|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:49PM
#51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:51PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
If everyone is this upset about Polymorph, I fear the day Wild Shape is released.
Lets hope it resembles 2nd ed wildshape then. Turning into a bear, eagle or wolf isn't exactly broken.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:13PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:39AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 3:51AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 4:52AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Why learning from previous edition when we can make the same mistakes ?
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 5:43AM
#57
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:00AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:03AM
#59
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 6:04AM
#60
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
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.
|
|
|
