BryonD
Hero
jgsugden said:D&D is a game of rules. Rules are the laws of the game. Lawyers spend countless hours screwing around with laws. To keep lawyers from going too wild with their interpretations, some common sense rules have come into existence to help us determine how written rules should be interpreted. One of these rules is that you should look at the plain interpretation of the written rules for their meaning before looking elsewhere. Only if that clear meaning is absent should you begin to look for clarity through outside sources (such as supposition as to why a rule was put into place.) If the rule makers don't like how it is interpreted based upon a plain language interpretation, those rule makers can change the written rule.
Alter self makes a statement regarding hit points. It is clear and concise. Polymorph includes alter self by reference unless polymorph overrides a portion of alter self. Supposition about why the rule might have been written aside, unless there is something in polymorph that overrides that statement regarding hit points in alter self, it stands by reference in polymorph. Wildshape references polymorph in the same way. So, unless wildshape makes a special rule about hit points, the same rule applies.
Is D&D the proper setting for legal interpretation of laws? Yes and no. No, it isn't a place for rules lawyers to get uptight and argue minutia and destroy the enjoyable atmosphere of a game session. Yes, it is a proper place to use sound reasoning to figure out how you should play the game if questions arise. The problem is that those two things are very similar. The trick is knowing when to walk the slope and when to go with the flow.
By the logic you are promting, the only rational interpretation is that Hit Points DO in fact change.
Rule 1: When CON changes, hit points change.
Rule 2: Alter self does not change abilities or hit points
Rule 3: Polymorph is like alter self except where different as specified in the spell
Rule 4: Polymorph specifies that CON changes.
So you are left with two options:
A) Rule 1 above is ignored even though nothing in EITHER Alter Self or Polymorph states that hit points do not change WHEN CON changes;
OR
B) You interpret the statement in Alter Self regarding Hit Points to be a simple clarification reinforcing the lack of change in CON.
When forced to make a "plain language interpretation" I fail to see how quibbling over a single item out of a list of related examples in a single spell description would be more plain than follow the rules of the game overall.
Further, in the majority of form changing mechanics within D&D, physical abilities DO change and the basic rules of the game are follow in normal fashion. So when the typical scenario arises (polymorph) there is no reason to waste space with every redundant implication (They don't need to point out that your Fort save improves either. It does, they just don't waste space saying so). Because Alter Self is the non-typical scenario, you can become an ogre without gaining its CON, a little further discussion of what exactly does and does not happen is reasonable.