Retain class features while polymorphed?

[Dalebert]

This makes me facepalm. WTH, Mearls? I'm fairly confident Crawford would disagree.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/04/if-i-cast-polymorph-on-a-druid-character-can-he-use-wild-shape/

If druids retain their class features while polymorphed, what about everyone else? Can a fighter use Second Wind? Can a rogue use Cunning Action? Can a sorcerer cast spells using Subtle Spell? I think not.

[ClintACK]

RAW says "...the spell has no effect on a shape changer..."

Doesn't seem at all out of line to say that the Druid could blow one use of Wildshape to either ignore the polymorph or instead end up wild shaped. (At the cost of whatever action it takes the particular druid to wild shape usually.)


Re: other class features...

RAW: "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech."

And its mental stats change.

So, no diplomacy, but I'd imagine a barbarian could still rage, for example.

[Kryx]

The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can't speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech.
Wild shaping is an action (or bonus action).

I wouldn't allow it.


On the topic of Mearls: While I love Crawford's rules insights Mearls does far more harm than good. Most of the time he seemingly has no idea how the rules were designed to work. He is also responsible for the latest feats UA that added +1 to attack. He designed the system and seemingly doesn't know why it was designed in such a way! I can only assume the other designers (many have left besides Crawford) were the more influential ones and he was just checking it over.

[Dalebert]

RAW says "...the spell has no effect on a shape changer..."

It was pointed out to me the other day that druids aren't considered shape changers. They don't have the tag anyway. That means things like Moonbeam won't revert them. If so that would kind of suck because polymorph is frequently used on a consenting ally to assume a useful shape. Supposedly there's a tweet about it or an errata.



RAW: "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech."


The reason I've always assumed class features go away (all of them) is because your "game statistics [...] are replaced by the new form". So what sorts of things are included in "game statistics"? It certainly seems very broad.

[pwykersotz]

I might consider a houserule that would allow a Druid to auto-save or revert from a Polymorph by spending a Wild Shape use, but I don't believe Mearls is on solid ground here.

[Gwendol]

Twitter is no rules. As usual their responses are best ignored.

[Foxhound438]

polymorph temporarily replaces all game stats of the target; although the term game statistics is never explicitly defined in any of the books, it refers to everything, to include class abilities like wild shape and spellcasting. The line about "not being able to do anything that requires hands or speach" is likely there to say you can't drink potions and such.

the spell shapechange on the other hand specifically says that you do retain your class features, so you would be able to rage as a whatever you become, or wild shape during the duration.

[Kryx]

Twitter is no rules. As usual their responses are best ignored.
Don't group Crawford with Mearls. Mearls has no idea what he's talking about.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, this one probably needs to be playground'd. If we consider druids to be shapeshifters, they should automatically succeed on saving throws to resist polymorph, as per the spell text. But nothing in the description indicates that they can end the spell early, unless they're the one concentrating on it.

[R.Shackleford]

Ok, so I'm not a fan of Mearles but he has said multiple times that when he responds to rules questions he isn't talking about RAW, RAI, or anything like that. He is, typically at least, talking about how he would rule it in his games.

Crawford is the one that gives RAI/RAW whatever rulings that are primarily useful for public play or for giving you a baseline place to start when you decide to make a ruling yourself.

[Quintessence]

Wild shaping is an action (or bonus action).

I wouldn't allow it.


On the topic of Mearls: While I love Crawford's rules insights Mearls does far more harm than good. Most of the time he seemingly has no idea how the rules were designed to work. He is also responsible for the latest feats UA that added +1 to attack. He designed the system and seemingly doesn't know why it was designed in such a way! I can only assume the other designers (many have left besides Crawford) were the more influential ones and he was just checking it over.

There is no reason to not allow it, wildshaping isn't a spell and doesn't require speech or hand movement. It meets all of the requirements to still be used :/

[RickAllison]

There is no reason to not allow it, wildshaping isn't a spell and doesn't require speech or hand movement. It meets all of the requirements to still be used :/

Except not being a statistic of the beast form from Polymorph. If you check out the section on statistics in the MM, it includes everything from AC and HP to what actions you take.

[Dalebert]

There is no reason to not allow it, wildshaping isn't a spell and doesn't require speech or hand movement. It meets all of the requirements to still be used :/

Only if you ignore the earlier part that says your game statistics get replaced by the beast's. This seems to me to mean your class features are replaced by the beast's features.

That said, this does appear to raise a question. Why bother to say that? If you no longer even have the class feature of spell-casting or whatever other class feature, then why is that part even there? It seems extraneous and like extra language that they tend to avoid in this edition unless it's somehow relevant.

I'm going to venture into hypothetical territory here because I feel like this hasn't been resolved and I am leaning toward "you have lost your class features temporarily". IF you merely can't cast spells because you can't speak or make hand gestures, then couldn't a sorcerer use subtle spell to cast spells that have no material component, or even with that if his form could hold a focus like an ape? His charisma would almost certainly drop which would affect spell DCs but I see no reason why he couldn't, IF (big "if") he still retained his class features.

[RickAllison]

Only if you ignore the earlier part that says your game statistics get replaced by the beast's. This seems to me to mean your class features are replaced by the beast's features.

That said, this does appear to raise a question. Why bother to say that? If you no longer even have the class feature of spell-casting or whatever other class feature, then why is that part even there? It seems extraneous and like extra language that they tend to avoid in this edition unless it's somehow relevant.

I'm going to venture into hypothetical territory here because I feel like this hasn't been resolved and I am leaning toward "you have lost your class features temporarily". IF you merely can't cast spells because you can't speak or make hand gestures, then couldn't a sorcerer use subtle spell to cast spells that have no material component, or even with that if his form could hold a focus like an ape? His charisma would almost certainly drop which would affect spell DCs but I see no reason why he couldn't, IF (big "if") he still retained his class features.

I think it could have to do with things like magic items. If the form can't make the appropriate gestures and speech, you can't cast Wish from a magic ring, for example.

[MaxWilson]

Don't group Crawford with Mearls. Mearls has no idea what he's talking about.

Neither does Crawford.

[Easy_Lee]

Neither does Crawford.

Crawford seems to come at things from a RAW-only perspective. It differs quite a bit from my perspective, which is all about player agency. It's also not the same as a balance-focused perspective, everyone being about equally useful, which I believe is quite common on these forums.

One example, if I may make an aside: player A has Mage Slayer and is standing next to a monster who hits him with shocking grasp, which prevents reactions. According to Crawford, the reaction does not occur because the reaction happens after the triggering spell (rule is somewhere in the DMG). From my perspective, they should be simultaneous, as no one should lose their rightful action. From a balance perspective, it could go either way.

In short, rulings not rules seems to be the name of the game this generation.

[R.Shackleford]

Neither does Crawford.

Crawford actually doesn't do a half bad job on RAW. I'm not a big fan of RAW but he adheres by it quite well.

Mearls is weird. He was weird in 4e and he is weird in 5e. I'm not a mearls fan and I believe most of the weirdness in 4e and 5e wouldn't be there if he wasn't the head hancho.

[MaxWilson]

Crawford actually doesn't do a half bad job on RAW. I'm not a big fan of RAW but he adheres by it quite well.

He's right some of the time, but a 20% or so false positive rate makes him worse than useless.

"Not half bad" and "quite well" aren't good enough for someone who's put himself in a referee position.

[R.Shackleford]

He's right some of the time, but a 20% or so false positive rate makes him worse than useless.

"Not half bad" and "quite well" aren't good enough for someone who's put himself in a referee position.

Just because you don't like with what is actually written down (RAW) doesn't make his explanations of what they intended or what is written down useless.

On RAI he is 100% correct as he is really the only authority to give us RAI and on RAW he follows what is in the book quite well.

Just cause you don't like what the book says doesn't mean his explanations on what the books says is wrong.

[Kryx]

Just because you don't like with what is actually written down (RAW) doesn't make his explanations of what they intended or what is written down useless.

On RAI he is 100% correct as he is really the only authority to give us RAI and on RAW he follows what is in the book quite well.

Just cause you don't like what the book says doesn't mean his explanations on what the books says is wrong.
Exactly this. His RAI is more insightful than RAW for me.

[MaxWilson]

Exactly this. His RAI is more insightful than RAW for me.

Right, and if he stuck to conveying RAI he'd be useful. Where he gets into trouble is when he says things about the rules which directly contradict RAW, without making it clear if he's conveying RAI or is simply wrong. Some of them (like the druid max HP thing) he later retracts with a statement about how he wasn't thinking clearly; others he just leaves them on Twitter forever, which increases confusion instead of resolving it, at least for the people who read his Tweets.

Examples available upon request, but for now I'm assuming that you know as well as I do which class of errors I'm referring to.

One reason I like Mearls better is that (1) he tends to be more insightful about RAI; (2) he's open about the fact that he's just giving his own interpretation, so people are less likely to get confused when Mearls says something that contradicts RAW. They just shrug it off. When Crawford says something, some people tend to think of it as an amendment to the PHB, even when it isn't. They'd be better off thinking of him in the same light as Mearls.

[Quintessence]

Only if you ignore the earlier part that says your game statistics get replaced by the beast's. This seems to me to mean your class features are replaced by the beast's features.

That said, this does appear to raise a question. Why bother to say that? If you no longer even have the class feature of spell-casting or whatever other class feature, then why is that part even there? It seems extraneous and like extra language that they tend to avoid in this edition unless it's somehow relevant.

I'm going to venture into hypothetical territory here because I feel like this hasn't been resolved and I am leaning toward "you have lost your class features temporarily". IF you merely can't cast spells because you can't speak or make hand gestures, then couldn't a sorcerer use subtle spell to cast spells that have no material component, or even with that if his form could hold a focus like an ape? His charisma would almost certainly drop which would affect spell DCs but I see no reason why he couldn't, IF (big "if") he still retained his class features.

What exactly does "game statistics" encompass though?

It still seems really odd to even include that if you do lose your class features, there isn't a concrete saying one way or the other. Like druid wildshape allows you to retain class features but you also retain your mental stats it just blocks off casting until much later. Polymorph is always such a ****show, you would think after all this time we would finally have proper rules for it...

[Kryx]

Right, and if he stuck to conveying RAI he'd be useful. Where he gets into trouble is when he says things about the rules which directly contradict RAW, without making it clear if he's conveying RAI or is simply wrong. Some of them (like the druid max HP thing) he later retracts with a statement about how he wasn't thinking clearly; others he just leaves them on Twitter forever, which increases confusion instead of resolving it, at least for the people who read his Tweets.
I've only found less than 5 times where he is incorrect, and 2 of those he corrected pretty quickly. There are some, like Lucky, where his ruling is pretty damn bonkers. But overall he is pretty spot on with RAW I find.


One reason I like Mearls better is that (1) he tends to be more insightful about RAI; (2) he's open about the fact that he's just giving his own interpretation, so people are less likely to get confused when Mearls says something that contradicts RAW. They just shrug it off. When Crawford says something, some people tend to think of it as an amendment to the PHB, even when it isn't. They'd be better off thinking of him in the same light as Mearls.
Mearls makes rulings that go against to the system his team designed. His rulings are worse than no rulings - they provide really poor examples for people to consider.

[Dalebert]

I humbly ask that we get back on topic. Can someone perhaps start a "Crawford is an idiot" thread or something. :smallbiggrin:

[Kryx]

I think the topic has already run its course.

IMO a wild shaped druid automatically saves via shapechanger clause. A non-wild shaped druid can't choose to wildshape while polymorphed.

[MaxWilson]

I humbly ask that we get back on topic.

Okay, RE: the OP, you had asked what features a Polymorphed fighter/etc. would retain. Here's some data for you from EnWorld DMs:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?460092-Poll-Polymorph-Shenanigans

The general consensus (85-90% of DMs) is that "nothing gets retained/game statistics means 'everything'", but there are certain features that are even less popular than the average.

Which way your DM swings probably says something about his DMing style. Read the thread, summarize the arguments on both sides, and then ask him for his ruling at your table.

[Dalebert]

Well I play almost exclusively AL so I'd be curious if there's been a ruling by them. I'll probably post it in the AL Facebook group.

[Socratov]

Just to be clear, if game statistics mean everything, then there is nothing to change back to: you aren't someone changed into a shape temporarily, you become a new shape. period. There is no you anymore. There is no "Bruenor the Fighter" anymore, there is fieldmouse. As far as I'm concerned it's either that, or you retain your identity and classfeatures as long as you can use them acccording to the rules and options of your new form. That would mean a druid wildshaping, a barbarian raging, a fighter second winding, a sorcerer subtle spelling, anything that is not restricted by your new form (and in the case of a raven even speaking). That said I consider Polymorph to be a stupid spell anyway. It's been buffed and nerfed to hell and back so hard that the spell is not a spell anymore but a botched attempt at legal writing.

I'd rather have spell broken up in the following way:

4th: aspect of the beast : you take on an aspect of the beast like natural weapon extraordinary senses, etc. it does not grant you anything more then extraordinary and stops at magical or quasi magical effects. This could include wings for flight. You can take on physical aspects of a creature of up to spelllevel * 2 in CR. (time for concentration)

5th: Trap the mind: You change a creature you can see into a new form. it's physical statistics are replaced with the physical statistics of another creature. You can take on physical aspects of a creature of up to spelllevel * 2 in CR. (time limits like in Geas)

9th: Polymorph: you change a creature or object into another creature or object. if you change a creature into another creature or object that creature gets to make a wisdom save, yadda, yadda, permanent. All the targets game statistics get replaced by the new forms statistics. This spell may also be used to produce a permanent effect of afore mentioned spells.

[Easy_Lee]

Honestly, the rules seem clear to me. You're a beast with a beast's stat block until you switch back. If you're a shapeshifter, you automatically pass the save to avoid being polymorphed, but anyone can willingly allow themself to be polymorphed.

The only question in my mind is what constitutes a shapeshifter. Anyone with a shape shift feature? Only people who can do it at will without expending a spell slot? Transmutation wizards with their level 10 feature? All druids? That part is unclear.

[Socratov]

Honestly, the rules seem clear to me. You're a beast with a beast's stat block until you switch back. If you're a shapeshifter, you automatically pass the save to avoid being polymorphed, but anyone can willingly allow themself to be polymorphed.

The only question in my mind is what constitutes a shapeshifter. Anyone with a shape shift feature? Only people who can do it at will without expending a spell slot? Transmutation wizards with their level 10 feature? All druids? That part is unclear.

Yes, there is also that... I'd rule Druids to be shapeshifters, especially if they are a 14th lvl moon druid.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, it's pretty annoying that the spell uses the term "game statistics" without ever defining what it does/doesn't mean. The DM just has to man up and make a ruling.

My personal ruling: it replaces your Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha and HP, it overrides any physical effects of your race (such as darkvision), and that's it. Your class abilities still exist and are available if appropriate for the new form. If you were Lucky before you were a ferret, you're now a Lucky ferret. If you were Mobile before you were a hippo, you're now a remarkably sleek and mobile hippo. If you were a demonic telepathic Rakshasa immune to normal weapons before you were a bunny, you're now a demonic telepathic bunny immune to normal weapons. It's simplest that way from a conceptual standpoint, and easiest to explain the in-world logic. There's value in simplicity.

[Dalebert]

Just to be clear, if game statistics mean everything, then there is nothing to change back to: you aren't someone changed into a shape temporarily, you become a new shape. period.

I don't follow this at all. The spell specifically has an effect that lasts for a duration of 1 hour or when concentration ends. It's saying all your statistics are replaced for the duration except your mind (though even that becomes limited by the new mental statistics).

[ClintACK]

There was a good attempt in 3.5e to replace the broken Polymorph spells with a bunch of very specific spells.

See: "Aspect of the Wolf", a 1st level spell for Rangers and Druids that turned the caster into a wolf. It had paragraphs *specifically* calling out what you kept and what you lost. (You kept Rage and Sneak Attack, for example, but not any racial extraordinary abilities or any spell-like abilities from any source.)

But that was when WotC was still trying to patch over rules exploits with more and more specific rules. That's not 5e. In 5e, it's up to the DM to say that your design for a Flaming Hasted Flurrying Tyrannosaurus Rex Monk is really cool... and yeah, looks like it might work RAW, but for some reason the spells just don't work that way in this D&D universe. But save it for the craziest-builds one-off we're doing over spring break.

[Waffle_Iron]

Mearls proves again that he doesn't understand the system "he wrote"

[Socratov]

I don't follow this at all. The spell specifically has an effect that lasts for a duration of 1 hour or when concentration ends. It's saying all your statistics are replaced for the duration except your mind (though even that becomes limited by the new mental statistics).

And this is exactly my gripe with it: you lose everything, including what makes your mind, but not your mind? :smallconfused:

if you lose int enough to become an animal you lose your sense of self (that is int 2 or lower, people), can you get back? is it suppressed? I can accept magic is magic, but you lose everything that makes you, well, you, but not at the same time? Now that's just lazily written. What's more, it's inconsistent.

[RickAllison]

Yeah, it's pretty annoying that the spell uses the term "game statistics" without ever defining what it does/doesn't mean. The DM just has to man up and make a ruling.

My personal ruling: it replaces your Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha and HP, it overrides any physical effects of your race (such as darkvision), and that's it. Your class abilities still exist and are available if appropriate for the new form. If you were Lucky before you were a ferret, you're now a Lucky ferret. If you were Mobile before you were a hippo, you're now a remarkably sleek and mobile hippo. If you were a demonic telepathic Rakshasa immune to normal weapons before you were a bunny, you're now a demonic telepathic bunny immune to normal weapons. It's simplest that way from a conceptual standpoint, and easiest to explain the in-world logic. There's value in simplicity.

These responses honestly tick me off. They have explained exactly what statistics entail, at the beginning of the Monster Manual! It has a huge section under exactly what parts of a creature are its statistics. You can't claim a rule doesn't exist when it does.

As for how losing your abilities but not your personality, it makes fine sense to me. Your bonds, your flaws, your ideals, your traits, and your alignment. If your PC felt bound to protect a village, he would do that just as a dog. If he was instinctively distrustful of new people, he would be a dog that growls at strangers.

[Socratov]

These responses honestly tick me off. They have explained exactly what statistics entail, at the beginning of the Monster Manual! It has a huge section under exactly what parts of a creature are its statistics. You can't claim a rule doesn't exist when it does.

As for how losing your abilities but not your personality, it makes fine sense to me. Your bonds, your flaws, your ideals, your traits, and your alignment. If your PC felt bound to protect a village, he would do that just as a dog. If he was instinctively distrustful of new people, he would be a dog that growls at strangers.

except that when your int wis and cha get tanked you, by the game statistics, don't have the mental capabilities to act like, to in some cases even remember to be such a character. As those scores get tanked instinct resurfaces (assuming they were repressed by our sense of society) and if long enough, you forget you were a person to begin with. Unless you think it's reasonable that as part of the spell it makes a back-up of your personality, class, skills learned over a lifetime, memories and experiences and stores them onto a magical micro SD card for until the spell wears off when the magical equivalent of a restore happens? Call me stupid but the whole spell sits bad with me.

[MaxWilson]

These responses honestly tick me off. They have explained exactly what statistics entail, at the beginning of the Monster Manual! It has a huge section under exactly what parts of a creature are its statistics. You can't claim a rule doesn't exist when it does.


(1) Sorry, I'm AFB. What does the MM say that supports the view that a PC's abilities, such as a Fighter's Extra Attack, are monster statistics and are therefore lost when Polymorphed? The SRD has nothing. It just equates "statistics" with "stat block", and since PCs and especially abilities like Extra Attack don't come from MM-style stat blocks, that isn't dispositive or even really helpful. Taking your guidance literally, you wind up in the same place I already suggested: PCs keep feats/class abilities/etc., they just lose mental abilities and physical traits like darkvision, which show up in the monster stat block. The only additional factor is by following MM definitions of "statistics" the PC might gain/lose skills and skill proficiencies too. But you'd still have a 20th level fighter T-Rex making four bite attacks per turn and Action Surging for another four--and many people might think this is unintended.

(2) The MM wasn't even published yet when the PHB came out, including Polymorph. So even if the MM defines the terms, it's not really an excuse for the PHB ambiguity.

[Dalebert]

As for how losing your abilities but not your personality, it makes fine sense to me. Your bonds, your flaws, your ideals, your traits, and your alignment. If your PC felt bound to protect a village, he would do that just as a dog. If he was instinctively distrustful of new people, he would be a dog that growls at strangers.

Right, this seems intuitive enough to me. I would say you know more than a dog because you learned it as a human. What you can do with that knowledge is limited. You're incapable of speech or doing math because that requires your human brain. There are certain things that are mechanically disallowed with lower than a certain intelligence. You can't do anything that a creature of your type couldn't do, but you would essentially be an exceptional version of that creature within the limits of your stats. A dog can learn a few words so someone polymorphed to a dog might be able to recall a few key words as well. Maybe you could give them an int roll to understand an extremely basic command like saying "fetch" while pointing at an object.


Unless you think it's reasonable that as part of the spell it makes a back-up of your personality, class, skills learned over a lifetime, memories and experiences and stores them onto a magical micro SD card for until the spell wears off when the magical equivalent of a restore happens? Call me stupid but the whole spell sits bad with me.

You are still in there. It's a bit like a very strong character being tied up and having to work within those extra impairments. Your mind is temporarily restrained. Everything is still there but your thinking is limited. You might struggle to remember the word for something or how to count and it seems just out of reach of your mind. It's like your mind is trapped and has to look out at the world through keyholes rather than that a chunk of your mind is just gone.

[Waar]

Page 11 of the PHB says that the player character is a combination of roleplaying hooks, game statistics and the players imagination. So it would seem as if game statistics really mean all the game statistics except for the roleplaying bits.

[RickAllison]

(1) Sorry, I'm AFB. What does the MM say that supports the view that a PC's abilities, such as a Fighter's Extra Attack, are monster statistics and are therefore lost when Polymorphed? The SRD has nothing. It just equates "statistics" with "stat block", and since PCs and especially abilities like Extra Attack don't come from MM-style stat blocks, that isn't dispositive or even really helpful. Taking your guidance literally, you wind up in the same place I already suggested: PCs keep feats/class abilities/etc., they just lose mental abilities and physical traits like darkvision, which show up in the monster stat block. The only additional factor is by following MM definitions of "statistics" the PC might gain/lose skills and skill proficiencies too. But you'd still have a 20th level fighter T-Rex making four bite attacks per turn and Action Surging for another four--and many people might think this is unintended.

(2) The MM wasn't even published yet when the PHB came out, including Polymorph. So even if the MM defines the terms, it's not really an excuse for the PHB ambiguity.

The statistics (according to Open5e, which is from the SRD) include size, type, alignment, AC, HP, speed, ability scores and its subsidiary holdings including saving throws and skills, vulnerabilities, resistances, immunities, senses, all armor and weapon and tool proficiencies, special traits (which are said to include anything that could be relevant to the game), spellcasting, actions besides those available to every creature like Dash, and even equipment. Class levels would probably fall into special traits.

Remember that all creatures have a statblock, it is just that those of PCs are called character sheets.

[MaxWilson]

The statistics (according to Open5e, which is from the SRD) include size, type, alignment, AC, HP, speed, ability scores and its subsidiary holdings including saving throws and skills, vulnerabilities, resistances, immunities, senses, all armor and weapon and tool proficiencies, special traits (which are said to include anything that could be relevant to the game), spellcasting, actions besides those available to every creature like Dash, and even equipment. Class levels would probably fall into special traits.

Remember that all creatures have a statblock, it is just that those of PCs are called character sheets.

Not quite. Special traits are "Special traits (which appear after a monster’s challenge rating but before any actions or reactions) are characteristics that are likely to be relevant in a combat encounter and that require some explanation." Emphasis added. Clearly "special traits" is not intended to even cover all special abilities of the creature type; still less does it indicate that all class levels should be considered a Special Trait. If all A are B, and some C are B, that doesn't entail that all C are A. A=Special Traits; B=combat-relevant abilities that require explanation; C = class abilities.

Things like the Lucky feat and Extra Attack are clearly not size, type, alignment, AC, HP, speed, etc. The only thing they could possibly be is Special Traits, but they're not clearly spelled out as special traits--you're just assuming they are. ("Begging the question.") Which brings us right back around to the fact that you were irked ("You can't claim a rule doesn't exist when it does") that anyone could possibly criticize the vagueness of Polymorph's reference to "game statistics" when the term is clearly spelled out in detail in the MM. Except that it's not.

Face it, Rick, your argument about the clarity of "game statistics" is circular. It's clear to you only because you have a clear definition in your head of what the ambiguous term "special traits" refers to.

It's not clear at all whether Mearls, for example, is right or wrong when he says that a Polymorphed druid can wildshape. RAW is ambiguous, which means the only one who knows the answer is Mearl's DM.


TL;DR It's too bad Polymorph doesn't bother to define the term "game statistics" before using it in the rule text. That means the DM has to make a judgment call based on what makes sense to him/her.

[Safety Sword]

Crawford seems to come at things from a RAW-only perspective. It differs quite a bit from my perspective, which is all about player agency. It's also not the same as a balance-focused perspective, everyone being about equally useful, which I believe is quite common on these forums.

One example, if I may make an aside: player A has Mage Slayer and is standing next to a monster who hits him with shocking grasp, which prevents reactions. According to Crawford, the reaction does not occur because the reaction happens after the triggering spell (rule is somewhere in the DMG). From my perspective, they should be simultaneous, as no one should lose their rightful action. From a balance perspective, it could go either way.

In short, rulings not rules seems to be the name of the game this generation.

Do we need another 30+ page thread on Mage Slayer vs Shocking Grasp?

[Easy_Lee]

Do we need another 30+ page thread on Mage Slayer vs Shocking Grasp?

My comment was on the first page. Your reply, referring to the 30+ page thread, is here at the bottom of the second. Which one of us is trying to start an argument? I'm certainly not, just illustrating a point: Crawford and Mearls have motivations behind their rules which may differ from our own.

Back on topic, does anyone know of a clear definition for "shapeshifter"? It's kind of important to know who does and who doesn't automatically pass their save vs. polymorph.

[Safety Sword]

My comment was on the first page. Your reply, referring to the 30+ page thread, is here at the bottom of the second. Which one of us is trying to start an argument? I'm certainly not, just illustrating a point: Crawford and Mearls have motivations behind their rules which may differ from our own.

Back on topic, does anyone know of a clear definition for "shapeshifter"? It's kind of important to know who does and who doesn't automatically pass their save vs. polymorph.

I just found it interesting that you'd pick that exact example. And I only just read the thread. So my reply went where it went.

I have actually asked this exact question about the druids and shape changing in a previous thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416273-Are-Druids-Shape-Changers

[Dalebert]

Having the "shapechanger" tag apparently.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/25/do-wild-shaped-druids-or-polymorphed-creatures-count-as-shapechangers-for-moonbeam/

[Easy_Lee]

Having the "shapechanger" tag apparently.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/25/do-wild-shaped-druids-or-polymorphed-creatures-count-as-shapechangers-for-moonbeam/

Oh, well now, that's interesting. So players aren't shapechangers unless they pick a race or something which gives them that tag? That's a bit...odd.

[RickAllison]

My comment was on the first page. Your reply, referring to the 30+ page thread, is here at the bottom of the second. Which one of us is trying to start an argument? I'm certainly not, just illustrating a point: Crawford and Mearls have motivations behind their rules which may differ from our own.

Back on topic, does anyone know of a clear definition for "shapeshifter"? It's kind of important to know who does and who doesn't automatically pass their save vs. polymorph.

I could have sworn that shapechanger was better defined, but it appears not. I think one of the key differences between a Druid and a true shapechanger is not the at-will nature, but the retaining of HP. This may seem kind of small, but it seems to make a difference because shapechangers change shape while a Druid takes one.

I suppose the thinking is that because a shapechanger is instinctually competent in transforming, they can bypass the process. A Druid, on the other hand, has no innate knowledge because it is a learned process.

[Professor Gnoll]

I could have sworn that shapechanger was better defined, but it appears not. I think one of the key differences between a Druid and a true shapechanger is not the at-will nature, but the retaining of HP. This may seem kind of small, but it seems to make a difference because shapechangers change shape while a Druid takes one.

I suppose the thinking is that because a shapechanger is instinctually competent in transforming, they can bypass the process. A Druid, on the other hand, has no innate knowledge because it is a learned process.
The Druid wears the animal form as a second skin, but the shapechanger becomes that skin?

[RickAllison]

The Druid wears the animal form as a second skin, but the shapechanger becomes that skin?

Kind of, but it is more like the shapechanger already IS that skin. Polymorph is more like becoming a skin.

[djreynolds]

An unwilling creature can make a wisdom saving throw for both polymorph and true polymorph.

[Dalebert]

The way wildshape and polymorph spells work, it's always seemed to me like the character's mind is still there but it's making them a completely new body while the caster's body is dormant elsewhere (another plane?) and perhaps operating the new body like remote control. How else does having a completely separate set of HP make sense? In fact, in a homebrew game, the character's may eventually witness some of this behind the scenes and realize that's exactly what's happening.

[JackPhoenix]

As for how losing your abilities but not your personality, it makes fine sense to me. Your bonds, your flaws, your ideals, your traits, and your alignment. If your PC felt bound to protect a village, he would do that just as a dog. If he was instinctively distrustful of new people, he would be a dog that growls at strangers.

Alignment is a part of the game statistics. Rest of the personality isn't.

[RickAllison]

Alignment is a part of the game statistics. Rest of the personality isn't.

From the SRD, "It retains its alignment and personality." Specific exceptions to the rule on gaining the creature's statistics. That being said, I don't really care either way. It just seems odd to me that something treated as part of the personality in character generation, but separate in statistics. Of course, I consider the stat block to include everything needed to run that creature. PCs write their Traits, Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals in their statblock (their character sheet), why wouldn't it be the same for enemy creatures?

[Fflewddur Fflam]

From the SRD, "It retains its alignment and personality." Specific exceptions to the rule on gaining the creature's statistics. That being said, I don't really care either way. It just seems odd to me that something treated as part of the personality in character generation, but separate in statistics. Of course, I consider the stat block to include everything needed to run that creature. PCs write their Traits, Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals in their statblock (their character sheet), why wouldn't it be the same for enemy creatures?

Agreed. If you were creating an Assassin NPC, you would include stuff like sneak attack and assassinate in their stat block.

I mean, polymorph is a super-powerful 4th level spell even if you don't retain your class features. If you can polymorph into a T Rex, look at it as like getting a whole boat-load of temp hit points and the ability to cause some major melee damage before reverting back to your normal form and abilities. That's pretty dang nice, really.

[JackPhoenix]

From the SRD, "It retains its alignment and personality." Specific exceptions to the rule on gaining the creature's statistics. That being said, I don't really care either way. It just seems odd to me that something treated as part of the personality in character generation, but separate in statistics. Of course, I consider the stat block to include everything needed to run that creature. PCs write their Traits, Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals in their statblock (their character sheet), why wouldn't it be the same for enemy creatures?

Right, alignment has an exception in the spell. But it makes sense that it's a part of the statistics, as it's the only part of personality that has some mechanical implication, even if they are rare (Heart Sight detects alignment, Rakshasa needs good alignment to get through its resistance...)

[RickAllison]

Right, alignment has an exception in the spell. But it makes sense that it's a part of the statistics, as it's the only part of personality that has some mechanical implication, even if they are rare (Heart Sight detects alignment, Rakshasa needs good alignment to get through its resistance...)

"And personality". Why would they have included that addendum if it wasn't part of the statistics?

[MaxWilson]

"And personality". Why would they have included that addendum if it wasn't part of the statistics?

Ah, but "Personality" is a different statistic than Bond/Flaw/Ideal. So obviously only Personality is retained and the others are lost.

[JackPhoenix]

"And personality". Why would they have included that addendum if it wasn't part of the statistics?

Because some people forget personality is a thing? Without that addendum, it wouldn't be clear if you have to behave as a random animal (so, likely flee or attack everyone present) or if you retain some measure of control (even if you're limited in what you can do).

No stat block in MM includes personality, however, all include alignment.

[RickAllison]

Because some people forget personality is a thing? Without that addendum, it wouldn't be clear if you have to behave as a random animal (so, likely flee or attack everyone present) or if you retain some measure of control (even if you're limited in what you can do).

No stat block in MM includes personality, however, all include alignment.

Of course it isn't in the MM, that contains the stats across vast numbers of the creature examples. Not every Hobgoblin is going to have the same flaws, or quirks, or any such personality trait. An individual hobgoblin could be much more delineated if the DM so chooses, and those personality facets will be noted on the DM's statblock, either physically or mentally.

[JackPhoenix]

Of course it isn't in the MM, that contains the stats across vast numbers of the creature examples. Not every Hobgoblin is going to have the same flaws, or quirks, or any such personality trait. An individual hobgoblin could be much more delineated if the DM so chooses, and those personality facets will be noted on the DM's statblock, either physically or mentally.

Well... statblocks for unique named NPCs in adventures don't list personality either, so...

[RickAllison]

Well... statblocks for unique named NPCs in adventures don't list personality either, so...

Because they explain the character's motivations in other places. On the other hand, why are we even arguing about it? It is a formality that has absolutely no bearing on the game itself :smallsmile:

[JackPhoenix]

Because they explain the character's motivations in other places. On the other hand, why are we even arguing about it? It is a formality that has absolutely no bearing on the game itself :smallsmile:

Because what would GiantitP forum be without long, pointless arguments about semantics? :smallcool:

[Vogonjeltz]

And this is exactly my gripe with it: you lose everything, including what makes your mind, but not your mind?

if you lose int enough to become an animal you lose your sense of self (that is int 2 or lower, people), can you get back? is it suppressed? I can accept magic is magic, but you lose everything that makes you, well, you, but not at the same time? Now that's just lazily written. What's more, it's inconsistent.

It's a temporary effect. You don't become permanently faster if you've been hasted anymore than blindness sticks around after the spell effect ends.

It's also reflective of classic fictional representations of curses that turn people into animals. They retain their identity but lack the capacity to show themselves for who they are:

Voyage of the Dawn Treader - Eustace is turned into a Dragon unable to communicate, his mind trapped within.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalefulPolymorph

This is not only thoroughly consistent, it's a routine within the literature.


"And personality". Why would they have included that addendum if it wasn't part of the statistics?

Because it's not written down. That is to say: If Soldier Bob the friendly Fighter (Neutral Good) gets turned into a frog, he's not Frog Bob the friendly (Neutral Good). Even if he can't express himself the same way, or think properly, he'd still be neutral good and have the same reactions to things.

Retaining Alignment and Personality is an out to the player to say: You don't have to change the general outlook of how you roleplay and suppress the underlying character.

Like, if the character got turned into a bird capable of speech, they'd be able to express their normal thoughts as a result. Although with reduced intelligence those thoughts should probably be more basic as compared to if the character were a Druid who wild shaped into a Parrot, retaining their full faculties (mental scores).