Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 611941" data-attributes="member: 752">...loading...loading...automatic Iku Rex polymorph rant successfully initiated <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lol. You haven't actually read the earlier threads on the subject, have you? This errata does not change anything in the spell regarding constriction. The change is that &quot;attack routines&quot; have been replaced with &quot;natural weapons&quot;, and the &quot;a body with extra limbs&quot; sentence have been added. The errata is a messed up attempt to explain that you don't get attack routines. (Compare the errata with the <a href="http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellsp.html" target="_blank">original</a> spell.) (As an added bonus the version that appears in the second printing has been changed slightly from the errata version.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> )However, this errata is irrelevant, since it was re-errataed in <a href="http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/polymorphother.jpg" target="_blank">Dragon</a> , and then later in Tome and Blood (once again subtly changed). Both these erratas (errata? erratae?) mention &quot;constriction&quot;. The most recent version of polymorph is from the <a href="http://wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20010819a" target="_blank">PsiH errata</a>, where both constrict and rake have been removed as examples. (Confused yet? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)Why you don't get constrict(ex), and why it's inclusion is an error in the earlier &quot;erratas&quot;:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> &quot;Constriction&quot; is mentioned as an example of a &quot;natural weapon&quot;. It does not fit the definition of a natural weapon, it is not listed with natural weapons in the MM and it does not work (game mechanically) the way natural weapons do.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Most of the sentence where it appears is copied from AD&amp;D, where &quot;constriction&quot; was a natural weapon of sorts - it is next to &quot;swoop&quot; which doesn't exist in (3rd edition) D&amp;D at all.&nbsp; </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Constrict is listed as an extraordinary ability everywhere it appears in a mosnter description. Since the spell says that you don't get extraordinary abilities, you can't get constrict. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Skip Williams (&quot;Sage&quot; and co-author of T&amp;B) says that you don't get extraordinary abilities. (He also [mistakenly] believed that constrict is not an extraordinary ability, which, given that he most likely wrote the T&amp;B version, explains a lot.) </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The most recent errata removes it as an example of a natural weapon.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iku Rex, post: 611941, member: 752"] ...loading ...loading ...automatic Iku Rex polymorph rant successfully initiated :) Lol. You haven't actually read the earlier threads on the subject, have you? This errata does not change anything in the spell regarding constrict[i]ion[/i]. The change is that "attack routines" have been replaced with "natural weapons", and the "a body with extra limbs" sentence have been added. The errata is a messed up attempt to explain that you don't get attack routines. (Compare the errata with the [URL=http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdspellsp.html]original[/URL] spell.) (As an added bonus the version that appears in the second printing has been changed slightly from the errata version. :rolleyes: ) However, this errata is irrelevant, since it was re-errataed in [URL=http://www.d20reviews.com/Eric/polymorphother.jpg][i]Dragon[/i][/URL] , and then later in Tome and Blood (once again subtly changed). Both these erratas (errata? erratae?) mention "constriction". The most recent version of [i]polymorph[/i] is from the [URL=http://wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/er/er20010819a]PsiH errata[/URL], where both constrict and rake have been removed as examples. (Confused yet? :)) Why you don't get constrict(ex), and why it's inclusion is an error in the earlier "erratas": [list] [*] "Constriction" is mentioned as an example of a "natural weapon". It does not fit the definition of a natural weapon, it is not listed with natural weapons in the MM and it does not work (game mechanically) the way natural weapons do. [*] Most of the sentence where it appears is copied from AD&D, where "constriction" was a natural weapon of sorts - it is next to "swoop" which doesn't exist in (3rd edition) D&D at all. [*] Constrict is listed as an extraordinary ability everywhere it appears in a mosnter description. Since the spell says that you don't get extraordinary abilities, you can't get constrict. [*] Skip Williams ("Sage" and co-author of T&B) says that you don't get extraordinary abilities. (He also [mistakenly] believed that constrict is not an extraordinary ability, which, given that he most likely wrote the T&B version, explains a lot.) [*] The most recent errata removes it as an example of a natural weapon. [/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification