Polymorphing outsiders and undead

[KarinsDad]

I disagree... it's not an exception to the rule.

Where in the rules does it state that the specific description of a spell cannot overwrite a general rule?

You cannot use Polymorph Other to polymorph a human into a wight, since a human is not already of the type Undead.

Agreed.

You can use Polymorph Other to polymorph a ghoul into a wight... but you'll never break through its effective infinite SR against the spell, so it won't actually happen.

Undead do not have an effective "infinite SR" against Polymorph Other.

They do have an immunity against spells LIKE Polymorph Other (due to the no Fort save required unless the spell affects object rule), but PO (T&B version) explicitly states that it CAN polymorph an undead into an undead.

"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead UNLESS they are already are one of those types."

This sentence is nonsensical with regard to constructs and undead with your interpretation.

And the "well, it is there for the Polymorph Self spell" argument is ludicrous. Every other spell in the book describes what it can do and if another spell does something similar and is based on the first spell, the second spell will explain the differences, not the first spell.

When you have a rule that disagrees with a spell, you have to (with a literal interpretation) assume that the spell overrides the rule, not the other way around.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead UNLESS they are already are one of those types."

This sentence is nonsensical with regard to constructs and undead with your interpretation.

Yup. It's easier to write one sentence that means a humanoid can't polymorph into any of those four, and to rely on the rule that already exists to prevent people turning zombies into goldfish, than to break it into a couple of sentences and wrap it up in all sorts of conditionals.

So yes, you end up with an implication that something is possible, if you read the sentence in isolation from the rest of the rules, when in fact it (ordinarily) isn't... although there are still cases when it can happen, in which case it's important to know that if you somehow manage to Polymorph a construct, it can be turned into another construct... even though nothing else can.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

So yes, you end up with an implication that something is possible, if you read the sentence in isolation from the rest of the rules, when in fact it (ordinarily) isn't...

An implication?

I agree that it ordinarily is not possible with this type of spell. But, I do not agree that it is an implication in any way. It says what it says.

The sentence:

"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead unless they already are one of these types."

is identical in meaning to:

"You can change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead if they already are one of these types."


No different then:

"You cannot cash in your frequent flyer miles unless you have at least 10000 of them."

is identical in meaning with:

"You can cash in your frequent flyer miles if you have at least 10000 of them."


This isn't semantics Hyp, it's the way the English language works. It's all nice and well to want the Undead immunity to take precedence, but that's not what PO literally states.

In fact, the literal interpretation of the sentence in T&B means that you can change an undead into an elemental (if you read it literally) whereas it seems that they might have meant that you can only turn undead into undead, only turn elementals into elementals, etc. However, from a literal reading of that sentence, you could turn an elemental (which IS one of these types) into an undead.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No different then:

"You cannot cash in your frequent flyer miles unless you have at least 10000 of them."

is identical in meaning with:

"You can cash in your frequent flyer miles if you have at least 10000 of them."

Ah, but that's not a complete analogy.

"Members on the Red, Orange, or Yellow schemes cannot cash in frequent flyer miles unless they have at least 10000 of them."

and

"Members on the Red scheme are ineligible for frequent flyer benefits."

... means that members on the Orange and Yellow schemes can cash in their 10000 miles, but members on the Red scheme actually can't. If they can get the second restriction waived, then they can cash in their miles if they have at least 10000 of them... but since cashing in miles is a benefit, they ordinarily don't qualify even if they have 10000 miles.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ah, but that's not a complete analogy.

"Members on the Red, Orange, or Yellow schemes cannot cash in frequent flyer miles unless they have at least 10000 of them."

and

"Members on the Red scheme are ineligible for frequent flyer benefits."

... means that members on the Orange and Yellow schemes can cash in their 10000 miles, but members on the Red scheme actually can't. If they can get the second restriction waived, then they can cash in their miles if they have at least 10000 of them... but since cashing in miles is a benefit, they ordinarily don't qualify even if they have 10000 miles.

A fair analogy with one exception.

The section where the sentence

"Members on the Red, Orange, or Yellow schemes cannot cash in frequent flyer miles unless they have at least 10000 of them."

is in a spell description. Spell descriptions can and do have the power to overwrite the general rules like:

"Members on the Red scheme are ineligible for frequent flyer benefits."

You are coming to the conclusion that spell descriptions cannot overwrite general rules, even if they explicitly state so.

That is incorrect.

Freedom of Movement allows you to swing weapons underwater normally BECAUSE the spell says so. Not because the general rules says you cannot.

Dispel Magic does not immediately get rid of all of the aspects of the magic of the Fly spell because the Fly spell says so.

Contagion does not have an incubation period like normal disease rules because the spell says so.

Feather Fall can be cast fast enough to prevent damage from ANY fall, not just when it is your turn within the round (like all other spells) because the spell says so.

What is so special about Polymorph Other?

It's magic. It can do anything. Even break the normal save rules for undead and constructs (this sentence is no different than a sentence that stated that for undead and constructs, this is a Fort object save).

Your entire position is based on the concept that the spell description in this case does not take precedence over the general rule. Why? Why can some spells do that and Polymorph Other cannot? The sentence is nonsensical with respect to undead and constructs unless the spell takes precedence over the general rule. So, why would you take a nonsensical interpretation over the only one that makes sense? Are you basing your interpretation on what you think the intent of the designers was? Personally, I do not know the intent of the designers, but if your interpretation was it, they did not clarify very well (considering that this was the second or possibly the third time they wrote that spell).

 

[Hypersmurf]

You are coming to the conclusion that spell descriptions cannot overwrite general rules, even if they explicitly state so.

No, I'm saying that in this case, it doesn't.

You say:

"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead unless they already are one of these types."

is identical in meaning to:

"You can change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead if they already are one of these types."

I say that's one way the sentence can be rephrased... but another is "If it's not one of these types, you can't change the subject into a construct, elemental, outsider, or undead."

Insert the general rule into the spell description. It doesn't affect the spell text:

"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead unless they already are one of these types. Undead and Constructs are immune to spells requiring a Fort save unless the spell also affects objects."

If both sentences are assumed to be true (and there's no reason they shouldn't be), then my rephrasing above doesn't contradict either rule, but yours does.

It's like the Sneak Attack / Cure Light Wounds combo.

You can sneak attack with any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage.
Cure Light Wounds requires an attack roll and deals damage to undead.
So with Cure Light Wounds, you cannot sneak attack unless the subject is undead.
But that doesn't mean you can deal sneak attack damage to undead with Cure Light Wounds... because undead are immune to sneak attack.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I say that's one way the sentence can be rephrased... but another is "If it's not one of these types, you can't change the subject into a construct, elemental, outsider, or undead."

Insert the general rule into the spell description. It doesn't affect the spell text:

"You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead unless they already are one of these types. Undead and Constructs are immune to spells requiring a Fort save unless the spell also affects objects."

No, but the spell text does not make sense in your example here. Drop the outsiders and elementals from it to see what I mean:

"You cannot change subjects into constructs or undead unless they already are one of these types. Undead and Constructs are immune to spells requiring a Fort save unless the spell also affects objects."

In sentence one you are saying that "this spell cannot do this unless" and in sentence two, you are saying that "this spell cannot do this".

That is totally nonsensical to have these two sentences within the same spell description.

There is no need for the first sentence if the meaning is the second sentence.

However, the first sentence IS in PO, hence, it means what it says and takes precedence.

And, even if the first sentence was written your way above, it would STILL mean that PO overwrites the general rule. The way you rewrote it doesn't change the meaning.

"If it's not, you cannot" is the same as "If it is, you can".

You are grasping at straws here.

If both sentences are assumed to be true (and there's no reason they shouldn't be), then my rephrasing above doesn't contradict either rule, but yours does.

Except that sentence two overrides sentence one because you put it into the spell description.

With your interpretation, the sentence in PO should read:

"You cannot change subjects into elementals or outsiders unless they already are one of these types."

There is absolutely no reason to have undead or constructs in that sentence at all, even in the way you rewrote it.

Please explain to me why undead and constructs are needed in the sentence at all if your interpretation is correct?

Why are undead and constructs mentioned in the spell at all when the no fort save rule takes care of them in the "cannot do" case already?

If you drop them, then your interpretation rules (pun intended). With them in the sentence, my interpretation rules.

It's like the Sneak Attack / Cure Light Wounds combo.

You can sneak attack with any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage.
Cure Light Wounds requires an attack roll and deals damage to undead.
So with Cure Light Wounds, you cannot sneak attack unless the subject is undead.
But that doesn't mean you can deal sneak attack damage to undead with Cure Light Wounds... because undead are immune to sneak attack.

This analogy is totally different.

Cure Light Wounds does not state that you can suddenly do sneak attack damage against undead. If it did, you could, regardless of the sneak attack rule.

Polymorph Others, on the other hand, DOES state that you can change undead IF they are "one of these types" ("cannot unless" means the same thing as "can if" or even "if not, cannot" as you rephrased it).

 

[Hypersmurf]

With your interpretation, the sentence in PO should read:

"You cannot change subjects into elementals or outsiders unless they already are one of these types."

There is absolutely no reason to have undead or constructs in that sentence at all, even in the way you rewrote it.

Please explain to me why undead and constructs are needed in the sentence at all if your interpretation is correct?

Why are undead and constructs mentioned in the spell at all when the no fort save rule takes care of them in the "cannot do" case already?

Because if you don't include them in that sentence, then you allow humanoids to polymorph into undead!

Since undead and constructs are in the sentence, nobody else can polymorph into those types.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Because if you don't include them in that sentence, then you allow humanoids to polymorph into undead!

Since undead and constructs are in the sentence, nobody else can polymorph into those types.

Well, your statements here do not need to be true. I could easily see two sentences of:

"You cannot change subjects into elementals or outsiders unless they already are one of these types. You cannot change subjects into constructs or undead."

Problem solved, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But, we are talking literal here versus inferred. And, I am not convinced that the designers wanted to infer that undead could be changed to undead, but that is what it literally states.

When it comes to a rules forum, I do lean a little towards literal interpretation unless the literal interpretation makes little or no sense. I think changing a skeleton into a zombie makes as much sense as changing a fire elemental into a water elemental or as changing a human into a troll. None of it is unbalancing since EX, SL, and SU abilities are not gained and EX and SL abilities are not (generally) lost.

It is quite possible that your interpretation is what was wanted, but it is not what is stated.

I figure we are at the "guess we'll have to agree to disagree" part of the discussion. Where's Caliban when I need him?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, your statements here do not need to be true. I could easily see two sentences of:

"You cannot change subjects into elementals or outsiders unless they already are one of these types. You cannot change subjects into constructs or undead."

Problem solved, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Except that you can change a subject into an undead, if he's already undead... if you get around the immunity.

There are at least three ways of doing that mentioned so far:

1. Convince him to drop his immunity. I'm unconvinced by the "not the same as elven Sleep immunity" argument.
2. Poly Other as a Su ability.
3. Poly Other as an Irresistible Spell.

At least one of those is Core, so it's not nonsensical for the spell to account for it.

-Hyp.