Can players really use Draconic Polymorph?

[Rakku]

This has been bothering me for a while and I can't find other threads that deal with this issue.

I always found it strange that the spells present in the Draconomicon are separated into two different sections. One is called "The Player's Perspective" and the other is called "DM's Guide to Dragons". Initially, I thought that players could only use the spells included in the former section. But in the "DM's Guide to Dragons", right where the spell list starts, the book specifies that any spellcaster can use these spells, not just dragons.

Quote:
"Over the millennia, dragons have developed a number of spells that take their special abilities and qualities into account. Despite the origin of these spells, any spellcaster can learn and use them if he or she is capable of casting spells of the indicated class and level."

On top of that, these spells are described in the same manner as any other spells, like they were meant to be used by players. Also I can't find any discussion regarding the legality of these spells and nothing in the book seems to indicate that they can't be used by players.

So, my question would be: Are players allowed to use these "Dragon Spells"? Are they meant to be used only by the DM? Or they are only available to players if the DM gives them access to this draconic magic?

Thanks in advance. Cheers.

[Gauntlet]

By the base rules, anyone can use them, yes. While they were invented by/for dragons, that doesn't mean that knowledge of these spells hasn't spread to other spellcasters in the time since that point. Same as how a PC can craft themselves a magic item if they dedicate the appropriate resources, despite the fact the magic item rules are in the 'Dungeon Master's Guide'.

If you want to restrict access to some spells in your game, then that's entirely reasonable, although using the 'for the DM' section as the delimiter for this is probably not going to have a large impact.

[Malphegor]

A lot of dragons like humans. A lot. It's actually a bit silly how many half-human dragon subraces there are ultimately.

So, they teach people magic. Heck, due to the racial memory of dragons, there's a good chance sorcerers 'remember' their ancestor's spells when they learn a new one.

[tstewt1921]

It looks like most of these were added to the spell compendium so it does seem like PC's are intended to use them.

[ngilop]

It looks like most of these were added to the spell compendium so it does seem like PC's are intended to use them.

which... oddly enough left out draconic polymorph :(

[Segev]

There are many spells it left out. It means little. Other than they didn’t want to spend word count on reprinting it there.

[Fizban]

So, my question would be: Are players allowed to use these "Dragon Spells"? Are they meant to be used only by the DM? Or they are only available to players if the DM gives them access to this draconic magic?

Thanks in advance. Cheers.
The answer is "ask your DM."

Literally- the default availability of all material in the game outside of the Player's Handbook is "ask your DM." It does not exist until the DM says it does, and access is allowed if and when they say so.

There is no Rules Legality over what sources players are allowed to use. If you're asking people who assume that everyone should be able to use anything from any WotC published book because RAW, well yeah they're going to say everything is legal. And if you're asking a DM like me, I'm going to tell you that no you can't take a bunch of lol OP stuff from Champions of Ruin and Exemplars of Evil- because I've probably already decided my game doesn't have those things, and also because I'm pretty sure a lot of those things were printed under the idea that this Book of Bad Guys for DMs was not seriously considered for player use (which is why I evaluated the elements myself and made those decisions [though most of it is easy to nerf into usability]). And also because X is for Evil characters and I'm not allowing those. And maybe I have a list of "rare" tagged spells that are available but not as free level up spells. And. . .

So regarding Draconimicon, yeah, only allowing players stuff from the Players section is eminently reasonable. The same way it's reasonable to only allow them stuff from the Player section of Lords of Madness, or Libris Mortis, or any other book that clearly has PC stuff in one place and extra monster side stuff or Bad Guy stuff in other places. Later MMs even have listings in the table of contents for players- there's never been a reason you had to allow people to Polymorph into whatever monster they want from any book, but that even gives you a "Player" line to draw on MM material if it makes them feel better (ha).


As for Draconic Polymorph itself, players can't use it. And dragons can't use it. Because the spell is blatantly overpowered and doesn't exist in my game. I'd make my own souped up Polymorph effect, but the basic spell is pretty much as far as you can go with even a modicum of predictability. With a maximum of Large size (because that's the actual expected one step for expected Medium PC races) and no type shenanigans and a few common sense "no"s (no, War Trolls don't exist, and you couldn't turn into one if they did), Polymorph is just a versatile spell with drawbacks a lot of people gloss over. Expanding the HD limit, size limits, adding even more free stats on top of the transformation, go in the opposite direction. Naturally this means most Polymorph Any Object is completely thrown out too, and instead it duplicates a whole bunch of transmutation and conjuration effects instead. The only thing I really want from an in-between Polymorph is a longer duration, because that's kindof a classic staple that got thrown out. But hour/level at say 6th is probably fine.

[NigelWalmsley]

Yes, players can use them. The DM could ban them, but the DM could also ban things in the PHB, so the point Fizban is making is fairly trivial.

[Fizban]

You got an actual lol out of me. Yes, the trivial point that the DM decides what happens in the game they're running, "rule zero," the only rule that Rules Arguments don't seem to care about.

The word "ban" never appears in the rules (not in the DMG anyway, they might have picked it up later because Internet) and is used specifically to imply the idea that using everything is the default, when it's not. The term is literally taken from things like Magic: The Gathering where all cards are in fact usable by default (until you realize they're not because most organized play uses formats which have defaults and a ban is something that happens for cards that were in use until they decided to ban them), and internet spaces (where by default anyone can join a forum/MMO/etc). A ban is the removal of an unexpected bad element without otherwise changing an all-comers environment. None of that is in the 3.5 DMG, and instead it takes great pains to remind prospective DMs that they need to be careful about adding new things and make rulings or changes on them to keep the game running.

Hence why I try to avoid using it- better to use a less convenient phrase than reinforce that narrative. Accusing the DM of banning something just shows that you're putting your expectations, which are not supported by the rules, above those of the DM whose job it is to actually make those decisions.

Even when taking the stance that DnD books are similar to MtG sets and the designers intended one to use the entire book at once, that's what returns to the primary thread topic, concerning the fact that some books clearly have DM/monster sections and player sections. The DM is still the one who decides where the "format" lines are, but the intent should be pretty obvious just by looking at the content. Most of the spells in the Dragon section have little or no use for normal PCs, because they're not dragons- no breath weapon, no natural armor, no natural weapons, etc. Same with the feats, most prerequisites not met. And the PrC's, because normal PCs aren't dragons, and thus don't qualify. If a PC is a dragon, then it is logical for them to ask for the Dragon content, and to allow it, but there is no harm in either side expecting the DM's and Dragons content to normally only be for DM's and Dragons. Just like there's no harm in a player asking for the Dragon content even if they aren't a dragon, because the only rule is "ask your DM."

'Cause that's another problem with reflexive use of the "ban" word- it implies an unalterable decision to forevermore forcibly exile and maintain vigilance against something, made unilaterally by an outside force that cannot be further reasoned with. When the way the rules actually work is that the DM says "no, I don't want to allow that," and then can later say "actually that's probably fine, go ahead and use it," after you've discussed it and/or as the game changes over time. Or they could keep saying no, if they have not changed their mind, or say not this game but next game, or let you use a modified version, or. . . Maintaining the DM's (RAW!) right to decide what goes in the game is not the same as them "banning" anything you think everyone should always have.



And if we want to argue the mechanics of Draconic Polymorph itself- so it's based on what is usually considered one of the most powerful spells. Then for +1 spell level it adds +8 strength, which stacks with any other buffs you might have. There isn't even a 5th level spell to add a +8 enhancement to strength, and Draconic Polymorph gives +8 stacking with enhancement on top of an already powerful effect. The only justification for the extra strength would be to account for the original 15HD forms not scaling, but the spell also lets you go to 20HD, where you should find forms with higher strength (probably at larger size than a PC would get though). Seriously, is there any argument for Draconic Polymorph not being broken other than "Well I don't consider X/Y/Z spell which is even more broken to be broken myself, therefore it isn't?" There generally seems to be a narrow band of people that find normal Polymorph acceptable as-is (myself mostly included), but Draconic Polymorph adds bonuses that you can't get on a 5th level spell to an existing 4th level spell, at 5th level.

Well I do have one possible argument- that the spell was not written expecting layered bonuses but rather to conveniently work in a single casting, with few spells known, that it was expected to be used by creatures with much higher strength than most PCs where a normal Polymorph would be a significant downgrade, who don't have access to particularly high levels of spells. Say, Dragons being run by the DM. In that context it's pretty much a non-problem, and hey it just so happens to be in the DMs and Dragons section, where it's entirely likely it was never considered (let alone tested) for player use.

Scintillating Scales on the other hand. . .

[NigelWalmsley]

Yes, that's because the actual name for "Rule Zero" is "the Oberron Fallacy". The fact that the DM can change the properties of the rules doesn't change what the rules say, and what people care about is what the rules say. If you think people shouldn't get Draconic Polymorph, that's fine, but for anyone to care, you need to make the case for why banning it makes the game better.

[DeAnno]

which... oddly enough left out draconic polymorph :(

Note that strangely enough, Draconic Polymorph IS on the Sor/Wizard spell list in SC, on page 268, it just for some reason isn't printed in the book.

FWIW, I agree a rule zero "what I would personally ban" argument doesn't have any place in the thread, it's not what the OP asked for at all.

[magic9mushroom]

Yes, that's because the actual name for "Rule Zero" is "the Oberron Fallacy". The fact that the DM can change the properties of the rules doesn't change what the rules say, and what people care about is what the rules say. If you think people shouldn't get Draconic Polymorph, that's fine, but for anyone to care, you need to make the case for why banning it makes the game better.

Rule Zero doesn't equal the Oberoni Fallacy (I think you got mixed up with Eberron).

The Oberoni Fallacy is saying that something easily fixed isn't broken to begin with.

Rule Zero is the most obvious method by which things are easily fixed, and thus it winds up invoked in most commissions of the Oberoni Fallacy, but R0 isn't wrong or fallacious.

That said, Fizban is barking up a very strange tree here, as with certain exceptions "feats" sections generally say "you can take this".

(Precocious Apprentice, Collegiate Wizard and Hidden Talent are the ones that come to mind, plus obviously everything in Unearthed Arcana.)

[Crake]

That said, Fizban is barking up a very strange tree here, as with certain exceptions "feats" sections generally say "you can take this".

(Precocious Apprentice, Collegiate Wizard and Hidden Talent are the ones that come to mind, plus obviously everything in Unearthed Arcana.)

Fizban's point was that the DM is the ultimate arbiter of what content is allowed in his game beyond the core rulebook. The DM doesn't have to allow anything in the draconomicon to begin with, let alone things in the DM section.

[Quertus]

That the GM can decide what they want in their game is a fair point, which is not completely irrelevant to the thread.

What the default is, or is intended to be, regarding the "table legality of content unless otherwise noted", is a very relevant point to this thread - and adds to the relevance of the previous point.

But none of that has anything to do with Rule 0, which only deals with filling in gaps of things not covered by the rules, like the rate at which water will drain from a lake through a 10' hole, or the value in GP of a 1980's era Volkswagen Beatle.

Precision of language!

[Crake]

But none of that has anything to do with Rule 0, which only deals with filling in gaps of things not covered by the rules, like the rate at which water will drain from a lake through a 10' hole, or the value in GP of a 1980's era Volkswagen Beatle.

Precision of language!

I mean, that's not the scope of what rule 0 was meant to cover, it's meant to give a DM free reign to modify any of the rules however he sees fit, but I do agree that that's not relevant to this thread, and has not actually been a part of the discussion, despite what Nigel says.

[Quertus]

I mean, that's not the scope of what rule 0 was meant to cover, it's meant to give a DM free reign to modify any of the rules however he sees fit, but I do agree that that's not relevant to this thread, and has not actually been a part of the discussion, despite what Nigel says.

No, there is a section on "changing the rules" (I remember seeing it in my 3.0 dmg recently), but that is separate from the "rule 0" section. Or so my senile memory says.

[MeimuHakurei]

No, there is a section on "changing the rules" (I remember seeing it in my 3.0 dmg recently), but that is separate from the "rule 0" section. Or so my senile memory says.

Changing the rules is addressed on page 14 of the DMG - it's mainly taking a stance of being careful about doing this as D&D is designed to be a balanced set of rules, so if you are to change any of them, you should be aware of the rule's original purpose and think about how the change will affect the game - rewriting D&D is not meant to be taken lightly.

[Crake]

Changing the rules is addressed on page 14 of the DMG - it's mainly taking a stance of being careful about doing this as D&D is designed to be a balanced set of rules, so if you are to change any of them, you should be aware of the rule's original purpose and think about how the change will affect the game - rewriting D&D is not meant to be taken lightly.

Adjudicating is generally the section that's referred to as rule 0. There's no actual proper mention of "rule 0" in the rulebook anywhere that I can find