Optimization A Pun-Pun build is starting to look plausible [Archive]

ftafp

2021-01-07, 06:08 PM

For the past six months on and off I've been trying to find a way to make pun-pun in 5e, a task previously thought impossible. For those who weren't around for 3.5, Pun-Pun was a build created by the WotC forums that became omnipotent at level 6. The details were complicated, but the main premise was that through shapeshifting into a monster called the sarrukh, which had the ability to grant any innate spell, psionic power or special ability in the game to a creature provided that creature was a reptile, Pun-Pun the kobold could give himself unlimited powers

For years, Pun-Pun has been considered impossible in 5e. Hell, the system was pretty much redesigned from the ground up just to prevent something like kobold from ever happening again, and as a result 5e's power ceiling is low enough that much of 3.5's optimization community refuses to move over out of unwillingness to trivialize the separate-from-dnd game that is theorybuilding. That said, I and a handful of others on /r/powergamingmunchkin have been doing our homework trying to figure out the impossible and I wanted to show something to you. It's not a full pun-pun build, but it is a proof of concept

How to gain the abilities of 600 different creatures at once

For years, True Polymorph has stood as the most broken spell in the game to a creative player, but today I seek to unseat it and usher in a new age of insane bulls**t that's only possible in tier 4 and a white room, by using its ugly cousin Shapechange

Step 1: Create a Simulacrum of yourself

Step 2: Tell the Simulacrum that when you cast Shapechange, it should wait exactly 59 minutes and 54 seconds. At the end of this it should cast Sequester on you, set to end in 1 hour and 6 second, followed immediately by Clone

Step 3: Cast Shapechange and for 1 hour (60 rounds) spend your time transforming into new creatures. It doesn't matter what you turn into, only that the final form is medium and has anatomy consistent with whatever monster abilities you had that you want to keep

Step 4: When you wake up in 1 hour and 6 seconds, you should have a clone of your final form growing in a vat that has the collected abilities of every form you cycled through. All that's left is to wait for it to grow to completion then kill yourself, transferring your consciousness to the body

How does this work? Well, the wording is very clear, and very poorly chosen

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so.

Any other source includes the previous forms you've taken with this casting of shapechange, meaning the more you change the more powers you gain. You normally lose those abilities when the spell ends, but clone makes a copy of the creature whose form you'd taken. You can't cast clone while you're concentrating on shapechange though, so we use a simulacrum to cast it. because clone takes an hour to cast and this is a slow and expensive process, you get 600x more bang for your buck if you spend the whole time shapeshifting and then have sequester cast on you at the last minute, causing time to cease to flow for you, and giving your Simulacrum time to cast clone.

Now, it's worth noting that this process won't let you copy senses or movement methods, and you are stuck with the max HP and hit dice of the final form, but it does let you copy proficiencies and use the creature's proficiency bonus

Captain Panda

2021-01-07, 06:18 PM

I think, even taken strictly as written, you'd only acquire the ability of the form you were in when you died. I'd also argue you'd have to die before a reversion to your base form, so you'd need something to power word: kill you while shapechanged to get the abilities of the creature and your base stats.

Though I guess if you did that once, you could probably do it again and again for the same effect.

Frogreaver

2021-01-07, 06:28 PM

1. If you lose those abilities when the spell ends then wouldn't a clone also only gain those abilities until the spell ends?
2. What's to prevent the DM from ruling that the clone only takes the form of the creature you were when the spell was initially cast?
3. What's to prevent the DM from ruling the clone will only grow into your normal form?

MaxWilson

2021-01-07, 06:40 PM

JNAProductions

2021-01-07, 06:42 PM

Isn't at least part of Pun-Pun's point that it's achieved at level 1?

Keltest

2021-01-07, 06:52 PM

I don't think this works, but in any case Sequester is both unhelpful and unnecessary: it doesn't prevent Shapechange from ending, but you can just Wish for Clone instead.

However, the Clone "is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities", so I don't see what Clone is buying you here: it doesn't have abilities that you yourself didn't already have.

Indeed. Shapechange ends when you drop to 0 hit points, and buffs and magical effects dont carry through the clone regardless. Even if your shapechange power stacking cheese worked, you still cant keep the powers indefinitely.

tyckspoon

2021-01-07, 07:12 PM

Isn't at least part of Pun-Pun's point that it's achieved at level 1?

There's a number of potential Pun-Pun builds; anything that can gain (or have used on their behalf) the abilities of a Sarrukh can do it. Once the initial build (IIRC it was something along the lines of a mid-level Wizard using Polymorph with Assume Supernatural Ability) was confirmed to work a lot of the refinement turned to trying to figure out how to do it 'earlier' (IE, lower level.) That did eventually settle at level 1, by using a loophole in the description of a Wish-granting demon lord.

..so while 'the strongest character in D&D is a level 1 Kobold Paladin' makes a fun meme, the actual point of Pun-Pun is to demonstrate what happens when you find a way for a player character to get access to an ability that allows you stack arbitrary bonuses, qualities, and abilities onto the same character.

JNAProductions

2021-01-07, 07:14 PM

There's a number of potential Pun-Pun builds; anything that can gain (or have used on their behalf) the abilities of a Sarrukh can do it. Once the initial build (IIRC it was something along the lines of a mid-level Wizard using Polymorph with Assume Supernatural Ability) was confirmed to work a lot of the refinement turned to trying to figure out how to do it 'earlier' (IE, lower level.) That did eventually settle at level 1, by using a loophole in the description of a Wish-granting demon lord.

..so while 'the strongest character in D&D is a level 1 Kobold Paladin' makes a fun meme, the actual point of Pun-Pun is to demonstrate what happens when you find a way for a player character to get access to an ability that allows you stack arbitrary bonuses, qualities, and abilities onto the same character.

Fair enough.

Unoriginal

2021-01-07, 07:21 PM

For the past six months on and off I've been trying to find a way to make pun-pun in 5e, a task previously thought impossible. For those who weren't around for 3.5, Pun-Pun was a build created by the WotC forums that became omnipotent at level 6. The details were complicated, but the main premise was that through shapeshifting into a monster called the sarrukh, which had the ability to grant any innate spell, psionic power or special ability in the game to a creature provided that creature was a reptile, Pun-Pun the kobold could give himself unlimited powers

For years, Pun-Pun has been considered impossible in 5e. Hell, the system was pretty much redesigned from the ground up just to prevent something like kobold from ever happening again, and as a result 5e's power ceiling is low enough that much of 3.5's optimization community refuses to move over out of unwillingness to trivialize the separate-from-dnd game that is theorybuilding. That said, I and a handful of others on /r/powergamingmunchkin have been doing our homework trying to figure out the impossible and I wanted to show something to you. It's not a full pun-pun build, but it is a proof of concept

It doesn't work. For three reasons (or more, but those are the three main).

1. The wording is not poorly chosen

"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so" does NOT imply anything about retaining anything after you choose a different shape or once the spell is finished. For obvious reasons.

2. A pound of flesh, or rather 1 cubic inch of it

The Simulacrum would have to take 1 cubic inch of flesh from your body for the Clone spell. Whatever your flesh is when separated from your body will be the body created by the Clone. It is your DM's call if the flesh reverts to its non-altered state if separated from the Shapeshifted body or not, but regardless you can only have one shape at any given moment.

3. This is 5e

There is no pretention in this edition that you can pick up a book, point out at a section of text and exact-word an outcome. This is not 3.X, which pretended its books power over anything in order to sell more of them.

If your DM let you have Pun-Pun, then you have Pun-Pun. If your DM does not let you have Pun-Pun, then you don't have Pun-Pun. No book content will ever change that fact.

I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I honestly don't see the concept as working in any way, as it goes against the principles of the game on the fundamental level.

I don't think this works, but in any case Sequester is both unhelpful and unnecessary: it doesn't prevent Shapechange from ending, but you can just Wish for Clone instead.

Indeed.

However, the Clone "is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities", so I don't see what Clone is buying you here: it doesn't have abilities that you yourself didn't already have.

The argument seems to be that by cycling through Shapeshifted forms, your Clone would somehow acquire all of their abilities.

I admit I can't understand how that conclusion was reached.

Keltest

2021-01-07, 07:41 PM

The argument seems to be that by cycling through Shapeshifted forms, your Clone would somehow acquire all of their abilities.

I admit I can't understand how that conclusion was reached.

The idea is that when you clone a shapechanged creature, you get a clone of that body, not the one underneath the shapechange. Thus the cheese is by loading up that body with crazy powers and then cloning it, you make the powers permanent as it becomes your "real" form similar to reincarnate.

Besides the fact that shapechange doesnt work like that, clone doesnt carry over active magical effects anyway, or you could just stack an arbitrary amount of regular buff spells like Bless with it. So this method doubly fails.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 07:57 PM

Okay, I want to clarify something before we go any further because optimization in 3.5 and optimization in 5e have two very different philosophies and the context here matters

In 5e, optimization is made under the assumption that a build is being played in a real game with real players and a real DM. Under this context, the spirit of rules matters far more than the letter. The DM settles any rules dispute, and can forbid anything gamebreaking at will. this is NOT the context we are using

In 3.5, optimization takes place in a vacuum. There is no game involved, no players and most importantly no DM. Rules are followed to the letter, even if the letter leads to something ridiculous. Because the DM does not exist in this context they cannot alter the rules for the sake of realism or balance. For this reason, builds made using the 3.5 philosophy are thought experiments that are not meant to be played in a real game, and those who try to do so are problem players who are bound to be disappointed. This is the context I'm applying here, first and foremost because Pun-Pun or the like cannot exist in any tabletop rpg INCLUDING 3.5 outside this context

What's to prevent the DM from...

This is an example of a question thats unhelpful in the context this discussion takes place in. The DM's word is law in any real game, but becuase this is not a real game and the DM does not exist in this context, the DM cannot do anything

If you lose those abilities when the spell ends then wouldn't a clone also only gain those abilities until the spell ends?

This is a more useful question, because it discusses an ambiguity in the rules that the builder can and should be able defend like a lawyer. In response to this, the approved rulings in Sage Advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/15/if-a-dragon-shapechanged-into-a-wizard-cast-clone/) state that the body takes the form of the creature that the material component was extracted from. No ruling in the spell says that your body parts return to normal if they are cut off, though you may argue that they return to normal after the spell ends. However, this (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/15/when-a-spell-consumes-material-components-do-they-become-apart-of-the-final-product/) sage advice claims that the material component is destroyed when you cast this spell. I have not found a source on whether the component is destroyed when you start casting the spell or when it ends, but we can reasonably assume that by the time the spell is finished casting the material component is destroyed. This means for the purposes of the rules, the clone is not a target of the shapechange spell, it is an instantaneous copy of its form. Furthermore while the clone is dormant, it is described as "an inert duplicate". Inert doesn't have an official definition, which means we default to the literal definition, in which case the clone is an object. If the clone is an object prior to coming to life, it cannot be the target of Shapechange as shapechange specifies you turn into a "different creature" which means the caster was already a creature. Ego, the clone is not under the effect of any spell and thus is not affected when the spell ends

I think, even taken strictly as written, you'd only acquire the ability of the form you were in when you died. I'd also argue you'd have to die before a reversion to your base form, so you'd need something to power word: kill you while shapechanged to get the abilities of the creature and your base stats.

Though I guess if you did that once, you could probably do it again and again for the same effect.

However, the Clone "is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities", so I don't see what Clone is buying you here: it doesn't have abilities that you yourself didn't already have.

As stated above, the Sage Advice ruling specifies that the clone is a physical copy of the form of the target at the instant the spell is cast.

I don't think this works, but in any case Sequester is both unhelpful and unnecessary: it doesn't prevent Shapechange from ending, but you can just Wish for Clone instead.

Wish would also work in this context, though sequester should prevent shapechange from ending. according to the description, when a creature is targeted by sequester "Time ceases to flow for it"

Isn't at least part of Pun-Pun's point that it's achieved at level 1?

the most RAW version of it ascended at level 6, but yes. as I said this is more of a proof of concept. Technically this is theoretically achievable as early as level 1 if the caster uses xanathar's rules for purchasing magic items to buy spell scrolls using money made with the player's handbook rules for crafting and selling nonmagic items, though it would require an extraordianry amount of time and lucky rolls. I have some tricks for getting around the money issue, though the ability checks will still require high rolls.

"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so" does NOT imply anything about retaining anything after you choose a different shape or once the spell is finished. For obvious reasons.

"or other source" is about as broad as you can get.

2. A pound of flesh, or rather 1 cubic inch of it

The Simulacrum would have to take 1 cubic inch of flesh from your body for the Clone spell. Whatever your flesh is when separated from your body will be the body created by the Clone. It is your DM's call if the flesh reverts to its non-altered state if separated from the Shapeshifted body or not, but regardless you can only have one shape at any given moment.

3. This is 5e

There is no pretention in this edition that you can pick up a book, point out at a section of text and exact-word an outcome. This is not 3.X, which pretended its books power over anything in order to sell more of them.

If your DM let you have Pun-Pun, then you have Pun-Pun. If your DM does not let you have Pun-Pun, then you don't have Pun-Pun. No book content will ever change that fact.

I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I honestly don't see the concept as working in any way, as it goes against the principles of the game on the fundamental level.

Indeed.

The argument seems to be that by cycling through Shapeshifted forms, your Clone would somehow acquire all of their abilities.

I admit I can't understand how that conclusion was reached.

This is a fundamental disagreement with the context of the build, not its validity

MaxWilson

2021-01-07, 08:08 PM

LudicSavant

2021-01-07, 08:17 PM

Isn't at least part of Pun-Pun's point that it's achieved at level 1?

The original Pun Pun was not a level 1 build.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 08:18 PM

If there is no DM, and Sage Advice is framed by WotC as advice to DMs as they are making their own rulings, then how can Sage Advice be relevant?

Also, you're not quoting Sage Advice, you're quoting a random website which collect Tweets, which are explicitly NOT official rulings even according to WotC. (Eventually they realized that Twitter is a terrible place for official rulings.) The fact that the random website happens to have "SageAdvice" in its URL does not make it Sage Advice.

That's a fair point. The Sage Advice Compendium which IS official backs up your statement

Official Rulings

Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in
the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official
ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules
questions.
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else
at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford),
the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.

However, both of the cases in which I cited Sage Advice were to add additional context to an ambiguous statement in the rules. These rulings are not contradicted in the sage advice compendium, and are backed unofficially by the creators of the game.

Unoriginal

2021-01-07, 08:23 PM

In 5e, optimization is made under the assumption that a build is being played in a real game with real players and a real DM. Under this context, the spirit of rules matters far more than the letter. The DM settles any rules dispute, and can forbid anything gamebreaking at will. this is NOT the context we are using

In 3.5, optimization takes place in a vacuum. There is no game involved, no players and most importantly no DM. Rules are followed to the letter, even if the letter leads to something ridiculous. Because the DM does not exist in this context they cannot alter the rules for the sake of realism or balance. For this reason, builds made using the 3.5 philosophy are thought experiments that are not meant to be played in a real game, and those who try to do so are problem players who are bound to be disappointed. This is the context I'm applying here, first and foremost because Pun-Pun or the like cannot exist in any tabletop rpg INCLUDING 3.5 outside this context

And the 3.X philosophy cannot apply to 5e.

This is a fundamental disagreement with the context of the build, not its validity

Context is what makes a build valid or not.

As stated above, the Sage Advice ruling specifies that the clone is a physical copy of the form of the target at the instant the spell is cast.

And the Sage Advice is nothing but a DM's opinion on the question.

But even if you go with this interpretation, it only gives you the physical copy of *one* form.

"or other source" is about as broad as you can get.

And that doesn't change anything. Shapechange does not allow you to keep the previous Shapechanged shapes' powers as you cycle through them.

Since those powers depend on you having the specific shape and associated characteristics.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 08:25 PM

And the 3.X philosophy cannot apply to 5e.

Why can't it? According to who?

Unoriginal

2021-01-07, 08:32 PM

Why can't it? According to who?

The 3.X philosophy cannot be applied to 5e because it is 5e and not 3.X.

Same way that you cannot apply the Exalted philosophy to 5e. Or the Maid RPG one. Or the AD&D one. Or the Mercenaires de l'Ombre one.

As for the "according to whom?" question, the answer is "the makers of 5e, since the moment they decided they were going to make a new game, using a philosophy differing from the other games' ones".

ftafp

2021-01-07, 08:42 PM

The 3.X philosophy cannot be applied to 5e because it is 5e and not 3.X.

Same way that you cannot apply the Exalted philosophy to 5e. Or the Maid RPG one. Or the AD&D one. Or the Mercenaires de l'Ombre one.

As for the "according to whom?" question, the answer is "the makers of 5e, since the moment they decided they were going to make a new game, using a philosophy differing from the other games' ones".

Just to humor you, let's use the 5e philosophy for this. According to the Sage Advice Compendium, which IS official "The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

What happens if this hypothetical DM says "we use the 3.5 philosophy and follow the rules to the letter"?

MaxWilson

2021-01-07, 08:44 PM

Just to humor you, let's use the 5e philosophy for this. According to the Sage Advice Compendium, which IS official "The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

What happens if this hypothetical DM says "we use the 3.5 philosophy and follow the rules to the letter"?

I suspect the game grinds to a halt due to holes in the rules. See for example: stupid forum debates over whether falling at the end of a jump is RAW or not.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 09:02 PM

I suspect the game grinds to a halt due to holes in the rules. See for example: stupid forum debates over whether falling at the end of a jump is RAW or not.

Arguably the same applies to 3.5, but that's besides the point.

The point I'm trying to make here is not that I am trying to tell you or anyone how to play dnd; because I'm not, I would not allow this ruiling in a game I DMed. The rules of dnd are relevant to this game only because the goal is arguing over the rules and seeing what outrageous things you can make result from following them for the sheer fun of it.

MaxWilson

2021-01-07, 09:27 PM

Keltest

2021-01-07, 09:27 PM

Arguably the same applies to 3.5, but that's besides the point.

The point I'm trying to make here is not that I am trying to tell you or anyone how to play dnd; because I'm not, I would not allow this ruiling in a game I DMed. The rules of dnd are relevant to this game only because the goal is arguing over the rules and seeing what outrageous things you can make result from following them for the sheer fun of it.

I mean thats fair, but youre clearly ignoring both the spirit and intended actual meaning of the spell here, and even then your reading is a stretch. Assuming "other effects" is read to include pre-existing spells and buffs, it wouldnt apply to shapechange because the effect of the spell on you is changing rather than applying a new one on top. Youre no longer being affected by the old shape when you shift.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 09:54 PM

If you guys are trying to theorycraft an infinite power build, why not just have infinite (or arbitrarily many) Simulacra make infinite (or arbitrarily many) stat boosting/power granting Wishes for you? "I wish my Master were more intelligent." "I wish my Master could cast Wish at will with no side effects." "I wish my Master knew the version of Simulacrum that lets you have multiple Simulacra simultaneously." Etc.

Boring, but not impossible by RAW.

Those aren't listed under the uses Wish. The rules do say DM can allow other wishes, but there isn't a DM to approve them in this DMless vacuum

I mean thats fair, but youre clearly ignoring both the spirit and intended actual meaning of the spell here, and even then your reading is a stretch. Assuming "other effects" is read to include pre-existing spells and buffs, it wouldnt apply to shapechange because the effect of the spell on you is changing rather than applying a new one on top. Youre no longer being affected by the old shape when you shift.

Fair, it occurs to me that the "other" wording could also be an exclusive "other", as in "class, race or other source (besides this)"

Keltest

2021-01-07, 09:56 PM

Those aren't listed under the uses Wish. The rules do say DM can allow other wishes, but there isn't a DM to approve them in this DMless vacuum

Fair, it occurs to me that the "other" wording could also be an exclusive "other", as in "class, race or other source (besides this)"

I mean, definitionally it cant apply to itself because the spell isnt affecting you before its cast.

Unoriginal

2021-01-07, 10:02 PM

If you claim that the "other sources" clause of Shapechange means the powers given by Shapechanging into different forms are cumulative when you Clone the person, that means you're claiming the powers given by Shapechanging into different forms are cumulative, even without Clone.

It's clearly not what the spell text is saying.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 10:23 PM

I mean, definitionally it cant apply to itself because the spell isnt affecting you before its cast.

it isn't affecting you when you cast it, but it is affecting you when you use your action to change your form to a different one. It's also worth noting that the rules for combining magical effects only applies to when the same spell is cast multiple times. theoretically, nothing prevents the same spell cast only once from having a cumulative effect.

Keltest

2021-01-07, 10:27 PM

it isn't affecting you when you cast it, but it is affecting you when you use your action to change your form to a different one. It's also worth noting that the rules for combining magical effects only applies to when the same spell is cast multiple times. theoretically, nothing prevents the same spell cast only once from having a cumulative effect.

Yeah, but then were back to it isnt the spell stacking with itself, the spell effects are changing in real time.

ftafp

2021-01-07, 10:49 PM

Yeah, but then were back to it isnt the spell stacking with itself, the spell effects are changing in real time.

and so we are, but that assumption goes back to hinging on the "other" being exclusive.

I think we could keep going about this but ultimately we can agree that stacking isnt what the spell was meant to do

If you claim that the "other sources" clause of Shapechange means the powers given by Shapechanging into different forms are cumulative when you Clone the person, that means you're claiming the powers given by Shapechanging into different forms are cumulative, even without Clone.

It's clearly not what the spell text is saying.

it's definitely not RAI or RAF, but put some genies on the jury and we can keep arguing until hell comes home and the cows freeze over

furby076

2021-01-08, 12:04 AM

Why does every thread in this forum revert to "but the dm has final say the rules are all really optional/dms discretion"? This is nothing new. This has been D&D since day 1 way back before I was born. A DM can rule whatever they want. 5e didn't magically create this rule. The OP posted theorycraft. I doubt many DMs will allow this to work (especially once they realize what is happening).

Looking at the OP post, I just don't see this as working. I think what you are getting at is that as the wizard shapeshifts, the clone memorizes the form. Then when the wizard shapeshifts again, the clone memorizes the new form. Do this ad nauseum for an hour. The end goal is the clone memorizes all the powers and keeps them, but only retains the very last form. Well, if I were to agree with the clone retaining all the powers, then I'd say the clone retains all the shapes...and bam, the wizard is now a culmination of all of the forms the wizard cycled through. The clone is now an amorphous blob and categorized as an aberration (congrats, your clone is an npc), or the mutation was something along the lines of the first X-Men movie, and you just turn into a puddle of goo and die.

For the record, in Pathfinder (eberron setting) we did a 2-session one shot and the DM said we can go hogwild. So I did the talentia halfling boomerang thrower (something like 20 attacks a round) and each boomering was a +1 Returning Con draining boomering. It was fun, a lot of fun...up until the DM through at us some Stone constructs, in a small square room, with some other nasty traps. Still, lots of fun, but while the DM never knew pun pun, hulking hurler, etc unless I mentioned it (and he lauged each time I brought one of these builds up and explained why their rules were "fluffy" at best), the DM would never allow it if a player slipped it by him. He would simply state "no. You can remake your charater or keep this one, but that thing you are trying to do...no"

Unoriginal

2021-01-08, 12:08 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2021-01-08, 12:15 AM

Why does every thread in this forum revert to "but the dm has final say the rules are all really optional/dms discretion"? This is nothing new. This has been D&D since day 1 way back before I was born. A DM can rule whatever they want. 5e didn't magically create this rule. The OP posted theorycraft. I doubt many DMs will allow this to work (especially once they realize what is happening).

Because theorycrafting is pointless without the context of the game and the game is pointless without the game engine. In an MMO (which actually allows theorycrafting to some degree because the rules and engine are fixed and so are the challenges), if you start talking about "well, if we just attack faster than the GCD...", you'll get laughed out of the room. The game engine does not allow that action. So trying to theorycraft about it is a nullity.

In D&D, the DM is the game engine. The rules are just pre-written scripts and models that the game engine executes to make its job easier. Without a DM, all you have are words. The rules have no meaning outside of a DM's rulings. "Theorycrafting" of this sort (that assumes only the most permissive rulings) is like playing a game with the physics and damage turned off. It's the most fundamental form of cheating possible in a TTRPG, and just like cheating in a video game, it strips any meaning from the exercise. This was true in 3e as well, people on the internet just ignored it.

Even more fundamentally, all text is capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, especially if there's nothing keeping you honest. So you can pick on any kind of contorted rationale in full confidence that the rules won't talk back. Because they can't. And if someone says no on the internet, well, you can always come up with a new argument. Nothing ever gets settled as long as one person wants to continue debating.

Without setting ground rules and agreeing on readings at the beginning (ie invoking a particular DM's rulings, even if that DM is only conceptual), discussions of theory are meaningless.

Frogreaver

2021-01-08, 12:22 AM

To sum up the thread: OP is looking at vague spell interactions and trying to use the most beneficial interpretation for his creation.

The most realistic rules interpretations don’t allow what he want. It’s totally in no-raw territory for which form or forms a clone keeps when cycling through shape changes. Which in 5e leaves that question totally up to the DM.

Now there is an interesting question left open about whether you could change your form permanently with shape change and clone and gain some new powers. If you can this process would be repeatable by simply redoing the process over and over again. Possibly not quick but may still could gain lots of powers this way.

ftafp

2021-01-08, 12:23 AM

Because theorycrafting is pointless without the context of the game and the game is pointless without the game engine. In an MMO (which actually allows theorycrafting to some degree because the rules and engine are fixed and so are the challenges), if you start talking about "well, if we just attack faster than the GCD...", you'll get laughed out of the room. The game engine does not allow that action. So trying to theorycraft about it is a nullity.

In D&D, the DM is the game engine. The rules are just pre-written scripts and models that the game engine executes to make its job easier. Without a DM, all you have are words. The rules have no meaning outside of a DM's rulings. "Theorycrafting" of this sort (that assumes only the most permissive rulings) is like playing a game with the physics and damage turned off. It's the most fundamental form of cheating possible in a TTRPG, and just like cheating in a video game, it strips any meaning from the exercise. This was true in 3e as well, people on the internet just ignored it.

Even more fundamentally, all text is capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, especially if there's nothing keeping you honest. So you can pick on any kind of contorted rationale in full confidence that the rules won't talk back. Because they can't. And if someone says no on the internet, well, you can always come up with a new argument. Nothing ever gets settled as long as one person wants to continue debating.

Without setting ground rules and agreeing on readings at the beginning (ie invoking a particular DM's rulings, even if that DM is only conceptual), discussions of theory are meaningless.

Theorycrafting is a game in and of itself. Not a TTRPG but a puzzle. There's a fundamental misunderstanding that something has to be "useful" to be valid, but dnd itself isn't really all that useful either. It's just a way to pass time and enjoy yourself, and some people find loopholes fu...

Do you ever catch yourself saying something halfway through saying it and wonder at what point you turned into such a pedantic pencil-pusher?

Frogreaver

2021-01-08, 12:29 AM

Unoriginal

2021-01-08, 12:29 AM

Theorycrafting is a game in and of itself.

Well this is the 5e subforum, for the 5e game.

So it's not a surprise you are not finding your audience here.

Aimeryan

2021-01-08, 01:21 AM

Unlike almost every other poster here, I agree with everything you posted, if not necessarily the conclusion. This is why:

The abilities you retain by Shapechange (via 'other sources' recursively including itself due to not adding such an exception) are via the spell. Clone does not duplicate spells. As mentioned by another poster, it would otherwise be the case that you could Clone (or Sequester - Clone, or Wish - Clone) while having just basic buff spells cast on you and keep adding such effects in the Clone cycle.

It does ramp up the power of Shapechange itself, though.

MaxWilson

2021-01-08, 02:01 AM

ftafp

2021-01-08, 02:24 AM

One interesting and serious point raised by the OP:

Can Clone be used in conjunction with True Polymorph, Magic Jar, or both to eliminate the usual vulnerability to Dispel Magic/Antimagic?

It seems plausible that it could, but it depends.

At the risk of making myself look like more of an idiot than I already have: True Polymorph yes, Magic Jar no.

Or at least, assuming the underlying principle is valid true polymorph should work, but Mearls asserted on twitter (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/19/i-cast-clone-in-a-body-possessed-by-magic-jar/) that the clone is connected to the soul of the host, not the caster. Granted, one is pure speculation and the other is an unofficial ruling but at this point I'm just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

I am curious though: suppose you cast magic jar then your simulacrum casts true polymorph on your original body. When you return to your original body would you be able to maintain your mental stats and class levels? Alternatively, what if your simulacrum killed your original body before true polymorphing it into a living creature. Would you be able to return to that body? Probably no to both but it's an interesting thing to think about

Greywander

2021-01-08, 03:02 AM

Theorycrafting is a game in and of itself. Not a TTRPG but a puzzle.
I don't really know why a lot of people seem to be having trouble understanding this. Playing with the rules to see what kind of neat interactions you can find, and then pushing things to the extremes to see how much you can break the game while staying within the rules, can be a lot of fun. It's like the rules equivalent of playing with Legos. It's also a good way to find potentially problematic rules interactions that might need to be "patched" (either officially, if they care, or with homebrew). It just baffles me that people would come into this thread, see what it was about, and then dump on it because they don't like doing this kind of thing. Why even click on the thread in the first place?

As for the OP, I don't have the text of Shapechange in front of me, but I don't think any spell effects would carry over to the clone anyway. Otherwise, you could cast any kind of buff on yourself and then clone yourself to make the buff permanent. And the effects can stack. Aid for infinite HP, for example. No, I'm pretty sure spell effects, including Shapechange, would not carry over to the new form.

That said, if you can find a way to steal abilities from monsters, that would open the floodgates to OP builds. Monsters can have very strong traits that aren't designed for players. Another angle you might try is Shapechanging/True Polymorphing into something like an intellect devourer, and then eating the brains of creatures with abilities you wanted. I don't know if this would actually work, but even if it did, the best you could probably do is steal learned abilities, like class levels, non-innate spellcasting, etc. Again, I don't know that this would work, but you might be able to find something similar that would yield more definite results.

ftafp

2021-01-08, 03:50 AM

I don't really know why a lot of people seem to be having trouble understanding this. Playing with the rules to see what kind of neat interactions you can find, and then pushing things to the extremes to see how much you can break the game while staying within the rules, can be a lot of fun. It's like the rules equivalent of playing with Legos. It's also a good way to find potentially problematic rules interactions that might need to be "patched" (either officially, if they care, or with homebrew). It just baffles me that people would come into this thread, see what it was about, and then dump on it because they don't like doing this kind of thing. Why even click on the thread in the first place?

As for the OP, I don't have the text of Shapechange in front of me, but I don't think any spell effects would carry over to the clone anyway. Otherwise, you could cast any kind of buff on yourself and then clone yourself to make the buff permanent. And the effects can stack. Aid for infinite HP, for example. No, I'm pretty sure spell effects, including Shapechange, would not carry over to the new form.

That said, if you can find a way to steal abilities from monsters, that would open the floodgates to OP builds. Monsters can have very strong traits that aren't designed for players. Another angle you might try is Shapechanging/True Polymorphing into something like an intellect devourer, and then eating the brains of creatures with abilities you wanted. I don't know if this would actually work, but even if it did, the best you could probably do is steal learned abilities, like class levels, non-innate spellcasting, etc. Again, I don't know that this would work, but you might be able to find something similar that would yield more definite results.

I have to wonder if there's a special place in DSM for people like me who just like finding loopholes for the sake of finding loopholes and not any personal gain. I believe the term tumblr's dnd community uses is Lawful Chaotic.

Interesting idea about the intellect devourer. i might have to find a way to incorporate that into something else. It won't work with this shapechange trick though (assuming the trick even DOES work) since the intellect devourer's ability to occupy skulls hinges on being tiny which means it can't be cloned. however, it does say that you use your hosts stats while you're in their skull, so that includes innate abilities

Chaos Jackal

2021-01-08, 04:48 AM

Theorycrafting is a form of enjoying the game in and of itself. Whether or not you like it, it exists for its own purposes. Making a build that has no application in an actual game isn't wrong, invalid, or pointless; it can be anything from a fan pastime to a thought experiment.

A build like Pun-Pun, which the OP mentions, isn't made to be played, and nobody sane (including its creators) ever claimed it's playable. It was always a test, an attempt to bring the system to its limits, to see the full scope of craziness, issues and flaws a system has. It's not "attacking/casting faster than the GCD", as someone wrongly compared it to; it's not meant to do things the game engine can't do, it's to see what the game can do when pushed to extremes.

Nobody is threatening you or your way or gaming. Theorycrafting is, as the word itself states, theory, and in this case the OP literally stated it's a white-room scenario. Bringing DMs and tables and validation into this is quite literally off-topic. We're not talking tables and games in the first place.

So props. The only clear way to infinity I was aware of in 5e was the simulacrum+wish chain, so having another method brought up is certainly interesting. I wouldn't call it an actual infinite loop, since it has its limits, but still, quite an interesting idea.

But I'll have to echo the sentiments of the few who stuck to the task at hand.

It's certainly not the best reading, but try as I might, I can't find something actually preventing you from stacking the effects of every form that shapechange gives you. So that, in theory, checks out.

Even under the most liberal reading, though, I can't see clone working like that. The spell creates a copy of the original body, and I'd argue that an ongoing spell effect isn't part of the original body. It's not a memory or an ability, but an additional effect, so clone shouldn't be able to copy it. And even if it did, why wouldn't the effect be copied fully, duration and all, on the cloned body? Why would it become a passive effect?

That being said, if you do read it like that, more loops lie ahead of you. You can use clone to literally stack every buff in the game on you, and if you go even more liberal and say that it's now part of the new body, rather than an ongoing effect, you can stack buffs to infinity via cloning by claiming that it's not the same ability/effect any longer if you bless a clone with permanent bless on it.

So ultimately, the true gateway to infinity could be the clone spell...

But as I said, I can't justify reading clone like that. So I'll take the shapechange as an interesting and plausible catch, but the full extent of it, I can't agree with.

Sindeloke

2021-01-08, 05:58 AM

Even under the most liberal reading, though, I can't see clone working like that. The spell creates a copy of the original body, and I'd argue that an ongoing spell effect isn't part of the original body. It's not a memory or an ability, but an additional effect, so clone shouldn't be able to copy it. And even if it did, why wouldn't the effect be copied fully, duration and all, on the cloned body? Why would it become a passive effect?

I think you get the very last shape's abilities. Any other abilities from previous forms are given to *that* form by the spell, but the form itself has those abilities as an intrinsic property of its own shape, which is the thing that you're cloning. A girallon doesn't have four arms because it's the subject of a spell, it has four arms because it's a girallon, so if you clone a girallon and bring zero magic with it, you're getting four arms. Which is what you're doing, because clone creates a copy of the source body, and currently your body is a four-armed mandrill. Or whatever.

So we can make exactly one shapechange permanent with one clone spell. Can we chain that? My gut feeling is no, because any abilities your base form has are being given to your end-of-spell shapechange form by the spell, so they get lost in the transition. I'm not sure your girallon even keeps your orcish wizard's darkvision, by that reading of the rules (although girallons may have darkvision? this was not a well-chosen example). This may just be a more roundabout form of magic jar.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-08, 09:40 AM

put some genies on the jury and we can keep arguing until hell comes home and the cows freeze over We can, and hopefully it's not 50 pages of damage bonuses with thrown weapons. :smallbiggrin:
Theorycrafting is a game in and of itself. Not a TTRPG but a puzzle. Yes.

But even worse, what you are peddling as raw at best isn’t anything other than most permissive interpretation of raw imaginable for text that can have many different interpretations. And at worst it’s actually provably incorrect. This also; as I read through the OP I noted the kludge as regards other powers and other shapes. What I do appreciate, though, is the tinkering process that goes on as one tries to set up the synergy between high level spells and powers.

One interesting and serious point raised by the OP:

Can Clone be used in conjunction with True Polymorph, Magic Jar, or both to eliminate the usual vulnerability to Dispel Magic / Antimagic? It seems plausible that it could, but it depends. That's worth a thread on its own.
Theorycrafting is a form of enjoying the game in and of itself. Whether or not you like it, it exists for its own purposes. Yes, it's part of the fun of the game. (It is also a way to find loopholes, which now and again the dev/author needs to fix in due course)

Speaking of finding loopholes: I was involved in a public beta for Diablo II's patch 1.10 (or was it 1.09?) and we spent a whole bunch of game sessions messing about with synergies betwewen various barbarian warcries and their features. We seemed to have found a bug in how the damage reduction for Taunt and Damage Reduction of Battle Cry interacted. (That DR was such that if the mook hit you, it reduced damage by a certain percentage). I am pretty sure they patched it, since a few months later I tried the combo again once the patch was released and discovered that it wasn't doing what we had seen before.

In that regard, theory crafting is a way to discover loopholes (which is where the Wish / Simulacrum combo platter fits).

Skylivedk

2021-01-08, 10:39 AM

Theorycrafting is a game in and of itself. Not a TTRPG but a puzzle. There's a fundamental misunderstanding that something has to be "useful" to be valid, but dnd itself isn't really all that useful either. It's just a way to pass time and enjoy yourself, and some people find loopholes fun...

I can relate. In high school and university, I couldn't help, but notice and come up with ways of cheating the exam systems. Never did, but finding the flaws was its own past time when waiting for the assignments to be handed out/exam to finish. I've had similar experiences with military security systems.

Really good catch with the lazy writing of Shapechange. I've read that spell so many times I cannot believe I overlooked that loophole!

As for Magic Jar and true polymorph: I don't think it would... At least not if the 1h time limit had passed. True Polymorph explicitly makes you another creature which doesn't gel well with the text of Magic Jar. I read it as your body (since it is now another creature) no longer being within 100 ft and you probably proceed to a permanent career change to Dead Person.

BloodSnake'sCha

2021-01-08, 01:15 PM

Looking at the OP post, I just don't see this as working. I think what you are getting at is that as the wizard shapeshifts, the clone memorizes the form. Then when the wizard shapeshifts again, the clone memorizes the new form. Do this ad nauseum for an hour. The end goal is the clone memorizes all the powers and keeps them, but only retains the very last form. Well, if I were to agree with the clone retaining all the powers, then I'd say the clone retains all the shapes...and bam, the wizard is now a culmination of all of the forms the wizard cycled through. The clone is now an amorphous blob and categorized as an aberration (congrats, your clone is an npc), or the mutation was something along the lines of the first X-Men movie, and you just turn into a puddle of goo and die.

Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the chosen creature, though you retain your alignment and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.

I do not agree, being an aberration should not make you unable to play. Especially if you keep your way of thinking and mental capabilities.
You are you, thinking like you and having the same personality like you just in a new body.

JoeJ

2021-01-08, 03:39 PM

As for the OP, I don't have the text of Shapechange in front of me, but I don't think any spell effects would carry over to the clone anyway. Otherwise, you could cast any kind of buff on yourself and then clone yourself to make the buff permanent. And the effects can stack. Aid for infinite HP, for example. No, I'm pretty sure spell effects, including Shapechange, would not carry over to the new form.

As I read the text of Clone, it copies your abilities at the moment you die, not the moment the spell was originally cast. For example, if you cast Clone and then increase in level, you don't have to recast it for your clone to have that new level.

And with Shapechange, you don't only lose the abilities of a creature whose form you assumed when the spell ends, you also lose them when you use the spell to change to a creature with different abilities. IOW, you have the abilities of the creatures you turn into one at a time, not concurrently.

qube

2021-01-08, 04:29 PM

Why can't it? According to who?Welll ... you. Sage advice specifically is not RAW (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings). This?

In 3.5, optimization takes place in a vacuum. There is no game involved, no players and most importantly no DM. Rules are followed to the letter, even if the letter leads to something ridiculous

This is exactly what sage advice is not. And that you claim that it's official doesn't matter. Pun pun uses RAW (books & Errata), not RAI, not RAF, and not Sage Advice (or did you not know that Sage Advice was around during 3.5 as well?).

If RAW doesn't say X, you can't argue "but someone who uses RAI as their guideline says X so I can assume it's X".
If RAW doesn't say X it doesn't say X. Why? Because

Rules are followed to the letter, even if the letter leads to something ridiculous
~~ You

it's a knife that cuts both ways.

Sage Advice can say things that contradict RAW. Pun Pun crafting can not.
Sage Advice does't overwrite RAW - it advises how to use it (again - which is explicietly not wat you want when making Pun Pun)

qube

2021-01-08, 04:55 PM

Even more fundamentally, all text is capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, especially if there's nothing keeping you honest.Yup. There's a fun example of this: People are using the teleport spell wrong

This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
~~teleport spell (a.k.a. not the misty step spell)

Now, at best, there's a side note on a misty step ruling of Sage Advice, that talks misty step allowing you to take your "gear" ('gear' is a direct quote) and stuff. The Sage Advice notes that teleportation effects always presume you teleport with your "clothes" (again 'clothes' is a direct quote).

... since no teleportation effect in the game assumes that you teleport without your clothes,

...

...

I invite you to check how much of your inventory & carried objects are not clothing? Oh, did you just ASSUME your weapons, spellcomponents, etc ... just teleported with you?

PhoenixPhyre

2021-01-08, 05:02 PM

Yup. There's a fun example of this: People are using the teleport spell wrong

This spell instantly transports you and up to eight willing creatures of your choice that you can see within range, or a single object that you can see within range, to a destination you select.
~~teleport spell (a.k.a. not the misty step spell)

Now, at best, there's a side note on a misty step ruling of Sage Advice, that talks misty step allowing you to take your "gear" ('gear' is a direct quote) and stuff. The Sage Advice notes that teleportation effects always presume you teleport with your "clothes" (again 'clothes' is a direct quote).

... since no teleportation effect in the game assumes that you teleport without your clothes,

...

...

I invite you to check how much of your inventory & carried objects are not clothing?

Yeah. The text is not written with the intent to be taken literally (not even legalistically, because legal text isn't written or read that way either[1])--it's intended to have a large helping of common sense, common knowledge, and game-play needs injected into it. Teleporting without your gear would suck, so that gets bundled into an assumption. If read literally, the whole thing turns into a ball of mud. And adding more words doesn't help--it only opens more loopholes because the interactions grow non-linearly (combinatorial explosion is a thing) with the number of rules.

Unlike computer code, which has to be free-standing and act the same way all the time (basically being deterministically non-deterministic at most, so it can invoke random generators but all the outcomes of those generators have to be part of the code, if nothing more than just as rule-sets for generating the outcomes), TTRPGs don't. They're not self-executing. They're a tiny set of additional instructions and guidelines, designed to be run by a thinking machine (ie a DM) who applies the relevant ones if they fit well. They're tools, not compiled code. Reading them like computer code just means you can get anything you want out of them--the meaning is underdetermined.

[1] I have it on good authority from practicing lawyers that if you tried the kind of loophole-hunting that "theorycrafters" do in court, you'd get not only laughed out but sanctioned for frivolous arguments and wasting everyone's time. The law does not just look at the words, even for contracts, despite what people think. Judges look at how the contract was understood by the participants, and if they didn't agree then (speaking broadly) the contract is vulnerable to an attack as not having a true meeting of the minds (one of the prerequisites for a valid contract). And that's the most highly-specified part of the law, written much more closely than any rulebook on the planet.

BloodSnake'sCha

2021-01-08, 05:04 PM

Greywander

2021-01-08, 05:04 PM

Related to the previous qube's post, there's a similar issue with dismissing your familiar to a pocket dimension. It has been proposed that a chainlock can use this to steal things from miles away, dismiss, and then recall their familiar to bring the item right to them. However, there's some doubt that dismissing a familiar to a pocket dimension allows them to bring items with them. But then again, one of the familiar options for a chainlock is the sprite, who has their own equipment. I don't really see how you could have a sprite bring their equipment into the pocket dimension without also allowing them to bring any item they can carry.

Also, a teleport effect that leaves your gear, including clothing, behind would be pretty funny.

MaxWilson

2021-01-08, 05:35 PM

Related to the previous qube's post, there's a similar issue with dismissing your familiar to a pocket dimension. It has been proposed that a chainlock can use this to steal things from miles away, dismiss, and then recall their familiar to bring the item right to them. However, there's some doubt that dismissing a familiar to a pocket dimension allows them to bring items with them. But then again, one of the familiar options for a chainlock is the sprite, who has their own equipment. I don't really see how you could have a sprite bring their equipment into the pocket dimension without also allowing them to bring any item they can carry.

Why you couldn't simply rule that a familiar sprite's equipment materializes along with the sprite whenever you summon it and disappears whenever you dismiss it? This satisfies both sets of requirements: no bringing equipment, and yet sprite has equipment per Sprite stat block.

Frogreaver

2021-01-08, 07:06 PM

Why you couldn't simply rule that a familiar sprite's equipment materializes along with the sprite whenever you summon it and disappears whenever you dismiss it? This satisfies both sets of requirements: no bringing equipment, and yet sprite has equipment per Sprite stat block.

IMO that sounds more like an addition than an interpretation.

MaxWilson

2021-01-08, 07:18 PM

IMO that sounds more like an addition than an interpretation.

It's an interpretation of the addition made by chainlocks:

Pact of the Chain
You learn the Find Familiar spell and can cast it as a ritual. The spell doesn't count against your number of spells known.
When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

Conclusion: sprite familiars come with everything in the Sprite statblock, even if they wouldn't otherwise have it. When you turn your Imp into a Sprite, it acquires a bow and arrows. When you turn it into something else, the bow and arrows go away.

I honestly don't see any other way to rule it that makes Sprite familiars work as intended.

Keltest

2021-01-08, 07:24 PM

It's an interpretation of the addition made by chainlocks:

Pact of the Chain
You learn the Find Familiar spell and can cast it as a ritual. The spell doesn't count against your number of spells known.
When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

Conclusion: sprite familiars come with everything in the Sprite statblock, even if they wouldn't otherwise have it. When you turn your Imp into a Sprite, it acquires a bow and arrows. When you turn it into something else, the bow and arrows go away.

I honestly don't see any other way to rule it that makes Sprite familiars work as intended.

I mean, familiars aren't actually the creature they look like anyway, so there isn't any reason the magic shouldn't be able to make gear for the sprite as part of its form.

J.C.

2021-01-08, 07:33 PM

MaxWilson

2021-01-08, 11:14 PM

The clone is physically identical to the original. Physically does not include magically as magic is not physical unless it specifies a permanent irreversible physical change. Any magical effects that can be dispelled are not able to be cloned as they are not physical (i.e. permanent and intrinsic to the object in question). Shapechange is a magical effect that can be dispelled and is not an irreversible permanent physical change. Therefore, Clone entirely ignores Shapechange just like it entirely ignores Aid.

What about True Polymorph? If I'm permanently True Polymorphed into an Ogre, and someone takes a handful of Ogre flesh and Clones it, does it produce a human clone or an Ogre clone? I'm guessing you'd say "human" because you said only "irreversible" physical changes count, but would like confirmation that I'm understanding you correctly.

ftafp

2021-01-08, 11:44 PM

The clone is physically identical to the original. Physically does not include magically as magic is not physical unless it specifies a permanent irreversible physical change. Any magical effects that can be dispelled are not able to be cloned as they are not physical (i.e. permanent and intrinsic to the object in question). Shapechange is a magical effect that can be dispelled and is not an irreversible permanent physical change. Therefore, Clone entirely ignores Shapechange just like it entirely ignores Aid.

That's... not what physical means.

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so.

Shapechange's own text states that the form is physical (unless you're implying something that is not physical can physically do something).

Something like Aid or Bless wouldn't be copied since they don't physically alter you, but something like Alter Self would because it transforms your physical form rather than your game statistics.

Unoriginal

2021-01-08, 11:45 PM

MaxWilson

2021-01-09, 12:04 AM

If you cut the hand of the True Polymorphed person in a duel, does it go back to being an human hand?

If you're asking for my ruling as DM, I would say "no."

But I would also saying "cutting hands off in 5E is incredibly difficult and requires either powerful magic weapons like a Sword of Sharpness, or first inflicting more damage than the enemy has HP." Characters in 5E look upon amputation as even more bizarre and morbidly fascinating than we do in real life because it's harder to achieve.

ftafp

2021-01-09, 12:05 AM

If you cut the hand of the True Polymorphed person in a duel, does it go back to being an human hand?

The spell doesn't say it does and it wouldn't really defy logic if it didn't. I mean if I painted a cucumber blue and then cut a piece off would the piece stop being blue?

Frankly, what's more concerning is the fact that you seem to be trying to recreate the events of a Doctor Who episode

Unoriginal

2021-01-09, 12:23 AM

The spell doesn't say it does and it wouldn't really defy logic if it didn't. I mean if I painted a cucumber blue and then cut a piece off would the piece stop being blue?

If you cut the True Polymorphed's head off, it does turn back, though. As does the rest of their body.

The DM just needs to rule out if they consider an amputated body part to count a dead/at 0 HPs or not.

ftafp

2021-01-09, 12:42 AM

If you cut the True Polymorphed's head off, it does turn back, though. As does the rest of their body.

The DM just needs to rule out if they consider an amputated body part to count a dead/at 0 HPs or not.

The DM also has to decide if "the target" refers to the creature or each individual atom that makes up the creature. Also, bear in mind that the spell doesn't end when the target dies if the true polymorph becomes permanent

qube

2021-01-09, 01:03 AM

The spell doesn't say it does and it wouldn't really defy logic if it didn't. I mean if I painted a cucumber blue and then cutdoes your cucumber stop being blue when you kill it? - as per polymorph?
Your analogy doesn't work.

If I die i stop having a Heartbeat.
If I cut of flesh, that part immediately stops having one.

... Fyi what you are trying to do is invent & justify your own rulings. You can't do that: tot are not the DM.

Find us the RAW that deals with cutting of limbs - Because theorycrafting doesn't care about your personal interpretation of the tules. That's RAI, not RAW

Dr.Samurai

2021-01-09, 01:04 AM

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're basically saying the spell allows you to:

"... use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form..."

And one of those rules is:

"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source..."

And "other source" would include Shapechange itself. So in essence it reads "use your action to assume a different form and retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or shapechange..."

Even apart from the combination in the OP, isn't this a reasonable interpretation of the Shapechange spell? I don't know that it's all that strong since you're probably not going to eat up actions in combat trying to buff up into some incredible monster. Not sure what you can do with prep time that would be ridiculously powerful and within the restrictions. I mean... you still have one action a turn I suppose.

But still, how do we determine that "Shapechange" is not an "other source"?

And as formerly Khan the Destroyer at the WotC forums and the creator of Pun Pun, I am disappointed by all the poo-pooing in this thread at theory-crafting. Let people have their fun!

Keep it up OP! :smallcool:

qube

2021-01-09, 01:25 AM

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're basically saying the spell allows you to:

"... use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form..."

And one of those rules is:

"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source..."

And "other source" would include Shapechange itself. So in essence it reads "use your action to assume a different form and retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or shapechange..." Except, you're not reading that correctly, are you? You litterly cut the middle of the sentence to do that. This is the sentence.

During this spell's Duration, you can use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form, with one exception - if your new form has more hit pints than your current one, your Hit Points remain at their current value.

Even if you get this ability ... once the spell ends - you can't do anything anyone. It doesn't matter that the spell is not cast on you - that's not what the rules say. After 1 hour, you maybe wouldn't lose

During this spell's Duration, you can use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form, with one exception - if your new form has more hit pints than your current one, your Hit Points remain at their current value.

But those first 4 words make you unable to use the rest of the rest of the sentence. The spell ended. The duration is over. By RAW the second part of the sentence no longer applies.

Frogreaver

2021-01-09, 01:32 AM

Dr.Samurai

2021-01-09, 01:32 AM

Except, you're not reading that correctly, are you? You litterly cut the middle of the sentence to do that.
Eh, no. As I said...

Even apart from the combination in the OP, isn't this a reasonable interpretation of the Shapechange spell? I don't know that it's all that strong since you're probably not going to eat up actions in combat trying to buff up into some incredible monster. Not sure what you can do with prep time that would be ridiculously powerful and within the restrictions. I mean... you still have one action a turn I suppose.

But still, how do we determine that "Shapechange" is not an "other source"?

So it sounds like you have no issue with "other source" including "Shapechange" correct? So if within the duration of the spell, you can continue using your action to gain and retain various features?

Because that is what I was speaking to.

Whether Clone will keep those features after the spell ends is a different question that I think you're speaking to if I understand you correctly.

J.C.

2021-01-09, 02:18 AM

What about True Polymorph? If I'm permanently True Polymorphed into an Ogre, and someone takes a handful of Ogre flesh and Clones it, does it produce a human clone or an Ogre clone? I'm guessing you'd say "human" because you said only "irreversible" physical changes count, but would like confirmation that I'm understanding you correctly.

Human.

True Polymorph is a magical reversible conditional alteration to your "normal form" that does not permanently change what your "normal" form is. When True Polymorph is dispelled you revert to your "normal form", ie your intrinsic physical form. True Polymorph would have to change what your "normal" irreducible form is for True Polymorph to duplicate via Clone.

Very few spells alter your base physical form. Reincarnate is one such spell.

If you Clone someone who is True Polymorphed you clone their "normal" form, not their magically polymorphed form. If you Clone someone who was Reincarnated you clone their form post-Reincarnation as Reincarnation does indeed change your "normal form".

Something like Aid or Bless wouldn't be copied since they don't physically alter you, but something like Alter Self would because it transforms your physical form rather than your game statistics.

Shapechange, Aid, Bless, Alter Self . . . None of these change your 'base normal' form. Rather they apply a layer of transformation on top of your "base normal". When the spell expires or is dispelled you revert to "base normal". If the magical transformations were a transformation of the underlying 'base normal' form there would be no reverting back to normal, the magically altered self would be the new base normal. However, that is not the case. Magic is almost always a transformation layer on top of the "base normal" and not a new "base normal".

Reincarnate changes "base normal". True Polymorph does not.

JoeJ

2021-01-09, 02:20 AM

So it sounds like you have no issue with "other source" including "Shapechange" correct? So if within the duration of the spell, you can continue using your action to gain and retain various features?

That's not a reasonable reading of the text. To do what you want it would need to say, "including features from other forms assumed with this spell." This isn't computer programming, it's English.

ftafp

2021-01-09, 02:43 AM

Except, you're not reading that correctly, are you? You litterly cut the middle of the sentence to do that. This is the sentence.

During this spell's Duration, you can use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form, with one exception - if your new form has more hit pints than your current one, your Hit Points remain at their current value.

Even if you get this ability ... once the spell ends - you can't do anything anyone. It doesn't matter that the spell is not cast on you - that's not what the rules say. After 1 hour, you maybe wouldn't lose

During this spell's Duration, you can use your action to assume a different form following the same restrictions and rules for the original form, with one exception - if your new form has more hit pints than your current one, your Hit Points remain at their current value.

But those first 4 words make you unable to use the rest of the rest of the sentence. The spell ended. The duration is over. By RAW the second part of the sentence no longer applies.

That only prevents you from changing once the spell is over. However, I dont think that matters as...

Human.

True Polymorph is a magical reversible conditional alteration to your "normal form" that does not permanently change what your "normal" form is. When True Polymorph is dispelled you revert to your "normal form", ie your intrinsic physical form. True Polymorph would have to change what your "normal" irreducible form is for True Polymorph to duplicate via Clone.

Very few spells alter your base physical form. Reincarnate is one such spell.

If you Clone someone who is True Polymorphed you clone their "normal" form. If you Clone someone who was Reincarnated you clone their form post-Reincarnation.

having re-read the spell for the millionth time I have come to the conclusion that this interpretation is correct based on the wording of the spell

The clone is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities, but none of the original's equipment.

had it said "target" it would have referred to the current form. Original means the original creature. Interestingly, this would mean it would reverse the effects of reincarnate if interpreted literally

That's not a reasonable reading of the text. To do what you want it would need to say, "including features from other forms assumed with this spell." This isn't computer programming, it's English.

It can mean that in english too. we're playing a game of exact words. You can't use basic logic when being literal is the objective

JoeJ

2021-01-09, 03:15 AM

It can mean that in english too. we're playing a game of exact words. You can't use basic logic when being literal is the objective

Being literal is NOT the objective. Being understood is. Completely literal writing makes things harder, not easier for most people to parse and it's not the writing style the devs used.

qube

2021-01-09, 04:13 AM

having re-read the spell for the millionth time I have come to the conclusion that this interpretation is correct based on the wording of the spell

The clone is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities, but none of the original's equipment.

had it said "target" it would have referred to the current form. Original means the original creature. Interestingly, this would mean it would reverse the effects of reincarnate if interpreted literallyInteresting it also prevents from worse shenanigans:
true polymorph: transform random toad into a object: namely the finger of a custom humanoid race (lets say, one a race with all stats +9010; but a -10 on charisma saving throws)
<most of the limitations are in the creature to creature section>
use that finger to clone said human
use magic jar your to force your way in in (magic jar has a charisma saving throw ... which *conincidently* it just can't make.)
(as 1 isn't an automatic fail, you can't just use portrent to force it to fumble a +4500 save)

Yucca

2021-01-09, 08:59 AM

In the interest of being super lawyerly - the Shapechange spell does not say that you gain the special abilities of the form you assume. It specifically calls out "game statistics", "skill and saving throw proficiencies" and "hit dice".

In general usage "game statistics" refers to the creature's ability scores. If someone asks "what's your strength stat?" few people would respond with "I can make 2 strength based attack rolls at +2 to hit with 1d8+4 damage".

You could argue that "game statistics" refers to the full "Stat Block" of the creature. I think a reasonable DM would rule this way. But in the absence of a DM ruling, Shapechange does not give access to the special abilities of the creature you've changed into, by RAW. Since we've specifically ruled out DM intervention in creating this scenario, this prevents the Shapechange spell from accumulating abilities.

I also think a reasonable DM would rule the the Shapechange spell itself doesn't count as an "other source" for the purposes of the Shapechange spell.

Valmark

2021-01-09, 09:34 AM

In the interest of being super lawyerly - the Shapechange spell does not say that you gain the special abilities of the form you assume. It specifically calls out "game statistics", "skill and saving throw proficiencies" and "hit dice".

In general usage "game statistics" refers to the creature's ability scores. If someone asks "what's your strength stat?" few people would respond with "I can make 2 strength based attack rolls at +2 to hit with 1d8+4 damage".

You could argue that "game statistics" refers to the full "Stat Block" of the creature. I think a reasonable DM would rule this way. But in the absence of a DM ruling, Shapechange does not give access to the special abilities of the creature you've changed into, by RAW. Since we've specifically ruled out DM intervention in creating this scenario, this prevents the Shapechange spell from accumulating abilities.

This isn't true- the monster manual includes in statistics everything mechanical about the monster, and considers 'Stat Block' as being just another name for them.

Yucca

2021-01-09, 10:16 AM

This isn't true- the monster manual includes in statistics everything mechanical about the monster, and considers 'Stat Block' as being just another name for them.

I could have sworn I remembered the Monster Manual referring to a creatures "statistics and abilities" which would indicate that the two are sperate. But A quick check proves that no such reference exists.

I stand corrected.

LtPowers

2021-01-09, 11:10 AM

The problem with theorycrafting in 5e is that the rules were intentionally not written to be iron-clad or interpreted in a vacuum. They were written with the assumption of a thinking DM with common sense. Thus, theorycrafting crazy stuff that exploits "loopholes" is effectively trivial. And firming up the wording to close those loopholes would be contrary to the game's design intent.

I'm a computer programmer. I love looking for bugs in designed systems. I do it instinctually. But in my opinion, 5e does not support that kind of analysis.

And moreover, to the extent that attempts to find exploitable loopholes in the 5e rules result in attempts to close those loopholes, they only serve to pull 5e farther away from its design intent, and thus are inherently detrimental. Very few "bug fixes" implemented in 5e errata have been improvements.

Powers &8^]

MaxWilson

2021-01-09, 12:55 PM

This isn't true- the monster manual includes in statistics everything mechanical about the monster, and considers 'Stat Block' as being just another name for them.

It actually depends on the monster. Some monsters treat "game statistics" and action options separately, others have (shapechanging) rules that make sense only if you assume they are the same thing. There's no single consistent interpretation.

BerzerkerUnit

2021-01-09, 01:21 PM

If there is no DM, and Sage Advice is framed by WotC as advice to DMs as they are making their own rulings, then how can Sage Advice be relevant?

Also, you're not quoting Sage Advice, you're quoting a random website which collect Tweets, which are explicitly NOT official rulings even according to WotC. (Eventually they realized that Twitter is a terrible place for official rulings.) The fact that the random website happens to have "SageAdvice" in its URL does not make it Sage Advice.

Bolded by me: the bolded text here is argumentative semantic nonsense. It seems a willful effort to disregard the spirit of the discussion (clearly stated in the initial post and later) which is rooted in a disagreement about the relative level of depth between 3.x and 5e theorycrafting, and height of shenanigans the rules' elucidation could allow for outside the context of a playable game.

You're taking the breezy passtime of theory crafting and trying hard to make it as grueling and unfun as possible and I struggle to understand why you would do something like that unless you're either confusing the callous thrill of ruining someone else's fun (a habit you should have grown or been educated out of) or are in fact trapped in a sadomasachistic spiral of hating something but being unable to step away from it.

Either of those is better addressed with a close friend or family member or perhaps a caring professional. If you need such help and are struggling to figure out to whom you can turn, feel free to DM me and I will make an earnest effort help you find someone.

MaxWilson

2021-01-09, 01:24 PM

Bolded by me: the bolded text here is argumentative semantic nonsense. It seems a willful effort to disregard the spirit of the discussion (clearly stated in the initial post and later) which is rooted in a disagreement about the relative level of depth between 3.x and 5e theorycrafting, and height of shenanigans the rules' elucidation could allow for outside the context of a playable game.

You're taking the breezy passtime of theory crafting and trying hard to make it as grueling and unfun as possible and I struggle to understand why you would do something like that unless you're either confusing the callous thrill of ruining someone else's fun (a habit you should have grown or been educated out of) or are in fact trapped in a sadomasachistic spiral of hating something but being unable to step away from it.

Either of those is better addressed with a close friend or family member or perhaps a caring professional. If you need such help and are struggling to figure out to whom you can turn, feel free to DM me and I will make an earnest effort help you find someone.

FWIW I didn't understand this word salad.

Apparently I'm argumentative, willful, unfun, callous, and sadomasochistic for pointing out that RAW (Rules As Written) are in the rulebooks and not on the Internet?

Frogreaver

2021-01-09, 01:30 PM

FWIW I didn't understand this word salad.

I think he failed his insult check.

MaxWilson

2021-01-09, 01:32 PM

I think he failed his insult check.

Next time maybe he should try mentioning elderberries.

BerzerkerUnit

2021-01-09, 01:33 PM

does your cucumber stop being blue when you kill it? - as per polymorph?
Your analogy doesn't work.

If I die i stop having a Heartbeat.
If I cut of flesh, that part immediately stops having one.

... Fyi what you are trying to do is invent & justify your own rulings. You can't do that: tot are not the DM.

Find us the RAW that deals with cutting of limbs - Because theorycrafting doesn't care about your personal interpretation of the tules. That's RAI, not RAW

Bold by me.

None of the bolded text is true. Death as a concept is strange enough but we understand cessation of life to be brain death which can take several minutes. Note: when the heart stops, death is imminent, but not simultaneous unless it's a full body giblet situation. As for cell death, such as when an organ fails or is lopped off, it depends. Organs remain viable for transplant for 12 hours on average with kidneys being good for up to 36. Tissues like bone and corneas can be good for up to 24.

Italicized by me.
This is irrelevant based on the context of the discussion, clearly stated in the OP and again later. Consensus is the DM in a white room, and not general consensus where you can petulantly object from the side and expect to be counted and further derail. No, the only consensus necessary is by those engaging in good faith with specific points that take into account that no one is sitting down at your table with 5 books and a 4 page character sheet tittering at how they'll one shot your boss or dig a hole to the final dungeon room with a cantrip, we're just some people trying to have a good time by reading and thinking about what we've read.

JoeJ

2021-01-09, 02:39 PM

If I die i stop having a Heartbeat.
If I cut of flesh, that part immediately stops having one.

But the pine tree in my front yard never had a heartbeat at all, or even a heart. Does that mean it's dead, even though it's still growing?

Valmark

2021-01-09, 02:39 PM

It actually depends on the monster. Some monsters treat "game statistics" and action options separately, others have (shapechanging) rules that make sense only if you assume they are the same thing. There's no single consistent interpretation.

Really? I don't think I've ever seen a stat block without actions. Can you make an example?

BerzerkerUnit

2021-01-09, 02:56 PM

FWIW I didn't understand this word salad.

Apparently I'm argumentative, willful, unfun, callous, and sadomasochistic for pointing out that RAW (Rules As Written) are in the rulebooks and not on the Internet?

My RAW are all on DND Beyond... on the internet... so maybe?

For not understanding what I wrote you sure got the gist of it.

But seriously, I meant what I said, I'm here to help if you need it.

I got to a later post where someone (maybe you) also made it clear they felt that this kind of analysis is ill suited to a game edition that steered clear of an effort toward precise wording. Again, begging the question of why one would engage with it unless the goal is to threadcrap.

In any case, I disagree. I think this edition rewards such analysis even more because it helps further refine what we as a community understand to be the intent of the rules. Most notably because resources like SA and developer tweets are given in response to our nonsense. Then we as DMs and players can then find a satisfactory middle ground for our own games. The more of these loopholes that are brought up in forums like this, the fewer times they create a pause in an actual game where a DM has to make a decision on the spot.

Now on to the fun.

Clone, True Polymorph, and Shapechange.

My hard and fast is that Shapechange doesn't work with Clone. Dropping to 0 ends it, broken concentration ends it. You have to have seen the creature, more trouble than it's worth. I agree that a strict reading leaves open the interpretation that form abilities are cumulative, but from there a lot of fine lines have to be drawn, like spell casting yes, spell slots no, etc.

True Polymorph is a different beast.

You True Polymorph into a Medium Dragon (Clone's gotta be medium) and get cloned, the clone is a dragon. Full stop. You get dispelled and turn back into nerd wizard and then die, your soul goes in the Clone, which is a dragon. That's my reading. The Clone doesn't have to duplicate spell effects but it does have to duplicate form, which was a dragon. True Polymorph (if permanent from concentration) no longer ends on death or 0 hp, so it is reasonable to believe a part cut off for a clone will be a Dragon part unless it is dispelled.

HOWEVER
Do you keep all your Wizard stuff in your new Dragon body? Yes. Clone says you retain all your memories and abilities. The Clone spell makes no mention of Class levels, features, spell slots etc, so it is reasonable to believe you would keep them from nerd body to nerd clone, therefore nerd body to dragon clone should work the same.

No DM in the white room? Then yes definitely. Dragons can cast spells, dragons can read, etc.

Someone griped that using the most permissive interpretation wasn't 3.x philosophy. It exactly was. 3.X was exactly "if it doesn't say I can't, then I can."

Do you have the Dragon's mentals? NO. It says you retain your abilities, ie the ones you had when you died so you'd keep your 20 int, etc. HOWEVER, that also means your awesome dragon body now has your 8 Str, 10 Dex etc.

Dragon HP or your HP, I'm leaning toward dragon since it says the form is physically identical to the original and you're going to take a hit on Con so they'll drop.

If the new Drago wizard gets dispelled, does he turn back into nerd wizard. My gut says no, the Clone was not under the effect of a spell, it is a dragon shaped clone occupied by a wizard soul.

If it were my table:
I'm fine with most of it. I'd probably poo poo the Shapechange stacks just because I'd have to make so many rulings it would be a drag. But spend a few days and 10s of thousands of gold to make yourself a dragon? At a level where the game shifts toward multistage fights with armies and annihilating illithid nautilus ships, it's drops in the bucket. If a wizard decided to do this instead of just be a Lich, I'd be shocked.

qube

2021-01-09, 03:52 PM

> If I die i stop having a Heartbeat.
> If I cut of flesh, that part immediately stops having one.

But the pine tree in my front yard never had a heartbeat at all, or even a heart. Does that mean it's dead, even though it's still growing?no ... are you under the impression that the *I* in the quote refers to a pine tree?
I mean, I know my english is bad ... but is it really that bad you think I'm a tree?

wait. Maybe I *am* a pine tree. Did anyone cast True polymorph recently?

> If I die i stop having a Heartbeat.
> If I cut of flesh, that part immediately stops having one.

None of the bolded text is true. Death as a concept is strange enough but we understand cessation of life to be brain death which can take several minutes. Note: when the heart stops, death is imminent, but not simultaneous unless it's a full body giblet situation. As for cell death, such as when an organ fails or is lopped off, it depends. Organs remain viable for transplant for 12 hours on average with kidneys being good for up to 36. Tissues like bone and corneas can be good for up to 24.
As someone with a degree in biotechnologie I actually already know what you're saying. You might have missed

does your cucumber stop being blue when you kill it? - as per polymorph?
Your analogy doesn't work.

Being pedantic on how death works in details does not work. Considering typically, a heart beat stops when you kick the bucket, a heatbeat fits the specified behavior of polymorph better then something being painted blue.

This is irrelevant based on the context of the discussion, clearly stated in the OP and again later. Consensus is the DM in a white room(a) there is a control+f function. You're the only one who mentions consensus

(b) the OP note multiple times that there is no DM. That this a - to quote "DMless vacuum", and that, again to quote

There is no game involved, no players and most importantly no DM. Rules are followed to the letter, even if the letter leads to something ridiculous

I have no clue where you get that Consensus would be the DM.

You True Polymorph into a Medium Dragon (Clone's gotta be medium) and get cloned, the clone is a dragon. Full stop."Full stop" is not an argument. It's also not RAW. You can't willy nilly decide what happens. Or you could decide that the cosmic powers of The Weave crackle as you seperate one single target spell into two targets - becomming Pun-Pun in the process, leaving your mortality in the severed body part.

MaxWilson

2021-01-09, 03:52 PM

Really? I don't think I've ever seen a stat block without actions. Can you make an example?

One example of treating statistics and actions separately is in the shapechanging text for dragons, which always says something like this: In a new form, the dragon retains its alignment, hit points, Hit Dice, ability to speak, proficiencies, Legendary Resistance, lair actions, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, as well as this action. Its statistics and capabilities are otherwise replaced by those of the new form, except any class features or legendary actions of that form. Implication: capabilities (such as shapechanging) are not included in statistics.

Archdruid: While in a new form, the archdruid retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, and Dexterity are replaced by those of the new form, and it gains any special senses, proficiencies, traits, actions, and reactions (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks. In this context it's very unclear to me what "statistics" is even meant to refer to. Perhaps just abilities besides Str/Dex, plus HP?

Couatl: In a new form, the couatl retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and other actions are replaced by those of the new form, and it gains any statistics and capabilities (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks. If the new form has a bite attack, the couatl can use its bite in that form. Implication: AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and other actions are not included in game statistics.

Barghest: The barghest can use its action to polymorph into a Small goblin or back into its true form. Other than its size and speed, its statistics are the same in each form. And yet, its bite attack says explicitly that it's usable in true form only. Apparently the bite attack is not part of its "statistics."

There's a bunch of other creatures with similar wording (death slaads, werebears, deep scions). I won't find them all.

Cloud Giant Smiling one: The giant magically polymorphs into a beast or humanoid it has seen, or back into its true form. Any equipment the giant is wearing or carrying is absorbed by the new form. Its statistics, other than its size, are the same in each form. It reverts to its true form if it dies. And yet it has a Rock attack listed in its action block, and has 40' movement. I defy anyone who claims that a tiny little Seahorse (Smiling One) can throw rocks up to 240' for 4d10+8(+4d6) damage when it doesn't have hands. Clearly that's not intended to be included in the "statistics" it retains. (Moving 40' on land without feet is also kind of dubious.)

There are some other creatures with similar wording (devas, vampires) but I won't hunt them all down.

Eidolon is the opposite of the above cases: When the eidolon moves into a space occupied by a sacred statue, the eidolon can disappear, causing the statue to become a creature under the eidolon's control. The eidolon uses the sacred statue's statistics in place of its own. In this case it's clearly intended that the Eidolon use everything in the Sacred Statue's stat block including attack options, otherwise there would be no point in even listing attacks for the Sacred Statue at all since it can't attack without an Eidolon in it.

Of course, we all know that the MM isn't carefully written anyway, or it wouldn't have stuff like this for vampires and yochlols: Mist Form. The yochlol transforms into toxic mist or reverts to its true form. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying is also transformed. It reverts to its true form if it dies. While in mist form, the yochlol is incapacitated and can’t speak. It has a flying speed of 30 feet, can hover, and can pass through any space that isn’t airtight. It has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws, and it is immune to nonmagical damage. The RAW here is that the Yochlol turns into toxic mist and can't turn back, because doing so requires an action and incapacitated creatures can't take actions. Turning to toxic mist is a permanent self-gimping. That is why "RAW" is not a compliment--calling something RAW is often a way of calling attention to a defect.

TL;DR the MM is not using a single definition of "statistics", and also is not carefully written in the first place.

JoeJ

2021-01-09, 03:52 PM

You True Polymorph into a Medium Dragon (Clone's gotta be medium) and get cloned, the clone is a dragon. Full stop. You get dispelled and turn back into nerd wizard and then die, your soul goes in the Clone, which is a dragon. That's my reading. The Clone doesn't have to duplicate spell effects but it does have to duplicate form, which was a dragon. True Polymorph (if permanent from concentration) no longer ends on death or 0 hp, so it is reasonable to believe a part cut off for a clone will be a Dragon part unless it is dispelled.

My take is a little different: the clone doesn't have any particular form at all until you die and your soul goes into it. Then it becomes whatever you were. I came to this interpretation by looking at the intended non-shenanigan use of the spell, which is to provide a contingency in case of unexpected death. Used in that way, a great deal of time might have passed between the casting of the spell and the activation of the clone (there has to be at least 120 days, but it could easily be years). If you come back as a clone after dying, do you still know the things you learned after casting the spell? If you've gained a language or tool proficiency through downtime, does the clone have the proficiency? If you've gone up in level, do you come back as your current level? If the answer to any of these questions was no, given the stated intent of the spell ("a safeguard against death"), the description would have said so. I have to conclude, therefore, that the clone takes it's form at the moment you die, not the moment the spell was cast.

But what about spells that are active? When you die, you stop concentrating. Any spell that requires you to concentrate, therefore, won't carry over. For the sake of consistency, I would say the same thing applies if somebody else was concentrating on a spell they'd cast on you. (Your clone will probably be well out of range anyway.) Any other spell that affects your body also doesn't carry over to a different body, unless there's something in the spell description that says it down.

For True Polymorph, after it has become permanent, I've never had that come up. I would probably rule that your clone takes the permanent form you died in, and that it can't be dispelled.

JoeJ

2021-01-09, 03:59 PM

no ... are you under the impression that the *I* in the quote refers to a pine tree?
I mean, I know my english is bad ... but is it really that bad you think I'm a tree?

wait. Maybe I *am* a pine tree. Did anyone cast True polymorph recently?

Okay, so you're not a pine tree. But if you've cast Shapechange, you could be a fire elemental, a violet fungus, a gelatinous cube or a treant.

Valmark

2021-01-09, 04:04 PM

One example of treating statistics and actions separately is in the shapechanging text for dragons, which always says something like this: In a new form, the dragon retains its alignment, hit points, Hit Dice, ability to speak, proficiencies, Legendary Resistance, lair actions, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, as well as this action. Its statistics and capabilities are otherwise replaced by those of the new form, except any class features or legendary actions of that form. Implication: capabilities (such as shapechanging) are not included in statistics.

Archdruid: While in a new form, the archdruid retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, and Dexterity are replaced by those of the new form, and it gains any special senses, proficiencies, traits, actions, and reactions (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks. In this context it's very unclear to me what "statistics" is even meant to refer to. Perhaps just abilities besides Str/Dex, plus HP?

Couatl: In a new form, the couatl retains its game statistics and ability to speak, but its AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and other actions are replaced by those of the new form, and it gains any statistics and capabilities (except class features, legendary actions, and lair actions) that the new form has but that it lacks. If the new form has a bite attack, the couatl can use its bite in that form. Implication: AC, movement modes, Strength, Dexterity, and other actions are not included in game statistics.

Barghest: The barghest can use its action to polymorph into a Small goblin or back into its true form. Other than its size and speed, its statistics are the same in each form. And yet, its bite attack says explicitly that it's usable in true form only. Apparently the bite attack is not part of its "statistics."

There's a bunch of other creatures with similar wording (death slaads, werebears, deep scions). I won't find them all.

Cloud Giant Smiling one: The giant magically polymorphs into a beast or humanoid it has seen, or back into its true form. Any equipment the giant is wearing or carrying is absorbed by the new form. Its statistics, other than its size, are the same in each form. It reverts to its true form if it dies. And yet it has a Rock attack listed in its action block, and has 40' movement. I defy anyone who claims that a tiny little Seahorse (Smiling One) can throw rocks up to 240' for 4d10+8(+4d6) damage when it doesn't have hands. Clearly that's not intended to be included in the "statistics" it retains. (Moving 40' on land without feet is also kind of dubious.)

There are some other creatures with similar wording (devas, vampires) but I won't hunt them all down.

Eidolon is the opposite of the above cases: When the eidolon moves into a space occupied by a sacred statue, the eidolon can disappear, causing the statue to become a creature under the eidolon's control. The eidolon uses the sacred statue's statistics in place of its own. In this case it's clearly intended that the Eidolon use everything in the Sacred Statue's stat block including attack options, otherwise there would be no point in even listing attacks for the Sacred Statue at all since it can't attack without an Eidolon in it.

Of course, we all know that the MM isn't carefully written anyway, or it wouldn't have stuff like this for vampires and yochlols: Mist Form. The yochlol transforms into toxic mist or reverts to its true form. Any equipment it is wearing or carrying is also transformed. It reverts to its true form if it dies. While in mist form, the yochlol is incapacitated and can’t speak. It has a flying speed of 30 feet, can hover, and can pass through any space that isn’t airtight. It has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws, and it is immune to nonmagical damage. The RAW here is that the Yochlol turns into toxic mist and can't turn back, because doing so requires an action and incapacitated creatures can't take actions. Turning to toxic mist is a permanent self-gimping. That is why "RAW" is not a compliment--calling something RAW is often a way of calling attention to a defect.

TL;DR the MM is not using a single definition of "statistics", and also is not carefully written in the first place.

Nice (sarcastic). If it ever came up in a manner that requires me to take a position I'd probably say those are all exceptions to the general rule- but I see why it's not clear at all.
Yes, the Mist Form is especially stupid xD

On another note, I do want to see a seahorse throw a rock now.

MrCharlie

2021-01-09, 07:42 PM

In order for this to be plausible, you have to basically interpret that the shapechange form keeps the benefit of every form you shapechange through throughout the duration of shapechange too.

I.E. the argument is that you can stack shapechange form abilities until you reach the end of the duration, then duplicate that body in some way-you could use the clone spell, a simulacrum by ending on a valid target for simulacrum, etc.

I view this as contradicting the rules text of shapechange. It says retain any features you have, not retain everything applying to your character. Put another way, you could interpret this to saying that you retain the effect of a haste spell for the duration of shapechange. I know that the rules lawyer will instantly say that this merely makes the ability better, but the key is that a spell isn't a feature your character has to begin with. It's a feature, but not one your character owns and can retain.

So that's the basic flaw that makes this not work. The grammar requires that the features retained by shapechange be "yours", and features from other forms...aren't.

But if we ignore this, we can have a lot of fun!

See, you're thinking too small. The game is more broken that this, if you break the barrier between features. See, the game explicitly says-page 252, DMG-that "Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items." More than you retaining the features from shapechange, you retain the benefits from spells cast on you, magic items you can use, and other monster abilities. Note that it says benefits, not penalties. You can use this to selectively remove negative penalties-filter them-from abilities, spells, etc. that have both positive and negative results.

Because we're also playing fast and loose with durations here, we can make the case that you retain the "benefits" of spells and use magic items throughout shapechange per this text, even though their duration should have ended-hence, you can be permanently hasted, under death ward, etc. You can even argue that the benefits of a spell don't include it's failure condition, so death ward just...makes you immortal. It can't end. You can even apply this to something like Time Stop-and remember, we've decided that we only retain beneficial features from a spell. So you can just murder people during time stop. The benefit of time stop is that it freezes time, and we can ignore the penalty of ending the spell if we attack someone.

Hence, if you can retain the benefits of other features like you are claiming, we can basically completely break the game entirely. All beneficial durations last until the end of shapechange, every spell is governed by this text, all monster abilities as well, etc.

Of course, none of it works to begin with because the capabilities of an assumed form, the features imparted by a temporary spell, and the effects of a temporary magic item aren't yours to begin with and would end when the effect duplicating them ends regardless, but it's a fun game.

Oh, and the clone thing would fail for the same reason-shapechange's duration has ended, all the features of the spell end, including the amazing abilities. The clone would either revert to a clone of you or be a clone of the creature you assumed the form of. Even at best, this is an hour of omnipotence. Remember-the creature itself does not have these abilities, the spell is retaining them across forms for us even in a favorable interpretation. The creature is just...a creature.

(There is something more valid in the idea of shapechanging into a medium creature, cloning that creature, then dying-I could buy that, per the text of the spells, you would transfer your soul into that new creature and thus implicitly your character-but it's not pun-pun by itself).

Of course, Pun-Pun never worked to begin with because manipulate form made one unable to benefit from manipulate form (at least implicitly), although there were still ways to cheese the ability without the infinite feedback loop once it was on your familiar. But that's not the point, and this kind of lawyering without A. Context and B. Anyone arguing against you isn't about the exploit actually working anyway. In addition to not resembling actual lawyering at all, mind you.

Narsham01

2021-01-09, 07:51 PM

Human.

True Polymorph is a magical reversible conditional alteration to your "normal form" that does not permanently change what your "normal" form is. When True Polymorph is dispelled you revert to your "normal form", ie your intrinsic physical form. True Polymorph would have to change what your "normal" irreducible form is for True Polymorph to duplicate via Clone.

Very few spells alter your base physical form. Reincarnate is one such spell.

If you Clone someone who is True Polymorphed you clone their "normal" form, not their magically polymorphed form. If you Clone someone who was Reincarnated you clone their form post-Reincarnation as Reincarnation does indeed change your "normal form".

Shapechange, Aid, Bless, Alter Self . . . None of these change your 'base normal' form. Rather they apply a layer of transformation on top of your "base normal". When the spell expires or is dispelled you revert to "base normal". If the magical transformations were a transformation of the underlying 'base normal' form there would be no reverting back to normal, the magically altered self would be the new base normal. However, that is not the case. Magic is almost always a transformation layer on top of the "base normal" and not a new "base normal".

Reincarnate changes "base normal". True Polymorph does not.

I tend to agree, and I think this post gets at the interesting part of this discussion, because the game rules are sloppy about "form" versus "creature" versus "game statistics." The confusion is understandable, especially given the "base normal" element, and that "game statistics" is a metagame term while the others are in-game terms.

Here's the range of possibilities as I see them:
1. A form change. Your shape is different, but you retain your memory and mentality, as well as traits and characteristics associated with your "base" form. Alter Self and Shapechange function this way, as does Wild Shape. You can revert to your "base" form from hp loss.

2. A change in creature type. Your shape is different, you lose your mentality, and you lose traits and characteristics associated with your "base" form. But your "base" form is potentially recoverable. Polymorph and True Polymorph have this effect. You can still revert to your "base" form from hp loss.

The problem here is that "monster type" as a part of statistics blocks does change in 1 as well as in 2, so "creature type" can't mean "Beast" or "Humanoid" or whatever because both cases change your "monster type."

3. An overwriting of your creature type. Your shape is different, you retain your mentality, but replace traits and characteristics associated with your race. Reincarnate does this.

The Clone spell is ambiguous because it replicates a living creature, but never directly uses the word "form" (or even "body"). If you took a flesh sample in case 3, post-Reincarnate, the clone clearly grows as a duplicate of the new race. What happens in cases 1 & 2 is less clear. What is being duplicated?

If the creature is being duplicated, which appears to be the literal meaning of the target (a "living creature"), then does that reflect a form change? Only a "base normal" change? If you clone a human who lost an eye at age 40, and make the clone body 25, does the clone body have its eye back? The rules clarify nothing in this case. It is impossible based on what is written to resolve the matter.

I would suggest this: the clone has the same personality, memories, and abilities of the original. In case 2 above (Polymorph/True Polymorph), the transformed creature retains its original alignment and personality but loses its mentality and abilities. If the clone spell duplicates "personality, memories, and abilities" and the clone spell "remembers" your changed form and not your "base normal" form, wouldn't it also "remember" your changed mentality? Either the clone conforms to the original at death (which would end any polymorph effect) in all respects, or it conforms to the "snap-shot" at the time of cloning, meaning you'd lose your original abilities and mental stats if you were cloned under a polymorph effect. Both intuition and past D&D editions would suggest that the flesh sample "saves" your physical condition while the soul brings the personality, mentality, and abilities, but nothing in the 5E rules actually states that. Going strictly by the language, nothing resolves this matter either way, but nothing offers grounds for a compromise solution taking the "best" of both options.

As for the OP's reading of the Shapechange spell: if you really want to argue about interpretations, you need to make arguments for your reading instead of asserting it. Unquestionably, the spell is poorly, even incoherently, written. That does not mean that you automatically win arguments about what it means; it may indicate that nobody can win an argument because the wording cannot be parsed.

"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source..."
The first bit ("your class") is straightforward. Then things fall apart. Because it looks as if the possessive "your" is meant to apply to all three items in the series. "your class" parses nicely, but what in the world does "or your other source" mean? "You retain the benefit of any features from your other source" is grammatically faulty and may not mean anything at all.

RAI is clearly "features from your original class and race, or features from any other source which your original form possesses". RAW clearly doesn't say that. But I'm not convinced that what it does say is well-formed enough to be interpreted as meaning anything. Clearly the writer thought "retain" would do the lifting here, in conjunction with "your": after all, if you shapechange into a drow from a human, "drow" is not "your race" linguistically (not "base normal"). But because you took on the statistics and your monster type is now Humanoid (drow), a case could be made that that is now your race, although then, what about your human racial features? You might argue that you retain those as well, but the line reads "your class, race, or other sources," not "your class or classes, race or races, or other sources." Indeed, RAW, shapechange is incompatible with the multiclassing rules.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-09, 07:56 PM

Very few "bug fixes" implemented in 5e errata have been improvements.
Concur.

But the pine tree in my front yard never had a heartbeat at all, or even a heart. Does that mean it's dead, even though it's still growing? First tell me if you cast the Awaken spell on it.

My RAW are all on DND Beyond.
Which from where I sit is an error; when D&D Beyond came out a lot of us noted the casual errors and carelessness that went on there. While I hope they have improved since then (it's not a bad resource) the core books does not equal DDB.

qube

2021-01-10, 08:39 AM

Okay, so you're not a pine tree. But if you've cast Shapechange, you could be a fire elemental, a violet fungus, a gelatinous cube or a treant.... I'm not sure if you're joking or not.

The point was the initial analogy was flawed: (paraphrasing) if you cut a limb off while true polymorphed, it wouldn't change back; because if you paint a cucumber and paint it blue, the piece you cut off doesn't stop being plainted blue.

But if you get killed while true polymorphed, you turn back to your original shape; while if you kill the painted cucumber ... it keeps being blue.

if paint doesn't react like polymoph in the cases we know ... why would we assume it does in the cases we don't?
That's why unlike a painted cumcumber, something like a pulse is a better analogy.

Painted cucumber
Heartbeat
True polymoph

on death
unchanged
changed
chanced

on seperation of limb
unchanged
changed
?

One might say, that if you cut of a limb, that part acts as though it's reduced to zero hit points.

Yucca

2021-01-11, 10:37 AM

TL;DR the MM is not using a single definition of "statistics", and also is not carefully written in the first place.

Monster Manual pg 6, under the heading "Statistics":
A monster's statistics, sometimes referred to as its stat block, provides the essential information you need to run the monster
(bolding in the original)

By RAW the "statistics" of the monster include everything in the "stat block". I was wrong in my post above.

noob

2021-01-11, 01:55 PM

... I'm not sure if you're joking or not.

The point was the initial analogy was flawed: (paraphrasing) if you cut a limb off while true polymorphed, it wouldn't change back; because if you paint a cucumber and paint it blue, the piece you cut off doesn't stop being plainted blue.

But if you get killed while true polymorphed, you turn back to your original shape; while if you kill the painted cucumber ... it keeps being blue.

if paint doesn't react like polymoph in the cases we know ... why would we assume it does in the cases we don't?
That's why unlike a painted cumcumber, something like a pulse is a better analogy.

Painted cucumber
Heartbeat
True polymoph

on death
unchanged
changed
chanced

on seperation of limb
unchanged
changed
?

One might say, that if you cut of a limb, that part acts as though it's reduced to zero hit points.

It is even more complicated imagine the limb was cut and 100 light years away and did not revert would the death of the creature transcend space and time and revert instantly the limb or would you need to wait for 100 years before the limb reverts?

Valmark

2021-01-11, 02:09 PM

It is even more complicated imagine the limb was cut and 100 light years away and did not revert would the death of the creature transcend space and time and revert instantly the limb or would you need to wait for 100 years before the limb reverts?

Ignore me if I'm missing the point of a joke- but 100 light years only indicates the spatial distance, not time.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-01-11, 02:23 PM

Ignore me if I'm missing the point of a joke- but 100 light years only indicates the spatial distance, not time.

They're assuming relativity works as on Earth, so 100 ly is both a distance and a minimum time for information to travel.

I highly doubt that the underlying physics of D&D-world is anything like ours, since little stuff like conservation laws aren't even valid. Consider enlarge/reduce. Even as applied to an object (to avoid any nasty biological issues like the square/cube law). Conservation of momentum, mass-energy, angular momentum, particle number, etc are all screaming in pain as soon as that happens, and then again once the spell ends.

XmonkTad

2021-01-11, 02:33 PM

Also, a teleport effect that leaves your gear, including clothing, behind would be pretty funny.

If you think it's funny, there's a specific Gygax module running around you might want to try :smalltongue:

To OP's point, I can't figure out how this combo works. I'm not really seeing the interaction. I'm very interested in TO, and I think you've definitely got an audience on this forum.

ftafp

2021-01-11, 03:52 PM

If you think it's funny, there's a specific Gygax module running around you might want to try :smalltongue:

To OP's point, I can't figure out how this combo works. I'm not really seeing the interaction. I'm very interested in TO, and I think you've definitely got an audience on this forum.

the build really hinges on taking two ambiguities in the rules and using the most outrageous but still technically legal interpretation.

the first is that shapechange claims you retain your features from your "race, class or other source", but because "other source" has an incredibly broad definition, and the PHB doesn't specify what's considered a feature and what isn't, when you use your action to switch to a new form, the rules could be interpreted so that you retain the features from your old monster form such as traits or actions

the second is an ambiguity in how clone works when you cast it on a creature that's temporarily shapeshifted. depending on your interpretation, the clone could be identical to the true form, the altered form, or the altered form but only temporarily.

if you choose the two most convenient interpretations, this trick will effectively let you gain the abilities of monsters you've seen permanently

furby076

2021-01-12, 11:58 PM

Because 3.X tried very, very, very hard to pretend it's not the case and some still insist that it was true.

You think 3.5 said the DM s not the rules adjudicator? Who were you playing with?I had about 4 or 5 DMs from 3 to 3.5 (including pathfinder) and at no point was the DM not the person who decided what worked and didn't. AL didn't exist back then, so there was no "official" gaming, just a lot of people who banded together in small groups to have fun, and one of those people was in charge of intepreting the rules

Because theorycrafting is pointless without the context of the game and the game is pointless without the game engine. In an MMO (which actually allows theorycrafting to some degree because the rules and engine are fixed and so are the challenges), if you start talking about "well, if we just attack faster than the GCD...", you'll get laughed out of the room. The game engine does not allow that action. So trying to theorycraft about it is a nullity.

In D&D, the DM is the game engine. The rules are just pre-written scripts and models that the game engine executes to make its job easier. Without a DM, all you have are words. The rules have no meaning outside of a DM's rulings. "Theorycrafting" of this sort (that assumes only the most permissive rulings) is like playing a game with the physics and damage turned off. It's the most fundamental form of cheating possible in a TTRPG, and just like cheating in a video game, it strips any meaning from the exercise. This was true in 3e as well, people on the internet just ignored it.

Even more fundamentally, all text is capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, especially if there's nothing keeping you honest. So you can pick on any kind of contorted rationale in full confidence that the rules won't talk back. Because they can't. And if someone says no on the internet, well, you can always come up with a new argument. Nothing ever gets settled as long as one person wants to continue debating.

Without setting ground rules and agreeing on readings at the beginning (ie invoking a particular DM's rulings, even if that DM is only conceptual), discussions of theory are meaningless.

Theorycrafting extreme cases is only pointless as far as it's not playable (unless there is a table that enjoys that stuff). It is not pointless as an exercise of "What-if". I love reading these crazy builds. It's creative for people to pour through various rules and find ways to go crazy. That's it.....it's fun, for some folks, and as such is not pointless.

As for "all text is capable of being interpreted in multiple ways..." - That's not true. Some text is written really well and has solid ways of being interpreted. Clearly, there are people to keep the players honest, they are called DMs...or forum communities.

I do not agree, being an aberration should not make you unable to play. Especially if you keep your way of thinking and mental capabilities.
You are you, thinking like you and having the same personality like you just in a new body.

I've never been in any table where certain creatures or types of creatures were not viable for the campaign. Can a Gold Dragon theoretically be in a good group...sure...as an npc for a few sessions. Can a PC be a gold dragon - unless your playing that 3.x dragon splat book, and the DM is making a specific campaign around it, nope. I'm not including temporary changes (e.g., polymorph). But hey, your table may vary. I'd still go with a ruling "your blobbed out and died as the mutation could not sustain itself" or, say "last form wins".