polymorph is not broken

[Seharvepernfan]

"This spell functions like alter self, -"

I think this is the part that everyone is missing.

"except that you change the willing subject into another form of creature."
-can be: same type as the subject, aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin
-up to 15hd
-no incorporeal/gaseous form
-gains extraordinary special attacks, but not extraordinary special qualities or any supernatural or spell-like abilities

Alter self adds these:
-must be within one size category of the caster
-retain your/the caster's (not sure) hp/bab/base saves
-you retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulations to use somatic/material components
-gain the mundane movement capabilities/natural armor/natural weapons/racial skill bonuses/racial bonus feats/and any gross physical qualities
-a body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks than normal

http://dndsrd.net/spellsAtoB.html#alter-self
http://dndsrd.net/spellsPtoR.html#polymorph

Also, I know that familiars must be and stay within 5ft of you to share your spells.

Okay, so, what am I missing?

[daremetoidareyo]

7th level fighter gets +1 BAB.

[Yuki Akuma]

You're missing the fact that Wizards of the Coast themselves (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a) have said the only size limit to Polymorph is "no smaller than Fine".

In fact that article was written by Skip Williams. You know, one of the dudes who designed D&D 3.5 and wrote the PHB. He knows what he's talking about.

[Seharvepernfan]

You're missing the fact that Wizards of the Coast themselves (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a) have said the only size limit to Polymorph is "no smaller than Fine".

In fact that article was written by Skip Williams. You know, one of the dudes who designed D&D 3.5 and wrote the PHB. He knows what he's talking about.

So either he missed it too, or "functions like alter self" barely means anything.

[Mike Miller]

Instead of trying to make a trolly argument thread, why not use a search engine for this? Polymorph has been debated over and over and it isn't really interesting. The case on this is closed. If you want advice on how to use it, look for the relevant handbook.

[Seharvepernfan]

Instead of trying to make a trolly argument thread, why not use a search engine for this? Polymorph has been debated over and over and it isn't really interesting. The case on this is closed. If you want advice on how to use it, look for the relevant handbook.

Most of what I've heard about polymorph doesnt seem to take into account the limitations imposed by alter self, so as usual with 3.5, what most people say about it is useless. This isn't a troll thread, I just want to know what I'm missing, which may be as simple as what yuki posted. Regardless, if you don't like the thread, just close it.

[sleepyphoenixx]

People are well aware of the limitations of Polymorph. It's still vastly more powerful than any other 4th level spell, which is practically the definition of broken.



Also, I know that familiars must be and stay within 5ft of you to share your spells.
There's a feat for that in Dragon Compendium, Enspell Familiar. You count as touching your familiar for the sake of sharing spells as long as it's within 1 mile of you.
Not that you need it. It's plenty powerful even if a non-gish casts it on himself.


Okay, so, what am I missing?
A look at the statblocks of the creatures you can polymorph into?
It's not like there's only a handful of broken monsters that you have to go out of your way to find.
There's a ton of monsters that offer physical ability scores in the high 20s at least with double-digit NA available, double-digit racial skill boni to lots of skills, special attacks like a War Trolls Dazing Blow, type-based immunities like a plants immunity to mind-affecting, crits & stunning and so on.

And that's just scratching the surface. If you're willing to spend the time to go through the books you can find a ton of monsters with unique (Ex) special attacks that are yours for the taking.

[torrasque666]

you forgot to mention that Alter Self adds the limitation of not being able to grant templates, which i've seen a fair number of people forget.

[eggynack]

So either he missed it too, or "functions like alter self" barely means anything.
No, you're just missing the other reading of that text which is completely valid, in particular because you didn't list one component of polymorph at all. Polymorph says you cannot assume any form smaller than fine. This is not present in alter self. This clearly indicates an overwriting of at least the low end of alter self, allowing you to take tiny forms as a medium creature in spite of the previous restriction to small forms in that direction. The question is whether this polymorph text replaces only that direction of size change, or if it applies to the entire size restriction, wholly overwriting the small to large limitation (assuming you start out medium). In the latter case, huge and larger creatures would indeed be accessible, and this rules of the game article implies that this reading is correct.

I'm also not sure why you've highlighted the "more limbs doesn't give extra attacks" text, but I doubt it does what you think it does. Nothing there seems to restrict, say, a claw/claw/bite attack routine, because even the claws are not attacks derived from extra limbs, but rather from the weapons themselves, and the bite is decidedly not a limb. For something like a hydra, this is even more the case, as no attack could be said to be limb derived. If a form just happens to have eight arms, then that in itself would not provide attacks. But this restriction applies to a small subset of creatures. More to the point, you're not even using your standard attack routine here, but the one provided directly by the monster itself.

So, in summary, your claims about polymorph do not actually make much of an impact. If polymorph was broken before these things you've pointed out, then it remains broken now.

[Seharvepernfan]

stuff you said

Alter self is a spell you cast upon yourself; there was no reason to suspect that anybody was playing a fine-sized caster, whereas polymorph can be cast on other creatures.

As for the attacks thing, if I'm wrong, why does it even mention the "more attacks than usual" part? Also isn't a head a limb? Anyway, as I read it: while a hydra may have 10 heads and get 10 natural attacks because of it, the limitations of alter self only let you make one or two of those natural attacks.

[Deophaun]

Also isn't a head a limb?
Not in English.

[Yuki Akuma]

So either he missed it too, or "functions like alter self" barely means anything.

"Functions like Alter Self" means the stuff like "your equipment merges with you" and such - the basic rules for all shapechanging magic that the designers didn't want to write out in full six times and pad the word count.


Alter self is a spell you cast upon yourself; there was no reason to suspect that anybody was playing a fine-sized caster, whereas polymorph can be cast on other creatures.

As for the attacks thing, if I'm wrong, why does it even mention the "more attacks than usual" part? Also isn't a head a limb? Anyway, as I read it: while a hydra may have 10 heads and get 10 natural attacks because of it, the limitations of alter self only let you make one or two of those natural attacks.

It mentions that because the feat Multiweapon Fighting exists, which allows characters with more than two arms to deal extra attacks.

[tyckspoon]

Alter self is a spell you cast upon yourself; there was no reason to suspect that anybody was playing a fine-sized caster, whereas polymorph can be cast on other creatures.

As for the attacks thing, if I'm wrong, why does it even mention the "more attacks than usual" part? Also isn't a head a limb? Anyway, as I read it: while a hydra may have 10 heads and get 10 natural attacks because of it, the limitations of alter self only let you make one or two of those natural attacks.

It can reasonably be trying to state that you do not get to wield/make extra manufactured weapon attacks simply for turning into something with more hands, unless the thing you turn into has a relevant ability that specifically lets you do so. For example, if you were to Polymorph into a Thri-kreen or a Marilith (ignoring, for the sake of example, that Marilith is one HD outside of the HD limit anyways.) You could get the Marilith's 6 Slams + Tail Slap routine, since you explicitly get the Natural Weapons of the thing you turn into, but you could not get your main BAB sequence + 5 'off hand' weapons the way the Marilith does - you'd still be limited to the one main weapon + 1 offhand + any relevant TWFing feats that your normal humanoid form would have. (The oft-suggested Arrow Demon for archery bypasses this because it has a specific EX Special Attack that lets it fire both bows, which is again something you explicitly can benefit from.)

[sleepyphoenixx]

Alter self is a spell you cast upon yourself; there was no reason to suspect that anybody was playing a fine-sized caster, whereas polymorph can be cast on other creatures.

As for the attacks thing, if I'm wrong, why does it even mention the "more attacks than usual" part? Also isn't a head a limb? Anyway, as I read it: while a hydra may have 10 heads and get 10 natural attacks because of it, the limitations of alter self only let you make one or two of those natural attacks.

Even with the most restrictive reading there's still medium and large forms that offer benefits way out of line with what other 4th level spells grant. Or other spells period that aren't Shapechange or other Polymorph variants.
Just look at the War Troll (MM3). It can talk and make gestures, so spellcasting isn't a problem. And it comes with Str 31, Dex 16, Con 29, 14 NA and every hit is a DC 25 fort save or daze.

Find another spell that gives you even half that much. There isn't one. And that's before you count the versatility of having literally hundreds of forms available.

[eggynack]

Alter self is a spell you cast upon yourself; there was no reason to suspect that anybody was playing a fine-sized caster, whereas polymorph can be cast on other creatures.
This is an odd assumption of intent. Fine sized casters, playable or not, may have alter self, and larger creatures may have it as well. It's just kinda arbitrary. Either way, your claim in no way disputes this alternate reading.


As for the attacks thing, if I'm wrong, why does it even mention the "more attacks than usual" part? Also isn't a head a limb? Anyway, as I read it: while a hydra may have 10 heads and get 10 natural attacks because of it, the limitations of alter self only let you make one or two of those natural attacks.

As was stated by others, you seem mistaken on all of these points. The head is not, in fact, a limb, and even something like a claw is more of a different attack than an additional attack. There was cause to put this text in regardless of the fact that it doesn't impact all that much.

[Cosi]

In general, I think this kind of argument is unproductive. Finding tortured readings of the text that make some particular ability not broken is kind of pointless, because there are things in the game that are definitely broken. You're already doing something about SLA wish (either an explicit houserule, an implicit gentleman's agreement, or a ban), so you might as well do the work of figuring out what the best version of polymorph is (from a game design perspective) and implementing that. Because even the most tortured non-broken RAW readings aren't what you want (one time someone argued that ice assassins are immune to mind control to try to make ice assassin not broken).

Also, smarter people than anyone on this forum have had this debate before. Go read what they have to say (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=739). The gist is that because polymorph is making allowances rather than restrictions, it overrides the stuff alter self has to say on the matter. The alternative is that the spell simply doesn't work at all. The thing that allows it to turn you into a Dragon or an Aberration is the same thing that allows it to turn you into a creature more than one size category different from your own.

[Seharvepernfan]

It mentions that because the feat Multiweapon Fighting exists, which allows characters with more than two arms to deal extra attacks.


It can reasonably be trying to state that you do not get to wield/make extra manufactured weapon attacks simply for turning into something with more hands, unless the thing you turn into has a relevant ability that specifically lets you do so.

Yeah, if they have that feat. Polymorph only grants racial bonus feats. There's no reason to mention it, if that's the case.

Natural attacks, mm pg 312
"Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of attack -- generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although large creatures with arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descritpions."

The spell does literally make you a "creature", but still keeps you from having all the things those creatures get; I see that as kind of a toss-up.



Just look at the War Troll (MM3). It can talk and make gestures, so spellcasting isn't a problem. And it comes with Str 31, Dex 16, Con 29, 14 NA and every hit is a DC 25 fort save or daze.

I get your point, I'm just not too convinced it's still broken. Compare your 12th level wizard-into-war troll compared to a 12th level martial. The martial is likely still doing more damage, still having a higher AC, still having higher bonuses to special maneuvers (or about the same), etc. The stun thing is very strong, yes, I agree (and is yet more broken splat material). Something to consider is that you could cast this spell on the fighter, and THAT might be freaking strong. I'm not sure if his armor/weapons would increase in size with him (since trolls can use armor/weapons), if they don't, then its much less of a good deal. I'd probably rather have stoneskin or improved invisibility in that case. Though a big flying form or swimming form or whatever would be very useful in getting a fighter into the fight in some rarer situations.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I get your point, I'm just not too convinced it's still broken. Compare your 12th level wizard-into-war troll compared to a 12th level martial. The martial is likely still doing more damage, still having a higher AC, still having higher bonuses to special maneuvers (or about the same), etc. The stun thing is very strong, yes, I agree (and is yet more broken splat material). Something to consider is that you could cast this spell on the fighter, and THAT might be freaking strong. I'm not sure if his armor/weapons would increase in size with him (since trolls can use armor/weapons), if they don't, then its much less of a good deal. I'd probably rather have stoneskin or improved invisibility in that case. Though a big flying form or swimming form or whatever would be very useful in getting a fighter into the fight in some rarer situations.

No, you're still missing my point. It's not to turn into a War Troll and then go melee (unless you're already a gish anyway).
It's getting the buffs from being in War Troll form (or any form with good defensive stats) on top of all the normal stuff being a wizard grants you. For a single spell slot.

Just the massive Con bonus a normal, 14 Con wizard gets is already way out of line for a 4th level spell. That's +7hp/HD and +7 to the wizards weakest save!
On top of that comes +14 NA, which makes you near-unhittable for almost anything remotely CR-appropriate if you pile it on top of "normal" buffs like Mage Armor.

The offensive applications are really just icing on the cake. You can still keep casting like a normal wizard, you're just losing your biggest weaknesses - being squishy.
You'll likely have more hp and AC than the party barbarian.
And on top of that even if you only use it for AoO's, the Str 31, reach and Dazing Blow make attacking you in melee a dicey proposition for most enemies.

[Cosi]

Also, it's not like you're going to just cast polymorph and start meleeing without any investment. Gishes exist, and they don't just use one buff spell.

[Seharvepernfan]

No, you're still missing my point.

Can we use a core example? I don't want to argue about splat stuff. I don't think splats are balanced, and I don't want to argue with the "core is the most unbalanced" crowd either.

Let's use a core example, like a hill giant (12hd, 25 str/19 con, +9 NA) or a gray render if you really want your con (10hd, 23 str/24 con, +10 nat). If no items, then your dex goes down and you don't get your bracers of armor/rings of protection/etc and your +int headband stops working. Your AC probably doesnt rise much in that case, if at all (it does with mage armor/shield, but are we arguing the balance of one spell or the balance of being able to cast several spells? its always possible to load up on buffs from every slot THEN run into a fight, but...that's a big argument; can you even get all those spells off before the fight starts, or ends for that matter). Yeah, your hp probably does, and yeah you can fight now, but you're trading this for that. I'm not even sure if a grey render is capable of speech or fine manipulation, but the hill giant is. But if you do get your items, then yeah.

In either case, you're not surpassing a martial in martial ability from one spell (but the gap closes most of the way). Yeah, it's basically "turn into tank" the spell, and you can argue that's it's too strong for it's level. I'm not sure it's not. But if I'm right about it, it's at least not "turn into a hydra and get 10 attacks every round, with your familiar doing it as well, also 10 attacks with each AoO" that people act like it is.

[Yuki Akuma]

Nothing is stopping you from casting Polymorph on the party Fighter. Or Barbarian. Or Rogue. Y'know, if you really want to turn it into a "summon beatstick" spell.


But if I'm right about it, it's at least not "turn into a hydra and get 10 attacks every round, with your familiar doing it as well, also 10 attacks with each AoO" that people act like it is.

You're not.

[Seharvepernfan]

You're not.

Feel free to prove it.

[eggynack]

Feel free to prove it.
It's already been proved. The head is not, by definition, a limb.

[Yuki Akuma]

Feel free to prove it.

Okay. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060502a)12345


A creature in an alternate form gains the natural weapons, natural armor, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its new form.

[Seharvepernfan]

It's already been proved. The head is not, by definition, a limb.

A limb is a "jointed appendage". The head is an appendage, and the neck has a joint.

[Deophaun]

A limb is a "jointed appendage". The head is an appendage, and the neck has a joint.
The only dictionary that says "jointed appendage" I can find is here (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/limb). I can't help but notice the rest of that particular entry that was left out.

[Sleven]

Also, smarter people than anyone on this forum have had this debate before. Go read what they have to say (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=739).

Feel free to prove it.

It's still vastly more powerful than any other 4th level spell

This thread is filled with so many egomaniacal and superlative statements. It's not worth anyone's time to even be here.

[Cosi]

This thread is filled with so many egomaniacal and superlative statements. It's not worth anyone's time to even be here.

What? Egomanical I could kind of understand (except, of course, that none of the people in the linked thread are me), but I don't understand why you think people using superlatives is a problem. Something has to be the best 4th level spell -- can we just not talk about it?

[Seharvepernfan]

The only dictionary that says "jointed appendage" I can find is here (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/limb). I can't help but notice the rest of that particular entry that was left out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_(anatomy)

[Cosi]

See, this is why it's unhelpful to try and reinterpret RAW into not implying broken things. It always leads to incredibly bizarre claims like "ice assassins are immune to mind control" or "the head is a limb", which are inevitably more trouble than dealing with the offending mechanics directly. RAW is broken in some places. Fix them and move on with your life.

[eggynack]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_(anatomy)
The neck can move. That doesn't make it jointed. It's not a limb. The mouth, which is what's actually attacking, is definitely not a limb. How about this. Find any person in the universe talking about the neck or head as a limb, and we'll at least have something to work with. It's not like either the body parts we're talking about, or the term "limb" are uncommon.

[Seharvepernfan]

That doesn't make it jointed.

It has joints, it's jointed.

[eggynack]

It has joints, it's jointed.
I think that jointed refers to the existence of a single main point of articulation (or several, perhaps). The neck has joints, but it's not defined by one main joint for turning.

[Deophaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limb_(anatomy)
This is silly:

A limb (from the Old English lim), or extremity, is a jointed, or prehensile (as octopus arms or new world monkey tails), appendage of the human or other animal body. In the human body, the upper and lower limbs are commonly called the arms and the legs, respectively.[1] Arms and legs are connected to torso or trunk.
Now, let's go and see if there are any footnotes...

"Limb". medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved 16 June 2017.
Wonder what that says?

limb [lim]
1. one of the paired appendages of the body used in locomotion and grasping; see arm and leg. Called also member, membrum, and extremity.
...
limb (lim), [TA]
1. An extremity; a member; an arm (upper extremity) or leg (lower extremity).
...
limb (lim)
1. member or extremity; one of the paired appendages of the body used in locomotion or grasping; in humans, an arm or leg with all its parts.
...
limb (lĭm)
n.
1. One of the paired jointed extremities of the body; an arm or a leg.
I could go on. But, it's safe to say, if you were a med student and the test asked you to name all the limbs of the human body and you included "head," you would be getting some red ink on that page.

[Seharvepernfan]

It is silly. Even if you're right about it not being a limb, that means that polymorph won't give you extra attacks from more freaking ARMS & HANDS, but 10 heads? Go nuts.

[AvatarVecna]

Nothing is stopping you from casting Polymorph on the party Fighter. Or Barbarian. Or Rogue. Y'know, if you really want to turn it into a "summon beatstick" spell.

Ignoring for a moment the ass-backwards stupid argument about whether a head is a limb that cites Wikipedia as if it's a database of purely scientific information beyond the ability for others to challenge logically, any discussion of "why not cast this on a fighter instead of a wizard" runs into problems.

Let's take a couple parties - in one, a fighter and a wizard, and in the other, two wizards. In each group, for the first fight, a wizard will cast Polymorph on their ally, and in the second fight, the wizard will cast Polymorph on themselves; in both fights, the party is face a Badass 12 - for this example, a Barbarian who is far more badass than the party fighter. So, casting Polymorph on a Wizard replaces the wizard's non-badass stats with the stats of a Badass 7, while casting Polymorph on a Fighter replaces the Fighter's Badass 7 stats with different Badass 7 stats...but there's enough synergy between the new stats and the old stats that are kept, that the Fighter is now a Badass 10. Unfortunately, a Badass 10 (the polymorphed fighter) and a Badass 1 (the unmodified wizard) aren't really Badass enough to overcome the Badass 12.

Now, let's change it up to the next fight, where the wizard instead casts Polymorph on themselves; now, instead of Badass 10+1, we have Badass 7+7, which might very well be enough to actually win the fight. Then let's look at the two wizards party; in both fights, both wizards end up Polymorph'd into Badass 7s, so they're perfectly capable of tearing that Badass 12 a new one. Sure, it now takes up two spell slots instead of 1, but two wizards means more utility outside of pure combat as well, in a way that the fighter was never going to be bringing to the table.

Now let's take a new party, this time with a wizard and two fighters. One wizard is a more standard wizard who has no personal interest in melee even if it's the most optimal option as presented above, while the other wizard is a selfish buffer who has several all-day buffs going that make them a better overall combatant than the fighter. From the perspective of the more traditional wizard, both of his teammates have spent all their character resources to get better at fighting, and now the wizard has to pick who he's going to buff - the fighter or the gish. Even if you wish to make the argument that it's better to have one Badass 10 than two Badass 7s, which might very well be the case in some fights despite the action economy advantage, if you have to choose between turning a Badass 7 into a Badass 10, and turning a Badass 8 into a Badass 12, your choice is still obvious.

(We could also then look at an additional situation where a lone wizard uses Polymorph on herself, shares the spell with her familiar, and now there's two Badass 7s even though the wizard has no PC allies, but that's a whole separate issue about action economy.)

Again, I don't Yuki doesn't know this, but it's useful perspective on why Polymorph is considered broken, even though the particular use of it being debated (pure combat potential) is probably one of the worse ways to use it: if you have a spell that can turn any creature into a "good enough" fighter, why did you even bring along a specialized fighter at all?

[eggynack]

It is silly. Even if you're right about it not being a limb, that means that polymorph won't give you extra attacks from more freaking ARMS & HANDS, but 10 heads? Go nuts.
Well, yeah. That seems to be exactly what it's saying. You can't swing extra swords, because that's determined only by your BAB, but natural weapons work fine.

[Yuki Akuma]

Again, I don't Yuki doesn't know this, but it's useful perspective on why Polymorph is considered broken, even though the particular use of it being debated (pure combat potential) is probably one of the worse ways to use it: if you have a spell that can turn any creature into a "good enough" fighter, why did you even bring along a specialized fighter at all?

Mostly I was thinking along the lines of "wouldn't it be great to let the Rogue Sneak Attack ten times a round?".

I mostly figure that it's best to give the folks who are already good at combat a boost than to waste my actions as a Wizard on attacking things. I have spells to cast!

[Crake]

Just the massive Con bonus a normal, 14 Con wizard gets is already way out of line for a 4th level spell. That's +7hp/HD and +7 to the wizards weakest save!
On top of that comes +14 NA, which makes you near-unhittable for almost anything remotely CR-appropriate if you pile it on top of "normal" buffs like Mage Armor.

Polymorph explicitly says your HP doesn't change with your new form, so no, you don't get any extra HP from high con forms, though you would get the fort save bonus.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Seharvepernfan
A limb is a "jointed appendage". The head is an appendage, and the neck has a joint.

Sorry, but this is ludicrous.

I won’t comment on the main arguments in this thread, but it’s utterly absurd to claim that the head is a limb. In the vertebrate bauplan, the head is entirely different from limbs, which are dedicated to locomotion and don’t ingest food or support specialized sense organs.



Now I’m just angry with myself that I’ve spent time in this thread.

.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Can we use a core example? I don't want to argue about splat stuff. I don't think splats are balanced, and I don't want to argue with the "core is the most unbalanced" crowd either.

Let's use a core example, like a hill giant (12hd, 25 str/19 con, +9 NA) or a gray render if you really want your con (10hd, 23 str/24 con, +10 nat). If no items, then your dex goes down and you don't get your bracers of armor/rings of protection/etc and your +int headband stops working. Your AC probably doesnt rise much in that case, if at all (it does with mage armor/shield, but are we arguing the balance of one spell or the balance of being able to cast several spells? its always possible to load up on buffs from every slot THEN run into a fight, but...that's a big argument; can you even get all those spells off before the fight starts, or ends for that matter). Yeah, your hp probably does, and yeah you can fight now, but you're trading this for that. I'm not even sure if a grey render is capable of speech or fine manipulation, but the hill giant is. But if you do get your items, then yeah.

In either case, you're not surpassing a martial in martial ability from one spell (but the gap closes most of the way). Yeah, it's basically "turn into tank" the spell, and you can argue that's it's too strong for it's level. I'm not sure it's not. But if I'm right about it, it's at least not "turn into a hydra and get 10 attacks every round, with your familiar doing it as well, also 10 attacks with each AoO" that people act like it is.
You can't argue that you don't keep your items. Alter Self is explicit that you keep them if your new form can wear them and anything with a humanoid shape has the same body slots as a human.
Only armor melds into your new form since it doesn't mention equipment changing size, but most wizards don't wear armor. Everything else only comes in one size, so it can be worn.

And i'm counting Mage Armor because it's a hour/level buff. By the time you get Polymorph it's something that lasts all day, so it's not a spell you have to decide to cast in combat at the expense of something else.

In any case the number of attacks is not the primary reason for a wizard to polymorph unless you're already a gish. And even if you are you can still get a significant boost to your melee ability without getting more attacks. For zero investment.

Honestly, if the fact that a single spell turns you into the equal or near-equal of a specialized melee character (with no tradeoff) and the comparison to other spells, both of its level and in general (which Polymorph wins by a landslide, you can't argue that) isn't enough to convince you it's broken i don't see what will.


Polymorph explicitly says your HP doesn't change with your new form, so no, you don't get any extra HP from high con forms, though you would get the fort save bonus.

It does not. Alternate Form has that clause (and so has Wild Shape because it's based on AF) but Polymorph doesn't.

[Dimers]

Alternate Form has that clause (and so has Wild Shape because it's based on AF) but Polymorph doesn't.

Polymorph does have the clause because it's based on alter self. Nothing in polymorph suggests that it would override or erase that aspect of alter self.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Polymorph does have the clause because it's based on alter self. Nothing in polymorph suggests that it would override or erase that aspect of alter self.

Except for the fact that Polymorph replaces your physical ability scores where Alter Self does not.

[eggynack]

Except for the fact that Polymorph replaces your physical ability scores where Alter Self does not.
Why is that pertinent? The game says your HP stays the same, so that's true regardless of any other changes present. It's not like the stat part overwrites the HP part in any sense.

[Cosi]

Polymorph explicitly says your HP doesn't change with your new form, so no, you don't get any extra HP from high con forms, though you would get the fort save bonus.

Yes you do. What you do is you take off your CON enhancer before casting polymorph, put it back on after casting polymorph, and then benefit from a CON of whatever the form's is +2 instead of whatever yours is +2. Or just sequence your buffs so bear's endurance is after polymorph.

[Goaty14]

Yes you do. What you do is you take off your CON enhancer before casting polymorph, put it back on after casting polymorph, and then benefit from a CON of whatever the form's is +2 instead of whatever yours is +2. Or just sequence your buffs so bear's endurance is after polymorph.

No, you don't. In that case your old CON modifier is still used for hitpoints. Taking off and putting back on an item of +CON just momentarily changes your total HP and FORT save (which only momentarily changes it per your old form), but nowhere in the rules does it state it changes which form's CON is used for hit points.

[Cosi]

No, you don't. In that case your old CON modifier is still used for hitpoints. Taking off and putting back on an item of +CON just momentarily changes your total HP and FORT save (which only momentarily changes it per your old form), but nowhere in the rules does it state it changes which form's CON is used for hit points.

No, polymorph replaces your CON score. It suppresses the update from that replacement, but has no effect on later ones.

[gooddragon1]

Okay, so, what am I missing?


Even if it had the size limit you described, think of it like this: A caster who prepares spells needs to plan out what to prepare because they "aren't" supposed to be able to change spells on the fly. Polymorph gives access to so many different options at the time of casting by allowing so many different monsters as choices that it allows them to be much more flexible than what a prepared spellcaster "should" be able to do.

Also, some of the bonuses can be bonkers. Firbolg strength for example.

I think maybe requiring a spellcaster to choose what monster is allowed at the time of preparation might make it more balanced. Some variant of that with spontaneous where you pick a type maybe?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Even if it had the size limit you described <snip>There's really no 'if' about it. Nothing in polymorph negates alter self's size restrictions unless you're already Fine-sized, and even WoG doesn't change that, since RAW is set and no errata has been produced.

[Cosi]

polymorph doesn't have the size restriction because it defines its own sizing restriction. If it has the size restriction, it also has the type restriction, and the spell is dysfunctional because the entire list of types it nominally allows you to assume is meaningless. Clearly this interpretation of how inheritance works is incorrect. WotC's statements on the issue corroborate this.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

polymorph doesn't have the size restriction because it defines its own sizing restriction.Where? All I see is that it says "as alter self" (and thus inheriting the "within one size category" clause), followed by "and cannot be smaller than Fine." The only time the alter self clause is changed is when you're already Fine sized, in which case you cannot go smaller than Fine...which apparently you can with alter self?

It's basic language logic.

If that clause were to be changed, they would have to say, "can be any size of Fine or above," just like how they specifically said "you can take forms with these types." They didn't. They simply added another restriction.

[Pleh]

"You get multiple head attacks, but not iterative attacks for multiple arms."

Well, yes. You have the body of another creature, but retain your own mind.

I always saw RAI as Natural Weapons running on creature Instinct, which is felt by the mind of the polymorpher upon taking their new form and may be employed at will. Thus the polymorpher can use their new form's entire array of natural attacks.

What they don't gain is the new form's actual mind, which is where they would have stored their skill at multiweapon fighting. Using natural attacks is instinctual, but using manufactured weapons must be learned. Suddenly having 4 times as many arms doesn't mean you suddenly know how to swing 8 swords all at once without cutting yourself (if you didn't know how before changing forms). But if your 8 arms come with natural claws, then the creature evolved to use them simultaneously (according to RAW), so it would, "feel natural" to use them all at once even if you've never taken this form before. But you have no help gaining special knowledge about how to use swords more effectively, only special knowledge for the parts that actually come with your new form. You don't gain 6 new swords just because you gained 6 new arms.

[RoboEmperor]

Good god, these people... wow.


“You might find this hard to believe, but I’m actually a lammasu who’s been polymorphed into halfling form by an evil sorcerer. You know we lammasu are trustworthy, so you can believe me.”

Lammasu is large, halfling is small. Two size category difference.


For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail.

Lion is Large and snail is small or smaller.

So stop your BS rule lawyering. Polymorph's only size restriction is that it can't be smaller than fine.

[Goaty14]

No, polymorph replaces your CON score. It suppresses the update from that replacement, but has no effect on later ones.

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused: No not really, but I think we're both reading it differently

You're reading it as "Polymorph changes your CON score, but not your hit points as a result of that specific change. Thus if we change the CON score later (a wholesale different change than polymorph), the previous restriction doesn't apply, and we increase the HP"

I'm reading it as *cough* *cough theCorrectWay *cough* "Polymorph changes your CON score, except your HP is based off of your original form. Thus the +CON only affects your original form's CON for HP."

My argument is that the restriction never stops applying while polymorph is in effect (and while it isn't in effect, but that's a redundant claim) which is supported by the Alternate Form text "(...) exception: the creature retains the hit points of it's original form despite any change to its Constitution.", thus invalidating (what I think is) your method of thinking to avoid the rule.

The next bullet point confirms this in "(...) the creature retains its hit points", which implies that the hit points are NOT changed.

(emphasis mine).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Lammasu is large, halfling is small. Two size category difference.Clearly the halfling was lying, because polymorph can't do that. Or the "evil sorcerer" was using polymorph any object or something similar.


Lion is Large and snail is small or smaller.Polymorph any object is part of the polymorph line and can do this, because the specific examples in the spell itself allow it. Nothing about polymorph relaxes these restrictions, so it retains them. The primary source is the text in the spell itself, which does not allow for this transformation. Higher level spells, such as polymorph any object, can do so, because the examples in the spell text imply that you can, if nothing else. Though, oddly, PAO's spell text doesn't relax these restrictions, either. Still, said text doesn't relax a number of other restrictions, either, such as the HD restrictions of the target, unless the shrew turning into a manticore has more HD than you'd expect.

Still, the spell examples themselves lift various PAO restrictions, and it's left as an exercise in extrapolation from the reader to figure out what those are. The garden variety polymorph, however, gains no such benefit of the doubt.


So stop your BS rule lawyering. Polymorph's only size restriction is that it can't be smaller than fine.Stop breaking the rules on polymorph. There is nothing in the spell text that relaxes the restrictions from alter self, so you're clearly incorrect in your assumptions.

[Cosi]

Where? All I see is that it says "as alter self" (and thus inheriting the "within one size category" clause)

Okay, so why isn't it inheriting the "creature of the same type" restriction?


My argument is that the restriction never stops applying while polymorph is in effect (and while it isn't in effect, but that's a redundant claim) which is supported by the Alternate Form text "(...) exception: the creature retains the hit points of it's original form despite any change to its Constitution.", thus invalidating (what I think is) your method of thinking to avoid the rule.

That reading means polymorph makes you not lose hit points from CON damage. Maximally pedantically, it just makes you immune to damage.

[umbergod]

Pedantic arguing over sentence structure! /popcorn
This is never not entertaining, tho it makes me long for a thread from He(She?) Who Must Not Be Named ;)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Okay, so why isn't it inheriting the "creature of the same type" restriction?Because it says so. "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."

This is as opposed to the size problem, which is, "This spell functions like alter self, except <snip> You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine."

Note that in the first one, the restrictions are specifically lifted to allow other types, whereas in the second one, it simply says that, unlike alter self, you cannot assume a form smaller than Fine, but it doesn't say that you can assume any size beyond those within one step of your own.

[Cosi]

Because it says so. "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."

So? Restrictions conflict with allowances. If the set of allowable types for polymorph replaces the set of allowable types for alter self, the same thing happens with the set of allowable sizes.


Note that in the first one, the restrictions are specifically lifted to allow other types,

No, they aren't. They aren't mentioned. Just like the sizing restrictions aren't mentioned. The unmentioned rules apply in either both cases or neither. Saying "you can do X" doesn't lift the restriction "you must do Y" it just creates a conflict in the case of anything that isn't both X and Y.

[Goaty14]

Okay, so why isn't it inheriting the "creature of the same type" restriction?

Because there is specific text saying otherwise. I don't need to tell you Polymorph begins with "As Alter Self, except"

Maybe WotC was just expecting munchkins to look at polymorph and say "well, it doesn't say I can't go smaller than fine...". The world may never know.


That reading means polymorph makes you immune to CON damage.

Partially true? You're right that the reading would make you immune to HP loss via CON damage, but not the subsequent lower FORT saves or possible death by hitting CON: 0. Oh, and it also means that when you go out of polymorph, the HP loss is then applied because nothing negates it at that point.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So? Restrictions conflict with allowances. If the set of allowable types for polymorph replaces the set of allowable types for alter self, the same thing happens with the set of allowable sizes.Polymorph specifically states it allows the type changes.


No, they aren't. They aren't mentioned.It specifically calls them out. I quoted the words in the text I quoted. It's right there. "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." There. I even underlined it for you. You literally cannot get more explicit than that.


Just like the sizing restrictions aren't mentioned. The unmentioned rules apply in either both cases or neither. Saying "you can do X" doesn't lift the restriction "you must do Y" it just creates a conflict in the case of anything that isn't both X and Y.Your logic is...well, not logical. At all. Polymorph explicitly says you can take other forms, but it says "as alter self, except you cannot take a form smaller than Fine." Those aren't even remotely the same. Polymorph doesn't lift alter self's restriction. It adds another one on top, without removing the previous ones.

It'd be like if I said, "I'm red-green colorblind, and my sister is, too" and then added "Oh, and she can't see orange, either." That doesn't mean my sister suddenly isn't red-green colorblind, just because I added another restriction.

[Cosi]

Because there is specific text saying otherwise. I don't need to tell you Polymorph begins with "As Alter Self, except"

And then it defines new sets of sizes, types, and HD ranges for creatures you can transform into. I am asking why an unmentioned size restriction is inherited, but an unmentioned type restriction is not.


Partially true? You're right that the reading would make you immune to HP loss via CON damage, but not the subsequent lower FORT saves or possible death by hitting CON: 0. Oh, and it also means that when you go out of polymorph, the HP loss is then applied because nothing negates it at that point.

Yes, I edited my post. My point is that this is clearly not how it works, and that your interpretation is dysfunctional and therefore unlikely to be correct.

[Cosi]

Polymorph specifically states it allows the type changes.

And alter self explicitly prohibits them. The restriction and the allowance conflict. One spell's set of acceptable forms must prevail. Why is it polymorph's for types, but alter self's for sizes?


It specifically calls them out. I quoted the words in the text I quoted. It's right there. "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." There. I even underlined it for you. You literally cannot get more explicit than that.

That line is not relevant to the question I am asking. Your position is that because the size rules do not explicitly lift alter self's size restriction, it still applies. An allowance to do X does not lift a restriction that you can only do Y. Where is the line lifting the "only your type" restriction, rather than adding an "also these other types" allowance?

[sleepyphoenixx]

According to the relevant Rules of the Game article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a) Polymorph changes hit points and allows any size between fine and colossal.

Since RAW is clearly open to various interpretations and lacking anything better i'm going with the semi-official ruling from the game designer.

The issue of multiple natural weapons is addressed in this article. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040518a)

A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal.

Many DMs and players find this rule puzzling. Essentially, it means that if you suddenly find yourself with two extra arms you can't just pick up four weapons and wade into melee, use a four-handed weapon, fire and reload a heavy crossbow (even a repeating heavy crossbow) in the same round, or perform any other combat tricks that come to mind. You can make attacks that are "normal" for you or normal for your assumed form, but you can't combine them.

[Goaty14]

My point is that this is clearly not how it works, and that your interpretation is dysfunctional and therefore unlikely to be correct.

...and your interpretation is also clearly not how it works (and if it is, you have yet to enlighten me). All you've "proven" thus far is that there is something to be added to the dysfunction list.

[RoboEmperor]

Since RAW is clearly open to various interpretations and lacking anything better i'm going with the semi-official ruling from the game designer.

No it's not. It's clear as day that polymorph's only size restriction is that it can't be smaller than fine. There's even official examples for it. You see the amount of rule lawyering MaxiDuRaritry just to ram his ruling into other people's faces? He claims RAW yet in the example I gave it says "a series of POLYMORPH spells", not PaO or baleful polymorph, yet he "read between the lines" to turn polymorph into "polymorph line of spells", crammed PaO into the example, REMOVED polymorph from the example, and claims this is the RAW reading.

So it's best to simply stop arguing with such a stubborn person.

edit: in fact, even by going with his 'read between the lines" reading, it says polymorph turns creatures into a mouse and then a lion and then a snail because polymorph is still a "polymorph line of spells".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And alter self explicitly prohibits them. The restriction and the allowance conflict. One spell's set of acceptable forms must prevail. Why is it polymorph's for types, but alter self's for sizes?

That line is not relevant to the question I am asking. Your position is that because the size rules do not explicitly lift alter self's size restriction, it still applies. An allowance to do X does not lift a restriction that you can only do Y. Where is the line lifting the "only your type" restriction, rather than adding an "also these other types" allowance?You're just being wilfully obtuse, now. The RAW is quite clear, but there is no reasoning with you, because you ignore very clear, logical arguments, and are, instead, pulling a Giacomo.

Bad form, Cosi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Goaty14]

There's even official examples for it.

The first of which is fluff text for Bluff (which has nothing to do with the rules-text of the actual spell), the second of which (a large animal, and two small animals) can be applied to a medium-sized creature.

[RoboEmperor]

The first of which is fluff text for Bluff (which has nothing to do with the rules-text of the actual spell), the second of which (a large animal, and two small animals) can be applied to a medium-sized creature.

A rat is tiny not small.

[umbergod]

A rat is tiny not small.

So many people gloss over that small means halfling/kobold/gnome/goblin size. If a rat is over 3 ft long its def not your average run of the mill rat

[ShurikVch]

Well, yeah. That seems to be exactly what it's saying. You can't swing extra swords, because that's determined only by your BAB, but natural weapons work fine.
How about the mouthpick swords?

Also, what's if caster would cast the Flaying Tendrils on top of the Hydra polymorph? Tentacles are definitely a limbs...

[Cosi]

...and your interpretation is also clearly not how it works (and if it is, you have yet to enlighten me). All you've "proven" thus far is that there is something to be added to the dysfunction list.

No, things are dysfunctional if all the readings are dysfunctional. Not changing based only on the initial change in CON, but updating thereafter is consistent with the text of the relevant ability and not dysfunctional. Your position is apparently that we should interpret polymorph in an intentionally dysfunctional way so that Gishes are slightly worse tanks. This is exactly what I was warning against in my first post.


You're just being wilfully obtuse, now. The RAW is quite clear, but there is no reasoning with you, because you ignore very clear, logical arguments, and are, instead, pulling a Giacomo.

Bad form, Cosi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, the RAW is quite clear. It applies the restrictions in the spell (the listed types, not smaller than Fine). It does not apply restrictions not in the spell such as "only your type" and "within one size category". You're the one being obtuse. You're pointing at text that says "you can do Y" to prove that the restriction "you must do X" no longer applies. That's nonsensical.

If the restrictions of alter self apply, they must be lifted to not apply. An allowance does not lift a restriction. Therefore, if polymorph has the one size category restriction, it also has the "your type only restriction".

As a real world example: suppose I were to say "you can buy a blue car" and "you can buy any Ford". Can you buy a red Ford? No, you can't. Because the restriction still applies.

[sleepyphoenixx]

No it's not.
It clearly is since apparently everyone here has different opinions on how exactly the various parts of Polymorph function.
If it wasn't we wouldn't be arguing about it for over a page already.


It's clear as day that polymorph's only size restriction is that it can't be smaller than fine.
That's how i run it and that's what the article i linked says.

[Seharvepernfan]

A mouse and a snail would both be fine-sized, I suspect; about three inches or less.

[Deophaun]

So many people gloss over that small means halfling/kobold/gnome/goblin size. If a rat is over 3 ft long its def not your average run of the mill rat
Depends. Are you playing TES?

[OgresAreCute]

Depends. Are you playing TES?

Cyrodiil has so many R.O.U.S. that it isn't even unusual anymore.

[Remuko]

I've always found that clause silly. Creature sizes in 3.5 only go from Fine to Colossal. Of course you cant go "smaller than fine" because such a thing doesn't exist. There is no size category below fine.

Either way I'm doing as that one posted did and going with that rules of the game article. I personally consider that the objective definitive answer and the matter closed, but as I am not one who can make that decision for the whole thread, you people still arguing can have your fun.

[Asmotherion]

I don't like the world "broken".

Polymorph is a playstyle. Effectivelly using Polymorph needs:

A) Knowing the MMs and further books quite well.

B) Having met monsters you want to Polymorph into in your Adventures. Or at the very least (with a more easy-going DM) a successful skill check.

C) Effectivelly contributing to your Party with it.

I have played in the past a Polymorph/Conjurer/Necromancer focused Sorcerer, and was pleased with the results. I found him almost as versalite as the play experiance with a Wizard, which is usually not the case with the extreamly limited spell list a Sorcerer has.

[eggynack]

According to the relevant Rules of the Game article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a) Polymorph changes hit points and allows any size between fine and colossal.

Since RAW is clearly open to various interpretations and lacking anything better i'm going with the semi-official ruling from the game designer.
This HP thing really isn't open to multiple interpretations though. The game explicitly says that HP doesn't change, and then does nothing to overwrite that. There's a reason these rules of the game articles are generally pretty lowly considered. By contrast, the size rules actually are open to multiple interpretations. The "smaller than fine" rule could overwrite the low end of size restrictions, or size restrictions as a whole. In this case, due to ambiguity, there is some cause to look to this article, though it's certainly not definitive. I tend towards the "size as a whole" argument, because it seems more consistent with how the game groups rules. There aren't two alter self size rules. Just one, that you have to be within one size category. Polymorph overwrites that.


How about the mouthpick swords?
Do those even grant extra attacks on the basis of extra limbs?


Also, what's if caster would cast the Flaying Tendrils on top of the Hydra polymorph? Tentacles are definitely a limbs...
First, I would still contend that you get the natural weapons of the form whether limbs or not. These are not additional attacks in the iterative sense that the text means, where you have four arms and thus sword more times. They're a wholly different type of attack. Second, regardless of interpretation, this spell would work fine. Polymorph absolutely does not stop other spells from giving limb attacks.



Yes, the RAW is quite clear. It applies the restrictions in the spell (the listed types, not smaller than Fine). It does not apply restrictions not in the spell such as "only your type" and "within one size category". You're the one being obtuse. You're pointing at text that says "you can do Y" to prove that the restriction "you must do X" no longer applies. That's nonsensical.

If the restrictions of alter self apply, they must be lifted to not apply. An allowance does not lift a restriction. Therefore, if polymorph has the one size category restriction, it also has the "your type only restriction".
An allowance explicitly does remove a restriction. The new spell operates as the old one, but there are listed exceptions to this functioning. One of these exceptions is type. You can become this list, which overwrites the old type restriction. You can become this size, which overwrites the old size restriction, either partially or totally. You get these abilities, which overwrites the old ability restriction in the stated ways. The HP restriction isn't even mentioned, so we can only assume that it is not altered by the new spell. The spell is written in a really weird and confusing way, which alternates between giving new and odd restrictions and making specific allowances (just frigging list the sizes you can become, spell), but it adds up well enough.

[Necroticplague]

"This spell functions like alter self, -"

I think this is the part that everyone is missing.

"except that you change the willing subject into another form of creature."
-can be: same type as the subject, aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin
-up to 15hd
-no incorporeal/gaseous form
-gains extraordinary special attacks, but not extraordinary special qualities or any supernatural or spell-like abilities

Alter self adds these:
-must be within one size category of the caster
-retain your/the caster's (not sure) hp/bab/base saves
-you retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulations to use somatic/material components
-gain the mundane movement capabilities/natural armor/natural weapons/racial skill bonuses/racial bonus feats/and any gross physical qualities
-a body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks than normal

http://dndsrd.net/spellsAtoB.html#alter-self
http://dndsrd.net/spellsPtoR.html#polymorph

Also, I know that familiars must be and stay within 5ft of you to share your spells.

Okay, so, what am I missing?

Even assuming Polymorph carries all the mentioned restrictions, and not just some of them, it still gives a lot of value for a spell in utility. Even if you can't get any natural attacks out of it (an unreasonably hostile interpretation of that clause), it still lets you gish it up by changing out your probably-mediocre physical stats for much better ones. It can provide a ton of AC via natural armor, movement modes, and some EX attacks can be rather strong if the enemy doesn't have a counter.

Or, to simplify: Alter Self is fairly broken, Polymorph being a straight upgrade to it puts it in the same category. It's broken for the same reason as the various Shadow spells are: even if any single thing they can do isn't a perfect solution (which, it might sometimes be), it offers at least partial solutions to so many things that it still stands heads-and-shoulders above most its peers in terms of usefulness.

[Cosi]

An allowance explicitly does remove a restriction. The new spell operates as the old one, but there are listed exceptions to this functioning. One of these exceptions is type. You can become this list, which overwrites the old type restriction. You can become this size, which overwrites the old size restriction, either partially or totally. You get these abilities, which overwrites the old ability restriction in the stated ways. The HP restriction isn't even mentioned, so we can only assume that it is not altered by the new spell. The spell is written in a really weird and confusing way, which alternates between giving new and odd restrictions and making specific allowances (just frigging list the sizes you can become, spell), but it adds up well enough.

I agree, and that's how the spell is supposed to be parsed. Basically, there are two schools of thought.

Mine (and yours, and the designers per the Rules of the Game article) is that polymorph is defining a set of things you can turn into. Since it defines the "size" part of that set as being "no smaller than Fine", that is the restriction. alter self's set of allowable forms is not part of what the spell inherits.

Max's is that the spell is defining a set of restrictions and allowances. Since alter self restricts you to forms within one size category of your own, so does polymorph. Under this interpretation, polymorph still has the type restriction from alter self, and becomes dysfunctional.

My objection is that Max is using the first interpretation for types, but the second for sizes, which is wrong. I'm also claiming that we should prefer the first interpretation, because in ambiguous cases we should choose the rules interpretation that creates the fewest dysfunctions.

[torrasque666]

Max's is that the spell is defining a set of restrictions and allowances. Since alter self restricts you to forms within one size category of your own, so does polymorph. Under this interpretation, polymorph still has the type restriction from alter self, and becomes dysfunctional.

Not at all. A Spell has restrictions X, Y, and Z. A new spell refers to the old spell, but states an exception to X (types), a further restriction on Y (sizes) and doesn't touch Z. Its not an all or nothing deal. Otherwise, what would be the point of referring back to the first spell?

[Cosi]

Not at all. A Spell has restrictions X, Y, and Z. A new spell refers to the old spell, but states an exception to X (types), a further restriction on Y (sizes) and doesn't touch Z. Its not an all or nothing deal. Otherwise, what would be the point of referring back to the first spell?

No, it defines new sets of types and sizes. It must do that to function. Your side is arguing that, in an ambiguous case where we have access to the RAI, we should prefer an interpretation that makes the spell non-functional. That is a bad argument. Stop making it.

[eggynack]

I agree, and that's how the spell is supposed to be parsed. Basically, there are two schools of thought.

Mine (and yours, and the designers per the Rules of the Game article) is that polymorph is defining a set of things you can turn into. Since it defines the "size" part of that set as being "no smaller than Fine", that is the restriction. alter self's set of allowable forms is not part of what the spell inherits.

Max's is that the spell is defining a set of restrictions and allowances. Since alter self restricts you to forms within one size category of your own, so does polymorph. Under this interpretation, polymorph still has the type restriction from alter self, and becomes dysfunctional.

My objection is that Max is using the first interpretation for types, but the second for sizes, which is wrong. I'm also claiming that we should prefer the first interpretation, because in ambiguous cases we should choose the rules interpretation that creates the fewest dysfunctions.
Right. Still, it's worth note that, as I've been noting, there is a self consistent interpretation that disallows big forms. In particular, the new size limit could change the floor, because that's explicitly being given a new nature, but not the ceiling, which lacks such an allowance. That would make the range on a medium creature fine to large.

[zergling.exe]

I agree, and that's how the spell is supposed to be parsed. Basically, there are two schools of thought.

Mine (and yours, and the designers per the Rules of the Game article) is that polymorph is defining a set of things you can turn into. Since it defines the "size" part of that set as being "no smaller than Fine", that is the restriction. alter self's set of allowable forms is not part of what the spell inherits.

Max's is that the spell is defining a set of restrictions and allowances. Since alter self restricts you to forms within one size category of your own, so does polymorph. Under this interpretation, polymorph still has the type restriction from alter self, and becomes dysfunctional.

My objection is that Max is using the first interpretation for types, but the second for sizes, which is wrong. I'm also claiming that we should prefer the first interpretation, because in ambiguous cases we should choose the rules interpretation that creates the fewest dysfunctions.

There are 2 different types of claims being made: relative, and absolute.

Alter self gives an absolute claim on type: the same type.
Polymorph gives an absolute claim on type: the same type + these other ones.
Both are absolute claims, so only one can be in effect. Since polymorph is the specific rules block in question, it's claim obviously overrides alter self's.

Now we move on to sizes.
Alter self gives a relative claim on size: the creature must be within 1 size category of the target.
Polymorph gives an absolute claim: the creature must be no smaller than fine size (whatever that means, nothing is smaller than fine anyway).

Now here is where the arguments can happen. Polymorph isn't specifically saying that you can be more than 1 size category away from your normal size, just that there is a minimum size you can assume, so it can be argued that alter self's restriction still applies. The only place that both restrictions will interact is on a fine sized creature, since alter self says "within 1 size category" and polymorph says "no smaller than fine". Polymorph wins this argument because it is the presently used rules. However, for every other size (aside from tiny where both restrictions line up on the smaller end), there is ambiguity on whether or not you can go beyond alter self's "1 size category" rule, because polymorph doesn't specifically address it; and even then, arguably the closest it comes is lifting the restriction on smaller sizes, but not larger. Each DM is free to decide whether it is overwritten or stays in place, and by RAW, neither reading is wrong, since it can be argued either way.

[torrasque666]

No, it defines new sets of types and sizes. It must do that to function. Your side is arguing that, in an ambiguous case where we have access to the RAI, we should prefer an interpretation that makes the spell non-functional. That is a bad argument. Stop making it.

Except it doesn't have to define new types as well as sizes. It can define one but not the other. Why do you insist that it has to do both?

[gogogome]

I think the matter is settled here.

someonenoone11 provided us with a clear official example in the same book no less that showed polymorph does not have alter self's size limit restriction, and instead is replaced by its own. This is RAW.
sleepyphoenixx provided us with an official rules of the game article whose author is the designer of 3.5 that showed polymorph does not have alter self's size limit restriction. This is RAI.

So both RAW and RAI says polymorph does not have alter self's size limit restriction so I think the matter is settled here.

[MrSandman]

Now here is where the arguments can happen. Polymorph isn't specifically saying that you can be more than 1 size category away from your normal size, just that there is a minimum size you can assume, so it can be argued that alter self's restriction still applies. The only place that both restrictions will interact is on a fine sized creature, since alter self says "within 1 size category" and polymorph says "no smaller than fine". Polymorph wins this argument because it is the presently used rules. However, for every other size (aside from tiny where both restrictions line up on the smaller end), there is ambiguity on whether or not you can go beyond alter self's "1 size category" rule, because polymorph doesn't specifically address it; and even then, arguably the closest it comes is lifting the restriction on smaller sizes, but not larger. Each DM is free to decide whether it is overwritten or stays in place, and by RAW, neither reading is wrong, since it can be argued either way.

I'm going to regret entering this discussion, but why doesn't the so-called "absolute" restriction overrule the so-called "relative" restriction? Whether it's "relative" or not alter self's restriction translates into an absolute restriction, which for medium casters is small to large. With polymorph, the absolute restriction is larger than fine.

But I'm going off on a tangent. My only, single, sole point of contention is your assumption that a so-called absolute restriction doesn't override a so-called relative restriction.

[Cosi]

Right. Still, it's worth note that, as I've been noting, there is a self consistent interpretation that disallows big forms. In particular, the new size limit could change the floor, because that's explicitly being given a new nature, but not the ceiling, which lacks such an allowance. That would make the range on a medium creature fine to large.

Neither line makes any reference to alter self's restrictions. I don't see a coherent way for one but not both to inherit them.


There are 2 different types of claims being made: relative, and absolute.

Alter self gives an absolute claim on type: the same type.
Polymorph gives an absolute claim on type: the same type + these other ones.
Both are absolute claims, so only one can be in effect. Since polymorph is the specific rules block in question, it's claim obviously overrides alter self's.

Now we move on to sizes.
Alter self gives a relative claim on size: the creature must be within 1 size category of the target.
Polymorph gives an absolute claim: the creature must be no smaller than fine size (whatever that means, nothing is smaller than fine anyway).

You lost me when a reference to your own type was absolute, but a reference to your own size was relative.


Except it doesn't have to define new types as well as sizes. It can define one but not the other. Why do you insist that it has to do both?

It doesn't have to. But it is. planar binding increases both the HD cap and the number of creatures summoned relative to lesser planar binding. Could it only increase one of those? Sure, but it factually does increase both.

[eggynack]

Neither line makes any reference to alter self's restrictions. I don't see a coherent way for one but not both to inherit them.

Simply put, the new text only makes specific reference to how the low end functions. Forms going down to fine are now okay. How do forms going up to colossal work? Not explicitly stated by the text, so you refer back to alter self. It's not about referencing back to the original ability, but about whether you should consider the floor and ceiling separate rules objects, or if it's all part of one big size melange.

[Cosi]

Simply put, the new text only makes specific reference to how the low end functions. Forms going down to fine are now okay. How do forms going up to colossal work? Not explicitly stated by the text, so you refer back to alter self. It's not about referencing back to the original ability, but about whether you should consider the floor and ceiling separate rules objects, or if it's all part of one big size melange.

That seems really lose. alter self defines its size restrictions in relative terms. "The spell" doesn't have a high end for polymorph to refer back to.

[torrasque666]

That seems really lose. alter self defines its size restrictions in relative terms. "The spell" doesn't have a high end for polymorph to refer back to.
Sure it does. Since the only change polymorph makes size-wise is that it can't be smaller than fine, the floor is now fine. It makes no mention of a change to the ceiling, which is 1 size larger than the target. This can be inferred because shapechange specifically changes the ceiling it inherits from polymorph to Colossal.

[eggynack]

That seems really lose. alter self defines its size restrictions in relative terms. "The spell" doesn't have a high end for polymorph to refer back to.
Yeah, that's what I was noting before, but it's still pretty consistent, as readings go. That it's relative doesn't strike me as important compared to the fact that it's just one rules object. Consider something like, "You can't take forms more than one size category bigger than your own, and neither can you take forms more than one size category smaller than your own." Here, there's a clear high end and low end we're working with, such that it makes more sense for only the low end to be overwritten, and yet the two rules are seemingly functionally identical, up to and including the relative structure. We can even have the exact same rules but remove the relative structure. Perhaps, "If you are medium, then you can take small or large forms," except for every size category out there.

Ultimately, this distinction you are talking about, and it is one I agree with, is ultimately one of syntax. There is nothing essential to the rules that would preclude some sort of distinction between size floor and size ceiling. Neither is there anything that must be relative. All we really have, then, is the way the rules are presented, in a fashion that does not make explicit these sorts of structures, such that we may be reasonable in assuming their non-existence. But it does not strike me, on its own, as an unambiguously correct position.

[Cosi]

Sure it does. Since the only change polymorph makes size-wise is that it can't be smaller than fine, the floor is now fine. It makes no mention of a change to the ceiling, which is 1 size larger than the target. This can be inferred because shapechange specifically changes the ceiling it inherits from polymorph to Colossal.

No, shapechange is preventing you from assuming forms that are Colossal+ or larger. "Floor" and "ceiling" are not defined in this context. What is defined is a range. alter self has a range from one size below to one size above. polymorph has a range from Fine up. shapechange has a range from Fine to Colossal.

[torrasque666]

No, shapechange is preventing you from assuming forms that are Colossal+ or larger. "Floor" and "ceiling" are not defined in this context. What is defined is a range. alter self has a range from one size below to one size above. polymorph has a range from Fine up. shapechange has a range from Fine to Colossal.
So you're saying that Polymorph will allow you to assume Colossal+ forms provided they meet the other restrictions, but not Shapechange? That the lower level spell does MORE than the higher level spell that references it?

[Cosi]

So you're saying that Polymorph will allow you to assume Colossal+ forms provided they meet the other restrictions, but not Shapechange? That the lower level spell does MORE than the higher level spell that references it?

That's true under your interpretation as well. No one is claiming polymorph has a hard cap at Colossal. There definitively exist conditions under which polymorph can assume a form shapechange cannot. All we're debating is whether one of those conditions is "cast by someone who is Colossal".

[Gullintanni]

Let me take a stab at explaining this...

Polymorph inherits type restrictions from Alter Self, then, in its spell text, immediately lifts them. The RAW here is not under debate.

Concerning sizing, Alter Self makes restriction A and Polymorph makes restriction B, where A and B are defined as follows:

A: Caster's new form must be within one size category of original form.
B: Caster's new form must be no smaller than fine.

There are two possible, logically consistent outcomes here. Either restrictions A and B are defined as discrete categories, and one replaces the other; or, each restriction must be applied a la carte.

If A and B are discrete categories, they can not be broken down further, and there is no upper size limit for Polymorph.

If going a la carte, then what we really have is three restrictions. We'll call them 1, 2 and 3, defined as follows.

1. Caster's new form must be no more than one size category smaller than the original form.
2. Caster's new form must be no more than one size category larger than the original form.

These two restrictions are presented in Alter Self, and Polymorph inherits both.

3. Caster's new form must be no smaller than fine.

Polymorph presents this new sizing restriction. In this case, restriction 3 conflicts with restriction 1, and overwrites it entirely. Restriction 3 does not conflict with restriction 2; however, therefore Polymorph inherits restriction 2, with the outcome that the new spell's restrictions are as follows:

2. Caster's new form must be no more than one size category larger than the original form.
3. Caster's new form must be no smaller than fine.

Given that, in formal logic, and in cases of linguistics, restriction A is equivalent to restrictions 1 and 2, both of these outcomes are correct owing to the inherent ambiguity of the English language. WoTC did not do a good job with their RAW.

[Bronk]

No, shapechange is preventing you from assuming forms that are Colossal+ or larger. "Floor" and "ceiling" are not defined in this context. What is defined is a range. alter self has a range from one size below to one size above. polymorph has a range from Fine up. shapechange has a range from Fine to Colossal.

I agree with you. I also think the new size restriction completely replaces the old restriction from Alter Self. (As an aside, when we hear of 'no smaller than fine', I've seen people try to become bacteria or viruses.)

You can take on colossal forms... if you can find one that falls within the 15HD cap. That's the limitation people seem to be looking for.

[Cosi]

Polymorph inherits type restrictions from Alter Self, then, in its spell text, immediately lifts them. The RAW here is not under debate.

Where? Where does it lift them? Where does it even talk about them? It mentions some new stuff about typing, but it never mentions alter self's rules on typing. How can it lift the typing restrictions without talking about them, but not lift the sizing restrictions without talking about them? The spell makes exactly the same mention of the two rules from alter self. They must apply to the same degree, or we've abandoned the notion that words have meaning.


I agree with you. I also think the new size restriction completely replaces the old restriction from Alter Self. (As an aside, when we hear of 'no smaller than fine', I've seen people try to become bacteria or viruses.)

You can take on colossal forms... if you can find one that falls within the 15HD cap. That's the limitation people seem to be looking for.

Yeah. Even the "no smaller than Fine" restriction doesn't really make any sense. There's no provision for turning into things without stats, and nothing with stats is smaller than Fine. At least, if there is it's probably from after polymorph was released.

[AvatarVecna]

If the rules governing Level 1 Experts say "you must wear a bowtie", and the rules governing Level 2 Experts say "you must follow the Level 1 Expert rules" and also says "you must wear a bowtie, a tie, or a necklace", the restriction has been changed even if that restriction hasn't been directly mentioned. "Must wear bowtie" and "must wear bowtie, tie, or necklace" have a direct conflict, and thus the latter must be the more specific rule for Level 2 Experts.

Similarly, if the rules governing Level 1 Experts say "you must wear black shoes", and the the rules governing Level 2 Experts say "you must follow the Level 1 Expert rules" and also says "you are not allowed to wear red shoes", that doesn't mean you can wear any non-red shoes, you're still restricted to black shoes. There is no direct conflict between "black required" and "non-red required", so "non-red required" can't be used as an argument that "black required" no longer applies.

If they were written "exactly the same way" as you say they are, then the size restriction in Polymorph would be listed as "you can cause the subject to become a size within one size category of their natural size, or any size larger than Fine, or size Fine", but it's not written that way at all. And I wanna state clearly that I'm not making an argument that the spell is meant or intended to be read this way, I'm just saying that by a strict RAW reading, "within one size of target's size" and "not smaller than Fine" are not in direct conflict with each other, and thus the latter can't be used as an argument that the former has been removed. It turns out that when things are written differently, they have different meaning, or we have to give up on the entire concept of words meaning anything. :smalltongue:

[Cosi]

The set of allowable types for polymorph is not a strict superset of the set of allowable types for alter self. Therefore, the argument that it is an extension of the restriction is incorrect.


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

alter self allows the new form to be of your own type.


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.

polymorph makes no reference to your own type. It refers to the subject's type.

This is not, as people are suggesting, a strict extension (from a textual perspective). The effect is a strict extension, but the actual text actually says something else. On an Elemental caster, alter self always allows an Elemental form. Under the same conditions, polymorph does not do so.

If you're going to make an argument about semantics and inheritance, make sure that you are exactly correct about what the spell says. If alter self's rules for sizes apply to polymorph, so do its rules for types. Because the text of polymorph does not make mention of the restriction in alter self.

To be clear, I think this is a dumb argument. But it is an argument that necessarily follows from the premise that polymorph maintains the size restrictions of alter self despite defining a new set of legal sizes.

[AvatarVecna]

The set of allowable types for polymorph is not a strict superset of the set of allowable types for alter self. Therefore, the argument that it is an extension of the restriction is incorrect.

Both spells refer to the type of the person targeted by the spell; the fact that Alter Self can only target the caster is an unrelated coincidence that doesn't affect the larger argument, and at this point you're just being deliberately obtuse to try and stubbornly support your point.

EDIT: An utterly surprising conclusion, of course. Deliberately obtuse and stubborn? Surely not Cosi! :smallwink:

[Cosi]

Both spells refer to the type of the person targeted by the spell; the fact that Alter Self can only target the caster is an unrelated coincidence that doesn't affect the larger argument, and at this point you're just being deliberately obtuse to try and stubbornly support your point.

Please, tell me more about how both the explicit intentions of the designers and the explicit text of the ability being inconsistent with your position make you right. Your argument has implications. If you don't like those implications, discard the argument. No need to throw ad hominems at me for refusing to back down on the issue.

[AvatarVecna]

Please, tell me more about how both the explicit intentions of the designers and the explicit text of the ability being inconsistent with your position make you right. Your argument has implications. If you don't like those implications, discard the argument. No need to throw ad hominems at me for refusing to back down on the issue.

You pretending "any of these types that includes this one type" isn't an extension of "this one type" is laughable, as you usually are.

[tiercel]

"Polymorph is not broken."

Well let's see -- 4th edition was released over 10 years ago and yet this thread alone is into its fourth page and over 100 replies.

Polymorph is crazy strong for its level, given that if all it did was "turn the caster into a troll" it would still be pretty good (yes, I see you waving in the corner, trollform) - and the power of polymorph only grows with the number of monster shapes it is allowed to access.

Most spells shouldn't necessarily be both strong for their level and versatile, but polymorph is breathtakingly versatile. (And it even powers one of the better Reserve feats, to boot.)

Worse than any of these, polymorph is broken because it is such a mess to use. Through 3.0 and 3.5 and errata and FAQs and Rules of the Game and even still, 10 years after the edition was deprecated, there are arguments about how the spell does/should work.

And the cherry on top is that it's not even the easiest spell (or line of spells, thanks to alter self and the even more cringeworthy polymorph any object and shapechange) to simply ignore, given that shapechanging is such an iconic magical ability that it feels wrong to either completely remove it from the game, or restrict shapechanging to Wild Shape and monomorph spells -- a poor excuse for a solution.

[Cosi]

You pretending "any of these types that includes this one type" isn't an extension of "this one type" is laughable, as you usually are.

Yes, because those types are defined differently. Again, I'm perfectly happy to accept that we shouldn't focus on the technical minutiae of the spell. But if that's the case, we should probably account for the fact that the designers of the game, in a context intended to be official, explicitly ruled against your interpretation. But if we are focusing on those minutiae, then in the inherited restrictions model, similar restrictions don't override one another.

But yes, feel free to keep personally insulting me instead of explaining why "your" and "the subject" are actually the same word. If you think believing that different words have different meanings is laughable, it doesn't surprise me that you consider me to usually be wrong, as my arguments often depend on the fact that words have meanings.

[AvatarVecna]

Yes, because those types are defined differently. Again, I'm perfectly happy to accept that we shouldn't focus on the technical minutiae of the spell. But if that's the case, we should probably account for the fact that the designers of the game, in a context intended to be official, explicitly ruled against your interpretation. But if we are focusing on those minutiae, then in the inherited restrictions model, similar restrictions don't override one another.

But yes, feel free to keep personally insulting me instead of explaining why "your" and "the subject" are actually the same word. If you think believing that different words have different meanings is laughable, it doesn't surprise me that you consider me to usually be wrong, as my arguments often depend on the fact that words have meanings.

Let's follow that, then. If we're going off of the argument that Alter Self's result is based on the caster's type (which is coincidentally the target's type, but that's implications not rules as written so we'll ignore that similarity as you're requesting), and that Polymorph's result is based on the target's type explicitly, then we're left with a weird situation. If both the caster and the target are humanoid, then Polymorph can turn the target into a humanoid - if it didn't, it'd be breaking the type restriction of Alter Self; if the caster is humanoid but the target isn't (like say, they're a native Outsider), then in that situation Polymorph can't obey the rules of both spells and there's a direct conflict as mentioned before - at which point the more specific rule trumps, just as I said before, and any of the types become available. So thanks for prompting me to take a more literal look at the spells - now instead of thinking the type restriction works as the designers intended, I know that it actually only works if the caster and target are different types beforehand. :smalltongue:

Of course, there is another way to interpret the words even more literally, but at this point I'm curious to see what you're gonna respond with. :smallwink:

[Cosi]

(which is coincidentally the target's type, but that's implications not rules as written so we'll ignore that similarity as you're requesting),

That's not "as I'm requesting", that's "as is necessary for you to be anything other than wrong". We have 100% unambiguous RAI that the size range of polymorph overrides that of alter self. The only way around that is to look at RAW without consideration for "implications" or "coincidences".


if the caster is humanoid but the target isn't (like say, they're a native Outsider), then in that situation Polymorph can't obey the rules of both spells and there's a direct conflict as mentioned before - at which point the more specific rule trumps, just as I said before, and any of the types become available.

polymorph could absolutely obey the rules of both spells -- it could be illegal to cast, or have no effect. The spell doesn't have to work. There's a thread on this very forum listing dozen or hundreds of such dysfunctions where the rules are defined a way such that various elements do not function (for example: Reversed archer's eye removes the penalties of a condition with no penalties).

I'm also not sure specific versus general is supposed to apply in the case of inherited spells. If you interpret "as alter self" to mean "copy/paste the text of alter self here", as it does with other instances of inheritance like mass bull's strength or planar binding, it would seem reasonable to say that the rule is equally specific in both cases. The intention of mass bull's strength isn't really that it is a "more specific" version of bull's strength, but that it is bull's strength with some passages replaced.

This is really the issue with using this kind of inheritance for something as complex as polymorph. When mass bull's strength inherits from bull's strength, it's obvious what the "except" is replacing -- the range, and the number of targets. That's really not the case with polymorph. Does "except" mean "replacing the related text in the previous spell" or "changing the effect of the previous spell in these specific ways"?

[AvatarVecna]

I've been doing some work on a longer post more or less trying to take a step back and clarify my overall position and thought process a bit, but I feel that a point about the size issue was getting a bit lost and muddied in it, so I'm making this shorter post to more succinctly state it since it's largely unrelated to a discussion of Specific Vs General in regards to inherited spells. For now all I'm saying about that whole post is that seeing the Bull's Strength example of spell inheritance has given me a better understanding of your position, while also reminding me of spell inheritance working differently (for things like Fog Cloud and Bigby's Interposing Hand). Anyway:

3.5 is not a system where the rules tell you what you can't do, it's a system where the rules tell you what you can do. Uses of skills not mentioned in the books, at least by RAW, means those skills can't be used that way. RAI, DMs can figure out a way to translate skills into uses, because while it's easy to see a use and think of a skill that's applicable, it's difficult for the designers to make a skill and think of every possible applicable use for it. The fact that the system is built where people can houserule in stuff that makes sense doesn't change what the text actually allows for, merely means that Rule 0 exists and that the DM can use it to make allowances outside the system's normal scope. With that in mind, let's take a look at the size restrictions mentioned in both spells:

Alter Self reads "The new form must be within one size category of your normal size" - this gets muddied depending on if "your normal size" is to be read as "the caster's normal size" or "the target's normal size", but that's getting off-track a bit and doesn't make a huge difference to my point. When you cast the spell, it is immediately crystal clear what sizes are and aren't legal - "must be a size in this group of relative sizes" declares three sizes to be legal results, and all the rest to be illegal.

Polymorph (either in addition to working like Alter Self, or working in place of Alter Self) tells us "You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine". It does not make any claims whatsoever as to what sizes are legal, only that any size smaller than Fine is illegal (which is further muddied by Fine being the smallest official size, but again this is going on a tangent). If Polymorph read "you must cause the subject to assume a form that is Fine or larger", there would be no argument, but that's not how it reads.

Thus, when looking at Polymorph's size restrictions, there are two ways to read it: the first is where, because Alter Self declares these Size Group A legal and Size Group B illegal, and Polymorph declares Size Group C illegal, there's only really a conflict if a size is in both Group A and C (such as if casting Polymorph on a Fine creature, in which case they couldn't take a smaller-than-Fine size, because while Alter Self would allow for it, Polymorph would not, and specific trumps general in a rules conflict). The second is "the size rules in Polymorph completely replace the ones in Alter Self", which means we go from a ruleset that has a RAW statement on the legality of every size, to a ruleset that has a RAW statement on the legality of every size smaller than Fine, and no RAW statement on any other size. Claiming that "you can't cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine" means any other size is allowed is reading implications into things - they're not implications I disagree with by any stretch of the imagination, but they are definitely nothing but implications. "It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument that flies in 3.5; if the rules don't declare it to be legal, it's illegal. This means Polymorph either does little (under the "both restrictions must be followed" reading) or nothing (under the "only Polymorph restrictions are relevant" reading).

EDIT: And this contrasts rather clearly with the type restrictions, as both Alter Self and Polymorph pretty clearly state what types they allow...although then you have to get into whether "you/your" in Alter Self is referring to caster or target, and then use Polymorph's targeting-change to adjust appropriately - which might very well result in some of the type-matching dysfunctions we discussed earlier.

[AvatarVecna]

polymorph could absolutely obey the rules of both spells -- it could be illegal to cast, or have no effect. The spell doesn't have to work. There's a thread on this very forum listing dozen or hundreds of such dysfunctions where the rules are defined a way such that various elements do not function (for example: Reversed archer's eye removes the penalties of a condition with no penalties).

It's certainly entirely possible that the spell simply fails to function at all when cast on others, although we'd still need to sort out what happens when you cast Polymorph on yourself. In any case, this is a fair point.


I'm also not sure specific versus general is supposed to apply in the case of inherited spells. If you interpret "as alter self" to mean "copy/paste the text of alter self here", as it does with other instances of inheritance like mass bull's strength or planar binding, it would seem reasonable to say that the rule is equally specific in both cases. The intention of mass bull's strength isn't really that it is a "more specific" version of bull's strength, but that it is bull's strength with some passages replaced.

This is really the issue with using this kind of inheritance for something as complex as polymorph. When mass bull's strength inherits from bull's strength, it's obvious what the "except" is replacing -- the range, and the number of targets. That's really not the case with polymorph. Does "except" mean "replacing the related text in the previous spell" or "changing the effect of the previous spell in these specific ways"?

Ah, okay. I see more what you're saying now, and I think we've been talking past each other a bit. So inherited spells like "Mass Bull's Strength" are more or less "this works like Bull's Strength, except you use these things instead", and if Polymorph inherits the same way MBS does, then there wouldn't be much of an argument. However, there's other inherited spells that work more or less exactly as you've described (copy-pasting the inherited spell into the new spell's description, and the only reason it's not done in the spell description itself is to save time). The two "spell trees" that come to mind in this regard are Bigby's Interposing Hand (which three core spells inherit, each in a "this does all what that spell does, plus this other stuff" way), and Fog Cloud (which four core spells inherit...one of which, itself, is inherited by another core Spell). A quick skim of all ten of these spells in both core trees makes it seem to me that you'd be reading those spells wrong to assume that the text of the branches replaces the text of the trunk. In such a case, my approach to reading the rules tends to be "if both of these rules texts are meant to be simultaneously active, is there a conflict between them? If no, follow both; if yes, the more specific ruleblock takes precedent. Mass Bull's Strength provides a good framework for this: "BS says it targets one creature in touch range, while MBS says it targets multiple creatures within close range, but since we're casting MBS, the MBS statblock takes precedent in this conflict of rules because it's more specific text to the spell we're currently casting".

[ShurikVch]

Do those even grant extra attacks on the basis of extra limbs?And why the heck not?
It's not like 3.5 lacking multi-headed creatures even in the Core
If it, actually, doesn't grant extra attacks on the basis of extra limbs, then why it doesn't says so in the RAW?

[eggynack]

And why the heck not?
It's not like 3.5 lacking multi-headed creatures even in the Core
If it, actually, doesn't grant extra attacks on the basis of extra limbs, then why it doesn't says so in the RAW?
Things don't have to say they don't grant extra attacks. They have to say they do.

[Lotheb]

In conclusion, Polymorph is broken because:
Power - it grants larger bonuses than other spells of comparable level and duration
Versatility - it offers incredible versatility because you choose what creature to turn into when the spell is cast, not when the spell is learned/prepared.
Ruins Games - it is less clearly worded than an ability this complex should be, leading to fights on the internet and possibly in real life

[ShurikVch]

Things don't have to say they don't grant extra attacks. They have to say they do.And where, exactly, they should say so?
In the RAW for the weapon? It would be kinda weird. I don't checked it, but still pretty sure - no weapon in the game have RAW which says something like "you also can make extra attacks with it, if you're wielding more than one"
In the RAW for the TWF? It's kinda already do:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

[eggynack]

And where, exactly, they should say so?
In the RAW for the weapon? It would be kinda weird. I don't checked it, but still pretty sure - no weapon in the game have RAW which says something like "you also can make extra attacks with it, if you're wielding more than one"
In the RAW for the TWF? It's kinda already do:
Anywhere? The game tells you when you get attacks. I honestly don't see the issue here. Things do what they say they do. If nothing says that this thing does this, then that's the end of it.

[RoboEmperor]

In conclusion, Polymorph is broken because:
Power - it grants larger bonuses than other spells of comparable level and duration
Versatility - it offers incredible versatility because you choose what creature to turn into when the spell is cast, not when the spell is learned/prepared.
Ruins Games - it is less clearly worded than an ability this complex should be, leading to fights on the internet and possibly in real life

Nah polymorph isn't broken. I have yet to see it break a game. In fact I rarely see it at all. No one does the hydra thing because it's worse than what they're already doing, and no one cries, not even the DM, when a player uses polymorph to solve a noncombat encounter.

[ShurikVch]

Anywhere? The game tells you when you get attacks. I honestly don't see the issue here. Things do what they say they do. If nothing says that this thing does this, then that's the end of it.Then it already did - in the TWF(/MWF).

[icefractal]

I'd actually say 95% of it's uses aren't broken. It's at the awkward minute/level duration, so outside of a favorable ambush it's usually an action to use in combat. And if your plan is buff yourself into a tank, you'll still be limited by your lack of BAB, feats, and appropriate gear. Used on a warrior type, it's much better, but:
1) They need to be set up right (not gear dependent, fighting style compatible with new form) to get a major boost.
2) Honestly, the Wizard turning the Barbarian or Monk into an engine of destruction is the kind of cooperation I like to see.

For utility purposes, it's quite nice, but still limited by the duration. On par with Dimension Door I think.

That said, there are a few specific forms that give huge benefits (in 3.5 at least, not sure PF polymorph has any killer apps), and those can be unbalancing if the rest of the party isn't high-op. But you can just ban those few, the spell in general is fine.

[eggynack]

Then it already did - in the TWF(/MWF).
There doesn't seem to be any quality to those feats that magically makes these attacks happen.

[ShurikVch]

There doesn't seem to be any quality to those feats that magically makes these attacks happen.Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting):
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

[eggynack]

Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting):
Right, but that's still just a single additional weapon attack. It's not more than you'd get as a normal dude, so it's not a problem. Also, it requires, y'know, hands. Multiweapon fighting is the same way. It talks about how extra hands gets you extra crap attacks by default. If you do get extra hands, then polymorph does not give you extra attacks from it. If you get something that is not extra hands, like a pile of heads, then that does not get extra attacks from these feats (or from the rules implied by them).

[tiercel]

Nah polymorph isn't broken. I have yet to see it break a game. In fact I rarely see it at all.

The second one kinda explains the first; polymorph is so problematic — in power, versatility, and rules interpretation — that it is often avoided. Avoiding the whole issue hardly fixes it.


I'd actually say 95% of it's uses aren't broken.

Er... gishing? Polymorph is such a big power-up suite (especially, say, some kind of giant form that maintains all equipment and is a straight upgrade) that it’s arguably the single most important self-buff, at least before shapechange. (Never mind when the whole party is now fill-in-the-blank giants, etc)

[RoboEmperor]

The second one kinda explains the first; polymorph is so problematic — in power, versatility, and rules interpretation — that it is often avoided. Avoiding the whole issue hardly fixes it.

No, everyone at my table is aware of it. They just don't want to waste resources on a hydra form when they can be ubercharging, persistent wraith striking, DMM:Persist cleric-ing, or orb blasting. The only time I did see it was on a sorcerer polymorphing into a cloaker for its stuff but even then it was meh.

Why don't you explain to me situations where you found it OP? Because it is my expectation that only severely low-op games find polymorph "broken".

The only broken use of Alter self is dwarven ancestor form. All humanoid forms, including flight, was hardly "broken".

[Cosi]

Claiming that "you can't cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine" means any other size is allowed is reading implications into things

That depends on whether you believe the composition is additive or subtractive. Is the default case for form changing that everything is allowed, and anything you wish characters to not be able to do must be explicitly forbidden, or that nothing is allowed and everything you wish characters to do must be explicitly permitted? Compare to, for example, effects that give you "a feat" or "a spell".

The first reading seems more consistent with the text of both spells. alter self says:


The new form must be within one size category of your normal size.

If you had to be explicitly permitted to assume a kind of form, this text would be nonsensical, because it does not -- in and of itself -- say you can assume those forms, only that you can't assume other ones.

Similarly, polymorph claims that:


You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine

Both rules are phrased as restrictions rather than allowances. If alter self's restriction that the form "must" be within a certain category of sizes (those within one size of the caster) means those sizes are allowed, it seems to me that polymorph's restriction that you "can't" assume a certain range of sizes (those below fine) means that other sizes are allowed.


A quick skim of all ten of these spells in both core trees makes it seem to me that you'd be reading those spells wrong to assume that the text of the branches replaces the text of the trunk.

None of those spells (to my knowledge) modify the effects of the previous spell, they just add new effects. acid fog is exactly like solid fog, except that it also does some acid damage. But we know that polymorph isn't exactly like alter self. It does things alter self doesn't do. For example, you get the attributes and extraordinary abilities of the new form. It doesn't do things alter self does. For example, it has a restriction on incorporeal forms alter self lacks, and because the reflexive type restriction has changed from "yours" to "the subject", a Spellguard of Silvermoon can't use it to change a creature of a different type to a form of his type.


I'd actually say 95% of it's uses aren't broken. It's at the awkward minute/level duration, so outside of a favorable ambush it's usually an action to use in combat. And if your plan is buff yourself into a tank, you'll still be limited by your lack of BAB, feats, and appropriate gear. Used on a warrior type, it's much better, but:

This is kind of true. Turning into most creatures isn't that broken. Wolf form or Bear form isn't awesome, really. It's good, but probably not worth a 4th level slot in combat. But there are forms that are nuts (particularly with extra investment like Arcane Strike).


The second one kinda explains the first; polymorph is so problematic — in power, versatility, and rules interpretation — that it is often avoided. Avoiding the whole issue hardly fixes it.

This is very true. The biggest limiter on use of polymorph is how long it takes to adjudicate. Observe how long the debate on a single aspect of a single spell can go on. And once that debate is resolved, you still have to resolve all the other debates (like the HP debate that fizzled out, or Wolf Fu versus Octopus Fu, or Ex/Su ability stacking with shapechange, or pretty much everything about polymorph any object). And then once you've decided what the rules are, you have to go look through the MM for the best form under those rules, and figure out how your chosen polymorph effect combines that form with your stats before you can use the spell. Those last steps could ordinarily be done in advance, but they're (obviously) heavily dependent on the rules of the spell, which means your prep work might be invalidated. For example, if you don't get a creature's attack routine, Hydra is a pretty bad form, but if you do get its attacks it's one of the best.

[AvatarVecna]

Both rules are phrased as restrictions rather than allowances. If alter self's restriction that the form "must" be within a certain category of sizes (those within one size of the caster) means those sizes are allowed, it seems to me that polymorph's restriction that you "can't" assume a certain range of sizes (those below fine) means that other sizes are allowed.

A restriction is different from a requirement - Alter Self requires that you be within that size range. It doesn't say "you can't turn into any size smaller than Small or Larger than Large" and require you to extrapolate from there, it says "these three sizes are legal". The other sizes being illegal is how the rules of the system work - you weren't specifically told they're legal, so they're not. Polymorph, meanwhile, just tells you some sizes you're not allowed to turn into - but you can't change sizes by default anyway, size is static unless an effect makes it mechanically legal to change it.

You have a strange definition of "must".

EDIT: Alternatively, perhaps you could point to the text of Polymorph - Core, Spell Compendium, Rules Compendium, whatever - that explicitly tells you that you can change size. No interpretation, no assuming that everything not explicitly declared illegal in the spell is automatically allowed to bypass the default rule of "you can't change sizes", actual explicit text saying something like "your new form must be within one size of your normal size", or "your new form must be larger than Huge", or "your new form must be Tiny" or something along those lines. Explicit permission.

[sleepyphoenixx]

No, everyone at my table is aware of it. They just don't want to waste resources on a hydra form when they can be ubercharging, persistent wraith striking, DMM:Persist cleric-ing, or orb blasting. The only time I did see it was on a sorcerer polymorphing into a cloaker for its stuff but even then it was meh.

Why don't you explain to me situations where you found it OP? Because it is my expectation that only severely low-op games find polymorph "broken".

The only broken use of Alter self is dwarven ancestor form. All humanoid forms, including flight, was hardly "broken".

I've already mentioned this one, but War Troll form. Even under the most restrictive ruling that gives you Str 31, Dex 16, Con 29, 14 NA, 10ft reach and every hit is a DC 25 fort save or daze.
And since trolls are humanoid-shaped and can talk you can still do all the things you can do in your normal form. Ubercharging, gishing, persistent wraith striking, whatever.
For a straight wizard it's a tremendous buff to survivability. The 14 NA alone turns attacks from "things hit you on a 6" to "things hit you on a 20". For most wizards there's a +7 to fort saves on top of that. For a gish - who probably doesn't have 31 Str - or cast on the party fighter it's a massive offensive buff on top of that. The daze-on-hit effect is worth the spell slot alone.

That's the most directly powerful form that comes to mind, but there's plenty others. I won't list them all here, the MoMF Bible (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471903-Updated-Master-of-Many-Forms-Bible-Official-Wild-Shape-Rules-May-2006-%28HarzerKatze%29) has a list.

The only way casting Polymorph can be considered "wasting resources" is if you don't cast any buffs at all, because it's the most powerful of them by a large margin. As long as you pick the proper form of course.

Even Alter Self can get pretty good. Aside from the various movement modes (flight for 10x longer and a level lower than the Fly spell is a popular example) there's stuff like the Skulk (FF, +8 to hide, +15 to move silently) or the Crucian (SS, +8 NA, Iron Will as a bonus feat). And that's if you're humanoid.
If you have another type (or a familiar) the form get a lot better. There's a handbook (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=2811) for that too.

As for them being "broken", they're certainly a lot more powerful than any other spells of their level and many spells of higher level, which a lot of people define as "broken".

[ericgrau]

"This spell functions like alter self, -"

I think this is the part that everyone is missing.

"except that you change the willing subject into another form of creature."
-can be: same type as the subject, aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin
-up to 15hd
-no incorporeal/gaseous form
-gains extraordinary special attacks, but not extraordinary special qualities or any supernatural or spell-like abilities

Alter self adds these:
-must be within one size category of the caster
-retain your/the caster's (not sure) hp/bab/base saves
-you retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulations to use somatic/material components
-gain the mundane movement capabilities/natural armor/natural weapons/racial skill bonuses/racial bonus feats/and any gross physical qualities
-a body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks than normal

http://dndsrd.net/spellsAtoB.html#alter-self
http://dndsrd.net/spellsPtoR.html#polymorph

Also, I know that familiars must be and stay within 5ft of you to share your spells.

Okay, so, what am I missing?
Some splatbooks have broken forms. Mainly those with low HD & high CR. Like the famous War Troll. That's the main issue. The 2nd is that the rules are extremely confusing and grind the game to a halt. Living Greyhawk actually banned polymorph not because people were breaking the game with it, but because it was making games run too slow.

Solution: Allow only core forms and forms that seem to have a similar power level. Review splatbook forms and deny those that break this (low HD / high CR for example). Require the player to stat out all forms he wants to use on all targets he wants to cast it on before the session begins; otherwise the form is not allowed in combat. Using it as a disguise is still ok, but if a fight breaks out you reserve the right to fudge the stats. For example ignore all special abilities for that fight, adjust physical ability scores, and call it done until the player stats it out next game.

I know about good core forms like hydra. The hydra form has a low attack bonus leading to "flurry of misses" syndrome so those attacks don't all translate to hits. Some other details are arguable, but regardless of how you resolve those details it's not game breaking here. The important part is for the DM to look at the PC stat sheet and make a quick ruling on those details so everyone can quickly go back to playing.

[Cosi]

A restriction is different from a requirement - Alter Self requires that you be within that size range. It doesn't say "you can't turn into any size smaller than Small or Larger than Large" and require you to extrapolate from there, it says "these three sizes are legal". The other sizes being illegal is how the rules of the system work - you weren't specifically told they're legal, so they're not. Polymorph, meanwhile, just tells you some sizes you're not allowed to turn into - but you can't change sizes by default anyway, size is static unless an effect makes it mechanically legal to change it.

I think I just fundamentally disagree with you claiming that "you must do X" is a different kind of thing than "you can't do Y". They're both restrictions on the set of legal forms. You could equally argue that "isn't smaller than Fine" is a requirement for polymorph legality.


Alternatively, perhaps you could point to the text of Polymorph - Core, Spell Compendium, Rules Compendium, whatever - that explicitly tells you that you can change size. No interpretation, no assuming that everything not explicitly declared illegal in the spell is automatically allowed to bypass the default rule of "you can't change sizes", actual explicit text saying something like "your new form must be within one size of your normal size", or "your new form must be larger than Huge", or "your new form must be Tiny" or something along those lines. Explicit permission.

That would apply equally alter self.


Solution: Allow only core forms and forms that seem to have a similar power level. Review splatbook forms and deny those that break this (low HD / high CR for example). Require the player to stat out all forms he wants to use on all targets he wants to cast it on before the session begins; otherwise the form is not allowed in combat. Using it as a disguise is still ok, but if a fight breaks out you reserve the right to fudge the stats. For example ignore all special abilities for that fight, adjust physical ability scores, and call it done until the player stats it out next game.

That's a bad fix. You're relying on ad hoc judgments to make the spell not broken, which isn't going to work. You need to make the spell not broken. The way to do that is to change the fundamental design paradigm, because that's what's broken. polymorph (and related spells) should work something like this:

disguise self
School changes to Transmutation. Physically transform into a creature of the same size and type. No statistical changes.

alter self
Move to 3rd level. Physically transform into a creature within one size category of your own (gaining stat changes for size changes), from some list of types. Probably yours, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, and Giant. Gain your choice of +4 to one physical stat, or +2 to all physical stats. Gain one of a fixed menu of natural attack routines. Gain 1-3 (fixed value) abilities from a shortlist of things like "increased speed", "flight", and "darkvision". No penalties to your Disguise check for disguising as a different gender, race, or age.

polymorph
Move to 5th level. Physically transform into a creature within two size categories of your own (gaining stat changes for size changes), from the list of types polymorph supports. Gain your choice of several sets of stat buffs (probably something like +8/+0/+0, +6/+2/+2, or +4/+4/+4). Gain one of a fixed menu of natural attack routines (better than alter self's). Gain a larger number of better abilities.

greater polymorph
7th level spell. Like polymorph, but no size or type restrictions. Mechanical benefits improve again. People don't get a bonus to the opposed Spot check for recognizing your Disguise as a result of familiarity.

polymorph any object
No longer has specific rules for transformation. Instead, can emulate lower level transmutation spells (probably based on a tag for form changing stuff), and uses its "degree of difference" setup for determining duration. Repeated castings do not improve duration.

shapechange
As greater polymorph, but you can assume a new form each round and you gain one Ex ability of your choice while transformed into a given form in addition to any traits gained.

Obviously the specific implementation needs tweaks, but something like that, where the spells are mostly or entirely self-contained and don't require you to flip through the MM at all is the way forward. polymorph should just be a disguise/utility buff spell. There's no need to check MM stats at any point.

[lord_khaine]

Solution: Allow only core forms and forms that seem to have a similar power level. Review splatbook forms and deny those that break this (low HD / high CR for example). Require the player to stat out all forms he wants to use on all targets he wants to cast it on before the session begins; otherwise the form is not allowed in combat. Using it as a disguise is still ok, but if a fight breaks out you reserve the right to fudge the stats. For example ignore all special abilities for that fight, adjust physical ability scores, and call it done until the player stats it out next game.

I know about good core forms like hydra. The hydra form has a low attack bonus leading to "flurry of misses" syndrome so those attacks don't all translate to hits. Some other details are arguable, but regardless of how you resolve those details it's not game breaking here. The important part is for the DM to look at the PC stat sheet and make a quick ruling on those details so everyone can quickly go back to playing.

I did this as well in my games. Newer had any problems with Polymorph. Most things in the MM1 has a decent power to hp ratio.


That's a bad fix. You're relying on ad hoc judgments to make the spell not broken, which isn't going to work. You need to make the spell not broken. The way to do that is to change the fundamental design paradigm, because that's what's broken. polymorph (and related spells) should work something like this:


I think you misread the fix. There isnt any ad hoc judgment.
The fix is -only MM1 monsters, and prepare in advance for the adjusted stats-
Bam, jobs done.

He is then just rewieving any addtional material from other sources besides the base ones that a player wants to add.
But honestly i think thats a basic part of being a GM.

[AvatarVecna]

I think I just fundamentally disagree with you claiming that "you must do X" is a different kind of thing than "you can't do Y". They're both restrictions on the set of legal forms. You could equally argue that "isn't smaller than Fine" is a requirement for polymorph legality.

I agree that they interpret as largely identical (the same way that giving yourself +1 rank or giving everyone else in the universe -1 rank is functionally identical in terms of purely opposed rolls) but this isn't about final effect, this is about system allowances. The default answer in 3.5 to the question "can I do this thing by RAW?" is "no". Alter Self is worded in a way that explicitly says "when you're using this spell, you can alter your size to one of these sizes" without touching the default answer of no for the others. Polymorph is worded in a way that explicitly says "when you're using this spell, you can't alter your size to one of these sizes". The problem RAW-wise is that the answer to those was already no, because you can't by default change sizes at all - you need specific abilities that allow you to do so, and Polymorph is not worded in a way that declares any size explicitly legal.

To use the above example about numbers, you're essentially saying "+1 rank for me is basically the same as -1 rank for everybody else", and I'm saying "yeah, but the situation is that everybody else has -1 rank, that doesn't mean you count as having ranks for the purposes of this trained-only skill, or mean that you're any better at hitting the flat DCs than you were before". You as a DM are perfectly justified in declaring that Polymorph works the way it was meant to, but you don't get to pretend that the default for 3.5 is "if it doesn't say I can't, then I can".

[icefractal]

Er... gishing? Polymorph is such a big power-up suite (especially, say, some kind of giant form that maintains all equipment and is a straight upgrade) that it’s arguably the single most important self-buff, at least before shapechange. (Never mind when the whole party is now fill-in-the-blank giants, etcI thought that (after the deluge of errata), polymorphing now merged all equipment. With long-duration stuff like Wildshape or even Alter Self you can take it off, morph, and put it back on, but not with Polymorph itself.

[ryu]

I thought that (after the deluge of errata), polymorphing now merged all equipment. With long-duration stuff like Wildshape or even Alter Self you can take it off, morph, and put it back on, but not with Polymorph itself.

Pretty sure, for non-wildshape, if the new form can still legally equip the stuff natively it's fine? If not wilding clasps should probably be able to apply.

[tiercel]

I thought that (after the deluge of errata), polymorphing now merged all equipment. With long-duration stuff like Wildshape or even Alter Self you can take it off, morph, and put it back on, but not with Polymorph itself.

AFAIK polymorph itself wasn’t actually errated; there is the Polymorph Subschool, which melds equipment and nukes class abilities — and polymorph is a retroactive member of said subschool....

...but according to Rules Compendium, “a spell’s existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool.” On the question of polymorph, this falls back to alter self, which says that equipment remains on a creature’s new form “if it is capable of wearing or holding the item.”

[ericgrau]

That's a bad fix. You're relying on ad hoc judgments to make the spell not broken, which isn't going to work. You need to make the spell not broken. The way to do that is to change the fundamental design paradigm, because that's what's broken. polymorph (and related spells) should work something like this:

disguise self
School changes to Transmutation. Physically transform into a creature of the same size and type. No statistical changes.

alter self
Move to 3rd level. Physically transform into a creature within one size category of your own (gaining stat changes for size changes), from some list of types. Probably yours, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, and Giant. Gain your choice of +4 to one physical stat, or +2 to all physical stats. Gain one of a fixed menu of natural attack routines. Gain 1-3 (fixed value) abilities from a shortlist of things like "increased speed", "flight", and "darkvision". No penalties to your Disguise check for disguising as a different gender, race, or age.

polymorph
Move to 5th level. Physically transform into a creature within two size categories of your own (gaining stat changes for size changes), from the list of types polymorph supports. Gain your choice of several sets of stat buffs (probably something like +8/+0/+0, +6/+2/+2, or +4/+4/+4). Gain one of a fixed menu of natural attack routines (better than alter self's). Gain a larger number of better abilities.

greater polymorph
7th level spell. Like polymorph, but no size or type restrictions. Mechanical benefits improve again. People don't get a bonus to the opposed Spot check for recognizing your Disguise as a result of familiarity.

polymorph any object
No longer has specific rules for transformation. Instead, can emulate lower level transmutation spells (probably based on a tag for form changing stuff), and uses its "degree of difference" setup for determining duration. Repeated castings do not improve duration.

shapechange
As greater polymorph, but you can assume a new form each round and you gain one Ex ability of your choice while transformed into a given form in addition to any traits gained.

Obviously the specific implementation needs tweaks, but something like that, where the spells are mostly or entirely self-contained and don't require you to flip through the MM at all is the way forward. polymorph should just be a disguise/utility buff spell. There's no need to check MM stats at any point.
This creates the opposite problem because it severely limits what you can do in what used to be an extremely fun and versatile spell.
Player: "I want to transform into X creature to use its Y ability to overcome Z!"
DM: "NOPE."

Pathfinder and 5e did something like that and it's so boring. It's basically a cop out to retain the spell in name only.

So to keep the fun of 3.5 craziness I merely suggested (in post above) statting out each combat form before game. And to get DM approval for potentially broken non-core forms before game. To keep from bogging things down during game. Utility forms are still ok without statting it out ahead of time.

[Cosi]

This creates the opposite problem because it severely limits what you can do in what used to be an extremely fun and versatile spell.
Player: "I want to transform into X creature to use its Y ability to overcome Z!"
DM: "NOPE."

For every time you get to live out that cool fantasy, there are another dozen times when grabbing things out of the MM breaks the entire game. If you want to do stat replacement, you have to have the spell work like summon monster with a predetermined list of forms. If you want to be able to turn into anything, you can't actually use the stats of those things.

Also, most utility is captured by a reasonable list of special abilities. You could also move the "one Ex ability" down to the 7th or even 5th level spells if you really wanted.

[ericgrau]

^ MM combat forms can be ok but not game breaking. For the round spend casting it's a bit of a wash; like any other buff. Even the infamous hydra, with all its attacks, misses a lot due to low attack bonus like I said. It's some of the splatbook forms that carelessly made the HD too low for the CR because they didn't think of polymorph.