Can I do this with alter self?

[RigaMortus2]

It wasn't you. My player also keeps a careful record of monsters he's met. However, your posting such a chart to other (potential) players short-circuits that. More importantly, and apparently not in your case, I've seen many other players ask for such charts because they didn't have or weren't granted access to the various monster manuals. That's what I don't like. Something like this, and tell me if you haven't seen it yourself:

"I'm creating a sorcerer and I need a table of all the salient abilities of monsters. So, when I need high natural armor, I can do this, and when I need flying I can do that, etc."

No offense, but why would you care if other people play this way? I've seen people play D&D with the same "video game mentality" (as I call it). They make such charts as this, with exaclty the same reasoning behind what you post, and they have fun with it. What's the problem with that if they are having fun playing that way? I understand you or I may not prefer this playstyle, but do we need to be vocal about it? If so, what's the purpose of doing so other than to say "Hey, you're playing D&D wrong! Play this way..."?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't agree it's a style of playing. Reading up on monster statistics IMO is not a style of playing except in the case that Mistwell mentioned (for convenience for the DM).

As an analogy, consider that the DM is using a published module. Is it a style of playing, or a suitable one, where the players all read through the module beforehand? If they do, and even they manage to have fun at it, is it still not worth being vocal about it? I see no difference between reading the stats on these monsters and reading through the module. You'll get more plot out of reading the module, sure, but otherwise no difference.

Iku Rex, not quite, but I wouldn't doubt that that occurs either. Here's the facts: a new player doesn't have any metagame knowledge and just recently obtains access to alter self/etc. He searches the web and find's Mistwell's handy chart (or another's). I've seen far more complex charts and even databases and spreadsheets with very convenient search functions. The player, knowing that these charts were created by players for players, sees no problem in getting it. Whether the DM allows the use of any or all of the creatures with/without book access (I don't care about that), the fact is that the player's knowledge is tainted and he now at least knows what to look for. Is that bad? I think so, and said so. I don't disparage anyone's playing style.

 

[Pielorinho]

As an analogy, consider that the DM is using a published module. Is it a style of playing, or a suitable one, where the players all read through the module beforehand?

Sure it's a style of playing. Whether it's suitable or not....

If they do, and even they manage to have fun at it, is it still not worth being vocal about it?

If they're having fun at an activity whose purpose is to help them have fun, then it's certainly a suitable style of playing. I can't imagine why it would be worth being vocal about it: why should I care how other people decide to have fun?

I don't like toothpaste on my pizza, but if someone else likes eating their pizza with toothpaste on it, that's wonderful for them, seriously.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's like a spoiler. We have spoiler tags to hide certain elements for a reason. I've seen these charts, and this one is no exception, be offered without spoilers. So, if you want to call it a style of play, then their style of play directly affects mine because they impose their style of play on others by not using spoilers.

That's a reason why I'm vocal about it. If Mistwell merely said something like, "I create a chart of all salient monster abilities that I know in character..." I would definitely have no problem with it (as I said earlier). That's what Mistwell did, but he went one step further to provide that chart publicly without mentioning how he created it (in character).

I don't like toothpaste on my pizza, but if someone else likes eating their pizza with toothpaste on it, that's wonderful for them, seriously.

Having just returned from a trip to China, this directly relates to my experience. The cultural differences at the eating table are subtle and yet huge. The traditional Chinese place setting is: a small bowl with a spoon, a spit plate, chop sticks, tea cup, napkin (sometimes), and a holder for the chopsticks. It's perfectly acceptable to spit at the table, slurp your food, and double dip. Where I come from and how I was raised, this is totally unacceptable behavior. It was this behavior, not the food itself, which made me not be able to eat well (until I got used to it after about a week or so).

If someone else eats pizza with toothpaste on it, it will affect me. I will lose my appetite just like I did when people spit out bones and gristle at the table and double dipped into the group plates.

 

[Iku Rex]

Iku Rex, not quite, but I wouldn't doubt that that occurs either. Here's the facts: a new player doesn't have any metagame knowledge and just recently obtains access to alter self/etc. He searches the web and find's Mistwell's handy chart (or another's). I've seen far more complex charts and even databases and spreadsheets with very convenient search functions. The player, knowing that these charts were created by players for players, sees no problem in getting it. Whether the DM allows the use of any or all of the creatures with/without book access (I don't care about that), the fact is that the player's knowledge is tainted and he now at least knows what to look for. Is that bad? I think so, and said so. I don't disparage anyone's playing style.

I still don't get it. In one post you're talking about what the character knows, but your main concern seems to be not that the player knows which forms are better for alter self, but rather that the player came about the information in a "tainted" fashion. That's just weird, as far as I am concerned... :\

 

[Pielorinho]

It's like a spoiler. We have spoiler tags to hide certain elements for a reason. I've seen these charts, and this one is no exception, be offered without spoilers. So, if you want to call it a style of play, then their style of play directly affects mine because they impose their style of play on others by not using spoilers.

I'm not sure I understand. This forum has constant discussion of the rules. It wouldn't be the least bit inappropriate for a DM to ask a question about "which humanoid has the highest natural armor"; there's no reason why it is inappropriate, froma spoiler perspective, for a player to ask the same question. If you're worried about having such rules spoiled for you--which is certainly a position I have sympathy for--then you probably should avoid this forum entirely.

If that's not what you're saying, I don't see how the analogy applies.

Having just returned from a trip to China, this directly relates to my experience. The cultural differences at the eating table are subtle and yet huge. The traditional Chinese place setting is: a small bowl with a spoon, a spit plate, chop sticks, tea cup, napkin (sometimes), and a holder for the chopsticks. It's perfectly acceptable to spit at the table, slurp your food, and double dip. Where I come from and how I was raised, this is totally unacceptable behavior. It was this behavior, not the food itself, which made me not be able to eat well (until I got used to it after about a week or so).

I do hope you weren't vocal about it, were you?

Daniel

 

[Mistwell]

It's like a spoiler. We have spoiler tags to hide certain elements for a reason. I've seen these charts, and this one is no exception, be offered without spoilers. So, if you want to call it a style of play, then their style of play directly affects mine because they impose their style of play on others by not using spoilers.

That's a reason why I'm vocal about it. If Mistwell merely said something like, "I create a chart of all salient monster abilities that I know in character..." I would definitely have no problem with it (as I said earlier). That's what Mistwell did, but he went one step further to provide that chart publicly without mentioning how he created it (in character).

I posted the partial stats to 6 creatures, one of which is off the WOTC website for anyone to see, and you feel like I am imposing my style of play on you and posting spoilers?

I'm confused. This isn't a module. This isn't something up-coming. It's not even atypical - people post rules in this forum that are in the DMG or Monster Manual all the time and you've never mentioned a word about this bothering you. Heck, since prestige classes are the domain of the DM, virtually every discussion of prestige classes here would fall under your definition of spoilers.

I don't understand how the method of creating my chart is relevant. Let's say instead I was looking for the most useful forms of Alter Self that exist. How would that be a different issue than, say, posting a chart of the most powerful prestige classes for Clerics that exist (something we have done here)? Or the most powerful arcane ranged spells that do ability damage? Or the most powerful magic items that boost skills? All of those things could well be information that your players do not have access to and which they might encounter in your campaign. But, I've never once heard you mention this "spoiler" issue in other threads over the last few years when those topics came up.

For the game I have in mind, my Wizard character has intentionally placed a LOT of skill points in various knowledge skills that help one recall and identify creatures, and the traits of those creatures. This represents his study of hundreds of tomes on the subject, specimens collected by other adventurers, descriptions told by other adventurers, divinations cast by himself or other spellcasters, sketches, and some personal encounters. He's a walking encyclopedia of biodiversity.

Say that same wizard has the Alter Self spell, and comes to a lake he needs to cross. He decides to turn into the creature that is the fastest natural swimmer that he knows of from his studies (even though he may well have never encountered that creature personally). The DM assigns a DC to the check to determine whether the character in question would know the fastest swimmer based on how common that creature is and how common knowledge about that creature's swimming ability would be, and whatever other factors he deems relevant to the check, and the player attempts the check. The wizard beats the DC, and knows about the fastest natural swimmers in the realm (enough about that creature to transform into it using the Alter Self spell).

That chart (which for purposes of this discussion was previously made simply to list the most powerful forms available in the Realms for various modes of movement) will come in mighty handy at that moment.

Now maybe you don't use knowledge skills like that. But I think it's perfectly reasonable if someone does. And I think it's smart to be prepared in advance with the answer if a player and DM agree to use knowledge skills that way to grant access to forms of creatures using the Alter Self spell.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I still don't get it. In one post you're talking about what the character knows, but your main concern seems to be not that the player knows which forms are better for alter self, but rather that the player came about the information in a "tainted" fashion. That's just weird, as far as I am concerned... :\

No, it's that the player knows and that he came about the information in a tainted fashion. If the player knows legitimately, for example he played a previous character of such abilities, I would expect him to construct a brand new chart using none of his previous knowledge. Just like you would expect experienced players not to metagame in other situations.

...there's no reason why it is inappropriate, froma spoiler perspective, for a player to ask the same question.

It's not inappropriate for players to obtain information about monsters? Am I the only one to think that's metagaming? Is the following appropriate or would it get some replies along the lines of what I'm saying?

"Hey, our group fought a troglo...something or other last night and it was really hard to hit. Can someone tell me its AC, average hit points, and other abilities so we can fight it better next time?"

I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me, but I would've initially thought that a vast majority (at least 90%) would agree. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well because from Mistwell's last response I don't think we're communicating.

Now maybe you don't use knowledge skills like that. But I think it's perfectly reasonable if someone does. And I think it's smart to be prepared in advance with the answer if a player and DM agree to use knowledge skills that way to grant access to forms of creatures using the Alter Self spell.

I agree. That's perfectly acceptable.

But, I don't want a player to peruse the monster manual and record all the monster's stats, sort them by natural armor, movement speed, etc., and refer to such databases when utilizing their spells. I call this metagaming.

It's not even atypical - people post rules in this forum that are in the DMG or Monster Manual all the time and you've never mentioned a word about this bothering you.

This confuses me as I'm not bothered by this at all. Please don't try to extrapolate anything further from what I said and apply it to other situations. I'm only talking about charts of monsters' abilities for players to use in alter self (etc.) situations.

 

[Mistwell]

This confuses me as I'm not bothered by this at all. Please don't try to extrapolate anything further from what I said and apply it to other situations. I'm only talking about charts of monsters' abilities for players to use in alter self (etc.) situations.

You said previously "It's like a spoiler. We have spoiler tags to hide certain elements for a reason." I am trying to understand how what I posted is considered a spoiler to you, and how other rules-based information that is usually for the DM only (like prestige classes and magic items) is not a spoiler.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Because what you posted is an accumulation of stats (gathered in game) by a player for other players (not in game). If someone asks about the stats or some rules about monsters from a DM's perspective, there's no spoiler. If a player asks about "What's the weakness of a ____?" or, as the analogy I drew, "How do we beat the BBEG in ____?" then he's looking for metagame knowledge. If the player gains access to some chart of monster stats and is not doing it in character, I don't like it. If it's merely an honest attempt to make things easier on the DM and with the DM's foreknowledge, that's okay, too. But, quite honestly, I wouldn't like it, I just wouldn't complain about it. I would not want my players looking up monsters' stats and cataloging them.