Mergy - are you sure?
I think Dev is the diminutive of Deva.
How many spells, abilities, or effects are there in the game that sever limbs?
I mean, the blades of sharpness and all that jazz were removed.. Now its just your head you can lose and I don't think an Alter Self would cover that.
What effects are there that even make this an issue somewhere? I'm not trying to sound like a smartarse- but a search of d20pfsrd only yielded 3pp stuff (i.e. houserules) and the prd didn't yield much except for talking about hydras.
Have I missed something?
-S
Check the called shot rules I think (though am not sure) that those might allow limb removal.
But outside of those its a storytelling or fluff moment when it happens such as a guy dealing a huge blow to a troll being told the arm was cut off sending the troll fleeing only to have it grow back before the party meets said troll again.
I also don't see what the big deal is with this. You cast the spell and for the duration you aren't missing thew limb, but once the spell is over you revert to your old form and continue not having that limb.
There is a magic item that allows someone to have alter self continuously (for only 12,000gp...ugh).
However, Selgard is right. I have yet to see anything in PF that removes limbs. Not saying there isnt, I just havent seen it.
- Gauss
Good point Selgard.
(Although I've homebrewed in blades of sharpness a couple of times.)
|
I also don't see what the big deal is with this. You cast the spell and for the duration you aren't missing thew limb, but once the spell is over you revert to your old form and continue not having that limb.There is a magic item that allows someone to have alter self continuously (for only 12,000gp...ugh).
However, Selgard is right. I have yet to see anything in PF that removes limbs. Not saying there isnt, I just havent seen it.
- Gauss
That's a pretty hefty investment just for an arm. Consider that buying regenerate from a travelling cleric isn't even going to set you back 1000 gp. Add to that the inability to stack any polymorph effects onto it, and I'm not really impressed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets see...after reading all of these threads there are 2 camps.
Camp 1: We have a spell that turns you into most anything. Some of these creatures have limbs, some do not. Some have arms and legs, some do not. Lets apply common sennse and say that as a transformation-type spell that it really does not matter what you WERE, but what you BECOME. This rule covers all possible contingencies like missing arms. Hell, I could use a wish to get my arm back, but the same level Shapechange won't.....
Camp 2: Lets look at the original form (and the zillion types it could be) and apply it to some of the zillion forms I could turn into...and not others. I know I can turn into a plant, elemental and many other forms without arms...BUT hey, lets beat up the one-armed guy even further and tell him that 9th level spell will work SOME ON THE TIME for him and not others.
The more interesting transformation is the one that happens when the spell ends:
If you transform yourself into a form with more legs, say, a spider, and you lose one leg while in that form, and then transform back into your normal (human) form... Do you have to roll a d4 to determine if the spider leg you lost was one of your "real" legs (which you'd then lose in human form, too) or not?
If you transform yourself into a bird form, your wings get crippled, and then shift back... Is the corresponding arm crippled?
If you transform yourself into something with more eyes, one eye gets poked out, do you roll wether you lost one of your "real" eyes?
You caught my drift after the first one already, didn't you. So, what do those in the "your new form misses the same parts as your original form" camp think about that?
Why did you start this thread, Shallowsoul, if you were never willing to even consider other peoples' thoughts?Because it's a thread that was designed to bring this issue to the attention of the devs. You can give your opinion sure but this needs to be answered by the devs since RAW isn't clear.
Well, the intent seem relatively clear to me, however, I do so love such things in writing!
*FAQ'd*
Also, the word "limbs" has appeared 45 times prior to this post.
Er...46.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was discussing it with my players just for fun when one of them brought up a most interesting question:
If my sorcerer is a war hero with one arm, and he cast alter self to turn into another humanoid, but was still without his arm, could he then polymorph into a troll with giant form, pick up regeneration, grow back his arm, then turn back into his original race with a fully functional pair of arms?
I was discussing it with my players just for fun when one of them brought up a most interesting question:
If my sorcerer is a war hero with one arm, and he cast alter self to turn into another humanoid, but was still without his arm, could he then polymorph into a troll with giant form, pick up regeneration, grow back his arm, then turn back into his original race with a fully functional pair of arms?
Now THAT's a good one! Hand your player a cookie for quick thinking, will you?
Giant Form allows Fast Heal...but Fast Heal doesn't regrow body parts:
Fast Healing (Ex) A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature's entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately
Nor does Alter Self.
Giant Form allows Fast Heal...but Fast Heal doesn't regrow body parts...
Sorry, but you're only half right.
School transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you plan to assume)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./level (D)
When you cast this spell you can assume the form of any Large humanoid creature of the giant subtype. Once you assume your new form, you gain the following abilities: a +6 size bonus to Strength, a –2 penalty to Dexterity, a +4 size bonus to Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus, and low-light vision. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: darkvision 60 feet, rend (2d6 damage), regeneration 5, rock catching, and rock throwing (range 60 feet, 2d6 damage). If the creature has immunity or resistance to any elements, you gain resistance 20 to those elements. If the creature has vulnerability to an element, you gain that vulnerability.
***
I don't see fast healing on there, but I do see regeneration, which does re-grow lost limbs.
But it does not say how long it takes to do so. It takes 1 round to reattach a severed limb that you hold back in place, the ability does not say how long it takes to regrow a healed stump.
I think that it works, but there is still an opening for the DM to shoot you down if they so desire based on the ambiguity of the ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it does not say how long it takes to do so. It takes 1 round to reattach a severed limb that you hold back in place, the ability does not say how long it takes to regrow a healed stump.
I think that it works, but there is still an opening for the DM to shoot you down if they so desire based on the ambiguity of the ability.
A GM could shoot you down at any point for most any reason anyways, so that doesn't really hurt my argument.
A GM could shoot you down at any point for most any reason anyways, so that doesn't really hurt my argument.But it does not say how long it takes to do so. It takes 1 round to reattach a severed limb that you hold back in place, the ability does not say how long it takes to regrow a healed stump.
I think that it works, but there is still an opening for the DM to shoot you down if they so desire based on the ambiguity of the ability.
Allow me to rephrase: It works, but with the caveat that there is a RAW argument against it.
I gotta agree with Ravingdork. You assume the body of a troll, and you get regeneration, so it seems based on the description of the polymorph spells that your regeneration functions as a trolls except as noted otherwise.
That's what you want? The personal attention of the devs?
I'd prefer they continue working on developing new products than answer questions other board members have already covered quite nicely.
They haven't covered it. Try reading the spell and the section on Polymorph.
I'd rather the game be cleaned up than to keep piling on questionable rules.
I see; you actually expect devs to go through the full spell list and clarify and specify every possible circumstance or situation involving each spell? Because that'd be quite a tome. With no intent to offend (though I understand this may sound offensive, and for that I apologise), if you need an official rule clarification for things like these instead of just using your common sense and/or immagination, sandboxy roleplaying games may not be for you...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the question is "By RAW can Alter Self Regenerate Limbs?", I need to ask: "By RAW is there actually any way to lose Limbs?"
I'm pretty sure limb loss is not mechanically supported anyways. There's some fluff about regeneration being able to reattach limbs, but I dont think by RAW theres any way to remove them or rules on what happens when you're missing limbs to begin with, in this game. I Could be missing something, however.
If you can't lose limbs by RAW anyways, there's no reason to need to know by RAW if which ways work to get the back.
I know, in Runequest/Legend, there are rules in the book specifically pertaining to how you can lose and replace limbs, as well as what happens when you lose a limb, and what sorts of penalties apply after. I dont think I've seen anything like that ion pathfinder.
Called shot rules might do it. Skull and Shackles has an optional rule set for it.
There are a number of ways it can happen, but they aren't part of the core rules for the most part.
In any case, if I as a GM say that someone walked up and hacked your arm off while you were strapped helplessly to a table, there isn't a whole lot your character is going to be able to do to prevent it. Short of you escaping, that arm is gonna come off.
|
|
In any case, if I as a GM say that someone walked up and hacked your arm off while you were strapped helplessly to a table, there isn't a whole lot your character is going to be able to do to prevent it. Short of you escaping, that arm is gonna come off.
Absolutely. I was just pointing out that if you as the GM chop off a player character's arm, and didnt use published pathfinder rules to make it happen, you houseruled the situation in, and you shouldn't realistically expect your houserules to be mechanically supported by RAW.
In any case, if I as a GM say that someone walked up and hacked your arm off while you were strapped helplessly to a table, there isn't a whole lot your character is going to be able to do to prevent it. Short of you escaping, that arm is gonna come off.Absolutely. I was just pointing out that if you as the GM chop off a player character's arm, and didnt use published pathfinder rules to make it happen, you houseruled the situation in, and you shouldn't realistically expect your houserules to be mechanically supported by RAW.
You're referring to something like a combat chop rather than a "you're strapped to the table helpless" chop, right?
Because if someone is helpless while someone tries to dismember them, then dismemberment is the logical, expected outcome. I really don't think anyone would be surprised at that, despite there not really being rules to support it and thus I hesitate to call it a house rule.
Now, limb lopping in other situations (such as in the middle of combat) would most definitely be a house rule.
Because if someone is helpless while someone tries to dismember them, then dismemberment is the logical, expected outcome. I really don't think anyone would be surprised at that, despite there not really being rules to support it and thus I hesitate to call it a house rule.
It is definately the logical, expected outcome, and that is how it should be ruled in play.
But the rules doesn't cover it, as well as the specific drawbacks of loosing limbs (apart from the obvious lack of a hand or natural attack).As such we cannot expect the rules to cover the means to circumvent the dismemberment.
|
|
@HaraldKlak
Exactly.
Its a "logical outcome" houserule as in "as GM I say logic trumps the book", but its a houserule nonetheless.
The rules dont cover it, they dont give any explanation as to what the drawback would be, there are no rules for penalties for having one foot, or rules for prosthetic limbs, etc.
I'm not saying it shouldnt ever happen in the game, because it might be the logical outcome of a situation, but if the rules don't cover the dismemberment, they are very unlikely to cover the reparation of such.
So *Of Course* the polymorph rules dont take into account missing limbs and scars. Regeneration mentions it because it was some neat fluff for trolls, but you'll notice it's not spelled out in detail there either.
If you can't RAW get scars and can't RAW lose limbs, why would you say in a spell description if it temporarily fixed it? Those sorts of injuries aren't actually part of the game (except whatever is in skull and shackles, perhaps, I havent read it), and only exist at all by GM fiat.
I could (and have) also used GM fiat to turn electric touch spells into close range weakened AoEs in water, or had cold spells freeze water, or fire spells make it evaporate. I've allowed shocking grasp to work on someone touching a conductive material like a metal pole instead of touching them directly. I've had fire spells set off explosives. All of these things make sense, but the game does not cover them. So they are houserules.
I'm not going to expect the publishers to cover weird corner cases that pop up when I apply realistic logic to the game in situations they didn't anticipate.
As for the spell issue at hand? I think if he's going to make the missing limb hold with alter self, he needs to be consistent about it.
If you're missing your right arm, and you turn into an elf, and youre still missing the arm, then any time you transform you should be missing a limb. Whichever one makes the most sense. Dog? Front Right Leg. Drider? Right Arm. Dragon? Front Right Leg (it has a right shoulder, and the wing doesn't. Thri-Kreen? top right arm. Fish? No Right fin. Treant? Shambling Mound? Assassin Vine? He should be missing his right arm (or equivalent), including any natural attacks that would logically require that arm or equivalent limb.
If you're not going to carry it through to everything, then it shouldn't apply when he turns into an elf either.
In any case, if I as a GM say that someone walked up and hacked your arm off while you were strapped helplessly to a table, there isn't a whole lot your character is going to be able to do to prevent it. Short of you escaping, that arm is gonna come off.Absolutely. I was just pointing out that if you as the GM chop off a player character's arm, and didnt use published pathfinder rules to make it happen, you houseruled the situation in, and you shouldn't realistically expect your houserules to be mechanically supported by RAW.You're referring to something like a combat chop rather than a "you're strapped to the table helpless" chop, right?
Because if someone is helpless while someone tries to dismember them, then dismemberment is the logical, expected outcome. I really don't think anyone would be surprised at that, despite there not really being rules to support it and thus I hesitate to call it a house rule.
Now, limb lopping in other situations (such as in the middle of combat) would most definitely be a house rule.
While not necessarily a houserule it can only happen if the GM wants it to. He has to create an NPC who is willing to cut off the limbs of helpless people and get his PCs into such a situation. One could argue that Pathfinder is not really designed to handle that unlike other games like Star Wars or Dark Heresy.
Edit: Ninja'd. Damn Ultimate Combat
|
I really don't see the fuss about it. If player uses Alter Self, he gains most likely new limb, if he ever changes back to his old self he regains lost limb. Alter Self is in minutes per level and those limbs mean nothing to the game, they are fluff most likely.
Worst or best case scenario, player who suffers same penalty's from missing limb ( if any ), suffers same penalty's with altered form also since adjusting to new form might be hard when you aren't using that other limb for years. Simply said, I wouldn't add any penalty's for missing limb.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.
There is a further rift in the second group between people who do that as a thought experiment (which I have no issue with) and those who proclaim that approach to be developer intent (even when the Dev personally appears and tells them they are wrong...)
I think that is the underlying thrust of this thread. I suspect the devs will come in and rule that alter self does allow you to have a limb for minutes a level, because that isn't that game breaking and it fits the concept of the spell.
I don't think they will say you can polymorph into something that can regenerate the limb, because that completely negates the purpose of a high level spell.
I think most people agree with this. But unfortunately the underlying battle forces lines to be drawn in the sand a bit.
I would personally say that for this Spells duration, yes you would grow that limb, but I wouldn't allow a human to turn into a.....human, just so his or her arm comes back temporarily, because you already are one! :p
Otherwise, you could just lose all limbs, have it cast on you and have someone cast permanency on it (if the GM allows it), making it so you gain all limbs back. However, you wouldn't be able to do it a second time, as the spell wouldn't stack and would still be active if you had your limbs chopped off again.
Using Alter Self as a Human to become a Human with regained limbs would be as cheesy as a cheese factory in hell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't really matter to me, imo, whether it works or not.
But expecting the dev's to chime in on a fix to your houserule'd dismemberment is really expecting them to come in and chime in on how to fix a problem that your house rule has created.
I have no problem if they decide to do so- but I'd imaginet hey would simply suggest you houserule whatever you want to fix it or prevent abuse of it.
When you add (or subtract) things from the game its up to you to then balance the rest of the stuff around that houserule. Such as what happens when they cast spell X to get around it.
Whether the guy has brought back sharpness weapons or has decided that pinning lets you start hacking off hands or whatever- the fact is the spell doesn't cover it because the effect was removed from the game. Heck Regeneration only covers it because of a hold-over from previous editions.
So really- if you changed the rules to allow folks to get arms or legs whacked off then just go through and decide if polymorph effects allow you to get your limb back temporarily or not. And then staple that decision into the house-rule book set under whatever place you have it listed that they lose the limbs in the first place..
-S
As others have said, Hat of Disguise is an illusion.
The post the original poster is referring to actually mentioned a Greater Hat of Disguise, a magic item from the module
After reading through these comments I think I've adjusted my interpretation of "alter self" and would allow a human missing a hand to change into an elf with two good hands. The spell is of limited duration and can be dispelled before it's duration runs out.
Turning into a troll with the spell to gain regeneration would require more thought. The limited duration of the spell probably would not be enough time to regrow a limb.
I can see a character whose arm is lopped off as a human using the spell to become a troll and then trying to reattach the human arm in one round. Would that work?
Heck, I'd probably allow it just due to the player's creativity.
The rules dont cover it, they dont give any explanation as to what the drawback would be, there are no rules for penalties for having one foot, or rules for prosthetic limbs, etc.
The Skull and Shackles Players Guide does have a neat chart on page 4 titled Peg Legs & Eye Patches. Though the first thing it says is that its an optional rules system... it does give drawbacks for exactly those kind of things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.
I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.
Or, to put it another way.
"I tend to think of it as my way is the obviously superior, more intelligent, more fun way to play and the other way is clearly the way that less intelligent, less inventive, less imaginative people play."
Camp 1: We have a spell that turns you into most anything. Some of these creatures have limbs, some do not. Some have arms and legs, some do not. Lets apply common sennse and say that as a transformation-type spell that it really does not matter what you WERE, but what you BECOME. This rule covers all possible contingencies like missing arms. Hell, I could use a wish to get my arm back, but the same level Shapechange won't.....
Camp 2: <sarcastic insults representing nothing anyone is saying>
Here's the actual Camp 2 argument:
Wounds and afflictions are not negated by polymorph effects and should generally be carried over into whatever form you change into. This is true whether it's "25 hp damage" or "bleeding for 2 damage a round" or "blindness" or "mummy rot" or "arm chopped off". While the last affliction isn't as easy to carry over into all forms as the first, there's no reason to ignore or negate the affliction, and whatever mechanical effects it has on the character (-4 to dex and no off-hand?) just because somebody cast a low-level transmutation.
I also don't see the reason that using a poly-morph spell to turn into a Troll for Regeneration would allow the caster to re-grow their limb. Once they transform into the troll, the troll form would have all of it's parts, so why would it regenerate a limb lost while being a human?
Also AvalonXQ i don't think anyone is saying that the lost limb is just ignored forever, only while in a new form, once they revert back they still are afflicted with whatever be it HP damage or a lost limb.
I predict that there will be no definitive answer to this one, rather a "this is what I'd do", or "do what your group feels is appropriate" response, if Paizo responds at all. And if I'm wrong, cool!
I feel compelled to ask my GM about this... It should work in both directions, right? If it can temporarily provide you appendages, then anything lost while in the altered form should not affect your original form. So, my sorcerer with at-will Alter Self could really enjoy cutting off his own fingers while in some other form just to freak people out. Maybe throw them at people. Ooh! Cast a touch spell, cut off hand, throw hand at target. And this is just the beginning! (I'm just messing around. The spell probably discharges or moves to the stump when the hand is removed. Plus, it would hurt like hell.)
No, just no. Clearly not intended, not matter what the RAW contortions might yield.
Whatever the RAW or developers might say, I believe that polymorph effects SHOULD temporarily restore limbs, physical blindness, bleed, and the like. Transmutation could use a boost when compared to things like conjuration.
I probably would not get rid of HP damage entirely, but throw in a minor healing effect like in previous editions.
I predict that there will be no definitive answer to this one, rather a "this is what I'd do", or "do what your group feels is appropriate" response, if Paizo responds at all. And if I'm wrong, cool!
I feel compelled to ask my GM about this... It should work in both directions, right? If it can temporarily provide you appendages, then anything lost while in the altered form should not affect your original form. So, my sorcerer with at-will Alter Self could really enjoy cutting off his own fingers while in some other form just to freak people out. Maybe throw them at people. Ooh! Cast a touch spell, cut off hand, throw hand at target. And this is just the beginning! (I'm just messing around. The spell probably discharges or moves to the stump when the hand is removed. Plus, it would hurt like hell.)
Adding a whole new meaning to the terms "lending a hand" and "giving the finger"...
|
|
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.Or, to put it another way.
"I tend to think of it as my way is the obviously superior, more intelligent, more fun way to play and the other way is clearly the way that less intelligent, less inventive, less imaginative people play."
As if ciretose's post wasn't biased as well? I just flipped the bias towards the other direction.
Besides, a rule like that doesn't really favor players necessarily. What if the GM uses it for the one-armed sorcerer BBEG ?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Here's the actual Camp 2 argument:
Wounds and afflictions are not negated by polymorph effects and should generally be carried over into whatever form you change into. This is true whether it's "25 hp damage" or "bleeding for 2 damage a round" or "blindness" or "mummy rot" or "arm chopped off". While the last affliction isn't as easy to carry over into all forms as the first, there's no reason to ignore or negate the affliction, and whatever mechanical effects it has on the character (-4 to dex and no off-hand?) just because somebody cast a low-level transmutation.
Interesting.
Now I'd argue that 'arm chopped off' is different than '25 hp of damage' or '2 bleed damage' (blindness is a bit different, I'll address it below) You can (non-magically) heal 25 hp of damage or bleed damage (with a heal check). You *can't* heal a lost arm w/o magic (or being named Curt Connors, but that plan has other issues to scale).
Also the damage rules are a bit more abstract, but that's not here or there. 25 points of damage is going to kill me, but it is just a scratch to 15th level fighter.
Since Polymorph effects turn you into a 'generic example' of the target, I'd assume it restores the limb, since the 'default' human has two. Losing HP or taking bleed damage carries over, as those are conditions*. But just as a 4 armed alchemist transforms into a two armed orc via alter self, so should a 1 armed human get his second arm. Likewise, mummy rot, curses, etc are ongoing effects (like bleed damage) and should carry over. Heck, I'd argue that you could even suspend non-magical diseases for the duration of the spell. That's what, 3 minutes of not suffering bubonic plague for 750 gold?
And what about blindness? It's a case by case basis. If it's 'lost both eyes for looking in M'lady's dressing chambers' then the spell should restore the eyes for the duration of the spell. If it's from a curse, blindness/deafness etc then it's going to carry over into the new form. Likewise, if the character was hit with bestow curse to always have a withered and useless arm, anything that he changes into with arms will 'carry over'.
*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.
I agree. One of the things that seperates this game from a computer game is that we're more flexible than a computer. In the end, if you want it to work where it keeps you 'stumpy McOneArm' whether you turn into an orc or a green martian, knock yourself out.
The only place where a 'hard and fast' decision would be needed is organized play. Organized play doesn't have rules for cutting off limbs, so it's a wash.
|
|
Maybe it's just because my career is contracting, where we are told from day 1: "If it's not specifically forbidden, then it's probably allowable." I try to apply that to the game as well. (Within reason....the condition "dead" still doesn't have any hard RAW effects. I try to avoid that kind of overt silliness.)
I agree. One of the things that seperates this game from a computer game is that we're more flexible than a computer. In the end, if you want it to work where it keeps you 'stumpy McOneArm' whether you turn into an orc or a green martian, knock yourself out.The only place where a 'hard and fast' decision would be needed is organized play. Organized play doesn't have rules for cutting off limbs, so it's a wash.
So, if the goal is "flexibility" then that means either way is equally valid.
My suspicion is that this is yet another example of the general dividing line in the hobby between players who prefer a "gritty" style and those who prefer a "cinematic" style. Neither is "better", neither is "more inventive" neither is "more out of the box" they are just different styles that are based on different expectations.
It's when someone says "well, if you do it THIS way, you're lame" that I get my hackles up. I like both ways in different circumstances.
And Kthulhu, fair point on ciretose's post. I shouldn't have nailed you while letting his comment slide. I shouldn't have nailed you anyway. I just wish people didn't assume that THEIR way was the intelligent, creative, imaginative way just because it's THEIR way. There is a ton of opportunity for "outside the box thinking", "creativity" and everything else you can think of whether the arm reappears on casting alter self or not. It's just a game style. That's all.