Using polymorph for a huge boost in AC

[Kae'Yoss]

Roleplay is never a good balancing point of view.

That's sad but true. If more people would play reasonably, we would not have to make the rules powergamer-proof.

For one very very very very very very particular case (well in fact for your character) that reasonning works. But what about an half-orc wizard ? He's already ugly. turning into a troll surely ain't worst.

And he's stupid as hell.

In any case, roleplaying won't balance the polymorph spell. That's what I wanted you to think again...

not for powergamers, in any case.

That's what you should think again. I don't agree with you. I don't think that most player care about the comeliness of their character. Why should they ? Since there is no more comeliness scores in 3E and that beauty is simply a role-playing thing, are you saying that each and every PC are (or should be) pretty ? Think again my friend...

I was referring to the suggestions that many wouldn't mind that their characters would be polymorphed permanently if the wizard doesn't do anything about it.
While I think that a troll form's OK in the heat of battle against monsters, it's real bad if you encounter NPC's that usually aren't hostile to you. You can't just walk into that tavern as a troll and peacefully order a tankard of ale. You probabyl won't make it into the town, at least if they have a watch. Many people in any world will have aversion to those PC's. It may only be a roleplaying thing, but with a DM worth his salt that player will realize that that can be a real disadvantage.
Of course, when the DM lets him walk around in town, saying "I'm a polymorphed human" once in a while, without anyone annoyed or worried at the whole thing, count me into that game as a half-dragon drow ninja!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

You do understand that a character so obsessed with his looks that he'd rather look pretty than become almost invulnerable to attacks while wandering through a monster filled dungeon, is a certifiable loon, don't you?

First, we ain't talking about a little wart. Even a non-narcissist will find it troublesome to look like a monster.
Second, you can become almost invulnerable to attacks in other ways
Third, becoming almost invulnerable to attacks is not any fun, except for munchkins.
Fourth, you're only almost invulnerable to physical attacks. Depend on your DM to change the enemies' tactics if the party cannot be hit with a weapon.
I know what I'm talking about: my character also had an incredibly high AC and most enemies only hit with a N20. But soon after that enemies were employing touch attacks, or spells in general, and used other tactics.
If your DM lets you use the same tactic all the time, rendering you near invulnerable (and thus presenting you with no challenge), he's probably a lousy DM, as such behavior encourages powergaming instead of thinking.

What makes you think they won't just have the polymorph removed when they get back to town?

Someone said that he wouldn't mind being polymorphed all the time.
Also, you need two spell slots to use poly properly. And if something goes wrong before the second casting's done, you're in trouble. That would actually make a good roleplaying....

Wow. He always kills his opponents without getting injured? He is never in any risk of dying?

No, but who is, except munchkins?

Or if he is injured, and is in mortal danger, he is so infatuated with his own looks that he gladly suffers pain and possible death in order to make sure the bad guys are killed by the prettiest elf in the dungeon? Go him!

As I said, he already has good offensive qualities and a rather decent AC (both are usually boosted by spells). If he's in danger, changing into an ugly thing won't help overmuch, since that won't improve your will saves, or your ability to perceive...

 

[Bastoche]

That's sad but true. If more people would play reasonably, we would not have to make the rules powergamer-proof.

I personnaly see thing totally the otherway around. Once the rules are absolutly and totally fool proof, all what is left to do is role-play. In reality, not everybody is a good player. And in reality, you won't say to one of your dearest friend "soory pal, you can't play in my game, you're not roleplayer enough for us". We need "powergamer"-proof rules so we can concentrate on the roleplaying instead of watching for loopholes in the rules at every turn.

And he's stupid as hell.

So ? Only a powergamer wouldn't see the roleplaying opportunities that could arise from playing a half-orc wizard or sorceror

not for powergamers, in any case.

Not for anybody IMO. It's not because you are a good roleplayer that you may get the priviledge to balance roll advantages with role disadvantages.

I was referring to the suggestions that many wouldn't mind that their characters would be polymorphed permanently if the wizard doesn't do anything about it.
While I think that a troll form's OK in the heat of battle against monsters, it's real bad if you encounter NPC's that usually aren't hostile to you. You can't just walk into that tavern as a troll and peacefully order a tankard of ale. You probabyl won't make it into the town, at least if they have a watch. Many people in any world will have aversion to those PC's. It may only be a roleplaying thing, but with a DM worth his salt that player will realize that that can be a real disadvantage.
Of course, when the DM lets him walk around in town, saying "I'm a polymorphed human" once in a while, without anyone annoyed or worried at the whole thing, count me into that game as a half-dragon drow ninja!

In the case of polymorph other, I agree. But like someone said, it's nothing that a hat of disguise can't fix. And in the case of polymorph self, you can always revert to your original shape for the duration of the spell.

 

[LokiDR]

In the case of polymorph other, I agree. But like someone said, it's nothing that a hat of disguise can't fix. And in the case of polymorph self, you can always revert to your original shape for the duration of the spell.

You could dispel the polymorph self, but the free form changing with poly self has been errated. You may only take one form, or end the spell.

 

[Bastoche]

You could dispel the polymorph self, but the free form changing with poly self has been errated. You may only take one form, or end the spell.

I haven't seen (and do not use) the errata. If something's wrong, we rule-0 it. Otherwise, we stick to the PHB. I don't remeber seeing anybody using the polymorph spell. Among our players, nobody know, own or read the monster manual. That way, nobody has any clue about what creature they should polymorph into to get the x,y,z advantage... no need for errata. But that's just us...

 

[LokiDR]

I haven't seen (and do not use) the errata. If something's wrong, we rule-0 it. Otherwise, we stick to the PHB. I don't remeber seeing anybody using the polymorph spell. Among our players, nobody know, own or read the monster manual. That way, nobody has any clue about what creature they should polymorph into to get the x,y,z advantage... no need for errata. But that's just us...

With all due respect, you are in the wrong place. If I am not mistaken, this is the rules forum. That means a discussion of the rules. If your group doesn't use the errta, that is your choice. If there is a problem with the balance of spell, and it is discussed here, it should be discussed with all the rules. Your Rule 0 is not valid argument here. Errta is officially part of the rules. I pointed out the statement so that disscusion can be complete, including the errta. If you choose to ignore rules, why are you here?

 

[Bastoche]

With all due respect, you are in the wrong place. If I am not mistaken, this is the rules forum. That means a discussion of the rules. If your group doesn't use the errta, that is your choice. If there is a problem with the balance of spell, and it is discussed here, it should be discussed with all the rules. Your Rule 0 is not valid argument here. Errta is officially part of the rules. I pointed out the statement so that disscusion can be complete, including the errta. If you choose to ignore rules, why are you here?

Errata part of the offical rule ?!?! Why aren't they in my mailbox then ? I don't consider errata as "offical rule", the offical rule is the PHB, the DMG and the MM. The rest is add-on IMO. But that's just me. And house rules are indirectly part of the rule as the DM, who's in charge, has all the right to makes the house rules he wish. I haven't suggested any house, I just suggested the use house rule to correct the problem if there's a problem. And like I said, in our group, we haven't had any problems. My post was fully on topic, sorry.

 

[IceBear]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the other poster that errata is the offical rule. Yes, it's possible to own the product and not be aware of the errata - unfortunately - but if you should happen to play in an offical tournament they would be using the rules as officially sanctioned by WotC, and that would include the errata.

I do, however, feel that you're opinion is welcome even if you aren't using the errata, but as I'm sure you're well aware, most people on here want to use the offical rules (to the point where the Sage makes a clarification that makes sense but no one wants to use it BECAUSE it's not in the errata) so you're points of view probably won't be as well received. There are a couple of forums here - this one, is for OFFICAL rule discussions. Yes, sometimes house rules are mentioned, but to truly discuss them they should be taken to the House Rule forum.

There should be errata on their website, so there is no need for them to mail it to you.

IceBear

 

[Bastoche]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the other poster that errata is the offical rule. Yes, it's possible to own the product and not be aware of the errata - unfortunately - but if you should happen to play in an offical tournament they would be using the rules as officially sanctioned by WotC, and that would include the errata.

I do, however, feel that you're opinion is welcome even if you aren't using the errata, but as I'm sure you're well aware, most people on here want to use the offical rules (to the point where the Sage makes a clarification that makes sense but no one wants to use it BECAUSE it's not in the errata) so you're points of view probably won't be as well received. There are a couple of forums here - this one, is for OFFICAL rule discussions. Yes, sometimes house rules are mentioned, but to truly discuss them they should be taken to the House Rule forum.

There should be errata on their website, so there is no need for them to mail it to you.

IceBear

I agree, and thanks for your support.

1) I have been wandering sparsly the board since the very begining of 3E (for what 3 years now ?). I know how this forum works, thankyouverymuch .

2) I agree that house rules (on a case by case basis) should be discussed in the house rule forum, but mentionning it's use should not be prohibited in the rules forum IMO. Plus, I've seen more and more off-topics thread in the rules forum since the "post Noah" era. All the kind of "how should I build my dream fighter ?" and "attentions to all powergamers", and the "should I take X feat for my Y character ?". I don't know if the moderators are more severe than they used to do, but with all due respect to both of you, I don't think I need any lessons about how this board works .

3) The only only point I wanted to make is that not everybody use or agree with the errata. So saying that errata=official rules needs to be nuanced IMO. But like I said, that's just me. I think discussing the "uncorrected" rules from the PHB should be as legitimate as the "corrected" rules in this forum IMO.

 

[Bastoche]

BTW IceBear, I registered 2 days before you on this board