-16-07, 01:09 PM	It is an interesting question. If you SC into a dragon for instance. If you were to take scales off yourself would they still exist if you changed back? Generally parts of the creature that get cut off turn into the equivalent part on the original form. So as soon as you remove scales they become skin cells (or just disappear). -Drachasor
Kursk 04-16-07, 01:17 PM	Generally parts of the creature that get cut off turn into the equivalent part on the original form. So as soon as you remove scales they become skin cells (or just disappear). -Drachasor Thanks. So this Balor thing. I saw s/o arguing that one word is its treasure or s/g. One is SU ability. I don't see how polymrophing gets you treasure of the creature.
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 01:25 PM	I am curious, DungeonMaster, do you generally ban any PrCs that can be interpreted as granting an infinite caster level? Do you casually ban other things in the game that can be fixed just be simply using an alternative interpretation of the rules? The game is far from clear on many things. Drachasor, I'm an extremely strict DM. I don't even allow PrC in my campaigns. Anything that I can find a reasonable (to me) interpretation gets that interpretation applied. Anything that is outright broken is modified by house-rules. I have few houserules. All I'm advocating as written 3.5 shapechange is broken. Not that people should actually make infinite vorpal swords in real games and that DMs should accept this. I'm a very strong proponent of iron fisted DM authority. What the DM says goes. He should listen to the PCs but in him rests final authority. As for the Balor, the fact his Sword is a supernatural ability and he has a sword as treasure is certainly an indication that he is wielding one sword and carrying another, identical, sword. That or something else odd is going on, such as the sword becomes real if you kill the Balor. The sword is real, the Su ability creates a real vorpal sword. It does not create a fake vorpal sword with a timed duration. The Su ability is 100% clear, a balor carries a vorpal sword. Not two.
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 01:29 PM	Generally parts of the creature that get cut off turn into the equivalent part on the original form. So as soon as you remove scales they become skin cells (or just disappear). No they don't. It's right here in the damn spell description: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. There's no interpretation possible. At all.
Kursk 04-16-07, 01:31 PM	The sword is real, the Su ability creates a real vorpal sword. It does not create a fake vorpal sword with a timed duration. The Su ability is 100% clear, a balor carries a vorpal sword. Not two. So how often can this SU ability be used? Since it doesn't state, it can be interpreted that it is infinite and therefore all the Balors "underlings" will logically be carrying them.
Nephlite 04-16-07, 01:36 PM	So how often can this SU ability be used? Since it doesn't state, it can be interpreted that it is infinite and therefore all the Balors "underlings" will logically be carrying them. Only if the underlings: a. shapechange into the Balor b. Kill the Balor. How often can this be assumed?
Kursk 04-16-07, 01:37 PM	Only if the underlings: a. shapechange into the Balor b. Kill the Balor. How often can this be assumed? Really? Must be a house rule of yours.
Nephlite 04-16-07, 01:44 PM	Really? Must be a house rule of yours. Nope. That isn't a houserule. He can't make infinite ones himself. A Balor has one. You have to shapechange into a balor each time to get one. You don't: drop, drop, drop. Your have to balor drop sword, turn something else, back to balor to get a new one, drop, repeat adnasium.
Kursk 04-16-07, 01:45 PM	Nope. That isn't a houserule. He can't make infinite ones himself. A Balor has one. And if he gives it away he has none. So he has a SU ability that let's him have one. So per the RAW he can have one and create an infinite amount.
Seeker95 04-16-07, 01:56 PM	Seeker95, you started this thread saying you disagree with their opinion that shapechange is broken. Now you say that you don't know what "broken" means?First, while it is true that I disagree with their opinion that shapechange is broken, I more specifically disagree with their claim that its brokenness is a "fact" rather than a matter of opinion, personal experience, and perspective. Second, I did not say I do not know what broken means. I am merely saying that the definition of "broken" must be provided by the folks claiming it is broken. I used the "obscene" analogy. Rather than beginning with a definition of "broken", folks are starting with the assumption that shapechange is broken, and then tailoring their still unspoken definition to support this claim. Provide a definition of broken, and I can agree or disagree with the claim someone makes that it is broken. Again, redraven has come closest to providing this.
unusualsuspect 04-16-07, 01:58 PM	First, while it is true that I disagree with their opinion that shapechange is broken, I more specifically disagree with their claim that its brokenness is a "fact" rather than a matter of opinion, personal experience, and perspective. Second, I did not say I do not know what broken means. I am merely saying that the definition of "broken" must be provided by the folks claiming it is broken. I used the "obscene" analogy. Rather than beginning with a definition of "broken", folks are starting with the assumption that shapechange is broken, and then tailoring their still unspoken definition to support this claim. Provide a definition of broken, and I can agree or disagree with the claim someone makes that it is broken. Again, redraven has come closest to providing this. What about Zherog's definition of Broken? And here we come to my personal definition of "broken." For me, "broken" means a DM must apply houserules in order for sanity to exist. Whether the DM is upping the power on something weak or decreasing the power on something too powerful or filling in gaps in the rules (like what happens to the balor's sword after you shapechange into something else). If a DM has to use a houserule, for whatever reason, the original rule is broken.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-16-07, 02:09 PM	The very fact that it gives SU abilities is enough. Like polymorph, SC is based on HD and not ECL, so the player using shapechange gets SU's that the game already says are more powerful than a character of the caster's level should have.
Scion of Coldshard 04-16-07, 02:22 PM	I find Zherog's definition of broken to be very reasonable. However, he was offering it as a definition, without entering into the conversation regarding shapechange specifically. If we use his definition, I still have not seen a link between said definition and the spell itself. Not looking at anything else just yet do you feel that the solar form is of a fine power level to be had? It grants a rather impressive array of abilities. If you feel that it is fine, why is that?
1CentSage 04-16-07, 02:29 PM	I would like to offer a "soft" definition of "mechanically broken": If the use of one or multiple rules objects (spell/feat/class ability,...) leads to a situation which either a) demands a rules based decission but the rules provide no means to make it, or b) is in direct contradiction to other existing rules or basic assumptions underlying the rules of the game then its use is mechanically broken in the sense that it creates a situation which can not be dealt with existing rules alone, thereby "breaking" the game. This is a purely "mechanics" based definition which does not refer to subjective concepts like power, balance, etc. . This is its strength but also its greatest weakness, because the word broken is most often used to express a personal dislike rather than (or in addition to) to point out a purely mechanical problem. Acoording to the above definition a thing need not be inherently broken but can be in specific situations. If you like a "harder" definition you might consider anything broken for which even a single situation exists in which the above criteria are fullfilled. Also according to the above definition certain combinations of things may be considered broken even though the individual things are not. In many of the examples prvovided and explained by redraven and others shapechange would clearly be broken in the sense of the "soft" definition (the Balor trick violates the assumtpion of wealth per level, there is no rule governing non lethal damage in the regeneration/construct combo, the barghest violates the rules for level advancement and rises questions about ECL,etc. ), while for other uses it might be not (no one would consider shapechanging into a cat at lvl 17 gamebreaking I guess). In the "hard" sense of the definition even one of the examples would make shapechange inherently broken. For many cases the definition given actually coincides with Zerog's definition (when loss of sanity and mechanical breakdown go hand in hand) although there are situations where sanity (whatever that means) is lost before mechanical problems arise and vice versa.
Zherog 04-16-07, 02:31 PM	I find Zherog's definition of broken to be very reasonable. However, he was offering it as a definition, without entering into the conversation regarding shapechange specifically. That's because I have no personal experience with the 3.5 version of shapechange. The only game I've ever been personally involved in that got to that level was played entirely under the "3.0" rules. Aside from shapechange being a very different spell in 3.0, none of the casters (two wizards and a sorcerer) took advantage of the various polymorph spells. The highest I've ever played in a 3.5 game has been 15th level. So, no personal experience = no real evidence on the brokenness (or lack of) of the spell. Now, if you ask me to speculate... shapechange requires a lot of DM intervention and interpretation of things. Sticking with the balor example: it's clear that a balor gets a vorpal sword as one of its Su abilities. I don't think anybody can make a reasonable argument otherwise. The interpretations come in once the balor drops the sword. What happens? Does he get a new one? Does the sword he just dropped re-appear in his hand? Does nothing happen, and the sword just lays there? All of those are completely reasonable ways of looking at the same ability. A DM has to pick one (or come up with another). There's no consistency - if I have a shapeshifting wizard who travels from game to game, I don't have the slightest guess how the DM will handle the ability. Take another common example, the barghest. As an Su ability, it can consume a soul. It's a really awesome way to permanently kill a bad guy, since the ability specifically says there's a chance nothing (not even wish or miracle) can bring the soul back. This strikes me as something a player will do when she's looking to make certain the BBEG stays dead. Of course, the other part of the ability is troublesome. Every time a barghest consumes a soul it gains a hit die. How, if at all, does this interact with a 17th wizard? Does he gain a level? Does he gain an outsider hit die? Does he gain a "temporary" hit die that goes away when the spell ends (or when he changes shapes), or is this a quick way to gain levels? How do these levels affect his ECL? Again we have an ability with several reasonable interpretations. Any given DM could pick any of those and have a pretty reasonable foundation for what they've picked. And in each case, it's an interpretation; it's not really RAW, and it's not really a houserule in the most common sense. And the examples can keep coming, because there's all sorts of Su abilities that work wonderfully for a monster, and not so well for a PC. One of the great things about 3rd edition is it's "portability." The rules are far more refined than previous versions of the game, which makes it more possible then ever for me to take an existing character from one game and drop it into another with little problems. But this spell doesn't let that happen, because a lot of the abilities you can gain from this spell require serious DM thought to determine how they'll work. To me, that's what makes shapechange broken in theory.
Yaeri 04-16-07, 03:06 PM	Seeker95, thanks for the reply. Though I'm still curious as to what your definition of "broken" is... :) I see "broken" to be what Zherog stated, although I don't see "filling in gaps in the rules", as making house rules and thus not as a sign of something being broken. Broken, for me is tied in solely to balance. Not that it matters, as I have no opinion on shapechange's power yet. We've been playing for many years and we're at character level 11 now. :D I haven't seen shapechange in the game yet, not even from a lightyear distant. As for the Balor, solely on the rules bits quoted in this thread, the possibilities I see are: a)(Su) for the sword was a mistake of the designers. Or a vague leftover from the balor from previous editions. This seems most likely to me, since his "supernatural ability" is in his treasure. b)Is in a way a part of the Balor himself. It cannot be dropped/disarmed/sundered. That a Balor would have to drag the sword around always and everywhere, even when he sits on the toilet, seems very unlikely. c)Is in a way a part of the Balor himself. He cannot drop it, but he can make it appear and dissapear in his hand at will. Plausible, yet the sword is part of his treasure. Thus it can't be this. d)The Balor can conjure up as many swords as he wants, as long as he drops the previous one on the ground. Flavour wise, this doesn't make any sense at all either. So my vote goes to a)
Kursk 04-16-07, 03:08 PM	So my vote goes to a) I agree. Hence, the Wizard doesn't get one.
Cromulent 04-16-07, 04:45 PM	Shapechange is broken because it allows characters to violate the fundamental, core laws that define the D&D game. For example: Throughout your character's life, no matter which race, class, prestige class, feat, or skill you gain access to, the only way for you to increase your Hit Dice is to gain enough experience points to reach the next level. That's a core law of D&D. Shapechange allows you access to the Barghest Feed ability. Feed allows your character to alter the method he uses to gain Hit Dice. In essence, Shapechange gives you access to an ability that breaks the law of how Hit Dice are acquired. There are other examples. Spellcasting is a game mechanic that is granted according to your character's base and prestige classes (with a few feats that can expand your spellcasting ability on a relative limited basis). Here again, Shapechange lets you access a form (Solar) that is granted spellcasting as a racial attribute. The Solar breaks the law of how spellcasting is granted. The Choker's Quickness ability is another example. By the laws of the game, characters are granted one standard and one move-equivalent action per turn. The Choker breaks the law that governs how you can act in combat, by granting you an additional standard action. Haste in 3.0 used to grant an extra partial action as part of the spell description. That wording, and all other spells that operated with similar mechanics, was changed in 3.5. There is now no way in the core rules to take more than one standard and one movement action in a combat round... except Shapechange, which breaks that rule. In all of these examples, Shapechange allows you to break rules that are otherwise absolute. However, realize that the laws governing Hit Dice, spellcasting, and combat actions are only laws for players. The laws for players and for monsters are very different. When you start giving players access to abilities that let them play by the rules normally reserved for monsters, you are breaking the game.
WizO_Cat 04-16-07, 05:08 PM	OK, let's stop the accusations of other guest's motives. Keep the discussion on the subject matter of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, I'll have no other choice than to implement other disciplinary actions. That goes to those on both sides of the argument. Fair warning.
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 06:12 PM	Cat did you have to delete the whole post? S As for the Balor, solely on the rules bits quoted in this thread, the possibilities I see are: a)(Su) for the sword was a mistake of the designers. Or a vague leftover from the balor from previous editions. This seems most likely to me, since his "supernatural ability" is in his treasure. b)Is in a way a part of the Balor himself. It cannot be dropped/disarmed/sundered. That a Balor would have to drag the sword around always and everywhere, even when he sits on the toilet, seems very unlikely. c)Is in a way a part of the Balor himself. He cannot drop it, but he can make it appear and dissapear in his hand at will. Plausible, yet the sword is part of his treasure. Thus it can't be this. d)The Balor can conjure up as many swords as he wants, as long as he drops the previous one on the ground. Flavour wise, this doesn't make any sense at all either. So my vote goes to a) Many well intentioned people are still not getting the point. What happens when a balor drops his sword is irrelevant, and subject to DM interpretation. What happens when a shapechanged character does is completely determined by the shapechange spell: pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. It is NOT the ability that is the problem but the SPELL. Specifically that 1 unambigous sentance, black and white. I'll make it clearer: it doesn't have to be vorpal swords. It could be expensive poisons, unicorn horns, etc... the spell allows you to make wealth without penalty. That is broken. The vorpal sword is merely the most extreme and absurd use of this spell.
1stCainite 04-16-07, 06:29 PM	Simply, it is my opinion that you (DungeonMaster) is reading too much into one line of the spell. But that is as i say merely an opinion, i believe the base problem in this discussion is the difference in how much tweaking the individual posters feel is appropriate for the DM to have to do while playing the game. I myself feel that a rule of common sense applies in every instance of a D&D game, or any aspect of life for that matter. if something seems "broken" it is probably because your (the general your) line of thinking differs from that of the game makers. Maybe try and look at that spell/feat/ability/class from a different perspective and see if it looks reasonable if you (the general you) change that. It have helped me in the past, when something have seemed unreasonable, to look at it from a different angle.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-16-07, 06:42 PM	Nice thought, but your interpretation is not backed by the rules. The rules are unfortunately cut and dried, without any wiggle room (as DungeonMaster pointed out). As written, Shapechange is worse than casting Evard's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion. No good can come from it.
MerlintheTuna 04-16-07, 07:23 PM	Another fun fact that bears mentioning. You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities.Inheritance problems, ho! When you assume a form, you gain extraordinary and supernatural abilities. You lose supernatural abilities. I'm seeing two pluses and a single minus. There's nothing at all about losing extraordinary abilities. So you're not just dealing with a Wizard that's become a Balor. You're dealing with a Wizard that became a Shambling Mound, then a Choker, an Ettin, a Remorhaz, a Dire Tiger, etc. and is now a giant buffet tray of arcane destruction. Is it stupid? Certainly. It's also entirely by the book. The closest you can get to the contrary is this line from Alter Self... You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels....But those abilities aren't derived from your normal form, they're derived from an assumed form, so even that doesn't work. Ridiculous things can be done with Shapechange. As a DM, you can look on in horror and say, "No, no that doesn't work. Definitely not." That doesn't change the fact that you had to intervene to keep the rules from creating a train wreck. And it certainly doesn't make it okay to have to check two separate spells to figure out what another one does, especially considering how lengthy the entries are for each.
redraven 04-16-07, 07:40 PM	I am not so bold to make a definition of "broken" that everyone is supposed to use. I will, however, offer my own multi-part definition, and you can analyze what you will. Something in D&D is broken when: The mechanics of the spell (ability, et tal) does not fit within the framework of the rest of the rules, while not otherwise offering a different framework in which to adjudicate the effects, and/or The mechanics of the spell (ability, et tal) are not reasonably balanced against other spells (abilities, et tal) of a similar level or function. I think it clear beyond reckoning that Shapechange is absurdly powerful. It has already be conceded that it is on par with spells like Miracle and Wish, which are the sort of de facto power spells. I contend that Shapechange is more powerful than either Wish or Miracle, pushing it squarely into the realm of brokenness. Here are the reasons: The moment Shapechange is learned, the caster is instantly able to cast two other 9th level spells at will. Through the Nightmare form, a Shapechanged wizard is able to cast Astral Projection and Etherealness. Neither Wish nor Miracle allows the duplication of 9th level spells. In addition to the above, Shapechange also allows unlimited access to other very powerful spells, such as Plane Shift, Greater Teleport, Disintegrate, Telekinesis, Lay on Hands (essentially Heal), and Ethereal Jaunt. Plane Shift normally requires an expensive and otherwise hard to acquire focus which allows DMs to simply deny players access to certain planes by never making the foci available. Since Plane Shift is a Supernatural ability when Shapechanged into a Bebilith, no focus is necessary. No other spell ever written grants a PC Regeneration of any kind. No spell ever written grants epic damage reduction, +20 bonuses on natural armor, comparable ability score buffs, or similar. The DM has no "outs" within the interpretation of the spell itself or the adjudication of the spell. If a character makes an absurd Wish, the DM can intervene within the context of the spell itself. Miracle can also be adjudicated soundly, with the DM simply stating that the god does not grant the request, or otherwise determining the effect. Shapechange suffers no similar limitations. Outside of arbitrarily determining what creatures a character "is familiar with," there is nothing at all preventing a player from having absolute mobility (Plane Shift, Greater Teleport, Astral Projection, Etherealness, at will) and likely absolute protection (Solar form against Neutral/Good foes, Balor/Pit Field form against evil foes, Construct forms against undead, etc). Please note that the above does not include the Balor controversy, the Barghest controversy, thoughts on the Choker form, what happens when using the Create Spawn ability of certain monsters, when using the Split ability of certain monsters, allowing arcane casters unlimited access to healing abilities such as Lay on Hands and Fast Heal, or anything else on that massive list I generated with an hour of my time and a copy of the MM. Why not? Because point #1 should be more than adequate to prove Shapechange broken. There is absolutely no reason for an arcane caster to learn Astral Projection or Etherealness. By learning a single other spell, such a caster has access to not just two other 9th level spells usable at will, but the whole and complete list of absurd abilities I have outlined. Who cares about unlimited Balor swords when it is altogether easier to abuse the RAW Astral Projection combo and duplicate all your equipment instead? Or, hell, who needs infinite items/wealth in order to break a campaign? I have already outlined a scenario which I guarantee will throw entire campaigns on their ear. Do you know what a Disjunction is going to do? Delay me by 30 minutes from Plane Shifting/Greater Teleporting right back into battle in my astral Solar form. I would ask that you address for yourself how you handle a PC being able to do any of these things (even one at a time) that can be accomplished with shapechange. The only thing shapechange does is give your party (via the caster) access in a single casting to strategy and tactics they could access in 24 hours with a little planning. Whether the challenge takes a day or a minute in game time to overcome, it is still a challenge the DM must create. The primary discrepancy is that no party can duplicate the same strategy and tactics within 24 hours as you claim. The reason is because any such duplicate (or even comparable) strategy is going to expend a hell of a lot more resources than a single 9th level spell. There is absolutely no other cost associated with Shapechange beyond the initial investment in a pocket-change focus and the spell slot. No amount of planning is going to duplicate casting Astral Projection --> Plane Shift --> Greater Teleport with a single spell slot, and nothing at all duplicates the combat buffs inherent in the Solar form. Nothing.
Drachasor 04-16-07, 09:09 PM	If you want to get (overly) technical, then I would point out that by RAW a Balor cannot drop his Vorpal Sword. His supernatural ability is that he always carries it. He can't drop it, because this would violate the ability. He can't have it disarmed either. -Drachasor
Vaelan 04-16-07, 10:19 PM	Shapechange is "broken" because it allows a "broken" use: nigh-infinite incorporeal death squads. Nigh-infinite incorporeal death squads are "broken" because they trivialize a great number of opponents. They trivialize such a great number of opponents that you're better off counting types of opponents and listing exceptions than outlining exactly what they trivialize. Basically, if it isn't in some way immune to negative levels, strength damage, and constitution damage, killing it becomes as simple as finding it at some point when it is touching the ground. A few of the more common arguments I have seen against this are... 1. We aren't playing an Evil game. Good characters are allowed to commit Evil acts without an immediate change of alignment. Since only the creation, not the commanding, of the incorporeal death squads is Evil, it isn't entirely unreasonable to say that a Good or Neutral character could do this. 2. People will work against you to destroy your undead or you for using them. Who will know? Find unimportant old people. Nobody will try to resurrect them and nobody will even question their deaths. Then the fact that your incorporeal death squads are incorporeal will do the rest of the secret keeping for you. If people do start to catch on, I think you will find that it is quite difficult to kill incorporeal things that place their survival as a higher priority than blindly rushing to their deaths.
DungeonMaster 04-16-07, 10:45 PM	If you want to get (overly) technical, then I would point out that by RAW a Balor cannot drop his Vorpal Sword. His supernatural ability is that he always carries it. He can't drop it, because this would violate the ability. He can't have it disarmed either. Nope, because it's found in his treasure he certainly can drop it.
SpoonyBard 04-16-07, 11:03 PM	Nope, because it's found in his treasure he certainly can drop it. Maybe it just remains after death, like a Rakshasa's Hide (which, according to Unearthed Arcana, can fetch a pretty penny.)
Shatteredtower 04-16-07, 11:09 PM	The problem I'm seeing is that for every example someone brings forth as broken, Seeker has yet to show how it is not broken. Thus, let's go through a few specific examples: 1. Seeker, what prevents the balor mining trick from being broken in your game? Is it that the rules prohibit it, or do you disallow certain valid interpretations of the rules? 2. What happens to the hit dice a shapechanged wizard gained while feeding in barghest form? How is disallowing the HD to be gained consistent with the RAW? 3. For that matter, what other core spell allows you a chance of irrevocably destroying an enemy beyond the possibility of restoration? I can name five: gate, planar ally, planar binding, and the greater version of the latter two spells, all by virtue of calling a barghest. The other spells grant this power at a price. A longer duration is possible, but said barghest also tends to be less durable or, thanks to your spellcasting ability, less powerful. What makes a spell that allows you, personally, to do what no save-or-die spell can come close to doing, anything but broken? 4. By the rules, a spellcaster can shapechange into a black pudding. Assuming an 18th level sorcerer with only 45 hp (a modest estimate, assuming a 10 Constitution), the character now takes the immunity to piercing and slashing weapon damage and allows himself to be struck once, then once again for each of the two forms that appears, all four of identical to the first, but with 11 hp. What rule prevents the identical quartet from each turning into a 12 headed-hydra, a creature with fast healing 22, restoring themselves to maximum hp within two rounds (as each of them is an identical version of the shapechanged spellcaster, which includes how many hp said character should have at full health), then having all four hydras turn back into black puddings to be split again, repeating the cycle to produce an army of hundreds-who-are-one 18th level sorcerer? (Hundreds is a modest estimate, but there's only so many people you can get involved in the hacking duty, and it's going to get a bit crowded.) Please note that the tactic above isn't something you pull it in battle. It's the sort of thing you prepare in advance of a war. You might be able to twist it on a druid ("The powers of nature were granted to one, and only one may retain them -- time to determine who's most fit to survive...") and to a lesser extent the wizard ("Sure, there are 10,000 of you, but there's just one spellbook..."), but what keeps the sorcerer in check? How is this not broken? Is this the most straightforward interpretation of how the maneuver would work, or can it be stopped by methods that are simple and do not amount to the DM refusing to let it work? If so, what rule prevents this from working? 5. The ability to teleport effortlessly lets our shapechanger (and familiar) travel from one small community to the next as a spectre in the night, staying just long enough to create a dozen spawn in each. Even if you rule that the ability to command spawn is limited by the spellcaster's caster level once the shapechanger ceases to be a spectre, by the rules, the character controls a fairly sizeable number of spawn for about three hours, and can easily direct them to attack everything they can reach within what could easily be twenty or thirty communities scattered across kingdoms or continents. Even assuming you can't maintain control of them, how many can you store away "for later" in a bag of holding? Is it unthinkinable that an 18th level sorcerer would attempt such a strategy? How does a character that would do this, PC or NPC, not break a game? If not other spell comes close to permanently turning scores or hundreds of CR 1/2 (or lower) creatures each into CR 7 threats against the land in which they originated? would it be less of a breakage if you just turned them into shadows instead, eliminating the concern about sunlight vulnerability? Regarding "on par": There is no doubt that shapechange is the best or second best 9th level spell. (I think miracle is more powerful because it has absolutely no limit on what it can do if your deity permits and you spend the 5,000xp). However, there are best or second best spells at every spell level.There are two problems with this observation: 1. By the RAW, when used to do anything but duplicate a lower level spell, miracle is limited by DM fiat. By the RAW, shapechange is not. 2. "Better" is one thing. "So much better than everything else of equal level that you'd be a fool to take nearly any other 9th level spell in its stead," is another. When it makes other 9th level spells completely redundant, as has been mentioned earlier, you either have to fix it -- or assign them to a lower spell level.
Seeker95 04-16-07, 11:40 PM	1. Seeker, what prevents the balor mining trick from being broken in your game? Is it that the rules prohibit it, or do you disallow certain valid interpretations of the rules?The balor mining trick is ********. It is not permitted by the rules, unles you take an extremely literalist reading. The same kind of reading that supports the claim that while you are incapacitated while dying, once you are dead, you may play on. Given a reasonable reading of the text and an idiotic one, I choose the reasonable one. Balor vorpal sword mining is not possible. 2. What happens to the hit dice a shapechanged wizard gained while feeding in barghest form? How is disallowing the HD to be gained consistent with the RAW?The barghest HD. The hit dice are not by class, so they must be by race. Racial hit die do not stay with you when you change from the race. Disallowing the HD is quite consistent with the RAW. 3. For that matter, what other core spell allows you a chance of irrevocably destroying an enemy beyond the possibility of restoration? I can name five: gate, planar ally, planar binding, and the greater version of the latter two spells, all by virtue of calling a barghest.You have named other spells that allow it. Nothing more needs be added. Save or be irrevocably dead is a part of the game. That it can be accomplished more easily by shapechange, a 9th level spell, does not change its existence in the game. 4. By the rules, a spellcaster can shapechange into a black pudding. [...] What rule prevents [...] (scroll up to read the rest)Keeping the consciousness of the caster in only one of the puddings. Puddings are mindless. If the caster has a mind, it is in one pudding. Any splits into more than one pudding leaves the consciousness of the cast in only one. This is but one of any number of solutions, none of which contradict the rules, although some of which may require adjudicating where the rules are silent. All of these fall within the role of being a DM. 5. The ability to teleport effortlessly lets our shapechanger (and familiar) travel from one small community to the next as a spectre in the night, staying just long enough to create a dozen spawn in each. Even if you rule that the ability to command spawn is limited by the spellcaster's caster level once the shapechanger ceases to be a spectre, by the rules, the character controls a fairly sizeable number of spawn for about three hours, and can easily direct them to attack everything they can reach within what could easily be twenty or thirty communities scattered across kingdoms or continents. Even assuming you can't maintain control of them, how many can you store away "for later" in a bag of holding?This is no more game-breaking than allowing your players to play evil characters or undead races in the first palce. If anything, it demonstrates the ambiguity of the spawn feature. Nearly every example you offer of why it is "broken" requires an intentionally abusive reading of the rules, choosing the least helpful of two equally legitimate readings. Turn the tables. Let the DM try exactly what you have described *against* the players. Let your BBEG do what you have described. And then hear directly from the players exactly why, by-the-rules, what you have proposed is countered by existing rules, or at the very least, not supported by the rules as they are written, and certainly not supported by the rules as reasonably interpreted. This does not require houseruling. It does require a DM ruling that, in the face of two possible interpretations, the most reasonable is the right one.
runestar 04-16-07, 11:45 PM	I think Seeker makes quite a decent point. Technically, yes, you can use shapechange to do all that. But in an actual game, would you?:confused:
IceFractal 04-17-07, 12:10 AM	See, discrete packages of brokenness like the Balor trick don't really pull that much weight with me, because a DM can deal with them quite easily: A) He can specifically disallow them, or if the rules are ambiguous, side with the way where they don't work. B) He can ask his players not to be jackasses. C) He can simply have the BBEG do the same thing, and see if they get the point. Now personally, I favor C, because it's the most flexible - it doesn't require you to set a hard boundary on what's cheesy. The players can determine their own fate - if they want to relax and not worry about power too much, then they can fight standard enemies, and if they want to go full-out optimized tactics, they can fight enemies that do the same thing. And you don't even have to find the tricks yourself, the players will find them for you. So really, the only thing that would make a spell "broken", IMC, is if it was highly overpowered in general use. Now Shapechange is certainly quite potent, but compared to other 9th-level spells, I don't find it that out of place. Also, keep in mind that while the combat forms look great on paper, a Wizard has not the BAB, HP, or feats to do that well in combat - plus they'll be doing it without gear. Now a Druid, they can kick a lot of ass - maybe too much - but that's the class in general, not Shapechange specifically.
Drachasor 04-17-07, 12:14 AM	5. The ability to teleport effortlessly lets our shapechanger (and familiar) travel from one small community to the next as a spectre in the night, staying just long enough to create a dozen spawn in each. Even if you rule that the ability to command spawn is limited by the spellcaster's caster level once the shapechanger ceases to be a spectre, by the rules, the character controls a fairly sizeable number of spawn for about three hours, and can easily direct them to attack everything they can reach within what could easily be twenty or thirty communities scattered across kingdoms or continents. Even assuming you can't maintain control of them, how many can you store away "for later" in a bag of holding? Is it unthinkinable that an 18th level sorcerer would attempt such a strategy? How does a character that would do this, PC or NPC, not break a game? If not other spell comes close to permanently turning scores or hundreds of CR 1/2 (or lower) creatures each into CR 7 threats against the land in which they originated? would it be less of a breakage if you just turned them into shadows instead, eliminating the concern about sunlight vulnerability? I have to emphatically agree with Seeker here. A Necromancer or Evil Cleric can already control Spectres and other spawning undead before level 10! Those undead can create spawn, which are loyal to the spawner. The Spawner is loyal to the PC. Hence the PC has control over those undead. A relatively low level character can control a huge army in this manner. One could rule that if you Shapechange away from a Spectre, then the Spawn you made become free-willed (as if the Spectre that made them died). I don't think that's inconsistent with the rules, as some arbitration is needed. However, even if you take the liberal ruling, that doesn't change the fact that a much lower level character can control a huge army of undead....an army large beyond all reason, without any need to resort to high level magic. Maybe it's easier with a 9th level spell, but heck, it IS a 9th level spell! That said there are balance issues in 3.5 (and all editions before). Magic is generally too powerful in many areas. It belittles the contribution of melee characters a bit too much, imho. The base non-casting classes need an overhaul, and a number of high level effects need to be toned down. In particular, save or die spells are an awful mechanic (disintegrate is a better way to go about it). A full-strength character should generally not die by a single bad die roll. Effects should hamper and deal damage, but generally not outright kill (death kind be a side-effect of damage though). IMHO, of course. Such balance issues are more about making the game more fun and enjoyable for players of all classes and levels. So I've gotten a bit off-topic since I don't believe Shapechange single-handledly breaks the game. It should probably get redone and toned down in a future edition, but so should a lot of spells. So far I haven't really seen much about Shapechange in the Core Rules that really increases Spellcaster power more than anything else. Now, if you ban a bunch of high level spells or weaken them but don't do that to Shapechange, then it will certainly stick out as a hugely powerful spell. It is really powerful....it's just that adding or removing it is only a relatively minor thing to a high level caster given all the other spells at his disposal. Certainly I haven't seen anything indicating the Shapechanged Wizard is going to be slaughtering foes left and right because of this spell. He'll outdo the Fighter/Barbarian/etc in damage, but heck, they've been a relative joke in combat effectiveness for 7+ levels by now. That's nothing new. It does allow the caster to move around quicky and hide quickly. However, he has plenty of access to teleportating and other moving effects already. Most of these things he's had for 7+ levels (e.g. teleport and polymorph*). That's also nothing new. Shapechange is better, but it only continues and maintains the tend of supreme spellcaster power, it doesn't significantly alter that trend one way or another. Removing or altering this one spell won't fix any problems, but rather just alter some spell tactics. The magic and combat system needs an overhaul to balance things out, and that requires a lot more work than a "quick fix." (All the above is regarding using Shapechange on Core monsters, of course. Naturally there are newer monsters that do break the game when combined with shapechange. A design flaw both with the spell and with the new monsters). -Drachasor *Even if you just moved Polymorph from 4th level to 6th or 7th, the Wizard still has plenty of access to such magic by the time he gets to 17th level.
Drachasor 04-17-07, 12:28 AM	Nope, because it's found in his treasure he certainly can drop it. Well let's be laborious about it then, let's look at the line again: Vorpal Sword (Su) Every balor carries a +1 vorpal longsword that looks like a flame or a bolt of lightning. You have one possible interpretation. There have been two others proposed: Mine) The Supernatural ability explicitly states the Balor is carrying the sword, therefore he cannot drop it. One could infer from the treasure results that if the Balor is killed, then the sword is dropped (for of course the supernatural effect is gone). One could also infer that this is a special circumstance of the Balor dying, apparently. So if you go in an anti-magic field, the sword disappears. Looking it over, I am not sure this is the best interpretation, though I believe it is superior to yours, which allows the Balor to drop a sword, and then immediately produce another. Each Balor by himself is a Vorpal factory! Runestar) He proposed that the supernatural ability is to make his sword look like a bolt of lightning. That's a reasonable interpretation of the vaguely written text, and it handles all problems quite readily. It also means you will have to find a means to arm yourself if you decide to turn into a Balor (or just go with the slam attacks). Fact is the text IS a bit vague. It requires some interpretation, and one should use the most reasonable and least game-breaking interpretation available. That's probably Runestar's. I am sure you would rule similarly in any game you ran. -Drachasor
Magetastic 04-17-07, 12:51 AM	The barghest HD. The hit dice are not by class, so they must be by race. Racial hit die do not stay with you when you change from the race. Disallowing the HD is quite consistent with the RAW. Just wondering, what rules are you drawing from to make this ruling?
Drachasor 04-17-07, 01:00 AM	Just wondering, what rules are you drawing from to make this ruling? I think he is following the lead of Reincarnation and other effects that change your race. As he says, if your race changes, then you lose any racial hit dice you had in your old race. -Drachasor
Shatteredtower 04-17-07, 02:23 AM	The balor mining trick is ********.You've never proven this, and this: It is not permitted by the rules... --is untrue. It's not in the same ballpark as the dead interpretation. Given a reasonable reading of the text and an idiotic one, I choose the reasonable one.What makes it idiotic, please? I may not care for that ruling, but I can't see why the option could be defined as idiotic. I'm not an idiot, after all. I can add the numbers up and come up with a result that I don't like and would use. The "reasonable" reading, from what I'm seeing, is to ignore everything that's written on the subject of supernatural abilities that also happen to be treasure. What rules support this? The barghest HD. The hit dice are not by class, so they must be by race. Racial hit die do not stay with you when you change from the race. Disallowing the HD is quite consistent with the RAW.Racial hit dice don't come with any form you assume. You are gaining an instantaneous effect. Do any other instantaneous effects you might gain through an assumed form disappear when you leave that form? You have named other spells that allow it. Nothing more needs be added.Obviously it must, since you missed the point entirely. Called creatures come with the consequence of direct and indirect interaction. Shapechange does not. You're not having to fork over 600 gp to something comparitively more frail than you are, and you don't have to worry about it sneaking in a bonus snack somewhere along the way to doing your bidding. There's also no worry about ticking off anyone that normally associates with the monster. Save or be irrevocably dead is a part of the game.What save? A 50% chance of failing to survive the first of three 9th level spells that might work isn't a saving throw. It is the most critical time for having some equivalent of the Luck domain on your side, I guess. Keeping the consciousness of the caster in only one of the puddings.Fails the "two identical puddings" test. You are clearly house-ruling this one on that basis. This is no more game-breaking than allowing your players to play evil characters or undead races in the first palce.Undead races are not permitted player options within the core rules, and thus have no relevance to this discussion. You made that rule, remember? As for evil characters, well, it's not like NPCs won't try it either. Does it make it less game-breaking to know that the DM can do it? Yes, a 14th level cleric can gain control of a spectre, assuming he finds one. By the time he can create his own, the sorcerer can become one. Okay, so we'll be nice and go with shadows instead -- an easy enough aquisition for an 11th level caster. You'll have to micromanage them, naturally, since they're none too bright, but that's not so bad. It is, however, considerably slower than shapechanging and teleporting around the countryside. For no less than three hours (arguably much longer), you control all of your spawn, a number no single cleric could match, even with the ability to somehow keep up with your teleporting. Furthermore, the odds of your "alpha" being co-opted or destroyed are considerably lower, allowing you a larger array of options. Despite downplaying the merits of this specific method considerably, however, I will grant you the "Evil PCs have other ways to pull this off," defense. If anything, it demonstrates the ambiguity of the spawn feature.Relevance to the discussion? Nearly every example you offer of why it is "broken" requires an intentionally abusive reading of the rules, choosing the least helpful of two equally legitimate readings.Seeker, the closest you came to a legitimate reading was with the barghest and the undead. The rest is just wishful thinking. Turn the tables. Let the DM try exactly what you have described *against* the players. Let your BBEG do what you have described. And then hear directly from the players exactly why, by-the-rules, what you have proposed is countered by existing rules, or at the very least, not supported by the rules as they are written, and certainly not supported by the rules as reasonably interpreted.Bad argument, Seeker. I'm well aware of why the DM can do this too. Broken isn't going to care who did it first. This does not require houseruling. It does require a DM ruling that, in the face of two possible interpretations, the most reasonable is the right one.You've yet to demonstrate that what we'd all prefer the rules said is the same as more reasonably read from what's written.
ArcTan 04-17-07, 03:00 AM	Although I have never had a problem with shapechange, redraven has provided the best argument for why shapechange can be a problem. By explaining that it reflects the reasons he has barred the spell from his game, he has also avoided insisting that what he has done is a requirement that others must follow. I still do not have a problem with shapechange, even if my players attempted to use every example redraven provided. But his style and method are superior to every "shapechange is broken" proponent I have encountered in my years on the Boards. In what way? I recall nearly everything he said having been brought up at some point before. I will continue to claim that the charge "shapechange is broken" is more Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling rhetoric than a statement of fact. I believe a perfectly appropriate (and more legitimate) charge is "I have problems with shapechange". Okay, see, the reason there was an Oberoni Fallacy thing is that if something *is* a problem in the rules, it's always possible to not have a problem with it by changing the rules, but that doesn't make it not a problem anymore. I would lastly ask that if you (the generic you) have a problem with shapechange, simply disallow it in your game. But don't get all defensive and prickly just because someone else doesn't have a problem with it. You (the generic you) are no less of a man (or woman) for having such a problem than someone who does not. You have no reason to feel that you are. I'm not being "defensive and panicky". I'm upset that you don't seem to understand a simple concept like treating the rules as an abstraction and worrying about things based on what *can* happen rather than just what *does* happen.
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-17-07, 03:08 AM	First, I am not "hand-waiving" anything. ... I am not claiming something is broken; I do not have the burden of defining it. Those who claim it is broken bear the responsibility for defining the term upon which their claim is built. Yes, you are hand waving. It's all this thread is about. You're challenging us to "prove" something and then deliberately being vague about what it is we have to prove. That leaves you enough room to hand wave any argument that comes along, because you can always claim it doesn't meet some unstated characteristic that makes it not broken. I could go through long lists of what's wrong with shapechange, like redraven did, but I can realize it's ultimately futile. Until you actually agree to some definition, it's impossible to prove anything. Second, I did not say I do not know what broken means. I am merely saying that the definition of "broken" must be provided by the folks claiming it is broken. I used the "obscene" analogy. Rather than beginning with a definition of "broken", folks are starting with the assumption that shapechange is broken, and then tailoring their still unspoken definition to support this claim. Provide a definition of broken, and I can agree or disagree with the claim someone makes that it is broken. Again, redraven has come closest to providing this. A definition of broken? Here goes. A spell is broken if one of the following is true: -It creates a great power gap between characters of the same level who make use the spell and those who do not. -It allows a character who uses the spell to defeat creatures or overcome challenges far beyond their CR without requiring extraordinary luck. Can you agree to that definition?
ArcTan 04-17-07, 03:12 AM	However, this last paragraph requires addressing. Regarding "on par": There is no doubt that shapechange is the best or second best 9th level spell. (I think miracle is more powerful because it has absolutely no limit on what it can do if your deity permits and you spend the 5,000xp). On the other hand, the rules make it pretty damn clear that you don't get to say what your deity decides, the DM does. Shapechange has no such built-in restriction. However, there are best or second best spells at every spell level. What's the 3rd-level spell that lets you cast other 3rd-level spells as much as you want, thus making it pointless to ever take those 3rd-level spells? There are a few spells that do this, and those are *broken* spells. Polymorph and its variants, in fact, account for the majority of these situations in core -- the other half is planar binding and variants (including gate). Regarding the "how would you challenge" aspect... the same way I challenge a PC that can do any of these things one spell at a time. In other words, the possibility of running out of 17+ level play is not the same as early- and mid-level play. Adventures cannot be made the same, and challenges cannot be the same. The PCs, by these levels, can already do just about anything, even without shapechange. Actually, they can't. A few specific spells have given level 17+ the reputation of "The PCs are unchallengeable gods", and those spells, shapechange, wish, gate, and miracle, are therefore out of balance with the rest of the game. Seriously, use wish and miracle as they were intended, bust down gate to a 20 HD rather than 40 HD limit (as was earlier done with shapechange) and prevent it from allowing you to specifically request anything other than "Assist me in battle", and drop shapechange altogether. Now, all of a sudden, you realize that the vast majority of the heroes' powers make them superheroic, yes, but not little demigods capable of deciding what happens next in the campaign all on their own. The Wizard is still pretty uber, but now it's more an issue of the Wizard's "I kill things with ease" vs. the Fighter's "I kill things with moderate difficulty", whereas right now it's the Fighter's "I kill things with moderate difficulty" vs. the Wizard's "I do whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want". Seriously, this *crap* about how 17+ D&D is supposed to be totally open-ended and unrestricted really bothers me. For one thing, it underscores just how fundamental the power imbalance in the game. The level 17 Fighter or Rogue really *is* what a level 17 Fighter or Rogue should be -- someone who can do what he could do at level 1, only now he does it really really well. The level 17 Cleric or Wizard, on the other hand, just has to lift a finger to make the whole game a colossal joke. I would ask that you address for yourself how you handle a PC being able to do any of these things (even one at a time) that can be accomplished with shapechange. How about knowing that he'll probably run out of spells if he tries to do it with one spell at a time? The only thing shapechange does is give your party (via the caster) access in a single casting to strategy and tactics they could access in 24 hours with a little planning. Whether the challenge takes a day or a minute in game time to overcome, it is still a challenge the DM must create. Nonsense. There is no other spell that gives you Magic Immunity while still letting you cast Silent, Stilled spells (morphing into a Golem). There is no other spell that, as pointed out, gives you all the buffs of a Solar. There is no other spell that lets you greater teleport *as much as you want* for the cost of a single slot, meaning you can start out not knowing how many times you'll need to teleport in and out without worrying about burning up all your magic. (...And now you've got me flipping around citing shapechange problems again, which I vowed I wouldn't do. Sigh.)
ArcTan 04-17-07, 03:21 AM	Just my 2cp but. Shapechange is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. If he is incappable of making decisions on balance or what is allowed in his campaign/game, then why the heck is he the DM? seriously, argueing on a forum over something because of personal opinion is moot when it comes to Rule 0. If your DM doesn't use Rule 0, then I'm sorry; and we'll leave it at that. I'm totally capable of making decisions on balance. That's why I said shapechange is broken and banned it. One reason I'm objecting vehemently to Seeker95's statement that it's not broken is, frankly, I don't see how it could not be broken unless your players are deliberately not using the spell to its full potential, or unless you just don't give a crap about players having enormous power, and set up ridiculous Epic-style challenges for them as a result. (Translation: You forever condemn any non-full-spellcaster character to being totally ignored as opposed to merely sidelined at level 17+, because that kind of CR makes Weapon Supremacy just look dumb.) I'm *really* objecting to Seeker saying that one can deal with shapechange just by being clever or flexible in setting challenges, and if we can't deal with shapechange in its unadulterated form that means we're just not as good at dealing with this stuff as he is. (I think the term "unprepared for dealing with high-level play" came up once.) Of course he's backed off from it now, but that really was what was coming across in the earlier threads and why things were getting so heated (as opposed to his current "All I said was I didn't have a problem with it" stance). I'm also objecting, of course, because Seeker95 started out by saying the reason he didn't have a problem with shapechange was that he houseruled it, making it into a completely different spell (saying you get all qualities of the target creature and lose all your own), and then got annoyed when people brought up the Oberoni Fallacy later on, backpedalling to simply saying shapechange wasn't a problem for him and never mentioning the houserule again, despite having said he "always" ruled the spell that way. (Yes, I'm digging up stuff from an old thread. I think it's appropriate, since that's what this thread is actually about.)
ArcTan 04-17-07, 03:28 AM	Simply, it is my opinion that you (DungeonMaster) is reading too much into one line of the spell. But that is as i say merely an opinion, i believe the base problem in this discussion is the difference in how much tweaking the individual posters feel is appropriate for the DM to have to do while playing the game. Oberoni Fallacy. (For the first time I'm beginning to understand why people use this so much.) It's easy to tweak. I tweak all the time. Nothing is broken if you tweak it enough, and banning something outright is just an extreme form of tweaking. (In order to really fix shapechange, my feeling is you'd have to throw out so much of it that all you'd really have left is the flavor, and I don't like the flavor nearly enough to consider it worthwhile to write a whole new spell to replace it. While some sort of shapeshifting is a fantasy staple, being able to turn into anything you want and have its true abilities in that form is, in fact, *not* a fantasy staple, and a lot of fantasy worlds make it a law of magic that you can't.) I myself feel that a rule of common sense applies in every instance of a D&D game, or any aspect of life for that matter. if something seems "broken" it is probably because your (the general your) line of thinking differs from that of the game makers. Maybe try and look at that spell/feat/ability/class from a different perspective and see if it looks reasonable if you (the general you) change that. It have helped me in the past, when something have seemed unreasonable, to look at it from a different angle. Sometimes this is true, although it does not eliminate the problems caused by unclear or ambiguous wording. This is not the case with shapechange. It seems pretty clear the designers just *weren't* thinking when they wrote it -- they had no real conception of how much of a headache a constantly expanding ruleset for one single spell based on something playtested completely separately from that spell -- monster stats -- would be. As other posters have pointed out, an unreasonable desire to beef up a particular class one designer liked, the Druid, may have had to do with it. It doesn't matter -- the plain meaning of the spell is one that gives it ridiculous power. All the ways I can think of to try to balance this spell involve flat-out ignoring certain things in the spell -- for instance, simply excising the bit about (Su) abilities) -- or creating whole new mechanics whose mechanics are not obvious and that you would have to play with and test to set numbers for. ("Familiar with" is an example -- sure, it sounds like a limiting factor, but if they don't say what familiarity means and you have to make it up, that's houseruling as much as anything else is.)
ArcTan 04-17-07, 03:35 AM	First, while it is true that I disagree with their opinion that shapechange is broken, I more specifically disagree with their claim that its brokenness is a "fact" rather than a matter of opinion, personal experience, and perspective. Second, I did not say I do not know what broken means. I am merely saying that the definition of "broken" must be provided by the folks claiming it is broken. I used the "obscene" analogy. Rather than beginning with a definition of "broken", folks are starting with the assumption that shapechange is broken, and then tailoring their still unspoken definition to support this claim. Provide a definition of broken, and I can agree or disagree with the claim someone makes that it is broken. Again, redraven has come closest to providing this. "Broken" = one of "far more powerful than the general assumptions of D&D say it should be", or "creates a number of ambiguous and counterintuitive situations that make the ruleset inconsistent and unwieldy". Oddly, the two actually go together a lot, because the designers aren't *usually* so stupid as to violate their own guidelines about power balance with a blunt, simple mechanics -- brokenness in the power sense comes from abusing brokenness in the clarity sense, finding an ambiguous spot in the rules and exploiting it. The problem with shapechange is that you don't immediately realize how powerful it is until you've read all the monster entries available in your campaign and thought about it. And once you have, it's really *the* best 9th-level spell in the game. (It's only less powerful than wish and miracle if your DM explicitly ignores the rules of wish and fails to pervert wishes when he's supposed to, and if the miracle-requesting character is a Cleric of the Holy Church of My Own Ego, which teaches that you should be able to do anything you want.)
ArcTan 04-17-07, 03:50 AM	Such balance issues are more about making the game more fun and enjoyable for players of all classes and levels. So I've gotten a bit off-topic since I don't believe Shapechange single-handledly breaks the game. It should probably get redone and toned down in a future edition, but so should a lot of spells. FWIW, among the "3.75"-ish things they're doing now is the Polymorph subschool, which does exactly that. (All the above is regarding using Shapechange on Core monsters, of course. Naturally there are newer monsters that do break the game when combined with shapechange. A design flaw both with the spell and with the new monsters). Again, if the spell doesn't exist, there is no flaw, so no, it's not a flaw in *both* the spell *and* the monsters.
ArcTan 04-17-07, 04:17 AM	The balor mining trick is ********. It is not permitted by the rules, unles you take an extremely literalist reading. The same kind of reading that supports the claim that while you are incapacitated while dying, once you are dead, you may play on. Given a reasonable reading of the text and an idiotic one, I choose the reasonable one. Balor vorpal sword mining is not possible. I agree, but I think the general point about how this poorly-written entry illustrates the foolishness of expecting monster stats to take shapechange into account *at all*, much less *balance* themselves on that notion. It's quite obvious no one is even trying, when you read monster entries like this. The barghest HD. The hit dice are not by class, so they must be by race. Racial hit die do not stay with you when you change from the race. Disallowing the HD is quite consistent with the RAW. While that sounds convincing, it's actually not at all clear that this is consistent with RAW. By RAW, your ECL stays the same whenever you shapeshift. So a monstrous PC with 4 racial HD, 17 class levels in Wizard and an LA +3 keeps all those features when he shapechanges into a housecat, since the rules are quite clear that he remains an ECL 24 character -- and keeps the HP total, BAB, saves, etc. that he had as an ECL 24 character. So he does, in fact, keep those 4 racial HD -- they don't go away, even though he's not of that race anymore. You have named other spells that allow it. Nothing more needs be added. Save or be irrevocably dead is a part of the game. That it can be accomplished more easily by shapechange, a 9th level spell, does not change its existence in the game. Save-or-die itself isn't a problem. Save-or-die *over and over and over again* at no cost is a problem. There's a reason why Wizards have limited spell slots. Limited spell slots is an inherent balancing feature of Wizards. Give them something that makes this balancing feature melt away and that something is by definition unbalanced. Keeping the consciousness of the caster in only one of the puddings. Total 100% houserule. Oberoni Fallacy. Puddings are mindless. Nope. When you shapechange into a Pudding, the rules very specifically make clear that you get the Pudding's physical ability scores *but not* its mental ability scores. You are now a Black Pudding that has Int 22. You are your own unique species of being that the shapechange spell has made by cut-and-pasting your Human Wizard with a regular Black Pudding -- you are a creature with Int 22 that has the Split (Ex) ability. Interpreting it any other way is a houserule, because the spell says nothing whatsoever about making exceptions for mindless entities, nothing whatsoever about your mind having to reside in one place, etc. (And yes, the fact that these spells mechanically work by cut-and-pasting things together is the fundamental problem here.) If the caster has a mind, it is in one pudding. Any splits into more than one pudding leaves the consciousness of the cast in only one. This is but one of any number of solutions, none of which contradict the rules, although some of which may require adjudicating where the rules are silent. All of these fall within the role of being a DM. They involve *houseruling* is what you mean. Coming up with a rule for how you pick which Pudding retains consciousness (flip a coin? Let the caster determine?) is making up a pretty specific mechanic that doesn't *exist* in the rules. Coming up for a rule for what happens to the non-conscious Puddings -- are they the same stats with just no Int score, or are they generic Black Puddings in every way? do they still have the same buffs active? are they automatically your friends, or do they turn against you because they're intrinsically mindless now? -- that's also houseruling, on a subject on which the rules give you no guidance. Yeah, in every sense, this is a broken place in the rules. A DM's job is to fix broken things, sure, but it's perfectly reasonable to look at something like this, think about the many other things like this there are, and decide that shapechange just isn't worth it. Either way, though, fix it or ban it, shapechange in its *original* form is broken. And, yes, by the arguments we were using before, shapechange is the broken link in the chain. Shapechange + Black Pudding is broken, but nothing is broken about Black Puddings on their own. Shapechange + Barghest is broken, but nothing's particularly wrong with Barghests feeding on their own. Shapechange + Solar is broken, but nothing's wrong with having Solars in the game or as opponents to fight or even as free-willed allies. (Gate + Solar is a different story.) Shapechange + Nightmare is broken, but there's nothing wrong with *having* Nightmares as appropriate-CR encounters. And these things are all Core. This is no more game-breaking than allowing your players to play evil characters or undead races in the first palce. If anything, it demonstrates the ambiguity of the spawn feature. Yes -- Spawn are their own problem, aside from shapechange. However, shapechange lets you do it ridiculously easily -- there's no Will save that can succeed on you, no Command check to fail. Nearly every example you offer of why it is "broken" requires an intentionally abusive reading of the rules, choosing the least helpful of two equally legitimate readings. Spells that create an opportunity like this are broken. I mean, nothing is broken if you choose not to abuse it. Pun-Pun isn't broken if, after becoming Pun-Pun, Pun-Pun decides to only do appropriate levels of damage and cast appropriate-leveled spells to defeat appropriately-leveled encounters. Turn the tables. Let the DM try exactly what you have described *against* the players. Let your BBEG do what you have described. And then hear directly from the players exactly why, by-the-rules, what you have proposed is countered by existing rules, or at the very least, not supported by the rules as they are written, and certainly not supported by the rules as reasonably interpreted. Well, sure. This is a way to get your players to do your houseruling or banning for you. Big deal. You can do this with anything. This does not require houseruling. It does require a DM ruling that, in the face of two possible interpretations, the most reasonable is the right one. If the most reasonable interpretation is "I have to write a new rule for how to handle this", and you write a new rule, you're houseruling.
Zherog 04-17-07, 07:54 AM	Mine) The Supernatural ability explicitly states the Balor is carrying the sword, therefore he cannot drop it. One could infer from the treasure results that if the Balor is killed, then the sword is dropped (for of course the supernatural effect is gone). One could also infer that this is a special circumstance of the Balor dying, apparently. So if you go in an anti-magic field, the sword disappears. Looking it over, I am not sure this is the best interpretation, though I believe it is superior to yours, which allows the Balor to drop a sword, and then immediately produce another. Each Balor by himself is a Vorpal factory! I don't think DungeonMaster is saying a Balor who gives away his sword gets a new, shiny sword in his hand, just because that ability exists. What he's saying is this: 1) Turn into a Balor 2) Drop your sword. Nothing indicates it goes away, and in fact shapechange more or less goes out of its way to say it stays around 3) turn into anything else for one round 4) rinse and repeat Your not turning into a Balor once and repeatedly dropping swords that appear in your hand out of thin air. Instead, you're repeatedly resetting your form so you get a new sword.
starfire311 04-17-07, 08:48 AM	Direct quotes from the SRD with emphasis. There are more detailed wealth per level guidelines in the DMG but that isn't open content so here's what I have: Every time you change into a balor, you can make a vorpal sword. This is unambigous. It is classified as a Su special attack. It is likewise unambigous that once that sword is dropped it does not disappear, it does not revert to its original form of nothingness. This is unambigous. This spell allows you to get (I dare not say earn) a treasure 1/round which is worth by the book 72 000 GP. At minimum caster level of 20 (easily acheived at level 17 by a single bead of karma) 1 casting of this spell, changing into a balor once every two rounds let's say, yeilds: 72 000 x 10 x 10 x 20 / 2 = 72 000 000 GP treasure. 72 000 000 GP worth of treasure. QED. There are many other examples (barghests, etc...) but one is sufficient. here is where I think people are slipping up... it says quite clearly that if you drop the sword it does not disappear, this is so you can pick it up if you are disarmed, however, if you change into a form that does not have a vorpal sword as a SU ability, then the sword would disappear as well, since you no longer have it as an SU, why can people not see that, also anything that the shapechange spell creates will have duration of the shapechange spell.
Yaeri 04-17-07, 08:51 AM	But can a creature choose to drop/lose one of its supernatural abilities? I think not. But then, I don't believe it was ever supposed to be a supernatural ability.
starfire311 04-17-07, 08:57 AM	anyway, here is my contention as to why shapechange is broken. In all actuality the spell is written fine and is in no way broken, however, it also relies on the fact that every monster that is in your campaign will not have any exploitable abilities that are broken, and the more source material you allow the greater the odds of something broken being allowed into the game through the "backdoor" of shapechange, from that standpoint it is a broken spell.
Zherog 04-17-07, 09:05 AM	here is where I think people are slipping up... it says quite clearly that if you drop the sword it does not disappear, this is so you can pick it up if you are disarmed, however, if you change into a form that does not have a vorpal sword as a SU ability, then the sword would disappear as well, since you no longer have it as an SU, why can people not see that, also anything that the shapechange spell creates will have duration of the shapechange spell. As far as the "balor vorpal sword mining" goes, I actually agree with this. I think it's consistent with what the rules are, and also makes things less troublesome. However, I can see the other interpretation. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
ArcTan 04-17-07, 09:35 AM	anyway, here is my contention as to why shapechange is broken. In all actuality the spell is written fine and is in no way broken, however, it also relies on the fact that every monster that is in your campaign will not have any exploitable abilities that are broken Which it will, unless you cull through even the core MM taking things out.
Knivestgn 04-17-07, 09:43 AM	Shapechange is "Broken" there is no doubt in my mind. I have played caster after caster up to high levels (and into epic). In my gaming group we have started referring to shapechange (jokingly) as a crutch. Shapechange can replicate other 9th level spells including Wish, Gate, etc etc. So with ONE casting of a single spell, you now have a character who for the next three hours can find a core form which will allow him to cast almost any other spell at will as an SU ability. AKA 1 ninth level spell cast could theoretically just become 18,000 Greater teleports, or enough 9th level spells (without the EXP cost drawback) to choke a horse. I dont care how much "planning" you have a party doing, even with access to any scrolls they want etc, without shapechange (or scrolls of shapechange) alot of this "I do whatever I want" is not possible. The problem here is that we are in a fools argument. Seeker will not state what he believes broken to be, hence he can hand wave perfectly legitimate RAW broken combinations. Seeker what this comes down to is not "simply fixed by common sense". RULES AS WRITTEN, shapechange allows broken things to happen. Most DM's will never allow the interpretations of the rules that allow it, BUT that is ignoring legitimate RAW interpretations.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 09:47 AM	[Lots of stuff]Your replies are more antagonistic than discussionary. I have no interest in convincing you that you don't have a problem with shapechange. I have presented my case. Some have found it satisfactory. Some do not. You fall among the latter. C'est la vie.
1stCainite 04-17-07, 09:47 AM	AKA 1 ninth level spell cast could theoretically just become 18,000 Greater teleports, or enough 9th level spells (without the EXP cost drawback) to choke a horse. I dont care how much "planning" you have a party doing, even with access to any scrolls they want etc, without shapechange (or scrolls of shapechange) alot of this "I do whatever I want" is not possible. Which race gets Gate as a (su)?
mikeatuconn 04-17-07, 09:59 AM	I see a great number of people talking about balor mining etc and the barghest. All these things would probably not fly in a normal game. But shapechange is broken even without these things...mainly in the realm of high CR with relatively low HD outsiders. For example, I can shapechange into a Pit Fiend at level 18. I now as a mage have an AC of 40 except I can also use equipment and spells to boost that into the "unhittable" range for those levels. Additionally I have Damage Reduction 15 which cannot be easily overcome by anything evil such as is fought in most quests and I also have regeneration so anything which does go through cannot kill me. Additionally I have a base strength, dex, and con that puts the parties fighters to shame, oh and i have reach. Also I can still boost those stats higher with a few enhancement items which I probably already have. So with a single spell I can become a frontliner who also has a bunch of spells that can be cast "just in case." I'll be significantly stronger than anyone else in the party. Now this sort of power would probably be overpowered if the duration were 1 round/level but its not, its 10 MINUTES per level. Throw on a relatively cheap wand of extend when I cast it and suddenly it lasts 6 hours of nigh melee invulnerability for one spell cast. Now if all that is not "broken" enough by your definition, you also get a fly speed, some elemental resistances/immunities, 6 powerful natural attacks and constrict. Poison, Disease, and a Fear Aura. And finally, as a free action you can shift into another form. So if those abilities don't cater to you then you can easily change into a planetar, troll, hydra, or whatever you desire and continue to be awesome. It would be difficult to find any other spell which will grant you all those things for 6 hours at a time. Even if you spent 5000XP and wished for them for 6 hours, I imagine your DM would either make the spell fail or given you some horrible side effect. I define brokeness by how it detracts from the other character's fun. If you outshine them so greatly that there's no point in them coming along and thats certainly the case when you can outshine the party's fighter in melee with a single spell.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 10:00 AM	You're challenging us to "prove" something and then deliberately being vague about what it is we have to prove.I wasn't that vague about what folks had to prove. redraven did just fine. He explained why he thinks it is broken. He didn't even worry about trying to convince others that his opinion is "fact". He offered exactly why he thinks it is broken. DungeonMaster and ArcTan, and more recently ShatteredTower reply in a manner that expresses more "concern" that I do not consider it broken. Their answers seem less focused on why they think it is broken and more antagonistically concerned with avoiding the possibility that broken is subjective. That leaves you enough room to hand wave any argument that comes along, because you can always claim it doesn't meet some unstated characteristic that makes it not broken.The closest I am coming to that is challenging the assumption others are making that their criteria for broken is "fact". I could go through long lists of what's wrong with shapechange, like redraven did, but I can realize it's ultimately futile. Until you actually agree to some definition, it's impossible to prove anything.Except redraven did just fine. He offered (albeit by inference) his definition, and provided plenty of examples that fit his definition. He was NOT worried about whether I have the same problem. He was not concerned with proving that how he views the rule is the ONLY way of viewing the rule. And he did not make any futile attempt at convincing someone else that his opinion is fact. A definition of broken? Here goes. A spell is broken if one of the following is true: -It creates a great power gap between characters of the same level who make use the spell and those who do not. -It allows a character who uses the spell to defeat creatures or overcome challenges far beyond their CR without requiring extraordinary luck. Can you agree to that definition?I would ask that the first criteria be amended as such: It creates a great power gap between two identical characters of the same level when one makes use the spell and the other does not. (Otherwise, all spellcasters are broken. I don't want to go anywhere close to that crowd.) I suspect that your second criteria would place quite a few game mechanics into the "broken" realm. With a little bit of example and examination, I think the second criteria would serve well with numeric boundaries of "far beyond their CR". I can, however, live with both of those criteria for you to use in explaining why you think shapechange is broken. The opinion you offer, based on such criteria, is unassailable. Nor do I have an interest in assailing your opinion.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 10:05 AM	Seriously, this *crap* about how 17+ D&D is supposed to be totally open-ended and unrestricted really bothers me.If I had said "17+ D&D is supposed to be totally open-ended and unrestricted" I might understand why it would bother you. I might also understand why you bring such a thing up. But this is not what I said. The level 17 Cleric or Wizard, on the other hand, just has to lift a finger to make the whole game a colossal joke.This is a characteristic of spellcasting versus nonspellcasting classes at high level play, and is definitely worth exploration. Perhaps 4e will address these concerns better than 3e has. (...And now you've got me flipping around citing shapechange problems again, which I vowed I wouldn't do. Sigh.):D
Zherog 04-17-07, 10:13 AM	I see a great number of people talking about balor mining etc and the barghest. All these things would probably not fly in a normal game. Balor sword mining I agree is one of those theoretical things that probably wouldn't ever come up in an actual game. But - again, in my opinion - the barghest's Feed ability is one of the great reasons to use the spell. Have a BBEG you need to make dead, forever? The only way (core only) to accomplish that is to feed his soul to a barghest. So, you can gate or planar bind one, with all the inherent risks of that; or you can simply turn yourself into one and do the job yourself. However, now you have the job of figuring out the effects of an instantaneous "buff" that comes as a side effect of the Feed ability - it gains hit dice from it. If it were "temporary" hit dice (sort of like a reverse negative level), it would be really easy to say it goes away when you change shape. But it's not temporary - it's instantaneous. You eat, you gain hit dice. How do you handle it? Remember, it's quite likely your player wasn't trying to be cheesy - he just wanted to make sure the BBEG stayed dead forever. There's no clear-cut answer. You might rule that it goes away when the spell ends; I might rule the wizard now has extra outsider hit dice in addition to his wizard levels. This is what goes back to my definition of "broken" posted earlier - there's no answer, even though there should be.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 10:16 AM	I'm totally capable of making decisions on balance. That's why I said shapechange is broken and banned it.That it is your opinion that shapechange is broken is all the justification you need for banning it. It is part of the responsibility of being a DM. If it does not work for your game, you should not allow it. One reason I'm objecting vehemently to Seeker95's statement that it's not broken is, frankly, I don't see how it could not be broken unless your players are deliberately not using the spell to its full potential, or unless you just don't give a crap about players having enormous power, and set up ridiculous Epic-style challenges for them as a result.First, there should be no vehemence in your reply. Second, you set up straw man fallacies in far too many of your replies, using words that were not said in order to paint an absurd argument that nobody would ever choose to defend, thereby giving the false impression that what you have said is both true and relevant. In light of this, let's translate what you have said to more closely match what I have said: I don't see how it could not be broken unless your players do not abuse the spell, or unless you are comfortable with the level of power associated with high-level, pre-epic play. Personally, I think you could see how it could not be broken if the players are not intent on abusing it and/or the DM is comfortable with the power associated with high-level play. But as long as it is me that has no such problem, you will continue to claim that you cannot see it. I'm *really* objecting to Seeker saying that one can deal with shapechange just by being clever or flexible in setting challenges, and if we can't deal with shapechange in its unadulterated form that means we're just not as good at dealing with this stuff as he is.One can deal with shapechange just by being clever or flexible in setting challenges. (Oops, I said it again!) One can deal with just about any aspect of the game just by being clever or flexible in setting challenges. (I think the term "unprepared for dealing with high-level play" came up once.)I do firmly believe that most DMs are unprepared for dealing with high-level play. I believe most DMs treat high-level play the same way they treat low- and mid-level play, and this is ineffective.
ArcTan 04-17-07, 10:20 AM	T I don't see how it could not be broken unless your players do not abuse the spell, or unless you are comfortable with the level of power associated with high-level, pre-epic play. Personally, I think you could see how it could not be broken if the players are not intent on abusing it and/or the DM is comfortable with the power associated with high-level play. But as long as it is me that has no such problem, you will continue to claim that you cannot see it. But it's *not* associated with high-level, pre-Epic play. It's associated with shapechange. And maybe gate and planar binding. If what you're saying is that I'm not comfortable with the level of power associated with shapechange, then yes, that's true. That's what it means for it to be "broken" -- that it has a totally inordinate amount of power compared to anything else at its level. (Yes, including wish and miracle.) One can deal with shapechange just by being clever or flexible in setting challenges. (Oops, I said it again!) One can deal with just about any aspect of the game just by being clever or flexible in setting challenges. Yes and no. One gets tired about hearing how no spell is broken if you mysteriously tumble the heroes into a Dead Magic Zone. Let's say, then, that it's almost impossible to seriously challenge a shapechange-using mage who's using it to the hilt and still seriously challenge an ordinary mage. Never mind trying to challenge the poor Fighter.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 10:22 AM	"Broken" = one of "far more powerful than the general assumptions of D&D say it should be", or "creates a number of ambiguous and counterintuitive situations that make the ruleset inconsistent and unwieldy".Run with this definition if it works for you. And from there, offer your opinion on why shapechange is broken. Do so with confidence. Your opinion will be unassailable because it is based on a clearly stated definition (insofar as it represents the definition you are using) and your experience. If your definition, your game and your experience require banning the spell, do so. If your definition, your game and your experience require houseruling the spell, do so. If your definition, your game and your experience require houseruling certain creatures, do so. Nobody can challenge your opinion when you base it on your definition, your game and your experience. Just don't get all "vehement" in your objections when someone else indicates they do not share your opinion or experience.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 10:25 AM	As far as the "balor vorpal sword mining" goes, I actually agree with this. I think it's consistent with what the rules are, and also makes things less troublesome. However, I can see the other interpretation. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.That you admit you can see and understand the other interpretation has separated you from the vast majority of those who choose to be vocal on this subject. Then again, you have consistently demonstrated an ability to see both sides of a situation, and presenting personal opinions as both personal and opinions. :tiphat:
Seeker95 04-17-07, 10:33 AM	RULES AS WRITTEN, shapechange allows broken things to happen. Most DM's will never allow the interpretations of the rules that allow it, BUT that is ignoring legitimate RAW interpretations.The "rules as written" thus far have allowed for multiple legitimate interpretations. Given more than one legitimate interpretation of a rule, it is common sense to choose the more reasonable balance-favorable one. I am not challenging that the abusing interpretations of many rules are in fact potential and legitimate interpretations. I offer only that the less abusive interpretation is equally supported by the rules. No houserule needed. If you interpret choosing "the more reasonable, balance-favorable" interpretation of RAW as a houserule, that's fine too. I do not consider it to be a houserule. In my opinion (and for my argument), I define houserule as changing or deleting the rules as written. There are, indeed, legitimate other applications of the term, including, but not limited to creating rules for which there are none. An example of the latter is the black pudding argument above. I am not changing the rules as written. We have no rules for how a sentient entity responds to being "split". Since we have no rules, there is no RAW to change.
Zherog 04-17-07, 10:39 AM	I offer only that the less abusive interpretation is equally supported by the rules. Or, in some cases, equally unsupported.
MerlintheTuna 04-17-07, 10:57 AM	Or, in some cases, equally unsupported.Often more so, I'd say. The black pudding example still stands as a monument to completely diverging from RAW, the Balor is apparently illegal on the grounds of "I don't like it," and a few things - like the ridiculous inheritance problems I mentioned on page 3 - remain unaddressed. You've dodged a number of excellent points by hand-waiving with a "You're being mean, so your post doesn't matter." "Choose the more reasonable of two legitimate interpretations" isn't a bad philosophy. The problem here is that you don't seem to have a legitimate interpretation. You've created a number of rulings which refer to absolutely nothing in the rules, occasionally directly contradicting them. Again, Shapechange can do some absolutely stupid things, because it is an absolutely stupid spell. There is a serious divergence between what should be and what actually is. The spell is broken. If you apply ad hoc fixes to it, cool, maybe it can become unbroken, but that doesn't mean it was.
CCS 04-17-07, 11:02 AM	All of these arguments over wether or not this/that/etc is broken? They're all pointless. Why? Because you never get to play this game in a vacum where only the written mechanics apply. No matter what you do, or think you should be allowed to do, it's ALL subject to the rulings of individual DMs. Even when WoTC writes it out in giant official block letters you can't simply assume it's going to stick when you sit down at the table.... So somethings "brokeness" is completely dependant upon your own specific enviroment.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-17-07, 11:22 AM	That's simply wrong CCS - this is not World of Darkness. D&D's mechanics are not desgined with DM/Storyteller Fiat as the only means to balance the mechanics. Shapechange has proveable, factual uses that cause a complete breakdown of the rules for d20 D&D. Seeker has, as usual, failed to disprove any of the facts proving the inviability of Shapechange. Any spell that allows a PC or NPC to grossly violate the core mechanics of the game is mechanically nonviable. This is FACT, not opinion - it has already been proven repeatedly.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 11:35 AM	So somethings "brokeness" is completely dependent upon your own specific environment.I believe this is the most accurate statement offered thus far. However, such agreement on my part is easy insofar as it is not in conflict with the opinion I have offered in this thread. A major difference in the "sides" taken on this thread (as far as I have observed) is that I don't believe anyone has offered the claim that "shapechange is NOT broken" is anything more than an opinion. Of those on the "side" that shapechange *is* broken, most do not object to presenting such a claim as an opinion based on personal experience and criteria. There are, however, a few who insist on presenting their opinion as if it is hard fact. I personally do not understand* why it is so difficult or threatening to acknowledge that an opinion is an opinion. (I do understand how folks can hold differing opinions, and am in no way threatened by folks holding an opinion that differs from my own.)
Seeker95 04-17-07, 11:39 AM	Any spell that allows a PC or NPC to grossly violate the core mechanics of the game is mechanically nonviable. This is FACT, not opinion1. This statement is, in and of itself, inherently an opinion, not fact. 2. The criteria for "grossly violate" is equally subjective. 3. Many of the "core mechanics" raised in this thread are subject to a great deal of subjective interpretation. 4. "Mechanically nonviable" is, again, a very subjective phrase. The only "fact" in what you have shared is that this statement is, indeed, your opinion on the matter. It is an opinion that is easy to agree with. It is an opinion that is relatively easy to support. But it is an opinion.
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-17-07, 11:52 AM	I would ask that the first criteria be amended as such: It creates a great power gap between two identical characters of the same level when one makes use the spell and the other does not. (Otherwise, all spellcasters are broken. I don't want to go anywhere close to that crowd.) OK fine. Well I think Redraven's arguments easily show how shapechange is a must-take spell. I suspect that your second criteria would place quite a few game mechanics into the "broken" realm. With a little bit of example and examination, I think the second criteria would serve well with numeric boundaries of "far beyond their CR". Well, not game mechanics, but game elements yes. Gate for instance is broken. Shivering touch is broken. Wraith strike is broken. Again, redraven's points on shapechange also fit this criteria. I can, however, live with both of those criteria for you to use in explaining why you think shapechange is broken. The opinion you offer, based on such criteria, is unassailable. Nor do I have an interest in assailing your opinion. Well, no if you set criteria, it's no longer an opinion, it becomes a proof. The whole point of proving something is that you're turning general opinion into fact by showing that something meets a given criteria. You don't look at a geometry proof and say "Well that's just your opinion." That makes no sense. Yes, the logic of the proof can be assailed, in fact it's designed that way. The whole point of having discussions at all is that you have some kind of points you can argue in a fashion that people can analyze and decipher. And no, they're not just opinions. Someone walking around claiming the commoner is overpowered isn't stating an opinion, he's just completely wrong and misinformed.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 01:15 PM	Seek, didn't you once argue that anything that hasn't been errataed is inherently balacned by virtue of the designers' will? I'm pretty sure I remember that used several times. If so, how is it possible to prove Shapechange is broken to someone that doesn't believe brokenness exists unless a designer declares it so?
Witch 04-17-07, 01:27 PM	anyway, here is my contention as to why shapechange is broken. In all actuality the spell is written fine and is in no way broken, however, it also relies on the fact that every monster that is in your campaign will not have any exploitable abilities that are broken, and the more source material you allow the greater the odds of something broken being allowed into the game through the "backdoor" of shapechange, from that standpoint it is a broken spell. Monsters can't be broken. They're monsters. They do what their flavor says they can do. Shapechange is what allows every wizard to do that as well. The problem isn't bad monster design, it's that every high level wizard gets to use the same abilities.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 01:30 PM	Monsters can't be broken. Adamantine. Clockwork. Horror.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-17-07, 01:32 PM	Seeker - You asked for proof. It has been provided. Now, the burden is on you. Prove that the Balor Cheat does not work by RAW Prove that the Black Pudding Cheat does not violate the core mechanics of the game. (IE, creating EXACT DUPLICATES of yourself) Prove that the Bargheist Cheat does not violate the core mechanics of the game (Bipassing the level gaining rules) Prove that the Undead Horde Cheat is not viable according to the RAW. You tried, I'll give ye that. BUT, all you used was HOUSERULES.
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 01:33 PM	Mine) The Supernatural ability explicitly states the Balor is carrying the sword, therefore he cannot drop it. One could infer from the treasure results that if the Balor is killed, then the sword is dropped (for of course the supernatural effect is gone). One could also infer that this is a special circumstance of the Balor dying, apparently. So if you go in an anti-magic field, the sword disappears. That's not an interpretation. There's no reason to beleive there's a special circumstance with the balor dying that makes the sword suddenly "more real". If you go into an anti-magic field the balor is no longer carrying a vorpal sword, he's carrying a normal sword. That's not a loopy interpretation of the rules, that a direct reading of them. And it makes sense to boot. Runestar) He proposed that the supernatural ability is to make his sword look like a bolt of lightning. That's a reasonable interpretation of the vaguely written text, and it handles all problems quite readily. It also means you will have to find a means to arm yourself if you decide to turn into a Balor (or just go with the slam attacks). That doesn't work either. The text is not vaguely written, it's perfectly clear. All balors carry a vorpal sword. If you shapechange into a balor you get the supernatural attack ability that you are now carrying a vorpal sword. What happens next when you drop the vorpal sword is entirely determined by the shapechange spell. It does not revert. There's no reason to discuss what happens when an actual balor drops his sword, it's irrelevant. You could have whatever interpretation you like for that circumstance it doesn't affect the shapechanged character one whiff. It requires some interpretation, and one should use the most reasonable and least game-breaking interpretation available. As a DM I fully agree with you. This is not subject to interpretation however, and when you hit that brick wall you need a houserule to fix what is broken .
itwasntme 04-17-07, 01:37 PM	i happin to agree that shapechange isnt broken but sense where only talking about Core Book where the rules havnt changed it and didnt give the option to all other characters on how to do things better is intrusting The only arguement in CoreRules i can give that says why its broken is that you dount have to care what your con mod is sense your hp increase with the creatures your taking on and nether do any of your Phyicol States saves or other things on that So it meant on standerd pointbuy people could just dump all points into 1 or 2 metal stats and run around with a beefy str/dex/con by said spell thats the only thing i can see in pure core going for it on how its brooken but then again this is an option of mind In none core i wouldnt even consider it brooken inless your running around like punpun but then again even punpun can roll a natrual 1 and fail a save or die spell and with complete soudrel you can force him to keep rerolling intill he gets that natrual 1
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-17-07, 01:42 PM	Seek, didn't you once argue that anything that hasn't been errataed is inherently balacned by virtue of the designers' will? I'm pretty sure I remember that used several times. If so, how is it possible to prove Shapechange is broken to someone that doesn't believe brokenness exists unless a designer declares it so? Only the designers actually did denounce the polymorph mechanics (of which shapechange inherits) as being extremely problematic. While they didn't errata them (mostly because the errata would be huge), they did create a totally new set of mechanics in the PHB2 that they use for the new set of polymorphs. That alone pretty much points out the fact that the designers find the current polymorph implementation broken. Article on Polymorph (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a)
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 01:46 PM	here is where I think people are slipping up... it says quite clearly that if you drop the sword it does not disappear, this is so you can pick it up if you are disarmed, however, if you change into a form that does not have a vorpal sword as a SU ability, then the sword would disappear as well, since you no longer have it as an SU, why can people not see that, also anything that the shapechange spell creates will have duration of the shapechange spell. Again no, I have to disagree. The wording is unequivocal. Parts or equipment seperated from the whole do not revert. There's no other way to understand this than by saying that once something is seperated from you it does not change in any way thereafter. If you shapechange into a snake you can poison someone and they are not suddenly cured when you change shape again or the spell duration lapses. There's no indication whatsoever that that is the case in the rules. You're making it up that when you no longer have a SU ability that the effects of that ability don't continue to persist. The rules specifically contradict you, as long as it's a peice of equipment or a part of your body it does persist.
itwasntme 04-17-07, 01:50 PM	well hears an arguement if you split yourself with puddies and then reform all your parts are where they are ... meaning if you where split in 4 parts your in 4 parts now i think your body cant live with a head though that can be argued on and thus is an arguement that its up to the DM to follow said rule or not and note it says you only gain the supernatrual abilitys Starting with said Vorpol Sword is not a supernatrual ability its just something that happins Hell all characters start the game with cloathing ... it dosnt mean they start it at birth and its a supernatrual ability Besides its not under Supernatrual ability "I Can never lose my Vorpol Sword" or some other form like that All Gear on you and on the creature count as Mulfunctionol kinda like a Druid WildShapeing they still have it but it counts as if its not working not only that but it melds into you droping said Vorpol Sword means you lost it its no long apart of the creature you only get things that are apart or oridonoly apart of the creature However this can be largly arguementive by the DM Sense where talking about Core Only the good thing is said druid has HP or Wizard has HP of a Monster! but hell you have to have level 9 spells by then your level 18 (About) Considering most people are able to deal with CR 18 creatures at that level the main benefit is that your said CR 18 (Or w/e) Creature with said extra Spell casting ablitys besides you did say no Epic level things right? So no epic level monsters for you to turn into or other things like that so turn into something i can see perhaps a differnt Version of Mr.T? Its largely up to the DM and in my mind that alone states its not broken hell a DM can say "You have Vorpol Sword you hit it cuts off head and kill creature" Thats not how vorpol swords work but hell the DM said that now eveyone going to have vorpol swords Dosnt mean your going to have it in said next game you play with a differnt DM opps the rules just changes what ever am i going to do ... well apartitly said rule wasnt broken becouse its just a normol Vorpol sword now that was just an example but i beleve you can get the hint right?
itwasntme 04-17-07, 01:54 PM	Again no, I have to disagree. The wording is unequivocal. Parts or equipment seperated from the whole do not revert. There's no other way to understand this than by saying that once something is seperated from you it does not change in any way thereafter. If you shapechange into a snake you can poison someone and they are not suddenly cured when you change shape again or the spell duration lapses. There's no indication whatsoever that that is the case in the rules. You're making it up that when you no longer have a SU ability that the effects of that ability don't continue to persist. The rules specifically contradict you, as long as it's a peice of equipment or a part of your body it does persist. the arguement is just becouse my bow is broken dosnt mean i still damage you with it No your character loses its tail DM Says what part of your body that was sense it was lower half im guessing maybe a leg i dount want to be said Snake with Sunder attacks hell yes you can sunder a Creature read on the Hydra you can sunder its heads and other body parts though largly thats up to the DM on saying what the DC or anything eles is Then again said dm could say no you cant sunder said body in half After all sundering a head off is useoly a Vorpol trait but it just ignores normol Sunder Attempts so if your said snake why cant i sunder your head off with a Well aimed adimintine Sword or other thing like that?
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 01:57 PM	The balor mining trick is ********. It is not permitted by the rules, unles you take an extremely literalist reading. The same kind of reading that supports the claim that while you are incapacitated while dying, once you are dead, you may play on. Given a reasonable reading of the text and an idiotic one, I choose the reasonable one. Balor vorpal sword mining is not possible. Again Seeker, it has nothing to do with the balor specifically. Can you extract poison from shapechanging into a wyvern? The rules say you get that ability and that the poison does not revert once seperated from you. Wyvern poison cost 3000 GP a dose. The balor example is simply the most ridiculous application of that one sentance in the shapechange text. How many reasonable DMs will not allow you to bottle poison? It's still a spell that gives you wealth for free. Now admit that the spell is broken once and for all. You are free to consider it broken in that one sentance aspect alone - and that's my point - there's no possible interpretation of that sentance that doesn't make it broken. You're free to argue that all the other SU abilities are merely "really powerful", while I'm perfectly free to say I think granting SU abilities is ludicrous. But neither of us is free to disregard the inherent and unequivocal meaning of the following sentance: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. It's over man, I've won this round. There will be other rounds, your chance will come again. We'll joust again with the 4th edition version perhaps.
itwasntme 04-17-07, 01:58 PM	OK fine. Well I think Redraven's arguments easily show how shapechange is a must-take spell. Well, not game mechanics, but game elements yes. Gate for instance is broken. Shivering touch is broken. Wraith strike is broken. Again, redraven's points on shapechange also fit this criteria. Well, no if you set criteria, it's no longer an opinion, it becomes a proof. The whole point of proving something is that you're turning general opinion into fact by showing that something meets a given criteria. You don't look at a geometry proof and say "Well that's just your opinion." That makes no sense. Yes, the logic of the proof can be assailed, in fact it's designed that way. The whole point of having discussions at all is that you have some kind of points you can argue in a fashion that people can analyze and decipher. And no, they're not just opinions. Someone walking around claiming the commoner is overpowered isn't stating an opinion, he's just completely wrong and misinformed. how is gate broken? Said monster if evil has a good chance of attacking you even if you have pro evil ... monster has dispell magic monster hates you he dispells your proevil in one of many differnt ways he attacks ... hell why cant the monster just turn on the creature/summoner?
itwasntme 04-17-07, 02:01 PM	Again Seeker, it has nothing to do with the balor specifically. Can you extract poison from shapechanging into a wyvern? The rules say you get that ability and that the poison does not revert once seperated from you. Wyvern poison cost 3000 GP a dose. The balor example is simply the most ridiculous application of that one sentance in the shapechange text. How many reasonable DMs will not allow you to bottle poison? It's still a spell that gives you wealth for free. Now admit that the spell is broken once and for all. You are free to consider it broken in that one sentance aspect alone - and that's my point - there's no possible interpretation of that sentance that doesn't make it broken. Wizards specificly said that you cant use the posin or anything eles that is Taken from the shape you where in ... due to a list of reasons why so considering wizard said no you cant do what you said you can i think ok so in your games i can but in normol games i cant well that means its only broken in your said games then
itwasntme 04-17-07, 02:04 PM	i have to say that just becouse you read the first line dosnt mean thats how the spell works Read the whole bloody thing half the time you think a spell can only do said few things by reading the first line or paragraph however if you continue reading you find out other things can happin! allso just becouse the first line says something dosnt mean its going to work fully like that
Nephlite 04-17-07, 02:04 PM	how is gate broken? Said monster if evil has a good chance of attacking you even if you have pro evil ... monster has dispell magic monster hates you he dispells your proevil in one of many differnt ways he attacks ... hell why cant the monster just turn on the creature/summoner? You haven't read Gate in 3.5 I take it? THe creature can't do anyhing but follow your orders for 1rd/level (like immediate combat). If you want something for a longer time you have to bargain and don't have full control over the creature. If you are talking abiout D&D video games like Buldars Gate: yes, Gate did not grant control over the creature, but this is D&D the paper edition, you gain control.
itwasntme 04-17-07, 02:06 PM	Again Seeker, it has nothing to do with the balor specifically. Can you extract poison from shapechanging into a wyvern? The rules say you get that ability and that the poison does not revert once seperated from you. Wyvern poison cost 3000 GP a dose. The balor example is simply the most ridiculous application of that one sentance in the shapechange text. How many reasonable DMs will not allow you to bottle poison? It's still a spell that gives you wealth for free. Now admit that the spell is broken once and for all. You are free to consider it broken in that one sentance aspect alone - and that's my point - there's no possible interpretation of that sentance that doesn't make it broken. You're free to argue that all the other SU abilities are merely "really powerful", while I'm perfectly free to say I think granting SU abilities is ludicrous. But neither of us is free to disregard the inherent and unequivocal meaning of the following sentance: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. It's over man, I've won this round. There will be other rounds, your chance will come again. We'll joust again with the 4th edition version perhaps. i dount think he lost considering wizard has answerd other people questions that no you cant do that and yes things count as part of you that pudding is said arm or something eles considering wizard stated this ... i have to go with there word over your own no offince but hey its wizard and i have to go with or that other guy ... oh not wizard the other person you can ask questions to Besides your being extremely rude on a person who is just asking and makeing a point no need to be rude and start yelling or tempting people on "Sorry you lost Game over" In a way i think that was a trolling experience ... i think maybe i dount know persisly i just would like to ask calim down chill relax no need to start argueing or something eles like that just answer the questions and dount start saying names or other things that fall in the line of trolling please stop it i dount want to see it again or i will see if it was trolling or not
itwasntme 04-17-07, 02:11 PM	You haven't read Gate in 3.5 I take it? THe creature can't do anyhing but follow your orders for 1rd/level (like immediate combat). If you want something for a longer time you have to bargain and don't have full control over the creature. If you are talking abiout D&D video games like Buldars Gate: yes, Gate did not grant control over the creature, but this is D&D the paper edition, you gain control. my bad i was reading a differnt Version book there when reading about gate :D
MerlintheTuna 04-17-07, 02:19 PM	Only the designers actually did denounce the polymorph mechanics (of which shapechange inherits) as being extremely problematic. While they didn't errata them (mostly because the errata would be huge), they did create a totally new set of mechanics in the PHB2 that they use for the new set of polymorphs. That alone pretty much points out the fact that the designers find the current polymorph implementation broken. Article on Polymorph (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a)Not only broken, but clunky and annoying in general, (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a) actually.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 02:23 PM	Seek, didn't you once argue that anything that hasn't been errataed is inherently balanced by virtue of the designers' will? I'm pretty sure I remember that used several times.Provide a quote (and a link to the source) and the rest of your post becomes relevant.
Scion of Coldshard 04-17-07, 02:25 PM	Your posts are incredibly difficult to read itwasntme. Is it possible that you could improve them a little? I am trying to follow your points but it is nearly impossible. But it looks like you are mistaken on a lot of rules that have already been brought up correctly in this thread. Gate allows you to call a creature and command it for a short period of time, the balor has a supernatural ability that actually does give him a sword, and who knows what else. Where is this rule that you mention that states you cannot use the poison you get from a creature you have shapechanged into? I would like to see that one.
Seeker95 04-17-07, 02:30 PM	Seeker - You asked for proof. It has been provided. Now, the burden is on you.Not at all. I have no burden whatsoever, because I am not attempting to convince anyone else that they do not have a problem with shapechange. *I* have no problem with shapechange. And I have already acknowledged that redraven has provided a perfectly good explanation for why he thinks shapechange is broken.Prove that the Balor Cheat does not work by RAWThis has been shown numerous times in this very thread. There are (at least) two equally legitimate interpretations of the balor ability. One allows abuse that causes problems. Another does not. I use the legitimate interpretation that does not cause the problems. By RAW. Prove that the Black Pudding Cheat does not violate the core mechanics of the game. (IE, creating EXACT DUPLICATES of yourself)I do not need to. I have offered my explanation of how I handle this. Prove by the RAW that my solution is against the rules. Prove that the Bargheist Cheat does not violate the core mechanics of the game (Bipassing the level gaining rules)I do not need to. I have offered my explanation of how I handle this. Prove by the RAW that my solution is against the rules. Prove that the Undead Horde Cheat is not viable according to the RAW.I do not need to. I have offered my statement on this. You tried, I'll give ye that. BUT, all you used was HOUSERULES.How are you defining "houserule"?
itwasntme 04-17-07, 02:31 PM	perhaps im not even from america or some other english place though in a way if i realy wanted to be a basterd i guess i could say that was trolling but no it wasnt realy i prever to go by the rules and not be a dick about it or complain about anything you can figure out the differnce between someone useing i over I yes? or is that going to be the new big arguement? besides on my side the spellchecker dosnt work and/or gives me 20 differnt things that can fit and considering i dount know sense i misspelled it i dount realy know which to put on so i just kinda guess
Seeker95 04-17-07, 02:35 PM	Again no, I have to disagree. The wording is unequivocal.The *wording* is unequivocal. The meaning, on the other hand, is completely subject to interpretation. That more than one person has comfortably disagreed with your interpretation of the wording (i.e., with your opinion) is a fairly good indication that the meaning of the wording is decidedly NOT unequivocal. Your opinion is what it is. There is disagreement with your opinion.
Zherog 04-17-07, 02:39 PM	Wizards specificly said that you cant use the posin or anything eles that is Taken from the shape you where in ... due to a list of reasons why Source and quote, please?
Seeker95 04-17-07, 02:40 PM	But neither of us is free to disregard the inherent and unequivocal meaning of the following sentance: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms.When separated from you? True. So as long as you maintain that form, those parts stay where and what they are. Change back, and *all* of you changes back. :P It's over man, I've won this round.I suspect that the opinions others hold of your arguments suggest otherwise. However, I have no "win or lose" objective in this discussion. You are free to hold your own opinion on this matter just as much as you are free to hold your own opinion that shapechange is broken, and even that balor swords can be mined. Opinions are all fine and dandy. Even yours.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-17-07, 02:46 PM	Change back, and *all* of you changes back. :P Quote the RAW that supports this - You can't Seeker. This is 100% a houserule, especially where Shapechange is considered.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 02:55 PM	Provide a quote (and a link to the source) and the rest of your post becomes relevant. I am specifically asking you -- you who would be the source. Just say yes or no.
Scion of Coldshard 04-17-07, 02:56 PM	I wonder what it woudl take for Seeker95 to see something as being broken. Perhaps a 0th level spell with infinite range that can instantly slay any creature you like with no saving throw or spell resistance plus the inability for any ability to bring them back to life? Is that broken or is that just fine?
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 03:01 PM	I wonder what it woudl take for Seeker95 to see something as being broken. Perhaps a 0th level spell with infinite range that can instantly slay any creature you like with no saving throw or spell resistance plus the inability for any ability to bring them back to life? Is that broken or is that just fine? It's just your *opinion* that that's broken ;)
Scion of Coldshard 04-17-07, 03:05 PM	It's just your *opinion* that that's broken ;) It is just your guess that my opinion is that the spell in question is broken. Do you have an opinion about my statement? And what is your opinion about my supposed opinion about the spell? ;) This is all pretty ridiculous! in my opinion
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-17-07, 03:20 PM	This is all pretty ridiculous! in my opinion Yeah you're telling me. Starting a thread with the title "prove to me that shapechange is broken" and then hand-waving everything as: "It's just an opinion".
Scion of Coldshard 04-17-07, 03:24 PM	Yeah you're telling me. Starting a thread with the title "prove to me that shapechange is broken" and then hand-waving everything as: "It's just an opinion". To be fair, saying that it is an opinion is a viable option.. right up until the term was defined in a decent way. Which it was. After that it was no longer a viable option. First you have to fight the proposed definition, possibly by presenting one of your own. But even then saying it is just an opinion is still not viable, there is still a definition which can be tested against ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 04:00 PM	This reminds me of the recent DMPC wars: "Despite you having given a reasonable definition, the fact that the term is fan-created means I can redefine it as I see fit to support my argument"
Witch 04-17-07, 04:02 PM	Adamantine. Clockwork. Horror. Badly designed. Perhaps mis-CRd. Not broken.
Molimo 04-17-07, 04:13 PM	I do not need to. I have offered my explanation of how I handle this. Prove by the RAW that my solution is against the rules. Your solution to the Black Pudding problem was: Keeping the consciousness of the caster in only one of the puddings. Puddings are mindless. If the caster has a mind, it is in one pudding. Any splits into more than one pudding leaves the consciousness of the cast in only one. This is but one of any number of solutions, none of which contradict the rules, although some of which may require adjudicating where the rules are silent. All of these fall within the role of being a DM. Since none of the D&D core books say anything about the "consciousness" of a caster, much less how to decide where it ends up when the caster splits into two identical forms, you're basically making things up at this point.
VulcanStormwrath 04-17-07, 04:29 PM	Just using 2 creature from MM2, Shapechange to a Terratomorph (does horribly things to people simply by existing), when almost dead, shapechange to a Pheonix, use immolate. Back to terratomorph next round and start the nightmare fresh.
lint trap 04-17-07, 04:47 PM	I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this Shapechange thing; I rarely use 9th level spells in my games. But everyone's asking for some sort of "official" stance, so here one is (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebmoh/20060210a). And here's an exerpt: Power Level: Due in no small part to the unbounded nature of the spells, most of the polymorph spells are not in line with the capabilities of other spells of similar levels. Particularly in the hands of experienced players, these spells provide options that are well beyond the acceptable power of spells of equal levels. Put simply, these spells are just “too good for their levels.” Of course this rule doesn't "officially" apply to games outside Mark of Heroes. Why Only Mark of Heroes? While we believe that these game elements are problematic in any environment, other RPGA formats don’t allow for characters to reengineer their abilities. Removing these game elements from existing characters who have no avenue for replacing them with similar options unfairly penalizes players who use them. Thus, limiting the restriction only to the Mark of Heroes campaign, which allows character rebuilding between sessions, was the best available option. Still, there's the closest thing to an official ruling on a "broken" mechanic I've found. Again, I'm not sure where I stand, but I thought it was relevant. (If this has already been linked to, my apologies. I usually read the whole thread before posting, and this is an exception.)
Seeker95 04-17-07, 04:59 PM	Perhaps a 0th level spell with infinite range that can instantly slay any creature you like with no saving throw or spell resistance plus the inability for any ability to bring them back to life? Is that broken or is that just fine?Broken. :P
Seeker95 04-17-07, 05:00 PM	I am specifically asking you -- you who would be the source. Just say yes or no.The wording does not sound like how I would phrase something. Without context and a quote, the answer has to be "I don't know".
Seeker95 04-17-07, 05:06 PM	Since none of the D&D core books say anything about the "consciousness" of a caster, much less how to decide where it ends up when the caster splits into two identical forms, you're basically making things up at this point.You are right. I am making things up on this one. The rules do not cover it, there is no RAW to contradict. A DM is required to adjudicate in the absence of guidance from the rules. The black pudding was used as an example of how shapechange is broken. But the example itself assumes outcomes that are not supported by the rules simply because there are no rules for it. With no rules governing sentient creatures splitting, it cannot serve as an example of "broken by the rules".
Seeker95 04-17-07, 05:31 PM	here one is (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebmoh/20060210a). Of course this rule doesn't "officially" apply to games outside Mark of Heroes. Again, I'm not sure where I stand, but I thought it was relevant.It is very relevant. I have never denied that this spell is a problem for lots of people. What is said in that article and in the excerpt you shared is quite true. Shapechange has caused problems for DMs. It is banned in RPGA-sanctioned events. I have merely claimed that shapechange does not cause me problems. I have also acknowledged that redraven provided a perfectly legitimate presentation of why he considers shapechange broken. His reasons are sound. His explanation is well-constructed. But others on this thread cannot understand that I do not have a problem with shapechange, as written, even in the face of the examples they have provided. I disagree with DungeonMaster's interpretation of the Balor. I disagree that the concern with the black pudding is a rules-supported example at all. And I have never found the choker to be difficult or game-breaking. The brokenness of shapechange depends on your experience, your players, your DM, your interpretation of vague, ambiguous, or poorly written rules. None of these have manifested in my game the way they have in others' games, mostly because I do NOT read the balor entry the way Dungeonmaster does, and I do not read the black pudding the way NobodyRemembersThis does.
Scion of Coldshard 04-17-07, 06:36 PM	You never answered my question about the solar earlier.
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 06:37 PM	The *wording* is unequivocal. The meaning, on the other hand, is completely subject to interpretation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequivocal unequivocal: not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof. That more than one person has comfortably disagreed with your interpretation of the wording (i.e., with your opinion) is a fairly good indication that the meaning of the wording is decidedly NOT unequivocal. There is no interpretation possible to the sentance. It has only one meaning. No one has disagreed. If disagreement does occur then it's intellectually dishonest.
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 06:45 PM	When separated from you? True. So as long as you maintain that form, those parts stay where and what they are. Houserule. You're in DIRECT contradiction with the sentance. What quote or basis do you have for this? NOTHING You're merely saying it's "so". That is not an interpretation. You're adding words where there are none, meaning when the meaning is already perfectly clear. You are free to hold your own opinion on this matter just as much as you are free to hold your own opinion that shapechange is broken, and even that balor swords can be mined. You're flying in the face of facts presented to you without providing any basis. Opinions that explicitely ingnore facts are intellectually dishonest opinions. Opinions are all fine and dandy. No, not all opinions are fine and dandy. It is utter ignorance to claim all opinions are equal. Racial predjudice is an opinion, and it's not on par with tolerance.
Etharion 04-17-07, 06:48 PM	To quote the Shapechange rules in the spell's description, to which i was given a link on page 1, it says this "You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities." Now in the PHB 3. edition it says this "Your new form works like a polymorph other form. You still do not gain the supernatural or spell-like abilities of your new form, though you do gain its extraordinary abilities while keeping your own." So i dont get it!!!! Let me put things even simpler... 3. edition: Shapechange DOES NOT let you gain the new form's spell like abilities, but at the same time it does not limit the HD of the creature you wish to shapechange into.. (this spell enables you to assume the form of any single creature of less than deity status(including unique dragon types, or the like)..) 3.5 edition: Shapechange DOES let you gain the new form's spell like abilities, but limits the HD of the creature you wish to shapechange into (The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD).. So..it apears to me that with the 3.5 edition they fixed one problem in the Shapechange spell, and added another!!! Can someone please explain this to me, cause i dont get it the slightest bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??? :confused: :eek: :weep:
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 06:50 PM	Hand count, how many of you out there beleive these two sentances have the exact same meaning : Sentance 1: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. Sentance 2: So as long as you maintain that form, parts of your body or peices of equipement that are seperated from you stay where and what they are. My faith in the quality of posters on these message boards is being tested here.
Etharion 04-17-07, 06:59 PM	Well it is MY "OPINION" indeed that the two sentances do not even remotely have the exact same meaning... But can ya pleeease take a look at my last post..just a mouse scroll upwards... :D
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 07:10 PM	Your puny facts have no effect on my opinion.
Zherog 04-17-07, 07:13 PM	So..it apears to me that with the 3.5 edition they fixed one problem in the Shapechange spell, and added another!!! Can someone please explain this to me, cause i dont get it the slightest bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??? :confused: :eek: :weep: Yeah, I mentioned this earlier. It was specifically changed in 3.5 because one of the designers - Ed Stark, to be specific - thought his druid needed more power. Honest to goodness, straight from the horse's mouth at GenCon.
1stCainite 04-17-07, 07:20 PM	To quote the Shapechange rules in the spell's description, to which i was given a link on page 1, it says this "You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities." Now in the PHB 3. edition it says this [snip] So i dont get it!!!! Let me put things even simpler... 3.5 edition: Shapechange DOES let you gain the new form's spell like abilities, but limits the HD of the creature you wish to shapechange into (The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD).. [snip] Please note that spell like abilities and supernatural abilities are not the same thing.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-17-07, 07:25 PM	He just misquoted. You do, in fact get SU abilities now.
starfire311 04-17-07, 07:28 PM	Again no, I have to disagree. The wording is unequivocal. Parts or equipment seperated from the whole do not revert. There's no other way to understand this than by saying that once something is seperated from you it does not change in any way thereafter. If you shapechange into a snake you can poison someone and they are not suddenly cured when you change shape again or the spell duration lapses. There's no indication whatsoever that that is the case in the rules. You're making it up that when you no longer have a SU ability that the effects of that ability don't continue to persist. The rules specifically contradict you, as long as it's a peice of equipment or a part of your body it does persist. Show me where, in the shapechange spell, that says you continue to posess the supernatural abilties of a creature that you changed into, after the spell expires, or you change forms. Once you change forms you lose all (SU) abilties, this conveniently includes the that gave you the sword as an (SU). Once you lose the Supernatural abilities that granted you the sword, then the sword is gone as well. You can't claim that you get the sword because it is a (SU) and you don't lose the sword when the (SU) goes away, because it is equipment.
Drachasor 04-17-07, 07:31 PM	That doesn't work either. The text is not vaguely written, it's perfectly clear. All balors carry a vorpal sword. If you shapechange into a balor you get the supernatural attack ability that you are now carrying a vorpal sword. What happens next when you drop the vorpal sword is entirely determined by the shapechange spell. It does not revert. There's no reason to discuss what happens when an actual balor drops his sword, it's irrelevant. You could have whatever interpretation you like for that circumstance it doesn't affect the shapechanged character one whiff. Please explain to me how you can drop the sword if the supernatural ability states you are ALWAYS carrying it. -Drachasor
starfire311 04-17-07, 07:33 PM	Sentance 1: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. Sentance 2: So as long as you maintain that form, parts of your body or peices of equipement that are seperated from you stay where and what they are. the second sentence is implied by the 1st, because the 1st sentence is part of the effect of shapechange.
Drachasor 04-17-07, 07:39 PM	Since none of the D&D core books say anything about the "consciousness" of a caster, much less how to decide where it ends up when the caster splits into two identical forms, you're basically making things up at this point. The DM is THERE to give rulings on scenerios like this. There are hundreds of things that can pop up that the rules are vague or silent on. The DM's job is to handle those problems and provide a ruling. I think Seeker would agree that Shapechange is extremely problematic as written. By "problematic" I mean the spell causes problems for many groups and DMs. In particular, it is problematic because its interaction with various forms and how they work is insufficiently spelled out, and too many monsters (especially in later books) have poorly designed abilities. I don't believe Seeker means to be saying the "broken" is always arbitrary and merely an opinion. Rather, in this case he is saying the "brokenness" of Shapechange depends entirely of the group and DM the spell is used in, even if they confine themselves to the Core Rules. He has numerous reasons why this is, and I think they are generally spelled out. Obviously he seems to believe that some things would be clearly broken if added to the Core Rules. Such as, I imagine, a level 1 no-save-just-die spell. So I think we all need to remember that Seeker's comments are very Shapechange specific in this thread. -Drachasor
Drachasor 04-17-07, 07:50 PM	Hand count, how many of you out there beleive these two sentances have the exact same meaning : Sentance 1: Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. Sentance 2: So as long as you maintain that form, parts of your body or peices of equipement that are seperated from you stay where and what they are. My faith in the quality of posters on these message boards is being tested here. Technically speaking, the 2nd sentence implies the 1st. So sentence 1 is clearly consistent with sentence 2. However, sentence 1 doesn't imply sentence 2. In short, since 2->1, we can have 1 be true AND 2 be true. It could also be the case that they are not both true. So Seeker's stance doesn't violate RAW. I admit that I wouldn't at first take that stance*, but if confronted with the more liberal interpretation being broken, then I'd take a more hard-nosed approach. That's part of being the DM. One could also say the Poison of a Wyvern is not technically part of its body, nor equipment proper. Anymore than my saliva is part of my body or my equipment. Though that doesn't really solve the problem (just creates confusion, though it is still a "proper" interpretation). Seeker's position solves exploits and isn't against RAW, so it works fine. He narrowly avoids having to make a house rule by just clarifying things as written. Granted, Seeker's position may not be in the spirit of what is written, but it is within the letter. Of course, creating a gaping exploit isn't in the spirit of what is written either. -Drachasor *As a DM I tend to allow my players a lot of leeway about how things work, so long as it isn't broken.
Drachasor 04-17-07, 07:55 PM	You never answered my question about the solar earlier. Are his spells an extraordinary or supernatural quality or attack? No, they are a "special attack," but they aren't listed as either extraordinary or supernatural. You don't get them. -Drachasor
redraven 04-17-07, 08:34 PM	Hey guys, I was wondering if you could tell me if a spell I just created is balanced or not. Here it is: Arcane Spell Battery Transmutation Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) For the duration of the spell, you can use the following spells as Supernatural abilities at will: Greater Teleport, Disintegrate, Telekinesis, Inflict Moderate Wounds, Blink, Dimension Door, Ethereal Jaunt (as a move/free action), True Seeing, Plane Shift, Freedom of Movement, Enervation, Improved Invisibility, Astral Projection, Etherealness, Animate Objects, Charm Monster, Charm Person, Fear, Finger of Death, Flesh to Stone, Sleep (no HP cap), and Slow. Additionally, you can heal your full normal HP as a standard action. This Supernatural ability otherwise works like a Paladin's Lay on Hands. ------- I dunno, I think it is on par with Wish, considering that Wish can grant you bonuses to your ability scores. It kinda makes Astral Projection and Etherealness worthless, but I do not think anyone actually learns those spells anyway.
Etharion 04-17-07, 08:43 PM	Redraven does have a point... Shapechange does come down to that in the end...if you use these 3.5 edition rules...
Seeker95 04-17-07, 09:15 PM	With a few specific posters throwing more insults that contribution, I'm outta this thread. I would like to thank redraven for providing the best explanation for why he believes shapechange is broken. ArcTan also (buried somewhere in his attacks) provided a perfectly valid opinion for why he thinks shapechange is broken. So, a :tiphat: to redraven. And a thank you to the majority who posted, regardless of your opinion.
Novabomb 04-17-07, 09:23 PM	Seeker, I have read the entire thread and I am disappointed. You have asked for repliers to carry the burden of definition for "broken", and subsequently brush off their arguments supporting the definition because "under their definition their point is unassailable". Effectively you are stating that challengers must provide their own definition of "broken", but at the same time stating that their definitions are "opinions". I think the point you have been trying to make is that broken is used is multiple different ways on these boards, and that the version of the term that deals with powerlevel is subjective, and that brokeness is not universally defined. You should not have left the burden of definition on other posters as it makes your message unclear. Thy heart is in the right place but you should have not let the thread degenerate, as it could have been explained in the first post. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personal Definition of broken is something defined in the rules that causes one of the following: 1)A conflict within the rules 2)Multiple Conflicting interpretations This is a Mechanical version, if one uses this as definition Shapechange can be proven to be broken (see other segments of the thread) Another version of of brokeness means disproportionately powerful. This is obviously can only be subjectively applied as the concept of unfair distribution of power is subjective. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is shapechange more powerful than other spells at its level? I believe this has been conclusively proven that it is; as a<a+b such that b is positive.
Drachasor 04-17-07, 09:25 PM	Hey guys, I was wondering if you could tell me if a spell I just created is balanced or not. Here it is: Arcane Spell Battery Transmutation Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) For the duration of the spell, you can use the following spells as Supernatural abilities at will: Greater Teleport, Disintegrate, Telekinesis, Inflict Moderate Wounds, Blink, Dimension Door, Ethereal Jaunt (as a move/free action), True Seeing, Plane Shift, Freedom of Movement, Enervation, Improved Invisibility, Astral Projection, Etherealness, Animate Objects, Charm Monster, Charm Person, Fear, Finger of Death, Flesh to Stone, Sleep (no HP cap), and Slow. Additionally, you can heal your full normal HP as a standard action. This Supernatural ability otherwise works like a Paladin's Lay on Hands. You certainly have a good point here, but most of those spells are so low in level that they are not a big deal at 17+. (And others aren't that big a deal if you end their effects if you change form...which I do not believe is contrary to the RAW). I am curious though, where'd you get the full hitpoint ability? I assume it is based on a monster. (BTW, I've never participated in a high-level game. I've heard some say that damage becomes less meaningful and save-or-die's are more prominent. If that's true for players too then it might be that healing hit points isn't too big a deal -- though I doubt this is the case and it would be a problem with the game if it was). -Drachasor
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 09:38 PM	Technically speaking, the 2nd sentence implies the 1st. So sentence 1 is clearly consistent with sentence 2. However, sentence 1 doesn't imply sentence 2. Good man. One could also say the Poison of a Wyvern is not technically part of its body, nor equipment proper. Anymore than my saliva is part of my body or my equipment. Pardon? How in hell is your saliva not part of your body? This is lunacy. You can be brought to court on a DNA test with your saliva as proof in the real world. Do you know of a D&D rule that says wyvern poison isn't from a wyvern's body? Why do we call it wyvern poison? Come on Drachasor, you're clearly more reasonable than that. Seeker's position solves exploits and isn't against RAW, so it works fine. He narrowly avoids having to make a house rule by just clarifying things as written. Seeker's position is against the RAW. 1 does not equate with 2. It's a houserule. In accepting the above like any other normal, reasonable person would you had to accept that he added words that are not included at all in the spell description. You might find it a reasonable houserule - which I agree with you it is - but the spell as written does not include those clauses at all.
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 09:50 PM	You can't claim that you get the sword because it is a (SU) and you don't lose the sword when the (SU) goes away, because it is equipment. Sure I can. It's right there in the spell description. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms. Clearly the sword came from nothing. You want it to revert to nothing. The spell says it doesn't if it's seperated from me. So I drop the sword. The balor can clearly drop his sword too - it winds up in his treasure when he's long since dead. QED. I can do the same thing with wyvern poison. Or unicorn horns. So far we're 4 - 0 for people who don't beleive that Seeker's sentance is identically equivalent to the spell description. I am quite happy to see that the majority people on this board are indeed intelligent and can indeed read and comprehend the english language when it is unambigous. There might be reticence to accepting the realities implied but that's secondary.
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 10:02 PM	You certainly have a good point here, but most of those spells are so low in level that they are not a big deal at 17+. (And others aren't that big a deal if you end their effects if you change form...which I do not believe is contrary to the RAW). As an aside, from someone who has run a fair amount of mid-high level games: There's something that might be misleading in that those abilities are in many ways much better than spells. As supernatural abilities they are not subject to spell resistance - so your enervation ray is no-save, no SR for instance. They are also not subject to being disrupted by attacks, spells or anything else that would cancel normal spellcasting. Furthermore your familiar gets to use them as well because of share-spells and so an enervation ray is really effectively an energy drain which is much better because it has no SR check.
NobodyRemembersThis 04-17-07, 10:06 PM	It's over DungeonMaster - Seeker has dropped the arguemnt (by defaulting and abandoning his position on the subject) but tried to cover it by "poster hostility". He has still not proven that, by RAW, the Black Pudding Cheat doesn't work. He has explained his houserule stance that explains it, but has now proof in the RAW to back up his statements. He has not proven by RAW that the Undead Horde Cheat doesn't work. Again, his only defense is a houserule that, while logical, is no supported by the RAW. Furthermore, he has admitted that Redraven is correct. On more than one occasion. So Seeker95, I am calling you out. You have admitted that RedRaven's proofs are valid. Consequently, RedRaven has PROVEN that Shapechange is mechanically non-viable. Do you dare continue to make the claim that Shapechange is a mechanically viable spell?
DungeonMaster 04-17-07, 10:11 PM	And a thank you to the majority who posted, regardless of your opinion. It's always a pleasure to share facts with you Seeker. You may certainly keep your "belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" even though it has no basis in fact. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
WizO_Cat 04-17-07, 10:16 PM	Ok, this whole thread is based on the concept of Baiting, so it's going to be closed right now. This is a fair warning to all: keep the posts on the subject matter of Dungeons and Dragons on these boards, not other guests posting patterns. Doing the latter is considered baiting, and it includes "calling people out." There isn't going to be a fair warning next time - it will start with disciplinary actions. Keep this in mind before your post.