D&D 3E/3.5 definitive 3.5E polymorph?

[Dingleberry]

General question: where are the definitive descriptions for the polymorph spells in 3.5E?

Specific question: can my wizard share polymorph with her familiar so as to turn them both into the same creature (e.g., minotaurs) with a single casting, provided the familiar never moves more than 5 ft. away from the wizard? What about different creatures (e.g., a minotaur and a troll)?

 

[FEADIN]

May be there under Polymorph....

Rules of the Game Archive

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, Share Spells allows you to get the Familiar and you polymorphed in one casting. As for different creatures, that's more a DM call. Would your DM allow a shared Resist Energy to give each of you different resistance types (fire and acid, say)? The answer to that would answer your question. If you do need the same form, the familiar's size and type could affect the polymorph forms mutually available to each of you.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes the familiar gets the benefit of shared spells when the wizard casts it on himself.

No they both must be the same. Polymorph affects a single target but you can not change forms at will, unlike shapechange. So the form is chosen when the spell is cast.

Shared spell "he may have any spell (but not spell like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar."

Rules Compendium pg 122 has the definitive description of the polymorph subschool (from the errata)

 

[Jhaelen]

General question: where are the definitive descriptions for the polymorph spells in 3.5E?

The more interesting question would be:
Does your DM still allow the polymorph spell?

The main thing the errata did, was remove every reference to the polymorph spell to make it easy for a DM to ban it. It's the recommended approach to forget it ever existed and just use the spells from the new polymorph school.

The description itself was changed to be identical to the updated alternate form description in the MMs.

 

[Amazing Mumford]

Why would a DM not allow the Polymorph spell? As it is now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Confusing cross-referencing has been fixed, and monsters now reference Alternate Form instead.


Now, the designers did edit every monster by saying: Every monster that references Polymorph now uses Alternate Form instead.


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060502a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a
Quote:
The polymorph spell itself hasn't changed at all; see the announcement for details. What has changed is the polymorph spell's role as the basis for most forms of shapeshifting in the game. Most effects and class features that once referenced the polymorph spell now refer to the alternate form special quality instead. Unfortunately, the alternate form description refers the reader back to the polymorph spell, and that text contains references to the alter self spell. All of this cross-referencing sows confusion when characters begin switching forms during adventures.


Wild Shape is almost the same, but uses Original Con mod (not the new forms) for hps. Hps aren't supposed to change (this was because a 12 Con Druid who becomes a Con 18 creature has +3 hps/level otherwise).



Nothing wrong with Polymorph, no reason for DM's to "ban" it. Yes, many spells (and other abilities, for that matter) are potentially abusable in the game, mainly by players who depart from role-playing and the spirit of the game and instead use meta-game and power gamer/"munchkin" tactics. My point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! No spells are truly "broken". True, many spells give better advantages than others in certain situations-- and it's a quick knee-jerk reaction to just go around "banning" spells-- but in my experience it's always been better for a DM to be a little more clever than that. Specifically for Polymorph-- I feel that the abuse can come in when player's flip through monster books, looking for the most powerful creatures to turn into. That's not the spell that's broken, it's the player power-gaming. and/or meta-gaming. In my campaign, for example, players don't access DM material in-game, and PC's aren't assumed to have encyclopedic knowledge of every creature around. That's what Knowledge checks are for-- yes, some knowledge checks will be made that will give the PC a great deal of info on a particular monster, but most others will fall short of the PC knowing strength and weakness absolute limits. A PC probably will know that Ogres, Trolls, and Minotaurs are strong for example-- but they probably won't know which of the 3 is the absolute strongest, unless through in-game trial-and-error.

And also, any potentially abusive spell-trick that the PC's come up with, NPC's can use to. Your mage may be smart, but the lich has been around the block a few times...

 

[Dingleberry]

Thanks, all, for the replies. Though I don't have the Rules Compendium, the Rules of the Game "Polymorph Revisited" article seems to have the most current info.

Any recommendations on most effective polymorph forms for an academic elven wizard with a weasel familiar? It's an Eberron campaign; other party members are a human war cleric and a barbarian minotaur; we're about to hit 7th level.

Or is polymorph not really worth it anymore? Do any of the polymorph subschool spells (e.g., displacer form) make for a better spellbook investment?

 

[thompsja]

Some of the other boards have detailed ideas of good polymorph candidates.

The first thing is to check with your DM about which books are available. I stick with the original monster manual.

A treant is a pretty good defensive character, available at 7th level. This isn't original, got it from another Forum. What I'd do is figure out what I was trying to accomplish with the polymorph:

Movement speed/
Scouting ability
or combat effectiveness.

and look for creatures that met that criteria. Remember, no special defenses or spell-like abilities. Dragons are not a bad choice, for scouting, although you'll typically have a wyrmling or very young version.