D&D 5E True Polymorph shenanigans and "game statistics"

[77IM]

To me, the key word here is "replaced." When you replace one thing with another, the old thing goes away and the new thing is in its place. So when you replace your game statistics with the creature's, you lose your old statistics and gain all of the creature's. (Except alignment and personality, as noted.)

I don't see how you could keep any class or race abilities unless those things are not game statistics. The term "game statistics" is never explicitly defined, but it'd be pretty hard to convince me that mechanical class or race abilities aren't game statistics.

 

[Lanefan]

This is where you need two different spells, and 1e had it right.

1. Polymorph Self - a useful spell you can only cast on yourself, where you assume the form of another creature but keep your own mind and will. (suggested houserule is to make it a normal natural creature, so no unicorns or dragons allowed)
2. Polymorph Other - a specifically offensive spell cast on others to hose them e.g. turning a Giant into a trout, and something you would not cast on an ally (nor would an ally reasonably accept) as it is far too risky.

In this case if your Monk was asked by the party's MU to be a polymorph target your best response would be some unarmed combat straight to the MU's nose. It probably still is, in any case.

Lanefan

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is where you need two different spells, and 1e had it right.

1. Polymorph Self - a useful spell you can only cast on yourself, where you assume the form of another creature but keep your own mind and will. (suggested houserule is to make it a normal natural creature, so no unicorns or dragons allowed)

The main issue with this is that it's incredibly confusing, and the game will grind to a halt as you look up the monster and interleave the various stats and decide what you can still do and what you can't. Plus all the "if I have this ability and turn into this thing, then badness ensues" that used to exist. Arcane striking hydras and all that.

Personally I much, much, much prefer effectively removing your character from the game in all but personality, and replacing you with a monster. That's basically what this edition gives you, except it then contra-indicates it by suggesting you might be able to be a spellcaster without the necessary accouterments for spellcasting...

2. Polymorph Other - a specifically offensive spell cast on others to hose them e.g. turning a Giant into a trout, and something you would not cast on an ally (nor would an ally reasonably accept) as it is far too risky.

In this case if your Monk was asked by the party's MU to be a polymorph target your best response would be some unarmed combat straight to the MU's nose. It probably still is, in any case.

And this one works just fine with the "remove the target from the game and replace with <thing>" version as well. And whether you want to be polymorphed is a tough question to answer: typically you're getting some defensive boost for a loss in offense.

 

[Sunseeker]

The main issue with this is that it's incredibly confusing, and the game will grind to a halt as you look up the monster and interleave the various stats and decide what you can still do and what you can't. Plus all the "if I have this ability and turn into this thing, then badness ensues" that used to exist. Arcane striking hydras and all that.

Personally I much, much, much prefer effectively removing your character from the game in all but personality, and replacing you with a monster. That's basically what this edition gives you, except it then contra-indicates it by suggesting you might be able to be a spellcaster without the necessary accouterments for spellcasting...

And this one works just fine with the "remove the target from the game and replace with <thing>" version as well. And whether you want to be polymorphed is a tough question to answer: typically you're getting some defensive boost for a loss in offense.

I think some of the intended implication is that certain creatures can improve themselves through classes. So, arguably if you were True Polymorphed into a creature physically and mentally capable enough to perform class abilities, you could then take class levels. So you might lose everything you have, but it wouldn't stop you from starting over.

 

[Lanefan]

The main issue with this is that it's incredibly confusing, and the game will grind to a halt as you look up the monster and interleave the various stats and decide what you can still do and what you can't. Plus all the "if I have this ability and turn into this thing, then badness ensues" that used to exist. Arcane striking hydras and all that.

Hence my houserule suggestion, that you can only turn into a normal natural creature. Dog? Yes. Bear? Yes. Eagle? Yes. Salmon? Yes, though breathing during the transformation could be tricky. Dire wolf? No. Umber hulk? No. Hydra? No.

Personally I much, much, much prefer effectively removing your character from the game in all but personality, and replacing you with a monster.

An animal, but yes; this is what you get. You keep your intelligence and wisdom (and keep any memorized spells, as if you lost them you'd not have them when you transformed back - hardly the intent) but you're otherwise the creature. That said, I'm coming at this from a nice simple no-feats perspective, so you might want to rule the creature loses all feats and skills as well except those related to knowledge and-or that would naturally be had by the creature e.g. a mountain goat can climb. But no talking dogs...and if you can't talk, you can't cast spells.

And this one works just fine with the "remove the target from the game and replace with <thing>" version as well. And whether you want to be polymorphed is a tough question to answer: typically you're getting some defensive boost for a loss in offense.

The way to keep Poly-Other (or equivalent) from getting broken is to make it nasty enough and risky enough that no sentient creature would willingly undergo it. Chance of straight death on transformation (in 1e it was a system shock roll, I think). Chance of permanently assuming the creature's form, personality, etc., including appropriate alignment change. Immediate and permanent hatred of whoever cast it on you, thus polymorphing an ally becomes a very dangerous business. And so on.

Lan-"removal of risk and negative consequences is the direct cause of most broken spells"-efan

 

[Saeviomagy]

All of which would make for a very poor 8th level spell.

 

[Li Shenron]

I haven't carefully compared the wording of the various similar options (Wildshape, Polymorph, Shapechange and True Polymorph) so there might be some quirks I've been missing, but here's my general understanding:

1) First of all, "game statistics" are the stat block, conveniently made very visible in the Monster Manual layout. So the general idea of all these spells is that you completely toss aside your own character sheet, put the creature's stat block in front of you, and use that, including all its special actions (unless they require some equipment you don't have).

2) Your alignment and personality don't change. However it doesn't say if you're still aware of who you are or not. This seems really up to the DM, and it might be ruled differently also depending on the new form's Int score. (I think it's easier to rule that you are still aware, but the opposite can make for some interesting situations)

3) Speaking and handling objects might be impaired by the new form.

Think of 1) + 2) + 3) as your starting point, which is modified by the specific additions/restrictions mentioned by each spell.

- Polymorph & True Polymorph work similarly with each other (except the latter also allows objects), and the only additional rule to the starting point is:

x) Your equipment melds into the new form and becomes unusable.

- Wildshape & Shapechange work the same way (except duration, and number of form changes allowed), with the following exceptions to the general starting point:

a) Keep using your Int, Wis and Cha.
b) Keep your proficiency bonus to skills and ST.
c) Keep all your class/race/other features except spells and special senses (some other exceptions are possible depending on the form)
d) Choose if you want to keep/drop/merge with your equipment.

Note that it doesn't mention weapons/armors and tools proficiencies. But aren't these class/race/other features anyway? Personally I think it's safe to allow them.

Exception a) creates a slightly tricky case, when the monster has an Int/Wis/Cha proficiency that you don't have. You are supposed to use your own Int/Wis/Cha but also the monster's prof bonus, but you have to calculate it.

All in all I have only one reservation about this whole system... and that's about knowledge. There is no reason why you should gain or lose knowledge when changing form. If you know the barkeeper's name or how to enter Asmodeus' palace, why should you forget it while polymorphed? And if you didn't know it, why should you learn it by polymorphing? While this is obvious for free-form knowledge, the problem is that there are also knowledge skills, which by the RAW are affected. It may not happen often, but personally I will make an exception for knowledge skills and would not change what you know or don't know in case of polymorph.

 

[Dausuul]

All in all I have only one reservation about this whole system... and that's about knowledge. There is no reason why you should gain or lose knowledge when changing form. If you know the barkeeper's name or how to enter Asmodeus' palace, why should you forget it while polymorphed? And if you didn't know it, why should you learn it by polymorphing? While this is obvious for free-form knowledge, the problem is that there are also knowledge skills, which by the RAW are affected. It may not happen often, but personally I will make an exception for knowledge skills and would not change what you know or don't know in case of polymorph.

This is a fair point; however, since 5E no longer distinguishes between "trained" and "untrained" uses of skills (at least I don't think it does, don't have my PHB handy right now to confirm), the only real effect of having a knowledge skill is that you get to add your proficiency bonus to the Int check. Personally, I don't think that's important enough to justify putting in a house rule. The difference can be explained as the difference between knowing some facts and having the deep, intuitive knowledge of a field that lets you make connections between seemingly unrelated things.

 

[seebs]

Also worth noting: The ablative hit point feature goes away if the spell becomes "permanent"; at that point, that's your form. You die, you're dead.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is a fair point; however, since 5E no longer distinguishes between "trained" and "untrained" uses of skills (at least I don't think it does, don't have my PHB handy right now to confirm), the only real effect of having a knowledge skill is that you get to add your proficiency bonus to the Int check.

Not officially, but 5e does say that it is the DM who decides if you get to roll a check at all or not, and what is the DC. If I decide differently depending on your proficiency, it's just as correct as deciding equally.