I've always required that the player actually have seen the creature they want to polymorph into. Some can be assumed, like most animals native to the region, but if a player wanted to polymorph into a war troll, that would have required them to have seen one, and survived the encounter. If there's a particular form I wouldn't want them to use, it's easy to limit their exposure to it.
The problem with that is twofold, in my mind.
1) who keeps track of every monster ever encountered? Player? DM? Either way, that sounds very onerous.
2) what about a Wizard who comes in at a higher level than 1st? Do we just assume they haven't seen anything? That seems like a pretty big ding to the spell's effectiveness, just for coming in mid-campaign.
|
1) Knowledge of form: To transform into a target form, the caster needs to succeed in an appropriate Knowledge roll, DC 20+LA. (So, if you wanted to transform into a troll, +6 LA, you'd need to make a DC 26 Knowledge (nature) roll.DC Modifiers: -2 if you've ever seen the form. Another -2 if you've seen the form during the last few days. Another -2 if you have a specimen present.
1a) You can "memorize" forms by spending a skill point, like learning a language. So if you want to turn into a troll on a regular basis, learn "Troll form".
(In practical use, most players rely on memorized forms, which means they have the calculated stats all ready.)
2) Experience Penalty: Casters receive experience based on the table in the DMG, appropriate to their current effective character level. (If your 11th-Level Sorcerer spends the entire adventure polymorphed into a ECL 18 Blue Dragon, he receives expereince for the entire adventure as a Level 18 character.)
(So there's a reason not to trqnsform into the biggest, baddest, critter you can and then stay there.)
I like #1, it combines two of my similar ideas earlier in the thread (which I never thought of doing) into a simple mechanic based on skills, which means wizards have the advantage, which I like.
Not sure about #2, as it creates some unnecessary math for the DM, and may very well put the caster into the realm of "no XP at all". To me it feels the same as penalizing casters who summon monsters (which in turn reminds me of the very aggravating XP mechanic in Neverwinter Nights).
So to recap, we have a few suggestions:
1) Limit the books accessible at the table.
2) Have players prepare intended transformations ahead of time.
3) Limit players to a number of creature types/forms, either through skills or spell knowledge.
4) Require a Knowledge (relevant creature identification) check to transform into the desired form.
5) Counter abusive polymorph with counter-magic spells.
|
|
So if you're running a premade module & they buy a copy its perfectly fine for them to leaf through it during the game? No? then there is no reason for a player to use the DM guide or any monster product during the game. If it damages the play experience, you have the right to stop them. reading the adventure as you play is just a little worse than stopping the game while you look up a half dozen creature options in the MM.
We're touching on different points here. In my games, I am upfront with my players that I don't want summoning/polymorphing/whatever to be a drag on what can already be (at high levels) a very slow game. So anything you summon/polymorph into needs to be statted out ahead of time. Denying them access to any books they personally own in this endevor would really be a non-starter.
Likewise, if someone wanted to buy the module we were running and read it, that is their choice. I'd expect them to not use their knowledge to give themselves or the party any kind of advantage, however, and considering the difficulty of not acting on possessed knowledge, I think most (probably all) would decline to read the module before/during running.
That said, I don't use a screen, and a few players have been caught checking out maps during play. Most of the table ends up yelling at them when it happens but I don't stop them. It's their choce. We're all adults after all. :)
Edit: Me no speaka da gud englsh
Well the original discussion was about the way looking things up slowed the game. My point is that I do not like to allow the use of books during the game beyond PHB. Outside of the game table they can read what they want. (except for the damn preprinted adventures!)
By the way, a DM I played with years ago was so frustrated with my knowledge of the Monster manual (I was the usual DM, so i knew it quite well) that they required my character to take a made up skill, Knowledge:monster, at the maximum possible rank. The players couldn't resist looking to me for meta-game info, so this skill was a sort of back handed penalty to justify how the hell my character knew what he did.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
1) who keeps track of every monster ever encountered? Player? DM? Either way, that sounds very onerous.
2) what about a Wizard who comes in at a higher level than 1st? Do we just assume they haven't seen anything? That seems like a pretty big ding to the spell's effectiveness, just for coming in mid-campaign.
Hi, David. Since my players know that they have an easier time turning into a critter if they've ever seen one, they do keep track of useful forms. In a home campaign, it's really not much of an issue.
PLAYER: "I cast Polymorph. Form of...a flumph!"
DM: "When have you ever seen a flumph?"
PLAYER: "Way back at the docksides in Riddleport. Remember?"
For any PC's coming into the campaign at a higher level, I sit down with the player and discuss what equipment they own, and where they got it, and what kind of adventures they've already had, with what sorts of companions. And then I choose a couple of pre-written DUNGEON or Goodman DCC modules for them to read through, as their backstory.
Actually, the real problem would be in an Organized Play environment.
|
|
So to recap, we have a few suggestions:
1) Limit the books accessible at the table.
[b]2) Have players prepare intended transformations ahead of time.
[b]3) Limit players to a number of creature types/forms, either through skills or spell knowledge.
[b]4) Require a Knowledge (relevant creature identification) check to transform into the desired form.
[b]5) Counter abusive polymorph with...
you forgot this one
#6) counter abusive use of polymorph...with an abusive use of polymorph :)
As a dm, if I found a tactic too abusive, I would simply turn it on my players. When a party loved to teleport in & hit the BBEG early, I simply had my villains develop a more...proactive approach. Same can (and has) been done with polymorph.
Well the original discussion was about the way looking things up slowed the game. My point is that I do not like to allow the use of books during the game beyond PHB. Outside of the game table they can read what they want. (except for the damn preprinted adventures!)By the way, a DM I played with years ago was so frustrated with my knowledge of the Monster manual (I was the usual DM, so i knew it quite well) that they required my character to take a made up skill, Knowledge:monster, at the maximum possible rank. The players...
I don't care if the player's know things about the monsters they face, but if their characters don't have anyway of knowing it I expect them to act on that lack of knowledge. (ie, a party with no way to know a Troll's weaknesses should not instantly pull out the fire and oil when they see one approaching)
If a group can't resist metagaming in such a way, I have no qualms about "re-skinning" a monster, and just using a different description for the same stats. Heck, it's not a bad tactic in general, as you can give some cool custom monsters to fight without having to go through the arduous process of monster creation.
Players are free to read books at my table, although it is considered rude if they don't pay attention to the game.
Hi, David. Since my players know that they have an easier time turning into a critter if they've ever seen one, they do keep track of useful forms. In a home campaign, it's really not much of an issue.PLAYER: "I cast Polymorph. Form of...a flumph!"
DM: "When have you ever seen a flumph?"
PLAYER: "Way back at the docksides in Riddleport. Remember?"For any PC's coming into the campaign at a higher level, I sit down with the player and discuss what equipment they own, and where they got it, and what kind of adventures they've already had, with what sorts of companions. And then I choose a couple of pre-written DUNGEON or Goodman DCC modules for them to read through, as their backstory.
Actually, the real problem would be in an Organized Play environment.
Heya Chris! :)
I think most of the problems here and elsewhere originated in Organized Play and then, via message boards and mailing lists migrated outwards into the community as a whole. Organized Play often devolved into a minmax "who can top THIS build?" one-upmanship contest, at least according to my friends who played in them (my experience was rather limited).
Cheers! :)
|
|
So to update the recap, we have a few suggestions:
1) Limit the books accessible at the table.
2) Have players prepare intended transformations ahead of time.
3) Limit players to a number of creature types/forms, either through skills or spell knowledge.
4) Require a Knowledge (relevant creature identification) check to transform into the desired form.
5) Counter abusive polymorph with counter-magic spells.
6) Counter abusive polymorph with abusive polymorph.
7) Remove polymorph from the game.
Keep in mind, this is a cumulative list of solutions, it is not meant as endorsement or criticism of any ideas.
|
As another option instead of using hit dice as the level determining factor, use the ECL. That limits a lot of the abuses as they occur when you're morphing into creatures with lots of special abilities but low hit dice for it's challenge rating.
I tend to use that, plus a mixture of 1, 2 and 3. Players have a list of forms equal to their level, with one extra form of the appropriate type for every 5 ranks in the relevant knowledge skill. That does give a slight advantage to Wizards as they tend to have a wider range of knowledge skills than Sorcerers, but it's not that big an edge. I also ask the players to have their modified stats ready (I do the same with summon spells).
I've DMed a 3.5 campaign with a player who was abusing the pre-errata polymorph (he was a monk/druid/master of many forms, who spent his whole adventuring life as a cave troll) so I wasn't particularly sad to see polymorph go. The freeform nature of the spell just doesn't work with all players.
I like the spell in concept, but I agree with Sebastian that it works better in a story than it does in a game.
|
|
a whole bunch of good stuffHigh level play in 3.5 is just so very very broken on so many levels.
How would you have reacted if the post stated "4ed is broken on so many levels" here on the boards? I believe that a diatribe about all of the reprehensible 4ed haters would have been forthcoming....
I think it fair to say that you have made your point here. We get it, you don't like polymorph. The idea of the thread is who MISSES polymorph. can the rest of us get on with our discussion without snide shots at out favored edition (quoted above) or snide comments that disparage the opinions of the rest of the posters in the thread ("I prefer the remove from game option", in context was not helpful and contributed nothing since you had already made this point).
I had a lot of sympathy for you while you were being hounded by Razz, but comments like this will make me quickly revoke the good will.
|
|
I had a lot of sympathy for you while you were being hounded by Razz, but comments like this will make me quickly revoke the good will.
Well - since this thread seems to have taken the turn of how to fix polymorph are my comments actually that far off the mark or in any way not in agreement with the folks saying that - yes - polymorph is broken?
I am not going over to the 3e board to talk smack. I am here on the 4e board agreeing with those that are looking to fix the problem.
|
IMO, Polymorph isn't a problem. It's a symptom of a different problem.
Monsters have abilities that are insanely unbalanced in the hands of PCs. Multiple actions (Choker), give any super-power to any reptile ever (Sarrukh), Wish as an SLA (Efreeti), create spawn (Shadow, Spectre, Wraith, etc.), gain Con pts when hit by lightning (Shambling Mound), gain HD permanantly when you kill someone (Barghest), split into multiples when struck with an edged weapon (Ooze), etc.
It isn't just Polymorph that interacts badly with these monster powers, it's also Charm / Dominate spells, Summoning / Calling spells, the Leadership feat, Rebuke / Command (undead, ooze, fire creatures, plants, etc) and the Familiar / Companion rules, because the fantasy genre includes *many* different ways in which a player can get his filthy paws on the DM's monsters and use their broken unbalancing abilities to do all sorts of awfulverybadnogood stuff.
If a game is going to have mind controlling magics, summoning magics and shapechanging magics, it has to go one of two routes;
1) Monsters do not have Wish as an SLA, create spawn or any of the other various 'infinite loop' exploits. They can have all sorts of funky kewl powers, but the designers have to stop and think, 'What happens when Shiny McKnightPerson attacts one of these as a Cohort, Blastin Capps charms one or Twisty ForgotMyTrueShape turns into one and that at-will SLA becomes usable *every single round for a year.*'
Monster design will have an extra step, the, 'OMG, do I really want this in my campaign?' step. A step that hasn't really been considered by many before, given the existence of creatures like the Sarrukh.
2) All 'summoned' creatures and 'shapechange' forms are unique, like Summon Astral Construct, and the Summoner / Shapeshifter will not ever be able to summon *real* creatures from the game world (or the nearby planes) nor shapechange into anything out of the Monster Manual, since that would run the risk of allowing him to turn into one of the really, really broken things, or of using another class ability to exploit a totally broken ability (such as turning into a Shambling Mound and Calling Lightning onto oneself to get 100+ Constitution).
This kludgy 'fix' won't allow Mind Control / Domination spells, unless it goes with the solution used by online games and rules that a Charmed creature loses a bunch of it's power and is temporarily transformed into a generic monster of that level that happens to look like the original beastie.
Nor will it account for a situation where a person might actually *play* a Shadow or *negotiate* with an Efreeti and gain access to their unbalanced abilities. It's a tiny patch on a ship that remains unfit for travel on the whacky waters of a world where magic and fantastical creatures exist.
Barring these two options, Mind Control spells, Shapeshifting magics and Summoning spells (and the Leadership feat, most Companions and Familiars, Rebuke/Command, etc.) need to be ruthlessly excised from the world, since they are impossible to balance for use with an inherently unbalanced monster design system.
This appears to be the 4E solution, at the moment, although they might have something brilliant in the kettle for PHB2, PHB3 or PHBeleventy-bleem.
|
|
I had a lot of sympathy for you while you were being hounded by Razz, but comments like this will make me quickly revoke the good will.Well - since this thread seems to have taken the turn of how to fix polymorph are my comments actually that far off the mark or in any way not in agreement with the folks saying that - yes - polymorph is broken?
I am not going over to the 3e board to talk smack. I am here on the 4e board agreeing with those that are looking to fix the problem.
Sorry, but no, you're not this time. Saying "get rid of it" is a solution only in the most technical sense. But if that comment had been made about rituals in 4E, or the 20% magic item trading, or pretty much any problem with 4E, you'd be commenting about 4e haters not understanding the rules properly. Please give other people's systems the same respect you rightfully expect for yours. Helpful suggestions do not include "just houserule it", "make it up", "scrap it" or "I don't have that problem", regardless of what the problem is, none of those help people limit abuse while still retaining the use of the feature in question.
|
|
Sorry, but no, you're not this time. Saying "get rid of it" is a solution only in the most technical sense. But if that comment had been made about rituals in 4E, or the 20% magic item trading, or pretty much any problem with 4E, you'd be commenting about 4e haters not understanding the rules properly. Please give other people's systems the same respect you rightfully expect for yours. Helpful suggestions do not include "just houserule it", "make it up", "scrap it" or "I don't have that problem", regardless of what the problem is, none of those help people limit abuse while still retaining the use of the feature in question.
My conclusion - to remove the spell from play - was reached because all the potential solutions seem lacking. Polymorph (to me) is more trouble than it is worth. There are plenty of other spells like alter self that fit the bill without the problems. I do give respect to 3.5 as it does many things very very well. Polymorph, however, is so broken that it seems better to ditch it rather than salvage it.
|
|
Sorry, but no, you're not this time. Saying "get rid of it" is a solution only in the most technical sense. But if that comment had been made about rituals in 4E, or the 20% magic item trading, or pretty much any problem with 4E, you'd be commenting about 4e haters not understanding the rules properly. Please give other people's systems the same respect you rightfully expect for yours. Helpful suggestions do not include "just houserule it", "make it up", "scrap it" or "I don't have that problem", regardless of what the problem is, none of those help people limit abuse while still retaining the use of the feature in question.My conclusion - to remove the spell from play - was reached because all the potential solutions seem lacking. Polymorph (to me) is more trouble than it is worth. There are plenty of other spells like alter self that fit the bill without the problems. I do give respect to 3.5 as it does many things very very well. Polymorph, however, is so broken that it seems better to ditch it rather than salvage it.
And that is arguable (but I won't be getting into that argument), but when stated baldly as you did, it comes across as unnecessarily aggressive. I'm quite willing to believe you didn't mean it like that, but that was how it came across to underling and me. Set said pretty much the same thing just above my post, but because he explained WHY it was broken beyond repair, it isn't taken as someone poking you in the chest and going "Yeah, well your mom sucks". Again, I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but short blunt negative statements tend to come across as quite aggressive on line.
|
|
1) Knowledge of form: To transform into a target form, the caster 2) Experience Penalty: Casters receive experience based on the table in the DMG, appropriate to their current effective character level. (If your 11th-Level Sorcerer spends the entire adventure polymorphed into a ECL 18 Blue Dragon, he receives expereince for the entire adventure as a Level 18 character.)
I see what you're doing there, though there is a catch to any method of restriction based on CR, LA, or ECL.
Many creatures have a high CR or +LA because of magical abilities, which a polymorphed creature may not get. And others have bonuses to mental stats, which also would not apply. Combat forms may still be limited by the target's own (possibly poor) BAB.
Don't forget also, that casters lose the ability to cast unless the form has hands and can speak. Equipment that will not fit the new form merges with the form, and becomes inert, unless it is put down and picked up later, in which case, it is the wrong size or shape to be used.
I had Polymorph for my last PC, but despite playing a long campaign, I rarely used it, partly due the prep required, and partly because those forms I did research often proved to be less effective than first thought.
|
|
Again, I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but short blunt negative statements tend to come across as quite aggressive on line.
Very true. Sorry about that. I should have explained it better than just blurting out the conclusion. I guess it's the whole "show your work" on the math test thing.
I shall endeavor to be more detailed in my responses in the future.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I see what you're doing there, though there is a catch to any method of restriction based on CR, LA, or ECL.
Many creatures have a high CR or +LA because of magical abilities, which a polymorphed creature may not get. And others have bonuses to mental stats, which also would not apply. Combat forms may still be limited by the target's own (possibly poor) BAB.
Oh, sure. There's an adjudication of effective character level, no doubt.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In this discussion I find a point lacking. The OP said he missed being able to turn people into frogs. To that end, keep the baleful polymorph spell but stipulate that what it does is turn people into, say, any creature of the animal or vermin type with a CR of less than 1. That way, you can still turn someone into a cat, dog, frog, newt, worm, insect, pigeon, pot-bellied pig, or whatever.
We have our thematic, classic fantasy trope of enchantresses turning people into little harmless critters (which can retain their normal hit points or not).
The polymorph (self) spell is the one that is much more problematic. For the old-schoolers it wasn't such a big deal in 1st Ed. because you got almost none of the creature's abilities - physical size, movement ability, breathing-type stuff. But senses, resistances, special powers... none of those things. Even just the natural attack forms were a bit iffy as to whether you got those--you could turn into a giant spider and bite someone, but you didn't get poison cuz that was a 'special attack.'
You could use polymorph other (aka baleful polymorph in 3rd) to give an ally cheaterous abilities, but they had a substantial chance to lose their mind or to die from system shock every time you used the spell on them. It could be used, but it was very rare in my experience.
You could reinstate the old 1st Ed rules on things if you want to rein in the spells.
To me, it's the self/ally shapechanging spells that are the troublesome ones and also the ones not very central to the tropes of fantasy. The Tleilaxu Face Dancer/Mystique-type tricky metamorph/disguise shapeshifter, that I can see, but is sufficiently covered by lower-level spells. The whole raft of higher-level self/ally shapeshifting is hardly a key piece of fantasy.
So my suggestions:
1. Keep alter self
2. Get rid of polymorph entirely
3. Adjust baleful polymorph to only turn the target into a small/unthreatening animal (and/or maybe vermin).
4. Keep shapechange - sure it's insanely powerful, but it should be. It's frickin 9th level. The balance comes in part from its short duration, its expensive component (5000 gp for every combat adds up fast even at high levels), the fact that it is a 'personal' spell (so no buffing allies, and whatever you do in your shapechanged form is time you're not spending casting your wonderment of other high-level magics as a 17th+ level sor/wiz or druid).
I might add the following limits:
a: You do not gain actual spellcasting ability if a member of that race normally has it. Turning into a rakshasa or ancient dragon does not give you sorcerer levels, nor a lammasu cleric levels. You are already a spellcaster, trained up through xp. End of story.
b: Stipulate that any effects created in your form do not persist after the spell ends. So, you could create spawn, but they would last only as long as the spell did. You could use all sorts of cheaterous SLAs, but they would only last as long as the spell did. When the shapechange spell goes poof, so do they.
c: You could also fairly limit the spell using the wish principle as far as emulating other spells - so no fair using one 9th level spell to emulate another (or a bunch of them) - in terms of what SLAs you can use in the new form. Just keep it simple and stipulate that it does not allow the use of any SLAs that duplicate other 9th level spells (so no free wish or gate just by changing into a form that grants that.
Happy gaming!
Jason
|
|
Again, I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but short blunt negative statements tend to come across as quite aggressive on line.Very true. Sorry about that. I should have explained it better than just blurting out the conclusion. I guess it's the whole "show your work" on the math test thing.
I shall endeavor to be more detailed in my responses in the future.
Thank you. Personally, I feel that most rules that can be abused can be countered by the DM once they know their players. Wizard always polymorph into a large wartroll? No problem. Have a section of the dungeon partially collapsed and jermalaine or an ethereal filcher nab a vital plot device or favored item. Medium sized creatures can just squeeze through to reach the other side. Our wizard has to release his spell. How many 4th level slots can he waste? Or, the duration is only 1 minute a level. Put in a couple of puzzles/riddles/obstacles and oops, your spell ran out. Care to reup?
Players will quickly see the downside associated with abusing a spell if the environment and adversaries counter intelligently.
|
|
So my suggestions:
I might add the following limits:
a: You do not gain actual spellcasting ability if a member of that race normally has it. Turning into a rakshasa or ancient dragon does not give you sorcerer levels, nor a lammasu cleric levels. You are already a spellcaster, trained up through xp. End of story.
b: Stipulate that any effects created in your form do not persist after the spell ends. So, you could create spawn, but they would last only as long as the spell did. You could use all sorts of cheaterous SLAs, but they would only last as long as the spell did. When the shapechange spell goes poof, so do they.
c: You could also fairly limit the spell using the wish principle as far as emulating other spells - so no fair using one 9th level spell to emulate another (or a bunch of them) - in terms of what SLAs you can use in the new form. Just keep it simple and stipulate that it does not allow the use of any SLAs that duplicate other 9th level spells (so no free wish or gate just by changing into a form that grants that.
I would rather not get rid of spells or the flavour of certain spells, although that is a valid option for others. As per you points:
3.5 Polymorph is already limited in these ways. However, shapechange allows you to use supernatural abilities (at the expense of your own, such as Turn Undead), but it is a 9th-level spell.
Again, from my reading of the spell, you can never gain the spellcasting or spell-like abilities of a creature you polymorph into.
Where people run into problems is when polymorph is used on "fighter-types" to gain extraordinary abilities in conjunction with their feats.
You could rule you gain the extraordinary attacks of the new form, but lose your own (your feat training does not apply in an unknown form).
I don't understand the "remove it from the game" mentality in instances like this, honestly. It is much easier to ignore an aspect of the game you don't like than for people who want the option to try and create it from whole cloth if it isn't in the game. When it comes to things like Polymorph, which have been longstanding features of the game, the best conclusion in my view is to leave it in for those who want to use it, and let those who don't ignore it. I prefer this to the view that says "if I don't like it, the option should be removed entirely."
|
|
Personally, I feel that most rules that can be abused can be countered by the DM once they know their players. Wizard always polymorph into a large wartroll?
For me, the problem isn't with the polymorph in this situation, it's with the Wartroll being too good for the level at which it becomes available.
Perhaps some sort of chart could be created, where you couldn't polymorph into a creature with more natural armor than your caster level, or a higher strength bonus than your caster level, etc. could help to even stuff out and prevent a 3rd level Wizard from Alter Self-ing into a NA+6 Troglodyte or a 7th level Wizard from Polymorph Self-ing into a NA+10 Annis or whatever.
(Alternately, he can turn into the shape of that creature, but his NA bonus or Str bonus or whatever cannot exceed his caster level. The 7th level Wizard could turn into an Annis, but he'd only get a +7 NA. By 10th level, he could turn into the full +10 NA version. At 15th level, the Annis form still only grants +10 NA, but he'll probably be looking for something new by that point...)
I wouldn't mind seeing some more open Polymorph spells. The current trend is for 'assume form X' to be an entire spell by itself, and that feels far too restrictive to me. A single spell that allowed the caster to turn into any Animal (within the limits above, and the HD limits of the base spells) would be neat, along with a spell to turn into any Vermin, or a spell to turn into any Elemental, or any Humanoid, or any Giant.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't understand the "remove it from the game" mentality in instances like this, honestly. It is much easier to ignore an aspect of the game you don't like than for people who want the option to try and create it from whole cloth if it isn't in the game. When it comes to things like Polymorph, which have been longstanding features of the game, the best conclusion in my view is to leave it in for those who want to use it, and let those who don't ignore it. I prefer this to the view that says "if I don't like it, the option should be removed entirely."
Maybe the best way to address the issue is to adopt a stance like Hero does with regards to its potentially game-breaking abilities. Include a generic polymorph spell but mark it as something that specifically requires DM approval to learn. That would remove it from organized play (where it is the most problematic) but provide rules for those groups that have fun with the spell.
Maybe the best way to address the issue is to adopt a stance like Hero does with regards to its potentially game-breaking abilities. Include a generic polymorph spell but mark it as something that specifically requires DM approval to learn. That would remove it from organized play (where it is the most problematic) but provide rules for those groups that have fun with the spell.
That's a good idea. In very rare instances, I've had DMs simply rule that spell doesn't exist in the game world. That takes care of a spell that seems problematic (I can't even remember what the spell was; it's a rare occurrence).
Your solution takes the burden off of the DM to make that ruling, and leaves it open as an option for those who like it. Not a bad idea at all.
I prefer the remove-spell-from-game option.
Why?
WotC chose to fix magic items' impact rather than eliminate them. Why? Because magic items are a staple of the fantasy genre.
But so is polymorph...
They could have chosen to fix it, and it hasn't taken long for a number of people here to think of workable fixes. But WotC chose to eliminate it. Why? Because it wasn't important to them, regardless of how important it is to others.
One might think 4e was designed to satisfy the designers, rather than the market -- claims to the contrary notwithstanding...
Why?
WotC chose to fix magic items' impact rather than eliminate them. Why? Because magic items are a staple of the fantasy genre.
But so is polymorph...
They could have chosen to fix it, and it hasn't taken long for a number of people here to think of workable fixes. But WotC chose to eliminate it. Why? Because it wasn't important to them, regardless of how important it is to others.
One might think their claims of responding to thorough market research could be a bit exaggerated...
Your chose to eliminate is my held back until they got it right. ;)
I still expect the Druid next March to have lots of Polymorphy goodness.
Unless you mean the angle of Baleful Polymorph, in which case I'd expect that to turn up as a Wizard/Warlock power at some point. Maybe Arcane Power next year?
Doesn't the current Warlock have some polymorph powers? I'm not too familiar with that class ...
here is one version ( just took me 1 minute):
Polymorph Other Wizard Attack 19
With a flick of your wrist, you alter reality itself to change your enemy into a toad..
Daily Arcane, Psychic, Polymorph, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Effect: You polymorph the target into a small inoffensive animal. The polymorph effect lasts until the end of your next turn.(save ends)
Targets: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d10 + Intelligence modifier psychic damage, and the
Targets changes shape into a small inoffensive animal ( toad, rabbit)
Special: A polymorphed target is stunned until the effect wears off.
Sustain Minor: The polymorph effect persist.
Umm... yes you can? It is completely reasonable to expect a player to have the math pre-completed for several of their favored forms (for polymorph) or summoned creatures (for summons spells). Lets be honest, every player will develop a limited number of favored choices for these spells. It is their responsibility to be ready when they want to use the spell. For the once in a blue moon where they need (or want) to try something new, well, they had better be efficient with their use of time.I'm seeing now why high level play was never a huge time problem in my campaign. People don't screw around at my table dithering over decisions they likely could have planned for before play.
Very demanding of the players. I've got hard core guys that would have no problem with the idea that they need to spend hours away from the table working over their character sheets and making alternate forms and such but not all my players are like that. Your also brutally punishing players that have not memorized the rules to a high degree. I'd think this style of gaming, while effective for those that are hard core, sounds very inaccessible. I bring in to many newbs to play this way.
|
|
I am not going over to the 3e board to talk smack. I am here on the 4e board agreeing with those that are looking to fix the problem.No, apprently you're on the 4E board to talk smack... about 3E.
The point of the thread is to find in-system alterantives or 4E house-rules for polymorph for those who miss it - NOT complain about how terrible 3E was at all times.
Covered this already - if saying that polymorph is broken is the equivalent of talking smack about 3e then I am only one of many people in this very thread talking smack about 3e.
Furthermore I never said anything about how terrible 3e was at all times. Then again your forte seems to be the ability to put words in other people's mouths.
|
|
Very demanding of the players. I've got hard core guys that would have no problem with the idea that they need to spend hours away from the table working over their character sheets and making alternate forms and such but not all my players are like that. Your also brutally punishing players that have not memorized the rules to a high degree. I'd think this style of gaming, while effective for those that are hard core, sounds very inaccessible. I bring in to many newbs to play this way.
To riff off of Sebatian's notion, perhaps seperating these spells out into an 'advanced' or 'optional' designation might help. Starting characters, and especially pregens, wouldn't have these particular spells or options available. (Which would mean that pregen Druids might have some class variant / substitution level that swaps out Wild Shape for something else.)
We've come up with a half-dozen ways to balance these spells in this thread. I'd like to believe that Mike Mearls and crew have come up with equally valid options for shapechanging, summoning, control spells, PC monsters, etc., although they don't seem to have come up with anything that they could fit into the first PHB.
|
|
Very demanding of the players. I've got hard core guys that would have no problem with the idea that they need to spend hours away from the table working over their character sheets and making alternate forms and such but not all my players are like that. Your also brutally punishing players that have not memorized the rules to a high degree. I'd think this style of gaming, while effective for those that are hard core, sounds very inaccessible. I bring in to many newbs to play this way.
Umm... yes you can? It is completely reasonable to expect a player to have the math pre-completed for several of their favored forms (for polymorph) or summoned creatures (for summons spells). Lets be honest, every player will develop a limited number of favored choices for these spells. It is their responsibility to be ready when they want to use the spell. For the once in a blue moon where they need (or want) to try something new, well, they had better be efficient with their use of time.I'm seeing now why high level play was never a huge time problem in my campaign. People don't screw around at my table dithering over decisions they likely could have planned for before play.
For newbs, I'd still suggest it, but as the DM I'd be prepared to do a lot of the grunt work, just like I'd be doing with other complicated aspects of the game.
All you'd need is a printed sheet with the new form, Attacks, Damage, AC and any special abilities (and what they mean). I would also limit the number of forms to about six to start with. If the newb wants more, then he needs to do something for them and it will help him get to learn the game.
|
|
Perhaps some sort of chart could be created, where you couldn't polymorph into a creature with more natural armor than your caster level, or a higher strength bonus than your caster level, etc. could help to even stuff out and prevent a 3rd level Wizard from Alter Self-ing into a NA+6 Troglodyte or a 7th level Wizard from Polymorph Self-ing into a NA+10 Annis or whatever.(Alternately, he can turn into the shape of that creature, but his NA bonus or Str bonus or whatever cannot exceed his caster level. The 7th level Wizard could turn into an Annis, but he'd only get a +7 NA. By 10th level, he could turn into the full +10 NA version. At 15th level, the Annis form still only grants +10 NA, but he'll probably be looking for something new by that point...)
I wouldn't mind seeing some more open Polymorph spells. The current trend is for 'assume form X' to be an entire spell by itself, and that feels far too restrictive to me. A single spell that allowed the caster to turn into any Animal (within the limits above, and the HD limits of the base spells) would be neat, along with a spell to turn into any Vermin, or a spell to turn into any Elemental, or any Humanoid, or any Giant.
I am totally in favor of this idea. I love charts for D&D, and this is an easy way to restrict the spell while still keeping it open to "everything". Expect to see something along these lines soon, as I have nothing better to do.
Oh, and to respond to your next post about the 4th Edition crew just as capable of finding solutions. I agree, they are perhaps more capable, but the problem is they are forced to pick ONE, and that might not be one that everyone likes.
I am not going over to the 3e board to talk smack. I am here on the 4e board agreeing with those that are looking to fix the problem.No, apprently you're on the 4E board to talk smack... about 3E.
The point of the thread is to find in-system alterantives or 4E house-rules for polymorph for those who miss it - NOT complain about how terrible 3E was at all times.
It looks to me like we are actually talking about alternative ways to fix the 3.5 polymorph as opposed to good ways to use it in 4E.
|
|
It looks to me like we are actually talking about alternative ways to fix the 3.5 polymorph as opposed to good ways to use it in 4E.I am not going over to the 3e board to talk smack. I am here on the 4e board agreeing with those that are looking to fix the problem.No, apprently you're on the 4E board to talk smack... about 3E.
The point of the thread is to find in-system alterantives or 4E house-rules for polymorph for those who miss it - NOT complain about how terrible 3E was at all times.
I just realized this myself - although all of the limitations suggested hold true in 4th Edition, you would probably have to toy with it much more and make it more a generic boosting spell with maybe a choice of one special additional effect.
It looks to me like we are actually talking about alternative ways to fix the 3.5 polymorph as opposed to good ways to use it in 4E.
Polymorph is sort of a terrible match for the 4E philosophy in general. It violates all kinds of explicitly or implicitly stated design goals.
- 4e spells shouldn't require the player to have a copy of the Monster Manual.
- 4e spells shouldn't alter your stats.
- 4e spells shouldn't grant new movement types or vision types or other capabilities at the wrong levels.
- 4e spells should have a specific purpose so that they're easy and fast to adjudicate.
It's possible, perhaps to make single-target spells that don't violate these goals, but not a general-purpose polymorph anymore. I miss wish too, but I don't expect it to show up in 4th edition.
|
|
I just realized this myself - although all of the limitations suggested hold true in 4th Edition, you would probably have to toy with it much more and make it more a generic boosting spell with maybe a choice of one special additional effect.
I assume that a 4e polymorph spell would be a ritual rather than a power.
|
|
I just realized this myself - although all of the limitations suggested hold true in 4th Edition, you would probably have to toy with it much more and make it more a generic boosting spell with maybe a choice of one special additional effect.I assume that a 4e polymorph spell would be a ritual rather than a power.
Agreed. The way I see it, it would let you do one of a few things:
Just a few ideas, sure there are more ways to use the spell. Keep in mind, that to balance this in 4th Edition, the ritual should probably allow one or a few combinations of seperate abilities.
Polymorph is sort of a terrible match for the 4E philosophy in general. It violates all kinds of explicitly or implicitly stated design goals.
Probably true. But this is where the design of 4E falls quite a bit short in my opinion, and a major reason that while I enjoy 4E I'm keeping my 3.5E campaigns going as well. I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to get bored with 4E at some point, where that has never happened with previous editions. I could be wrong, however.
Probably true. But this is where the design of 4E falls quite a bit short in my opinion, and a major reason that while I enjoy 4E I'm keeping my 3.5E campaigns going as well. I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to get bored with 4E at some point, where that has never happened with previous editions. I could be wrong, however.
I too chafe against the restrictions inherent in the system, but what I hope will happen is that it will stay interesting because the restrictions mean that 4e won't break where other systems do.
I had a great time in my last 3.5e campaign, but part of what I suspect made it so great is that we kept a tight lid on the save-or-die or action restricting spells at high levels. On the contrary, I GMed the high level Living Greyhawk finale at the Origins game fair, where my players and I had no such agreement and it underscored how "broken" high-level play can be in an unrestricted environment. Polymorph was generally not involved, but nevertheless some of the enemies (wizards and clerics) were well capable of demolishing whole parties before they even got to act. Some players had similar capabilities.
I've been playing a video game, Final Fantasy Tactics A2 recently, and I'm starting to notice a similar dynamic. At a certain level, he who can act first wins. My players are only at 7th level in my 4e campaign, but from my play experience, reading ahead, and reading the boards, I haven't seen the game break down like that.
My hope is that will continue. To the extent that it does, I'm willing to do away with spells like polymorph and wish.
Polymorph is sort of a terrible match for the 4E philosophy in general. It violates all kinds of explicitly or implicitly stated design goals.
But a staple of traditional fantasy. I really do with 4e was more interested in such things :/
I assume that a 4e polymorph spell would be a ritual rather than a power.
That would rather defeat the point for me. It's not appealing if it's not the polymorph of traditional fantasy.
I want my toads back!!!
[threadjack] and this is WHY han shot first...[/threadjack]
Lucas altered an element of his world to satisfy his own sensibilities, to the disappointment of many fans and to the detriment of Han Solo's character development.
So it's not really any different, and it's not really threadjacking :)
I remember when getting fireball for the first time was really cool.. now it's just another power in a long list of them, and not really all that different from anything else.
I keep swinging back and forth, and this discussion is making me dislike 4e.
This obsession with balance is going way too far. If a high-level wizard can't obliterate a high-level thief in combat, he's no wizard. If Conan can't defeat an equal-level thief, he's not Conan.
We're losing what D&D is suppose to recreate at the expense of play balance.