Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 8126502" data-attributes="member: 59848">I'm sure the designers did not just start with the fiction and work from there. D&D is a Role Playing Game. You can't ignore the aspect of the game, and while the fiction can guide the mechanical design, that is not the only consideration. I would say it is a parallel process, rather than starting with the game or the role playing.Polymorph is a great example of this. Polymorph literally means many forms. It doesn't mean many animal forms. Yet the designers intentionally limited the forms to "beasts" which is a very specific term related to their mechanics and design for creatures. The designers understood that Polymorph should let you change into many things. But if they opened it up to anything that would break the game via the mechanics. They also specifically chose "beasts" rather than "beasts and monstrosities" because mechanically all beasts are limited in their abilities based on physical stats. Beasts with wings can fly. Big beasts are strong. Small beasts can sneak and burrow. They don't come with innate magical abilities like other creatures might. So while it would absolutely fit the fiction for a spell like polymorph to allow someone to assume the form of a gargoyle or beholder, that would ultimately harm the game if they also took on the stats of such creatures.I'm not saying my version of the spell is perfect. It is not for the pure simulationist that expects all mechanics to accurately match real or imagined expectations. But I would say that my version is 1) Self-contained not requiring the Monster Manual, 2) Relatively balanced compared to what the original spell could accomplish (analysis still needs to be done between 4th level spells), and 3) It is a good enough model. It won't perfectly simulate every single possible creature. But there are enough options to represent most creatures while solving the primary problems the original Polymorph spell typically addresses.Also, the thorny vine was an example. Please don't underestimate my ability to reimagine the T-Rex stat block into a plant monster that makes sense, or any number of creatures that just as easily fit the stat block. The same goes for any other stat block. In the end, those are numbers and sets of abilities. While they attempt to simulate what they are meant to represent, that doesn't mean they couldn't easily or successfully represent other things. Also, don't assume that those numbers and abilities a necessary to simulate the thing they are meant to represent. Even the designers have said the stat blocks represent typical creatures of their kind, but that individuals may differ.</blockquote>

Verification