Why the PaO Exploit Doesn't Work

[Lysander]

You almost certainly know the trick of casting Polymorph Any Object twice to make it permanent. If you don't know it in a nutshell it's this: PaO is permanent if the new form is similar enough to the old form. So if you want to permanently be a gold dragon, you could PaO yourself into a green dragon, then PaO your green dragon self into a gold dragon. The logic is that since a gold dragon is a lot like a green dragon, therefore the spell is permanent.

But here's where the trick breaks down. From the SRD section on stacking spells:


Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

As soon as you cast PaO on something a second time, the first casting of PaO is suppressed. You're not turning from a green dragon into a gold dragon, you're suppressing the Green Dragon PaO spell and overriding it with a gold dragon PaO.

[Chrono22]

How would this interact with area dispelling, if the target in question is under the effects of multiple PaO's?

[The Rabbler]

I always thought that general rules are trumped by specific rules.

[Emperor Tippy]

Yeah no. The second cast of PAO (or the first if you used regular Polymorph for the initial change) is permanent. It doesn't take affect until after the conditions have been decided.

Step 1: Cast Polymorph to turn into the form you want made permanent.
Step 2: Cast Polymorph Any Object to make your form permanent. The Duration is checked before the PAO takes effect, once it takes effect the original Polymorph is suppressed. But things like Duration are only checked when a spell is first cast, so that suppression is irrelevant.

You are having the Polymorph be suppressed before your apply the PAO, when RAW it is the other way (Polymorph is suppressed after PAO is applied).

[Tiki Snakes]

You aren't under the effect of the second until you have actually polymorphed, though. As you cast the spell, you are a Dragon, and afterwards you will be a dragon, so the duration becomes 'Permenant'.

I don't see a hole there, tbh.

[Curmudgeon]

How would this interact with area dispelling, if the target in question is under the effects of multiple PaO's?
An area dispel just removes one spell per creature. It doesn't matter if they've got multiple different spells or multiple overlapping castings of the same spell; only one gets dispelled.

I always thought that general rules are trumped by specific rules.
Sure. But there's no specific rule allowing Polymorph Any Object to stack with itself, merely wishful thinking that (if the stacking rules didn't apply) you'd manage to get a permanent duration because the second casting would result in a different duration factor.

[Emperor Tippy]

Sure. But there's no specific rule allowing Polymorph Any Object to stack with itself, merely wishful thinking that (if the stacking rules didn't apply) you'd manage to get a permanent duration because the second casting would result in a different duration factor.

Even with the stacking rules applying it's still permanent. The duration of PAO is decided at the time of casting, before it takes effect. At that time you are (for example) a Dragon because of Polymorph. After the PAO variables are decided (such as duration), you are permanently a dragon even though the initial Polymorph is now suppressed. This is because you only check variables such as caster level or duration when the spell is initially cast.

[Lysander]

By RAW the first PaO becomes "irrelevant" once the second one is cast. If the first one would allow for a permanent transformation, then it definitely would not be irrelevant.

[Mystic Muse]

Is there a way to make it so that it doesn't go away under an antimagic field?

Also, is there anything that prevents the dungeon master from saying "you also gain the RHD and LA of the new form permanently. Your character is no longer within an acceptable level of this campaign." By RAW? I know the DM is the DM and so RAW doesn't actually prevent anything but the spell seems pretty ambiguous on whether you do or don't get RHD or LA.

[Alleran]

Is there a way to make it so that it doesn't go away under an antimagic field?
Not that I can think of, though casting it through the Supernatural Spell of a Dweomerkeeper would make it supernatural (and thus, when you come out of the antimagic field, it returns as normal as well as being impossible to dispel). I suppose a carefully worded Wish would do the trick, though.

[Emperor Tippy]

By RAW the first PaO becomes "irrelevant" once the second one is cast. If the first one would allow for a permanent transformation, then it definitely would not be irrelevant.
No, it becomes irrelevant once the first one takes effect. It doesn't take effect until after the duration has been decided.

Step 1: You cast PAO
Step 2: The duration of PAO is decided based on certain factors given in the spell description.
Step 3: PAO takes effect on the target that you cast it on.
Step 4: Any polymorph effects already on the target are suppressed, and thus mechanically irrelevant until and unless the PAO is dispelled before the polymorph effects duration has expired.

Once the original polymorph effect becomes irrelevant, PAO's duration would change. Except for the fact that duration is only ever checked once (upon initial casting of the spell).

Order of operations is very important for these kinds of things.

It's incidentally why you can create a character who is under the effects of a permanent Shrink Item spell.
Step 1: Die.
Step 2: Cast Shrink Item on the body (which is now an object).
Step 3: Cast Permanency on the body (again an object and thus a valid target).
Step 4: Use Resurrection to bring the individual back to life (one of the forms that doesn't give a new body).

From now on you can shrink or expand that individual whenever you say the Shrink Item command word because even though those spells can't be cast on the character, they were valid at the time of casting.

[Ravens_cry]

Permanent is different from Instantaneous. Instantaneous is when something happens and the magic leaves. True creation and Wall of Stone are Instantaneous spells. Permanent means there is magic still active, keeping the thing happening.

[Emperor Tippy]

Permanent is different from Instantaneous. Instantaneous is when something happens and the magic leaves. True creation and Wall of Stone are Instantaneous spells. Permanent means there is magic still active, keeping the thing happening.

Which is irrelevant. PAO's duration is decided before it takes effect and once decided it does not change.

Spell durations can't change after casting (none, in any of the 3.5 books).

[Lysander]

Which is irrelevant. PAO's duration is decided before it takes effect and once decided it does not change.

Spell durations can't change after casting (none, in any of the 3.5 books).

That's where I disagree, IMHO. Since the first spell is "trumped", I think the second would have to count you as your original form. The second PaO makes the first one no longer matter. The second you cast it, any benefit or changes provided by the first one become suppressed.

Basically, you're not turning from a green dragon into a gold dragon. You're turning from a person under the effects of PaO (green dragon) into a person under the effects of PaO (gold dragon.)

[Emperor Tippy]

That's where I disagree, IMHO. Since the first spell is "trumped", I think the second would have to count you as your original form. The second PaO makes the first one no longer matter. The second you cast it, any benefit or changes provided by the first one become suppressed.
That's not what the rules say. And if you want to be pedantic, what you quoted would only apply if you cast PAO twice in succession; not Polymorph followed by PAO. "The same spell"


Basically, you're not turning from a green dragon into a gold dragon. You're turning from a person under the effects of PaO (green dragon) into a person under the effects of PaO (gold dragon.)
Nope.

For your interpretation to be correct, the first polymorph effect would have to be suppressed before the second was applied, but the suppression only occurs when more than 1 effect is present on an individual. Note the "applied" in your rules quote.

Suppression of the first cast doesn't occur until after the application of the second cast, which doesn't occur until after the duration of the second cast has been decided, which is done before suppression and thus with the first cast's effects still in play.

[Reverent-One]

Suppression of the first cast doesn't occur until after the application of the second cast, which doesn't occur until after the duration of the second cast has been decided, which is done before suppression and thus with the first cast's effects still in play.

On that point, You'll notice you also find this little tidbit in the srd:


Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.

So yes, the first spell's effect is still in play, but since the effect of one spell doesn't affect how the other spell works, it shouldn't change the duration of PoA.

[FMArthur]

Oh dear. I suppose this meeds we're back to Astral Seed + Mind Switch. What a pity. :smallfrown:

[Gametime]

So yes, the first spell's effect is still in play, but since the effect of one spell doesn't affect how the other spell works, it shouldn't change the duration of PoA.

It says "except in special cases." There's no clear link between the second sentence and the first in your quote; nothing about "special cases" implies that it is limited only to those spells which spell out specific effects, and there's an argument to be made that Polymorph doesn't have a specific effect on Polymorph Any Object, but rather one of a number of varying effects depending on how you use each spell.

So, yeah, that doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

[Emperor Tippy]

So yes, the first spell's effect is still in play, but since the effect of one spell doesn't affect how the other spell works, it shouldn't change the duration of PoA.

Exactly.

All PAO looks at is your current form, how you gained that form is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't even notice the Polymorph cast, just that your Type is Dragon (for example). How you gained that type has no effect on PAO, just that you are that type at the time of casting.

The same as if you were enlarged and under the affect of a Fox's Cunning spell when you used PAO so that what you wanted to shift into was now the same size and of the same or lower intelligence.

[Reverent-One]

Exactly.

All PAO looks at is your current form, how you gained that form is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't even notice the Polymorph cast, just that your Type is Dragon (for example). How you gained that type has no effect on PAO, just that you are that type at the time of casting.

No, your original form (which is what PoA checks for duration) is still what it was before the first casting of PoA. If the second casting checked against your enhanced form from the first spell, the first spell would be affecting the operation of the second.

[Emperor Tippy]

No, your original form (which is what PoA checks for duration) is still what it was before the first casting of PoA. If the second casting checked against your enhanced form from the first spell, the first spell would be affecting the operation of the second.

No, PAO checks your current form. The affect of the first cast is changing your form, it does nothing at all to the PAO cast. The PAO cast checks what your form is, it does nothing at all to the first cast and is not affected in any way by the polymorph effect (which has the affect of changing your form).

Unless you want to claim that Iron Guard, for example, could be penetrated by a wooden sword that has been PAOed to be steel. Or would protect against a Steel Sword that had been PAOed to be wood.

[Reverent-One]

No, PAO checks your current form. The affect of the first cast is changing your form, it does nothing at all to the PAO cast. The PAO cast checks what your form is, it does nothing at all to the first cast and is not affected in any way by the polymorph effect (which has the affect of changing your form).


The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its enchanted state.

Not current. Is the wording in the SRD inconsistent with the wording of the spell elsewhere?

[Tiki Snakes]

I can't help but think that the assumption the text is making is that it is the only spell in effect. Which is to say, original as in before-the-spell-is-cast. I do not believe the wording is related to discussing levels of different forms, or so on.

The problem with reading it as referring to 'the original form' is that essentially, how original are we talking? Does polymorphing from a fully grown elf to a fully grown human not count as the same size because you were originally a child?
What about if you have been ressurected previously?
What about if your intelligence has been raised by instantanious magic items, wish/miracle and/or level-up-bonuses?

I'm just not really sure.

However, I think it's a fine homebrew rule that specifically, casting PAO a second time, or PAO after Polymorph means that it checks your un polymorphed form, because PAO could perhaps do with such a nerf. Not sure how convinced I am that a RAW reading of it doesn't lead to broken-ness, however.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Fact: Nothing in PaO description overrides the rule Same Effect with Differing Results. Or Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths and Same Effect with Differing Results
There is no evidence to support that PaO gets to ignore those rules.

It also says the duration is based on youroriginal state, if your under polymorph already your not in your original state. Your in another enchanted state. Even if it could be stacked once the first PoA runs out your original state changes and so would the duration factor.

[Emperor Tippy]

Fact: Nothing in PaO description overrides the rule Same Effect with Differing Results. Or Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths and Same Effect with Differing Results
There is no evidence to support that PaO gets to ignore those rules.
No one has claimed any such thing. It is a question of when the PAO effect is applied, before or after the duration is decided. If before (which the rules do not support, a spell must have a duration before it takes affect) then Polymorph+PAO doesn't work; if after (which is what the rules support) then suppression is irrelevant as a spells variable affects are all decided at the time of casting and don't change later.


It also says the duration is based on youroriginal state, if your under polymorph already your not in your original state. Your in another enchanted state. Even if it could be stacked once the first PoA runs out your original state changes and so would the duration factor.

Original state is the state before PAO is cast. If you cast PAO, changed your form, and then decided duration it would always be permanent (as the duration check is made with you in the same form as what you PAOed into). If the spell wanted to check your base form it would have used "Natural form" instead, that being the wording used for similar affects.

[Reverent-One]

I can't help but think that the assumption the text is making is that it is the only spell in effect. Which is to say, original as in before-the-spell-is-cast. I do not believe the wording is related to discussing levels of different forms, or so on.

The problem with reading it as referring to 'the original form' is that essentially, how original are we talking? Does polymorphing from a fully grown elf to a fully grown human not count as the same size because you were originally a child?
What about if you have been ressurected previously?
What about if your intelligence has been raised by instantanious magic items, wish/miracle and/or level-up-bonuses?

I'm just not really sure.


Original state is the state before PAO is cast. If you cast PAO, changed your form, and then decided duration it would always be permanent (as the duration check is made with you in the same form as what you PAOed into). If the spell wanted to check your base form it would have used "Natural form" instead, that being the wording used for similar affects.

Most of the time, original will refer to whatever form you were before the spell was cast. However, every shapeshifting spell with a duration must remember your original form in order for you to return to it. So after casting PAO the first time, your original form is as far as PAO is concerned human (or whatever race), you merely are in an enhanced form. Since the second casting of PAO 1)also checks your original form and 2) cannot have it's operations affected by another spell, it'll also see whatever it is the first spell used as your original form.

[Emperor Tippy]

Most of the time, original will refer to whatever form you were before the spell was cast. However, every shapeshifting spell with a duration must remember your original form in order for you to return to it. So after casting PAO the first time, your original form is as far as PAO is concerned human (or whatever race), you merely are in an enhanced form. Since the second casting of PAO 1)also checks your original form and 2) cannot have it's operations affected by another spell, it'll also see whatever it is the first spell used as your original form.

There is no evidence to support that position. While a perfectly valid house rule, original state is the state before a given spell is cast.

If you use the reading that supports the interpretation of the operations rule that you are using then you have negated a good many spells. Under the reading that you are using, being ethereal wouldn't matter to your fireball (because it is the affect of a spell), your Shield of Faith wouldn't protect against Fireball, your Protection from Energy likewise wouldn't protect against Fireball, etc.

[Reverent-One]

There is no evidence to support that position. While a perfectly valid house rule, original state is the state before a given spell is cast.

If you use the reading that supports the interpretation of the operations rule that you are using then you have negated a good many spells. Under the reading that you are using, being ethereal wouldn't matter to your fireball (because it is the affect of a spell), your Shield of Faith wouldn't protect against Fireball, your Protection from Energy likewise wouldn't protect against Fireball, etc.

No, you misunderstand my reasoning. To put it more simply:
Human wizard casts PAO, turns into a dragon. His original state is still Human, PAO does not change this.
The now dragon wizard casts PAO again, PAO checks his original state, which is still human.
If it were to check the form of it's current state, the first PAO would be changing how the second PAO works because it would be not checking the original state.

[Chrono22]

Yes, the previous logic works best I think. If the "original form" of the first PoA is human, then the "original form" is still human for the purposes of the second PoA; nothing says that PoA replaces your original form- you still change back to your original (human) form if the PoA's duration expires or if it is dispelled.

[Zeful]

Yes, the previous logic works best I think. If the "original form" of the first PoA is human, then the "original form" is still human for the purposes of the second PoA; nothing says that PoA replaces your original form- you still change back to your original (human) form if the PoA's duration expires or if it is dispelled.

Far more importantly; PAO does not list an exemption for allowing other spells to effect it's operation, so any spell currently in effect does not apply for determining PAO's duration (unless another spell you are under specifically does), so the "original form" argument is totally unnecessary.

[Beheld]

So, can people stop saying that the first PAO is suppressed, because it isn't. And can people actually read what it says in same effect differing results, instead of just wishing it said what they want?


Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, (Or suppressed) but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

If you Polymorph into an X, and then into a Y, the effects of X are not present, even though the spell is. The spell is not irrelevant because the first spell magically suppresses the second, it's because it creates a new affect.

So yes, you really can cast "Resist Energy" against multiple energy types, and gain all the benefits, because usually, but not always, the last spell in the series trumps the others. And in this case, it doesn't.

And likewise, PAO trumps the effects of Polymorph, but doesn't just magically erase the firsts effect on duration.

If you want to argue about the definition of orgional form, go right ahead, I'm not touching that, but don't say that the first Polymorph is suppressed, and don't say that the first spell can't effect the duration of the second spell.

[Emperor Tippy]

No, you misunderstand my reasoning. To put it more simply:
Human wizard casts PAO, turns into a dragon. His original state is still Human, PAO does not change this.
The now dragon wizard casts PAO again, PAO checks his original state, which is still human.
If it were to check the form of it's current state, the first PAO would be changing how the second PAO works because it would be not checking the original state.

Original state is the state before the spell is cast, not the state before any spells are cast.


Far more importantly; PAO does not list an exemption for allowing other spells to effect it's operation, so any spell currently in effect does not apply for determining PAO's duration (unless another spell you are under specifically does), so the "original form" argument is totally unnecessary.

Except for the slight fact that if you use that ruling, about 90% of the defensive spells become flat out useless. Protection From Energy no longer protects against Fire Ball, Moment of Prescience can no longer be used to make a spell hit it's target, True Strike no longer works with the attack roll for a spell, Holy Aura provides spell resistance that doesn't actually do anything, etc.

The interpretation, of the operation clause, that you are using is flat out impossible and incorrect.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Original state is the state before the spell is cast, not the state before any spells are cast.
I ask that you prove it

[Zeful]

If you want to argue about the definition of orgional form, go right ahead, I'm not touching that, but don't say that the first Polymorph is suppressed, and don't say that the first spell can't effect the duration of the second spell.

Actually the Combining Magical Effects entry disagrees on that part:


Combining Magical Effects
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place[.] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#combiningMagicalEffects)

The Bolded part requires spells that effect each other to say so. Polymorph Any Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm), Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm), and Baleful Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm) do not, so any current effect generated by any of these spells do not effect how PAO works so they are irrelevant to the casting and subsequent determination of the duration of PAO's effect.


Except for the slight fact that if you use that ruling, about 90% of the defensive spells become flat out useless. Protection From Energy no longer protects against Fire Ball, Moment of Prescience can no longer be used to make a spell hit it's target, True Strike no longer works with the attack roll for a spell, Holy Aura provides spell resistance that doesn't actually do anything, etc.

The interpretation, of the operation clause, that you are using is flat out impossible and incorrect.Actually, almost every example would be of the spell themselves explaining the interaction (or rather, the glossary explaining the effects of the effects of the spell) in a couple of those (and the true strike example is just wrong). Further it's the only interpretation of the rule as quoted by myself in this post.

[Lysander]

So, can people stop saying that the first PAO is suppressed, because it isn't. And can people actually read what it says in same effect differing results, instead of just wishing it said what they want?

If you Polymorph into an X, and then into a Y, the effects of X are not present, even though the spell is. The spell is not irrelevant because the first spell magically suppresses the second, it's because it creates a new affect.

So yes, you really can cast "Resist Energy" against multiple energy types, and gain all the benefits, because usually, but not always, the last spell in the series trumps the others. And in this case, it doesn't.

And likewise, PAO trumps the effects of Polymorph, but doesn't just magically erase the firsts effect on duration.

If you want to argue about the definition of orgional form, go right ahead, I'm not touching that, but don't say that the first Polymorph is suppressed, and don't say that the first spell can't effect the duration of the second spell.

It says the effects of the first spell become "irrelevant." I take that to mean that the first spell no longer is doing anything. It's still there, and could resume function should the second be dispelled, but until then the first is suppressed. Unless I'm vastly misreading what "irrelevant" means.

And polymorph also suppresses itself. If you cast polymorph to turn someone into a frog, and then cast polymorph to turn them into a rabbit, if you dispel the second polymorph spell they'll turn back into the frog. The frog polymorph spell is still on them, it's just suppressed by the second polymorph spell.

And are you sure you can stack multiple Resist Energy spells? Unless errata allows it, the spell description makes it seem as if the last energy type would replace any earlier ones.

[Emperor Tippy]

Actually, almost every example would be of the spell themselves explaining the interaction (or rather, the glossary explaining the effects of the effects of the spell) in a couple of those (and the true strike example is just wrong). Further it's the only interpretation of the rule as quoted by myself in this post.

Nope.

The affect of the polymorph effect is changing your type to Dragon.
Because your type is Dragon and you are using PAO to turn into a Dragon, you get the duration bonus.

The affect of Holy Aura effect is giving you SR 25. Because your SR is 25 and a spell is attempting to affect you, it must make an SR roll. We all agree that this is the sane (and RAW) reading of Holy Aura.

The reading that you are using requires that the spell attempting to affect you ignores SR (because it is caused by another spell, which is thus interfering in the new spells effect).



It says the effects of the first spell become "irrelevant." I take that to mean that the first spell no longer is doing anything. It's still there, and could resume function should the second be dispelled, but until then the first is suppressed. Unless I'm vastly misreading what "irrelevant" means.

And polymorph also suppresses itself. If you cast polymorph to turn someone into a frog, and then cast polymorph to turn them into a rabbit, if you dispel the second polymorph spell they'll turn back into the frog. The frog polymorph spell is still on them, it's just suppressed by the second polymorph spell.

And are you sure you can stack multiple Resist Energy spells? Unless errata allows it, the spell description makes it seem as if the last energy type would replace any earlier ones.

It's a question of when the first spell becomes irrelevant, before or after PAO takes effect. If it is before then PAO must take effect before the duration is determined, which is impossible as all spells must have a duration at the time of casting. If it becomes irrelevant after the PAO takes effect then the duration has already been decided.

[Zeful]

Nope.

The affect of the polymorph effect is changing your type to Dragon.
Because your type is Dragon and you are using PAO to turn into a Dragon, you get the duration bonus.

The affect of Holy Aura effect is giving you SR 25. Because your SR is 25 and a spell is attempting to affect you, it must make an SR roll. We all agree that this is the sane (and RAW) reading of Holy Aura.

The reading that you are using requires that the spell attempting to affect you ignores SR (because it is caused by another spell, which is thus interfering in the new spells effect).Except that the application of spell resistance specifically notes that spell resistance does effect a spell's operation as noted by it effect's glossary entry. The same is not true of the Dragon type.

Also; if my interpretation invalidates caster defenses, boo-hoo. I'm the one person on the forum that will take glee in this revelation, you're not going to win any ground by appealing to sanity or common sense with me, I'm all too glad to play devil's advocate for this.

[icefractal]

You know, I have to ask - in what case will this even matter? Sure, with many spells, a use may be borderline acceptable, and the RAW is enough to decide the issue. But with PaO, that's not really the case. Gaining a new form, for free, is a pretty damn huge effect. There are really two cases it's appropriate:

1) The campaign is significantly high power, and this trick is par for the course.
2) It's being used for a relatively minor purpose.

In either of these cases, the answer is to let it fly, whether or not a nitpicking reading of the rules would agree. If those aren't the case, the the trick is inappropriate, whether it works RAW or not. Don't get me wrong - TO is fun, and for that matter polymorph is fine for some campaigns. But whether it's RAW or not doesn't change how powerful it is, or whether you should use it.

Are there really DMs that would feel compelled to allow this if it was RAW, but are eager for some ambiguous wording they can pounce on to deny it?

[Beheld]

It says the effects of the first spell become "irrelevant." I take that to mean that the first spell no longer is doing anything. It's still there, and could resume function should the second be dispelled, but until then the first is suppressed. Unless I'm vastly misreading what "irrelevant" means.

And polymorph also suppresses itself. If you cast polymorph to turn someone into a frog, and then cast polymorph to turn them into a rabbit, if you dispel the second polymorph spell they'll turn back into the frog. The frog polymorph spell is still on them, it's just suppressed by the second polymorph spell.

Yes. You are clearly misreading what that means. It is irrelevant because if you cast Polymorph, and follow it with Polymorph, the first spell is not doing anything meaningful, that doesn't mean it is suppressed. Irrelevant does not mean not existing, it means not currently relevant.

Polymorph doesn't suppress itself. It's not suppressed, it just doesn't happen to be relevant.

Also, let me reiterate that is says usually the case, it is not making a rule about what does happen, it is describing the interactions that already occur.


And are you sure you can stack multiple Resist Energy spells? Unless errata allows it, the spell description makes it seem as if the last energy type would replace any earlier ones.

Um... Why does stuff about protection from energy have anything to do with resist energy?

[Zeful]

Are there really DMs that would feel compelled to allow this if it was RAW, but are eager for some ambiguous wording they can pounce on to deny it?

Yes. I've met some and used to be one.

I do not like most of the magic system in D&D and almost all replacements of the system have been universally decried (skill-based magic being the most notable) or are garbage themselves (the recharge system, spell points), so I will look for something in the book before I simply outright house-rule it.

[Beheld]

Are there really DMs that would feel compelled to allow this if it was RAW, but are eager for some ambiguous wording they can pounce on to deny it?

Yes, obviously Zeful.


Actually, almost every example would be of the spell themselves explaining the interaction (or rather, the glossary explaining the effects of the effects of the spell) in a couple of those (and the true strike example is just wrong). Further it's the only interpretation of the rule as quoted by myself in this post.

So you are willing to backwards lie back through glossary (even though it clearly doesn't say "glossary" anywhere in the combining effects entry) but you aren't willing to accept that PAO saying "Being a Dragon adds a +7 Duration Factor to Polymorphs into a Dragon" counts as referencing the effects of a spell that makes you a Dragon.

Your bias clouds your judgment.

[JonestheSpy]

I just wonder if Tippy is just deliberately taking a ludicrous position for some satirical reason, or actually thinks the silly things he says are the way the game should be played.

[Worira]

Should be played? Who said anything about that? This is about RAW, not whether or not disallowing it makes a good houserule.

[Mystic Muse]

Should be played? Who said anything about that? This is about RAW, not whether or not disallowing it makes a good houserule.

Agreed. I personally don't care either way as it will still remain banned in my games. I just find the argument interesting.

[Emperor Tippy]

Except that the application of spell resistance specifically notes that spell resistance does effect a spell's operation as noted by it effect's glossary entry. The same is not true of the Dragon type.
Irrelevant, the spell resistance is ignored because of how it came to be. For what you are saying to be correct then Holy Aura would have to say "the SR provided by this spell applies to all spells cast", as it is interfering in the operation of other spells.


Also; if my interpretation invalidates caster defenses, boo-hoo. I'm the one person on the forum that will take glee in this revelation, you're not going to win any ground by appealing to sanity or common sense with me, I'm all too glad to play devil's advocate for this.

You have the rules wrong and when how insane your position is is pointed out to you, you continue to hold to it. That's not being devil's advocate.


I just wonder if Tippy is just deliberately taking a ludicrous position for some satirical reason, or actually thinks the silly things he says are the way the game should be played.

What position of mine is ludicrous? My position is that the operation clause doesn't apply how my opposition is applying it. Theirs is the ludicrous position.

Is PAO broken? Unquestionably. Should is be used as written in most games? Probably not. Do I have any problem house ruling it to something less broken? Nope.

Is any of that relevant to this discussion? Nope.

[Zeful]

Yes, obviously Zeful.

So you are willing to backwards lie back through glossary (even though it clearly doesn't say "glossary" anywhere in the combining effects entry) but you aren't willing to accept that PAO saying "Being a Dragon adds a +7 Duration Factor to Polymorphs into a Dragon" counts as referencing the effects of a spell that makes you a Dragon.

Your bias clouds your judgment.

Maybe, but as I said to Tippy: I'm very happy with the fact that my interpretation removes all caster defense. That I'm willing to let lesser effects slide but hardlock obvious abuses (permanent dragon form on a caster, complete with Dragon physical stats? Obvious Rule Abuse) through a tangential check system does not, cannot and will not bother me. I will not fret that I am potentially a hypocrite or worry that someone might hypothetically be angry (in fact arguing that someone might get angry about this ruling actually makes me far more likely to use it, because anyone that would get angry over this is not playing the same game I am and would be very shortly banned from ever playing in any game I am GM of).

But I also fail to see how this is backward lying: The spell provides an effect that in and of itself specifically mentions that this interferes with spells (SR in this case). Specific "SR interferes with spells" trumps general "Spells will denote their interaction". Seems perfectly clear to me.


You have the rules wrong and when how insane your position is is pointed out to you, you continue to hold to it. That's not being devil's advocate.

And? My rules quote requires you to find justification to prove that PAO is specifically affected by the effect of any Polymorph effect. That my position is ludicrous has no bearing on the fact that you have yet to do so. You are on as shaky ground as myself.

Further how have I got the rules wrong? Does PAO or in fact any effect that is relevant to this discussion specifically mention that they effect PAO? If no: Then you are wrong. If yes: Then you are right. This is as simple as it gets.

[JonestheSpy]

What position of mine is ludicrous? My position is that the operation clause doesn't apply how my opposition is applying it. Theirs is the ludicrous position.

Is PAO broken? Unquestionably. Should is be used as written in most games? Probably not. Do I have any problem house ruling it to something less broken? Nope.

Is any of that relevant to this discussion? Nope.

I still think you're being satirical. Your declarations of what RAW 'really' means are pretty hard to believe, frankly.

[Kumori]

Does the word 'Original' have meaning because there is a bunch of straight and curved lines meshing together, or does it have meaning because we give it meaning?
Letters and words are only symbols which only have meanings because we interpret them to have meanings.
The word 'Original' has to be interpreted by the reader in order to have any meaning, and as such it is the interpretation of that words meaning that governs the effect of the spell.

This one simple fact clearly proves that this argument cannot be resolved through analysis of the Rules As Written.

Anyone care to dispute that?

[Beheld]

I will not fret that I am potentially a hypocrite or worry that someone might hypothetically be angry (in fact arguing that someone might get angry about this ruling actually makes me far more likely to use it, because anyone that would get angry over this is not playing the same game I am and would be very shortly banned from ever playing in any game I am GM of).

Yes, you've made it readily apparent that you are more concerned with getting the ruling you want than whether those ruling apply the same logically consistent rules to the same effects. My question is why? Why, instead of saying "Well I might be a hypocrite, but it's a small price to pay to prevent abuse X" just say "Abuse X works by the rules, by I'm houseruling that it doesn't."


But I also fail to see how this is backward lying: The spell provides an effect that in and of itself specifically mentions that this interferes with spells (SR in this case). Specific "SR interferes with spells" trumps general "Spells will denote their interaction". Seems perfectly clear to me.

The spell does not say that it affects any other spells. No where in the spell description does it say that it does. If you are willing to reference the fact that it grants an ability defined in a description, then why can't you, (I mean aside from your admitted willingness to not apply the rules the same way just to claim to be able to get the interpretations you want) see that referencing the Dragon type (Which is also in the glossary) is mentioning it's interference with any spell that changes based on if you have the Dragon type.

Specific "Creatures of the Dragon type using PAO to turn into a Dragon" overrides general "Spells will denote their interaction."

[Zeful]

This one simple fact clearly proves that this argument cannot be resolved through analysis of the Rules As Written.

Given that the one and only response to my argument has been "This is silly/insane" rather than try to provide something that actually fits with the rule I quoted, I think this issue has already been resolved.

[Beheld]

Given that the one and only response to my argument has been "This is silly/insane" rather than try to provide something that actually fits with the rule I quoted, I think this issue has already been resolved.

Many other responses have been given.

Your problem is that you think that we have to provide what you ask for. In fact, you have failed to adequately present any argument that PAO lacks a reference to other spells that effect it.

[Mystic Muse]

Zeful, while I don't have any problems with any of the rulings you've made (That I've seen) I would like to suggest you make them known before the game starts if there's any real chance of them coming up for a player. I actually suggest this to everybody because knowing what rules do and don't function like they usually do, or which rules are being used, really helps when it comes to character creation.

[classy one]

As Tippy said, for one spell to invalidate the previous one the second spell must be in effect. That does make perfect sense. But when is the duration really decided?
Where is the rule that there is "real time" that elapse for the steps: 1) cast spell 2) determine variables (like duration)? Tippy seems to think there is a split second between casting and determining duration, and if that is the case then he is right, in that split second PaO will use dragon as your form to determine duration (because in that instant you are indeed a dragon) once you determine varibles THEN the first polymorph is suppressed and irrelavent.

BUT does this instant really exist? I personally think all the steps taken to cast a spell are just guilde lines on how do things. The spell would be cast with everything decided beforehand, the steps are just a metagame device to make it happen. If that is the case, then the instant you cast the 2nd PaO the first one would be suppressed and your (real) original form would be used.

So the question is: does any game time pass between casting a spell and determining it's duration?

[Beheld]

Does the word 'Original' have meaning because there is a bunch of straight and curved lines meshing together, or does it have meaning because we give it meaning?
Letters and words are only symbols which only have meanings because we interpret them to have meanings.
The word 'Original' has to be interpreted by the reader in order to have any meaning, and as such it is the interpretation of that words meaning that governs the effect of the spell.

This one simple fact clearly proves that this argument cannot be resolved through analysis of the Rules As Written.

Anyone care to dispute that?

Yes. You could use the same argument to attempt to claim that there is no RAW on fireball, because only interpreting of the words of the spell can lead to the understanding of what 1d6 fire damage means.

But that would be wrong, because many words are explicitly or implicitly defined within the context of the D&D game, and to interpret them as something other than their definition is just plain wrong and incorrect.

So if "original form" has a definition, then interpreting it in any other way, like for example, (because it's just a collection of symbols) as meaning "Something that heals you 10HP per round." would be incorrect.

Now, what is the actual definition of original form within the rules? I'm not certain, but it probably is an implicit definition, not spelled out specifically, which can get tricky, nor do I care enough to look it up.

[Zeful]

Yes, you've made it readily apparent that you are more concerned with getting the ruling you want than whether those ruling apply the same logically consistent rules to the same effects. My question is why? Why, instead of saying "Well I might be a hypocrite, but it's a small price to pay to prevent abuse X" just say "Abuse X works by the rules, by I'm houseruling that it doesn't."Given that you have yet to prove that the abuse actually works by the rules, I'd instead be houserulling that the other affects that don't work because of this rule work. Which is not hypocrisy.


The spell does not say that it affects any other spells. No where in the spell description does it say that it does. If you are willing to reference the fact that it grants an ability defined in a description, then why can't you, (I mean aside from your admitted willingness to not apply the rules the same way just to claim to be able to get the interpretations you want) see that referencing the Dragon type (Which is also in the glossary) is mentioning it's interference with any spell that changes based on if you have the Dragon type.

Specific "Creatures of the Dragon type using PAO to turn into a Dragon" overrides general "Spells will denote their interaction."
Because these are two vastly different situations. The first (A spell giving spell resistance) is actually adding new rules to the situation that did not apply before, while the second just uses the rules that already exist for this sort of thing. Why should I treat different situations as if they were the same?


Many other responses have been given.

Your problem is that you think that we have to provide what you ask for. In fact, you have failed to adequately present any argument that PAO lacks a reference to other spells that effect it.
I linked three other spells in the polymorph line, none of them having any interaction clause at all. So unless there's an obscure rule somewhere I've missed, the general rule still stands. So yes, given that I've already provided my evidence you need to provide yours or concede the point. This is how this kind of discussion works.


Zeful, while I don't have any problems with any of the rulings you've made (That I've seen) I would like to suggest you make them known before the game starts if there's any real chance of them coming up for a player. I actually suggest this to everybody because knowing what rules do and don't function like they usually do, or which rules are being used, really helps when it comes to character creation.Seriously? Someone will actually think that permanent Dragon form will be a necessary part of that character's concept as to need this pointed out a character creation? Given the amount of things that "need to be clarified before character creation" an entirely new book needs to be written just so everyone's on the same page. No, I'll deal with this situation if it comes up and if someone gets angry over it they can leave.

[Kumori]

Yes. You could use the same argument to attempt to claim that there is no RAW on fireball, because only interpreting of the words of the spell can lead to the understanding of what 1d6 fire damage means.

But that would be wrong, because many words are explicitly or implicitly defined within the context of the D&D game, and to interpret them as something other than their definition is just plain wrong and incorrect.

So if "original form" has a definition, then interpreting it in any other way, like for example, (because it's just a collection of symbols) as meaning "Something that heals you 10HP per round." would be incorrect.

Now, what is the actual definition of original form within the rules? I'm not certain, but it probably is an implicit definition, not spelled out specifically, which can get tricky, nor do I care enough to look it up.

Is the word 'original' explicitly or implicitly defined within the context of the D&D game?
No.
Ergo, room for interpretation.
Ergo, no solution to this within RAW.

[Mystic Muse]

Seriously? Someone will actually think that permanent Dragon form will be a necessary part of that character's concept as to need this pointed out a character creation? Given the amount of things that "need to be clarified before character creation" an entirely new book needs to be written just so everyone's on the same page. No, I'll deal with this situation if it comes up and if someone gets angry over it they can leave.

Not that, I agree, you really shouldn't have to point that out. There was another ruling you had a while ago though (Can't remember what it was) about something that seemed ambiguous and did need to be pointed out.

I've also had a DM that had several rules that he never brought up until after I needed to know them which is probably why I'm bringing this up.

[Zeful]

Not that, I agree, you really shouldn't have to point that out. There was another ruling you had a while ago though (Can't remember what it was) about something that seemed ambiguous and did need to be pointed out.

I've also had a DM that had several rules that he never brought up until after I needed to know them which is probably why I'm bringing this up.

That's about half the subjects I've ever weighed in on. It could have been the forcecage discussion I started or the recent Abrupt Jaunt discussion. Those are actually important things that actually need clarification before you take them. This is not such a discussion.

[Mystic Muse]

That's about half the subjects I've ever weighed in on. It could have been the forcecage discussion I started or the recent Abrupt Jaunt discussion. Those are actually important things that actually need clarification before you take them. This is not such a discussion.

Yeah I agree. I don't know, maybe I should just be getting to sleep rather than ranting about my DM.

[Beheld]

Is the word 'original' explicitly or implicitly defined within the context of the D&D game?
No.
Ergo, room for interpretation.
Ergo, no solution to this within RAW.

This is just wrong. You don't need to have a definition of original alone to have a definition of original form.

Alternate is no where in the rules explicitly or implicitly defined. Yet "Alternate Form" is explicitly defined in multiple places.

There could be an entry in MM IV that says "Original Form: Blah Blah Blah." And that would actually constitute a definition of Original Form, thus rendering no room for interpretation, and a RAW solution.

Now, I don't think such a thing exists, but I do think "original form" is implicitly defined across it's various mentions, including the ones in some "alternate form" entries, and in the True Seeing description. But yeah.


Because these are two vastly different situations. The first (A spell giving spell resistance) is actually adding new rules to the situation that did not apply before, while the second just uses the rules that already exist for this sort of thing. Why should I treat different situations as if they were the same?

What are you even talking about? No seriously, your attempts to create a distinction without a difference from a place with no distinctions at all are now just spouting random words that are not sensible.

The first situation, a spell gives spell resistance to a creature. This spell resistance then affects how other spells interact with that creature.

In the second situation, a spell gives the Dragon type to a creature. This Dragon Type then affects how other spells interact with that creature.

Both spell resistance and Dragon Type are explicit Glossary terms. Both change how a large number of spells effect the target.


I linked three other spells in the polymorph line, none of them having any interaction clause at all. So unless there's an obscure rule somewhere I've missed, the general rule still stands. So yes, given that I've already provided my evidence you need to provide yours or concede the point. This is how this kind of discussion works.

Holy Aura doesn't have an interaction line. It grants spell resistance, a defined quality, which changes how the creature interacts with other spells.

Likewise, most of the Polymorph spells grant the Dragon Type, a defined quality which changes how the creature interacts with other spells.

You haven't provided any evidence, you have provided assertions such as "Except that the application of spell resistance specifically notes that spell resistance does effect a spell's operation as noted by it effect's glossary entry. The same is not true of the Dragon type." Or, basically, that the Dragon Type entry does not specify in it's glossary entry that it effects a spell's operation, even though this is patently false.

[Kumori]

This is just wrong.

:smallconfused: I don't think anyone has ever said that something I said was 'just wrong', especially considering that it's not. How can you say that the definition of 'original', as in 'original form', is not up for interpretation when it is one of the fundamental causes of a discussion such as this?

Since you mention True Seeing, riddle me this:
If I use PAO to change from a human to a dragon, then again to become a bugbear, what does True Seeing reveal me as?
What if I use PAO to change from a human to a dragon, then again to become a different dragon?What does True Seeing reveal me as this time?
Does my original form change by multiple castings of shapechange spells?

And BTW, True Seeing doesn't ever have the word 'original' appear in it's description.

[Zeful]

Holy Aura provides spell resistance. It does not actually interact with any other spells, the spell resistance rules do. There is no actual need for Holy Aura to define it's interaction with other spells because of the way the other rules interact.

Gaining the Dragon type from a spell is not the same thing. There are no rules in the Dragon type that interact with any relevant spells (seriously, the Dragon Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#dragonType) provides no rules for shapechange effects, only sleep and paralysis, neither of which are relevant for this discussion) and any other effects between the Dragon Type and spells are specifically noted in the spell's description (see: Dominate Person) this makes the Dragon Type about as relevant to the discussion as the Elf subtype. Since Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, and Baleful Polymorph have no specific interaction in each other's operation and the neither does the Dragon Type, the general rule of "a spell does not affect the way another spell operates" still applies and gaining the Dragon Type through Polymorph does not count to increase the duration of Polymorph Any Object as Polymorph, and the Dragon Type do not affect the way Polymorph Any Object operates.

Clear enough?

[Gan The Grey]

According the duration factor table, the spell checks for duration AFTER the change is established, as the title of the table is Changed Subject Is:. This indicates that the spell is already in effect when the duration is determined, because the subject is 'changed', past tense. By this logic, any previously cast PaO has already been suppressed by the time it checks duration.

My 2 yen.

[Sliver]

So Zeful, you are saying that if I cast Flesh to Stone on a creature, made of flesh, that is then turned into a mindless, inert statue, which is an object, then the object, which was a creature, can still be affected by spells that require a living creature as it's target?

Or because the spell is Instantaneous you will say it's different? Alright.

How about Baleful Polymorph? It changes almost everything the target has with few exceptions, and it's a permanent spell. So you are saying that because the spell doesn't say how it will interact with other spells, it doesn't. If the target was a human, Dominate Person will still work, even when the type is different. Right?

If what I said is incorrect, then no, your position is not clear enough.

[Snake-Aes]

Fun fact: PaO cannot create materials of great intrinsic value. Which means you can't PaO into a dragon (or can't PaO into a dragon with scales) because the scales are damn valuable.

[hamishspence]

I thought it was the bones, and the "hide", more than the scales?

[Starbuck_II]

Fun fact: PaO cannot create materials of great intrinsic value. Which means you can't PaO into a dragon (or can't PaO into a dragon with scales) because the scales are damn valuable.

But that incorrect because it says a stone into a manticore andf we know manticores are worth more than a stone because Arms and Equipment guide says so.

Thus, you are incorrect, but nice nitpicking :smalltongue:

[Beheld]

:smallconfused: I don't think anyone has ever said that something I said was 'just wrong', especially considering that it's not. How can you say that the definition of 'original', as in 'original form', is not up for interpretation when it is one of the fundamental causes of a discussion such as this?

Just because people are discussing it doesn't mean that it is open to interpretation, people are capable of being wrong. If there is an implied definition, that is the definition, regardless of whether some people don't want it to be a definition.

However, you are correct, True Seeing states True Form. Unfortunate since if it had stated original form, that would have been the only time it was used differently, and would have been actual evidence in your favor.

However, it appears we have only the various Polymorph effects, and the Alternate Form and Change Shape special qualities that use it, which all use it in a consistent form, giving it a clear definition of form prior to change.


Holy Aura provides spell resistance. It does not actually interact with any other spells, the spell resistance rules do. There is no actual need for Holy Aura to define it's interaction with other spells because of the way the other rules interact.

Polymorph provides the Dragon Type. It does not actually interact with any other spells, the Dragon Type rules do. There is no actual need for Polymorph to define it's interaction with other spells because of the way the other rules interact.


Gaining the Dragon type from a spell is not the same thing. There are no rules in the Dragon type that interact with any relevant spells (seriously, the Dragon Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#dragonType) provides no rules for shapechange effects, only sleep and paralysis, neither of which are relevant for this discussion) and any other effects between the Dragon Type and spells are specifically noted in the spell's description (see: Dominate Person) this makes the Dragon Type about as relevant to the discussion as the Elf subtype. Since Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, and Baleful Polymorph have no specific interaction in each other's operation and the neither does the Dragon Type, the general rule of "a spell does not affect the way another spell operates" still applies and gaining the Dragon Type through Polymorph does not count to increase the duration of Polymorph Any Object as Polymorph, and the Dragon Type do not affect the way Polymorph Any Object operates.

Once again, yes, the various polymorph spells do define how they interact with the Dragon Type.

It's right there in the rules:


You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form.

Obviously Alter Self interacts differently with those with the Dragon type than it does those without it.


The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin.

In this case, Polymorph already allows you to turn into a Dragon type creature regardless of your type, so Polymorph does not interact differently for those with the Dragon type, but it does interact differently for those with the Outsider or elemental type.


The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its enchanted state. The duration is determined by using the following guidelines.

Guidelines:
Same kingdom (animal, vegetable, mineral) +5
Same class (mammals, fungi, metals, etc.) +2

Here, Polymorph any Object is clear that any creature of the same type as the form being transformed into gains a +7 to the duration factor.

If you are casting the spell to turn into a Dragon, then this is a clear interaction that the Dragon type would have, called out by the spell.

[Reverent-One]

However, it appears we have only the various Polymorph effects, and the Alternate Form and Change Shape special qualities that use it, which all use it in a consistent form, giving it a clear definition of form prior to change.


You are correct. It is quite clear that the original form is the form you are before you have Polymorph, or PAO, or whatever cast on you, and since the spell very specifically does not change your original form, your original form will be the same no matter how many such spells you cast.

[Beheld]

You are correct. It is quite clear that the original form is the form you are before you have Polymorph, or PAO, or whatever cast on you, and since the spell very specifically does not change your original form, your original form will be the same no matter how many such spells you cast.

Actually it's more clear than that.

Alternate Form and Change Shape are the real killer examples, because the Polymorph effects as spells are temporary, and have a clear "natural state" of no spells actively cast, so it is possible to argue from the Polymorph spells alone that "original form" is referenced to "before the spell is cast" not "before any spells are cast."

However, Change Shape allows you to change shape from one shape you changed into to another, IE, Doppleganger transforms into human, then into Elf. But yet, it clearly states "The creature retains the ability scores of its original form." (And various similar uses). But no one would claim that a Doppleganger turned into an Human turned into an elf would have the ability scores of a Human.

So even though "original form" is unclear from the spells alone, it is very clear from comparison to alternate form and Change shape that creatures have a state "original form" which floats around with them no matter how many transformations they go through.

(See also reincarnate for a similar use of original form.)

[Lysander]

There are two separate arguments going on here. They don't actually have any bearing on each other.

1) Meaning of "Original Form"
Position A - Original form is your immediately previous form, allowing for permanent PaO.
Position B - Original form is your true form before any spells were cast, preventing permanent PaO.

2) How PaO stacks with itself
Position A - When a second PaO it cast on top of a first, it uses the new shape caused by the first to judge spell duration, allowing permanent PaO.
Position B - When a second PaO is cast it suppresses the effect of the first, requiring that your non-enchanted form be used judge spell duration, preventing permanent PaO.

So you can still agree with position A in one of those two, but not think permanent PaO is allowed because you believe in position B in the other.

Now even though I agree with position B in argument 2, I would like to cause more strife and discord by presenting a hypothetical argument about what would happen if position A were accurate in argument 2. I think even if that were the case permanent PaO would not be allowed and here's why.

It's a problem with nested spells. The assumption is that a person temporarily transformed into a green dragon is then turned into a gold dragon again, making the change permanent. Yes, that would be the case. But only the second change is permanent. The first change is still temporary. You're not a person permanently transformed into a gold dragon. You're a person temporarily transformed into a green dragon permanently transformed into a gold dragon. When the first spell expires you still turn back to a human because you lose the "green dragon in gold dragon form" form.

P.S. Even if you disagree with me, I still think you're a wonderful human being.

[true_shinken]

I agree that this does not work.
Having the damn table would be useless if you could just cast it twice and make it permanent anyway.
I don't think it really matters, though, since no DMs would ever accept such cheese except in special cases - cases in which they might still accept it even though it's obviously not RAW.

[Starbuck_II]

I agree that this does not work.
Having the damn table would be useless if you could just cast it twice and make it permanent anyway.
I don't think it really matters, though, since no DMs would ever accept such cheese except in special cases - cases in which they might still accept it even though it's obviously not RAW.


Actually, the table is the problem. Without the table it wouldnt be permanent.

[Tehnar]

Doesn't the latest errata of Alternate Form specifically state that a creature retains its natural type or subtype?

[hamishspence]

It does in the SRD, which is mostly post-errata:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I agree that this does not work.
Having the damn table would be useless if you could just cast it twice and make it permanent anyway.
I don't think it really matters, though, since no DMs would ever accept such cheese except in special cases - cases in which they might still accept it even though it's obviously not RAW.

It's not like this is the only time WotC would have made something that is completely irrelevant due to one thing or another.

[Beheld]

It's a problem with nested spells. The assumption is that a person temporarily transformed into a green dragon is then turned into a gold dragon again, making the change permanent. Yes, that would be the case. But only the second change is permanent. The first change is still temporary. You're not a person permanently transformed into a gold dragon. You're a person temporarily transformed into a green dragon permanently transformed into a gold dragon. When the first spell expires you still turn back to a human because you lose the "green dragon in gold dragon form" form.

P.S. Even if you disagree with me, I still think you're a wonderful human being.

But you wouldn't change back into a human, because the duration of the spell is only checked on casting.

If you cast a spell, it has a duration that is determined then, when you cast the spell, otherwise, if original form did change with the spell, and the duration was checked (what, every round, when do you want the duration checked besides when it's cast?) then you would check the duration of the spell against the current form:

Current form: Gold Dragon: Similarity, Very much, therefore permanent.

Instead, duration is checked once, when the spell is cast, and not any other time.


Doesn't the latest errata of Alternate Form specifically state that a creature retains its natural type or subtype?

It does, but that has no bearing on the Polymorph line of spells which state:

"The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form."

[Zeful]

So Zeful, you are saying that if I cast Flesh to Stone on a creature, made of flesh, that is then turned into a mindless, inert statue, which is an object, then the object, which was a creature, can still be affected by spells that require a living creature as it's target?

Or because the spell is Instantaneous you will say it's different? Alright.

How about Baleful Polymorph? It changes almost everything the target has with few exceptions, and it's a permanent spell. So you are saying that because the spell doesn't say how it will interact with other spells, it doesn't. If the target was a human, Dominate Person will still work, even when the type is different. Right?

If what I said is incorrect, then no, your position is not clear enough.
Are you being obtuse or are you seriously failing to understand this? This is no more complicated then the determining which books supersede each other (and that's just as clearly delineated).


Polymorph provides the Dragon Type. It does not actually interact with any other spells, the Dragon Type rules do. There is no actual need for Polymorph to define it's interaction with other spells because of the way the other rules interact.There are no rules in the Dragon Type that interact with any shapechange effect, so no the Dragon Type rules do not interact with other (relevant) spells. However since you have resulted to ludicrous mimicry in a poor attempt to weaken my position rather than try to provide any ruling that would conclusively prove me wrong, I'm going to assume that there's no further point to conversing with you because rather than debating you are trying to frustrate me into leaving so you can declare victory unimpeded. That is not going to work.

[Lysander]

But you wouldn't change back into a human, because the duration of the spell is only checked on casting.

If you cast a spell, it has a duration that is determined then, when you cast the spell, otherwise, if original form did change with the spell, and the duration was checked (what, every round, when do you want the duration checked besides when it's cast?) then you would check the duration of the spell against the current form:

Current form: Gold Dragon: Similarity, Very much, therefore permanent.

Instead, duration is checked once, when the spell is cast, and not any other time.

Well yes, I agree that the transformation to gold dragon is permanent (and this is all hypothetical IMO since I think the first spell is completely suppressed by the second and doesn't count at all). But it's only permanent for your green dragon form, and your green dragon form is temporary. You have permanently changed a temporary condition. You will never turn back from a gold dragon into a green dragon, but you will turn from a "green dragon permanently turned into a gold dragon" back into a human.

[Beheld]

There are no rules in the Dragon Type that interact with any shapechange effect, so no the Dragon Type rules do not interact with other (relevant) spells.

There are rules in the shapechange effect that specifically explain how they interact with those of the Dragon Type. You just keep trying to pretend they don't exist.


However since you have resulted to ludicrous mimicry in a poor attempt to weaken my position rather than try to provide any ruling that would conclusively prove me wrong,

It's not mimicry, it's demonstrating the parity of the statements. The Polymorph spells explicitly define how they interact with those creatures with the Dragon type. So a spell that grants you the Dragon type causes Polymorph to interact differently with you, exactly like a spell that grants spell resistance causes spells subject to spell resistance to interact differently with you.

Why do you refuse to understand that these situations are identical?

This is a ruling that conclusively proves you wrong, and merely whining about how you don't like the ruling is not sufficient to make it go away.


Well yes, I agree that the transformation to gold dragon is permanent (and this is all hypothetical IMO since I think the first spell is completely suppressed by the second and doesn't count at all). But it's only permanent for your green dragon form, and your green dragon form is temporary. You have permanently changed a temporary condition. You will never turn back from a gold dragon into a green dragon, but you will turn from a "green dragon permanently turned into a gold dragon" back into a human.

It's not a transformation of a green dragon into a gold dragon, it's a transformation of a creature into a dragon. That creature is then permanently transformed into a Gold dragon.

By the same logic you just used to claim the gold dragon form ends when the green one does, if you cast Animal Growth, followed by Greater Magic Fang, the greater magic fang would go away when the Animal Growth did, because you were Magic Fanging a growthed animal, and it's only a duration of 1 hour per CL for the growthed animal, and you have changed a temporary condition to have the +X bonus. You will not lose your GMF while you are growthed, but you will go from a growthed GMFed creature, to a non growthed non GMF creature.

Spells have effects on creatures, not on creatures with specific effects active on them.

[Lysander]

By the same logic you just used to claim the gold dragon form ends when the green one does, if you cast Animal Growth, followed by Greater Magic Fang, the greater magic fang would go away when the Animal Growth did, because you were Magic Fanging a growthed animal, and it's only a duration of 1 hour per CL for the growthed animal, and you have changed a temporary condition to have the +X bonus. You will not lose your GMF while you are growthed, but you will go from a growthed GMFed creature, to a non growthed non GMF creature.


Well that's different because the second spell isn't dependent on the first. Magic Fang and Animal Growth don't interact with each other. A better comparison would be to say that you Polymorph a human into an animal and then cast Animal Growth on them. Then the Polymorph spell expires while Animal Growth still has remaining duration. Does the subject retain the benefits of Animal Growth when they've returned to human form?

[Beheld]

Well that's different because the second spell isn't dependent on the first. Magic Fang and Animal Growth don't interact with each other. A better comparison would be to say that you Polymorph a human into an animal and then cast Animal Growth on them. Then the Polymorph spell expires while Animal Growth still has remaining duration. Does the subject retain the benefits of Animal Growth when they've returned to human form?

Well yes, it does, and that's kinda the point. Spells only check once, at casting, they never check at any other time for anything, and they affect creatures, they do not affect creatures subject to other spells. Whether or not the second spell is effected by the first is not important, because the spell only checks on casting, and thereafter affects the target for the duration.

[hamishspence]

If a character ceases to be a valid target for the spell (by not being an animal anymore) wouldn't it follow that the spell would expire? Or at least, cease to have an effect?

Just the same way as if, when you cease to qualify for a feat somehow (ability draining?) that feat would no longer function for you.

[Beheld]

If a character ceases to be a valid target for the spell (by not being an animal anymore) wouldn't it follow that the spell would expire? Or at least, cease to have an effect?

Just the same way as if, when you cease to qualify for a feat somehow (ability draining?) that feat would no longer function for you.

No, because spells only check to see if you are a valid target on casting. They don't check every six seconds.

If they did, All PAO spells would be permanent. Spells check once, on casting, and never again.

[Emperor Tippy]

If a character ceases to be a valid target for the spell (by not being an animal anymore) wouldn't it follow that the spell would expire? Or at least, cease to have an effect?

Just the same way as if, when you cease to qualify for a feat somehow (ability draining?) that feat would no longer function for you.

No, spells check if you are a valid target once. Just like they check caster level, duration, range, target, and all other variables once.

Feat's explicitly state that qualification is continuously checked.

Just like if you are affected by Dominate Person and are then polymorphed into a dragon, the dominate person doesn't cease working (even though it is no longer valid to cast on you).

[Lysander]

No, spells check if you are a valid target once. Just like they check caster level, duration, range, target, and all other variables once.


By that logic couldn't you PoA someone into a sword, enchant it into an flaming weapon, dispel the PoA and end up with a person with permanent +1 flaming fists?

[Emperor Tippy]

By that logic couldn't you PoA someone into a sword, enchant it into an flaming weapon, dispel the PoA and end up with a person with permanent +1 flaming fists?

You can kill someone, cast Permanent Shrink Item on their body, cast Raise Dead on them, and then shrink and enlarge them with a command word. At least that was the consensus of the WotC TO boards and WotC Customer Service.

Your example might not work because it was applied to a sword that no longer exists; specifically it was a flaming sword and now that the sword no longer exists the enchantment doesn't transfer over to the natural weapon.

[Gametime]

Does the word 'Original' have meaning because there is a bunch of straight and curved lines meshing together, or does it have meaning because we give it meaning?

I don't think we're likely to have a really satisfying debate on the philosophy of language here, but the short version is that yes, the word "original" does have meaning. The word, as used, means something specific. However, it's not necessarily the case that we can tell what it means from the context, and in the case of Polymorph Any Object's description, the meaning of the word is fairly ambiguous.

That doesn't necessarily mean we can't come to a "correct" answer, though; it just means that we have to preface any arguments with an assumption about how the word is being used, perhaps backed up by contextual usage elsewhere in the rulebooks.


Fun fact: PaO cannot create materials of great intrinsic value. Which means you can't PaO into a dragon (or can't PaO into a dragon with scales) because the scales are damn valuable.

This gets my vote for funniest post in the thread. :smalltongue:



P.S. Even if you disagree with me, I still think you're a wonderful human being.

Hurray! :smallbiggrin:

[Snake-Aes]

This gets my vote for funniest post in the thread. :smalltongue:
I am currently imagining how PaO would work in the attempt to polymorph into a silver dragon.
Without the scales, hide, bone, teeth and eyes.

[Lamech]

Guys clearly PaO, checks after the subject is changed, "Changed Subject Is:" By the time the subject has changed the old polymorph has been surpressed and is rather irrelevent. If the spell checks duration before the subject has changed, there is no "changed subject", so none of the factors apply.

Also note that its up to the DM if things like "dragon with out spell-like ablities" is in the same kingdom, class or most significantly, related to a dragon with spell-like ablities. Both the examples are sub-unit to unit or visa versa. In fact one could easily argue that a dragon doesn't fit into the system of deciding species, since it has the remarkable ablity to interbreed with every corporeal living creature. (So multiple kingdoms.) So the DM could make up what ever kingdom/class he wants for a dragon, and base it on their magic. Which means a PaO trick doesn't work since PaO dragon =! dragon.



Here, Polymorph any Object is clear that any creature of the same type as the form being transformed into gains a +7 to the duration factor.Hell no. Lets take two magical beasts. One is a shocker lizard one is a celestial tiger. One is a mammal the other is not. Shocker lizard to tiger only gets the +5. We can get even more extreme with abberations, oozes, outsiders, or constructs. We could also look at a celestial tiger and a normal tiger and clearly see that the two tigers are both mammals and therefore in the same class and kingdom.

[Beheld]

Guys clearly PaO, checks after the subject is changed, "Changed Subject Is:" By the time the subject has changed the old polymorph has been surpressed and is rather irrelevent. If the spell checks duration before the subject has changed, there is no "changed subject", so none of the factors apply.

Once again, the first effect is not suppressed, it has very few interactions, but the old effect is not suppressed, it is still right there doing what it did.

And really, can no one actually read the word usually? Is it invisible to everyone but me?

[Amphetryon]

Once again, the first effect is not suppressed, it has very few interactions, but the old effect is not suppressed, it is still right there doing what it did.

And really, can no one actually read the word usually? Is it invisible to everyone but me?

Are the terms for when "usually" applies explicitly spelled out?

[Lysander]

Are the terms for when "usually" applies explicitly spelled out?

A few spells do explicitly say that multiple instances of the spell can be in effect on a creature at once. So there are exceptions, which is why "usually" is the accurate thing to say. But unless a spell has an exception in it, it's a houserule to say that it doesn't have to follow the normal rules. Here's one example of a spell with an exception:


Green Oath
Transmutation
Level: Drd 7
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

Casting the green oath requires a 10-minute ritual while you chant invocations to the surrounding plant life, beseeching the vegetation to accept you as a sibling and friend. When the casting is complete, your flesh turns a lush shade of green and your hair grows tangled and sprouts leaves or even flowers. You exude an earthy scent for the duration of the green oath. This gives you a +10 circumstance bonus on your Disguise check if you are masquerading as a plant or plant creature and the observer is using only the Scent ability to observe you. It also raises the DC to successfully track you through natural environments by +10. You can now move through natural, magic, or enchanted thorns, briars, and overgrown areas and similar terrain at your normal speed and without taking damage or other impairment. Plant creatures take a -4 circumstance penalty on attack rolls against you; this penalty increases to -8 for grapple checks.

You also gain one of the following benefits of the plant type when you cast the spell. The benefit granted does not change for the duration of the casting, and you can choose a new benefit the next time you cast the green oath. If you wish, you can cast this spell on yourself multiple times; the majority of the benefits provided by the spell do not stack with themselves, but you can select a different benefit from the following list each time you cast the spell.

* Immunity to all poisons
* Immunity to sleep and paralysis
* Immunity to stunning and polymorphing
* Immunity to critical hits
* Immunity to one of the following mind-affecting effects: charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, or morale effects
* Low-light vision

The effects of this spell are temporarily suppressed if you enter a region with little or no natural plant life (such as a barren desert or city). The spell's duration continues to run down while in an area of little vegetation, and if you re-enter a verdant region before it expires, the effects instantly return.

Focus: A natural region with abundant plant life. Traditionally, this spell is cast in a region dominated by rainforest, but it functions in any wilderness region except for underground, barren deserts, glaciers, deep underwater, or in any civilized region such as a town or city.

There are also spells with opposite clauses, explicitly saying that they don't stack with different spells that have similar effects.

[Beheld]

A few spells do explicitly say that multiple instances of the spell can be in effect on a creature at once. So there are exceptions, which is why "usually" is the accurate thing to say. But unless a spell has an exception in it, it's a houserule to say that it doesn't have to follow the normal rules.

No, the "rules" are not rules. They are a description of what occurs. The rules do not say "X happens" at any point. They say "usually two castings of the same spell is identical to one casting of the spell."

In the actual Core rules, they use the word usually, meaning that at the very least, some spells in Core don't operate that way.

Since it's a descriptive not proscriptive statement, I can name at least two spells that this applies to, Resist Energy and Protection from Energy. As the first casting of Resist Energy, and the second, are both active, as neither is suppressed, and they each have different effects, and so neither is irrelevant.

Thus Resist Energy is an example of a spell that does not fall with in the descriptive analysis of double casting a single spell.

[Kumori]

I just had a thought that may bring light to another angle of looking at this. First the relevant rule:

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant

Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion.

"One spell can render a later spell irrelevant." Could this mean that if you are in a shapeshifted state the second casting of PaO could have no effect?
Consider:
Human casts PaO
Spell changes the Human to a Green Dragon
Dragon casts PaO
Spell tries to change the Human into a Gold Dragon, fails due to no Human being present.

I'm not saying I'm convinced that this is how it should happen, merely that it could be how it does happen. Can anyone cite any other evidence for or against this?

[Lysander]

Since it's a descriptive not proscriptive statement, I can name at least two spells that this applies to, Resist Energy and Protection from Energy. As the first casting of Resist Energy, and the second, are both active, as neither is suppressed, and they each have different effects, and so neither is irrelevant.

Thus Resist Energy is an example of a spell that does not fall with in the descriptive analysis of double casting a single spell.

Right. Which is why it says "usually". It's referring to spells that are exceptions to the rule. But unless a spell is stated to be an exception, it's a DM houserule for it to stack with itself.

Although I think you're wrong about Resist Energy. Unless errata somewhere allows it, it doesn't look like you can use Resist Energy to be protected from more than one energy type simultaneously. The last casting overrides the previous ones.

[Beheld]

Right. Which is why it says "usually". It's referring to spells that are exceptions to the rule. But unless a spell is stated to be an exception, it's a DM houserule for it to stack with itself.

No, it is a descriptive statement of what usually occurs. That's all. It doesn't have to provide an explicit named exception, because if something doesn't fit the criteria of the description, then it just doesn't fit that criteria, and that's all there is to it.


Although I think you're wrong about Resist Energy. Unless errata somewhere allows it, it doesn't look like you can use Resist Energy to be protected from more than one energy type simultaneously. The last casting overrides the previous ones.

No, stop making things up. No casting of the spell overrides the previous one. Casting the same spell twice does not override the previous one, if it did, the rule would say "It overrides the previous casting." But it doesn't say that anywhere.


I just had a thought that may bring light to another angle of looking at this. First the relevant rule:


"One spell can render a later spell irrelevant." Could this mean that if you are in a shapeshifted state the second casting of PaO could have no effect?
Consider:
Human casts PaO
Spell changes the Human to a Green Dragon
Dragon casts PaO
Spell tries to change the Human into a Gold Dragon, fails due to no Human being present.

I'm not saying I'm convinced that this is how it should happen, merely that it could be how it does happen. Can anyone cite any other evidence for or against this?

Once again... A spell can render a second one irrelevant. That doesn't mean it does.

Casting a spell with the same name doesn't make the second one irrelevant because this particular description makes it so. This is a descriptive statement about what happens when you cast Heroism, then cast Heroism again.

This has no proscriptive claims in it anywhere, it doesn't even purport to claim anything about the first or second spell causing the second or first spell to do anything.

[Lysander]

No, it is a descriptive statement of what usually occurs. That's all. It doesn't have to provide an explicit named exception, because if something doesn't fit the criteria of the description, then it just doesn't fit that criteria, and that's all there is to it.

No, stop making things up. No casting of the spell overrides the previous one. Casting the same spell twice does not override the previous one, if it did, the rule would say "It overrides the previous casting." But it doesn't say that anywhere.


All I'm saying is that there are spells that explicitly state they can stack with themselves. The rules say that usually they don't. If a DM decides to make another spell stack with itself that's fine, but that's the DM's own houserule.

And yes, casting the same spell twice does override the previous one:


Same Effect with Differing Results
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Resist Energy (fire) and Resist Energy (acid) are the same spell with varying effects. If you cast one it trumps the other, preventing it from functioning. It's spelled out right there.

[Beheld]

All I'm saying is that there are spells that explicitly state they can stack with themselves. The rules say that usually they don't. If a DM decides to make another spell stack with itself that's fine, but that's the DM's own houserule.

And yes, casting the same spell twice does override the previous one:



Resist Energy (fire) and Resist Energy (acid) are the same spell with varying effects. If you cast one it trumps the other, preventing it from functioning. It's spelled out right there.

Words that are not present in the rules section you just quoted:

1)override
2)prevents

Try again.

That is a descriptive commentary on what usually happens, not a proscriptive rule. If that description is not accurate about what happens when you cast a spell twice, there is no rule text that tells you what happens, because it's not proscriptive, it only describes the usual occurrence. If when you cast a spell twice, the effects don't render themselves irrelevant, then obviously that spell is not a usual case.

[Tiki Snakes]

Also note - For some creatures, even this new 'interpretation' wouldn't make much difference.

A Dragonwrought Kobold Wizard would have no trouble permenantly becoming a True Dragon. Even an Great Wyrm, as far as I can see.

Same Kingdom, (Animal) +5
Same Type (Dragon) +2
Same or Lower Intelligence +2 (Great Wyrm, 20 intelligence. I'm sure a Wizard could manage to have 20 intelligence by the point that PAO is available.

Admittedly, that's a black dragon. Red Dragons are a wee bit smarter, White Dragons Dumber, and similar variations in the metallics. Lots of options if you shop around.
Likewise, non-dragon casters just need to pick a dragon with an acceptable intelligence vs size catagory to acheive similar effects.
Some of the metallics can manage up to 16 intelligence and still be medium. All you need. Nothing says you can't raise your intelligence back up afterwards, via manuals or allies casting wish/miracle etc perhaps.

Or you could go for the lulz, and transform all your baby-kobolds and level 1 warrior kobold minions or hired halflings into Dragon Wyrmlings, (Size + intelligence close enough). They don't even need to be dragons to start with to get it permenant.

[Susano-wo]

Original does not have a definition in the rules, and the only implied meaning seems to be that it is the form before the shannigans begin.

This is not Magic The Gathering. Terms like 'the spell "looks" at the creature to determine duration' don't really appear in the rules. Similarly, there are no rules on when or how often a spell checks to determine duration. So its up the individual DM.

No other spell has the oportunity to affect duration on another spell, since they never made a spell that did that (aside from Permenancy, I guess). SO saying that no other spell changes duration after it is cast is fairly irrelecant. No other spell that immediately comes to mind (though I could easily be overlooking one)has such a variable duration, either, so its a bit of a unique case in that regard.

So it doesn't work, even by RAW. Since there is no RAW, as the timing is mostly undefined, and original form is certainly undefined.

(Edit: for the record, class levels are not part of a Form, so you could transform them into adult kobolds, or perhaps even Giant sized Kobolds, but warrior is outside of the scope of the spell :P)

[Lamech]

No, it is a descriptive statement of what usually occurs. That's all. It doesn't have to provide an explicit named exception, because if something doesn't fit the criteria of the description, then it just doesn't fit that criteria, and that's all there is to it.



No, stop making things up. No casting of the spell overrides the previous one. Casting the same spell twice does not override the previous one, if it did, the rule would say "It overrides the previous casting." But it doesn't say that anywhere.This would mean that is always overrides the previous casting which it doesn't. (For example see hallow.) And usally would mean in over 50% of the cases. So lets see, according to you the alter form line isn't one of these the resist/protection from energy doesn't follow this. Nor does hallow/unhallow as per the spell. Align weapon clearly doesn't. Contingency clearly doesn't.

How about alarm, animal messenger, animal shapes, arcane mark, baneful polymorph, the bestow curse line, diminish plants, disguise self, false vision, guards and wards, hallucinatory terrain, imbune with spell ablity, modify memory, plant growth, secret page (the same "original" language appears here, so to supress the first page "original" would mean "with any the spell"), shield other, viel?

And what would be the difference between these spells and the polymorph line? Especially spells such as the bestow curse line where similar to resist energy they have multiple options like resist energy.

And according to my limited counting skills and skimming throught the spell list we got 10 on the clear exceptions to "usally surpess", and 17 of those questions marks...

[Beheld]

So it doesn't work, even by RAW. Since there is no RAW, as the timing is mostly undefined, and original form is certainly undefined.

The timing is defined. And original form is defined.


This would mean that is always overrides the previous casting which it doesn't. And usally would mean in over 50% of the cases.

Usually overrides would mean over 50% of the time, but since it doesn't say usually overrides, in fact, it overrides 0% of the time. (Well if a specific spell called itself out as overriding previous castings.)


So lets see, according to you the alter form line isn't one of these the resist/protection from energy doesn't follow this. Nor does hallow/unhallow as per the spell. Align weapon clearly doesn't. Contingency clearly doesn't.

No, the alter self/polymorph line is in fact an example of where one spell makes another irrelevant. If you polymorph into a horse, then cast it again into a Hydra, the first polymorph, even though it is not dispelled, suppressed, overridden, removed, or otherwise tampered with is still irrelevant.

Align Weapon is an exception to this usually, as is Resist and Protection from Energy, Contingency is also not rendered irrelevant, it is dispelled, as spelled out explicitly in it's description: "You can use only one contingency spell at a time; if a second is cast, the first one (if still active) is dispelled."


How about alarm, animal messenger, animal shapes, arcane mark, baneful polymorph, the bestow curse line, diminish plants, disguise self, false vision, guards and wards, hallucinatory terrain, imbune with spell ablity, modify memory, plant growth, secret page (the same "original" language appears here, so to supress the first page original would mean with out the spell), shield other, viel?

Well, let's see: Alarm if you used on as mental alarm, and the second as physical would be an exception. Animal Messenger would render itself irrelevant, as it can only go to one location. Animal Shapes, like Polymorph, renders the second use irrelevant. Arcane Mark places a Mark is a place, depends on how you define irrelevant, it might be irrelevant if you have one or six marks on you, it might not. Baneful Polymorph doesn't exist, if you meant Baleful, it would of course render itself irrelevant. Bestow Curse is an exception. Diminish Plants and Plant Growth are duration instantaneous, and therefore can never have two casts active on the same plants at once. Guards and Wards is complex, but let's just say it's an exception. Hallucinatory Terrain, False Vision, Disguise Self, and Veil all render the first casting irrelevant.

Secret Page is... I'm not ever sure why you are talking about original form, since that has nothing to do with the rules on multiple castings of the same spell. It seems to be the case that a second casting would render the first irrelevant, but I'm willing to reconsider given an argument.


And what would be the difference between these spells and the polymorph line?

Since the Polymorph line is an example of the text, not an exception, I don't really see what you mean?


And according to my limited counting skills and skimming throught the spell list

According to my counting, being generous, we have nine, however, note that there are a whole lot of spells, after reducing to only the non instantaneous ones, we still probably have upwards of 100 spells, so up to 49 of them could be exceptions with the usually still being true.


we got 10 on the clear exceptions to "usally surpess", and 17 of those questions marks...

Another word that doesn't appear anywhere in that text block? "suppress" The same spell twice doesn't usually suppress the old spell.

[Susano-wo]

The timing is defined. And original form is defined.

Really.
Where.
Cause, ah, I can't find anything that specifically defines Original Form. The closest is the spell you mentioned earlier, which, through what we can both agree is a reasonable interpretation, it implies that original creature is the base form, before magical effects, etc.

And nothing even comes slose to defining timing rules such as when the duration becomes set(during casting, directly after casting, etc), if it can be changed later, whether the spell checks validity of the target after being cast and becomes ineffective if the target becomes invalid, etc.

So, please, if there are rules on this, where can they be found? I see, with both you and Tippy, the assertationthat these are actual rules and defined terms, without actually providing evidence. (Caveat: you provide at least a line of reasoning for the original form definition, though I find it faulty, even if I agree with the end conclusion)

[Lamech]

According to my counting, being generous, we have nine, however, note that there are a whole lot of spells, after reducing to only the non instantaneous ones, we still probably have upwards of 100 spells, so up to 49 of them could be exceptions with the usually still being true.Simply being non-instantanious doesn't mean two spells could nessecarily be cast on the same target with differing effects. For example gate, summon X, MMM, the entiritly of the mental effect lines (or these would ALL be exceptions), every single spell that can not differ in effects (shield, mage armor, power words)


No, the alter self/polymorph line is in fact an example of where one spell makes another irrelevant.Yeah see, but if thats the case since PaO clearly checks after it has changed the subject or checks constantly, then if the first PaO is irrelevent it only lasts for as long as the first would have. So it can't be one of these for the abuse to work.


Secret Page is... I'm not ever sure why you are talking about original form, since that has nothing to do with the rules on multiple castings of the same spell. It seems to be the case that a second casting would render the first irrelevant, but I'm willing to reconsider given an argument.Take a page with a "0", on it. Then cast a secret page making it say "1". Then cast a secret page saying "2". If the caster can access the 1 the first casting is clearly not irrelevent. If he can't then "original" must refer to before any secret page spells were cast.



Usually overrides would mean over 50% of the time, but since it doesn't say usually overrides, in fact, it overrides 0% of the time. (Well if a specific spell called itself out as overriding previous castings.)
It says trumps which it then explains is the earlier spells beng irrelevent.


Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

[Beheld]

As I said, the original form is defined by means of implied usage being identical in all cases.

As for the duration:

"Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a spell entails."

Not, "you can apply whatever results a spell entails, and then recheck every round thereafter." Just, apply effects.


Take a page with a "0", on it. Then cast a secret page making it say "1". Then cast a secret page saying "2". If the caster can access the 1 the first casting is clearly not irrelevent. If he can't then "original" must refer to before any secret page spells were cast.

Yes, my point is that I'm not sure whether the caster can access the one, I don't think he can, precisely because the original form wording.


It says trumps which it then explains is the earlier spells beng irrelevent.

Yes, it most but not all cases, the second spell renders the first irrelevant. Not because of this line, just because that's what happens. When you polymorph into a horse, then a Hydra, the first polymorph is irrelevant regardless of whether there is text describing it as so.

[Susano-wo]

Well, thank for at least giving me a line from the SRD to work with. I still disagree, and I doubt anything can change that, but I appreciate it.

I'll voice my objections within the context of the rule you cited, and Probably leave it at that. I'll check to read any result, but I'm probably done arguing about it. We just see it differently, and since we aren't about to play with each other, much less with one of us as DM, its probably not exactly important that I convince you :D

Implied is not the same as defined. But oh well--we both agree on the final result: a reasonable ruling is that Original Form refers to the form before the various magical effects began to be applied.

The clause you quoted establishes an order for action: determine who is effected, roll savings throws if applicable (and I'd place spell resistance there too), and apply effects. It doesn't say anything about whether a spell needs to be valid through the whole of the effect. Which means you need to make a ruling. Either:
A: only targeting matters, or

B: effects become non-functioning while you are an invalid target for them

(or I guess a third option that says if the spells text mentions a type of effect that becomes invalid--say that it grants its bonuses to animals, cuch as Animal Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animalGrowth.htm)--, then you do not gain the effect when you are not an animal, but if it only mentions, say animals, in the target line, then you are ok, since the effect doesn't say it grants it only to animals)

[DragoonWraith]

Well, thank for at least giving me a line from the SRD to work with. I still disagree, and I doubt anything can change that, but I appreciate it.
Here's what I'm confused about: Do you disagree with the statement that "RAW does not support rechecking the validity of a target once the spell has gone into effect" (and if so, where do you find support?), or do you disagree with "this is how the spell should be run"?

Because the former, again, seems to be without support. There's a line that says when to determine validity (after rolling Saving Throws and failing them), that says nothing about rechecking. Thus, in the absence of any such rule, there is no RAW support for doing any such thing.

And the latter is a bit besides the point, and I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

This question, or equivalent, is something that really bothers me in every RAW argument that ever happens on these boards. Because extremely often people seem to hate the idea that something could be broken in the rules, so they try to twist RAW into something it's not - which is balanced. Why is it so difficult to accept that RAW is stupid, and just houserule?

[Susano-wo]

I think that Raw neither supports nor opposes the idea that you recheck for validity (or to put it diferently, that a spell must retain a valid target to retain its effects). So you have to make a judgement, and I think there are three ways that judgement could be made, logically.

I have 0 problem with modding RAW. I just want to be lear about what it actually says before we go and modify it. Some things don't need to be fixed, since the abuses already do not function by the rules.

I'm also a big believer in coming to the right conclusion through proper reasoning, since only proper reasoning ensures a right conclusion in future issues. (of course no one has 100% proper reasoning, but I feel it is important to try our best)

If I thought it was an issue with the RAW not functioning well, I probably would have, at most, posted a quick 'Silly RAW" post. Most likely I would filed it under humorous in my brain and moved on :P

[Kish]

Is this all (I hope) an academic discussion of RAW, by people who realize that RAI certainly doesn't include "you can get around this limit we put on Polymorph Any Object by casting it multiple times"?

If it is, well and good. If it isn't, I'm afraid I may have cause for despair.

[DragoonWraith]

But your conclusion is not based on the evidence. RAW states when you check validity. To assume that they're might be, should be, or ought to be another time when validity is checked is something you are bringing to the table, and is not RAW. RAW says when validity is checked, and that only happens once, by RAW.

[jmbrown]

So what's the appeal of polymorph any object?

[Worira]

It lets you polymorph any object.

[Tiki Snakes]

So what's the appeal of polymorph any object?

I'd say the fact that depending on what you try to change things into, it's incredibly powerful with just a small amount of tinkering about and careful choice of target form.

One Kobold wizard could transform his entire tribe (permenantly) into Dragons, and himself into a Great Wyrm, for example.

[Mnemnosyne]

Guys clearly PaO, checks after the subject is changed, "Changed Subject Is:" By the time the subject has changed the old polymorph has been surpressed and is rather irrelevent. If the spell checks duration before the subject has changed, there is no "changed subject", so none of the factors apply.
By this interpretation, all castings of PAO are permanent, because the duration is checked against the subject, which has already changed into what he's polymorphing into. Presto, everything matches up 100% and therefore the casting is permanent.

Is this all (I hope) an academic discussion of RAW, by people who realize that RAI certainly doesn't include "you can get around this limit we put on Polymorph Any Item by casting it multiple times"?

If it is, well and good. If it isn't, I'm afraid I may have cause for despair.
Some of us are Lawful Evil in real life. :smallbiggrin:

[jmbrown]

I'd say the fact that depending on what you try to change things into, it's incredibly powerful with just a small amount of tinkering about and careful choice of target form.

One Kobold wizard could transform his entire tribe (permenantly) into Dragons, and himself into a Great Wyrm, for example.

Seems like it would cause more problems for the caster than anything else. Dragons or not, it's still a polymorph spell meaning you don't have the supernatural or spell-like abilities of the creature nor do you have magic resistance. The duration may be permanent but that doesn't mean it can't be dispelled. True seeing, which is fairly common at that point as the defeat-all-illusions spell, will reveal their true form instantly. Finally, the creature's intelligence changes into the new form. If you're an old fashioned DM like me, that means they gain the knowledge and mannerisms of their new form. Your allied fighter may be strong enough not to go on a rampage but polymorphing a kobold into a dragon and then expecting him to wait around for a day until the original caster rememorizes polymorph any object isn't going to go along well ("Whoah, me big now! Me give the orders around here!" *Eats sorcerer*). I wouldn't change a rock into a dragon because nothing says it's on your side especially when its intelligence, wisdom, and charisma assumes the new form. In all respects, you literally created a random monster that's now licking its chops and contemplating whether to roast you over an open flame or boil you with stock and butter.

So, yeah, I don't see the big deal (unless you're chaotic neutral and use the spell as an explanation why so many god damn monsters exist in the world). It's an 8th level spell that can only duplicate the effects of several lower level spells and successive castings may or may not be permanent. At 15th level, pretty much everyone and their mother has access to anti-magic and greater dispel. Your kobold/dragon army may terrorize a small section of land but as soon as an adventuring party realizes that "Hey, these dragons aren't casting spells or breathing fire" of if they cast true seeing and notice that there are flying kobolds, they're going to get smart and start dispelling or putting up anti-magic fields. At that point kobolds begin dropping from the sky.

It has its utility uses like when you need a value-less object NOW but shape-change is better from a combat perspective, fabricate is better when you want to create an actual item because it's instantaneous, and there are too many ways to defeat polymorph any object.

Edit: I can think of a funny use for it. Change a giant into a piece of meat or something and feed it to someone you hate. As soon as the meat "dies" it changes into the giant. Laughs for everyone!

[Gan The Grey]

By this interpretation, all castings of PAO are permanent, because the duration is checked against the subject, which has already changed into what he's polymorphing into. Presto, everything matches up 100% and therefore the casting is permanent.


No, because it clearly states that duration is determined by comparing the original form with the enchanted form. Line by line execution:

varOriginalForm = Human Wizard
varCurrentForm = varOriginalForm
-------------------
Cast Polymorph Any Object
varEnchantedForm = Dragon
varCurrentForm = varEnchantedForm
Check Duration
If varEnchantedForm.Kingdom = varOriginalForm.Kingdom Then
varDuration +5
Endif
If varEnchantedForm.Class = varOriginalForm.Class then
varDuration +2
Endif
If varEnchantedForm.Size = varOriginalForm.Size then
varDuration +2
Endif
If varEnchantedForm.Related = varOriginalForm.Related then
varDuration +2
Endif
If varEnchantedForm.Intelligence =< varOriginalForm.Intelligence then
varDuration +2
Endif
Check Duration End

Select Case varDuration....so forth and so on.

Mostly....I just wanted to do some programming.

[Susano-wo]

Dragoon: RAW doesn't support either. A line telling you how to resolve a spell upon its casting is hardly a definite prescription for whether a spell can continue to affect something if the target becomes invalid after the casting is done. That rule was neglected, so the DM has to make a ruling.

But oh, well. I'm sure life will go on, either way :D

[ericgrau]

This is a case of a semi-ambiguous rule being interpreted in the way that most favors the PC. The wording of the spell and magic rules make both permanent and based on original creature type plausible, but purely the fact that this is an "Exploit" should tell you not to do it and to have the spells overlap as individual spells based on the original target instead of one feeding off the other.

By the magic rules overlapping means the first spell is still active, but it has become irrelevant due to the second spell. It is as if only the second spell was cast. If the second spell is dispelled then the first spell will become relevant again.

[Lamech]

By this interpretation, all castings of PAO are permanent, because the duration is checked against the subject, which has already changed into what he's polymorphing into. Presto, everything matches up 100% and therefore the casting is permanent.Err... no? It would be "checked" against the original state. See the spell description:
"The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its enchanted state."


Yes, my point is that I'm not sure whether the caster can access the one, I don't think he can, precisely because the original form wording.Ahh... the reason I assumed that you would want to argue the one can be accessed is because secret page also mentions "original". So if the one can't be accessed for secret page then it appears the "original" state would be the unpolymorphed state.

And this is the interpertation I would take for original actually. Especially since then we have an enchanted state being checked against an enchanted state and things rapidly become confusing.

[Beheld]

Ahh... the reason I assumed that you would want to argue the one can be accessed is because secret page also mentions "original". So if the one can't be accessed for secret page then it appears the "original" state would be the unpolymorphed state.

And this is the interpertation I would take for original actually. Especially since then we have an enchanted state being checked against an enchanted state and things rapidly become confusing.

As I had already spelled out multiple times. The usage of "original form" is fairly consistent across alternate form/change shape/various polymorph effects and reincarnate. And it does actually prevent the PAO from permanenting itself.

[Tiki Snakes]

I've not previously seen any suggestion that PAO also modifies personality, even if it does potentially affect mental capacity.

I'm guessing random sorcerer-eating isn't a feature of having 10 intelligence, given the human race's general tendancy not to have destroyed itself in a canibalistic orgy yet.

Kobolds into Dragons, though they were just an example, has the additional benefits of kobolds being rabidly pro-dragon and communistically dedicated to their tribe. So they'd love getting to be a dragon, and would almost certainly not suddenly destroy their family.

If the only thing balancing the ability permenantly to turn a 1hd (4hp) warrior into an 13hd (110hp) flying lizard is that the DM might Fiat that they instantly screw you over, then...well, yeah. :smallsmile: As the Cheif Sorcerer of my Kobold Tribe, that's a risk I'm very willing to take, you know?

[Beheld]

If the only thing balancing the ability permenantly to turn a 1hd (4hp) warrior into an 13hd (110hp) flying lizard is that the DM might Fiat that they instantly screw you over, then...well, yeah. :smallsmile: As the Cheif Sorcerer of my Kobold Tribe, that's a risk I'm very willing to take, you know?

Technically, per various inheritances and polymorph errata, they'd still be like 4 HP each or even less, depending on the rolls and their stats.

So yeah. They would be the funniest magic missile deaths ever.

Level 1 Sorcerers would be taking them down one per round.

[jmbrown]

I've not previously seen any suggestion that PAO also modifies personality, even if it does potentially affect mental capacity.

I'm guessing random sorcerer-eating isn't a feature of having 10 intelligence, given the human race's general tendancy not to have destroyed itself in a canibalistic orgy yet.

Kobolds into Dragons, though they were just an example, has the additional benefits of kobolds being rabidly pro-dragon and communistically dedicated to their tribe. So they'd love getting to be a dragon, and would almost certainly not suddenly destroy their family.

If the only thing balancing the ability permenantly to turn a 1hd (4hp) warrior into an 13hd (110hp) flying lizard is that the DM might Fiat that they instantly screw you over, then...well, yeah. :smallsmile: As the Cheif Sorcerer of my Kobold Tribe, that's a risk I'm very willing to take, you know?

3e edited it out but, as I said, I'm an "old school" DM and AD&D ruled that polymorph could permanently change your mentality to the select form. Even in 3e it makes sense because your intelligence becomes the new form which instantly expands your cognitive thinking and logic. Going from 8 intelligence to 18 in a single second is likened to seeing the world completely differently for the first time. Using PaO's examples, a shrew turned into a manticore most certainly wouldn't behave like a timid shrew and a manticore turned into a shrew will eventually adapt to the life of a weak animal to the point of becoming that animal. Transforming an inanimate object into a lion will most certainly create a lion, not a lion with the mentality of a rock.

The difference between kobolds and humans, regardless of intelligence, is perception. They're constantly depicted in literature and fluff as a weak, cowardly race who are held together in the tribal system by a powerful leader. If the leader shows weakness or someone in the tribe becomes more powerful, they're going to exert their power.

Since kobolds revere dragons as deities, I think it's very fair to assume the moment a lowly kobold commoner is transformed into a 15HD red dragon it's going to assume command immediately and demand worship. They're not going to share that power, at least not while they're in a form where they can easily wipe out everyone else instantly. Dragons certainly don't care about kobolds as anything other than minions; a kobold turned into a dragon is the boss now.

[Gametime]

Dragons are pretty smart. Although I agree that dragons are likely to be arrogant and desire worship and tribute from those around them, they're also likely to realize that the being who just turned them all into dragons is probably more than a little powerful. (If the sorcerer didn't transform himself into a dragon first, this is less likely, but that's just asking for trouble.)

I, personally, wouldn't be worried about the dragons immediately betraying me; there's relatively little to gain and a lot to lose. I would be worried about betrayal at some more convenient point down the line, since red dragons are not particularly loyal.