New rules of the game... what the?

[Olive]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a

So it lists, usefully, allt he stuff that you do and don't get when you polymorph into a creature with various types and subtypes. But it lists angel, evil, good, chaotic, lawful, outsider etc. Which you can't get given:

. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin.

He even quotes that text. So what is he smoking?

As an aside, it used to be that if you were an outsider, you could poly into another outsider. Is that still true? Was it, in fact ever true? Reference?

 

[Alzrius]

He even quotes that text. So what is he smoking?

Maybe he's just being thorough?

As an aside, it used to be that if you were an outsider, you could poly into another outsider. Is that still true? Was it, in fact ever true? Reference?

You don't seem to realize that you've answered your own question. Check out the text you quoted again (emphasis mine):

The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin.

So an Outsider could polymorph into another Outsider.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I notice Anlion still gets multiple claws on an Attack action in lizardfolk form (two claws and a bite, in Troll form!)...

... and still doesn't get his bite attack on a full attack as a lizardfolk.

Still, at least he loses his half-elf racial skill bonuses when he polymorphs now (Or... wait. No, he loses his Listen, Spot, and Search, but he keeps his Diplomacy and Gather Information...)

-Hyp.

 

[Urbanmech]

My head hurts... Why don't you get the visual abilities of the various creatures? That seems like a natural ability to me. Nope you druids can't have the Shambling Mounds darkvision, but you are now immune to crits and stunning.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the sage is smoking something. Strong.

Now we see - immunity to an elemental damage type is a natural ability, but resistance is apparently not!

Reacting to a spell as though you have a certain alignment is a natural ability, but seeing better in the dark is apparently not.

Also, in a single sentence, he manages to contradict himself - apparently you do speak goblin for being a goblinoid, however you don't suddenly speak goblin by changing type...

If you turn into an Ooze, you cannot see. Full stop. You also apparently don't get acid attacks, despite the fact that these are listed as special attacks.

If you turn into an Ooze, you're subject to mind-affecting stuff. If you turn into a plant, you're not.

Interestingly enough, you now can officially not become a swarm, when you technically could before. This would have to be about the only benefit to this faq existing.

Your hitpoints DO change according to a change in con. Which is going to be really inconvenient to have to recalculate.

Finally, the examples given after the text are, as before, random number generators. Especially since both of them are essentially humanoid, and have no real special features.

 

[RCanning]

He even quotes that text. So what is he smoking?

The reason I think they are there is because in the next part he will likely talk about Shapechange, which states "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."

It prevents him from having to seperate the descriptors, which would be annoying if you are using the complete details as a reference.

Richard Canning

 

[Olive]

You don't seem to realize that you've answered your own question. Check out the text you quoted again

Oh! Thanks for that...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now we see - immunity to an elemental damage type is a natural ability, but resistance is apparently not!

It's actually a fair decision, based on the written rules.

When asked in 3E "So what is a natural ability?", the answer was "Anything that isn't Ex, Su, or Sp". Resistance is specifically [Ex]; Immunity is not given a type, so by the previous answer, it's natural. (As was a lernean hydra's immunity to damage in 3E, for what it's worth )

Reacting to a spell as though you have a certain alignment is a natural ability, but seeing better in the dark is apparently not.

Well, you specifically gain a Subtype, and the alignment thing is dependent on Subtype. So that's reasonable too, as written.

Also, in a single sentence, he manages to contradict himself - apparently you do speak goblin for being a goblinoid, however you don't suddenly speak goblin by changing type...

Yeah, that's a screwup

If you turn into an Ooze, you cannot see. Full stop.

Reasonable as written.

You also apparently don't get acid attacks, despite the fact that these are listed as special attacks.

Screwup.

If you turn into an Ooze, you're subject to mind-affecting stuff. If you turn into a plant, you're not.

Seems odd, but I can see where he's coming from. An Ooze is immune because it's mindless, but with Polymorph, you keep your own mind.

A plant is immune not because it's mindless, but because it's a plant.

That's possibly an oversight in the Type description of plants, but based on what's written, I'd agree with him.

Your hitpoints DO change according to a change in con.

Feh. Not according to Alter Self. Hmmph.

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

My head hurts... Why don't you get the visual abilities of the various creatures? That seems like a natural ability to me. Nope you druids can't have the Shambling Mounds darkvision, but you are now immune to crits and stunning.

You just mentioned my favourite feature of the polymorphing spells!

According to the rules, if you use alter self or polymorph to turn you into yourself, you lose your own darkvision and low-light vision, wow! The rules becomes dramatic if you assume the form a creature whose only way of seeing is an extraordinary quality such as blindsense or blindsight.

I am not sure, but I think they specifically ruled that you don't gain the form's vision "to prevent the spells being too powerful" which in the case of alter self can make sense (it's only a 2nd level spell), much less problems with polymorph which also lasts short. In any case, even if it makes sense as a game rule, it makes less sense as a whole.

The idea of the spell being able to replicate the shape (of the eyes in this case) but not the functionality is used to justify this ruling, only to be completely ignored in other cases (acid attacks) whenever it pleases the author.

But you know, I REALLY like Skip's series of articles about Polymorph, because they mess up the rules even more than as they are written, possibly leading more DMs to rely more on their own adjudication (even case-by-case when necessary), which is an attitude better than just blindly following rules as they were holy words.
Sorry if I sound too harsh, instead I normally try my best to support the rules as written, but there are a few cases when a DM can and must take responsibility of handling a situation by himself, not by completely overriding the rulebooks but at least adjusting details to make the game smoother. Let's remember that the original nature of the spell was very simply "change your form, keep your mind", and players still percieve it this way; it's obviously a good thing to have guidelines or more precise ruling, but if they move too much from the meaning of spell whose is the problem, of the meaning or of the rules?

 

[Frozenface]

For Anlion's troll form, Skip says that his equipment changes size to match the subject of the spell's new form. The damage for the quarterstaff, however, reamins at 1d6. Is this an error, or have I missed something?