Polymorph Self Nerfed?

[WizarDru]

All this talk of 'designer intent' seems to forget that there was more than one designer, and they didn't all agree. Read Monte Cook's design diary for Arcana Unearthed, and you'll see quite clearly that not all of the architects of 3E agreed on all the rules as written.

This thread, however, is like the Polymorph spell....it makes my head hurt.

 

[Iku Rex]

All this talk of 'designer intent' seems to forget that there was more than one designer, and they didn't all agree.

More than one designer wrote the polymorph errata in Dragon and in Tome and Blood? There have been disagreement on whether you're supposed to get extraordinary abilities? If you have new information to contribute, please do...

Read Monte Cook's design diary for Arcana Unearthed, and you'll see quite clearly that not all of the architects of 3E agreed on all the rules as written.

So what? Monte may think that harm (for example) is unbalanced. That doesn't make the harm spell ambiguous, or make a house rule changing harm any more official.

 

[Fenes 2]

It is not as if hong cares about "official" rules, he has made that clear numerous times.

(I don't care about official rules either. What matters to me is what fits in my campaign, I could not care less how others run their campaign.)

 

[WizarDru]

More than one designer wrote the polymorph errata in Dragon and in Tome and Blood? There have been disagreement on whether you're supposed to get extraordinary abilities? If you have new information to contribute, please do...

To my knowledge, not all of the designers even worked for WotC by the time that said errata was released. Which is irrelvant to my point. You assume that I'm arguing with you, which I'm not. hong is over there (points to Southern Hemisphere).

So what? Monte may think that harm (for example) is unbalanced. That doesn't make the harm spell ambiguous, or make a house rule changing harm any more official.

Which again misses my point, which is that when you use the phrase 'designer intent', you are assuming a group-mind that is in complete agreement over the rules as written, which has been clearly proven not to be the case, based on the subsequent writings of Monte, SKR, and others who worked on 3E. Simply put, all of the designers did not necessarily intend the same thing.

This has nothing to do with the rules as written, of course. The issue here appears to be you and hong arguing more about poor editing in the core books more than anything else. I can see both interpetations of the spell, but I personally see the spell as one that requires DM adjudication to be internally logical. You can argue that only the form is taking shape, but personally, I don't see that as making much sense. If all that Polymorph does is change your shape, then all flying forms wouldn't work, as your mass wouldn't change, nor would your bones become hollow. To me, a certain level of flexibilty is required for a DM to deal with a spell as far-reaching as Polymorph. YMMV.

In case you're wondering, I currently allow my players to use the Tome&Blood version, which I consider to be the final word on the spell, short of any changes I feel that are necessary.

 

[Iku Rex]

Which again misses my point, which is that when you use the phrase 'designer intent', you are assuming a group-mind that is in complete agreement over the rules as written, which has been clearly proven not to be the case, based on the subsequent writings of Monte, SKR, and others who worked on 3E. Simply put, all of the designers did not necessarily intend the same thing.

I don't recall ever talking about any "group mind".

"Designer intent" = "what the designer(s) meant to convey when [the rule] was written".

If Skip says "when I wrote this, my intent was that...", the designer intent has been made clear. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the rule ought to, in the best of all possible worlds, be.

Disagreement over what a rule or spell ought to say do not entail disagreement over what it currently says, or what the person (or persons) who wrote it meant it to say.

You can argue that only the form is taking shape, but personally, I don't see that as making much sense. If all that Polymorph does is change your shape, then all flying forms wouldn't work, as your mass wouldn't change, nor would your bones become hollow.

I'm sure I could argue that, but I haven't, and neither have anyone else.

I have argued that since the spell specifically says that you don't get the extraordinary abilities of the new form, the change involved must be one that doesn't give you the extraordinary abilities of the new form. (Silly me...) Either because the ability relies on physical structures or processes not duplicated, or because it depends on instincts or training not magically conveyed by the spell.

In case you're wondering, I currently allow my players to use the Tome&Blood version, which I consider to be the final word on the spell, short of any changes I feel that are necessary.

So, do characters in your campaign gain blindsight when they take the form of a bat? And if yes, is that a hosue rule?

(Edit: Minor change.)

 

[WizarDru]

"Designer intent" = "what the designer(s) meant to convey when [the rule] was written".

Who was the designer for 3E? That's who I was referring to, namely that 3E doesn't have a single designer, it has several, and they didn't always agree. The editor and area specialist had final word, which is why Monte disagrees with stuff in the PHB and Skip disagrees with stuff where he didn't have control. If you know that the spell was designed by Skip in particular, and only Skip, then I'm glad to accept that 'designer intent' refers to him. However, as often as not, when someone uses that phrase with respect to 3E, there is an assumption that all of the designers were in agreement, when clearly they weren't.

I'm sure I could argue that, but I haven't, and neither have anyone else.

I guess I interepeted this differently than you meant, then:

Originally posted by Iku Rex
Like I said above, you have to stop seeing polymorph as a spell that turns you into a new creature. See it as a spell that changes your body to resemble a new form, and in some cases helps you use your new muscles.

Originally posted by Iku Rex
So, do characters in your campaign gain blindsight when they take the form of a bat? And if yes, is that a hosue rule?

It's never actually come up (the wizard usually prefers small dragons, gricks or Umber Hulks), but yes, I would. It would be a house rule, as I'd be changing the bat's stat-block apparently. I don't think it was the 'designer intent' that a player be able to polymorph into a bat that is totally blinded and useless. In your campaign, that may be illegal, and there's nothing wrong with that. We can pretty sure that no one will ever polymorph into a bat, either.

 

[Dimwhit]

That old bat. My rogue has a cloak of the bat. Since we don't house-rule in our campaign, I can't use that cloak to turn into a bat (well, I can, but I'd be virtually blind). I emailed Wizards about it. The guy who responded said there was no errata and that it must have been the "designer's intent" to do it that way for balance issues. Just seems stupid to me. So now I have a cloak of the bat that I never use to turn into a bat. (It does have other nice features, so I'm not screwed with it or anything.)

 

[Tar-Edhel]

I don't think it was the 'designer intent' that a player be able to polymorph into a bat that is totally blinded and useless. In your campaign, that may be illegal, and there's nothing wrong with that. We can pretty sure that no one will ever polymorph into a bat, either.

The quote by jmucchiello basically says, "take a look at a creature's abilities, and figure out the ones which are the result of its natural form and not magic or skill. You get those." They didn't realize that many D&D players either need or want things spelled out explicitly.

Me, I've never had a problem with it. *shrug*

*happily waving his: 'What those guys said' flag*

Whatever the game designer's intent, I'd rule that Natural abilities are what animals get on this plane/world/real life/whatever.

Can a snake constrict IRL? Yes? So does a polymorphed PC (and by the way, all snakes are able to constrict. Some species just didn't exploit this natural ability to hunt prey or defend themselves. Poisonous snakes, for example, have other abilities that are far more effective for them).

Can a bat see through echolocation? Yes? guess what? So does a polymorphed PC.

Easy to use, stops all arguments around the gaming table, it makes sense (IMO) and I never noticed anything unbalanced about it.

But to each DM his own world so YMMV.

 

[Iku Rex]

I guess I interepeted this differently than you meant, then:

Originally posted by Iku Rex
Like I said above, you have to stop seeing polymorph as a spell that turns you into a new creature. See it as a spell that changes your body to resemble a new form, and in some cases helps you use your new muscles.

Since I wrote it, I don't have to "interpret" it. The term "form" is from the spell description, and does not imply preservation of mass or unaltered bones.

 

[Iku Rex]

Can a snake constrict IRL? Yes? So does a polymorphed PC

All snakes can "constrict". Not all snakes can constrict(ex). Don't confuse the game term with the dictionary definition.

In DnD some snakes can constrict(ex), and some can't. Any snake (including a polymorphed PC) can wrap itself around an opponent and squeeze. It's called a "grapple".

(and by the way, all snakes are able to constrict. Some species just didn't exploit this natural ability to hunt prey or defend themselves. Poisonous snakes, for example, have other abilities that are far more effective for them).

(I'm sure RL snakes that kill their prey by choking it have a number of evolutionary adaptations to help them get and maintain a strong grip on their target in an efficient and safe [to the snake] manner. These adaptations will probably not be shared by snakes that rely solely on poison.)