Polymorph Self Nerfed?

[Iku Rex]

Screw designer intent.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=45

Your filibustering technique needs work. You're the one who wants to go by the book. I'm pointing out that the book is screwed.

I have not said anything about what I "want". I have not made a single comment about how I think polymorph ought to work. And as opposed to what you seem to think, I have not threatened you with dire consequences if you house rule polymorph.

I have said: This is the intent of the game designers.

Either respond to that or stop wasting my time.

Explain why the abilities in the MM haven't been rejigged to be consistent with this new definition of natural abilities.

The definition of natural abilities can be found in the PH. It is not "new". And there is no need to "rejigg" any abilities in the MM.

Explain why I should bother with Skip's opinions if the bulk of material in the core books don't support them.

I couldn't care less about whether or not you "bother" with Skip's opinions. If you feel that a particular "opinion" of his isn't supported by the core rules, explain why.

And you didn't answer my questions.

 

[AuraSeer]

If it ain't in the Special Qualities or Special Attacks lines, it ain't a special ability.

Who says?
Is "special ability" now a term of art that has a more specific game meaning than "natural ability"? If you say yes, please offer a cite.

 

[hong]

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=45

Funny.

I have not said anything about what I "want". I have not made a single comment about how I think polymorph ought to work.

Your interpretation of the rules constitutes your opinion on how polymorph ought to work. If you like, I can rewrite that sentence in words of one syllable to make it perfectly clear.

And as opposed to what you seem to think, I have not threatened you with dire consequences if you house rule polymorph.

Did I say you were threatening me with dire consequences? Do stop bignoting yourself.

I have said: This is the intent of the game designers.

Who appear to be terminally confused on this issue.

Either respond to that or stop wasting my time.

The only one who can waste your time is you.

The definition of natural abilities can be found in the PH.

And is used nowhere else, even implicitly, in the core books. Therefore, it's a pointless definition, much like "shield bonus".

It is not "new".

Did I say it was?

And there is no need to "rejigg" any abilities in the MM.

That's your opinion, which you can take here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=45

I couldn't care less about whether or not you "bother" with Skip's opinions.

Then stop wasting your own time by quoting them. Unless, of course, the intent is to pleasure yourself by inserting superfluous opinions into this thread.

If you feel that a particular "opinion" of his isn't supported by the core rules, explain why.

I did. You were clearly too busy pleasuring yourself with superfluous opinions to read them.

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did. You were again clearly too busy pleasuring yourself with superfluous opinions to read them.

 

[hong]

Who says?

Me.

Is "special ability" now a term of art that has a more specific game meaning than "natural ability"? If you say yes, please offer a cite.

Please tell me of a special ability with the Ex, Su or Sp descriptors that doesn't appear in the SA or SQ lines. If there are none, then that's strong evidence that these descriptors are only meant to be applied to abilities that are SAs or SQs. Conversely, if there are no SAs or SQs that are NOT Ex, Su or Sp, that's strong evidence that EVERY SA or SQ is one of Ex, Su or Sp. Which leaves "natural abilities" out in the cold.

 

[Iku Rex]

Your interpretation of the rules constitutes your opinion on how polymorph ought to work. If you like, I can rewrite that sentence in words of one syllable to make it perfectly clear.

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, thank you.

And you clearly don't know what you are talking about. If I were to say "mage armor does not stack with a shield" that would be true. It would not constitute my opinion on whether or not mage armor ought to, based on common sense, stack with a shield.

I have said: This is the intent of the game designers.

Who appear to be terminally confused on this issue.

Q: [...]are there any (EX) abilities that an animal might possess which would count as "natural" abilities for Polymorph?
A: Not if they're labeled extraordinary.

http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=135;t=009970;p=

No game designer has ever said that you get "natural" extraordinary abilities. There is no confusion here, except in your mind. The spell description has some errors (and those regarding extraordinary abilities have been fixed in the most recent PsiH errata), but nevertheless says that you don't get extraordinary abilities. The intent have been made crystal clear.

And is used nowhere else, even implicitly, in the core books. Therefore, it's a pointless definition, much like "shield bonus".

A definition does not have to be repeated ad nauseam to be valid. The definition appears in the same book as polymorph other. It has been confirmed by the Sage and is repeated in the MM2.

Explain why the abilities in the MM haven't been rejigged to be consistent with this >>>new<<< [my emphasis - Iku Rex] definition of natural abilities.

It's not "new".

Did I say it was? [/B][/QUOTE] Yes you did.

That's your opinion, which you can take here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=45

House rules are changes (or additions) to the way the rules are supposed to work. "There is no need to "rejigg" rulebook X" is not an opinion that belongs in the house rules forum. Surely you understand that?

Then stop wasting your own time by quoting them. Unless, of course, the intent is to pleasure yourself by inserting superfluous opinions into this thread.

This may come as a big shock to you, but I did not post in this thread in an evil attempt to ruin your game.

Most people actually consider the opinions of the people who wrote the rules to be fairly important when trying to figure out what the people who wrote the rules meant. (Go figure...) If you don't care about the intent of the rules, it hardly matters whether that intent is conveyed through a clear statement in the PH or through an e-mail from the Sage.

I did. You were clearly too busy pleasuring yourself with superfluous opinions to read them.

You did not. You were clearly so busy making inane comments and ignoring my arguments that you forgot.

"Look - a contradiction in the rules!" will not do. Skip's "shields provide an armor bonus" opinion is supported by the rules. Pointing out that shields are sometimes said to provide a "shield bonus" does not change that. All it proves is that the rules are unclear and need clarification.

I did. You were again clearly too busy pleasuring yourself with superfluous opinions to read them.

You did not. You keep saying that "natural abilities" are an anachronism in the rules, like (you believe) the shield bonus. If that was the case, then presumably Skip would know about it. And the MM2 would definitely not change the description of special abilities to include a definition of natural abilities.

MM1: A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su).

MM2 (from memory): A special ability is designated as extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su) or it can have no designator, in which case it's natural.

Edit: Minor clarification.

 

[hong]

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, thank you.

Tell me what "words of art" are, then.

And you clearly don't know what you are talking about. If I were to say "mage armor does not stack with a shield" that would be true.

What a pity that's irrelevant to this thread.

Here's something to aid your reading comprehension: the issue isn't what a "natural ability" is. The issue is whether the definition of a "natural ability" is something that's actually useful in the game, or just an orphan definition buried in an obscure passage in the PHB.

It would not constitute my opinion on whether or not mage armor ought to, based on common sense, stack with a shield.

In which case, what exactly is a "shield bonus"? How are you going to adjudicate an apparent contradiction in the rules except by exercising judgement?

No game designer has ever said that you get "natural" extraordinary abilities.

Possibly because they have no idea what's implied by the question.

D00d, because I like you, I'll point out that all that asking someone achieves is that people put on their "X disagrees with me, therefore he's wrong" hat. Get over it already.

There is no confusion here, except in your mind.

My mind is perfectly clear, but yours seems a bit addled.

The spell description has some errors (and those regarding extraordinary abilities have been fixed in the most recent PsiH errata), but nevertheless says that you don't get extraordinary abilities. The intent have been made crystal clear.

Tell me then when they intend to errata the monster descriptions so that "natural" abilities actually exist. Otherwise it's just a bunch of hot air.

A definition does not have to be repeated ad nauseam to be valid.

No, it just has to be useful and make sense, both of which are not the case with "natural" abilities.

The definition appears in the same book as polymorph other. It has been confirmed by the Sage and is repeated in the MM2.

Why are you still wasting your time mentioning the Sage?

It's not "new".

Did I say it was?

Yes you did.

No, I didn't.

Are we there yet?

He hit me!

WABBIT season!

... etcetera.

House rules are changes (or additions) to the way the rules are supposed to work. "There is no need to "rejigg" rulebook X" is not an opinion that belongs in the house rules forum. Surely you understand that?

You haven't read the House Rules forum at all, have you?

This may come as a big shock to you, but I did not post in this thread in an evil attempt to ruin your game.

You seem rather defensive.

Why do you believe that I think you're trying to ruin my game?

Most people actually consider the opinions of the people who wrote the rules to be fairly important when trying to figure out what the people who wrote the rules meant.

Terrible how I'm not "most people" then, eh?

(Go figure...) If you don't care about the intent of the rules, it hardly matters whether that intent is conveyed through a clear statement in the PH or through an e-mail from the Sage.

So why are you wasting your time again by posting more URLs and whatnot?

You said yourself you didn't want to waste time. And yet you continue to do so. Be true to yourself, man.

You did not. You were clearly so busy making inane comments and ignoring my arguments that you forgot.

D00d, that's MY line. Please find a witty rejoinder of your own. ThaADVANCEnks!

"Look - a contradiction in the rules!" will not do. Skip's "shields provide an armor bonus" opinion is supported by the rules.

You mean like in the definition of "shield bonus"?

Pointing out that shields are sometimes said to provide a "shield bonus" does not change that. All it proves is that the rules are unclear and need clarification.

1) Shields provide an armour bonus that stacks with worn armour.

2) Shields provide a shield bonus.

You know, I don't see any way that (1) and (2) can both be correct at the same time, which means there's a contradiction in the rules. In that case, any ruling by anyone is going to go against at least one of them.

You did not. You keep saying that "natural abilities" are an anachronism in the rules, like (you believe) the shield bonus. If that was the case, then presumably Skip would know about it.

You assume a lot.

And the MM2 would definitely not change the description of special abilities to include a definition of natural abilities.

Tell me about all those special abilities in the MM2 that are natural, then.

It's still an orphan definition.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Another thing you need to understand, Hong, is that some people (particularly RPGA players) have no choice. To them, Skip's word is law, simply because you have to go by SOMEBODY'S rulings. In the short term, that might be the judge or the GM for your group, but Skip Williams' rulings are the final word on any D&D matter to them. This is, in part, because he IS one of the lead designers for the core game, which, incidentally, is why he tends to be very well listened-to.

Skip Williams had some degree of involvement in the development of the current edition of the D&D game. You did not.

Skip Williams is considered an official source of errata. You are not.

This may surprise you, but Skip Williams is more important in the development of game rules than you are. Contradictory, inconsistent, he is a human being, but his words are more important than yours because he acts in an official capacity to change the rules. Unless you're Monte Cook in disguise or the like, you do not have that position.

If Skip Williams says something in an official capacity, it's errata. Deal with it.

 

[hong]

Another thing you need to understand, Hong, is that some people (particularly RPGA players) have no choice.

What happens in the RPGA is a matter of immense insignificance to me.

This is, in part, because he IS one of the lead designers for the core game, which, incidentally, is why he tends to be very well listened-to.

Did I say he wasn't?

Skip Williams had some degree of involvement in the development of the current edition of the D&D game. You did not.

Excuse me. I think I had lots of involvement in the current edition of my D&D game. I am not sure what exactly is this thing you call "the" D&D game.

Skip Williams is considered an official source of errata. You are not.

What on earth is this "official" thing of which you speak?

This may surprise you, but Skip Williams is more important in the development of game rules than you are.

Did I say he wasn't?

Contradictory, inconsistent, he is a human being, but his words are more important than yours because he acts in an official capacity to change the rules. Unless you're Monte Cook in disguise or the like, you do not have that position.

Tell me again why I should care what this weird thing you call an "official capacity" is.

If Skip Williams says something in an official capacity, it's errata. Deal with it.

I am. I'm putting on my "Skip disagrees with me, therefore he's wrong" hat. On other occasions, I've put on my "Skip agrees with me, therefore he's right" hat. It all cancels out.

 

[Lily Inverse]

Hong, the entire point of that was simply that you seem to be of the opinion that your game is more important in the general scheme of things than the game described in the books. Frankly, it's not.

The "Official" game is the one described in the books. The current version of "polymorph self" is the "official" one and therefore the one under discussion. "Official capacity," in this instance, means that he speaks as an employee of Wizards of the Coast, empowered by them to make changes to the game he helped to write and which they own. You do not have that happy power (or, if you do, speak up if you're permitted to do so). If he says something in this capacity, you are free to disagree with him, but then your words are a house ruling. Taken away from your table and applied elsewhere, they can, in fact, be considered "wrong" or "inapplicable", because they are in disagreement with the rules. If Skip Williams speaks in the defined capacity, he is "right" for the purposes of this discussion, because it is his own words that are under discussion.

In this case, "Natural abilities" are referenced in two places, and a very simple interpretation can be found. Anything in the entire statistic block not given the tag of "Extraordinary," "Supernatural," or "Spell-Like" is a natural ability. What this means is that movement, basic attacks, and low-light vision of animal forms are granted, and nothing else. Anything appearing in the "Special Attacks" "Special Defenses" or "Special Qualities" lines of the statistics block does not count as a "natural ability" for any purpose, even if the only purpose currently part of the rules is for the "Polymorph Self" spell.

Come up with explanations, or alter the spell to your own needs. It doesn't really matter, but your opinion that "Natural Abilities" are not part of the game is simple arrogance. They are a small part, but it has been made reasonably clear that this is how that phrase is intended to be interpreted.

 

[hong]

Hong, the entire point of that was simply that you seem to be of the opinion that your game is more important in the general scheme of things than the game described in the books.

Huh?

If Skip Williams speaks in the defined capacity, he is "right" for the purposes of this discussion, because it is his own words that are under discussion.

Wrong, on both counts.

What this means is that movement, basic attacks, and low-light vision of animal forms are granted, and nothing else.

Which is stupid. Do you or do you not agree?

Anything appearing in the "Special Attacks" "Special Defenses" or "Special Qualities" lines of the statistics block does not count as a "natural ability" for any purpose, even if the only purpose currently part of the rules is for the "Polymorph Self" spell.

Exactly. It's stupid.

It doesn't really matter, but your opinion that "Natural Abilities" are not part of the game is simple arrogance.

You say this like it's a negative thing.