D&D (2024) Polymorph temp hp remain

[UngeheuerLich]

I can’t tell if your argument boils down to, ‘that would make the spell to strong therefore it cannot be what is written’. Surely you see the issue with that logic?

Maybe read it again.

You were the one adding that logic in your imagination.

I said: temp hp are a spell effect. They end when the spell ends.

In a different statement I said that if someone wanted to enforce your reading and thinks it is fine, I'd show them that it is not.

 

[Guest 7037866]

if someone wanted to enforce your reading and thinks it is fine, I'd show them that it is not.

This seems a bit high-handed, frankly, and I don't think you mean it that "extreme".

I mean, it is fine to disagree, debate, even argue points of view, but to "show them why they are wrong" comes off a bit... distasteful?

I know sometimes in posts it is hard to know exactly what someone's intent is, I've come across high-handed at times without meaning to, so it happens.

Anyway, just a friendly word of caution. I have to remind myself often enough LOL.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe read it again.

You were the one adding that logic in your imagination.

I said: temp hp are a spell effect. They end when the spell ends.

In a different statement I said that if someone wanted to enforce your reading and thinks it is fine, I'd show them that it is not.

Do you agree there’s a difference between gaining temp hp and keeping temp hp?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Do you agree there’s a difference between gaining temp hp and keeping temp hp?

I don't understand that question. Can you paraphrase it. Or put it into context at least?

Do you mean: while shape-shifted you gain following benefits...

and then it states that at the start you gain the temp hp?

Note that the bolded part described a condition and everything after that is dependend on that condition.
Yes you gain them. But how should it be stated? Should they say: you have temp hp equal to your druid level?

So you wouls argue, you can never lose them as it is stated clearly that you have them?

I do agree however, that it would not have hurt if they stated that all temp hp vanish if you lose the wild shape form.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This seems a bit high-handed, frankly, and I don't think you mean it that "extreme".

I once asked my players in 3e not to add a level of barbarian to every fighter, just because it seems optimal.
I then gave a bunch of trolls one level of barbarian. They agreed it is not funny at all and then we agreed that we stop optimizing without regard for the story of a character. It made the game better.

I mean, it is fine to disagree, debate, even argue points of view, but to "show them why they are wrong" comes off a bit... distasteful?

Is it?
If I read a rule, I always think about how it works if you switch the sides.

Is it funny if you can get 150 temp hp as a player and still cast spells? Probably. Is it funny if your enemy does it? Nope.

So it is about fair play.

I know sometimes in posts it is hard to know exactly what someone's intent is, I've come across high-handed at times without meaning to, so it happens.

Usually I just talk with my players about how I rule. And usually we come to an agreement easily.

Anyway, just a friendly word of caution. I have to remind myself often enough LOL.

Thank you. I do agree.

20 years ago, at the end of 3e, I decided that it is better to stop the arms race between DM and players and it was for the better. Try to play the game together. Don't exploit rules if RAW allow a loophole. If you try, you find a lot of loopholes. The game is so complex that ot is impossible to close each and everyone.

But that does not mean that I think the temp hp rule should be reworded. Or every polymorph effect or effect that can produce temp hp for virtually no resource should state that having no temp hp stops the spell and vice versa.

 

[FrogReaver]

I once asked my players in 3e not to add a level of barbarian to every fighter, just because it seems optimal.
I then gave a bunch of trolls one level of barbarian. They agreed it is not funny at all and then we agreed that we stop optimizing without regard for the story of a character. It made the game better.

Is it?
If I read a rule, I always think about how it works if you switch the sides.

Is it funny if you can get 150 temp hp as a player and still cast spells? Probably. Is it funny if your enemy does it? Nope.

So it is about fair play.

Usually I just talk with my players about how I rule. And usually we come to an agreement easily.

Thank you. I do agree.

20 years ago, at the end of 3e, I decided that it is better to stop the arms race between DM and players and it was for the better. Try to play the game together. Don't exploit rules if RAW allow a loophole. If you try, you find a lot of loopholes. The game is so complex that ot is impossible to close each and everyone.

I’m fine with all this. Though I don’t find it actually fair to give monsters pc abilities just to prove a point. PCs and NPCs have been inherently different for just about as long as the game has existed. And while I get some prefer to play that way, it need not be the case.

But that does not mean that I think the temp hp rule should be reworded. Or every polymorph effect or effect that can produce temp hp for virtually no resource should state that having no temp hp stops the spell and vice versa.

I don’t follow here.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I once asked my players in 3e not to add a level of barbarian to every fighter, just because it seems optimal.
I then gave a bunch of trolls one level of barbarian. They agreed it is not funny at all and then we agreed that we stop optimizing without regard for the story of a character. It made the game better.

I never really played 3E, so I'm guess it was a good move? Usually stopping level dips is good practice IMO.

Is it?
If I read a rule, I always think about how it works if you switch the sides.

Is it funny if you can get 150 temp hp as a player and still cast spells? Probably. Is it funny if your enemy does it? Nope.

So it is about fair play.

Fair play is one thing, certainly, I always play if something is good for the PCs, it is good for their foes...

But we're talking about your statement seeming more to imply "your way of seeing this rule is wrong and I will show you why you are wrong".

Usually I just talk with my players about how I rule. And usually we come to an agreement easily.

Sure, most of the time groups settle things easily and quickly.

Thank you. I do agree.

You're welcome and thank you for taking it in the spirit it was intended!

20 years ago, at the end of 3e, I decided that it is better to stop the arms race between DM and players and it was for the better. Try to play the game together. Don't exploit rules if RAW allow a loophole. If you try, you find a lot of loopholes. The game is so complex that ot is impossible to close each and everyone.

I don't think anyone in this thread is intentionally arguing for a player to exploit the RAW of polymorph though, more as an exercise in RAW interpretation and finding a RAW loophole that definitely needs to be addressed to avoid confusion and issues in the future.

But that does not mean that I think the temp hp rule should be reworded. Or every polymorph effect or effect that can produce temp hp for virtually no resource should state that having no temp hp stops the spell and vice versa.

meh you could put the wording under temp HP or individually in each case of spell/ feature. Either way works, provided it clarifies the situation. But, putting it in one place or the other stops the "nonsense".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I’m fine with all this. Though I don’t find it actually fair to give monsters pc abilities just to prove a point.

That was how monsters in 3e were built. The whole game was built on the idea that Monsters and PCs share the same rules. (Which made DMing a hell sometimes).

PCs and NPCs have been inherently different for just about as long as the game has existed.

Not in 3e.

And while I get some prefer to play that way, it need not be the case.

Agreed.

I don’t follow here.

Temp hp should end when the polymorph effect ends.

Maybe the glossary just needs an entry for polymorph effects.

 

[Dausuul]

Maybe read it again.

You were the one adding that logic in your imagination.

I said: temp hp are a spell effect. They end when the spell ends.

So Power Word Fortify does nothing, then?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand that question. Can you paraphrase it. Or put it into context at least?

Do you mean: while shape-shifted you gain following benefits...

and then it states that at the start you gain the temp hp?

Note that the bolded part described a condition and everything after that is dependend on that condition.
Yes you gain them. But how should it be stated? Should they say: you have temp hp equal to your druid level?

So you wouls argue, you can never lose them as it is stated clearly that you have them?

I do agree however, that it would not have hurt if they stated that all temp hp vanish if you lose the wild shape form.

Something like that yes. You are following the thought process.

We know that gaining temp hp is an instantaneous effect. False life shows this. Even heroism where they are gained at the start of your turn shows this. Polymorph shows this too from the text where they are gained when you shape shift.

It’s not clear what giving the instantaneous effect of gaining temp hp a duration even means. Giving the temp hp themselves a duration might make sense, but not the gaining of them. Which is what polymorph actually does. ‘When you shapeshifters you gain temp hp.’ (Paraphrased for you instead of target). Duration in relation to gaining makes no sense.