Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iku Rex" data-source="post: 1160044" data-attributes="member: 752"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> Objects do not have a creature type, just as objects don't have hit dice. It is self evident that the parts of polymorph that concerns attributes only applicable to creatures (like type and HD) don't apply to objects. They shouldn't have to spell that out, even for you.&nbsp; Reference? Claiming that objects have &quot;zero hit dice&quot; is like claiming that objects have &quot;zero type&quot;. It makes no sense, since the &quot;hit dice&quot; term only applies to creatures. Surely you don't expect a special note in the spell explaining that &quot;terms not applicable to objects aren't applicable to objects&quot;? The rules assume a minimum of intelligence in the reader. There is no such implication. You're making up rules as you go along. Once again, if &quot;another&quot; has such a broad meaning, then how come polymorph uses almost the exact same wording as PaO? You yourself agree that &quot;you change the willing subject into another form of living creature [polymorph]&quot; is &quot;subject to any additional restrictions on the spell&quot;.PaO works like polymorph unless otherwise noted. Polymorph has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. This is not contradicted anywhere in PaO's spell description. Therefore, PaO has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. QED.&nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> So, PaO doesn't say that it works &quot;like polymorph&quot;? Polymorph doesn't have restrictions on type and hit dice? You're the one who needs special &quot;implication rules&quot; to arrive at your conclusion.&nbsp; That trick is only possible if the dragon you &quot;want&quot; has less HD than you have caster levels. And you don't need a dead dragon to begin with - any object will do. I've never claimed that the spell is balanced as written. But that doesn't give any extra credibility to your absurdly broken interpretation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iku Rex, post: 1160044, member: 752"] :rolleyes: Objects do not have a creature type, just as objects don't have hit dice. It is self evident that the parts of polymorph that concerns attributes only applicable to creatures (like type and HD) don't apply to objects. They shouldn't have to spell that out, even for you. Reference? Claiming that objects have "zero hit dice" is like claiming that objects have "zero type". It makes no sense, since the "hit dice" term only applies to creatures. Surely you don't expect a special note in the spell explaining that "terms not applicable to objects aren't applicable to objects"? The rules assume a minimum of intelligence in the reader. There is no such implication. You're making up rules as you go along. Once again, if "another" has such a broad meaning, then how come polymorph uses almost the exact same wording as PaO? You yourself agree that "you change the willing subject into [b]another form of living creature[/b] [polymorph]" is "subject to any additional restrictions on the spell". PaO works like polymorph unless otherwise noted. Polymorph has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. This is not contradicted anywhere in PaO's spell description. Therefore, PaO has restrictions on the type, size and hit dice of the new [creature] form. QED. :rolleyes: So, PaO doesn't say that it works "like polymorph"? Polymorph doesn't have restrictions on type and hit dice? You're the one who needs special "implication rules" to arrive at your conclusion. That trick is only possible if the dragon you "want" has less HD than you have caster levels. And you don't need a dead dragon to begin with - any object will do. I've never claimed that the spell is balanced as written. But that doesn't give any extra credibility to your absurdly broken interpretation. [/QUOTE]

Verification