how do new scores affect hp, after polymorphing?

[Thanee]

Not to mention that the people who actually wrote the rules don't agree with you.

You wrote the rules? Didn't know that!

Or how comes it, that you know what these peoples think about the matter?

Bye
Thanee

 

[DM2]

You wrote the rules? Didn't know that!

Or how comes it, that you know what these peoples think about the matter?

Bye
Thanee

Frank's referring to the unchallenged assertions made on page 1 that Skip & Andy have affirmed that the CON changes from polymorph should change HP.

Someone also gave a link to http://boards1.wizards.com/showthre...threadid=104468 I'm not sure what the link represents though, as wizards.com is blocked by my work's internet filtering.

Later,
DM2

 

[Thanee]

Frank's referring to the unchallenged assertions made on page 1 that Skip & Andy have affirmed that the CON changes from polymorph should change HP.

Havn't seen the statements, only Frank's restatement.

From the spell description, it's pretty clear to me, that hit points are not changed, altho Con is (like it was in 3.0, too). If they wanted to have hit points change according to the new Con from Polymorph, they should have written so in the spell description.

Bye
Thanee

 

[FrankTrollman]

From the spell description, it's pretty clear to me, that hit points are not changed, altho Con is (like it was in 3.0, too).

But it's clear to me that hit points do change.

And it's clear to Skip Williams and Andy Collins as well - so I don't know why we are even still having a conversation.

After all, your "system" requires us to disregard the table on page 8 of the PHB, and yet it can't handle odd additions or subtractions to Constitution without referencing the table.

So your proposed system is at odds with the authors and requires us to simultaneously ignore and rely upon a table - seemingly at your whim.

-Frank

 

[chonjurer]

And it's clear to Skip Williams and Andy Collins as well

I have never heard you spew anything but bile about those two before, so I fail to see what that shows.

 

[Vash]

oh my god, if i'd known my question was going to start all this rules lawyering, i wouldn't have asked it. some of you people have spent way way too much time reading and pondering the rules. FrankTrollman, did i actually see you use the word "monolithic"? oy vey.

i think i can conclusively say that unless and until WotC posts an errata on this (and probably not even then), the argument over this will go on unabated.

what's amusing is that my character can't even polymorph yet, i was just curious ahead of time. the wording in the book in sufficiently poorly written that the interpretation can just be up to what a DM thinks is better, until an
official mention appears.

still, thank you all for caring THAT much *smirk*

 

[Daniel A. Walls]

WOW.

 

[Li Shenron]

Although I am still a fan of the opinion "Polymorph and Wild Shape changes in Con should affect you HPs", I have to say that I would probably not mind very much if the official ruling would be otherwise. But I really hope that an official clarification will come soon, so that we finally agree to play one way or the other.

I like the idea of using Polymorph/WildShape into a high-Con creature exactly to get the benefit (among the others...) of increased HPs anyway, and I would like this to still be possible.

In any case, I don't think that either way is too complicated to prefer the other! When your Con increases, in one way you update Fort saves and Concentration checks, in the other way you also update Hps. Sounds both very easy...

For curiosity I would like to know how it worked in AD&D and 3ed, because I have already forgotten I seem to remember that in Baldur's Gate you changed your HP completely (not just because of Con) so that may not be a reference at all.

 

[FrankTrollman]

But I really hope that an official clarification will come soon, so that we finally agree to play one way or the other.

Then you'll be happy to know that Skip and Andy - the only "official" people of 3.5 - now say that your hit points change. Although this does not seem to have stopped people from playing otherwise for some reason.

For curiosity I would like to know how it worked in AD&D and 3ed, because I have already forgotten

In 2nd edition, Monsters did not have stat blocks - so your stats didn't change to accomodate - nor could they. This was a problem, and was fixed in 3rd edition by giving complete stat blocks to all monsters.

In 3rd edition, your hit points did not change when the spell was cast, but as soon as your constitution changed again your hit points were adjusted to the new constitution exactly as if they had changed with the polymorph. It even suggests transforming into a high constitution creature and then adjusting your Con in MotW (which uses the same hit point rules for wildshape as the polymorph rules from that edition). This blatant silliness (taking off and putting on amulets of health in order to get the hit point advantages of high Con creatures) was solved by simply handing out hit points from new forms in 3.5.

-Frank

 

[mikebr99]

Then you'll be happy to know that Skip and Andy - the only "official" people of 3.5 - now say that your hit points change.
-Frank

Hey Frank.
Can you quote what they (Sage & Andy) said exactly? Or post the url?

thanks...


Mike