Polymorph Self Nerfed?

[Lily Inverse]

Huh?

All right, I'll spell it out for you. You act as if your words are the final word in any issue you choose to speak on. All who disagree are met with borderline insults and insistence that any source to the contrary is wrong.

Wrong, on both counts.

Count two is correct because he is one of the co-authors of the PHB and MM, which makes all the words contained therein "his" although ownership is shared. By that definition, the first count, that he is allowed to make corrections to this work, also makes any comment he makes about his work in writing that is published by Wizards of the Coast makes him correct. This means that his words on this (or any other subject ) are not some house-rule made by someone else that you can dismiss as irrelevant. Unless they are specifically contradicted by a LATER publication of the work he is making corrections to, Skip Williams' words must be considered just as relevant as the original works themselves for purposes of discussing the rules.

The reasons why Skip's words render prior publications invalid, but are themselves rendered invalid by later publication, are the same: order. The procedure I deem most likely is reasonably simple, and based on the procedure used for judging Magic: The Gathering tournaments. When a rule is found to be confusing or imbalancing, Skip Williams is the one who is handed the task of making an immediate ruling, which is issued to the public by the quickest possible method (normally the monthly Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine.) In some instances, other sources might be used, such as email or public announcement at an RPGA event where the need is more pressing. This ruling, a well as the original issue, would then most likely be taken back to the R&D department at Wizards of the Coast where the matter is placed undre more inense scrutiny. A different, or better, solution may be found, then this is published in the next printing of the resource or rule in question. However, whenever the rules are referenced between publishings, the Sage's rulings on the issue are consulted FIRST, then the source, where such an up-to-date interpretation of the rules is necessary or requested, such as is the case in this discussion.

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

Exactly. It's stupid.

I've addressed some of this already, but I will point out that this still leaves a fourth level spell which allows an arcane spellcaster to simulate a class ability of a druid an incredible degree of flexibility. To do any more would probably, in the minds of all of the designers, require it to be higher in level. Since the designers are adamant about it NOT being higher in level, they are clearly of the opinion that they would rather have it sharply curtailed from past editions of the game.

 

[hong]

All right, I'll spell it out for you.

Must you?

You act as if your words are the final word in any issue you choose to speak on.

You can interpret my actions however you wish.

All who disagree are met with borderline insults

Jeez, I thought they were already quite beyond the borderline. Still, I can crank it up if you want.

and insistence that any source to the contrary is wrong.

You say THAT as if it's a negative thing.

Count two is correct because he is one of the co-authors of the PHB and MM, which makes all the words contained therein "his" although ownership is shared.

Count two is incorrect because the topic of interest isn't what the rulebooks say, but how useful they are.

By that definition, the first count, that he is allowed to make corrections to this work, also makes any comment he makes about his work in writing that is published by Wizards of the Coast makes him correct.

What is "right" for any given topic of debate, and so forms the starting point for any further discussion, can only be decided by implicit agreement by the participants themselves. Since I've already made clear that I think what Skip says on this issue is a load of bollocks, then clearly he isn't "right".

Mass debates are fun, aren't they?

This means that his words on this (or any other subject ) are not some house-rule made by someone else that you can dismiss as irrelevant.

I can dismiss as irrelevant anything I want.

Unless they are specifically contradicted by a LATER publication of the work he is making corrections to, Skip Williams' words must be considered just as relevant as the original works themselves for purposes of discussing the rules.

You seem rather verbose.

(vast amounts of pointless twaddle snipped)

I've addressed some of this already, but I will point out that this still leaves a fourth level spell which allows an arcane spellcaster to simulate a class ability of a druid an incredible degree of flexibility.

Au contraire. This spell has been part of the magic-user/mage/wizard's armoury since 1E. If anything, the druid's wildshape is straying into classic wizard territory.

And polymorph is broken. You didn't know this already?

 

[IceBear]

But Lily, there *IS* an email from Skip saying that constrict and rake should be granted via Polymorph Self.

He may have changed that ruling later (to be in compliance with the rules) but this just shows that he thought it would be logical.

I do understand that some people have to play by the "offical" rules, and to that I do agree that you would not get those abilities - "offically".

IceBear

 

[Iku Rex]

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

I haven't the foggiest idea. I already asked you what you meant, remember? Maybe you didn't understand the question? I guess "I have no idea what you are talking about" wasn't quite clear enough either...

What a pity that's irrelevant to this thread.

It is directly relevant to your claim that any interpretation of what the rules are constitutes an opinion on what the rules ought to be.

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.

And I thought we were discussing polymorph... The issue is if natural abilities exist in the game, and if they don't if that makes the rule stating that you don't get extraordinary abilities invalid.



Let's assume for a moment that the term "natural ability" appeared nowhere except in the polymorph spell description.

How would that indicate that you get (for example) the extraordinary ability blindsight? Keep in mind that the spell description specifically says that you don't get extraordinary abilities.

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?

IMO? "Shield bonus" is a shorter way of saying "armor bonus from a shield that stacks with the armor bonus from worn armor". Not that it matters the slightest what "shield bonus" means, since the game designers have made it clear that shields provide an armor bonus.

And that answers your second question. If there is a contradiction in the rules (i.e. we don't understand how something is supposed to work) the best way of finding the intent is to ask the game designers. If we can't do that we have to exersise judgement. The goal should be to find out what the game designers meant. (If all you care about is how it ought to work, in your opinion and reghardless of the intent, then the rules don't matter anyway.)

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.

How many times have I explained this now? Natural abilities are defined as an ability without a designator. Whining about how natural abilities must have a designator to exist is just silly. The Monster Manual contains plenty of natural abilities.

Why are you still wasting your time mentioning the Sage?

<sigh> You said: [The game designers] appear to be terminally confused on this issue. Posting a quote from a game designer that shows that he isn't the slightest bit confused on the issue is relevant in response to that.

No, I didn't.

Are we there yet?

He hit me!

WABBIT season!

... etcetera.

Is this meant to be yet another creative example of childish behavior? You said: "Explain why the abilities in the MM haven't been rejigged to be consistent with this new definition of natural abilities". (my emphasis) I even quoted you saying this in my last post. Do you deny that you wrote that? Are you now claiming to be the victim of some evil hacker?

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

It's been a while since I read the house rules forum. But I don't think it has changed so much that "these rules are just fine" is a common topic for new post. It's no doubt a common response to suggested rules changes, but since we were discussing the core rules and not a suggested house rule (beyond your claims, which are not posted on the house rules forum as suggested house rules) that can't be it.

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

Because, despite your stated disregard for the intent of the rules, you keep attacking my claim that the intent of the rules is that you don't get any extraordinary abilities. If you truly didn't care about the intent, you wouldn't bother replying in this thread. So, as far as I can see, you have somehow gotten the idea that my posts are an attack on your authority as a DM. It's the only way I can explain your hostility.

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?

Because you, despite your claim that you don't care, have been stating opinions about the rules and the intent of the game designers.

[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.

True. But if you strain yourself you will remember that your claim was that his opinion wasn't supported by the core rules. Not the self evident fact that a ruling clarifying a contradiction would have to go against one of the (contradictory) rules. Both (1) and (2) are supported by the rules.

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

It's still an orphan definition.

Do you honestly expect me to "prove" the existence of abilities defined as having no designator by finding such an ability with a designator? Logic is not your strong suite, is it?

 

[hong]

I haven't the foggiest idea.

In which case, clearly your comprehension needs work. QED.

It is directly relevant to your claim that any interpretation of what the rules are constitutes an opinion on what the rules ought to be.

How?

And I thought we were discussing polymorph...

Yes, we are. We are discussing how polymorph should work. Implicit in that is the exercise of individual judgement, even if it's in the trivial sense of accepting what Skip says without question.

Let's assume for a moment that the term "natural ability" appeared nowhere except in the polymorph spell description.

How would that indicate that you get (for example) the extraordinary ability blindsight?

It indicates that the design team got their wires crossed between writing the spell, and writing up the creature stat blocks. Therefore, since the design team got their wires crossed, we fall back on our natural faculties (which I will make the huge assumption exist, even though they don't seem to in D&D land) and make a decision based on our own reading of the facts, and our own priorities in how we intend our games to play out. Easy, isn't it?

In this specific instance, sometimes you get blindsight, and sometimes you don't. Exactly when you do get it, depends on what form you're polymorphing into. Exactly what forms those are should be self-evident to any reasonably educated person.

Keep in mind that the spell description specifically says that you don't get extraordinary abilities.

And it also specifically says you get natural abilities. Clearly, then, the spell description is stupid, or the game designers are stupid, or both.

IMO? "Shield bonus" is a shorter way of saying "armor bonus from a shield that stacks with the armor bonus from worn armor".

Cite, please. Or if that's just what you think the rules _ought to_ be, then perhaps you need to take it here:

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

Not that it matters the slightest what "shield bonus" means, since the game designers have made it clear that shields provide an armor bonus.

Now tell me what your decision to believe the game designers is, if it isn't an opinion.

Note that despite Skip et al, the definition of "shield bonus" remains in the PHB glossary. Fascinating, isn't it, how even when one wants to go completely by the book, one still has to exercise that nebulous thing called "DM judgement"?

And that answers your second question. If there is a contradiction in the rules (i.e. we don't understand how something is supposed to work) the best way of finding the intent is to ask the game designers. If we can't do that we have to exersise judgement. The goal should be to find out what the game designers meant.

Piffle. The goal should be to find out how to run the game so that things make sense, and lead to an enjoyable experience. Sometimes designer intent is a good proxy for that. Sometimes not.

How many times have I explained this now? Natural abilities are defined as an ability without a designator. Whining about how natural abilities must have a designator to exist is just silly.

Point me to where I said natural abilities must have an explicit descriptor.

The Monster Manual contains plenty of natural abilities.

Point me to one. A SPECIAL ABILITY, mind you, not something peripheral like a mode of movement or a natural AC bonus.

<sigh> You said: [The game designers] appear to be terminally confused on this issue. Posting a quote from a game designer that shows that he isn't the slightest bit confused on the issue is relevant in response to that.

Until and unless the MM statblocks are changed so that natural abilities actually exist, the conclusion must be that the game designers (note plural) are terminally confused.

Is this meant to be yet another creative example of childish behavior?

Personally, I hate uncreative examples of childish behaviour. A terrible waste of an opportunity, if you ask me.

You said: "Explain why the abilities in the MM haven't been rejigged to be consistent with this new definition of natural abilities". (my emphasis) I even quoted you saying this in my last post. Do you deny that you wrote that? Are you now claiming to be the victim of some evil hacker?

"New" as in having appeared in the MM2, as opposed to the MM. Sigh. ANYway, to repeat the point, explain why there are no "natural abilities" in the MM (and the MM2, even). EVERY SA and SQ is either Ex, Su or Sp, as far as I can tell.

Tell me why I should take a statement like "natural abilities are the complement of Ex, Su and Sp" seriously. I'm asking you. I'm telling you. I'm begging you.

And just so you won't waste any more of your time (which I know is very precious), please don't bother to post more of Skip's (or any other designer's) opinions on this.

It's been a while since I read the house rules forum.

Meaning "not since the last blue moon", I guess.

But I don't think it has changed so much that "these rules are just fine" is a common topic for new post.

If you really believe that "these rules are just fine" is a relevant _topic_ (as opposed to followup) for House Rules, you REALLY don't read the House Rules forum, do you?

It's no doubt a common response to suggested rules changes, but since we were discussing the core rules and not a suggested house rule (beyond your claims, which are not posted on the house rules forum as suggested house rules) that can't be it.

What?

Because, despite your stated disregard for the intent of the rules, you keep attacking my claim that the intent of the rules is that you don't get any extraordinary abilities.

Please to make a distinction between the intent of the ruleset as a whole, and the intent of the game designers taken in isolation, and without a context.

If you truly didn't care about the intent, you wouldn't bother replying in this thread.

I reply to this thread for my own reasons. YOUR task, if you choose to accept it, is to figure out what they are.

So, as far as I can see, you have somehow gotten the idea that my posts are an attack on your authority as a DM.

You can believe that, if you want.

It's the only way I can explain your hostility.

Ah, ye of limited horizons.

Because you, despite your claim that you don't care, have been stating opinions about the rules and the intent of the game designers.

And exactly how am I supposed to address statements about rules and intent, without referencing said rules and intent?

True. But if you strain yourself you will remember that your claim was that his opinion wasn't supported by the core rules.

You're right, I'm straining myself to remember it. Not surprising, because I didn't say it.

Are we having fun yet?

Both (1) and (2) are supported by the rules.

Can I quote you on that?

Do you honestly expect me to "prove" the existence of abilities defined as having no designator by finding such an ability with a designator?

Ah, we ARE having fun. Point me to where looking for a an ability without a {Ex, Su, Sp} descriptor somehow transmogrified into looking for an explicit descriptor. You seem terminally confused, much like the designers (note plural).

Logic is not your strong suite, is it?

Your blustering REALLY needs work.

 

[AuraSeer]

Please tell me of a special ability without the Ex, Su or Sp descriptors that doesn't appear in the SA or SQ lines.

A monkey can grab things with its feet.
A dolphin can hold its breath for 30 minutes.
A polar bear can survive indefinitely in arctic temperatures.

As things that most creatures can't do without magical aid, these sound like special abilities to me.

Unless you can point to a specific definition of "Special Ability" as a term of art, I don't think your argument has any support in the rules. If you can find any, I'd love to see it. (And if you could stop being condescending long enough to post it, that'd be great. But I wouldn't want to ask too much of you.)

 

[hong]

A monkey can grab things with its feet.
A dolphin can hold its breath for 30 minutes.
A polar bear can survive indefinitely in arctic temperatures.

As things that most creatures can't do without magical aid, these sound like special abilities to me.

So why can't a boa wrap itself around a prey?

Or a bear grab someone with improved grab?

Unless you can point to a specific definition of "Special Ability" as a term of art, I don't think your argument has any support in the rules.

Unless you can point to an SA or SQ that isn't {Ex, Su, Sp}, the definition of "natural ability" as being the complement of that set is pointless.

And if you could stop being condescending

No.

 

[IceBear]

The thing that bothers me, is even Skip felt that constrict and rake should be granted at one point. Yes, this is just an email response and not in any FAQ or errata, but like many discussions on these forums it *is* evidence.

Here's the URL (as was given earlier):

http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DnD/Sage/PolymorphAlterSelf.html

Here's the specific quote:

(Regarding extraordinary abilities...) How about [I mentined several categories of abilities I thought might be natural, like sensory abilities or abilities based on appearance]?

No (except for constrict and rake).

IceBear

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Designer Intent

Ignoring designer intent is silly. You cannot expect every item in every product to be perfect, and polymorph self is obviously inperfect. (As is Harm - check my sig.)

Furthermore, the DM has to use common sense.
IMC if you polymorph into a bat you get the creature's blindsight, and if you polymorph into a constrictor you get to use the constrict attack.

Besides, arguing about it now is a bit silly. You should hold off your arguments until the revisions are made (and hopefully put into the SRD). Then you can break out the cheese graters.

 

[hong]

Re: Designer Intent

Ignoring designer intent is silly.

Well, d'oh!