PaO stone golem, under your control?

[magicalmagicman]

A golem’s creator can command it if the golem is within 60 feet and can see and hear its creator. If uncommanded, a golem usually follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked it returns the attack. The creator can give the golem a simple command to govern its actions in his or her absence. The golem’s creator can order the golem to obey the commands of another person (who might in turn place the golem under someone else’s control, and so on), but the golem’s creator can always resume control over his creation by commanding the golem to obey him alone.

So... if you create a golem, it is permanently under the creator's control. So does casting Polymorph Any Object on a large piece of stone to create a Stone Golem under your control?

One argument is that yes, this golem did not exist before, and you brought it to life out of unliving rocks. You essentially created a "soul" or "essence" or a "spirit" of a mindless earth elemental with the spell.

Other argument is that Polymorph is not creation. You just merely transformed the rock into a stone golem, even if you "created" a "soul" or "essence" or "spirit", so you created a masterless stone golem.

So which is it? Do I need to invest in a Rod of Construct Control? Or can I save myself 70k?

[Psyren]

I would rule that PAO something that is not a golem into a golem does not make you its "creator." (And even if you were, you are one dispel away from it going back to being a rock anyway.)

[unseenmage]

Alternatively, if you can hit the Golem with Greater Humanoid Essence, turning it into a Humanoid, then a permanent mind control spell the mind control will persist after the Golem regains the Construct type.

This works because if changing its type made spells stop affecting it then the GHE spell itself would cease to function as soon as it changed the Golem from a Construct to a Humanoid.


As for the actual question posed in the OP... I havn't a clue. I would rule that you get to have nice things and the Golem is your creation.
However, I can understand the other arguement as well as the potential balance issues.

It would be nice if there was some RAW on the matter one way or another though.

EDIT

I would rule that PAO something that is not a golem into a golem does not make you its "creator." (And even if you were, you are one dispel away from it going back to being a rock anyway.)
Would a Golem's magic immunity interfere with that Dispel at all?

[Psyren]

Would a Golem's magic immunity interfere with that Dispel at all?

For an area dispel, no. For a targeted dispel - maybe - but if you rule the resulting golem has magic immunity, you run into an infinite loop type scenario because it would be immune to the PAO that is on it, which would cause it to no longer be polymorphed, returning it to being a rock.

But since you can sidestep all of that with an area dispel (which doesn't have to target the golem itself) it's largely moot.

[unseenmage]

... - but if you rule the resulting golem has magic immunity, you run into an infinite loop type scenario because it would be immune to the PAO that is on it, which would cause it to no longer be polymorphed, returning it to being a rock.
...
Checking Magic Immunity, then Spell Resistance, and from there Effect Spells I found this,

Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell.
Which would cancel out any infinite loops for Magic Immunity, right?

[Jack_Simth]

So... if you create a golem, it is permanently under the creator's control. So does casting Polymorph Any Object on a large piece of stone to create a Stone Golem under your control?

One argument is that yes, this golem did not exist before, and you brought it to life out of unliving rocks. You essentially created a "soul" or "essence" or a "spirit" of a mindless earth elemental with the spell.

Other argument is that Polymorph is not creation. You just merely transformed the rock into a stone golem, even if you "created" a "soul" or "essence" or "spirit", so you created a masterless stone golem.

So which is it? Do I need to invest in a Rod of Construct Control? Or can I save myself 70k?

"Not clearly specified in RAW, ask your DM" - You've got a lot of instances of that in this question, and most of your answers will be little more than personal opinions. If you want to slant it more in your direction for this specific question, you can also create the base stone via Wall of Stone and Stone Shape pairing prior to the PaO. That way: You made the stone, and the spell that made it a golem; you're it's creator in all senses that it has one. If you can afford it, you may also want to turn it into a specific stone golem that you actually crafted at one point to slant things further still.

A few other notes:
1) Polymorph Any Object can explicitly turn a pebble into a human - which also explicitly picks up Int, Wis, and Cha scores. So yes, that golem you make is animate.
2) You're one Dispel away from having a paperweight in place of your seige golem. Consider it disposable.
3) Polymorph Any Object explicitly tells you (via inheritance) that you don't get things like Magic Immunity on your golem.
4) The resulting Hit Dice, Saves, and BAB are unspecified.
4a) We know the resulting creature's HP (original rock), Strength (base golem), Dex (base golem), Con (base golem), Int (base golem), Wis (base golem), and Cha (base golem), however.
4b) You may wish to assume that the unspecified bits are "-", which calculates out as a 0 any time it's needed per the nonabilities header in the monster manual.
4c) This results in a damage sponge (lots of HP due to how stone objects work) that any level-appropriate enemy can pretty much ignore in a fight (you're at least 15th to do this, and it's attack bonus is just +8 - it can't hit much in the CR 13-17 range). Useful for carrying your baggage, useful anywhere you might otherwise use a Mount or Unseen Servant spell (e.g., trapspringing, keeping melee from reaching you), and useful in mass when you can get a bazillion of them together, but not very useful in standard D&D combat... although they are basically free if made during down time, so if you have the spells, you might as well make a few.
5) Because the thing is basically harmless, you can simply ask your DM via trying it in character. Create it, give it a few orders, see what happens.
6) They don't get magic immunity, and they have abyssmal saves, so if you can cast Shades, you can use that for Trap the Soul and keep several in your pocket as backups.

[Psyren]

Checking Magic Immunity, then Spell Resistance, and from there Effect Spells I found this,

Which would cancel out any infinite loops for Magic Immunity, right?

If you rule that it does, it still doesn't go in your favor - before the thing is a golem, it doesn't have any immunity (i.e. there was nothing to "fail"), so the first time it does check is when the PAO is already active, at which point it will succeed and leave you with a rock.

[Jack_Simth]

Checking Magic Immunity, then Spell Resistance, and from there Effect Spells I found this,

Which would cancel out any infinite loops for Magic Immunity, right?

Largely irrelevant, as Dispel Magic and related don't permit SR, so a true golem wouldn't be immune, much less the seige golem you're making this way.

Oh yes: And do put a Symbol spell on your chunk of rock before you apply PaO. The result is hilarious when it gets in the way of a good charger.

[unseenmage]

Could also be amusing to PAO some of those dangerous Underdark stones for this project to up the danger of Dispel.

[magicalmagicman]

I am aware of dispel magic annihilating the PaO stone golem, but I don't care because I create an infinite army of them during my down time for free, so i could care less if my entire army got wiped in a single encounter.

But still, infinite free beatstick tanks are still too OP for normal games and their grapple ain't bad either.

So it seems the consensus is that I do need some form of mind control either via a 3.0 material item Rod of Construct Control, or the greater humanoid essence + dominate person (not monster since that is higher level than PaO). Dominate Person requirement might actually balance the trick because it would create a hard limit to the number of golems I can control at a time.

[RoboEmperor]

"Not clearly specified in RAW, ask your DM" - You've got a lot of instances of that in this question, and most of your answers will be little more than personal opinions. If you want to slant it more in your direction for this specific question, you can also create the base stone via Wall of Stone and Stone Shape pairing prior to the PaO. That way: You made the stone, and the spell that made it a golem; you're it's creator in all senses that it has one. If you can afford it, you may also want to turn it into a specific stone golem that you actually crafted at one point to slant things further still.

A few other notes:
1) Polymorph Any Object can explicitly turn a pebble into a human - which also explicitly picks up Int, Wis, and Cha scores. So yes, that golem you make is animate.
2) You're one Dispel away from having a paperweight in place of your seige golem. Consider it disposable.
3) Polymorph Any Object explicitly tells you (via inheritance) that you don't get things like Magic Immunity on your golem.
4) The resulting Hit Dice, Saves, and BAB are unspecified.
4a) We know the resulting creature's HP (original rock), Strength (base golem), Dex (base golem), Con (base golem), Int (base golem), Wis (base golem), and Cha (base golem), however.
4b) You may wish to assume that the unspecified bits are "-", which calculates out as a 0 any time it's needed per the nonabilities header in the monster manual.
4c) This results in a damage sponge (lots of HP due to how stone objects work) that any level-appropriate enemy can pretty much ignore in a fight (you're at least 15th to do this, and it's attack bonus is just +8 - it can't hit much in the CR 13-17 range). Useful for carrying your baggage, useful anywhere you might otherwise use a Mount or Unseen Servant spell (e.g., trapspringing, keeping melee from reaching you), and useful in mass when you can get a bazillion of them together, but not very useful in standard D&D combat... although they are basically free if made during down time, so if you have the spells, you might as well make a few.
5) Because the thing is basically harmless, you can simply ask your DM via trying it in character. Create it, give it a few orders, see what happens.
6) They don't get magic immunity, and they have abyssmal saves, so if you can cast Shades, you can use that for Trap the Soul and keep several in your pocket as backups.

Somethings have been pointed out to me.
1. Golems are magic items, so by RAW PaO can not create golems, because it says right there "A nonmagical object cannot be made into a magic item with this spell. Magic items aren’t affected by this spell. " Only golems are magic items though, not other constructs.
2. Polymorph (and therefore PaO) can only create aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. Construct is not on that list.

Therefore you can't make a golem army with PaO.

edit: Then again, constructs are objects and PaO creates objects... so I guess PaO can create an army of non-golem constructs.

It's this line that excludes golems

The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.

As far as I know, other constructs don't have this line so they are not magical items, they are creatures. Makes sense since Animated Objects aren't magical items, they are normal items being manipulated by magic.

edit2:

A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature.

Yup, no words about being a magic item. They're just animated objects.

[Jack_Simth]

If you're not able to make golems that way, then you've got a different problem: It's about the only construct that explicitly gives control to the creator. Most the rest have it assumed, mind, for anything you've constructed. But it's actually in the write-up for golems. Have fun finding it elsewhere.

[RoboEmperor]

If you're not able to make golems that way, then you've got a different problem: It's about the only construct that explicitly gives control to the creator. Most the rest have it assumed, mind, for anything you've constructed. But it's actually in the write-up for golems. Have fun finding it elsewhere.

Yup. Rod of Construct Control (3.0) or Greater Humanoid Essence + Dominate Person via Miracle or teamwork.

[Calthropstu]

You cannot create a golem with PaO as it inherits the creature types available from greater polymorph, which does not include constructs.

[RedMage125]

You cannot create a golem with PaO as it inherits the creature types available from greater polymorph, which does not include constructs.

I'm glad you found this. I knew something about the whole concept was off, but I'm AFB at the moment. I was reading the thread like "I'm pretty sure that something in the RAW means this is not possible", but couldn't put my finger on it.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm glad you found this. I knew something about the whole concept was off, but I'm AFB at the moment. I was reading the thread like "I'm pretty sure that something in the RAW means this is not possible", but couldn't put my finger on it.

Does no one read my posts? Constructs are Objects so they are a valid target. Also there is no spell called greater polymorph in 3.5, and PF polymorph works very differently.

[RedMage125]

Does no one read my posts? Constructs are Objects so they are a valid target. Also there is no spell called greater polymorph in 3.5, and PF polymorph works very differently.

And yet, "Construct" is a creature type, no less so than Plant, Outsider, or Aberration in that regard.

But it DOES inherit from polymorph, which does NOT list "Construct" as an available creature type.
PAO says "This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another."

So, by the RAW, you could turn a single pebble into a STATUE of the same stone type (granite, obsidian, marble, etc) and still get a permanent duration, but it would not be animated. You would, however, have a perfect vessel to then create a golem (from, say, a Golem Manual).

[Jack_Simth]

You cannot create a golem with PaO as it inherits the creature types available from greater polymorph, which does not include constructs.That's Pathfinder-specific. And it still includes the same list of examples which includes both turning objects into creatures ("Pebble to human" for one) and creatures into objects ("Human to marionette" for one).


And yet, "Construct" is a creature type, no less so than Plant, Outsider, or Aberration in that regard.

But it DOES inherit from polymorph, which does NOT list "Construct" as an available creature type.
PAO says "This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another."

So, by the RAW, you could turn a single pebble into a STATUE of the same stone type (granite, obsidian, marble, etc) and still get a permanent duration, but it would not be animated. You would, however, have a perfect vessel to then create a golem (from, say, a Golem Manual).

Again, though: Specific examples include changing creatures to objects and vice-versa. Most readings have the type restriction removed. Doesn't apply at all gaming tables, though, as that's just "most readings", not "all readings".

[Calthropstu]

That's Pathfinder-specific. And it still includes the same list of examples which includes both turning objects into creatures ("Pebble to human" for one) and creatures into objects ("Human to marionette" for one).

Negative, it is also 3.5, though it is simply "polymorph" that it inherits from.
And while yes, you could polymorph a golem (assuming you can bypass its immunity) into something else, you can't polymorph anything into a golem.

[Jack_Simth]

Negative, it is also 3.5, though it is simply "polymorph" that it inherits from.
And while yes, you could polymorph a golem (assuming you can bypass its immunity) into something else, you can't polymorph anything into a golem.I should have been clearer; Greater Polymorph is Pathfinder-specific.

How, then, do you explain the specific duration-factor examples which include turning things back & forth between states that are not valid with regular Polymorph, present in both versions?

Don't get me wrong: I'm on the side of "It's not clear, so you'll get varying rulings from table to table, and any given ruling is not necessarily wrong." As part of that, though, I need to point out the holes in pretty much anyone who's going "No, this way is the absolute correct RAW one".

[Calthropstu]

I should have been clearer; Greater Polymorph is Pathfinder-specific.

How, then, do you explain the specific duration-factor examples which include turning things back & forth between states that are not valid with regular Polymorph, present in both versions?

Don't get me wrong: I'm on the side of "It's not clear, so you'll get varying rulings from table to table, and any given ruling is not necessarily wrong." As part of that, though, I need to point out the holes in pretty much anyone who's going "No, this way is the absolute correct RAW one".

Rules text trumps tables every time. If you are going flat raw, it's not allowed.

Though, I suppose you could harp on the "one creature or object into another" bit as superceding the text of polymorph/greater polymorph as to restrictions (which, on careful inspection, looks like a legitimate interpretation).

[Jack_Simth]

Rules text trumps tables every time. If you are going flat raw, it's not allowed.

Though, I suppose you could harp on the "one creature or object into another" bit as superceding the text of polymorph/greater polymorph as to restrictions (which, on careful inspection, looks like a legitimate interpretation).
Which is of course the point. You could also look at that and say "it merely adds objects into the mix as possibilities" and still be within RAW, such as it is. My position is "Not clear, ask your DM".

[RedMage125]

I should have been clearer; Greater Polymorph is Pathfinder-specific.

How, then, do you explain the specific duration-factor examples which include turning things back & forth between states that are not valid with regular Polymorph, present in both versions?

Don't get me wrong: I'm on the side of "It's not clear, so you'll get varying rulings from table to table, and any given ruling is not necessarily wrong." As part of that, though, I need to point out the holes in pretty much anyone who's going "No, this way is the absolute correct RAW one".


Rules text trumps tables every time. If you are going flat raw, it's not allowed.

Though, I suppose you could harp on the "one creature or object into another" bit as superceding the text of polymorph/greater polymorph as to restrictions (which, on careful inspection, looks like a legitimate interpretation).

You're both forgetting one thing.

In the absence of rules explicitly saying "yes", the RAW answer is "no".

Claiming that the rules allow something based on the absence of rules that explicitly disallow it is called Munchkin Fallacy.

Since polymorph does not list "construct" as a valid creature type for that spell, and PAO says "as polymorph", without any stated exception for constructs, that means-by RAW-that PAO cannot be used to turn a creature into a construct.

Other spells that derive from others list all exceptions. Ressurection and True Ressurection, for example, have a Range of Touch because Raise Dead does. But they specify that they can bring someone back who was turned into undead, while Raise Dead cannot.

[Jack_Simth]

You're both forgetting one thing.

In the absence of rules explicitly saying "yes", the RAW answer is "no".

Actually, I'm not forgetting that. PaO is just fuzzily written. It can do back and forth between objects and creatures - both directions - but it mentions zilch about removing the HD limits. Yet objects don't have hit dice, so if we do not remove at least part of that limit in our interpretation, then the spell can't change objects into creatures. We've also got a lot of missing data - if I turn a marionette into a human... what's it's reflex save? Yet that's something it can explicitly do. It's obviously removing at least some of the type restrictions... but it's fuzzily written all around. You will get different readings at different tables. Some will permit constructs, others not. Because it's not actually clear.


Claiming that the rules allow something based on the absence of rules that explicitly disallow it is called Munchkin Fallacy.
Just to be pendantic, do you have a page reference on a character being able to... oh, turn a doorknob, stick out their tounge, and wink an eye? Has to be "explicit" you know. None of that "anything else" clause....



Since polymorph does not list "construct" as a valid creature type for that spell, and PAO says "as polymorph", without any stated exception for constructs, that means-by RAW-that PAO cannot be used to turn a creature into a construct.

Other spells that derive from others list all exceptions. Ressurection and True Ressurection, for example, have a Range of Touch because Raise Dead does. But they specify that they can bring someone back who was turned into undead, while Raise Dead cannot.

Raise Dead also explicitly says it can't bring back someone who's been turned undead.

[RedMage125]

Actually, I'm not forgetting that. PaO is just fuzzily written. It can do back and forth between objects and creatures - both directions - but it mentions zilch about removing the HD limits. Yet objects don't have hit dice, so if we do not remove at least part of that limit in our interpretation, then the spell can't change objects into creatures. We've also got a lot of missing data - if I turn a marionette into a human... what's it's reflex save? Yet that's something it can explicitly do. It's obviously removing at least some of the type restrictions... but it's fuzzily written all around. You will get different readings at different tables. Some will permit constructs, others not. Because it's not actually clear.
Some people permit lots of things at their table that are not RAW. Which is fine, but since house rules are impossible to account for in a discussion here on the forums, only what is RAW is true.

And I don't see anything unclear about PAO not being able to create a golem, looks crystal-clear to me. A Golem is a CREATURE, not an object. A creature whose type is omitted in the list of allowable target creature types in the polymorph spell, which PAO inherits its base spell traits from. So, since it says "As polymorph", with exceptions only made for being able to target objects, and NO exceptions made for construct being an available target creature type, I don't see how someone can say the rules are "fuzzy" about this.



Just to be pendantic, do you have a page reference on a character being able to... oh, turn a doorknob, stick out their tounge, and wink an eye? Has to be "explicit" you know. None of that "anything else" clause....
Since you want to be pedantic, opening an unlocked door is a Move Action, and nothing else you mentioned has mechanical impact whatsoever, unlike what you are trying to accomplish with a spell.

[Rijan_Sai]

First, I know that Rules of the Game articles are generally not considered "RAW," (and that Skip Williams tends to be a point of contention.)

That out of the way, in Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Four) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040601a) talking specifically about Polymorph Any Object does say that "Because this spell can allow the subject to assume unliving forms, you can use this spell to turn the subject into a construct or undead creature."

Which means that, if you do use that interpretation, it is quite possible to create a golem army (or a Gollum army, if you so choose.)

[RoboEmperor]

First, I know that Rules of the Game articles are generally not considered "RAW," (and that Skip Williams tends to be a point of contention.)

That out of the way, in Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Four) (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040601a) talking specifically about Polymorph Any Object does say that "Because this spell can allow the subject to assume unliving forms, you can use this spell to turn the subject into a construct or undead creature."

Which means that, if you do use that interpretation, it is quite possible to create a golem army (or a Gollum army, if you so choose.)

Brilliant!

I was looking at one of those articles too, specifically the one where it said anything that has a wis or cha score is an object not a creature, and since all constructs have wis and cha my previous argument in this post is shot down. Now you dig this up! Nice find!

[gogogome]

I laughed when the guy said the spell description of another, different spell overrules the entire spell description of PaO and calls the intended ruling "harping".

If you don't like PaO why are you participating in a PaO thread? Did you really believe saying that PaO can't polymorph objects into creatures, creatures into objects, and that the table in the PaO spell description doesn't mean jack because it's a table and PaO is essential identical to polymorph with nothing different despite being 4 levels higher is gonna make it even remotely true?

Out of all the PaO interpretations I've seen, yours is the only one I view as completely wrong.

[RedMage125]

I laughed when the guy said the spell description of another, different spell overrules the entire spell description of PaO and calls the intended ruling "harping".

If you don't like PaO why are you participating in a PaO thread? Did you really believe saying that PaO can't polymorph objects into creatures, creatures into objects, and that the table in the PaO spell description doesn't mean jack because it's a table and PaO is essential identical to polymorph with nothing different despite being 4 levels higher is gonna make it even remotely true?

Out of all the PaO interpretations I've seen, yours is the only one I view as completely wrong.

I laugh when people don't understand how spells that inherit rules and traits from other spells work. If a spell descriptions says "As [x spell]. with the following exceptions...", then all the rules and restrictions from [x spell] are true, with the only exceptions being those mentioned in the new spell.

And neither Calthropstu (the poster to whom you refer) nor myself said that polymorph overrides anything in PAO. We both said that since "construct" is not EXPLICITLY included as a valid target creature type in PAO, that there is nothing to override the explicit exclusion of the "construct" creature type in polymorph.

Neither of us said that PAO "can't turn objects into creatures" or vis-versa. "Text Trumps Table" is a general truism of the rules, which is why that was brought up. PAO even says in the text that objects can be turned into creatures.

Just because you fail to understand that a golem is a CREATURE and not an OBJECT, doesn't make the "creature to object" or "object to object" uses of PAO allow the creation of golems.

You can use the spell to create a BODY for use in the creation of a golem (assuming you or someone you know has the Craft Construct item creation feat), but you cannot use PAO to create a fully-functional, animated golem from a pebble. This is negated not only by the rules regarding the polymorph spell and the fact that golems are CREATURES of the Construct creature type, but also by the fact that in addition to being creatures, golems are ALSO magic items, which makes them explicitly excluded by the specific rules stated in PAO.

Out of all the people interpreting what people have said in this thread, yours is the only one that is completely wrong.

[Calthropstu]

I laugh when people don't understand how spells that inherit rules and traits from other spells work. If a spell descriptions says "As [x spell]. with the following exceptions...", then all the rules and restrictions from [x spell] are true, with the only exceptions being those mentioned in the new spell.

And neither Calthropstu (the poster to whom you refer) nor myself said that polymorph overrides anything in PAO. We both said that since "construct" is not EXPLICITLY included as a valid target creature type in PAO, that there is nothing to override the explicit exclusion of the "construct" creature type in polymorph.

Neither of us said that PAO "can't turn objects into creatures" or vis-versa. "Text Trumps Table" is a general truism of the rules, which is why that was brought up. PAO even says in the text that objects can be turned into creatures.

Just because you fail to understand that a golem is a CREATURE and not an OBJECT, doesn't make the "creature to object" or "object to object" uses of PAO allow the creation of golems.

You can use the spell to create a BODY for use in the creation of a golem (assuming you or someone you know has the Craft Construct item creation feat), but you cannot use PAO to create a fully-functional, animated golem from a pebble. This is negated not only by the rules regarding the polymorph spell and the fact that golems are CREATURES of the Construct creature type, but also by the fact that in addition to being creatures, golems are ALSO magic items, which makes them explicitly excluded by the specific rules stated in PAO.

Out of all the people interpreting what people have said in this thread, yours is the only one that is completely wrong.

Yes, that is a fully valid interpretation of the wording of PaO. But, as I pointed out earlier the wording is such that it allows another reading. "A creature or object into another" is the issue here.
With your reading (wholly correct) you look at PaO and inherit the creature types of polymorph. With their reading they look only at "a creature or object into another." They interpret that as the replacing of the creature types available available to "any" since it isn't using any other wording.
Which is why another poster stated "ask the gm." And I agree. And since a gm can rule anything he wants, even blatantly changing the rules if he chooses, this is a totally valid conclusion. So I agree. Leave it to the GM in question, give both possible interpretation, give your arguments to the GM and let him sort it out.

[gogogome]

And neither Calthropstu (the poster to whom you refer) nor myself said that polymorph overrides anything in PAO. We both said that since "construct" is not EXPLICITLY included as a valid target creature type in PAO, that there is nothing to override the explicit exclusion of the "construct" creature type in polymorph.

It's hilarious how people get angry quickly and jump to conclusions without thinking. Did I say PaO can turn creatures into constructs? Nope I didn't yet here you are, making that part up and laughing. You're making a complete fool of yourself. Also


Rules text trumps tables every time. If you are going flat raw, it's not allowed.

Though, I suppose you could harp on the "one creature or object into another" bit as superceding the text of polymorph/greater polymorph as to restrictions (which, on careful inspection, looks like a legitimate interpretation).

Here it is, a quote saying Calthropstu believes completely ignoring the duration examples in the table in the PaO description and ignoring the phrase "one creature or object into another" is a "valid interpretation". There is no valid interpretation that ignores spell text like that and it is utterly ludicrous to think otherwise.

So you can't even read the posts of the person you are defending.

I actually respect rules of the game articles so I probably will allow PaO to create constructs in my game but that is my sole reason. I don't think anything you think I thought.

[RedMage125]

It's hilarious how people get angry quickly and jump to conclusions without thinking. Did I say PaO can turn creatures into constructs? Nope I didn't yet here you are, making that part up and laughing. You're making a complete fool of yourself. Also
It's hilarious how you don't even read the thread which you responded to, and get angry and defensive when we stay on topic.

That was the context of what we were discussing in regards to referencing polymorph when discussing PAO. That's what everyone was discussing when you jumped in, started throwing accusations around, saying that others were "saying the spell description of another spell overruled the entire spell description of PAO".

All that talk was about using PAO to turn a pebble into a golem. That was the context of the conversation to which you injected yourself. I (apparently mistakenly) assumed you knew what you were saying before you decided to chime in.

Looks like I'm not the one who made a fool of myself.




Here it is, a quote saying Calthropstu believes completely ignoring the duration examples in the table in the PaO description and ignoring the phrase "one creature or object into another" is a "valid interpretation". There is no valid interpretation that ignores spell text like that and it is utterly ludicrous to think otherwise.

So you can't even read the posts of the person you are defending.

I actually respect rules of the game articles so I probably will allow PaO to create constructs in my game but that is my sole reason. I don't think anything you think I thought.

How do you get that from what he said? He is-once again-SPECIFICALLY talking about turning a pebble into a golem. Follow his statement, and the person he is quoting, back a few posts and follow the entire conversation.

So you can't even read the posts of the person you're attacking.

And as far as the actual TOPIC of the thread, "one creature or object into another" does not mean "any object or creature" as the target form. PAO still follows the rules of "polymorph" when it comes to the forms of creatures that you can use PAO to change something INTO. That's what he means by "if you're going flat RAW, it's not allowed".

If you're going to come at me, come correct. Otherwise, stay in your lane.

[gogogome]

Rofl.

Jack_Simth asked how do you explain the official examples of turning pebbles into humans and humans into marionettes, and Calthropstu's response was that those examples are wrong because they are in a table, they mean nothing, and all the restrictions in polymorph still apply despite the one sentence we can all "harp" on, and I was saying how ludicrous this reasoning is. You seem to fail to understand this point. You still seem to be thinking I'm talking about pebble-to-golem.

In fact where is this pebble to golem you speak of? All I see is pebble to human. Oh wait I see pebble to golem in your post and not theirs. For someone who claims to always be correct, you seem to not know what the argument at hand is. Even before you jumped in people were talking about Wall of Stone to golem for the increased duration and a plausible claim to be the "creator", not pebbles. In fact you are the only person in the entire thread talking about pebbles to golems yet you think the entire thread is about that? Perhaps you should fact check before acting all smart? Or read instead of skim, or stop jumping to conclusions, or all of the above.

[Calthropstu]

Rofl.

Jack_Simth asked how do you explain the official examples of turning pebbles into humans and humans into marionettes, and Calthropstu's response was that those examples are wrong because they are in a table, they mean nothing, and all the restrictions in polymorph still apply despite the one sentence we can all "harp" on, and I was saying how ludicrous this reasoning is. You seem to fail to understand this point. You still seem to be thinking I'm talking about pebble-to-golem.

In fact where is this pebble to golem you speak of? All I see is pebble to human. Oh wait I see pebble to golem in your post and not theirs. For someone who claims to always be correct, you seem to not know what the argument at hand is. Even before you jumped in people were talking about Wall of Stone to golem for the increased duration and a plausible claim to be the "creator", not pebbles. In fact you are the only person in the entire thread talking about pebbles to golems yet you think the entire thread is about that? Perhaps you should fact check before acting all smart? Or read instead of skim, or stop jumping to conclusions, or all of the above.

Actually, I was going straight rules lawyer. If a table and text disagree, the text overrules every time. That has been well established. Here, however, that actually isn't the case. The harping I am referring to is "A creature or object into another" as it regards creatures.
Obviously, objects are allowed as they are called out ecplicitly in that statement. Where the confusion is this:
It doesn't use the same exact wording as polymorph. However, it says it functions like polymorph with this exception.
"Except it can turn a creature or object into another." It then gives examples. Nowhere in those examples is there any example not accounted for by polymorph+objects.
So it inherits from polymorph. The question is "Does that line remove all the restrictions of polymorph in regards to type or simply add objects to the available mix?"
It is valid to rule both ways. To my eyes, it inherits the restrictions as it does not explicitly remove them and calls out the previous spell. All it looks like this intends to do is bring objects into the mix, not undead or constructs.

I wonder though... if I PaO a human corpse into a human, do I achieve ressurection?

[RedMage125]

Rofl.

Jack_Simth asked how do you explain the official examples of turning pebbles into humans and humans into marionettes, and Calthropstu's response was that those examples are wrong because they are in a table, they mean nothing, and all the restrictions in polymorph still apply despite the one sentence we can all "harp" on, and I was saying how ludicrous this reasoning is. You seem to fail to understand this point. You still seem to be thinking I'm talking about pebble-to-golem.
I was going from Cathropstu's first post, and the back and forth between him and Jack_Smith, which-to start with-was about using PAO to create a golem from an object. And what followed was the question of whether or not the specific duration factor-as mentioned in the table-which mentions things not allowed by polymorph (i.e. objects), and whether or not that allows the creation of golems.
Jack_Smith's example of marionette to human was directed at me, not Calthropstu. And Calthropstu never actually said "pebbles into humans and humans into marionettes" was "wrong", you're making that up wholesale.

Or lying.

Or you have language-barrier issues, in which case, I empathize.


In fact where is this pebble to golem you speak of? All I see is pebble to human. Oh wait I see pebble to golem in your post and not theirs.
Then you just ignored Calthropstu's first post in this thread.

And now you're pretending it didn't happen to make yourself sound correct.


For someone who claims to always be correct, you seem to not know what the argument at hand is. Even before you jumped in people were talking about Wall of Stone to golem for the increased duration and a plausible claim to be the "creator", not pebbles. In fact you are the only person in the entire thread talking about pebbles to golems yet you think the entire thread is about that? Perhaps you should fact check before acting all smart? Or read instead of skim, or stop jumping to conclusions, or all of the above.
It doesn't matter what you use as an initial subject, which is a point you seem to be missing. You can't use PAO to turn ANYTHING into a golem.

Maybe YOU should fact check and actually read what you're CLAIMING people said instead of blatantly lying about what was posted, as anyone can look back and see that you have done.

ESPECIALLY if you're going to try and say I was wrong.

Once again, come correct, or stay in your lane.


Actually, I was going straight rules lawyer. If a table and text disagree, the text overrules every time. That has been well established. Here, however, that actually isn't the case. The harping I am referring to is "A creature or object into another" as it regards creatures.
Obviously, objects are allowed as they are called out ecplicitly in that statement. Where the confusion is this:
It doesn't use the same exact wording as polymorph. However, it says it functions like polymorph with this exception.
"Except it can turn a creature or object into another." It then gives examples. Nowhere in those examples is there any example not accounted for by polymorph+objects.
So it inherits from polymorph. The question is "Does that line remove all the restrictions of polymorph in regards to type or simply add objects to the available mix?"
It is valid to rule both ways. To my eyes, it inherits the restrictions as it does not explicitly remove them and calls out the previous spell. All it looks like this intends to do is bring objects into the mix, not undead or constructs.
That would be the RAW for the spell, yes. To rule otherwise is to assume that "lack of rules explicitly saying no"="rules saying yes".

People can house rule what they like, and a lot of DMs certainly may choose to alter the rules to allow it, but the default RAW answer is "no", like you said in your first post.



I wonder though... if I PaO a human corpse into a human, do I achieve ressurection?
Now THAT is an interesting conundrum. The best way I see to stick to RAW on that is that-since a corpse is an "object"-it creates a whole new 1 HD human, just as if you turned a leaf or whatever into a human. Which would mean True Resurrection would now be required to bring that original person back, as the original body has been "destroyed". Unless a finger or something was removed for use for Resurrection. But I think the RAW is that you can't use PAO to resurrect someone.

[gogogome]

The question is "Does that line remove all the restrictions of polymorph in regards to type or simply add objects to the available mix?"
It is valid to rule both ways. To my eyes, it inherits the restrictions as it does not explicitly remove them and calls out the previous spell. All it looks like this intends to do is bring objects into the mix, not undead or constructs.

It did not seem like you were making this argument in that post. I am someone who rules that you simply add objects to the available mix along with constructs and undead thanks to the rules of the game articles. Your post read to me like you were trying to remove objects from PaO's list of available targets and forms.


I wonder though... if I PaO a human corpse into a human, do I achieve ressurection?

No you don't. This has been talked about in other PaO optimization threads, regarding changing a fighter corpse into a dragon corpse and then resurrecting the corpse. Polymorph is a transformation effect only, it doesn't bring souls back from the dead and cram them into their original or changed bodies. So if you turn a human corpse into a human, you create a new human because the soul of the original human moved on.

Jack_Simth's method of using Wall of Stone is particularly interesting. If the wall of stone was sentient before the PaO, then it would view the caster as its creator, so when it gains sentience from PaO it would view the PC as its creator. The problem here though is that PaO does not change the mind, so either the resulting PaO golem is unaffected by the Golem's directive to obey his master, or the new PaO golem wouldn't know the PC created him with Wall of Stone. In both cases I would rule that the OP still needs a Rod of Construct Control.

[Calthropstu]

It did not seem like you were making this argument in that post. I am someone who rules that you simply add objects to the available mix along with constructs and undead thanks to the rules of the game articles. Your post read to me like you were trying to remove objects from PaO's list of available targets and forms.



No you don't. This has been talked about in other PaO optimization threads, regarding changing a fighter corpse into a dragon corpse and then resurrecting the corpse. Polymorph is a transformation effect only, it doesn't bring souls back from the dead and cram them into their original or changed bodies. So if you turn a human corpse into a human, you create a new human because the soul of the original human moved on.

Jack_Simth's method of using Wall of Stone is particularly interesting. If the wall of stone was sentient before the PaO, then it would view the caster as its creator, so when it gains sentience from PaO it would view the PC as its creator. The problem here though is that PaO does not change the mind, so either the resulting PaO golem is unaffected by the Golem's directive to obey his master, or the new PaO golem wouldn't know the PC created him with Wall of Stone. In both cases I would rule that the OP still needs a Rod of Construct Control.

If you're the gm, that is well within your rights. As was stated "ask the gm" is the best solution here. And if you're asking yourself, well unless you have odd mental issues and disagree with yourself, there's no wrong answer here.