Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LazarusLong42" data-source="post: 881590" data-attributes="member: 9620">Indeed.  I'd buy it.  The societal implications of pregnancy, birth, and motherhood/fatherhood on adventurers would be particularly interesting.  But yes, we're not likely to see it, or, frex, a treatise on evolution's place in D&D as influenced by divine and arcane magic, or anything like that.  But they'd be interesting to write <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />/biologistAs to pregnancy and polymorph... personally, if a polymorphed creature became pregnant, I would simply not allow the effect to be dispelled.  The polymorph effect was cast on a single creature, but is now in effect on two creatures; dispel magic either targets one creature (which the pregnant creature is not) or an area where it still targets creatures individually, in which case it can't figure out what creature the polymorph effect was cast on.Similarly, polymorph spells could not affect a pregnant creature, either in her normal form or a polymorphed form, because she is, for the moment, not one creature.  (And yes, this would have to become consistent:  bull's strength and similar spells that target one creature would have no effect; 3R haste or 3E mass haste would affect the pregnant creature as if she were two creatures; etc.)This could lead to some interesting problems, especially if a female adventurer who was only a month pregnant got hit with one of these spells.  I guess it'd be more effective than killing a rabbit...</blockquote>

Verification