Polymorphing outsiders and undead

[KarinsDad]

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

That is stretching so far that it is inconceivable that the designers ever put that much thought into it. Name three places in the game where immunities can be overcome. We are not talking SR where penetration or something can bypass it, we are talking an immunity.

Do you really think the designers thought it out to this level? If so, they should have clarified what they meant so that people like you and me would not debate over it.

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.

How can a creature drop an immunity? This doesn't make sense. Check out the MM. It doesn't state that undead automatically makes the fort save, it states that undead are immune.

They only way to get past an immunity is if you have a game element (spell, magic item) or rule that states directly or indirectly that it gets past the immunity. Granted, PO does not explicitly call out word for word that it overcomes the immunity (otherwise, we would not be having this debate), but it has a sentence in it that indirectly states that.

General rule: "The sky is never red."
Spell: "This turns the sky red."

Just because the spell does not explicitly call out that it overrides the general rule does not mean that it does not do so.

2. Poly Other as a Su ability.
3. Poly Other as an Irresistible Spell.

Where in the rules does it state that you can do something with a spell, but if you cast it from a different source, the spell interpretation is different?

Fly as a spell. Fly as a Su ability. Works the same way. Both can be dispelled, etc. There might be some minor differences between the two with regard to external forces (i.e. you can cast Fly as a spell if Polymorphed, you cannot cast Fly as an Su ability if Polymorphed), but if you actually manage to cast the spell, it works the same way.

 

[Dingleberry]

How can a creature drop an immunity?

You mean like if an elf wanted to drop its immunity to sleep? I have no idea.

 

[Spatzimaus]

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

This sentence can be grammatically reduced to two clauses.

Set A = [constructs, elementals, outsiders, undead]
Set B = [everything else]

If you ignore the other implications of the part involving the word "unless", you get:
"You cannot change subjects into a type from set A"

The part implied by the word "unless" can be further taken one of two ways:
KarinsDad: "You CAN change subjects of types from set A into another creature of that type"
Hypersmurf: "This restriction does not apply to creatures from set A", so it becomes "You cannot change subjects from Set B into types from Set A"
Just going by grammar, I'd have to go with Hypersmurf. An "unless" clause modifies the previous statement, usually removing a limitation, it doesn't automatically enable a new ability. If, somehow, you could make an Undead that wasn't immune to Fort saves, it could be polymorphed into an Undead.

Here's another example:
"You can't drive to a city in Europe, unless you're in Europe to begin with." The unless clause removes a limitation (the inability to drive across water), but it doesn't actually ALLOW anything, there can still be other reasons why you can't drive to a different city, like the fact that you don't own a car.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's another example:
"You can't drive to a city in Europe, unless you're in Europe to begin with." The unless clause removes a limitation (the inability to drive across water), but it doesn't actually ALLOW anything, there can still be other reasons why you can't drive to a different city, like the fact that you don't own a car.

I absolutely understand the opposing point of view. This is not the best example of the thought process behind it though. Let's change the wording slightly:

"This spell allows people to drive to cities in Europe. You can't drive to a city in Europe as a teenager, unless you were born in that city to begin with."

with a rule in the book of:

"Teenagers cannot drive."

I just do not see any need for the "you can't drive as a teenager unless" sentence whatsoever if the rule is that "teenagers cannot drive" takes precedence.

The sentence in the spell becomes nonsensical if overruled by the rule. There is no need for the sentence.

Instead, if the sentence takes precedence over the normal rule, then the interpretation that "Teenagers can drive to a city as long as they were born there" makes sense given the sentences.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How can a creature drop an immunity? This doesn't make sense. Check out the MM. It doesn't state that undead automatically makes the fort save, it states that undead are immune.

An immunity to a spell effect is treated as spell resistance that cannot be overcome.

Spell resistance can be voluntarily lowered as a standard action.

Where in the rules does it state that you can do something with a spell, but if you cast it from a different source, the spell interpretation is different?

An immunity to a spell effect is treated as spell resistance that cannot be overcome.

[Su] abilities do not allow spell resistance. Therefore, immunities are ignored by [Su] abilities.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

An immunity to a spell effect is treated as spell resistance that cannot be overcome.

Again, where in the rules does it state that?


Btw, since you had so many "stretches" in your POV (e.g. the designers put Undead into the sentence, just in case you could overcome their immunity - chuckle), I decided to throw a "stretch" in on my side of the position.

1) "They have no Constitution scores and are therefore immune to any effect requiring a Fort save (unless it affects objects)."

2) "Saving Throw: Fortitude save (and see text)"

3) "You cannot change subjects into constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead unless they are already of that type."

4) "When the polymorph occurs, the creature's equipment, if any, transforms to match the new form."

Polymorph Others affects equipment. Equipment consists of objects. Therefore, Polymorph Others can affect objects (note: it does not state "target objects", it states "affects objects"). Therefore, Polymorph Others can affect Constructs and Undead.


So, best I can tell, the best argument you had (the spell has to affect objects) is null and void. Your turn.

(hits the ball over the net)

 

[KarinsDad]

Hey Hyp!

Have you come up with a counter for my last argument?

Or, are you silently agreeing?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Have you come up with a counter for my last argument?

Actually, it's a separate question.

The original question was "Does the mention of Undead in the spell description override the general rule that Undead are immune to spell effects requiring a Fort Save, except those that also affect objects?"

Since you're now proposing that Polymorph does affect objects, Polymorph is no longer an issue with the original question.

If Polymorph is, indeed, a "spell that affects objects".

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

There are now two questions:

Q1> Does the text that Polymorph cannot turn a creature into an Undead unless it already is one override the immunity of creatures with no constitution score to spells that have a Fortitude Save that cannot be targetted against objects?

A1: Of course not. No more than Poison saying that it targets a creature overrides that ability.

Q2> Is Polymorph a spell which affects objects, on account of it can end up changing the equipment of the targetted creature?

A2: Of course not. No more than Haste is a spell that affects objects because the creature can more their weapon extra fast or Poison is a spell that affects objects because it can make the creature's equipment fall out of their hands when they die.

The two questions do not support each other - and the answer to both of them is still no.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

Q2> Is Polymorph a spell which affects objects, on account of it can end up changing the equipment of the targetted creature?

A2: Of course not. No more than Haste is a spell that affects objects because the creature can more their weapon extra fast or Poison is a spell that affects objects because it can make the creature's equipment fall out of their hands when they die.

That's a very, very (very) tenuous analogy.

A spell that causes a creature to manipulate an object is not a spell-affecting-an-object.

A spell that actually magically reshapes an object is not at all the same thing.

-Hyp.