Polymorphing outsiders and undead

[FrankTrollman]

And Polymorph Other merely adjusts or removes equipment of the target creature to account for the new shape - in much the same way as haste adjusts the equipment of the target creature to account for the new speed.

Polymorph Other cannot target objects in the same way as Finger of Death cannot target an object. Polymorph Any Object can - but also has a Will Save, not a Fortitude Save.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

And Polymorph Other merely adjusts or removes equipment of the target creature to account for the new shape - in much the same way as haste adjusts the equipment of the target creature to account for the new speed.

Haste doesn't adjust equipment at all. Unlike, say, Enlarge Person - which "enlarges equipment similarly", there is no change in the equipment of a Hasted person.

If I take a sword from a Ftr1, and hand it to a Ftr6, the sword has not changed. Even though the Ftr6 gets twice as many attacks on a full attack action.

If I take a sword from a human (size Medium) and hand it to an Ogre (size Large), the sword doesn't change. If I cast Enlarge Person on the human, the sword does change. The spell affects the object.

It can't target the object individually, but as KD points out, the condition for a spell being able to affect undead is not the ability to target objects, only to affect them.

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

But Enlarge can target the object.

If Polymorph Other was meant to "affect objects" it would have a Will Save. There is a version of Polymorph that "affects objects". It has a Will Save.

Edit: Seething Eyebane can destroy the creature's objects when it causes your eyes to explode for 1d6 acid damage. By KD's erroneous criteria that would affect objects as well. Obviously, however, it does nothing of the sort - so no destroying the eyes of bronze serpents with that spell.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

But Enlarge can target the object.

Enlarge Person can't, though.

Okay, it's a 3.5 spell, but a 3E spell that did the same thing - Target, one humanoid creature, with text that indicates it actually alters the creature's equipment somehow - is still "a spell that affects objects".

If Polymorph Other was meant to "affect objects" it would have a Will Save.

Ah. Like, say, Disintegrate?

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Enlarge Person can't, though.

Andy Collins screwed that spell to hell - based upon its current effects it should give a +10 strength bonus, and be increased in level until that's balanced. Andy Collins screwing up is, however, not my problem when debating 3rd edition spell mechanics.

Ah. Like, say, Disintegrate?

If it had the text:

creature or object

in it like Disintegrate does - sure. But it doesn't.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

If it had the text "creature or object" in it like Disintegrate does - sure. But it doesn't.

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

Equipment is objects.

Polymorph Other causes objects to transform.

How does it do that, exactly, if it's a spell that cannot affect objects?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Polymorph Other causes objects to transform.

How does it do that, exactly, if it's a spell that cannot affect objects?

Well, since it IS a spell that can affect objects, it does not seem like Frank's POV is valid.

Frank will argue the opposing point of view WITHOUT actually quoting rules to support his position until the sun goes down, but he will never ever admit that he was wrong. Ever. Even if you quote the rules that illustrate that he is wrong, he will still contend that he was correct. Some people are that way.

Instead, he will state things like "By KD's erroneous criteria that would affect objects as well.". How is it erroneous? Quote a rule. It is obvious that Polymorpth Other affects objects. Does it effect them enough to qualify as a spell that affects objects? Well, without any other sort of rule to indicate otherwise, it appears that the answer to this question is yes, regardless of Franks emphatic belief without any supporting documentation to the contrary.

I posted exact quotes that illustrate my point. I patiently wait for Frank to do the same, but I'll bet good money that he instead either ignores this or posts a bunch of arguments without rules to back them up (and by rules, I mean exact quotes, not the "sorta, kinda, touchie, feelie" type opinions that we normally get). This is a rules forum, not an opinion forum, even supposed opinions from designers which Frank often likes to throw around. If it is not in the books, a faq or an errata, it holds no weight here.

 

[FrankTrollman]

So you are saying that a secondary effect of a spell that can only target creatures which affects objects, allows the spell to bypass the targetting restriction that prevents it from affecting Constructs and Undead in the first place?

Excuse me?

So in the Seething Eyebane example:

Target: Creature Touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (see text)

It blinds one creature, and causes 1d6 of acid damage to everyone within 5 feet. That can, in turn, damage objects (presumably "affecting them"). However, the spell cannot target objects, nor does it have any affect when cast upon an object.

Which is the basic question: if you cast Polymorph Other (or any spell with a Fortitude Save) on an object, does anything happen?

If the answer is no, then whatever may or may not happen to objects after you target a creature is irrelevent: the spell does not affect objects when cast upon them. That's the question, and when confronted with the Polymorph Other spell the answer is simply that nothing happens.

Target: One creature
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates

That's all you have to read to see whether it "affects objects". It can't even target an object, and therefore cannot be cast upon them. Since you can't cast it on an object, it can't affect an object when cast upon them.

-Frank

 

[Hypersmurf]

The spell does not affect objects when cast upon them. That's the question...

No, the italicised text is your own fabrication, and is outside the bounds of 'the question'.

Q. Can a spell with a Fort save affect Undead and Constructs?
A. No, unless it affects objects.

Q. Don't you mean "unless it affects objects when cast upon them"?
A. See previous answer.

Q. But does that make sense?
A. It's the rule. What's sense got to do with it?

Q. But Polymorph Other can't target an object, even though it can affect them!
A. It can target a creature; therefore it can target an undead creature. It can affect objects; therefore it can affect undead. It can't target an object, but where's the relevance to the question at hand?

-Hyp.

 

[FrankTrollman]

It can affect objects; therefore it can affect undead. It can't target an object, but where's the relevance to the question at hand?

The above text is your fabrication. Nowehere is "affects objects" directly defined. I say that such a designation must appear in its targettability, you say that it can include its secondary effects - but the rules don't address the issue in the slightest.

Since by your reading, all spells can potentially affect objects, even Finger of Death (which if used against a Balor will destroy a weapon which is an object) - I would say that your reading is not useful. It's not more valid, and it's a complete waste of time - so I don't see why you would attempt to advance it as an interpretation.

-Frank