OFFICAL ERRATA: Hit points *DO NOT* change in polymorph

[jgsugden]

*blink, blink*

Your HP changes if you take Constitution damage. In a like vein, you gain bonus HP if you get a bonus to your constitution score.

If the polymorph spell had originally said, "You retain your original hit points," then nobody would have even thought for an instant about applying the new constitution. It wasn't until people noticed that the line was absent from the polymorph spell description that they came to the conclusion that hit points changed. Once people adopted that position, they stuck to it, even when other people pointed out that the restriction was incorporated by reference from alter self. It is human nature to resist change.

My point is that had this language (retain your hit points) been present in the original version of the polymorph spell (instead of it being incorporated by refernce from alter self), nobody would ever have brought up the idea of changing it due to a change in constitution. Why can I be so sure of it? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED IN 3.0! 3.0 stated that you changed constitution, but kept your hit points. Except for the occasional newbie that failed to see the explicit line regarding hit points not changing, nobody questiones it.

Now, people question it because they have an opinion stuck in their mind. Being human, they tend to stick to that opinion far longer than the facts indicate they should. Now, some people are trying to read in a way to make the new errata/clarification irrelevant. They're making arguments that stretch and contort language away from the clear meaning. Had they been seeing this language for the first time, they would not have come to the conclusions that they cling to now.

If I have offended anyone, I appologize. I don't seek to be mean. I seek only to be direct.

 

[BryonD]

To be honest, before the errata I would have ruled the same way the Sage did. The Polymorph spell description indicates that your hit points would change, even when taking into account the Alter Self description.

Bashing on the Sage for an answer he gave before the Errata changed the rule is pretty poor form, to put it tactfully.

That is correct.

The only way to interpret the exact statements in the 3.5 PH logically is to conclude that HP do change. If you gave someone who had never seen the 3.0 version they would conclude the same. It is only presumption of 3.0 precedent that leads to the static HP conclusion.

Further, if the sage were wrong and HP were already static, then there would be no reason to issue this errata.

I bet that the change was purely accidental and never intended. But the change was there and, apparently, it is now being un-changed.

 

[BryonD]

If the polymorph spell had originally said, "You retain your original hit points," then nobody would have even thought for an instant about applying the new constitution. It wasn't until people noticed that the line was absent from the polymorph spell description that they came to the conclusion that hit points changed. Once people adopted that position, they stuck to it, even when other people pointed out that the restriction was incorporated by reference from alter self. It is human nature to resist change.

My point is that had this language (retain your hit points) been present in the original version of the polymorph spell (instead of it being incorporated by refernce from alter self), nobody would ever have brought up the idea of changing it due to a change in constitution. Why can I be so sure of it? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED IN 3.0! 3.0 stated that you changed constitution, but kept your hit points. Except for the occasional newbie that failed to see the explicit line regarding hit points not changing, nobody questiones it.

Now, people question it because they have an opinion stuck in their mind. Being human, they tend to stick to that opinion far longer than the facts indicate they should. Now, some people are trying to read in a way to make the new errata/clarification irrelevant. They're making arguments that stretch and contort language away from the clear meaning. Had they been seeing this language for the first time, they would not have come to the conclusions that they cling to now.

If I have offended anyone, I appologize. I don't seek to be mean. I seek only to be direct.

I find this kinda funny. The 3.0 rules have no bearing on the 3.5 rules. Insisting that they do seems to be you showing the human resistance to change.

 

[BryonD]

The errarta changed nothing.

What is your definition of errata?

 

[jgsugden]

I find this kinda funny. The 3.0 rules have no bearing on the 3.5 rules. Insisting that they do seems to be you showing the human resistance to change.

I did no such thing. I pointed out how people reacted when 3.0 was released. This had nothing to do with the value of the 3.0 rules in the 3.5 setting. I said that people would react in a certain fashion and back ed it up with a clear example that was consistent.

 

[jgsugden]

What is your definition of errata?

Fine. You caught me. The errata did change something. It changed what the text in the book should be.

But, it did not change this rule if you read the rule correctly in the 3.5 books. It just clarified it.

 

[Gnimish88]

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK WOTC TO PUT SOMETHING DOWN THAT WAS PLAIN AND UNAMBIUOUS FOR A CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There, I feel better now. Two questions that do come up about all of this:

Has WOTC put out anything official that included the normal and wildshaped/polymorphed stats for an NPC? While this would go a long way toward clearing things up, I am of the opinion that they probably would be inconsistant about it anyway.

What happens in the following situation, assuming HPs don't change:

8th level druid with 40 HPs and 10 CON wildshapes into a dire bear. His CON is now 19. During combat, he is nailed with an arrow coated with black lotus poison. The arrow does 5 points of damage and 9 points of CON damage. What are his HPs? Does losing the CON effect his HPs, since it currently matches his normal CON of 10? Is he at 3 HPs or 35 HPs? Both seem pretty absurd to me. In the first case, you take the downside of CON loss, but not the full upside of CON gain. In the second case, you all but neuter physical attribute loss to a high level wildshaper/polymorpher. What are peoples' thoughts? Have I missed something?

 

[reiella]

Has WOTC put out anything official that included the normal and wildshaped/polymorphed stats for an NPC? While this would go a long way toward clearing things up, I am of the opinion that they probably would be inconsistant about it anyway.

Yes for wildshape in Complete Warrior, (Nature's Warrior section).

Con changes from 14 to 17, the stat block does not mention any hitpoint changes. However, it does result in an improvement to Fort Saves, and pretty much the other derivative stats are affected normally.

 

[Kershek]

What happens in the following situation, assuming HPs don't change:

8th level druid with 40 HPs and 10 CON wildshapes into a dire bear. His CON is now 19. During combat, he is nailed with an arrow coated with black lotus poison. The arrow does 5 points of damage and 9 points of CON damage. What are his HPs? Does losing the CON effect his HPs, since it currently matches his normal CON of 10? Is he at 3 HPs or 35 HPs? Both seem pretty absurd to me. In the first case, you take the downside of CON loss, but not the full upside of CON gain. In the second case, you all but neuter physical attribute loss to a high level wildshaper/polymorpher. What are peoples' thoughts? Have I missed something?

I guess he would be at 3 hp but at 10 con according to the rules.

 

[reiella]

I guess he would be at 3 hp but at 10 con according to the rules.

Hmm just had an odd thought.

The ability damage/ability drain effects would be limited by the minimum of 1hp/hit die rule.

His constitution modifier in this example goes from +5 to 0. And therefore, he would lose an amount of damage equal to 40 hit points (8 hit dice, lost 5 modifier points).

If a character?s Constitution score drops, then he loses 1 hit point per Hit Die for every point by which his Constitution modifier drops. A hit point score can?t be reduced by Constitution damage or drain to less than 1 hit point per Hit Die.

I think, he would still have a minimum of 8 hit points in this instance. Although erm, that's really timing isn't it? I thought applied poison applies after the 'contact'/base weapon damage, but I'm not sure. Now I've given myself a headache.

A reverse situation results in an interesting cycle.

Spellcaster w/ Con 24 shapechanges into a Con 6 critter (For tactical advantage let's say for the moment ). Spellcaster takes 6 points of con damage, and immediately dies, and reverts back to their natural form, which still has significant Con and hitpoints left, but is still dead (rightfully so in my opinion ).