So far, polymorph seems to be one of those spells that's a save or die. If you're hit with a polymorph spell (from a hostile), you're screwed. And you don't have to be a very high level to cast it. Let's throw out a scenario.
Level 7 party consisting of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric enters a cave. Oh ****! A black dragon! This is a level 11 encounter! Wizard casts Polymorph. Dragon fails save. Dragon is now a chicken for 10 turns. Party wails on the dragon-chicken until it's dead (well within 10 turns). Cue victory fanfare.
There either needs to be a harsher limit set on the possible targets of the spell (so far it's anything under 150 maximum HP) or a higher requirement for successful casting. Our lovely devs mentioned their desire to limit save or die effects and I feel they kind of missed this one during the last packet.
So far, polymorph seems to be one of those spells that's a save or die. If you're hit with a polymorph spell (from a hostile), you're screwed. And you don't have to be a very high level to cast it. Let's throw out a scenario.Level 7 party consisting
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long way from 3.5's baleful polymorph.
In a solo encounter it's pretty powerful, but not really more so than any other SoD spell. In mutli creature encounters, it's not the best spell for the ocassion. It really feeds into the whole "What do I prepare" choice that Wizards have to make. Here's hoping it becomes a more meaningful decision.
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long
YES. It's not just broken if you're casting it on a hostile, either, but also if you're casting it on yourself, since it lets you turn into any Beast-type creature that has been published, or ever will be published. This means that not only will monsters need to be balanced for fighting against, they will also need to be balanced against the Wizard becoming one through the use of the Polymorph spell; it's unique in that rather than scaling with spell level, it scales with the number of books that have been released.
YES. It's not just broken if you're casting it on a hostile, either, but also if you're casting it on yourself, since it lets you turn into any Beast-type creature that has been published, or ever will be published. This means that not only will mons
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long way from 3.5's baleful polymorph.
In a solo encounter it's pretty powerful, but not really more so than any other SoD spell. In mutli creature encounters, it's not the best spell for the ocassion. It really feeds into the whole "What do I prepare" choice that Wizards have to make. Here's hoping it becomes a more meaningful decision.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And if multiclassing will work like they've mentioned, taking 1 class of cleric will remove concentration problems. The 150 HP limiter is the biggest problem I believe. There are very few things in the Bestiary so far with more than 150 HP. Two of the dragons have less than 150 HP (with the other two barely slicking above 150).
The quickest fixes are really just lowering the health ceiling (i.e. from 150 HP to 50) and/or to increase the spell level (currently it's only a 4th level spell, available at level 7 for wizards).
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And
YES. It's not just broken if you're casting it on a hostile, either, but also if you're casting it on yourself, since it lets you turn into any Beast-type creature that has been published, or ever will be published. This means that not only will monsters need to be balanced for fighting against, they will also need to be balanced against the Wizard becoming one through the use of the Polymorph spell; it's unique in that rather than scaling with spell level, it scales with the number of books that have been released.
OBJECTION!!!
i mean, incorrect. you can not turn into anything with more than your current HD
OBJECTION!!!i mean, incorrect. you can not turn into anything with more than your current HD
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long way from 3.5's baleful polymorph.
In a solo encounter it's pretty powerful, but not really more so than any other SoD spell. In mutli creature encounters, it's not the best spell for the ocassion. It really feeds into the whole "What do I prepare" choice that Wizards have to make. Here's hoping it becomes a more meaningful decision.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And if multiclassing will work like they've mentioned, taking 1 class of cleric will remove concentration problems. The 150 HP limiter is the biggest problem I believe. There are very few things in the Bestiary so far with more than 150 HP. Two of the dragons have less than 150 HP (with the other two barely slicking above 150).
The quickest fixes are really just lowering the health ceiling (i.e. from 150 HP to 50) and/or to increase the spell level (currently it's only a 4th level spell, available at level 7 for wizards).
ok, so IF you hit the dragon (with its advantage on saving throws and high stat bonuses) then what? in your example you turn it into a chicken. so your players then get... 1 exp
compared to using that level of spell to try to damage it severely and get full exp
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And
I see where this could potentially be unbalancing as well, however the post above me had a great point - if you use polymorph to weaken the target, they get less XP for it - greater challenge begets greater reward.
As far as transforming into creatures, you won't (IN THEORY) be more or less powerful than you were before you transformed, as you can only turn into things with equal or lesser hit dice than you. I could see how it could be an advantage to transform yourself into a Giant so that you can move heavy things around or have higher strength for breaking through a gate, door, or something similar, but all it really provides is a rather insane amount of versatility for wizards. (Thankfully you can keep your intelligence, wisdom, and charisma in the new form. but transforming doesn't grant you weapon proficiencies or the natural ability to use natural weapons - I'd say making attacks in a form that's not your own SHOULD be at a disadvantage though.
I see where this could potentially be unbalancing as well, however the post above me had a great point - if you use polymorph to weaken the target, they get less XP for it - greater challenge begets greater reward.As far as transforming into creature
Yea, the spell needs some tweaking. I shouldn't be able to instant kill a creature by turning it into a fish, when there is no water around, for example. Right now I can. Also, being able to pick up things like a medusa's gaze seems somewhat... overpowered. I am fine with it changing your appearance, size, and stats, but I don't think it should grant magical properties. Not unless it is cast as a 6th + level spell, at least.
Yea, the spell needs some tweaking. I shouldn't be able to instant kill a creature by turning it into a fish, when there is no water around, for example. Right now I can. Also, being able to pick up things like a medusa's gaze seems somewhat... overp
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long way from 3.5's baleful polymorph.
In a solo encounter it's pretty powerful, but not really more so than any other SoD spell. In mutli creature encounters, it's not the best spell for the ocassion. It really feeds into the whole "What do I prepare" choice that Wizards have to make. Here's hoping it becomes a more meaningful decision.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And if multiclassing will work like they've mentioned, taking 1 class of cleric will remove concentration problems. The 150 HP limiter is the biggest problem I believe. There are very few things in the Bestiary so far with more than 150 HP. Two of the dragons have less than 150 HP (with the other two barely slicking above 150).
The quickest fixes are really just lowering the health ceiling (i.e. from 150 HP to 50) and/or to increase the spell level (currently it's only a 4th level spell, available at level 7 for wizards).
ok, so IF you hit the dragon (with its advantage on saving throws and high stat bonuses) then what? in your example you turn it into a chicken. so your players then get... 1 exp
compared to using that level of spell to try to damage it severely and get full exp
No, it's still considered a dragon. It's a short term transformation (1 minute). It retains all of its hitpoints during the transformation.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And
Yea, the spell needs some tweaking. I shouldn't be able to instant kill a creature by turning it into a fish, when there is no water around, for example. Right now I can. Also, being able to pick up things like a medusa's gaze seems somewhat... overpowered. I am fine with it changing your appearance, size, and stats, but I don't think it should grant magical properties. Not unless it is cast as a 6th + level spell, at least.
Agreed. I think the biggest folly is that it's only a 4th level spell. A 6th or 7th level spells makes a lot more sense, but even then there needs to be another limitation.
Agreed. I think the biggest folly is that it's only a 4th level spell. A 6th or 7th level spells makes a lot more sense, but even then there needs to be another limitation.
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long way from 3.5's baleful polymorph.
In a solo encounter it's pretty powerful, but not really more so than any other SoD spell. In mutli creature encounters, it's not the best spell for the ocassion. It really feeds into the whole "What do I prepare" choice that Wizards have to make. Here's hoping it becomes a more meaningful decision.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And if multiclassing will work like they've mentioned, taking 1 class of cleric will remove concentration problems. The 150 HP limiter is the biggest problem I believe. There are very few things in the Bestiary so far with more than 150 HP. Two of the dragons have less than 150 HP (with the other two barely slicking above 150).
The quickest fixes are really just lowering the health ceiling (i.e. from 150 HP to 50) and/or to increase the spell level (currently it's only a 4th level spell, available at level 7 for wizards).
ok, so IF you hit the dragon (with its advantage on saving throws and high stat bonuses) then what? in your example you turn it into a chicken. so your players then get... 1 exp
compared to using that level of spell to try to damage it severely and get full exp
No, it's still considered a dragon. It's a short term transformation (1 minute). It retains all of its hitpoints during the transformation.
alright then, so if it still counts as a dragon and retains all its hitpoints, explain how this is overpowered to use?
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
It requires concentration, which is a pretty big balancing factor. He can't really just straight cast it and take out multi enemies. If he casts it mid fight, he also has to avoid damage an whatnot, not to mention the 150 hp limiter. It's come a long way from 3.5's baleful polymorph.
In a solo encounter it's pretty powerful, but not really more so than any other SoD spell. In mutli creature encounters, it's not the best spell for the ocassion. It really feeds into the whole "What do I prepare" choice that Wizards have to make. Here's hoping it becomes a more meaningful decision.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And if multiclassing will work like they've mentioned, taking 1 class of cleric will remove concentration problems. The 150 HP limiter is the biggest problem I believe. There are very few things in the Bestiary so far with more than 150 HP. Two of the dragons have less than 150 HP (with the other two barely slicking above 150).
The quickest fixes are really just lowering the health ceiling (i.e. from 150 HP to 50) and/or to increase the spell level (currently it's only a 4th level spell, available at level 7 for wizards).
ok, so IF you hit the dragon (with its advantage on saving throws and high stat bonuses) then what? in your example you turn it into a chicken. so your players then get... 1 exp
compared to using that level of spell to try to damage it severely and get full exp
No, it's still considered a dragon. It's a short term transformation (1 minute). It retains all of its hitpoints during the transformation.
alright then, so if it still counts as a dragon and retains all its hitpoints, explain how this is overpowered to use?
Because it has the HP, but it has all the abilities of a chicken, as well as the Str, Con, and Dex of a chicken(it retains Wis, Int, and Cha) and loses all the abilities of it's dragon form.("The target creature gains all the abilities and limitations of it's new form, and loses all the abilities and limitations of its original form.")
So it might have the HP of a dragon, bjut it's still a chicken.
Or if you turn it into a fish, it gains the limitations of a fish, so it'll suffocate if it's not in water.
In a bigger group fight, sure, it's not going to be very good. But when facing a solo encounter (like a dragon) it's pretty much your go-to spell. Concentration is not a factor because it's not all that hard to concentrate while facing a chicken. And
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
No ... let's not bring back ability damage.
Yes, lets not 'fix' it by bringing something like this back.
No ... let's not bring back ability damage.[/quote]Yes, lets not 'fix' it by bringing something like this back.
I like the mythic origins of polymorphing but tehy need a hybrid of the pared down version from 4e and the version they have now. I'd be happy if the wizard has to 'revise' the forms that they can take, maybe two to start with and then increasing as you go up in levels.
I like the mythic origins of polymorphing but tehy need a hybrid of the pared down version from 4e and the version they have now. I'd be happy if the wizard has to 'revise' the forms that they can take, maybe two to start with and then increasing as
I like the mythic origins of polymorphing but tehy need a hybrid of the pared down version from 4e and the version they have now. I'd be happy if the wizard has to 'revise' the forms that they can take, maybe two to start with and then increasing as you go up in levels.
I wouldn't mind splitting it up into a list of spells. One of those spells works on enemies, and lets you turn them into a fish. The others are broken up by spell level (Polymorph I through to Polymorph IX), each of which has a list of monsters whose forms you can take, like the Summon Monster spells from 3.X.
I wouldn't mind splitting it up into a list of spells. One of those spells works on enemies, and lets you turn them into a fish. The others are broken up by spell level (Polymorph I through to Polymorph IX), each of which has a list of monsters whose
I like the mythic origins of polymorphing but tehy need a hybrid of the pared down version from 4e and the version they have now. I'd be happy if the wizard has to 'revise' the forms that they can take, maybe two to start with and then increasing as you go up in levels.
I wouldn't mind splitting it up into a list of spells. One of those spells works on enemies, and lets you turn them into a fish. The others are broken up by spell level (Polymorph I through to Polymorph IX), each of which has a list of monsters whose forms you can take, like the Summon Monster spells from 3.X.
I'd like the spell better if it was broken up. I think the best fix would be to give poly self a list of abilities you can pick from instead of copying an actual monster. (ie: change into an 'ogre' means taking a +str buff)
I wouldn't mind splitting it up into a list of spells. One of those spells works on enemies, and lets you turn them into a fish. The others are broken up by spell level (Polymorph I through to Polymorph IX), each of which has a list of monsters whose
Have you thought about this? let´s imagine a druid who uses this spell to become a boar and by smelling look for expensive truffles, or clues about a fugitive to get the reward.
Have you thought about this? let´s imagine a druid who uses this spell to become a boar and by smelling look for expensive truffles, or clues about a fugitive to get the reward.
Have you thought about this? let´s imagine a druid who uses this spell to become a boar and by smelling look for expensive truffles, or clues about a fugitive to get the reward.
Since keen senses ONLY gives bonuses in finding hidden things, it shouldn't be an issue. Now if they actually ever give a bonus to out of combat situations, it could be a problem.
Since keen senses ONLY gives bonuses in finding hidden things, it shouldn't be an issue. Now if they actually ever give a bonus to out of combat situations, it could be a problem.
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph p
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks.
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others.
Given the small number of available spells I dont think splitting Polymorph is a great idea. Indexing what it can to the spell slot it occupies just as other spells might (have in some variations) would work. We do want a note that XP drops proportionately to the reduce damage potential. Assuming the final rules don't have a detailed but quick system to computer the correct XP for a Dragon-Checken with 149 HP and a 1D4-2 Peck attack I would suggest just reducing the XP by the # rounds the creature was polymorph/# of rounds of active combat against it, min of the XP of the thing its turned into. And a recomendation that you just give it a Chicken's XP. If you get pecked to death you deserve it.
Given the small number of available spells I dont think splitting Polymorph is a great idea. Indexing what it can to the spell slot it occupies just as other spells might (have in some variations) would work. We do want a note that XP drops propo
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
Actually, a save each turn is not a bad idea at all. Since even if a dragon or another high level creature does not manage to pass the initial save, it will be pretty easy for it to pass in the next 1 or 2 rounds (especially in the case of creatures with spell resistance). I think this condition (saving throw each turn) should apply to any creatures above 50 maximum health. Since that's the real problem (high level brutes being steamrolled). For creatures with >50 HP the spell would function as it does now.
Actually, a save each turn is not a bad idea at all. Since even if a dragon or another high level creature does not manage to pass the initial save, it will be pretty easy for it to pass in the next 1 or 2 rounds (especially in the case of creatures
I think Polymorph definitely needs to be revised. Currently it is both too powerful and too time consuming. First, I would split it into two spells: Polymorph and Baleful Polymorph.
Polymorph is the one you cast on yourself or a willing target. It lasts for 1 hour and lets them assume a single form. The trouble with the current version is that it requires a knowledge of beasts; in other words, the spell rewards system mastery. In addition, it requires you to put the game on hold while you look up the stats for various monsters.
I think it would be simpler to just reduce the spell to what I feel is its actual intent: giving beast traits to you or an ally.
So Polymorph would come with several forms; when you cast the spell you pick a form. For example: 1) Flying form. You gain a fly speed. 2) Burrowing form. You gain a burrow speed. 3) Climbing form. You gain a climb speed. 4) Swimming form. You gain a swim speed. 5) Alert form. You gain keen senses. etc. I would give you two options for this spell: the target assumes an actual animal form, or the target assumes a hybrid form (like a werewolf). That way you can use the spell as a disguise, but also to give someone a buff. Casting the spell in higher level slots would let you pick extra forms; you can switch to a new form as an action.
For Baleful Polymorph, I think we need to compare it to a similar spell: Hold Monster. Hold Monster is a level 5 spell (vs. level 4 for polymorph), also targets a living creature, but has no HP limit. The target is paralyzed on a failed save (so worse than polymorph which just removes the creature's ability to fight). However, the target can also make a check each turn to end the spell.
So I would suggest doing something similar for Baleful Polymorph. On a failed save, it turns the target into a tiny animal appropriate to its environment (so no turning a terrestrial creature into a fish). In its new form, the target has AC 11, Str 2, Dex 12, Con 8, and a speed of 30 feet. It retains its original HP, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. As an action, it can make a Wisdom check to end the spell.
I think Polymorph definitely needs to be revised. Currently it is both too powerful and too time consuming. First, I would split it into two spells: Polymorph and Baleful Polymorph.Polymorph is the one you cast on yourself or a willing target. It
I'd have no issue splitting it back up into 2 spells. As for choosing the forms, that you have to be more careful with. Go too far and you risk destroying the creative nature of the spell. Remember not everything has to be balanced around powergamers
I'd have no issue splitting it back up into 2 spells. As for choosing the forms, that you have to be more careful with. Go too far and you risk destroying the creative nature of the spell. Remember not everything has to be balanced around powergamers
I'd have no issue splitting it back up into 2 spells. As for choosing the forms, that you have to be more careful with. Go too far and you risk destroying the creative nature of the spell. Remember not everything has to be balanced around powergamers
The forms idea sounds like a good default poly self. I'd put the more creative parts of the spell in an optional sidebar. It's a powerful enough addition that I think you should opt in to it. Maybe give a warning at the start. If your group doesn't mind the wizard turning into a medusa, then go for it.
The forms idea sounds like a good default poly self. I'd put the more creative parts of the spell in an optional sidebar. It's a powerful enough addition that I think you should opt in to it. Maybe give a warning at the start. If your group doesn't m
I'd have no issue splitting it back up into 2 spells. As for choosing the forms, that you have to be more careful with. Go too far and you risk destroying the creative nature of the spell. Remember not everything has to be balanced around powergamers
But at the same time, they need to design the spell to keep it from being system mastery bait where the Wizard starts every fight by turning into a Bodak or Medusa and instakilling everything.
But at the same time, they need to design the spell to keep it from being system mastery bait where the Wizard starts every fight by turning into a Bodak or Medusa and instakilling everything.
They should just steal the way Pathfinder does polymorph effects. There's some element of system mastery bait, and it doesn't solve the pretty heinous issue of making the Bestiary (Monster Manual) a player book, but it's otherwise really great. They even unify the way polymorphing and wildshape work. It's a great compromise between systems that are safe but inflexible or nonresonant and systems that are resonant but which are crazy unbounded.
They should just steal the way Pathfinder does polymorph effects. There's some element of system mastery bait, and it doesn't solve the pretty heinous issue of making the Bestiary (Monster Manual) a player book, but it's otherwise really great. They
I'd have no issue splitting it back up into 2 spells. As for choosing the forms, that you have to be more careful with. Go too far and you risk destroying the creative nature of the spell. Remember not everything has to be balanced around powergamers
But at the same time, they need to design the spell to keep it from being system mastery bait where the Wizard starts every fight by turning into a Bodak or Medusa and instakilling everything.
but why cant they? i am sure there are plenty of fantasy mages who initiated battles by turning into specific beasts. dragons and demons and such
But at the same time, they need to design the spell to keep it from being system mastery bait where the Wizard starts every fight by turning into a Bodak or Medusa and instakilling everything.[/quote]but why cant they? i am sure there are plenty of f
Polymorph Other/Baleful Polymorph worked ok in 4e as a ritual on helpless victims, which is where its mythical roots come from (Circe being a good example or the prince turned into a baboon in Sinbad). In terms of a combat spell, making saving throws every round is a pain, I think it should be a very short term thing - probably 1-4 rounds, rolled by the DM.
Polymorph self should really stick torules that only grant basic physical abilities like movement (swim/flight) and basic physical stats (claws). They can grant wizards fascimile abilities that don't resemble the monster stats e.g. a set amount of damage that could be fire (if turned into a red dragon) or poison if a snake (perhaps capped at the damage of the actual monster).
Polymorph Other/Baleful Polymorph worked ok in 4e as a ritual on helpless victims, which is where its mythical roots come from (Circe being a good example or the prince turned into a baboon in Sinbad). In terms of a combat spell, making saving throw
I'd have no issue splitting it back up into 2 spells. As for choosing the forms, that you have to be more careful with. Go too far and you risk destroying the creative nature of the spell. Remember not everything has to be balanced around powergamers
But at the same time, they need to design the spell to keep it from being system mastery bait where the Wizard starts every fight by turning into a Bodak or Medusa and instakilling everything.
but why cant they? i am sure there are plenty of fantasy mages who initiated battles by turning into specific beasts. dragons and demons and such
The problem is when it gets too out of hand. Yes, the game doesn't specifically balanced around powergamers, but at the same time, don't go back to what 3.x had where 1 class can efforlessly destroy every obstacle in the game because they aren't paying attention to class balance.
But at the same time, they need to design the spell to keep it from being system mastery bait where the Wizard starts every fight by turning into a Bodak or Medusa and instakilling everything.[/quote]but why cant they? i am sure there are plenty of f
So, there's a few problems here: 1) hd is a bad balancing mechanism. Yes, it generally corresponds to power, but all it takes is wotc to make one low hd, super regenerating ninja beast to break polymorph. 2) once wizards get polymorph, many challenges need to be re-though. Flight, underwater, lakes of acid/lava, stop being a threat to a wizard wi polymorph. Which makes even a rogue, who is supposed to excel at out of combat, trail behind. 3) save or die is very powerful against solos. Suggesting that the dm just awArd less experience just begs the players to do 90 of the hp of the dragon, and wait for the polymorph to wear off to kill the dragon.
While 1 can be fixed with an xp limit, and number three can be sorta fixed with more saves, #2 is a challenge that I don't see woTC overcoming. Making the self polymorph level 9 might help, I guess - making more levels before the wizard is the only one who can solve out of combat challenges.
So, there's a few problems here: 1) hd is a bad balancing mechanism. Yes, it generally corresponds to power, but all it takes is wotc to make one low hd, super regenerating ninja beast to break polymorph. 2) once wizards get polymorph, many chal
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks.
It doesn't alter the creatures stats, read my post again...
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others.
If I were nerfing the spell, I would target the open endedness of it so that players had to know their monsters in advance.
Something like, when you learn this spell, pick two beasts. When you cast this spell the target polymorphs into one of those beasts, provided you have at least as many hit dice as the desired form. A wizard could potentially learn Polymorph several times, each time as a seperate spell with two different creatures associated with it.
Out of curiosity, who here has played with Polymorph to prove that it's as powerful in practice as it is in principle?
If I were nerfing the spell, I would target the open endedness of it so that players had to know their monsters in advance.Something like, when you learn this spell, pick two beasts. When you cast this spell the target polymorphs into one of those be
I created a 14th level cleric of trickery. Polymorph 5/day.
Polymorphing into a creature with spells basically gives you an entirely new list of spells usable 1/day.
I am certain that this will be broken once the monster list keeps expanding. When they add Efreet, characters will be casting Wish.
I created a 14th level cleric of trickery. Polymorph 5/day.Polymorphing into a creature with spells basically gives you an entirely new list of spells usable 1/day.I am certain that this will be broken once the monster list keeps expanding. When th
I'm gonna post this again because people can't be bothered to read anymore. This time please read it before outright dismissing it without understanding what it is:
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative and tracked separate. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process. The ability score doesn't change at all, its only the threshold at which the spells effect happens.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
I'm gonna post this again because people can't be bothered to read anymore. This time please read it before outright dismissing it without understanding what it is:I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in
The spell should be usable without anything else than the player's handbook. I think it should be mostly a cosmetic change with the ability to pick a number of options for the new form, this number based on the caster level, and the option being in a list in the spell description.
Or the options could be a general list for all spell from the polymorph line, within a special section, like there was a special section for illusion magic in the 2nd edition PHB.
The spell should be usable without anything else than the player's handbook.I think it should be mostly a cosmetic change with the ability to pick a number of options for the new form, this number based on the caster level, and the option being in a
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks.
It doesn't alter the creatures stats, read my post again...
Ah... when the actual polymorph takes place, stats are altered. All you suggested was delaying the onset of that. So maybe you should reread your own post then the spell.
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others.
I'd rather see some kind of counting up system. Maybe use the targets constitution in this case. Have the target of the polymorph spell make a save each round while the caster concentrates up to 1 minute. If the target fails they take 1d4 polymorph points. The polymorph points are counted up from 0 and are cumulative. If the polymorph point total reaches the targets constitution score, the target is polymorphed. A willing target can forgo this process.
This would also be nice because multiple casters could stack polymorphs to make it happen faster and it would take less time. You could really do this for any save or suck or save or die spell. Imagine a hold person spell that took several rounds to take effect, or a stinking cloud spell that didn't deal damage but dazed the target after a few rounds. Etc... This is really a good way to do it...
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks.
It doesn't alter the creatures stats, read my post again...
Ah... when the actual polymorph takes place, stats are altered. All you suggested was delaying the onset of that. So maybe you should reread your own post then the spell.
My post doesn't alter what happens when an unwilling target is polymorphed. That is for the developers to decide. My suggestion only alters when the polymorph happens and helps make the save or die type spell work over a period of time so you don't get the sillyness where dragons are polymorphed to chickens in a single round and creatures that have higher ability scores can resist better, but eventually with enough time and no interruptions the caster can polymorph anything. It was suggested that my idea had something to do with altering the stats of the creature through some kind of ability damage when it had nothing to do with that.
Its fine if you don't like my idea. Its not fine to mischaracterize it as something its not...
Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats. I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others.
My post doesn't alter what happens when an unwilling target is polymorphed. That is for the developers to decide. My suggestion only alters when the polymorph happens and helps make the save or die type spell work over a period of time so you don't get the sillyness where dragons are polymorphed to chickens in a single round and creatures that have higher ability scores can resist better, but eventually with enough time and no interruptions the caster can polymorph anything. It was suggested that my idea had something to do with altering the stats of the creature through some kind of ability damage when it had nothing to do with that.
Its fine if you don't like my idea. Its not fine to mischaracterize it as something its not...
The underlined is what is totally wrong and what you aren't getting. I NEVER suggested that. I said I didn't like the fact that poly alters your stats and it should be changed. On top of that, and in a different line, I said that I didn't like your idea about adding multiple saves.
SO, in the first line: 'Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats'. notice I NEVER said that it was your idea to change stats nor inply it, just that I didn't like it and suggested a way I thought it'd work better. Since your way didn't alter how the poly effect works when it goes off, I didn't feel the need to call out that this was true.
THEN, in the second line: "I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks." This was my reaction to your suggestion. I'm not a fan and still didn't imply/suggest that your method added the altering of stats.
The underlined is what is totally wrong and what you aren't getting. I NEVER suggested that. I said I didn't like the fact that poly alters your stats and it should be changed. On top of that, and in a different line, I said that I didn't like your i
My post doesn't alter what happens when an unwilling target is polymorphed. That is for the developers to decide. My suggestion only alters when the polymorph happens and helps make the save or die type spell work over a period of time so you don't get the sillyness where dragons are polymorphed to chickens in a single round and creatures that have higher ability scores can resist better, but eventually with enough time and no interruptions the caster can polymorph anything. It was suggested that my idea had something to do with altering the stats of the creature through some kind of ability damage when it had nothing to do with that.
Its fine if you don't like my idea. Its not fine to mischaracterize it as something its not...
The underlined is what is totally wrong and what you aren't getting. I NEVER suggested that. I said I didn't like the fact that poly alters your stats and it should be changed. On top of that, and in a different line, I said that I didn't like your idea about adding multiple saves.
SO, in the first line: 'Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats'. notice I NEVER said that it was your idea to change stats nor inply it, just that I didn't like it and suggested a way I thought it'd work better. Since your way didn't alter how the poly effect works when it goes off, I didn't feel the need to call out that this was true.
THEN, in the second line: "I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks." This was my reaction to your suggestion. I'm not a fan and still didn't imply/suggest that your method added the altering of stats.
If that were true, then why did you reply to my post in the first place. You replied and posted something that had nothing to do with my post...
The underlined is what is totally wrong and what you aren't getting. I NEVER suggested that. I said I didn't like the fact that poly alters your stats and it should be changed. On top of that, and in a different line, I said that I didn't like your i
My post doesn't alter what happens when an unwilling target is polymorphed. That is for the developers to decide. My suggestion only alters when the polymorph happens and helps make the save or die type spell work over a period of time so you don't get the sillyness where dragons are polymorphed to chickens in a single round and creatures that have higher ability scores can resist better, but eventually with enough time and no interruptions the caster can polymorph anything. It was suggested that my idea had something to do with altering the stats of the creature through some kind of ability damage when it had nothing to do with that.
Its fine if you don't like my idea. Its not fine to mischaracterize it as something its not...
The underlined is what is totally wrong and what you aren't getting. I NEVER suggested that. I said I didn't like the fact that poly alters your stats and it should be changed. On top of that, and in a different line, I said that I didn't like your idea about adding multiple saves.
SO, in the first line: 'Shrug... I'd rather it just stun the monster for the duration instead of altering the creatures stats'. notice I NEVER said that it was your idea to change stats nor inply it, just that I didn't like it and suggested a way I thought it'd work better. Since your way didn't alter how the poly effect works when it goes off, I didn't feel the need to call out that this was true.
THEN, in the second line: "I'd rather not complicate the game with a buch of fiddly bits like multiple saves to add up to another score that might also be added to by others... No thanks." This was my reaction to your suggestion. I'm not a fan and still didn't imply/suggest that your method added the altering of stats.
I'd just like to throw in here that changing polymorph into a stun spell completely erases the whole point of the spell. You've effectively made a new spell that does not function remotely like the original.
The underlined is what is totally wrong and what you aren't getting. I NEVER suggested that. I said I didn't like the fact that poly alters your stats and it should be changed. On top of that, and in a different line, I said that I didn't like your i
I'd just like to throw in here that changing polymorph into a stun spell completely erases the whole point of the spell. You've effectively made a new spell that does not function remotely like the original.
Then you should check out 4E once. The spell Foe to Frog changes the foe into a small animal. It dazes them and the only action they can take is moving. So it's not a new idea. It just makes things easier IMO.
If that were true, then why did you reply to my post in the first place. You replied and posted something that had nothing to do with my post...
Really? I have to explain? Why I might reply to a post with an idea I don't agree with?... If you can't figure it out, it's proven beyond my ability to explain and my expectation of your common sense.
Then you should check out 4E once. The spell Foe to Frog changes the foe into a small animal. It dazes them and the only action they can take is moving. So it's not a new idea. It just makes things easier IMO. Really? I have to explain? Why I might r
I share most of the concerns listed here on Polymorph (too versatile for one spell, too lethal, puts the Monster Manual as a player resource). Surprisingly, though, no one has complained about the spell's auto-scaling with level until now. In fact, why does it scale with HD at all? The spell's level is supposed to measure the spell's potency in this edition, no?
I share most of the concerns listed here on Polymorph (too versatile for one spell, too lethal, puts the Monster Manual as a player resource). Surprisingly, though, no one has complained about the spell's auto-scaling with level until now. In fact, w
I share most of the concerns listed here on Polymorph (too versatile for one spell, too lethal, puts the Monster Manual as a player resource). Surprisingly, though, no one has complained about the spell's auto-scaling with level until now. In fact, why does it scale with HD at all? The spell's level is supposed to measure the spell's potency in this edition, no?
the "increased potency" in this case is a higher dc
would people be happy if the caster was required to roll a knowledge check to see if the caster was aware of creatures?
the "increased potency" in this case is a higher dcwould people be happy if the caster was required to roll a knowledge check to see if the caster was aware of creatures?
kezzek, polymorph says: "The new form can be any beast..." I couldn't find any spellcasting monsters labelled "Beast" in the bestiary. Were you using non-playtest packet material, or did you not use the restriction: only beasts.
I agree that polymorph shouldn't allow the bestiary to be a player resource -- define polymorph in terms of "non-monstrous beasts", and many of the problems go away (for self-polymorph).
As for wild-shape, it was my understanding that the wild-shape was one of the most broken things about 3.5e. If so, we should probably dial it back a bit, no?
kezzek, polymorph says: "The new form can be any beast..."I couldn't find any spellcasting monsters labelled "Beast" in the bestiary. Were you using non-playtest packet material, or did you not use the restriction: only beasts. I agree that polymo
kezzek, polymorph says: "The new form can be any beast..." I couldn't find any spellcasting monsters labelled "Beast" in the bestiary. Were you using non-playtest packet material, or did you not use the restriction: only beasts.
I agree that polymorph shouldn't allow the bestiary to be a player resource -- define polymorph in terms of "non-monstrous beasts", and many of the problems go away (for self-polymorph).
As for wild-shape, it was my understanding that the wild-shape was one of the most broken things about 3.5e. If so, we should probably dial it back a bit, no?
A bestiary is a compendium of beasts. By definition every creature in a bestiary would be considered a beast. Otherwise, it would not be in a bestiary.
A bestiary is a compendium of beasts. By definition every creature in a bestiary would be considered a beast. Otherwise, it would not be in a bestiary.
Here are the things you can polymorph into, if it has less HD that the target...
1HD Carnivorous monkey Cave rat Dire rat Fire beetle Giant centipede Stirge
2HD Giant frog Giant lizard Horse Wolf
3HD Dire wolf Giant crab Giant snake Giant spider Pteranodon Rust monster
4HD Carrion Crawler
5HD Ankylosaurus Basilisk Carnivorous ape Cockatrice Sabre-toothed tiger
6HD Allosaurus Ankheg Displacer beast
7HD Griffon
8HD Plesiosaurus
10 HD Giant carnivorous Ape Roc
Now, I'd assume you can still choose to transform someone into a rabbit, sparrow, or the like, even though there are no stats for them. This doesn't seem horrible, but it does make the spell a save-or-suck spell. I might make it a Concentration spell for unwilling targets as well as willing. Let the ritual version transform a willing or helpless creature into a more permanent form.
Here are the things you can polymorph into, if it has less HD that the target...1HDCarnivorous monkeyCave ratDire ratFire beetleGiant centipedeStirge2HDGiant frogGiant lizardHorseWolf3HDDire wolfGiant crabGiant snakeGiant spiderPteranodonRust monster
A bestiary is a compendium of beasts. By definition every creature in a bestiary would be considered a beast. Otherwise, it would not be in a bestiary.
No. "beast" is a game term. In rules interpretations, defined game terms always trump colloquial definitions. Only some of the creatures in the bestiary are described as beasts.
No. "beast" is a game term. In rules interpretations, defined game terms always trump colloquial definitions. Only some of the creatures in the bestiary are described as beasts.
A bestiary is a compendium of beasts. By definition every creature in a bestiary would be considered a beast. Otherwise, it would not be in a bestiary.
No. "beast" is a game term. In rules interpretations, defined game terms always trump colloquial definitions. Only some of the creatures in the bestiary are described as beasts.
I didn't realize that they had defined "beast" in D&D Next. I'll have to go back and look at the packet to see if they are making it clear in the polymorph spell that dragons, devils, beholders, and such are off limits.
No. "beast" is a game term. In rules interpretations, defined game terms always trump colloquial definitions. Only some of the creatures in the bestiary are described as beasts.[/quote]I didn't realize that they had defined "beast" in D&D Next. I'
From Spells packet, page 24 (emphasis mine): "The new form can be any beast whose number of Hit Dice is equal to or less than that of the target creature."
From Spells packet, page 24 (emphasis mine): "The new form can be any beast whose number of Hit Dice is equal to or less than that of the target creature."
A bestiary is a compendium of beasts. By definition every creature in a bestiary would be considered a beast. Otherwise, it would not be in a bestiary.
No. "beast" is a game term. In rules interpretations, defined game terms always trump colloquial definitions. Only some of the creatures in the bestiary are described as beasts.
I didn't realize that they had defined "beast" in D&D Next. I'll have to go back and look at the packet to see if they are making it clear in the polymorph spell that dragons, devils, beholders, and such are off limits.
No. "beast" is a game term. In rules interpretations, defined game terms always trump colloquial definitions. Only some of the creatures in the bestiary are described as beasts.[/quote]I didn't realize that they had defined "beast" in D&D Next. I'
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
No ... let's not bring back ability damage.
What exactly is the problem with it? I always liked the versitility of ability damage to the various stats and I think it would be a far better mechanic to use in the place of save or die effects.
No ... let's not bring back ability damage.[/quote]What exactly is the problem with it? I always liked the versitility of ability damage to the various stats and I think it would be a far better mechanic to use in the place of save or die effects.
How about this: Each round the caster concentrates on the spell the target makes a con save, on a failure it suffers 1d6 con damage. When the targets con reaches 0 it is transformed into a beast of the casters choosing.
No ... let's not bring back ability damage.
What exactly is the problem with it? I always liked the versitility of ability damage to the various stats and I think it would be a far better mechanic to use in the place of save or die effects.
This brings up a good point. If we leave every damage-type mechanic, other than raw damage, in the past, what are we left with?
No ... let's not bring back ability damage.[/quote]What exactly is the problem with it? I always liked the versitility of ability damage to the various stats and I think it would be a far better mechanic to use in the place of save or die effects.[/
Condition tracking works. Ability damage creates needless book keeping.
Slowed as disadvantage on Dex checks is easy. Slowed as 1d6 Dex damage is not.
Weakened as disadvantage on Str checks is easy. Weakened as 1d6 Str damage is not.
Etc.
Condition tracking works. Ability damage creates needless book keeping. Slowed as disadvantage on Dex checks is easy. Slowed as 1d6 Dex damage is not. Weakened as disadvantage on Str checks is easy. Weakened as 1d6 Str damage is not. Etc.
What about the displacer beast? The list above included it in the "beasts" that someone could polymorph into. It's description refers to it as a beast repeatedly and yet it is typed as a "monstrosity" similar to a chimera or a harpy. The polymorph spell used the word "beast" but failed to state whether it was a defined beast type or the generic word beast (meaning a creature or monster). In the past editions, references to specific types would be bolded, italicized, or capitalized. The polymorph spell does none of the three.
The spell description also states "If the target is willing, you transform it into another kind of living creature."
A rules lawyer could easily argue that the polymorph spell did not limit the forms to just the bestiary creatures with the word "beast" beneath their names.
What about the displacer beast? The list above included it in the "beasts" that someone could polymorph into. It's description refers to it as a beast repeatedly and yet it is typed as a "monstrosity" similar to a chimera or a harpy. The polymor
Condition tracking works. Ability damage creates needless book keeping. Slowed as disadvantage on Dex checks is easy. Slowed as 1d6 Dex damage is not. Weakened as disadvantage on Str checks is easy. Weakened as 1d6 Str damage is not. Etc.
What if you removed the actual adjustment of the attribute, as in ability damage doesn't adjust your modfier so you don't have the excess bookeeping. The important part here is that there exists an HP-like padding to prevent the instantaneous element of save-or-die effects and allows players to react to them tactically. This is very similar to Lokiare's Poly Point system, but I'm talking about something more universal.
That doesn't preclude the existence of intermidiary effects as the character is taking ability damage. These can either be applied by the source of the damage (i.e. as a character is being polymorphed they are dazed, as a medusa's stare turns them to stone they are slowed), or built right into the universalability damage system (i.e. when a character has strength damage they are weakened, dex = slowed, int=intoxicated).
What if you removed the actual adjustment of the attribute, as in ability damage doesn't adjust your modfier so you don't have the excess bookeeping. The important part here is that there exists an HP-like padding to prevent the instantaneous elemen
Condition tracking works. Ability damage creates needless book keeping. Slowed as disadvantage on Dex checks is easy. Slowed as 1d6 Dex damage is not. Weakened as disadvantage on Str checks is easy. Weakened as 1d6 Str damage is not. Etc.
I will agree that short term effect should not use excess numericals. But long term effects could be perfect candidates for ability damage. Like a lamia draining your wisdom for 2d4 days, that doesn't require a lot of bookkeeping.
I will agree that short term effect should not use excess numericals. But long term effects could be perfect candidates for ability damage. Like a lamia draining your wisdom for 2d4 days, that doesn't require a lot of bookkeeping.
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is t
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now normally is +x but i have taken y damage so i will just take y off the normal result" play as you go. no rewriting necessary
edit: btw, your complaint still comes down to "i dont like writing things"
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.[/quote]no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now norm
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now normally is +x but i have taken y damage so i will just take y off the normal result" play as you go. no rewriting necessary
edit: btw, your complaint still comes down to "i dont like writing things"
No, I don't like having to go back and rewrite everything that has Str while everyone's sitting around bored because it's my turn and I'm trying to figure out what my attack bonus is because I just took 5 Str damage.
And besides, if that's the case, why not just cut out the middleman and make "stat damage" just be "takes a -x penalty to (stat)-related rolls, this penalty s cumulative"
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.[/quote]no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now norm
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now normally is +x but i have taken y damage so i will just take y off the normal result" play as you go. no rewriting necessary
edit: btw, your complaint still comes down to "i dont like writing things"
No, I don't like having to go back and rewrite everything that has Str while everyone's sitting around bored because it's my turn and I'm trying to figure out what my attack bonus is because I just took 5 Str damage.
And besides, if that's the case, why not just cut out the middleman and make "stat damage" just be "takes a -x penalty to (stat)-related rolls, this penalty s cumulative"
like i said, dont rewrite it all. say your str drops from 18 to 14, how hard is it to just remember that everytime you roll a str check, just take 2 off the normal result
also, because an 18 str person would only take a -1 mod penalty when a 17 str person would take a -2. it makes a difference
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.[/quote]no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now norm
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now normally is +x but i have taken y damage so i will just take y off the normal result" play as you go. no rewriting necessary
edit: btw, your complaint still comes down to "i dont like writing things"
No, I don't like having to go back and rewrite everything that has Str while everyone's sitting around bored because it's my turn and I'm trying to figure out what my attack bonus is because I just took 5 Str damage.
And besides, if that's the case, why not just cut out the middleman and make "stat damage" just be "takes a -x penalty to (stat)-related rolls, this penalty s cumulative"
like i said, dont rewrite it all. say your str drops from 18 to 14, how hard is it to just remember that everytime you roll a str check, just take 2 off the normal result
also, because an 18 str person would only take a -1 mod penalty when a 17 str person would take a -2. it makes a difference
Again, if it's that simple, instead of stat damage, make it a cumulative penalty to stat-related rolls. It's exactly the same and doesn't require holding up turns while I calculate this stuff.
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.[/quote]no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now norm
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now normally is +x but i have taken y damage so i will just take y off the normal result" play as you go. no rewriting necessary
edit: btw, your complaint still comes down to "i dont like writing things"
No, I don't like having to go back and rewrite everything that has Str while everyone's sitting around bored because it's my turn and I'm trying to figure out what my attack bonus is because I just took 5 Str damage.
And besides, if that's the case, why not just cut out the middleman and make "stat damage" just be "takes a -x penalty to (stat)-related rolls, this penalty s cumulative"
like i said, dont rewrite it all. say your str drops from 18 to 14, how hard is it to just remember that everytime you roll a str check, just take 2 off the normal result
also, because an 18 str person would only take a -1 mod penalty when a 17 str person would take a -2. it makes a difference
Again, if it's that simple, instead of stat damage, make it a cumulative penalty to stat-related rolls. It's exactly the same and doesn't require holding up turns while I calculate this stuff.
but its not effecting your mod, its effecting your stat. it isnt just a str mod penalty, you are being made weaker. your str score lowers, which decreases your carrying capacity and other str score related stats
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.[/quote]no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now norm
what bugs me is that people complain about features not because they are unrealistic, or that they ruin the fun, but because it requires bookkeeping. i like ability damage. if something is designed to make you weak, it lowers your strength, that is the simplest way to do it. so what if it involves bookeeping? it allows more effects to come into play for realism
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.
no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now normally is +x but i have taken y damage so i will just take y off the normal result" play as you go. no rewriting necessary
edit: btw, your complaint still comes down to "i dont like writing things"
No, I don't like having to go back and rewrite everything that has Str while everyone's sitting around bored because it's my turn and I'm trying to figure out what my attack bonus is because I just took 5 Str damage.
And besides, if that's the case, why not just cut out the middleman and make "stat damage" just be "takes a -x penalty to (stat)-related rolls, this penalty s cumulative"
like i said, dont rewrite it all. say your str drops from 18 to 14, how hard is it to just remember that everytime you roll a str check, just take 2 off the normal result
also, because an 18 str person would only take a -1 mod penalty when a 17 str person would take a -2. it makes a difference
Again, if it's that simple, instead of stat damage, make it a cumulative penalty to stat-related rolls. It's exactly the same and doesn't require holding up turns while I calculate this stuff.
but its not effecting your mod, its effecting your stat. it isnt just a str mod penalty, you are being made weaker. your str score lowers, which decreases your carrying capacity and other str score related stats
Yeah, and I have to grind the game to a halt while I recalculate my attack bonmuses, Str related stats, and my carrying capacity. Which takes time. Time I can be using to have fun.
And then the game grinds to a halt while after taking 2d4 STR damage, you then have to go and recalculate everyting on your char sheet that uses your Str score or modifier.[/quote]no you dont. its as simple as "oh, this str check i am making now norm
Condition tracking works. Ability damage creates needless book keeping. Slowed as disadvantage on Dex checks is easy. Slowed as 1d6 Dex damage is not. Weakened as disadvantage on Str checks is easy. Weakened as 1d6 Str damage is not. Etc.
What if you removed the actual adjustment of the attribute, as in ability damage doesn't adjust your modfier so you don't have the excess bookeeping. The important part here is that there exists an HP-like padding to prevent the instantaneous element of save-or-die effects and allows players to react to them tactically. This is very similar to Lokiare's Poly Point system, but I'm talking about something more universal.
That doesn't preclude the existence of intermidiary effects as the character is taking ability damage. These can either be applied by the source of the damage (i.e. as a character is being polymorphed they are dazed, as a medusa's stare turns them to stone they are slowed), or built right into the universalability damage system (i.e. when a character has strength damage they are weakened, dex = slowed, int=intoxicated).
Yes, kezzik, if polymorph isn't limited to beasts, it's even more broken. And, yes, if it's meant only forbeasts, it should clarify with better wording. (if only there were a bit more text book style).
What if you removed the actual adjustment of the attribute, as in ability damage doesn't adjust your modfier so you don't have the excess bookeeping. The important part here is that there exists an HP-like padding to prevent the instantaneous elemen
if it's meant only forbeasts, it should clarify with better wording.
What's unclear about "The new form can be any beast..."?! It uses the word "beast". I think people aren't paying attention to the wording and assuming it worked like prior editions. I think the amount of clarification necessary to get peopel who only skim the rules to see the change is more than offset by the amount of clutter created.
What's unclear about "The new form can be any beast..."?! It uses the word "beast". I think people aren't paying attention to the wording and assuming it worked like prior editions. I think the amount of clarification necessary to get peopel who o
i still stand by my point though, i am yet to see a non bookkeeping complaint
Except bookkeeping is a serious complaint that can't be handwaved away. This is a game using pencil and paper. It's all bookkeeping. So when someone makes a bookkeeping complaint, that's a serious onerous issue.
Bookkeeping takes you out of the world of the game and ruins immersivity Bookkeeping turns a game of imagination into a game of numbers Bookkeeping causes action t drag and makes combats feel like slogs.
Bookkeeping is one of the worst complaints one could have about an RPG and you're treating it almsot as a feature.
Except bookkeeping is a serious complaint that can't be handwaved away. This is a game using pencil and paper. It's all bookkeeping. So when someone makes a bookkeeping complaint, that's a serious onerous issue.Bookkeeping takes you out of the wor
if it's meant only forbeasts, it should clarify with better wording.
What's unclear about "The new form can be any beast..."?! It uses the word "beast". I think people aren't paying attention to the wording and assuming it worked like prior editions. I think the amount of clarification necessary to get peopel who only skim the rules to see the change is more than offset by the amount of clutter created.
The problem is that definitions are often unclear and they fail to keep their own standards. 3rd edition got into problems with using the type dragon and the word dragon interchangeably. Later feats and abilities will most certainly expand the range of creatures beyond those that are termed beast. Already the have one conflict with a Displacer Beast. It is called a beast (lowercase) in the text yet is given the type as monstrosity. The fact that they call the reference manual to be a bestiary, "a compendium of beasts", is another problem. It could certainly be argued that every creature is in fact a beast. The polymorph spell used both the term creature and beast. Many times these words are interchangeable as well. It did not state that a beast only refers to creatures that have been labelled as a beast or given a beast type. They need to be simple and clear in all of their explanations of effects. They also need to account for future expansions by limiting effects that would have power creep with expansion books.
What's unclear about "The new form can be any beast..."?! It uses the word "beast". I think people aren't paying attention to the wording and assuming it worked like prior editions. I think the amount of clarification necessary to get peopel who o
What's unclear about "The new form can be any beast..."?! It uses the word "beast". I think people aren't paying attention to the wording and assuming it worked like prior editions. I think the amount of clarification necessary to get peopel who only skim the rules to see the change is more than offset by the amount of clutter created.
The problem is that definitions are often unclear and they fail to keep their own standards.
Did they do that in the playtest?
Already the have one conflict with a Displacer Beast. It is called a beast (lowercase) in the text yet is given the type as monstrosity.
Because "beast" is in the name. Much the same as calling a grey ooze an "ooze" insteadof witing "greya ooze" every time. Really, if there are people who have such problems reading English, I think it hopeless to try to accommodate them because the cost of writing books with such picayune detail is a ponderous, overly verbose, and ultimately abstruse text.
They need to be simple and clear in all of their explanations of effects. They also need to account for future expansions by limiting effects that would have power creep with expansion books.
None of which has anythign to do with this discussion of the polymorph spell.
The problem is that definitions are often unclear and they fail to keep their own standards.[/quote]Did they do that in the playtest?Because "beast" is in the name. Much the same as calling a grey ooze an "ooze" insteadof witing "greya ooze" every t
Regardless of the intent, I don't think it's clear enough to consistently insure proper usage in any given D&D group (Not to say the proper usage is balanced to begin with).
Specifically, the usage of the word "Beast" is too vague. If it said "Beast-type monster", then I don't think you could have argument's about the spell creator's intent--That is not, however, the case. As well, the first "Effect" paragraph lists a different paramenter for compliant targets:
"If the target is willing, you transform it into another living creature. The transformation lasts until your concentration is broken, but for no longer than 1 hour".
That, combined with the contextual distance between the phrase and the later "Beast" phrase, would seem to indicate that the spellcaster can indeed transform himself into any creature not typed undead. At the very least, there is sufficient evidence to allow for conflict in regards to this power at a gaming table, which is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the 5e team seems unwilling to move back to a more standardized action format like in 4e, which leaves me with concerns that this kind of unclear "Effect" will continue in this edition even after publication.
Regardless of the intent, I don't think it's clear enough to consistently insure proper usage in any given D&D group (Not to say the proper usage is balanced to begin with).Specifically, the usage of the word "Beast" is too vague. If it said "Beast-t
i still stand by my point though, i am yet to see a non bookkeeping complaint
Except bookkeeping is a serious complaint that can't be handwaved away. This is a game using pencil and paper. It's all bookkeeping. So when someone makes a bookkeeping complaint, that's a serious onerous issue.
Bookkeeping takes you out of the world of the game and ruins immersivity Bookkeeping turns a game of imagination into a game of numbers Bookkeeping causes action t drag and makes combats feel like slogs.
Bookkeeping is one of the worst complaints one could have about an RPG and you're treating it almsot as a feature.
im not treating it as a feature. i just dont see it as a valid complaint. if you look at my other posts, i dont find bookkeeping a hassle because i DONT waste time by going through everything at once
Except bookkeeping is a serious complaint that can't be handwaved away. This is a game using pencil and paper. It's all bookkeeping. So when someone makes a bookkeeping complaint, that's a serious onerous issue.Bookkeeping takes you out of the wor
What's unclear about "The new form can be any beast..."?! It uses the word "beast". I think people aren't paying attention to the wording and assuming it worked like prior editions. I think the amount of clarification necessary to get peopel who only skim the rules to see the change is more than offset by the amount of clutter created.
The problem is that definitions are often unclear and they fail to keep their own standards.
Did they do that in the playtest?
Already the have one conflict with a Displacer Beast. It is called a beast (lowercase) in the text yet is given the type as monstrosity.
Because "beast" is in the name. Much the same as calling a grey ooze an "ooze" insteadof witing "greya ooze" every time. Really, if there are people who have such problems reading English, I think it hopeless to try to accommodate them because the cost of writing books with such picayune detail is a ponderous, overly verbose, and ultimately abstruse text.
They need to be simple and clear in all of their explanations of effects. They also need to account for future expansions by limiting effects that would have power creep with expansion books.
None of which has anythign to do with this discussion of the polymorph spell.
Actually, all of these points have everything to do with the polymorph spell. They demonstrate that the producers can't write a spell description that is precise, clear, and free from controversy.
Polymorph is perhaps the greatest violation of power creep that is available in D&D.
If a spell can turn you into a beast, then that could be: 1. Any creature listed in a bestiary (compendium of beasts) 2. Any non-humanoid (a typical definition for what a beast is) 3. Any creature with the beast type 4. Any creature with the beast type + any creature described in the text as a beast (such as the Displacer Beast).
The problem is that definitions are often unclear and they fail to keep their own standards.[/quote]Did they do that in the playtest?Because "beast" is in the name. Much the same as calling a grey ooze an "ooze" insteadof witing "greya ooze" every t
Wrecan, you're right that skimming makes comprehension harder. But so does sloppiness in writing. As I recall of the wording, there are three cases: self transformation, willing (non-self) transformation, and hostile transformation. Also from my memory (don't have the packet on my phone) the beast only clause seemed to apply only to self transformation. Does that mean that the others are not limited to beast only? Now, I get it that it's a playtest, and therefore the wording hasn't been proofed. But, when discussing power, we all have to agree on what it does, otherwise the discussion won't go anywhere.
And, frankly, I'm not sure it takes longer or is wordier to write intelligibly as compared to snorft sniffling and hoping ressnibs will gander the meaning from rottletub.
Wrecan, you're right that skimming makes comprehension harder. But so does sloppiness in writing. As I recall of the wording, there are three cases: self transformation, willing (non-self) transformation, and hostile transformation. Also from m
The description of the spell is really quite clear, and applies to both versions of the spell (hostile target and friendly target, which includes the caster):
"The new form can be any beast whose number of Hit Dice is equal to or less than that of the target creature."
Note that it specically says, "beast" and not "creature". Beast is a creature type, along with monstrosity, construct, aberration, humanoid, giant, undead, etc.
Note that these are D&D game terms, and thus referencing a dictionary definition is simply being silly. For example, a giant is technically humanoid, in that it resembles a human: it stands upright on two legs, has a body, two arms, a head, etc. For that matter, an iron golem is also a humanoid. But neither of these things are "humanoids" in D&D terms, because "humanoid" in D&D has a specific meaning separate from the dictionary definition.
Just because something can be argued, doesn't mean it is at all correct. People can argue pretty much anything.
The assumption in D&D should be that when a word is used that matches a keyword, the first default is to assume the word is referring to said keyword. So, for example, if a feat says that it requires the use of a finesse weapon, you assume it is referring to the "finesse" keyword that certain weapons have as a trait. You should not attempt to argue that it simply means you need to weild your weapon with a certain amount of finesse. It is a game term.
I hope this puts the issue to rest, and I look forward to reading further arguments.
The description of the spell is really quite clear, and applies to both versions of the spell (hostile target and friendly target, which includes the caster):"The new form can be any beast whose number of Hit Dice is equal to or less than that of the
I'm sure that a vague description of the spell was not the intent of the designers. It seems sloppy because i'm sure most of their attention is being pulled elsewhere. It's not a sign of the spell being out of whack.
But good for you guys for pointing it out. That's what a playtest is for. Hopefully they will correct it in the future.
I'm sure that a vague description of the spell was not the intent of the designers. It seems sloppy because i'm sure most of their attention is being pulled elsewhere. It's not a sign of the spell being out of whack. But good for you guys for pointin
Unfortunately, D&D has never stuck with using just the defined terms throughout their various materials. They generally throw the word "dragon" around as either a type, a race, or just a description. "Beast" was not defined specifically and at times in previous editions was replaced by animal or some other term so it is by no means defined and specific. In fact, they use the term beast throughout the description of the displacer beast without the word displacer which allowed it to appear on a list earlier in this thread as a possible form for polymorph. Editors get paid to make certain that confusion is avoided. Polymorph and wildshape have always had major problems. Wizards.com has dedicated pages and pages to the polymorph spell. You would think they would be careful in defining it for this edition to prevent confusion. Unfortunately, they were sloppy.
Polymorph is a power that is important to wizards and witches. Stripping away this power is taking away an essential magical power. Poorly defined boundaries is also a problem to be avoided. The writers should spend a little time to review the perils and pitfalls experienced with polymorph and wildshape in previous editions and developed a balanced mechanic for dealing with this. They owe it to the players.
Unfortunately, D&D has never stuck with using just the defined terms throughout their various materials. They generally throw the word "dragon" around as either a type, a race, or just a description. "Beast" was not defined specifically and at time
It's description refers to it as a beast repeatedly and yet it is typed as a "monstrosity" similar to a chimera or a harpy. The polymorph spell used the word "beast" but failed to state whether it was a defined beast type or the generic word beast (meaning a creature or monster). In the past editions, references to specific types would be bolded, italicized, or capitalized. The polymorph spell does none of the three.