Polymorph Self Nerfed?

[maddman75]

Here's what I do. I agree that essentially, all the versions of Polymorph are whacked.

- Polymorph self allows you to change into a creature with HD <= your caster level. You get all the standard stuff (physical stats, nat armor, movement, etc) and any ability that exists in Real Life.

- Polymorph Other works as standard, except the creature changing must make a Will save. Those failing believe that the new form is their natural one, and will possibly change alignment (especially if the creature has a Always alignment). I may alter mental stats as well. This is a throwback to 1e and 2e, to prevent the spell from being used as a no-consequence buff spell.

 

[Fenes 2]

Those changes sound so fine I will probably use them in my games. I never saw any reason to let polymorph other become a buff spell, but then none of my characters would want to be a troll, or hag, or any other dreadful monster for any length of time just to get some combat boni.

 

[Iku Rex]

Unless the Tome and Blood version is not the final one anymore, you do get EX abilities (since constriction is an EX ability) if they are natural (the spell does mention that you don't get EX abilities but it contradicts itself by allowing Rake and Constrict).

I guess this thread has reached the point where people can no longer be bothered to read the whole thing. Immortality awaits!

I am not going to repeat all my arguments.

But when it comes to which version of the polymorph spell to use, the most recent is the one in the PsiH errata. That version maintains that you don't get any extraordinary abilities, and the extraordinary abilities used as examples of natural abilities in T&B have been removed.

Iku Rex: Impressive list. What was Skip's answer?

http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DnD/Sage/PolymorphAlterSelf.html

(Somewhat abbreviated.)

You don't get extraordinary abilities.

(And since his claim that constrict is a natural ability has been contradicted in a number of official products since he wrote that e-mail, and it makes no sense, I am sure it's a mistake.)

I repeated my list to show that deciding on which extraordinary abilities are "natural" or not is not as easy as some make it out to be. (What is the "common sense" reason behind not granting a troll's regeneration for example?)

 

[Dimwhit]

I repeated my list to show that deciding on which extraordinary abilities are "natural" or not is not as easy as some make it out to be. (What is the "common sense" reason behind not granting a troll's regeneration for example?)

There are even 'common-sense' arguments to be made for not allowing EX abilities like pounce and rake. Technically, those are skills learned by animals as they grow up, so why should a character automatically know how to use them? Now with something like Blindsight, it's just how they see, so common sense could dictate they should get it. But many (not all) natural attacks are learned skills that a PC wouldn't know how to use while in animal form. That also helps to understand why Druids get the EX abilities with Wild Shape. They are intimately familiar with animals, so they would know how to use those learned skills.

Anyway, this topic has probably gone on longer than it should have. Let's just hope D&D version 3.1 this summer solves this issue once and for all!

 

[hong]

I repeated my list to show that deciding on which extraordinary abilities are "natural" or not is not as easy as some make it out to be.

For some people, anyway.

(What is the "common sense" reason behind not granting a troll's regeneration for example?)

Trolls don't exist in real life.


Hong "hmmm" Ooi