With Truesight I can Eldritch Blast a BBEG True Polymorphed into an adamantium statue [Archive]

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 03:05 PM

Lets look at the definition of Truesight and the spell description of True Seeing.

True Sight

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that IS [NOTE PRESENT TENSE] transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range.

True Seeing

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually ARE[NOTE PRESENT TENSE]. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

Take note of the tense as indicated.

Like many words, "original" has more than one meaning in English.

We know from the use of present tense that the use of "original" as some state in the past cannot be correct as that directly conflicts with the uses of present tense in the ability and spell descriptions.

Rather "original" is here used to describe the state of something apart from a process that would alter or transform it.

__________________

Let me provide a scenario that highlights the issues and clarifies my argument.

Lets say you have a BBEG who has been True Polymorphed into an adamantium statue.

And I have a character who has eldritch blast, magical missile, and a rapier.

Luckily this character has Truesight. He perceives that the adamantium statue is actually the BBEG who is being transformed by magical effect into an adamantium statue and is not actually an adamantium statue.

With Truesight this character can shoot Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile at the statue magical effect and munch away at those statue magical effect hit points until the statue magical effect goes down which would then expose the BBEG, and then continue to shoot the BBEG with Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile at the BBEG hit points.

Without Truesight he could not use either Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile and would be stuck using a rapier to destroy the adamantium statue to bring down that magical effect and expose the BBEG. Only after the True Polymorph goes down could he then use Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile against the BBEG.

______________

Truesight lets you perceive things as they actually are so the character can perceive that the adamantine statue is actually the BBEG. So when the character who has Truesight targets the statue he is actually targeting the BBEG that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue.

Greywander

2022-01-06, 03:20 PM

Lupine

2022-01-06, 03:23 PM

Welcome to the fifth edition inconsistency about whether or not petrified creatures are creatures or objects.

I would say, though, that true polymorph specifically calls out that shapeshifters are not valid targets, and uses the verb “transform” for what it does to creatures.

This implies that true polymorph isn’t a shape-shifted creature, which is what truesight would detect, but instead, a true polymorphed creature simply *is* what it gets transformed into.

That said, you might be able to see that the potted plant in the corner is an unlucky wild magic sorcerer. :)

EDIT: To the OP, I get that you really like this idea, but you already brought it up in the thread “No longer a valid target.” Bringing the topic back up in another thread days later, especially in a declarative sense (the “I am right about this” tone you’re taking) is not only bad form, it’s also poor etiquette.

When literally no one else agrees with your interpretation, you should consider that your interpretation might be incorrect.

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 03:30 PM

Greywander

2022-01-06, 03:33 PM

Welcome to the fifth edition inconsistency about whether or not petrified creatures are creatures or objects.
This isn't the only place something like this comes up. The Artillerist's cannon is a magical object, but it can move and is treated as having stats should it need to make a save. TBH, I think they should have unified the concepts of objects and creatures, with "object" and "creature" being specific subcategories of the same thing. Heck, you could treat objects as simply being creatures with the construct creature type. It would be a little weird having objects with stats and proficiencies and move speeds and such, even if those speeds are all 0, but it would make it easier for certain rules to simply be applied verbatim to objects just as they are to creatures, without needing special rules regarding how that effect interacts with objects, if it does at all.

That said, I don't think True Polymorph petrifies the target; it transforms them into an object, which may just happen to be a statue that is an exact replica of that person. But that's not the same as petrification.

Hmm, and now I'm imagining a wizard tower where everything is someone that's been True Polymorphed into an object. Preferably someone loyal to the wizard in question, so that if the polymorph ever drops, they'll attack whoever is invading the tower. Tables, chairs, treasure chests, bookcases, books, literally the window blinds, everything. Maybe not the food, that would be weird.

Edit:

Thanks for your response.

I would like to brig to your attention that Tense is critical here. Truesight reveals that the statue IS in fact the BBEG who is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into the statue. If an Antimagic Field temporarily suspends the magical effect you get to see what is happening under the hood. Rather than revealing nothing (as if the BBEG had winked out of existence and is only in the past), the BBEG is revealed in the Antimagic Field.
Doesn't matter. The BBEG IS an object at that moment. Not a creature. It's kind of the same as how a corpse is an object; recognizing it as the person they were when they were alive doesn't let you target the corpse as if it were a creature.

I'd much rather acknowledge that the rules are wonky and add a houserule allowing EB to attack objects than use a faulty interpretation of the rules to try as justify something as being "RAW" when it's not.

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 03:42 PM

Lupine

2022-01-06, 03:49 PM

In 5e, transforms can either be Instantaneous and thereby complete or accomplished by an ongoing magical effect that alters A into B. True Polymorph is of the latter type. Therefore, A is present in some capacity as it is part of the process by which B is being derived.

A screw can be reforged into a knife, and that same knife reforged into a screw. The act of forging the knife is temporary — it can be “dispelled” by hammering the knife back to a screw.

True polymorph is reforging a lump of matter into another lump of matter — in such a perfect way that it can come to life. Like the screw to a knife, it can be undone, dispelled by a dispel magic spell.

No matter how much you assert that the screw is present in some capacity, the knife is still a knife. It cannot be used to screw a piece of wood together, and if I stab you with it, you take 1d4 damage.

MoiMagnus

2022-01-06, 03:51 PM

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually ARE[NOTE PRESENT TENSE]. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

But 5e uses plain English, not some precise mathematical English. As such, the verb "are" can mean more than one thing.

A shape-shifted creature both is and isn't the original creature, depending on the definition of "being" someone/something you use.

I'd argue that true sight grants you the power to see who the creatures/objects truly are, at a metaphysical level. But that doesn't mean that what you see at a metaphysical level actually match physics. Creatures can be something else than what they are.

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 03:52 PM

This isn't the only place something like this comes up. The Artillerist's cannon is a magical object, but it can move and is treated as having stats should it need to make a save. TBH, I think they should have unified the concepts of objects and creatures, with "object" and "creature" being specific subcategories of the same thing. Heck, you could treat objects as simply being creatures with the construct creature type. It would be a little weird having objects with stats and proficiencies and move speeds and such, even if those speeds are all 0, but it would make it easier for certain rules to simply be applied verbatim to objects just as they are to creatures, without needing special rules regarding how that effect interacts with objects, if it does at all.

That said, I don't think True Polymorph petrifies the target; it transforms them into an object, which may just happen to be a statue that is an exact replica of that person. But that's not the same as petrification.

Hmm, and now I'm imagining a wizard tower where everything is someone that's been True Polymorphed into an object. Preferably someone loyal to the wizard in question, so that if the polymorph ever drops, they'll attack whoever is invading the tower. Tables, chairs, treasure chests, bookcases, books, literally the window blinds, everything. Maybe not the food, that would be weird.

Edit:

Doesn't matter. The BBEG IS an object at that moment. Not a creature. It's kind of the same as how a corpse is an object; recognizing it as the person they were when they were alive doesn't let you target the corpse as if it were a creature.

I'd much rather acknowledge that the rules are wonky and add a houserule allowing EB to attack objects than use a faulty interpretation of the rules to try as justify something as being "RAW" when it's not.

My interpretation of what is going on follows the definition for the ability description of True Sight. According to the ability description Truesight enables you to see things as they actually are. Truesight allows you to perceive that what you are actually seeing is the creature BBEG actively being transformed into an object. You can see the process going on from A to B and not just B.

Without Truesight you just see B.

With Truesight you see: A -> process (the magical effect) -> B

Since the character fully perceives what is going on they can target the creature that is being magically disguised by the True Polymorph magical effect.

Greywander

2022-01-06, 03:54 PM

In 5e, transforms can either be Instantaneous and thereby complete or accomplished by an ongoing magical effect that alters A into B. True Polymorph is of the latter type. Therefore, A is present in some capacity as it is part of the process by which B is being derived.
But to return the target to A, you have to first undo the magic. Truesight doesn't undo the magic, it merely lets you see that B is actually A, but it still remains B for the time being. An anti-magic field would suppress True Polymorph, causing the BBEG to revert to their true form and become a creature again, but while True Polymorph is in effect, they are an object.

Think of it this way: just because you can see through someone's disguise doesn't mean they're not wearing a disguise anymore.

Lupine

2022-01-06, 03:56 PM

With Truesight you see: A -> process (the magical effect) -> B

My analogy holds. Whether you see the knife, or watched me take a screw, forge it into a knife for youtube, and now see the knife, it doesn’t matter. The knife is still a knife, and I can stab you with it.

The fact that you know it used to be a screw does not change the fact that it is now a knife.

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 04:01 PM

A screw can be reforged into a knife, and that same knife reforged into a screw. The act of forging the knife is temporary — it can be “dispelled” by hammering the knife back to a screw.

True polymorph is reforging a lump of matter into another lump of matter — in such a perfect way that it can come to life. Like the screw to a knife, it can be undone, dispelled by a dispel magic spell.

No matter how much you assert that the screw is present in some capacity, the knife is still a knife. It cannot be used to screw a piece of wood together, and if I stab you with it, you take 1d4 damage.

I hope I can use a metaphor relying on basic Photoshop knowledge to illustrate what is going on. I think most on this forum have some exposure to PS.

As a continuous ongoing magical effect, True Polymorph is like a digital image transform applied to a source layer A that produces a derived layer B. For continuous magical effects the transform is never collapsed into a wholly new thing such as what happens in an Instantaneous transform. The transform is not collapsed. All the component pieces are still there and Truesight lets you see A to B as that is what is actually going on.

Greywander

2022-01-06, 04:08 PM

For continuous magical effects the transform is never collapsed into a wholly new thing such as what happens in an Instantaneous transform.
I don't think this is a correct understanding of the difference between the two. An instantaneous transformation is a permanent one that doesn't require any magic to sustain it. Your new form becomes your true form. There might be some methods of reverting the transformation, but it isn't an ongoing effect that can be dispelled. By contrast, a continuous magical effect such as True Polymorph is but a temporary transformation. It doesn't affect the underlying "true form", and will revert as soon as the magic ends. This includes, by the way, the permanent version of True Polymorph, which is still an ongoing magic effect and can be dispelled.

But regardless of whether the transformation is temporary or permanent, the target still is transformed, and while that transformation persists, the target is whatever they were transformed into. Some abilities might interact with the underlying true form, but EB is not one of those.

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 04:10 PM

But to return the target to A, you have to first undo the magic. Truesight doesn't undo the magic, it merely lets you see that B is actually A, but it still remains B for the time being. An anti-magic field would suppress True Polymorph, causing the BBEG to revert to their true form and become a creature again, but while True Polymorph is in effect, they are an object.

Think of it this way: just because you can see through someone's disguise doesn't mean they're not wearing a disguise anymore.

An Antimagic Field suppresses the magical effect. It does not revert. Reverting would require magic.

I used a Photoshop analogy in a different response. The transform that is happening in True Polymorph is never collapsed and is always uncollapsed. All the elements are present: A, B, the magical effect being actively applied.

If you can see with Truesight that a statue is ACTUALLY a creature that is transformed by TP into a statue then you can target it with Eldritch Blast.

HPisBS

2022-01-06, 04:30 PM

IMO, the whole you can only target creatures because that's what it says thing is asinine when applied to simple damage spells like EB, Acid Splash, etc, and should be ignored completely.

(Do that, and this whole workaround becomes moot. Except for the sake of knowing whether True Sight reveals where the BBEG is hiding or not, I guess.)

Greywander

2022-01-06, 04:50 PM

If you can see with Truesight that a statue is ACTUALLY a creature that is transformed by TP into a statue then you can target it with Eldritch Blast.
No it doesn't, because it doesn't stop being a statue just because you can see that it is a transformed creature. In that moment, the BBEG is not a creature, they are an object.

IMO, the whole you can only target creatures because that's what it says thing is asinine when applied to simple damage spells like EB, Acid Splash, etc, and should be ignored completely.
This. You don't fix a bad rule with a bad interpretation, you fix it with a houserule. The rules are dumb sometimes, and I'm fine with people patching them with houserules. What I'm not fine with is people insisting that something is a rule when it actually isn't. I can read the rules, too, so I know when someone is full of crap.

RSP

2022-01-06, 05:54 PM

For the record, EB doesn’t require seeing the target, so if the magically changed creature is always there, as AIR seems to believe, it’s always susceptible to EB, regardless of whether one has Truesight or not: “I EB the humanoid under the magic effect” becomes a viable target. Disadvantage on the attack roll for not seeing the target, if not having Truesight, but still viable.

Warlocks can just assassinate Druids, as their EBs go right through any Wild Shape form (ignoring that form’s HPs) and hit the “original form” (that is, the humanoid) hiding underneath, directly damaging the Druid’s HPs.

Greywander

2022-01-06, 06:07 PM

Warlocks can just assassinate Druids, as their EBs go right through any Wild Shape form (ignoring that form’s HPs) and hit the “original form” (that is, the humanoid) hiding underneath, directly damaging the Druid’s HPs.
To be fair, I don't think AIResearch is arguing that you can bypass the HP of the statue in order to attack the BBEG's HP directly. Their argument only seems to be that truesight allows you to perceive the statue as a "creature", and thus a valid target for EB. You still have to whittle down the statue's HP to 0, at which point it reverts to the BBEG.

RSP

2022-01-06, 06:08 PM

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 07:28 PM

To be fair, I don't think AIResearch is arguing that you can bypass the HP of the statue in order to attack the BBEG's HP directly. Their argument only seems to be that truesight allows you to perceive the statue as a "creature", and thus a valid target for EB. You still have to whittle down the statue's HP to 0, at which point it reverts to the BBEG.

I appreciate your contribution to this thread as you are recognizing that there is some thorniness here.

Instantaneous transmutations are "collapsed" transformations. The original form is in the past and not recoverable. In Photoshop this is when you collapse all the layers to an image and save it out. If you used a risky Wish or Divine Intervention you could achieve this kind of complete transformation of a BBEG into an actual, honest-to-god, statue.

True Polymorph is not an instantaneous transmutation. Consequently, the transformation is not collapsed . While the magic of True Polymorph is in effect the source/original creature is being transformed into the derived thing (in this case a statue) by an ongoing magical effect. All of the elements are present. A, B, the magical effect are all present. In fact they have to be or the process of the magical effect would cease to work.

For example, let's say the BBEG that is being transformed into a statue by TP is brought into an Antimagic Field. The magical effect stops and reveals the BBEG. If you then kill the BBEG and bring him out of the Antimagic Field an interesting thing happens. The True Polymorph is still there as it hasn't been dispelled. It just ceases to function since the magical effect no longer has all of the components for the "Creature Into Object" transformation. If you were then to Revivify the BBEG the magical effect of the TP would cease being inert and would pop on and function again and transmutate the BBEG back into a statue.

I think you agree with my discussion of what is going on so far.

We differ in our application of Truesight to the scenario. You don't think Truesight changes things for Eldritch Blast. I think it does. And I think that the logical application of the definition of Truesight to the scenario described above enables the character to shoot the statue with Eldritch Blast as all requirements for doing so have been met.

Truesight enables a creature with the ability to see things as they actually are. Truesight is an ability associated with Angels and such and is probably best understood as revelatory sight/perception and a very limited form of omniscience.

1) A character with Truesight has a revelatory sense and can perceive that the statue is ACTUALLY a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue. Instead of simply just perceiving B (the statue) the character sees A/B (creature/object). [This is akin to Neo's ability to see "outside the Matrix". The Matrix is real and can kill you but it is not really real - streams of code is the really real. Neo can see the real and the really real.]

2) The statue is ACTUALLY a creature.

3) Eldritch Blast can target the statue (as long as you have Truesight like Neo)

Keltest

2022-01-06, 07:35 PM

Here's the sticking point. The statue is not "actually" a creature. It's an object. It is an object because of magic, but an object nonetheless. Polymorph isn't an illusion, it is real change. If you destroy the object, it becomes a creature again, but until you do that it isn't a creature, because someone cast a spell on it to make it not a creature.

The problem in your scenario is not truesight, but the polymorph.

JNAProductions

2022-01-06, 08:00 PM

I'll echo Greywander here. Both in that you cannot target a creature transformed into a statue by True Polymorph as if they're a creature, since they're not a creature, they're an object. And in that Eldritch Blast being unable to target objects is just kinda dumb, and should be changed.

RSP

2022-01-06, 08:04 PM

2) The statue is ACTUALLY a creature.

And again, if the statue is actually a creature, then anyone can target it as a creature, regardless of Truesight, just like a creature without Darkvision can still target creatures at night.

And if you can target the creature rather than the object (the statue in this case), than you aren’t damaging an object but the creature you targeted.

But, of course, this is all moot as the statue is there, and the creature is not.

Mastikator

2022-01-06, 08:07 PM

This is what True Polymorph says

Creature into Object.
If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form. The creature’s statistics become those of the object, and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form.

The creature no longer actually a creature, it's an object. You can see the true form of the creature polymorphed into an object, but it's not there. It's like a reverse illusion.

However this is weird because if you create an illusion of a creature using for example Phantasmal Force, is it a real creature that can be targeted by EB?

All of this nonsense can be avoided by saying that spells that deal damage to creatures can also target objects and are allowed to be directed into empty space as well. You can see that the statue is actually a guy, but you were always allowed to fire EB at it. You are fooled by a phantasmal force but you are still allowed to fire EB at the air.

CapnWildefyr

2022-01-06, 08:27 PM

It is more accurate to say that you perceive that the statue you are looking at was the BBEG, not the other way around. Can't target a statue with a spell that targets creatures.

Hence the spell description:

Creature into Object. If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form, as long as the object’s size is no larger than the creature’s size. The creature’s statistics become those of the object, and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form.

Note "returns to its normal form." That means it is not in its normal form for the spell duration, regardless of what you perceive, or why.

Unoriginal

2022-01-06, 08:52 PM

Truesight lets you perceive things as they actually are so the character can perceive that the adamantine statue is actually the BBEG. So when the character who has Truesight targets the statue he is actually targeting the BBEG that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue.

It doesn't matter if you can perceive the nature of the BBEG despite the transformation, the transformation is what matters for if it's affected or not. True Sight would not let you burn a Gnome Druid Wildshapped as a Fire Elemental.

You can aim your spells at the statue all you want, but Eldritch Blast has 0 effect on objects due to them being invalid targets, same for Magic Missile. If a BBEG is True Polymorphed into a statue, they're an object until the end of the spell.

kazaryu

2022-01-06, 09:00 PM

Welcome to the fifth edition inconsistency about whether or not petrified creatures are creatures or objects.

I would say, though, that true polymorph specifically calls out that shapeshifters are not valid targets, and uses the verb “transform” for what it does to creatures.

This implies that true polymorph isn’t a shape-shifted creature, which is what truesight would detect, but instead, a true polymorphed creature simply *is* what it gets transformed into.
. keep in mind that truesight also says 'a creature that has been transformed by magic' to true sight absolutely does reveal a creature that has been polymorphed.

Thanks for your response.

I would like to brig to your attention that Tense is critical here. Truesight reveals that the statue IS in fact the BBEG who is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into the statue. If an Antimagic Field temporarily suspends the magical effect you get to see what is happening under the hood. Rather than revealing nothing (as if the BBEG had winked out of existence and is only in the past), the BBEG is revealed in the Antimagic Field.

noone is (or should be) disputing that you can see what the target's true form is. the present tense doesn't matter because all its saying is that 'this is currently their true form'. being able to see their true form doesn't change what their current form is. they are not currently that creature. that is just their original form. it doesn't make them a creature.

AIResearch

2022-01-06, 09:06 PM

Unoriginal

2022-01-06, 09:18 PM

Mellack

2022-01-06, 09:20 PM

RSP

2022-01-06, 10:11 PM

C) The cat that poofed away to reveal that it was actually Rumplestilskin all along using True Polymorph as a disguise to fool you.

The intent behind why a creature was True Polymorphed doesn’t change how the spell works.

Whether they were changed as a disguise or as a punishment, the spell works the same: they’re a cat and not a person.

Greywander

2022-01-06, 11:09 PM

I appreciate your contribution to this thread as you are recognizing that there is some thorniness here.
While I disagree with you, I don't think there's any value in misrepresenting your argument. (Though I think probably RSP just misunderstood what you were saying, and wasn't misrepresenting what you said on purpose.) In fact, demolition an argument no one actually made sounds like one of the biggest wastes of time.

I think you agree with my discussion of what is going on so far.

We differ in our application of Truesight to the scenario.
I'm... not sure that we do. Truesight isn't the issue here, it's how Polymorph works that's the issue. How I read True Polymorph is that it replaces the creature with the object. The creature does not exist anymore. Only the object. The creature who once was, is now the object.

If you True Polymorph Bob into a potted plant, the creature Bob is replaced by a potted plant. Now, Bob still exists, and Bob is the potted plant. But Bob is no longer a creature. However, the transformation is tenuous, and Bob's true nature hasn't been changed. Something like truesight can see that the potted plant was once Bob, the creature, but that doesn't change the fact that right now, Bob is still a potted plant. The tenuous nature of the transformation makes it easier to reverse; a simple casting of Dispel Magic can do it (though you may need to upcast it or succeed on the ability check).

The only thing that's really different between a temporary transformation and a permanent one is that the temporary transformation doesn't affect the creature's true form. But in both cases, the creature still is what they transformed into, as long as the transformation persists. Actually, scratch this, it has nothing to do with temporary or permanent. Different transformation abilities work differently, so this is specifically because of how Polymorph works.

There are two cats in a room. I cast Dispel Magic on both cats and one of the cats poofs away and reveals Rumplestilskin.

Which cat was an honest-to-god thoroughly indistinguishable from an actual true cat cat and for all intents and purposes was indeed a true cat?

A) Both of them

B) The cat that didn't poof away when Dispel Magic was cast

C) The cat that poofed away to reveal that it was actually Rumplestilskin all along using True Polymorph as a disguise to fool you.
This is a trick question, because it depends on what you mean by "true cat". Both are cats. But only one of them has their true form as a cat. But what does this even mean? I'll tell you.

If you Polymorph someone into a cat, they become a Beast during the transformation, and thus are a valid target for, say, Animal Friendship, which only affects beasts. That should be all the indication you need that they are, in fact, a "real" cat.

So let's consider a different example. Let's say a lich Polymorphs into a cat. They are no longer undead, but a beast, and thus can enter a Hallow area. Detecting that their true form is undead does not prevent this. Because right now, they are a beast. Not undead. Turn Undead also wouldn't work against them. It is part of the effect of Polymorph (and also True Polymorph) that the target becomes a real cat (or whatever you transform them into), and that they stop being whatever they were before until the spell ends. It's worth noting that a lot of shapechanging abilities, like those of a vampire, don't change its creature type, so even in bat form, they are still undead. That's because these abilities work differently from Polymorph.

Again, this is specifically because of how Polymorph works. Not truesight, or shapechanging in general. It's specifically Polymorph.

There might be abilities out there that can interact with a creature's true form (such as truesight itself). EB is not one of those abilities, and thus it doesn't matter whether or not you can perceive their true form, or even what their true form is. EB doesn't care about their true form. Only their current form.

I'll echo Greywander here. Both in that you cannot target a creature transformed into a statue by True Polymorph as if they're a creature, since they're not a creature, they're an object. And in that Eldritch Blast being unable to target objects is just kinda dumb, and should be changed.
TBH, I could actually see an ability that only affects creatures and doesn't harm objects. A "ghost bolt" or something. Such an ability would be quite spooky. That said, I'd almost expect such an ability to be able to ignore armor and go through walls (though if you can't see your target...), so the fact that EB doesn't means that it must be interacting with the wall in some way. I'd also expect an ability like this to be the exception, rather than the rule, and yet it seems like most damage cantrips can't target objects.

kazaryu

2022-01-07, 12:24 AM

Why would that matter for the situation in your OP?

First, Dispel Magic does not affect creatures, it affects the magical effects on the creatures.

Second, if you cast a spell that auto-killed all the cats in the AoE, it would kill a creature True Polymorphed into a cat.

Furthermore, if you cast a spell that auto-killed the creature type Rumplestilskin usually is, it would have no effect on Rumplestilskin True Polymorphed into a cat.

while i agree with you that the post in question needs some clarification as to its relevance. i will point out that autokilling the cat would not kill the creature, only revert it.

the transformation from true polymorph is reverted if the form 'drops to 0 hit points or dies'

and when the creature reverts they return to the HP they were at when initially polymorphed. which would override the death.

now, if you were intending to just say that the auto-kill spell would kill the cat (and therefore end the polymorph) then fair enough, and i agree. im not trying to argue semantics here, just mentioning this because its a common misconception. people think death effects bypass the defensive benefits of polymorph, when they don't.

AIResearch

2022-01-07, 01:31 AM

There are two cats in a room. I cast Dispel Magic on both cats and one of the cats poofs away and reveals Rumplestilskin.

Which cat was an honest-to-god thoroughly indistinguishable from an actual true cat cat and for all intents and purposes was indeed a true cat?

A) Both of them

B) The cat that didn't poof away when Dispel Magic was cast

C) The cat that poofed away to reveal that it was actually Rumplestilskin all along using True Polymorph as a disguise to fool you.

Truesight would reveal that the actual true cat is the actual true cat and the other cat is actually a humanoid that is being transformed by a magical effect into a cat and so not an actual true cat.

Truesight isn't the issue here, it's how Polymorph works that's the issue. How I read True Polymorph is that it replaces the creature with the object. The creature does not exist anymore. Only the object. The creature who once was, is now the object.

This isn't true. True Polymorph applies a process to the source creature to derive the transformed object in an ongoing magical effect (Creature Into Object). Above I showed how if you removed the creature (by killing the creature in an Antimagic Field) you break the process. So the source creature must exist in some fashion or the process breaks and the magical effect ceases to function and goes inert. Truesight reveals that the creature does exist as the statue is not an actual true statue but a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue. Truesight reveals how things actually ARE.

Of course if we were talking about an Instantaneous transmutation that would be different. A risky Wish or Divine Intervention actually truly replaces the creature with an object.

Greywander

2022-01-07, 03:50 AM

Truesight would reveal that the actual true cat is the actual true cat and the other cat is actually a humanoid that is being transformed by a magical effect into a cat and so not an actual true cat.
You... do realize you just replied to your own post?

This isn't true.
It is true.

Creature into Object. If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form, as long as the object's size is no larger than the creature's size. The creature's statistics become those of the object, and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form.
The creature's statistics become those of the object. Part of the object's statistics is being an object, and not a creature. As long as the spell is in effect, the creature is no longer a creature, but an object.

Truesight reveals how things actually ARE.
Does it? Let's check.

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually are. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range.
So technically, you're wrong. Truesight doesn't give you "the ability to see things as they actually are," True Seeing does. Okay, so how does True Seeing do this? Well, it gives a creature truesight, allows the creature to automatically notice secret doors hidden by magic, and see into the Ethereal Plane (redundant because truesight gives you this anyway). Nothing in truesight itself says anything about "seeing things as they actually are". What truesight does say is that you can perceive the original form of a creature transformed by magic.

So, you would look at the statue, and you would see the BBEG transformed into a statue. That's "things as they actually are". It's not "the BBEG", it's "the BBEG transformed into a statue". The "transformed into a statue" is part of "things as they actually are". It's the BBEG. You can see that. It's also a statue. You can see that, too. The BBEG's statistics become those of the statue, including the fact that the statue is an object, for as long as they are a statue. You can see that, too. That's the true reality that you can see.

The BBEG is an object, at that moment. Nothing about truesight or True Seeing changes them back into a creature, it merely let's you perceive that they are, in fact, the BBEG.

Let me try another analogy. Let's say you are a teacher. That is your "true form". Summer comes and school is out, so you have no work. You get a temp job working at McDonald's. I come in and see you working. I have truesight. I can see that your real job is as a teacher. But in that moment, you are not a teacher, you are a burger flipper. You are not teaching, you are flipping burgers. Once summer ends, you will cease to be a burger flipper and revert back to being a teacher.

AIResearch

2022-01-07, 04:20 AM

So, you would look at the statue, and you would see the BBEG transformed into a statue. That's "things as they actually are". It's not "the BBEG", it's "the BBEG transformed into a statue". The "transformed into a statue" is part of "things as they actually are". It's the BBEG. You can see that. It's also a statue. You can see that, too. The BBEG's statistics become those of the statue, including the fact that the statue is an object, for as long as they are a statue. You can see that, too. That's the true reality that you can see.

The BBEG is an object, at that moment. Nothing about truesight or True Seeing changes them back into a creature, it merely let's you perceive that they are, in fact, the BBEG.

Truesight enables the character with this ability to perceive that the statue is not an actual true statue but rather in actual fact a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue.

Greywander

2022-01-07, 04:37 AM

Truesight enables the character with this ability to perceive that the statue is not an actual true statue but rather in actual fact a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue.
Semantics. Is the BBEG a creature, or object? If they're an object, why would you think you can target them with EB? If they're a creature, how do you reconcile that with the text of True Polymorph?

CapnWildefyr

2022-01-07, 07:37 AM

It is more accurate to say that you perceive that the statue you are looking at was the BBEG, not the other way around. Can't target a statue with a spell that targets creatures.

Note {the spell description says} "returns to its normal form." That means it is not in its normal form for the spell duration, regardless of what you perceive, or why.

{snip}

So technically, you're wrong. Truesight doesn't give you "the ability to see things as they actually are," True Seeing does. Okay, so how does True Seeing do this? Well, it gives a creature truesight, allows the creature to automatically notice secret doors hidden by magic, and see into the Ethereal Plane (redundant because truesight gives you this anyway). Nothing in truesight itself says anything about "seeing things as they actually are". What truesight does say is that you can perceive the original form of a creature transformed by magic.

So, you would look at the statue, and you would see the BBEG transformed into a statue. That's "things as they actually are". It's not "the BBEG", it's "the BBEG transformed into a statue". The "transformed into a statue" is part of "things as they actually are". It's the BBEG. You can see that. It's also a statue. You can see that, too. The BBEG's statistics become those of the statue, including the fact that the statue is an object, for as long as they are a statue. You can see that, too. That's the true reality that you can see.

The BBEG is an object, at that moment. Nothing about truesight or True Seeing changes them back into a creature, it merely let's you perceive that they are, in fact, the BBEG.

Let me try another analogy. Let's say you are a teacher. That is your "true form". Summer comes and school is out, so you have no work. You get a temp job working at McDonald's. I come in and see you working. I have truesight. I can see that your real job is as a teacher. But in that moment, you are not a teacher, you are a burger flipper. You are not teaching, you are flipping burgers. Once summer ends, you will cease to be a burger flipper and revert back to being a teacher.

AIReaserch, these say it all.

It is also noteworthy that creatures transformed into objects have no recollections of their time spent as objects. That means...they were an object for the spell duration.

What you can see and perceive (these are different things - I can perceive with other senses, and in DnD with magic also, without "seeing") are only part of spell targeting.

RSP

2022-01-07, 08:28 AM

Composer99

2022-01-07, 09:29 AM

This whole "actual true" thing has got to stop.

When you are polymorphed into another creature or object, you are an actual true other creature or object. Especially when someone casts true polymorph on you, what with "true" being in the name and all.

The only differences between you and all the other actual true creatures or objects of the same type are:
- you stop being an actual true creature or object of that type when the spell ends, reverting to being an actual true yourself
- a creature with truesight can perceive that you're not normally that creature or object

Keravath

2022-01-07, 09:31 AM

This is a crazy rabbit hole and it appears to be entirely based on the interpretation of one word "ARE". I realize that none of this is likely to convince the OP.

What does truesight do?

The text for the true sight ability which the spell true seeing grants states "perceives the original form". This literally means that the ability just lets the character SEE what they originally were. The use of the word "original" clearly implies that the creature transformed by magic is NOT that form any longer. The Truesight ability does NOT use the phrasing "see things as they ARE" - only the True Seeing spell does.

The OP is attempting to state that because the true seeing spell uses the wording "see things as they ARE" then whatever they are seeing is STILL in its original form even though it has been transformed. I understand the reasoning, I just disagree with it.

All true seeing does in both cases is allows the character to "perceive the original form" or even "SEE things as the actually ARE". No where in the description does it grant the ability to interact with whatever is perceived. Just because you can see something doesn't mean you can do anything with it or target it in any way.

This is reinforced by the text of true polymorph, polymorph or any other spell that actually TRANSFORMS the target into something else rather than something that creates an illusion. For a creature into an object true polymorph states " If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form". The creature is NO longer there. It is transformed. It is not present. The item you are looking at is an object.

Then the OP comes along and says but true seeing lets me see what the object actually IS ... so I can target it. That is where the logic breaks. In 5e, spells only do what they say they do. True Seeing only lets you SEE or PERCEIVE the original form - it does NOT grant any ability to interact with the original form. The object may actually not be as it appears but it has been TRANSFORMED by True Polymorph so it is no longer there. True Seeing ONLY lets you see what the creature or objects actually ARE - it does NOT allow any interaction with what the creature actually IS.

So NO, you can't target a creature true polymorphed into an object with eldritch blast since although you can SEE the creature ... the spell gives no ability to interact with what it actually IS ... you can only interact with what it currently IS.

Rules:

True Seeing (Spell)
"This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually are. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet."

True Sight
A creature with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceives the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the creature can see into the Ethereal Plane."

True Polymorph
"Choose one creature or nonmagical object that you can see within range. You transform the creature into a different creature, the creature into a nonmagical object, or the object into a creature (the object must be neither worn nor carried by another creature). The transformation lasts for the duration, or until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies. If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the spell lasts until it is dispelled.
..
Creature into Object. If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form, as long as the object's size is no larger than the creature's size. The creature's statistics become those of the object, and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form."

Keltest

2022-01-07, 09:37 AM

The spell is even called "true" polymorph for crying out loud.

The text of the spell says you turn into an object, period, full stop, do not collect $200. Unless you can explain how that doesnt actually turn it into an object for real, even though it says it does, then true seeing doesnt even come into play here.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-07, 09:58 AM

For example, let's say the BBEG that is being transformed into a statue by TP is brought into an Antimagic Field. The magical effect stops and reveals the BBEG. If you then kill the BBEG and bring him out of the Antimagic Field an interesting thing happens. The True Polymorph is still there as it hasn't been dispelled. It just ceases to function since the magical effect no longer has all of the components for the "Creature Into Object" transformation. If you were then to Revivify the BBEG the magical effect of the TP would cease being inert and would pop on and function again and transmutate the BBEG back into a statue.

I think you agree with my discussion of what is going on so far.

I don't agree. The transformation ends if the target drops to 0 hp or dies, and it doesn't matter what form it is in that moment. If you kill the BBEG, the True Polymorph ends. Even if it's currently supressed.

However this is weird because if you create an illusion of a creature using for example Phantasmal Force, is it a real creature that can be targeted by EB?

All of this nonsense can be avoided by saying that spells that deal damage to creatures can also target objects and are allowed to be directed into empty space as well. You can see that the statue is actually a guy, but you were always allowed to fire EB at it. You are fooled by a phantasmal force but you are still allowed to fire EB at the air.

Per XGtE, you can cast spells on invalid target, it just have no effect: "A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."

AIResearch

2022-01-07, 07:03 PM

Truesight enables you to see the original form of something that IS transformed by magic

By definition a character with Truesight can directly perceive the creature that IS transformed by magical effect into a statue and recognize that they are not dealing with an actual true statue but one that is a derivative of an ongoing magical process that is actually transforming a creature into a statue.

In this way Truesight reveals the hidden truth of what you see. Whether or not transformational magic intends to hide or disguise it does indeed hide or disguise what is truly there.

The tense of the ability description is significant.

By choice of tense, Truesight does not enable you to see the original form of something that WAS transformed by magic.

If a character with Truesight is looking at a pile of dust that is the product of an instantaneous Disintegration spell you do not see what that pile of dust was before it was disintegrated as that pile of dust is not currently being transformed by an ongoing magical effect.

Truesight enables you to see through current magical effects to reveal the base form upon which the magical effect is being applied to produce derivatives of that base form.

Original has more than one meaning. The tense supports one meaning of original over another. Tense defines the context.

Truesight reveals truths hidden by ongoing magical effects.

Think of Truesight like Matrix vision. Neo can see past the real to see the really real that is normally hidden. Scrubbed

Think of Truesight like {Scrubbed} vision.

Think of Truesight like Angel Vision or Celestial vision or even just Divine vision.

Angels frequently disguise themselves as humanoids. The hidden truth of the angelic nature of angels disguised as humanoids who intervene to save humanity is revealed by Truesight.

greenstone

2022-01-07, 08:33 PM

Truesight enables you to see the original form of something that IS transformed by magic

You're wrong in two places.

First, truesight lets you "perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic." This says nothing about seeing. It might be vocal or written or some other sense.

Second, it only applies to creatures, not things. If a rock was polymorphed into a chair, a creature with truesight would percieve nothing. If a rock was true polymorphed into a creautre, truesight would also show nothing.

Finally, knowing the source of an object does not change the fact that the object is an object. Whether a statue was carved with hammer and chisel or created with stone shapoe or created with true polymorph doesn't matter - its still a statue, and thus an object, right now.

Greywander

2022-01-07, 08:48 PM

kazaryu

2022-01-07, 08:59 PM

Second, it only applies to creatures, not things. If a rock was polymorphed into a chair, a creature with truesight would percieve nothing. If a rock was true polymorphed into a creautre, truesight would also show nothing.

this is..untrue. an a creature that is transformed into a statue is still 'a creature transformed by magic' true seeing doesn't say that it only works when the form transformed into is a creature, only that the original form has to be a creature.

interestingly, this means that if you true polymorph an object into a creature, by raw true sight wouldn't reveal it. since its not 'a creature transformed by magic' its 'an object transformed by magic'.

RSP

2022-01-07, 11:50 PM

this is..untrue. an a creature that is transformed into a statue is still 'a creature transformed by magic' true seeing doesn't say that it only works when the form transformed into is a creature, only that the original form has to be a creature.

interestingly, this means that if you true polymorph an object into a creature, by raw true sight wouldn't reveal it. since its not 'a creature transformed by magic' its 'an object transformed by magic'.

I think it counts either way. Transforming a rock into a creature is still a creature (its current form) that is transformed by magic (the TP spell).

JackPhoenix

2022-01-08, 12:18 AM

interestingly, this means that if you true polymorph an object into a creature, by raw true sight wouldn't reveal it. since its not 'a creature transformed by magic' its 'an object transformed by magic'.

That's... what greenstone just said.

Temperjoke

2022-01-08, 12:58 AM

If the OP's logic is correct, wouldn't that mean that the BBEG could use powers and attacks against the person using truesight, since truesight would apparently ignore any current form the BBEG is in, by the logic presented by the OP? So everyone else would just see a statue, while the person using truesight gets to go one-on-one with the BBEG.

CapnWildefyr

2022-01-08, 09:33 AM

{snip}
By definition a character with Truesight can directly perceive the creature that IS transformed by magical effect into a statue and recognize that they are not dealing with an actual true statue but one that is a derivative of an ongoing magical process that is actually transforming a creature into a statue.
{snip}

You're statement needs a rewrite: "By definition a character with Truesight can directly perceive that the statue is transformed by magical effect from a creature," and the rest of your comment is no longer relevant with respect to spell targeting. Roleplaying and strategy, yes -- for example, I may want to attack the statue now, or cast dispel magic on it. But it's a statue and that is what matters for spell targeting. We are all basically saying that it is a statue that is existential, not the creature, because of physical (not illusory) transformation magic. The ability to revert back or change to something else, if available, is part of the magic of true polymorph (or whatever transformation magic), not the statue or the creature it came from.

If it is not a statue, to build off of Temperjoke's post -- what's it's initiative roll? Oh, wait, it doesn't have one, because it's a statue.

If you choose to not see that, I won't be able to find a way to convince you otherwise, and vice-versa. Have fun.

A side question this raises: what happens if an old human (say, 75 years old) true polymorphs into a elf and concentrates on it for an hour? I guess you get a 75 year old elf? (who reverts to human if you cast dispel magic on him) No need for longevity potions...

kazaryu

2022-01-08, 10:12 AM

That's... what greenstone just said.

oh ****...i literally read (or rather misread) that like 4 times...wow. my bad. thanks for pointing that out.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-08, 11:10 AM

A side question this raises: what happens if an old human (say, 75 years old) true polymorphs into a elf and concentrates on it for an hour? I guess you get a 75 year old elf? (who reverts to human if you cast dispel magic on him) No need for longevity potions...

The only things kept from the original are personality and alignment. And you can transform into any form of the few creatures (mostly dragons) who do have different statblock depending on their age, which suggest you get to pick how old the creature you want to transform into will be. In theory, nothing stops the 75 years old human from transforming into 20-years old version if himself. Or, to make things funnier, into 6-seconds younger version of himself to essentially double his HP and spell slots.

Keltest

2022-01-08, 11:38 AM

The only things kept from the original are personality and alignment. And you can transform into any form of the few creatures (mostly dragons) who do have different statblock depending on their age, which suggest you get to pick how old the creature you want to transform into will be. In theory, nothing stops the 75 years old human from transforming into 20-years old version if himself. Or, to make things funnier, into 6-seconds younger version of himself to essentially double his HP and spell slots.

I dont think you can change a PC into another PC, since they lack Challenge Ratings, and thats what you use to determine whether the new form is too powerful for the target.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-08, 01:16 PM

I dont think you can change a PC into another PC, since they lack Challenge Ratings, and thats what you use to determine whether the new form is too powerful for the target.

NPCs can use TP too. I was thinking more in the terms of a boss battle.

Narsham01

2022-01-08, 01:30 PM

I wonder if the OP's issue isn't with conceiving of a purely binary condition here. If we have two adamant statues in the BBEG's lair, each statue must be one of two things:
A. A statue (object)
B. The True Polymorphed BBEG (creature)

If a statue is the True Polymorphed BBEG, by definition it can't be a statue. Conversely, if True Polymorph turns the BBEG into A and not B, how can you get the BBEG back?

But there is absolutely nothing requiring that these binary conditions be the only possible conditions which apply. We can have an object that was once a creature, and the fact that this object might again become a creature doesn't change the fact that, RIGHT NOW, it is an object under the game rules. So:
A. A statue (object)
B. A creature True Polymorphed into a statue (creature transformed into object)
C. A creature disguised as a statue, like a mimic (creature)

If the transformation of B were to be removed by any means, the statue stops being a transformed creature because the transformation has ended. But the rules also say that a creature transformed into an object is treated as an object while it is transformed. In fact, we might extend the logic here to declare that a "transformed creature" shares the type of whatever it has been transformed into for the duration of that transformation.

So being able to perceive that an object is actually a transformed creature doesn't change the current type of that transformed creature, which in this case is "object." Note that this applies in other cases as well. The Hold Person spell only works on a "humanoid," a specific subtype of creature. If you were to True Polymorph a dragon into an orc, you could then cast Hold Person on the orc. If you Polymorph or True Polymorph an orc into a badger, you can't cast Hold Person on the badger. That's because Hold Person will work on a creature that is and always has been a humanoid, or on a transformed creature or object if that creature or object was transformed INTO a humanoid.

Let's consider one more case: we are presented with two orcs. Two wizards examine them; only one has True Seeing active. The wizard with True Seeing can see that the orc on the left was originally a butterfly, while the orc on the right was originally a book. Both orcs were True Polymorphed into orcs.

Under the binary, "everything must either be an object or a creature" definition offered by the OP's argument, the wizard without True Seeing running can cast Acid Splash on both orcs. The wizard with True Seeing can only Acid Splash the orc on the left, the butterfly-orc, and not the orc on the right, the book-orc, but she can see the orc on the right is an object.

Under the more complex system, the orc on the left is a creature transformed into a creature, while the orc on the right is an object transformed into a creature. So both wizards can cast Acid Splash on both orcs, because both orcs currently are "creatures," regardless of what they were prior to the True Polymorph effect.

Keltest

2022-01-08, 01:48 PM

NPCs can use TP too. I was thinking more in the terms of a boss battle.

Let me rephrase. I dont think you can change ANYONE into a PC with true polymorph, because PCs dont have a CR, and the thing you turn into needs one to be a valid option to turn into. You would have to use one of the NPC stat blocks from the back of, say, Volo's guide.

diplomancer

2022-01-08, 02:15 PM

Let me rephrase. I dont think you can change ANYONE into a PC with true polymorph, because PCs dont have a CR, and the thing you turn into needs one to be a valid option to turn into. You would have to use one of the NPC stat blocks from the back of, say, Volo's guide.

I believe what he meant is: if you have a BBEG with True Polymorph, that's an NPC with a CR, not a PC with a level. And if he casts TP in himself to transform himself into a six seconds younger version of himself, he has now doubled his HPs and spell slots.

I suppose it works, but the real question is: what would Truesight reveal of this BBEG?

Icecaster

2022-01-08, 02:46 PM

AIResearch, it seems like you're overlooking the most important part of your own argument. You say in the original argument that you can't target the True Polymorphed statue with Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile because those spells only target creatures. While I agree with Greywander and everybody else saying that this is just a bad rule and should be houseruled into oblivion, you're making your argument based on the Rules As Written game, which means things don't quite have to make sense.

So sure, we begin with the baseline that Magic Missile and Eldritch Blast can't target a statue because it's an object. I don't agree, and I wouldn't rule that way in a real game, but that's the assumption I'm making because of the way those spells specifically say creature. However, the exact same thing applies to truesight. Since you took your truesight description as a quote, I'll quote yours if you don't mind.

True Sight
A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a [I]creature that IS [NOTE PRESENT TENSE] transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range.

Unfortunately, truesight, like Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile, only applies to creatures transformed by magic. Thus, we have to assume, like we did with the spells, that truesight can't apply to objects transformed by magic. This nullifies your point about a creature's "true form" in some of your posts. Nothing about "true form" matters because the statue is an object, not a creature, and you have been very adamant that the tense is crucial to the interpretation of these rules.

I agree that tense is crucial to this. The BBEG IS an object. As per our assumption about Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile, the statue is being treated as an object for the purposes of targeting. It doesn't matter to this interpretation that the statue WAS a creature, or that its "true form" IS a creature. The RAW ruling remains that those spells can't target the statue because its current form IS an object, and truesight doesn't offer any insight on the nature of an object that is transformed by magic. This means True Sight won't work at all on a BBEG who's been True Polymorphed into any object. If the BBEG were True Polymorphed into a cat, then that's one thing, but at that point you could use True Sight, Eldritch Blast, or Magic Missile on the BBEG regardless of tense and whatnot.

In my own games, I would rule that Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile could hit a statue and that truesight would reveal the nature of such a statue anyways. Because that's what makes sense. However, like I said before, when we're playing the RAW game, we can't make assumptions based on what makes sense. We make assumptions based on whether something says they function with an object or a creature, and these assumptions strictly rule that truesight cannot reveal information about an object in the exact same way Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile cannot target one.

However, as a side note: The spell True Seeing does technically say you can see things "as they are," which notably doesn't have any such restriction to creatures. However, since this doesn't apply any specific mechanical benefit other than the effects listed afterwards, the effects of such an ability could only ever be up to subjective DM interpretation, so there's no right or wrong answer in regards to that spell specifically. Maybe a DM would validate your whole argument based on that wording. Maybe that DM decides it changes nothing, and that phrase is just flavor text. Doesn't matter either way since there's no objective correct answer to be had on an online forum, and thus no reason to debate on what answer is correct.

EDIT for a TL;DR
The statue/BBEG in question must either be an object or a creature. Potentially both, if you like. No matter what option you choose, if the statue counts as a creature for one effect, then it must count as a creature for all of them. If it counts as an object for one effect, then the same is true. So, if the True Polymorphed BBEG is now a statue that counts as an object and NOT a creature for the purposes of targeting Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile, then it must also NOT be a creature for the purposes of truesight, which only reveals information about a "creature that is transformed by magic." Otherwise, if the statue is being counted as a creature for the purposes of truesight because its "true form" is a creature, then it must also count as a creature for the purposes of targeting Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile in the first place.

pwykersotz

2022-01-08, 03:56 PM

Under the binary, "everything must either be an object or a creature" definition offered by the OP's argument, the wizard without True Seeing running can cast Acid Splash on both orcs. The wizard with True Seeing can only Acid Splash the orc on the left, the butterfly-orc, and not the orc on the right, the book-orc, but she can see the orc on the right is an object.

This is the funniest thing I've read today. Debuffed because of True Sight. That's amazing. I imagine the one wizard happily splashing the 'creature' with Acid Splash, while the one with True Seeing laments his use of a 6th level spell, looking downcast at the other wizard's fun.

In terms of theory-craft, I give the OP 9/10 stars on the 3.5 theory-crafting scale. It's bizarre enough where 99.99% of people trying to read the rules for the purpose of casual play will reject it outright, as it requires a very specific twisting of the English language, and as evidenced by the fact that this is the first time I've ever seen it brought up. (Even now, I can't recall the logic without a point by point crawl through the OP's post.) But I think I've seen further stretches.

bid

2022-01-08, 04:11 PM

I can see through wall, therefore I can shoot at the wall and destroy it.

I cast a dog illusion at the door, then I cast a spell at the dog to destroy the door.

Greywander

2022-01-08, 04:58 PM

In fact, we might extend the logic here to declare that a "transformed creature" shares the type of whatever it has been transformed into for the duration of that transformation.
It does depend on the specific transformation effect. Generally, we can divide transformations into three broad categories:

(A) You retain all of your stats. The transformation is entirely cosmetic.
(B) You retain some of your stats. This ranges on one side from something like the imp's Shapechanger trait, where they only take on the size and speed of the new form, all the way to Wild Shape, where you only retain alignment, mental stats, and class features, and otherwise assume the stats of your new form.
(C) You retain none of your stats. Your transformation completely replaces your stats with those of your new form.

So it largely depends on where the transformation effect falls. Polymorph, and it's variants, get pretty close to (C), but technically fall into (B), as with Polymorph you do retain your personality and alignment (and HP for Mass Polymorph, sort of), but otherwise all of your stats are replaced. However, this only applies to creature-to-creature transformations. Object-to-creature doesn't really specify, but I'm inclined to believe that it falls into (C), and creature-to-object explicitly says that the target's statistics become those of the object, without any exceptions. So a creature-to-object transformation from True Polymorph would be (C).

Let's consider a situation where a vampire has transformed into a bat. Vampires retain most of their statistics while transformed, so not a lot has changed aside from their appearance. Someone with truesight would be able to see that the bat was actually a vampire, and you could use Turn Undead to repel the vampire. The thing is, you don't need to perceive that the bat is a vampire. Maybe you're fighting a zombie or skeleton, so you use Turn Undead to repel them, and even though you don't know the bat is a vampire, the bat would also be repelled. This only works because the vampire remains undead while in its bat form. If you suspect that a bat might be a vampire, but you don't have access to something like Detect Evil and Good, you could try using Turn Undead and see if it reacts.

If, instead, the vampire were to cast Polymorph on itself to turn into a bat, it's statistics would be almost entirely replaced by those of a bat, including becoming a beast instead of undead. Thus, Turn Undead would no longer work on the vampire. Truesight would still reveal that the bat was actually a vampire, but that wouldn't matter, because at that moment, the vampire is a beast, not an undead. Similarly, DE&G would no longer work, because again, in that moment they are a beast, not an undead.

All this to say that it isn't so much how transformations work in general, it has to do specifically with how Polymorph works. Someone who is True Polymorphed into a statue is, in that moment, an object, even if you can perceive that they are a person who has been transformed. On the other hand, something like a gargoyle only appears to be a statue, and is in fact still a creature (it's not even a transformation, they just naturally look like statues). Likewise, I think someone who is petrified is still technically a creature and not an object, as nothing in the petrified condition says anything about them becoming an object. Petrification does count as a transformation, although not all sources of petrification may be magical.

So a creature True Polymorphed into a statue would be an object, while a creature that is petrified by magic would still be a creature. Truesight would reveal both to be creatures transformed by magic. It's weird that these are treated differently, although I think you can damage the Polymorphed statue, e.g. break off an arm, and it wouldn't cause any harm to the creature when they reverted back, whereas removing the arm from a petrified creature would cause them to be missing an arm once the petrification is cured. Polymorph does, more or less, replace the target with something else, and when the spell ends the target is put back as they were. It's almost more like you're replacing them with a conjured creature (or object), rather than transforming them.

AIResearch

2022-01-09, 09:27 PM

It does depend on the specific transformation effect. Generally, we can divide transformations into three broad categories:

(A) You retain all of your stats. The transformation is entirely cosmetic.
(B) You retain some of your stats. This ranges on one side from something like the imp's Shapechanger trait, where they only take on the size and speed of the new form, all the way to Wild Shape, where you only retain alignment, mental stats, and class features, and otherwise assume the stats of your new form.
(C) You retain none of your stats. Your transformation completely replaces your stats with those of your new form.

So it largely depends on where the transformation effect falls. Polymorph, and it's variants, get pretty close to (C), but technically fall into (B), as with Polymorph you do retain your personality and alignment (and HP for Mass Polymorph, sort of), but otherwise all of your stats are replaced. However, this only applies to creature-to-creature transformations. Object-to-creature doesn't really specify, but I'm inclined to believe that it falls into (C), and creature-to-object explicitly says that the target's statistics become those of the object, without any exceptions. So a creature-to-object transformation from True Polymorph would be (C).

Let's consider a situation where a vampire has transformed into a bat. Vampires retain most of their statistics while transformed, so not a lot has changed aside from their appearance. Someone with truesight would be able to see that the bat was actually a vampire, and you could use Turn Undead to repel the vampire. The thing is, you don't need to perceive that the bat is a vampire. Maybe you're fighting a zombie or skeleton, so you use Turn Undead to repel them, and even though you don't know the bat is a vampire, the bat would also be repelled. This only works because the vampire remains undead while in its bat form. If you suspect that a bat might be a vampire, but you don't have access to something like Detect Evil and Good, you could try using Turn Undead and see if it reacts.

If, instead, the vampire were to cast Polymorph on itself to turn into a bat, it's statistics would be almost entirely replaced by those of a bat, including becoming a beast instead of undead. Thus, Turn Undead would no longer work on the vampire. Truesight would still reveal that the bat was actually a vampire, but that wouldn't matter, because at that moment, the vampire is a beast, not an undead. Similarly, DE&G would no longer work, because again, in that moment they are a beast, not an undead.

All this to say that it isn't so much how transformations work in general, it has to do specifically with how Polymorph works. Someone who is True Polymorphed into a statue is, in that moment, an object, even if you can perceive that they are a person who has been transformed. On the other hand, something like a gargoyle only appears to be a statue, and is in fact still a creature (it's not even a transformation, they just naturally look like statues). Likewise, I think someone who is petrified is still technically a creature and not an object, as nothing in the petrified condition says anything about them becoming an object. Petrification does count as a transformation, although not all sources of petrification may be magical.

So a creature True Polymorphed into a statue would be an object, while a creature that is petrified by magic would still be a creature. Truesight would reveal both to be creatures transformed by magic. It's weird that these are treated differently, although I think you can damage the Polymorphed statue, e.g. break off an arm, and it wouldn't cause any harm to the creature when they reverted back, whereas removing the arm from a petrified creature would cause them to be missing an arm once the petrification is cured. Polymorph does, more or less, replace the target with something else, and when the spell ends the target is put back as they were. It's almost more like you're replacing them with a conjured creature (or object), rather than transforming them.

Greywander,

I appreciate that you are delving into the issues and adding your thoughts to the discussion.

I want to bring something to your attention that I think you are overlooking.

My argument proceeds from using the word "original" to mean "base layer" upon which a transform is applied to produce a derivative layer as that is the meaning of "original" that fits the context.

I also make a distinction between collapsed transforms and noncollapsed transforms. True Polymorph has to be a noncollapsed transform. I don't think you share these premises and because you do not then you do not arrive at the same conclusions. These premises have become a part of my argument because I have scrutinized what is taking place in the case of True Polymorph.

I want to bring to your attention that the basic magical effect that is going on with True Polymorph is this -- there is a structured array of variables of varying types (the character sheet) that is being mostly replaced by a structured array of variables of varying types (the monster stat block).

First, character sheets have more stats on them than monster blocks so the replace function doesn't wholly replace the character sheet. In addition to Alignment and Personality that are specifically called out, Age, Knowledge (as remembered events), Experience Points are also not replaced.

Second, the replace function when applied is not overwriting the values that are already there. The values are not deleted. The values are not eradicated from reality. Instead the values are being overlaid such that when True Polymorph is in effect the value that is read is the temporarily replaced value (magical layer) and when True Polymorph is not in effect (such as when the creature is in an Antimagic Field) the magic layer value is removed to reveal the base layer value.

In other words, the replace function is not a "collapsed" replace. The replace is undoable and not baked in. For the replace to be undoable the values on the character sheet must still exist somewhere in some buffer or you could not possibly restore those values. In fact, the True Polymorph replace function is entirely a temporary magical effect that is a magic layer stat block overlaid on top of a base layer (the character sheet) such that the removal of magic reveals the base layer.

By the virtue of how magic works, magic can change reality. In fact, an instaneous transformation is collapsed transformation that is a one way changing of reality.

True Polymorph is however an uncollapsed transform. The magical layer applied on top of the base layer changes reality but it doesn't change ultimate reality. Even though characters must deal with the magical layer as real the base layer is still there as it is actively being transformed into the magical layer.

Creatures with Truesight can perceive that base layer that exists in a buffer underneath the magical effect layer. That base layer exists. Truesight can perceive the really real that is hidden by the reality of magic. If that base layer were eradicated by the application of True Polymorph, True Polymorph would not be undoable.

You seem to have a "have your cake and eat it too" problem in your current argument. You assert that the original form does not exist while True Polymorph is in effect and yet it must exist in some fashion as an existing storehouse of values in some persistent buffer (the really real) or the transform would not be undoable.

Thoughts?

JackPhoenix

2022-01-09, 09:49 PM

Snip

Thoughts?

Sure: You're mixing in things that don't have anything to do with what we're talking about, which is 5e D&D. There are no layers, no buffers, no 'collapsed' or 'uncollapsed' transformations, no 'ultimate reality'. You replace the original form with the new form, the original form no longer exist in any form that matters as long as the transformation is in effect.

Also, knowledge is not a part of the stat block, and age and experience points are replaced along with everything else. The only things you keep from the original are personality and alignment, just like the spell's desrciption says.

Greywander

2022-01-09, 10:43 PM

Greywander,

I appreciate that you are delving into the issues and adding your thoughts to the discussion.

I want to bring something to your attention that I think you are overlooking.

[...]

Thoughts?
And? I don't see how this supports your argument. You used an awful lot of words to basically say, "The game remembers what your original form is so that it can revert you back once the spell ends." I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is that anyone can somehow interact with your original form while you're transformed. They can't. Your new form has replaced your old form, and yes, the game remembers what you were before so that it can change you back, but your previous form doesn't exist in that moment.

Let me see if I can explain it using an example similar to what you've been using. It's not so much like having two layers existing simultaneously. It's more like changing something, and then using Ctrl+Z to undo it. It's not a perfect analogy, so don't read too much into it. If you want to use the layer analogy, then think of it this way: You can only draw on one layer at a time, the active layer. Just because you can look at another layer to see what's on that layer, that doesn't let you draw on the other layer. The creature with truesight only gets to see what's on the other layer, they can't actually change the active layer to draw on a different layer. A lot of drawing programs like this have toggles you can use to show or hide a layer, and as I've found myself, pushing those toggles doesn't change the active layer (leading me to frequently draw on the wrong layer). So it's just like the person with truesight is toggling to show the layer with the true form on it, but the active layer still remains the transformed form.

In short, the person with truesight would know that the statue would revert to a creature if the spell were to end, but at the moment the statue is still a statue, and thus an object. Again, tell me how "the creature's statistics become those of the object" doesn't make the creature an object? Because that seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It's possible that some ability could exist that would allow someone to interact with the true form of a transformed creature, but truesight is not one such ability. I'm not currently aware of any ability like this that exists, but I would kind of expect gods to have this ability, and possibly some creatures like powerful angels or fiends, or maybe something like a hag.

Keravath

2022-01-09, 10:46 PM

Greywander,

I appreciate that you are delving into the issues and adding your thoughts to the discussion.

I want to bring something to your attention that I think you are overlooking.

My argument proceeds from using the word "original" to mean "base layer" upon which a transform is applied to produce a derivative layer as that is the meaning of "original" that fits the context.

I also make a distinction between collapsed transforms and noncollapsed transforms. True Polymorph has to be a noncollapsed transform. I don't think you share these premises and because you do not then you do not arrive at the same conclusions. These premises have become a part of my argument because I have scrutinized what is taking place in the case of True Polymorph.

I want to bring to your attention that the basic magical effect that is going on with True Polymorph is this -- there is a structured array of variables of varying types (the character sheet) that is being mostly replaced by a structured array of variables of varying types (the monster stat block).

First, character sheets have more stats on them than monster blocks so the replace function doesn't wholly replace the character sheet. In addition to Alignment and Personality that are specifically called out, Age, Knowledge (as remembered events), Experience Points are also not replaced.

Second, the replace function when applied is not overwriting the values that are already there. The values are not deleted. The values are not eradicated from reality. Instead the values are being overlaid such that when True Polymorph is in effect the value that is read is the temporarily replaced value (magical layer) and when True Polymorph is not in effect (such as when the creature is in an Antimagic Field) the magic layer value is removed to reveal the base layer value.

In other words, the replace function is not a "collapsed" replace. The replace is undoable and not baked in. For the replace to be undoable the values on the character sheet must still exist somewhere in some buffer or you could not possibly restore those values. In fact, the True Polymorph replace function is entirely a temporary magical effect that is a magic layer stat block overlaid on top of a base layer (the character sheet) such that the removal of magic reveals the base layer.

By the virtue of how magic works, magic can change reality. In fact, an instaneous transformation is collapsed transformation that is a one way changing of reality.

True Polymorph is however an uncollapsed transform. The magical layer applied on top of the base layer changes reality but it doesn't change ultimate reality. Even though characters must deal with the magical layer as real the base layer is still there as it is actively being transformed into the magical layer.

Creatures with Truesight can perceive that base layer that exists in a buffer underneath the magical effect layer. That base layer exists. Truesight can perceive the really real that is hidden by the reality of magic. If that base layer were eradicated by the application of True Polymorph, True Polymorph would not be undoable.

You seem to have a "have your cake and eat it too" problem in your current argument. You assert that the original form does not exist while True Polymorph is in effect and yet it must exist in some fashion as an existing storehouse of values in some persistent buffer (the really real) or the transform would not be undoable.

Thoughts?

Since you seem to be considering it mathematically ... perhaps think of it this way.

True polymorph is a matrix or operator that transforms creature/object X into creature/object Y

Y = A X

After this occurs, X no longer exists, only Y exists. Anyone looking at the situation sees only Y.

Someone casts true seeing on themselves. This lets them see the reverse transformation A_transpose which will convert Y to X.

X = A_transpose Y

This allows a creature with truesight to see the original state of creature/object Y.

However, all truesight gives you is the ability to perceive X. It doesn't give any ability to interact with X. If you end truesight, all you see is Y since that is all that currently exists. You have to actually apply A_transpose to Y by casting dispel magic in order to recover X.

bid

2022-01-11, 07:14 PM

You assert that the original form does not exist while True Polymorph is in effect and yet it must exist in some fashion as an existing storehouse of values in some persistent buffer (the really real) or the transform would not be undoable.
Gehr Cbylzbecu.

If your eyes could rot13, you would see True Polymorph.
But in the real word, there is only Gehr Cbylzbecu.

So your "existing storehouse of values" is right in front of your eyes.
And "the transform would not be IS undoable" from the stones, and just the stones.

AIResearch

2022-01-11, 07:53 PM

Since you seem to be considering it mathematically ... perhaps think of it this way.

True polymorph is a matrix or operator that transforms creature/object X into creature/object Y

Y = A X

After this occurs, X no longer exists, only Y exists. Anyone looking at the situation sees only Y.

Someone casts true seeing on themselves. This lets them see the reverse transformation A_transpose which will convert Y to X.

X = A_transpose Y

This allows a creature with truesight to see the original state of creature/object Y.

However, all truesight gives you is the ability to perceive X. It doesn't give any ability to interact with X. If you end truesight, all you see is Y since that is all that currently exists. You have to actually apply A_transpose to Y by casting dispel magic in order to recover X.

This is a interesting comment but it seems to support my argument as opposed to yours. X still exists as a subtractive buffer in the A_transpose.

If we talking database to database transfer you are talking about subtracting text (e.g. [minus]"Simple weapons, hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, shortswords"[plus]"N/A). So the creature is put into a buffer that is a subtractive of the storehouse of data that is the character. The data is still there.

If we are talking physics you are superimposing particles with antiparticles so that in their superimposition so they cancel each other out.

The magic puts the creature in a "negative zone" which cannot interact in a real physical way but is nonetheless there and exists just waiting for the negative sign to be flipped to a positive sign.

Interestingly Dark Matter fits the bill here as an example of matter you cannot see or interact with in reference to real physics.

AIResearch

2022-01-11, 08:01 PM

Gehr Cbylzbecu.

If your eyes could rot13, you would see True Polymorph.
But in the real word, there is only Gehr Cbylzbecu.

So your "existing storehouse of values" is right in front of your eyes.
And "the transform would not be IS undoable" from the stones, and just the stones.

Yes. The magical effect has shifted the creature into a zone where the creature cannot be seen or interacted with and is hiding the creature. The creature very much exists.

Keltest

2022-01-11, 08:12 PM

Yes. The magical effect has shifted the creature into a zone where the creature cannot be seen or interacted with and is hiding the creature. The creature very much exists.

If I take a bar of steel and forge it into a knife, does the original bar of steel still exist? No, of course not. Likewise with True Polymorph. This isn't a layer over the original creature, it's a full transformation, a change. The original can come back, but it doesn't exist at that moment.

AIResearch

2022-01-11, 08:21 PM

If I take a bar of steel and forge it into a knife, does the original bar of steel still exist? No, of course not. Likewise with True Polymorph. This isn't a layer over the original creature, it's a full transformation, a change. The original can come back, but it doesn't exist at that moment.

The base creature exists as a storehouse of info in the buffer of the magical effect. Not unlike if it had simply gone into a Rope Trick and pulled up the rope to occupy an infinitismally small space while the statue object ocupied normal size space.

This is why in the case of True Polymorph a simple cessation of the magic is equivalent to a reverting of the magic. No actual transformation occurs. Any transformation is entirely a magical effect.

Keltest

2022-01-11, 09:26 PM

The base creature exists as a storehouse of info in the buffer of the magical effect. Not unlike if it had simply gone into a Rope Trick and pulled up the rope to occupy an infinitismally small space while the statue object ocupied normal size space.

This is why in the case of True Polymorph a simple cessation of the magic is equivalent to a reverting of the magic. No actual transformation occurs. Any transformation is entirely a magical effect.

By that argument, fireball doesnt damage anything, since the fire is the result of the spell and not real combustion. The spell says it transforms the target. It uses the word transform. Ergo, the target is transformed. Thats how words typically work. Certainly the spell doesnt say it compacts the target into an infinitely small form, shunts them to an extraplanar space and places the new form in the space it previously inhabited.

AIResearch

2022-01-11, 09:41 PM

By that argument, fireball doesnt damage anything, since the fire is the result of the spell and not real combustion. The spell says it transforms the target. It uses the word transform. Ergo, the target is transformed. Thats how words typically work. Certainly the spell doesnt say it compacts the target into an infinitely small form, shunts them to an extraplanar space and places the new form in the space it previously inhabited.

Whatever the spell does we know it can UNDO it. We also know that if we simply stop the magic then the transformation is entirely undone. We also know that the creature as a storehouse of values must exist somewhere or else the transformation could not be reverted. The magical effect does not eradicate the character sheet. Rather a transpose is being applied to the creature. The magical effect is itself a subtractive superimposed buffer of the creature and an additive of the statue. Shutting the magical effect off or reverting it lead to the same state.

Keltest

2022-01-11, 10:12 PM

Whatever the spell does we know it can UNDO it. We also know that if we simply stop the magic then the transformation is entirely undone. We also know that the creature as a storehouse of values must exist somewhere or else the transformation could not be reverted. The magical effect does not eradicate the character sheet. Rather a transpose is being applied to the creature. The magical effect is itself a subtractive superimposed buffer of the creature and an additive of the statue. Shutting the magical effect off or reverting it lead to the same state.

And? That doesnt change the fact that the spell transforms its target. Sure, its an ongoing sustained magic effect that remembers the old shape, but that doesnt mean the old shape is actually there for you to target.

AIResearch

2022-01-12, 07:42 PM

And? That doesnt change the fact that the spell transforms its target. Sure, its an ongoing sustained magic effect that remembers the old shape, but that doesnt mean the old shape is actually there for you to target.

Correction: the creature is fully present. In fact, the creature and its character sheet are currently being transformed by an ongoing magical effect that is specifically being applied to the creature and its character sheet to produce a derived form.

An entirely magical transform is being applied that does not in any way actually permanently alter the creature's base or true form.

In fact, a simple removal of magic from the equation reveals that the creature is wholly intact and currently being disguised and rendered inert by the magical effect to register as an object rather than a creature for nearly all but not all game considerations.

Truesight, True Resurrection, Gate, Wish, Contingency, Contact Other Plane, and Divine Intervention can still interact with the creature veiled by magic.

Dead Magic Zones and Antimagic Fields can unveil the creature.

Truesight perceives the creature. XGtE indicates that a character only needs to believe an object is a creature to target the object with a spell requiring a creature target. A character with Truesight knows the statue is in fact a creature that is being disguised by by an ongoing magical effect.

Mellack

2022-01-12, 07:59 PM

AIResearch

2022-01-12, 08:05 PM

None of that answered the question. It is currently a statue. It doesn't matter if it is know what other form it had. You can only interact with the current form, which is a statue. EB doesn't effect statues.

There is a tense problem with what you are proposing. It is in actual fact currently a creature that IS being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue.

Unoriginal

2022-01-12, 08:30 PM

There is a tense problem with what you are proposing. It is in actual fact currently a creature that IS being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue.

And so it is a statue.

AIResearch

2022-01-12, 09:40 PM

And so it is a statue.

It is not just a statue. It is in actual fact a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue.

EB can target it. Per XGtE a character only needs to believe the statue is a creature.

A character can Gate the creature that is being magically transformed into an object.

Unoriginal

2022-01-12, 09:45 PM

It is not just a statue. It is in actual fact a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue.

EB can target it.

You can aim EB at it. It will simply have no effect.

Per XGtE a character only needs to believe the statue is a creature.

100% untrue. Making someone believe that X is Y does not make X an affectable target.

The Xanathar's is rather explicit on that subject. If you target a vampire with a spell that only affects humanoids, thinking they're an humanoid, the spell has no effect and you wouldn't even know why your spell had no effect.

Keltest

2022-01-12, 10:40 PM

It is not just a statue. It is in actual fact a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue.

EB can target it. Per XGtE a character only needs to believe the statue is a creature.

A character can Gate the creature that is being magically transformed into an object.

Heres the thing. The fact that its being magically transformed is irrelevant. There is no clause in EB's targeting that allows you to target an object if it was at some point in the past a creature, or will potentially be a creature at some point in the future.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 02:43 AM

Heres the thing. The fact that its being magically transformed is irrelevant. There is no clause in EB's targeting that allows you to target an object if it was at some point in the past a creature, or will potentially be a creature at some point in the future.

Here's the thing. The statue is in actual fact currently a creature that is being transformed into a statue. The magical effect disguises that fact from those creatures who don't have Truesight, but those creatures that have Truesight can fully perceive that the statue is in actual fact actually a creature.

Further, Gate has no problems transporting that statue across the universe as long as you know the true name of the creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue.

You can aim EB at it. It will simply have no effect.

100% untrue. Making someone believe that X is Y does not make X an affectable target.

The Xanathar's is rather explicit on that subject. If you target a vampire with a spell that only affects humanoids, thinking they're an humanoid, the spell has no effect and you wouldn't even know why your spell had no effect.

The RAW in XGtE and EB suggest otherwise. EB can target the statue because the character has Truesight and knows that the statue is in actual fact a creature. Further, EB is force damage and not poison or psychic so EB can indeed affect the creature. There is nothing in the spell description of EB that says it cannot affect an object.

Greywander

2022-01-13, 03:39 AM

This thread is making my brain hurt. It shouldn't be that complicated.

The creature is transformed into a statue. They are an object. EB doesn't affect them.

Truesight allows you to see that the statue is a transformed creature.

That's it. End of story.

Again, here's the spell text:

Creature into Object. If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form, as long as the object's size is no larger than the creature's size. The creature's statistics become those of the object, and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form.
How is this not cut and dry? "If you turn a creature into an object," so you're taking one thing (a creature) and changing it into something else (an object). It is no longer a creature, because you turned it into an object. "The creature's statistics become those of the object," meaning every aspect of that character is replaced by those of the object you turned them into. There is zero ambiguity on this point. The creature is irrefutably an object, and not a creature, as long as this spell is in effect. There is no way of interpreting this text that would contradict this.

If you really want to convince us otherwise, then your best approach would be to treat it like an invisible creature. A creature that is invisible can't be targeted by spells that require you to see the target. But truesight allows you to see invisible creatures. So if you had truesight, then it would be possible to target an invisible creature with a spell that requires you to see the target. So I think the best argument you can make is that the creature exists simultaneously with the object into which they were turned, but they are essentially invisible. Truesight allows you to see the creature, and thus target them.

But I feel like there are three major problems with this. First, the creature is the statue. If they are, in fact, still a creature, then I shouldn't need truesight to target them with EB. For this to work, you'll need to convince us that the creature and the statue are somehow two separate entities, and thus the creature is hidden and untargetable except to those with truesight. If they are the same entity, then we should be able to target them with EB even without truesight, just the same as we can target a shapechanged vampire with Turn Undead without needing to know the bat is a vampire.

The second problem is that there is literally no reason to think any kind of transformation works like this. Nothing in the text of True Polymorph indicates that it would work like this, and you'd think they would specify if it did. You can't just make up new rules and assert that they're RAW. We call that homebrew.

The third problem is that if this were the case, then it should mean that we can target the creature directly, since they are a separate entity from the statue. This then means that anyone with truesight can target the original form of a transformed creature, e.g. to bypass the Wild Shape HP of a druid to attack the druid's HP directly. Again, nothing indicates that truesight works like this. If you say that, no, you have to attack the statue's HP first, then that means we're targeting the statue, not the creature, and the statue is an object and thus not affected by EB.

I just don't see any way you can make this work.

diplomancer

2022-01-13, 05:34 AM

There is nothing in the spell description of EB that says it cannot affect an object.

Sure there is: "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

If it's not the target, it doesn't take damage. And the target is always a creature. If you miss with eldritch blast, you don't damage any objects, even if there's a wall-to-wall mirror right behind the character.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 05:38 AM

Sure there is: "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

If it's not the target, it doesn't take damage. And the target is always a creature. If you miss with eldritch blast, you don't damage any objects, even if there's a wall-to-wall mirror right behind the character. Can you point out in the RAW exactly where this occurs?

RSP

2022-01-13, 07:28 AM

Can you point out in the RAW exactly where this occurs?

“A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.”

The target=creature. In your OP example, there is no creature, only an object.

And again, if your contention is that the creature is always there when TP’d, then whether or not you have Truesight is irrelevant.

However, with TP, the creature is not there, only an object (if using “creature into object”).

diplomancer

2022-01-13, 07:39 AM

Can you point out in the RAW exactly where this occurs?

In the spell description.

“A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell Attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.”

The target=creature. In your OP example, there is no creature, only an object.

And again, if your contention is that the creature is always there when TP’d, then whether or not you have Truesight is irrelevant.

However, with TP, the creature is not there, only an object (if using “creature into object”).

Furthermore. Even if you read it like Truesight allows you to target the creature (it doesn't), than Eldritch Blast would damage the creature, and not the object. Because the target is the creature, not the object, and, according to the spell's description, it's the target that takes damage.

But, of course, the creature doesn't exist anymore. It's an object. Magic will be required to bring the creature back.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 06:46 PM

Mitchellnotes

2022-01-13, 06:55 PM

Taking a different approach... consider how polymorph works on a PC. When a PC polymorphs, there character is replaced by the stat block of the creature that is being polymorphed to the degree that all class features are replaced. That has been reinforced time and time again. If someone with truesight looks at your character, you wouldnt for some reason get back all of your stats, correct? Even if you were given truesight somehow when polymorphed and knew your true form was something else, you wouldnt get your abilities back.

If your argument holds, you could polymorph something into a mouse or rabbit, then if truesighted somehow do damage to the other creatures original form instead of its polymorphed form. That doesnt make any sense, and clearly goes against raw and rai. If that doesnt work, targeting the statue creature doesnt work either.

None of you have addressed the fact that Gate works.

Gate works because the statue is always in some capacity a creature (true name).

This is a hidden truth that cannot be perceived unless the creature has Truesight.

Truesight enables you to target the statue with EB because you can perceive that the statue is in actual fact a creature.

Edit: i'll bite. This gate argument works against your argument. For the sake of argument, assuming gate would pull your statue creature, it would work bc there is one entity that exists, in this case the polymorphed creature-statue. You are arguing that there is some schroedinger's cat-esque thing happening where the creature exists as a statue (which wouldnt be targetable) and as a targetable creature. In your example, if you gated and pulled the non-statue creature, you would create a paradox in that that entity would exist simultaneously as both a creature and a statue. The gate targeting the statue reinforces 1 creature with a replaced statblock, in this instance that stat block being a statue you cant target. Knowing something to be true doesnt inherently give you ability to interact with it. I know im made up of atoms that are primarily made up of empty space, as is my wall. Knowing this doesnt give me the ability to walk through my wall (try as i might).

RSP

2022-01-13, 07:27 PM

None of you have addressed the fact that Gate works.

Gate works because the statue is always in some capacity a creature (true name).

This is a hidden truth that cannot be perceived unless the creature has Truesight.

Truesight enables you to target the statue with EB because you can perceive that the statue is in actual fact a creature.

Would it help if we bold and full caps “is” when stating “there is no creature”?

None of these shananagins work, because when something is under the effects of TP’s Creature to Object effect, it actually is an object.

There is no creature present to have spells effect.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 07:38 PM

Taking a different approach... consider how polymorph works on a PC. When a PC polymorphs, there character is replaced by the stat block of the creature that is being polymorphed to the degree that all class features are replaced. That has been reinforced time and time again. If someone with truesight looks at your character, you wouldnt for some reason get back all of your stats, correct? Even if you were given truesight somehow when polymorphed and knew your true form was something else, you wouldnt get your abilities back.

If your argument holds, you could polymorph something into a mouse or rabbit, then if truesighted somehow do damage to the other creatures original form instead of its polymorphed form. That doesnt make any sense, and clearly goes against raw and rai. If that doesnt work, targeting the statue creature doesnt work either.

Edit: i'll bite. This gate argument works against your argument. For the sake of argument, assuming gate would pull your statue creature, it would work bc there is one entity that exists, in this case the polymorphed creature-statue. You are arguing that there is some schroedinger's cat-esque thing happening where the creature exists as a statue (which wouldnt be targetable) and as a targetable creature. In your example, if you gated and pulled the non-statue creature, you would create a paradox in that that entity would exist simultaneously as both a creature and a statue. The gate targeting the statue reinforces 1 creature with a replaced statblock, in this instance that stat block being a statue you cant target. Knowing something to be true doesnt inherently give you ability to interact with it. I know im made up of atoms that are primarily made up of empty space, as is my wall. Knowing this doesnt give me the ability to walk through my wall (try as i might).

Gate works because the statue is in actual fact a creature with a true name.

Gate works only on creatures.

Only creatures have true names.

Applying True Polymorph per the spell description results in an object with a true name.

The hidden truth is that the object is in actual fact a creature.

Only creatures with Truesight can perceive the hidden truth that the object is in actual fact a creature.

RSP

2022-01-13, 07:45 PM

Applying True Polymorph per the spell description results in an object…

Glad we agree on this finally!

As you say, a creature that is affected by TP’s Creature to Object effect is, in fact, an object.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 07:55 PM

Glad we agree on this finally!

As you say, a creature that is affected by TP’s Creature to Object effect is, in fact, an object.

The object has a true name.

Only creatures have true names.

The object is in actual fact a creature.

That hidden truth can be perceived by creatures with Truesight.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:02 PM

The object has a true name.

Only creatures have true names.

The object is in actual fact a creature.

That hidden truth can be perceived by creatures with Truesight.

I'm going to need a citation for this please. Either the "only creatures" rule or that the object retains ita true name while transformed. Actually, make that both of them.

Mitchellnotes

2022-01-13, 08:02 PM

Gate works because the statue is in actual fact a creature with a true name.

Gate works only on creatures.

Only creatures have true names.

Applying True Polymorph per the spell description results in an object with a true name.

The hidden truth is that the object is in actual fact a creature.

Only creatures with Truesight can perceive the hidden truth that the object is in actual fact a creature.

You didnt respond to anything else I shared. That it was a creature isnt a debate, it currently isnt in a form that can be targeted. The original creature isnt kept in some pocket dimension, it is the object. Knowing it was a creature doesnt make it targetable. Would you argue that if you polymorphed an orc into a rabbit that you could target the orc's hp? Bc that is clearly not how the spell works

Greywander

2022-01-13, 08:04 PM

The object has a true name.

Only creatures have true names.
And this wasn't an indication that there's a flaw in your logic?

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 08:07 PM

I'm going to need a citation for this please. Either the "only creatures" rule or that the object retains ita true name while transformed. Actually, make that both of them.

Character sheets have a name field.

Object stat blocks don't.

Follow the instructions in the True Polymorph spell description.

You will arrive at an object with a true name, so the object is in actual fact a creature.

Gate can bring the statue to you from across the universe as the statue is in actual fact a creature.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:11 PM

Character sheets have a name field.

Object stat blocks don't.

Follow the instructions in the True Polymorph spell description.
If that's the basis for your claim, you should read True Polymorph again. The creature loses its entire stat block. That includes its name, if you want to go so far as to include that as part of the stat block. So by your logic, TP does not retain the true name across transformations.

JNAProductions

2022-01-13, 08:11 PM

Character sheets have a name field.

Object stat blocks don't.

Follow the instructions in the True Polymorph spell description.

You will arrive at an object with a true name, so the object is in actual fact a creature.

Gate can bring the statue to you from across the universe as the statue is in actual fact a creature.

So are you saying that NPCs can’t have bonds or flaws? Since that’s not in their statblock.

Can I make a PC immune to Gate by using a character sheet with no prompt for a name?

RSP

2022-01-13, 08:11 PM

That hidden truth can be perceived by creatures with Truesight.

What “hidden truth”? The truth is whatever they were, is an object now, not a creature.

RSP

2022-01-13, 08:12 PM

Character sheets have a name field.

Object stat blocks don't.

Follow the instructions in the True Polymorph spell description.

You will arrive at an object with a true name, so the object is in actual fact a creature.

Gate can bring the statue to you from across the universe as the statue is in actual fact a creature.

And, for the record, none of this is an actual citation of any rules.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 08:18 PM

So are you saying that NPCs can’t have bonds or flaws? Since that’s not in their statblock.

Can I make a PC immune to Gate by using a character sheet with no prompt for a name?

I think the direct question you need to answer is if you can make a PC immune to Gate by TPing them into a statue.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:20 PM

I think the direct question you need to answer is if you can make a PC immune to Gate by TPing them into a statue.

Gate also only targets creatures, so yes. Even if thr statue does have a name.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 08:22 PM

Gate also only targets creatures, so yes. Even if thr statue does have a name.

So your claim then is True Polymorph will prevent True Resurrection from working as the true name does not exist.

RSP

2022-01-13, 08:24 PM

Can I make a PC immune to Gate by using a character sheet with no prompt for a name?

More importantly, per AIR, if you use Gate and say “Commoner”, you summon the majority of the world’s population, because that’s the “name” on their stat block.

So your claim then is True Polymorph will prevent True Resurrection from working as the true name does not exist.

TR won’t work because there is no dead creature.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:27 PM

So your claim then is True Polymorph will prevent True Resurrection from working as the true name does not exist.

No, true polymorph will prevent true rez from working because the creature isn't dead.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 08:31 PM

No, true polymorph will prevent true rez from working because the creature isn't dead.

According to your claim, if you take the dead creature (which is an object) and True Polymorph the corpse (which is an object) into a creature then you prevent True Resurrection as the true name does not exist.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:32 PM

According to your claim, if you take the dead creature and True Polymorph the corpse into a creature then you prevent True Resurrection as the true name does not exist.

The corpse isn't a creature. It's also an object, just a special kind of object.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 08:34 PM

The corpse isn't a creature. It's also an object, just a special kind of object.

According to you, True Polymorph eradicates the true name of the corpse.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:35 PM

According to you, True Polymorph eradicates the true name of the corpse.

The True name that it doesn't have, you mean?

Greywander

2022-01-13, 08:36 PM

According to your claim, if you take the dead creature (which is an object) and True Polymorph the corpse (which is an object) into a creature then you prevent True Resurrection as the true name does not exist.
An interesting tactic, but True Resurrection doesn't need to target a corpse, even including a clause in case the corpse no longer exists.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 08:47 PM

An interesting tactic, but True Resurrection doesn't need to target a corpse, even including a clause in case the corpse no longer exists.

The true name either endures the True Polymorph transmutation or not. Take your pick.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 08:49 PM

The true name either endures the True Polymorph transmutation or not. Take your pick.

It doesn't actually matter because you didn't provide a rules citation for objects not having True names, but you argument is wrong either way. Name-targeting spells all target creatures, so it doesn't matter if the object has one or not.

Also, there are plenty of sentient items with names.

RSP

2022-01-13, 08:59 PM

The true name either endures the True Polymorph transmutation or not. Take your pick.

You’re conflating two things.

If you TP a creature into an object, nothing has died and so TR doesn’t do anything.

If you TP a corpse into a creature, then you use the section of TR that explains what happens if no corpse is available:

“The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you.”

Note: in the corpse to creature situation, you’re TR-ing the creature that died to create the corpse, not the corpse-turned-creature.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 09:07 PM

You’re conflating to things.

If you TP a creature into an object, nothing has died and so TR doesn’t do anything.

If you TP a corpse into a creature, then you use the section of TR that explains what happens if no corpse is available:

“The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you.”

Note: in the corpse to creature situation, you’re TR the creature that died to create the corpse, not the corpse-turned-creature.

So your argument is that the true name endures no matter what?

Keltest

2022-01-13, 09:08 PM

So your argument is that the true name endures no matter what?

Why does it matter? A statue with a true name still isn't a valid target for gate.

RSP

2022-01-13, 09:15 PM

So your argument is that the true name endures no matter what?

No, again, you’re conflating two things and trying to start an argument with the conflation.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-13, 09:39 PM

Character sheets have a name field.

Object stat blocks don't.

As usual, wrong. Object stat blocks do have name field: see siege equipment in DMG and ships in GoS, which are all objects with proper stat blocks, name included.

An interesting tactic, but True Resurrection doesn't need to target a corpse, even including a clause in case the corpse no longer exists.

If you want to get technical, True Resurrection doesn't need to target a corpse ONLY if the corpse no longer exist. If it does, you need to touch it to cast TR.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 09:48 PM

So does True Polymorph eradicate the true name or not?

JackPhoenix

2022-01-13, 09:53 PM

So does True Polymorph eradicate the true name or not?

Depends. What's your definition of "eradicate"?

bid

2022-01-13, 09:55 PM

Only creatures have true names.

According to you, True Polymorph eradicates the true name of the corpse.
So, according to you corpse are creatures, right?

This is starting to sound like GIGO. Reset your neural net.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 09:58 PM

So, according to you corpse are creatures, right?

This is starting to sound like GIGO. Reset your neural net.

Dead creatures are creatures.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 10:00 PM

AIR, please take a step back and just explain your point completely. I for one have no idea what you're even arguing at this point.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 10:03 PM

Dead creatures are creatures.

Dead creatures are a specific subset of objects actually.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 10:05 PM

AIR, please take a step back and just explain your point completely. I for one have no idea what you're even arguing at this point.

At this point I need you to clarify whether True Polymorph eradicates the true name as that has consequences in the game you cannot ignore which directly impinge on the discussion at hand.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-13, 10:10 PM

At this point I need you to clarify whether True Polymorph eradicates the true name as that has consequences in the game you cannot ignore which directly impinge on the discussion at hand.

You have failed to provide your definition of "eradicate". Because you seem to have different understanding of language and logic than other people, you need to provide the definition of words you're using so other can communicate with you on the same level.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 10:17 PM

You have failed to provide your definition of "eradicate". Because you seem to have different understanding of language and logic than other people, you need to provide the definition of words you're using so other can communicate with you on the same level.

Feel free to apply the dictionary definition of eradicate in your answer.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 10:17 PM

At this point I need you to clarify whether True Polymorph eradicates the true name as that has consequences in the game you cannot ignore which directly impinge on the discussion at hand.

For the sake of my sanity, no. It doesn't do anything to the true name of the creature. Now please explain why it matters at all.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-13, 10:24 PM

Feel free to apply the dictionary definition of eradicate in your answer.

Well, in that case, no. The devil or demon (because those are the only creatures which have true names, and even then, not all of them) in question doesn't have true name as long as it's transformed into something that isn't an appropriate creature. A pit fiend TP'd into a hezrou would have true name (hard to say if it would be the same true name, the rules are silent on that matter). The same pit fiend TP'd into a lemure (or a chair, or a cat) wouldn't.

For the sake of my sanity, no. It doesn't do anything to the true name of the creature. Now please explain why it matters at all.

Here's a fun fact: Not every creature have a true name.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 10:30 PM

I'm assuming they're using "true name" in the sense of "given name that works for true Resurrection and gate" here rather than in the fiendish sense.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 10:36 PM

I'm assuming they're using "true name" in the sense of "given name that works for true Resurrection and gate" here rather than in the fiendish sense.

So if you Gate a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue, what happens?

Keltest

2022-01-13, 10:38 PM

So if you Gate a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue, what happens?

Nothing. A statue is not a viable target for summoning via gate even if you do have a name associated with it.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-13, 10:38 PM

I'm assuming they're using "true name" in the sense of "given name that works for true Resurrection and gate" here rather than in the fiendish sense.

Neither is refered to as true name, and I personally wouldn't make any assumption about what AIResearch means by words he's using

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 10:52 PM

Nothing. A statue is not a viable target for summoning via gate even if you do have a name associated with it.

By extension, according to you, a creature like Halaster can be True Polymorphed into a different creature (a bronze dragon), losing the name in the process, so you cannot Gate Halastar if he is True Polymorphed.

Keltest

2022-01-13, 10:58 PM

By extension, according to you, a creature like Halaster can be True Polymorphed into a different creature (a bronze dragon), losing the name in the process, so you cannot Gate Halastar if he is True Polymorphed.

No? If he is true polymorphed into another creature, then, as a creature, he is a valid target for Gate.

RSP

2022-01-13, 11:11 PM

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 11:36 PM

No? If he is true polymorphed into another creature, then, as a creature, he is a valid target for Gate.

What happens when you Gate "Halaster" who is currently True Polymorphed into a bronze dragon that is not named Halaster?

Keltest

2022-01-13, 11:42 PM

What happens when you Gate "Halaster" who is currently True Polymorphed into a bronze dragon that is not named Halaster?

why is the dragon not named Halaster?

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 11:47 PM

why is the dragon not named Halaster?

So according to you True Polymorph does not do anything to the real true name of the creature?

Keltest

2022-01-13, 11:48 PM

So according to you True Polymorph does not do anything to the real true name of the creature?

Yes, thats what i said the first time. The "real true name" isnt a thing, but if it were, TP wouldnt affect it.

AIResearch

2022-01-13, 11:54 PM

Yes, thats what i said the first time. The "real true name" isnt a thing, but if it were, TP wouldnt affect it.

Gate and True Resurrect refer to specific names. If you True Resurrect John Smith do you resurrect every past person named John Smith or just the John Smith you had in mind (such that specific name means unique ID) or does the spell fail because the name is providing countless creatures when you must supply one?

JNAProductions

2022-01-13, 11:56 PM

Gate and True Resurrect refer to specific names. If you True Resurrect John Smith do you resurrect every past person named John Smith or just the John Smith you had in mind (such that specific name means unique ID) or does the spell fail because the name is providing countless creatures when you must supply one?

You return the John Smith you were thinking of to life. It's more than the name-it's the intent behind it.

AI, question: Do you expect to use this at a table?

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 12:04 AM

You return the John Smith you were thinking of to life. It's more than the name-it's the intent behind it.

AI, question: Do you expect to use this at a table?

So the specific name is a unique ID associated with the creature and True Polymorph does not cause that unique ID to be lost? Cool.

Now we just have to address the house rule that True Polymorph is an instantaneous spell rather than an ongoing magical effect and the house rule that changes the ability description of Truesight and True Seeing to the past tense.

Truesight enables you to target the statue with EB because you can perceive that the statue is not just an object but IS in actual fact a creature that IS being transformed by magical effect into an object.

RSP

2022-01-14, 07:38 AM

So according to you True Polymorph does not do anything to the real true name of the creature?

Why are you asking us to adjudicate your houserules?

Particularly without any explanation of said houserules?

“True name” is not in the RAW.

Gate and True Resurrect refer to specific names.

Gate and TR refer to “names.” That’s it.

Gate
“When you cast this spell, you can speak the name of a specific creature (a pseudonym, title, or nickname doesn't work).”

TR:
“The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name.”

Some wants to TR Tom Smith, they say “Tom Smith”. Same with Gate.

If TP made a creature an object, then neither spell works.

If TP made a creature a creature: what is that new creature’s name? If it’s Tom Smith, then Gate works.

Truesight enables you to target the statue with EB because you can perceive that the statue is not just an object but IS in actual fact a creature that IS being transformed by magical effect into an object.

No.

First off, neither perception nor seeing is required to target with EB, so if the supposed object is really a creature (like a Mimic) it can be targeted as a creature, regardless of Truesight. Just like you can still target a creature who is invisible.

However, as has been relayed to you many times and which you choose to ignore, TP does, in fact, actually change the creature into an object, if that’s the effect being used.

Mitchellnotes

2022-01-14, 08:15 AM

So the specific name is a unique ID associated with the creature and True Polymorph does not cause that unique ID to be lost? Cool.

Now we just have to address the house rule that True Polymorph is an instantaneous spell rather than an ongoing magical effect and the house rule that changes the ability description of Truesight and True Seeing to the past tense.

Truesight enables you to target the statue with EB because you can perceive that the statue is not just an object but IS in actual fact a creature that IS being transformed by magical effect into an object.

By this argument, would you say that if you polymorphed a creature into another creature that you could target the original's hp instead of what it was polymorphed into? That clearly isnt how it is intended to work or stated to work. Therefore, true polymorphing a creature into something that isn't targetable means you cant target it even if you knew it was a creature. The conversation on true names is a red herring and doesnt have bearing on if it is targetable.

RSP

2022-01-14, 09:53 AM

Keltest

2022-01-14, 10:01 AM

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 07:55 PM

And again, nothing in the RAW requires seeing a creature to make a Weapon Attack against it, so, if TP doesn’t actually transform something, then the original creature can still be targeted by Weapon Attacks (or any spells that don’t require sight), regardless of Truesight.

AIR, you’ve yet to address this for 5 pages though it’s been pointed out multiple times.

But again, TP does change the original creature, which is why it isn’t eligible as a target for anything: because it no longer exists.

The creature does exist. The creature is part of an ongoing magical effect that is transforming the fully present actual creature into a statue that is entirely a magical manifestation. True Polymorph is not an instantaneous spell.

The requirement for targeting with EB per XGtE is merely believing the target is a creature. Truesight achieves that with ease as the creature enabled with that sense directly perceives that the statue is not just a statue but is actually a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing effect into a statue.

The requirement for damaging with EB is first that the damage delivered can damage an object. Force damage can damage an object and no where does it say that EB cannot damage an object only that the target is a creature. Second, the caster must directly perceive the creature underneath the derived transform such that they directly know rather than just believe that the target is a creature. Truesight enables the direct perception of the base creature that is being transformed by magical effect into the derived statue form.

georgie_leech

2022-01-14, 07:59 PM

The creature does exist. The creature is part of an ongoing magical effect that is transforming the fully present actual creature into a statue that is entirely a magical manifestation. True Polymorph is not an instantaneous spell.

The requirement for targeting with EB per XGtE is merely believing the target is a creature. Truesight achieves that with ease as the creature enabled with that sense directly perceives that the statue is not just a statue but is actually a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing effect into a statue.

The requirement for damaging with EB is first that the damage delivered can damage an object. Force damage can damage an object and no where does it say that EB cannot damage an object only that the target is a creature. Second, the caster must directly perceive the creature underneath the derived transform such that they directly know rather than just believe that the target is a creature. Truesight enables the direct perception of the base creature that is being transformed by magical effect into the derived statue form.

You're contradicting yourself a bit, methinks.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 08:08 PM

You're contradicting yourself a bit, methinks.

Not a contradiction. You can target something you believe is a viable target (e.g. an illusion) but it will fizzle unless the target is a valid target. Truesight reveals that the statue is actually a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue and thereby unveils that it is a valid target. The truth that Truesight unveils is otherwise hidden.

Greywander

2022-01-14, 08:14 PM

Not a contradiction. You can target something you believe is a viable target (e.g. an illusion) but it will fizzle unless the target is a valid target. Truesight reveals that the statue is actually a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue and thereby unveils that it is a valid target. The truth that Truesight unveils is otherwise hidden.
So? Either the target is valid, or it isn't. Truesight doesn't change that. All truesight would do is let you know if the target was valid before you shoot. You could still believe that the statue is actually a creature and attempt to shoot them with EB. And if they were actually a creature, they would take damage. You don't need truesight for that.

CapnWildefyr

2022-01-14, 08:28 PM

Not a contradiction. You can target something you believe is a viable target (e.g. an illusion) but it will fizzle unless the target is a valid target. Truesight reveals that the statue is actually a statue creature that is being transformed by magical effect into from a statue creature and thereby unveils that it is a valid is not a valid target for some spells. The truth that Truesight unveils is otherwise hidden not directly useful for spell targeting in this case.

Please see edits above (green additions, strikethrough deletions). Your logic is flawed, and you've been making assumptions that are not based on game rules. Restating your initial position, or using it to justify itself doesn't prove your point.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 08:30 PM

So? Either the target is valid, or it isn't. Truesight doesn't change that. All truesight would do is let you know if the target was valid before you shoot. You could still believe that the statue is actually a creature and attempt to shoot them with EB. And if they were actually a creature, they would take damage. You don't need truesight for that.

The target becomes valid by application of Truesight. Truesight reveals what is otherwise disguised by the magical effect. If you don't have that ability, the truth is not revealed to you and you face only the magic. Unless you are Neo (who has Truesight) you are stuck dealing with the Matrix.

True Sight

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that IS [NOTE PRESENT TENSE] transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range.

True Seeing

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually ARE[NOTE PRESENT TENSE]. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

pwykersotz

2022-01-14, 08:38 PM

I am impressed that you have persisted in your argument for 6 pages of thread, AIReasearch, despite not a single person agreeing with you. It takes real dedication to do that. I sincerely hope you're having fun with this, it's a lot of fun to read.

Keltest

2022-01-14, 08:41 PM

The target becomes valid by application of Truesight. Truesight reveals what is otherwise disguised by the magical effect. If you don't have that ability, the truth is not revealed to you and you face only the magic. Unless you are Neo (who has Truesight) you are stuck dealing with the Matrix.

True Sight

True Seeing

True sight only changes your perceptions, not what you're looking at. It's either a statue or a creature regardless of true sight being applied. It doesn't change dynamically with observation.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 08:53 PM

True sight only changes your perceptions, not what you're looking at. It's either a statue or a creature regardless of true sight being applied. It doesn't change dynamically with observation.

Like the Double-Slit experiment, the observation of the truth behind the magic does indeed change the subject being observed. If you cannot see beyond the Matrix you are subject to the Matrix.

Keltest

2022-01-14, 09:04 PM

Like the Double-Slit experiment, the observation of the truth behind the magic does indeed change the subject being observed. If you cannot see beyond the Matrix you are subject to the Matrix.

There is no rules basis for this at all. If you think I'm mistaken, please quote directly the relevant passage, and include book title and page number. Anything less won't be accepted as proof.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:08 PM

There is no rules basis for this at all. If you think I'm mistaken, please quote directly the relevant passage, and include book title and page number. Anything less won't be accepted as proof.

You are asserting that it is either a creature or an object when Truesight reveals that it is in actual fact actually a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue that is entirely a manifestation of magic with no real physical attributes separate from the magical effect.

True Sight

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that IS [NOTE PRESENT TENSE] transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range.

True Seeing

This spell gives the willing creature you touch the ability to see things as they actually ARE[NOTE PRESENT TENSE]. For the duration, the creature has truesight, notices secret doors hidden by magic, and can see into the Ethereal Plane, all out to a range of 120 feet.

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 09:12 PM

Is transformed.

As-in, is NOT in its original form.

So anything that relies on it being in its original form… doesn’t work.

Keltest

2022-01-14, 09:13 PM

You are asserting that it is either a creature or an object when Truesight reveals that it is in actual fact actually a creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue that is entirely a manifestation of magic with no real physical attributes separate from the magical effect.

True Sight

True Seeing

That you personally draw that distinction doesn't mean it's one recognized by the rules.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:18 PM

Is transformed.

As-in, is NOT in its original form.

So anything that relies on it being in its original form… doesn’t work.

I am not the one confused about tense here. The creature IS transformed, not WAS transformed. The creature exists. Truesight reveals the creatures existence. The statue is not a true statue but is in actual fact a creature that IS [not WAS] transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue that is just a magical manifestation with no real physical properties apart from the magical effect.

That you personally draw that distinction doesn't mean it's one recognized by the rules.

I am just applying the definition of Truesight.

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 09:20 PM

I am not the one confused about tense here. The creature IS transformed, not WAS transformed. The creature exists. Truesight reveals the creatures existence. The statue is not a true statue but is in actual fact a creature that IS [not WAS] transformed by magical effect into a statue that is just a magical manifestation with no real physical properties apart from the magical effect.

Why do you say that the spell doesn’t have physical properties?

Does a stone wall made by Wall of Stone not have physical properties either?

Keltest

2022-01-14, 09:22 PM

I am not the one confused about tense here. The creature IS transformed, not WAS transformed. The creature exists. Truesight reveals the creatures existence. The statue is not a true statue but is in actual fact a creature that IS [not WAS] transformed by magical effect into a statue that is just a magical manifestation with no real physical properties apart from the magical effect.

I am just applying the definition of Truesight.

"Is transformed" present tense means that it is currently an object. The entity exists as an object currently. True Sight reveals that it was previously a creature, which is accurate. It does not transform it back into a creature or undo the transformation.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:29 PM

Why do you say that the spell doesn’t have physical properties?

Does a stone wall made by Wall of Stone not have physical properties either?

I said it has no physical properties apart from the magical effect. Real physical objects persist in an Antimagic Field as their physicality is not derived from magical effect. Real physical objects also leave actual true physical remnants after their destruction (conservation of matter) and do not puff away in a sparkle of magic pixie dust revealing that the statue was Rumplestilskin all along.

Keltest

2022-01-14, 09:32 PM

I said it has no physical properties apart from the magical effect. Real physical objects persist in an Antimagic Field as their physicality is not derived from magical effect. Real physical objects also leave actual true physical remnants after their destruction (conservation of matter) and do not puff away in a sparkle of magic pixie dust revealing that the statue was Rumplestilskin all along.
Please cite the text from the books explaining this distinction. As far as I am aware, it's not a thing.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:35 PM

"Is transformed" present tense means that it is currently an object. The entity exists as an object currently. True Sight reveals that it was previously a creature, which is accurate. It does not transform it back into a creature or undo the transformation.

No. Truesight reveals that the statue IS currently a true physical creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue that is entirely a magical manifestation that has no real physical properties apart from the magical effect. Simply turn on an Antimagic Field and the statue vanishes (as it was never truly physically there) to reveal the creature that is actually there (but is disguised by Magic when the magical effect is on).

Please cite the text from the books explaining this distinction. As far as I am aware, it's not a thing.

Put the statue in an Antimagic Field. What happens?

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 09:36 PM

No. Truesight reveals that the statue IS currently a true physical creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue that is entirely a magical manifestation that has no real physical properties apart from the magical effect. Simply turn on an Antimagic Field and the statue vanishes (as it was never truly physically there) to reveal the creature that is actually there (but is disguised by Magic when the magical effect is on).

Not disguised. Transformed.

There’s a difference.

If you use Disguise Self to appear to be a statue, that’s a non-physical spell. True Polymorph, however, is physical.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-01-14, 09:37 PM

No. Truesight reveals that the statue IS currently a true physical creature that is being transformed by magical effect into a statue that is entirely a magical manifestation that has no real physical properties apart from the magical effect. Simply turn on an Antimagic Field and the statue vanishes (as it was never truly physically there) to reveal the creature that is actually there (but is disguised by Magic when the magical effect is on).

Yet if I hit the statue with a hammer hard enough, it shatters. Not the creature, but the statue.

TP is a transformation, with all that implies. Not a disguise or illusion.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:41 PM

Not disguised. Transformed.

There’s a difference.

If you use Disguise Self to appear to be a statue, that’s a non-physical spell. True Polymorph, however, is physical.

Its not an Instanteneous Spell. There is no actual physical basis to those physical properties apart from the magical manifestation derived from the ongoing magical effect.

Put the statue in an Antimagic Field. What happens?

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 09:46 PM

Its not an Instanteneous Spell. There is no actual physical basis to those physical properties apart from the magical manifestation derived from the ongoing magical effect.

Put the statue in an Antimagic Field. What happens?

The spell is suppressed.
If you put Spirit Guardians in a dead magic zone, it’s suppressed as well. Does that mean it doesn’t do damage outside it?

It’s 100% a physical change-just because it can be reversed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:47 PM

Yet if I hit the statue with a hammer hard enough, it shatters. Not the creature, but the statue.

TP is a transformation, with all that implies. Not a disguise or illusion.

The statue does not shatter at all. It poofs way in a sparkle of pixie dust to to reveal that the statue was Rumplestilskin all along.

Neo already knows its Rumplestilskin who is being transformed by magical effect into a statue that is not a real statue.

The spell is suppressed.
If you put Spirit Guardians in a dead magic zone, it’s suppressed as well. Does that mean it doesn’t do damage outside it?

It’s 100% a physical change-just because it can be reversed doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Does the Antimagic Field reveal the statue or Rumplestilskin?

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 09:51 PM

It suppresses the spell, reverting the statue to the creature.

I suppose that “reveals” the original form, but it’s not pulling off a mask-it’s a literal transformation.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 09:53 PM

It suppresses the spell, reverting the statue to the creature.

I suppose that “reveals” the original form, but it’s not pulling off a mask-it’s a literal transformation.

Now lets take a real true actual physical statue and put that into an Antimagic Field. What happens?

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 09:55 PM

Now lets take a real true actual physical statue and put that into an Antimagic Field. What happens?

Nothing. It doesn’t transform.

What does this have to do with anything?

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 10:05 PM

Nothing. It doesn’t transform.

What does this have to do with anything?

The Antimagic Field reveals that the statue which is not an actual true physical statue but rather a magical manifestation used to disguise/hide Rumplestilkin is indeed not an actual true physical statue.

Neo knows the statue is actually Rumplestilskin.

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 10:06 PM

The Antimagic Field reveals that the statue which is not an actual true physical statue but rather a magical manifestation used to disguise/hide Rumplestilkin is indeed not an actual true physical statue.

Neo knows the statue is actually Rumplestilskin.

And I know that atoms are mostly empty space.

Yet I cannot walk through a wall made of atoms.

The creature has ACTUALLY TRANSFORMED into a statue-it’s a physical change, not an illusion.

Greywander

2022-01-14, 10:11 PM

AIResearch, you seem to be under the impression that True Polymorph is merely some kind of illusion, and that the original form of the target still exists in some kind of capacity alongside the new form. Not only does it still exist, but it is somehow more real than the new form, and that truesight essentially cuts through the new form to reveal the original form hidden underneath.

You're treating it like an illusion, not a transformation. Why? Why would you think that True Polymorph, out of all the spells out there, works like this? True Polymorph is just about the furthest thing from this that stops just short of a permanent and irreversible change. If there was one spell that this idea shouldn't be applied to, True Polymorph would be it.

AIResearch

2022-01-14, 10:17 PM

And I know that atoms are mostly empty space.

Yet I cannot walk through a wall made of atoms.

The creature has ACTUALLY TRANSFORMED into a statue-it’s a physical change, not an illusion.

No. You are confusing Instantaneous spells versus ongoing effects. No actual true physical transforms have been committed to the creature. The transformation is entirely a magical manifestation. Remove the magic. Poof. Gone.

Once again. Compare side-by-side a real actual physical true statue next to a statue that is not actually a real true physical statue but actually Rumplestilskin being hidden by a magical effect that is currently being applied to his person. Put both those statues in an Antimagic Field. What happens?

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 10:19 PM

No. You are confusing Instantaneous spells versus ongoing effects. No actual true physical transforms have been committed to the creature. The transformation is entirely a magical manifestation. Remove the magic. Poof. Gone.

Once again. Compare side-by-side a real actual physical true statue next to a statue that is not actually a real true physical statue but actually Rumplestilskin being hidden by a magical effect that is currently being applied to his person. Put both those statues in an Antimagic Field. What happens?

Magical is not the same as nothing.

I’d quote Greywander, since they laid it out well, but I’m phone posting.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-14, 10:23 PM

And I know that atoms are mostly empty space.

Yet I cannot walk through a wall made of atoms.

Well, that depends on how fast you're going and how thick the wall is, doesn't it?

JNAProductions

2022-01-14, 10:29 PM

Let me try this-a cat is TPed into a big rock. Big enough to block a hallway.

I have True Seeing up. I can see the rock is normally a tiny cat-not nearly large enough to block the hall.

Can I walk through the hall, unimpeded by the rock?

pwykersotz

2022-01-14, 10:47 PM

Mitchellnotes

2022-01-14, 11:21 PM

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 03:56 AM

AIR, you have not responded, so I'll post this question again. If instead of a statue, you polymorph a creature (say an orc) into another creature (say a cat), by your argument, would you say if you had true sight (or true seeing, whichever you are using to make your argument), could you target the Orc creature, hitting its HP, or would you have to hit the piolymorphed Cat creature? All the rules point to that you would hit the cat. By your logic, you would argue you could hit the orc somehow because it still exists. Whethere creature or statue, the replacement effect is the same. If you can't hit the orc, you can't hit the creature behind the statue. If you can hit the creature behind the statue, you can hit the orc, which is clearly not rai or raw. Therefore what you are arguing doesnt work.

Let's revisit my argument as presented in the original post.

Let me provide a scenario that highlights the issues and clarifies my argument.

Lets say you have a BBEG who has been True Polymorphed into an adamantium statue.

And I have a character who has eldritch blast, magical missile, and a rapier.

Luckily this character has Truesight. He perceives that the adamantium statue is actually the BBEG who is being transformed by magical effect into an adamantium statue and is not actually an adamantium statue.

With Truesight this character can shoot Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile at the statue magical effect and munch away at those statue magical effect hit points until the statue magical effect goes down which would then expose the BBEG, and then continue to shoot the BBEG with Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile at the BBEG hit points.

Without Truesight he could not use either Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile and would be stuck using a rapier to destroy the adamantium statue to bring down that magical effect and expose the BBEG. Only after the True Polymorph goes down could he then use Eldritch Blast or Magic Missile against the BBEG.

As you can clearly read in the original post, by no means have I been arguing that I bypass the reality of the hit points of the statue.

A character with Truesight has a revelatory sense and can perceive that the statue is ACTUALLY a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue. Instead of simply just perceiving B (the statue) the character perceives A/B (creature/object). [This is akin to Neo's ability to see "outside the Matrix". The Matrix is real and can kill you but it is not really real - streams of code is the really real. Neo can see the real and the really real.]

Truesight can affect targeting in certain situations but mostly it provides Situational Awareness that can sort out what is going on behind the scenes and look through deceptions propagated by magic.

"Hey, this Wizard's Tower isn't abandoned at all. Every single wall section and object in this Tower is actually a dragon or a loyal follower of the Wizard that is being transformed by magical effect into an object and then a Nystul's Magic Aura is being cast on it to make it read as nonmagical. Luckily I have Truesight! Wow! This entire Tower is actually an army of dragons, fighters, barbarians, and assassins! Wait a second! Is that a Beholder hovering above?"

Keltest

2022-01-15, 08:46 AM

Let's revisit my argument as presented in the original post.

As you can clearly read in the original post, by no means have I been arguing that I bypass the reality of the hit points of the statue.

A character with Truesight has a revelatory sense and can perceive that the statue is ACTUALLY a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue. Instead of simply just perceiving B (the statue) the character perceives A/B (creature/object). [This is akin to Neo's ability to see "outside the Matrix". The Matrix is real and can kill you but it is not really real - streams of code is the really real. Neo can see the real and the really real.]

Truesight can affect targeting in certain situations but mostly it provides Situational Awareness that can sort out what is going on behind the scenes and look through deceptions propagated by magic.

"Hey, this Wizard's Tower isn't abandoned at all. Every single wall section and object in this Tower is actually a dragon or a loyal follower of the Wizard that is being transformed by magical effect into an object and then a Nystul's Magic Aura is being cast on it to make it read as nonmagical. Luckily I have Truesight! Wow! This entire Tower is actually an army of dragons, fighters, barbarians, and assassins! Wait a second! Is that a Beholder hovering above?"

Right, and thats all correct, except for the part where you then throw the rules out the window and say "I know that this statue is the result of polymorph, therefore i can treat it as a creature as far as what spells i can affect it with." True Polymorph turns it into an object as long as it is affected by the spell. Thats what it does, its in the spell text, and you havent provided any rules text to get around this. It is a real statue that has been made real by magic. True seeing doesnt allow you to use or interact with its previous stat block in any way, it just lets you know it has one. To actually treat it as a creature, you first need to remove or dispel the polymorph. (Or, more likely, you need to ignore it and move on with your day, since a statue cant cast dispel magic on itself.)

KorvinStarmast

2022-01-15, 09:25 AM

Hmm, I'm not convinced. While transformed, the BBEG becomes an object. Truesight would only reveal to you that the statue was, in fact, the BBEG, but it wouldn't change the BBEG's nature from an object back into a creature. The BBEG would only revert to a creature once True Polymorph ends, either by casting Dispel Magic or by bringing the statue's HP to 0.

{snip}

Edit: This could make for a fun campaign story, though. The BBEG has been turned to stone (or some other object), and the BBEG's minions are trying to destroy the object in order to cause the BBEG to return to their true form. You have to prevent that from happening by protecting the object. Yes.

Lets look at the definition of Truesight and the spell description of True Seeing.
Let's turn this around. I took a large pile of rocks and true polymorphed it into a silver dragon, young. CR 9. By your logic, worked in the other direction, I can't attack the silver dragon with EB since it is actually an object. If I don't have truesight, I don't know this, I just think that the dragon is immune to EB. :smallyuk:

I don't accept your OP conclusion, although it is an interesting thought experiment.

Pet Peeve: True Polymorph in the first printing of the PHB said that when you concentrate on it for an hour the change is permanent. The "Until Dispelled" mess was an afterthought, an errata that is for my money a significant mistake. :smallfurious: Permanent means permanent, in plain English. (Needs a wish to undo is a feature of a wide variety of spells, there is no reason they could not have left it permanent and added "can be undone by a wish" so that parties can go on a quest to get a wish to restore someone ...)

Mitchellnotes

2022-01-15, 10:18 AM

Truesight can affect targeting in certain situations but mostly it provides Situational Awareness that can sort out what is going on behind the scenes and look through deceptions propagated by magic.

This isnt the part of the argument where you are having disagreement. You are going a step further to say that that gives you an abilty to target an object as a creature. What allows you to target the statue as a creature, but not in my counter example the orc that has been polymorphed into a creature? The same thing is happening in both instances. The only difference is that in one, the creature has been turned into an item that can't be targeted. Even if you hit the statue, youd be dealing damage to the statue not the creature behind it. Now, if you want to talk about why some spells cant target objects, that would be a fair conversation, but your assertion does not work given the rules in place.

RSP

2022-01-15, 12:56 PM

Let's turn this around. I took a large pile of rocks and true polymorphed it into a silver dragon, young. CR 9. By your logic, worked in the other direction, I can't attack the silver dragon with EB since it is actually an object. If I don't have truesight, I don't know this, I just think that the dragon is immune to EB. :smallyuk:

Here’s the thought experiment I came up with regarding AIR’s take on the rules:

A 20th level human is turned into an Ancient Brass Dragon (gargantuan size - takes up at least 20’x20’) using True Polymorph.

Two Wizards stand on opposite sides of the dragon, each 115’ away from the furthest edge of the dragon. They each cast True Seeing, giving them 120’ Truesight.

Now, the distance means each Wizard sees only 5’ of the dragon with Truesight, however, since we’re using AIR’s take on things, they each “perceive the original form”, and thus, can affect the actual human body they each perceive; though there’s a gargantuan dragon there, it’s targetable as a human.

However, though they each see the original human form, they each see it at least 10’ apart from where the other sees it, based on the dragon being gargantuan and the distance the Wizards stand from it.

So you now actually have created two new human bodies using this method, that are separately targetable from each other.

What’s even better: what happens if each Wizard cast Bigby’s Hand and each has the hand move to the human form (targetable according to the rules of this thought experiment), use the Grasping Hand option to grapple each perceived form and then drag it next to themselves (takes two turns)?

Now the two human forms are over 200’ apart, and neither in the space of the dragon any non-Truesight observer sees (which is too big to be effected by Grasping Hand, RAW, but that doesn’t matter because of the houserule rules we’re using for this thought experiment).

Now you have two level 20 humanoids over 200’ apart that are also a gargantuan dragon that takes up a completely different space from either.

Fun little trick to try if ever sitting at a table with AIR as DM.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the rules don’t actually allow this.

Greywander

2022-01-15, 03:00 PM

RSP

2022-01-15, 03:10 PM

If an object is polymorphed into a creature, does truesight cause us to perceive that creature as actually being an object? Does this mean that truesight prevents EB from affecting the creature, since they are actually an object? What if we don't have truesight? Would EB affect them then because we don't know that they're actually an object?

Does the creature not do damage to those with Truesight because they know it’s really an object?

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 09:01 PM

Right, and thats all correct, except for the part where you then throw the rules out the window and say "I know that this statue is the result of polymorph, therefore i can treat it as a creature as far as what spells i can affect it with." True Polymorph turns it into an object as long as it is affected by the spell. Thats what it does, its in the spell text, and you havent provided any rules text to get around this. It is a real statue that has been made real by magic. True seeing doesnt allow you to use or interact with its previous stat block in any way, it just lets you know it has one. To actually treat it as a creature, you first need to remove or dispel the polymorph. (Or, more likely, you need to ignore it and move on with your day, since a statue cant cast dispel magic on itself.)

Per XGtE, a character merely has to believe that something is a creature in order to target it.

This might be a better angle for explaining why this doesn't work.

AIResearch, what you're proposing in the OP is that if a creature is polymorphed into an object, truesight allows you to see that the object is actually a creature, and you can target it with e.g. EB, which doesn't affect objects. So what about the reverse?

If an object is polymorphed into a creature, does truesight cause us to perceive that creature as actually being an object? Does this mean that truesight prevents EB from affecting the creature, since they are actually an object? What if we don't have truesight? Would EB affect them then because we don't know that they're actually an object?

I believe I addressed this already. See prior responses

Instead of simply just perceiving B (the statue) the character sees A/B (creature/object).

___

In 5e, transforms can either be Instantaneous and thereby complete or accomplished by an ongoing magical effect that alters A into B. True Polymorph is of the latter type. Therefore, A is present in some capacity as it is part of the process by which B is being derived.

___

In 5e, transforms can either be Instantaneous and thereby complete or accomplished by an ongoing magical effect that alters A into B. True Polymorph is of the latter type. Therefore, A is present in some capacity as it is part of the process by which B is being derived.

___

My interpretation of what is going on follows the definition for the ability description of True Sight. According to the ability description Truesight enables you to see things as they actually are. Truesight allows you to perceive that what you are actually seeing is the creature BBEG actively being transformed into an object. You can see the process going on from A to B and not just B.

Without Truesight you just see B.

With Truesight you see: A -> process (the magical effect) -> B

Since the character fully perceives what is going on they can target the creature that is being magically disguised by the True Polymorph magical effect.

___

I hope I can use a metaphor relying on basic Photoshop knowledge to illustrate what is going on. I think most on this forum have some exposure to PS.

As a continuous ongoing magical effect, True Polymorph is like a digital image transform applied to a source layer A that produces a derived layer B. For continuous magical effects the transform is never collapsed into a wholly new thing such as what happens in an Instantaneous transform. The transform is not collapsed. All the component pieces are still there and Truesight lets you see A to B as that is what is actually going on.

___

Instantaneous transmutations are "collapsed" transformations. The original form is in the past and not recoverable. In Photoshop this is when you collapse all the layers to an image and save it out. If you used a risky Wish or Divine Intervention you could achieve this kind of complete transformation of a BBEG into an actual, honest-to-god, statue.

True Polymorph is not an instantaneous transmutation. Consequently, the transformation is not collapsed . While the magic of True Polymorph is in effect the source/original creature is being transformed into the derived thing (in this case a statue) by an ongoing magical effect. All of the elements are present. A, B, the magical effect are all present. In fact they have to be or the process of the magical effect would cease to work.

For example, let's say the BBEG that is being transformed into a statue by TP is brought into an Antimagic Field. The magical effect stops and reveals the BBEG. If you then kill the BBEG and bring him out of the Antimagic Field an interesting thing happens. The True Polymorph is still there as it hasn't been dispelled. It just ceases to function since the magical effect no longer has all of the components for the "Creature Into Object" transformation. If you were then to Revivify the BBEG the magical effect of the TP would cease being inert and would pop on and function again and transmutate the BBEG back into a statue.

___

True Polymorph applies a process to the source creature to derive the transformed object in an ongoing magical effect (Creature Into Object). Above I showed how if you removed the creature (by killing the creature in an Antimagic Field) you break the process. So the source creature must exist in some fashion or the process breaks and the magical effect ceases to function and goes inert. Truesight reveals that the creature does exist as the statue is not an actual true statue but a creature that is being transformed by an ongoing magical effect into a statue. Truesight reveals how things actually ARE.

Of course if we were talking about an Instantaneous transmutation that would be different. A risky Wish or Divine Intervention actually truly replaces the creature with an object.

___

Truesight enables you to see the original form of something that IS transformed by magic

By definition a character with Truesight can directly perceive the creature that IS transformed by magical effect into a statue and recognize that they are not dealing with an actual true statue but one that is a derivative of an ongoing magical process that is actually transforming a creature into a statue.

In this way Truesight reveals the hidden truth of what you see. Whether or not transformational magic intends to hide or disguise it does indeed hide or disguise what is truly there.

The tense of the ability description is significant.

By choice of tense, Truesight does not enable you to see the original form of something that WAS transformed by magic.

If a character with Truesight is looking at a pile of dust that is the product of an instantaneous Disintegration spell you do not see what that pile of dust was before it was disintegrated as that pile of dust is not currently being transformed by an ongoing magical effect.

Truesight enables you to see through current magical effects to reveal the base form upon which the magical effect is being applied to produce derivatives of that base form.

Original has more than one meaning. The tense supports one meaning of original over another. Tense defines the context.

Truesight reveals truths hidden by ongoing magical effects.

Think of Truesight like Matrix vision. Neo can see past the real to see the really real that is normally hidden.

JNAProductions

2022-01-15, 09:04 PM

Per XGtE, a character merely has to believe that something is a creature in order to target it.

And what happens if they’re mistaken?

If you cast Hold Person on a vampire, does it work?

Also, ton of other points you need to address. Please do so.

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 09:18 PM

Per XGtE, a character merely has to believe that something is a creature in order to target it.

You have said that several times now, but it is 100% incorrect:

Invalid Spell Targets

A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.

Xanathar's, p.85.

Emphasis is mine.

Believing that something is a valid target does not make it a valid target.

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 09:27 PM

You have said that several times now, but it is 100% incorrect:

Xanathar's, p.85.

Emphasis is mine.

Believing that something is a valid target does not make it a valid target.

The rule indicates that in the case of false belief that something is a valid target, the character can target it but will have no effect on it only if the effect cannot affect the target, correct?

In the case of Truesight/Eldritch Blast we have the case of true perception that the target is a valid target and an effect (force damage) that can damage either object or creature.

Objects and Damage Types: Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage. You might decide that some Damage Types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment.[DMG p 247]

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 09:51 PM

and an effect (force damage) that can damage either object or creature.

An object is not a valid target for Eldritch Blast. As per the Xanathar's rule that you quoted repeatedly, Eldritch Blast has no effect on objects.

In the case of Truesight we have the case of true perception that the target is a valid target

A creature that is transformed into an invalid target is an invalid target.

Charm Person has no effect on a Beast that was an Humanoid before being transformed into a Beast. Animal Friendship has no effect on an Humanoid that was a Beast before being transformed into an Humanoid.

The rule indicates that in the case of false belief that something is a valid target, the character can target it but will have no effect on it if the effect cannot damage the target, correct?

The word "target" has several meanings. As per the Xanathar's rule that you claim to be following:

A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else.

It is possible to aim a spell at an invalid target, but that does not mean what the spell is aimed at becomes a target.

Keltest

2022-01-15, 09:53 PM

The rule indicates that in the case of false belief that something is a valid target, the character can target it but will have no effect on it only if the effect cannot affect the target, correct?

In the case of Truesight we have the case of true perception that the target is a valid target and an effect (force damage) that can damage either object or creature.

No, thats not how Truesight works, twice over. First off, a target is either valid or it isnt, regardless of whether you perceive it as valid. A creature disguised as a statue via an illusion remains a creature even if you are fooled by the illusion into believing it is a statue. At some tables, and by a strict RAW reading, this allows for Mimic Checks on chests and other suspicious objects without putting yourself in overt danger, among other things. Secondly, True Seeing does not undo or bypass transformations, even magic transformations. A creature transformed into an object via True Polymorph is an object for what can target it, because thats what being transformed means. True Seeing allows you perceive that it was transformed, it does not do anything to affect the status of the transformed entity.

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 09:57 PM

An object is not a valid target for Eldritch Blast. As per the Xanathar's rule that you quoted repeatedly, Eldritch Blast has no effect on objects.

A creature that is transformed into an invalid target is an invalid target.

Charm Person has no effect on a Beast that was an Humanoid before being transformed into a Beast. Animal Friendship has no effect on an Humanoid that was a Beast before being transformed into an Humanoid.

The word "target" has several meanings. As per the Xanathar's rule that you claim to be following:

It is possible to aim a spell at an invalid target, but that does not mean what the spell is aimed at becomes a target.

I think you are confusing target with affect.

Let's try this:

Can force damage affect objects?

Greywander

2022-01-15, 10:04 PM

Can force damage affect objects?
This is an invalid question.

Damage type has nothing to do with creatures or object. There are force damage effects that affect objects, and there are force damage effects that don't affect objects. It depends mostly on the specific effect (e.g. Eldritch Blast only affects creatures, not objects), and occasionally on the specific object (e.g. adamantine objects are, I believe, impervious to non-magical BPS damage, even though this isn't true for most objects).

A valid question would be if Effect A affects objects in general, or perhaps Object B in particular. Does Eldritch Blast affect objects? No.

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 10:10 PM

Let's try this:

Can force damage affect objects?

Depends on the source of said force damage.

If the source of the force damage does not include objects as valid targets, it cannot.

I think you are confusing target with affect.

Again, the Xanathar's rule that you quoted:

But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target?

[...]

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target

This is an invalid question.

Damage type has nothing to do with creatures or object. There are force damage effects that affect objects, and there are force damage effects that don't affect objects. It depends mostly on the specific effect (e.g. Eldritch Blast only affects creatures, not objects), and occasionally on the specific object (e.g. adamantine objects are, I believe, impervious to non-magical BPS damage, even though this isn't true for most objects).

A valid question would be if Effect A affects objects in general, or perhaps Object B in particular. Does Eldritch Blast affect objects? No.

True.

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 10:17 PM

This is an invalid question.

Damage type has nothing to do with creatures or object. There are force damage effects that affect objects, and there are force damage effects that don't affect objects. It depends mostly on the specific effect (e.g. Eldritch Blast only affects creatures, not objects), and occasionally on the specific object (e.g. adamantine objects are, I believe, impervious to non-magical BPS damage, even though this isn't true for most objects).

A valid question would be if Effect A affects objects in general, or perhaps Object B in particular. Does Eldritch Blast affect objects? No.

On the contrary, the question is a valid one. You are confusing target with affect and your confusion should not be projected into the rules.

The effect of Eldritch Blast is force damage.

Does force damage affect objects?

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 10:21 PM

On the contrary, the question is a valid one. You are confusing target with affect and your confusion should not be projected into the rules.

The effect of Eldritch Blast is force damage.

Does force damage affect objects?

The effect of Animal Friendship is the Charmed condition.

Does the Charmed condition affect humanoids?

Effects in 5e are not source-agnostic.

Mellack

2022-01-15, 10:53 PM

On the contrary, the question is a valid one. You are confusing target with affect and your confusion should not be projected into the rules.

The effect of Eldritch Blast is force damage.

Does force damage affect objects?

From Eldritch Blast? No. That spell doesn't work on objects. From Bigby's Hand the force damage would, because it says it works on objects.

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 10:53 PM

The effect of Animal Friendship is the Charmed condition.

Does the Charmed condition affect humanoids?

Effects in 5e are not source-agnostic.

The effect of Eldritch Blast is: "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

The effect of Animal Friendship is: "If the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails. Otherwise, the beast must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the spell’s duration."

In other words, the only barrier for Eldritch Blast is targeting not the effect. Force damage can affect just about anything. A caster who sincerely believes they are targeting a creature can affect an object.

XGtE:If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target

Per XGtE you can target invalid targets. If you do so in the case of Eldritch Blast and score a hit, the target (which in this case is an object) takes force damage. Force damage is not Psychic or Poison damage and does affect objects.

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 11:02 PM

The effect of Eldritch Blast is: "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

The effect of Animal Friendship is: "If the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails. Otherwise, the beast must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the spell’s duration."

In other words, the only barrier for Eldritch Blast is targeting not the effect. Force damage can affect just about anything. A caster who sincerely believes they are targeting a creature can affect an object.

Per XGtE you can target invalid targets. If you do so in the case of Eldritch Blast, the target (which in this case is an object) takes force damage. Force damage is not Psychic or Poison damage and does affect objects.

So, you are now arguing you can *always* damage a statue with Eldritch Blast, with Truesight being irrelevent regarding if you can or not?

You are also arguing that there is no such thi g as an invalid target for Eldritch Blast, by the way.

Keltest

2022-01-15, 11:03 PM

The effect of Eldritch Blast is: "On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

The effect of Animal Friendship is: "If the beast’s Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails. Otherwise, the beast must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the spell’s duration."

In other words, the only barrier for Eldritch Blast is targeting not the effect. Force damage can affect just about anything. A caster who sincerely believes they are targeting a creature can affect an object.

Per XGtE you can target invalid targets. If you do so in the case of Eldritch Blast, the target (which in this case is an object) takes force damage. Force damage is not Psychic or Poison damage and does affect objects.

No, thats not what the rule means. if you attempt to target something that is not a valid target, the spell fizzles and does not cast. It doesnt matter if you think its a valid target or not. Thats what it means when it says "nothing happens to that target." You know... it does nothing, like it says. There is absolutely no ambiguity here.

Greywander

2022-01-15, 11:06 PM

On the contrary, the question is a valid one. You are confusing target with affect and your confusion should not be projected into the rules.
No, I'm not. You are confused targets with valid targets. As per XGtE, you can target anything with any spell, but if the target isn't a valid target, it isn't affected by the spell. You can target a vampire with Charm Person, but it won't affect them because they're not a valid target. Each spell tells you what its valid targets are. Eldritch Blast tells you that it's valid targets are creatures. It doesn't list objects as a valid target, so they are not valid targets. You can target an object with EB, but because it isn't a valid target, the object won't take damage.

The effect of Eldritch Blast is force damage.

Does force damage affect objects?
No, force damage does not affect objects. Nor does it affect creatures. It only affects valid targets. Each individual spell will tell you what its valid targets are. For Eldritch Blast, its valid targets are creatures.

Here's another question for you: If a creature is polymorphed into a statue, and that statue is targeted by Disintegrate, what happens? Does it take damage on a failed DEX save, since it is a creature? Or does it automatically disintegrate because it is an object? Does this change depending on if you have truesight? If it makes a DEX save, what does it use for its DEX save bonus, considering that the creature's statistics are replaced by those of the object, and objects don't have Dexterity scores?

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 11:08 PM

So, you are now arguing you can *always* damage a statue with Eldritch Blast, with Truesight being irrelevent regarding if you can or not?

Per XGtE the character must believe they are targeting a valid target in order to target an invalid target. In the case of Truesight they know they are targeting a valid target.

Keep in mind we must first discern what the rules say in all truthfulness. It sounds like XGtE brings up an inconvenient truth for you.

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 11:11 PM

No, thats not what the rule means. if you attempt to target something that is not a valid target, the spell fizzles and does not cast. It doesnt matter if you think its a valid target or not. Thats what it means when it says "nothing happens to that target." You know... it does nothing, like it says. There is absolutely no ambiguity here.

The Xanathar's is clear: the spell is cast, it is indistinguishable from any other cast spell that fails to affect where or whom it's aimed at.

Of course, AIResearch is refusing to acknowledge "target a creature" as part of the spell's effect.

Unoriginal

2022-01-15, 11:15 PM

Per XGtE the character must believe they are targeting a valid target in order to target an invalid target

We all can read. Such a thing is absolutely not written anywhere in the Xanathar's.

If you claim it exists, you should quote the 'must believe' part of the rule.

AIResearch

2022-01-15, 11:16 PM

No, I'm not. You are confused targets with valid targets. As per XGtE, you can target anything with any spell, but if the target isn't a valid target, it isn't affected by the spell. You can target a vampire with Charm Person, but it won't affect them because they're not a valid target. Each spell tells you what its valid targets are. Eldritch Blast tells you that it's valid targets are creatures. It doesn't list objects as a valid target, so they are not valid targets. You can target an object with EB, but because it isn't a valid target, the object won't take damage.

Let's examine it more closely . . .

Does XGtE say this?

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be targeted by the spell, nothing happens to that target, "

Or this?

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target,"

Does Eldritch Blast say this?

"On a hit, the creature takes 1d10 force damage."

Or this?

"On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

We all can read. Such a thing is absolutely not written anywhere in the Xanathar's.

If you claim it exists, you should quote the 'must believe' part of the rule.

It's in the bit leading up to the citation already referenced . . .

XGtE: But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

Keltest

2022-01-15, 11:23 PM

Let's examine it more closely . . .

Does XGtE say this?

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be targeted by the spell, nothing happens to that target, "

Or this?

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target,"

Does Eldritch Blast say this?

"On a hit, the creature takes 1d10 force damage."

Or this?

"On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

It's in the bit leading up to the citation already referenced . . .

If you cast Eldritch Blast at an invalid target, nothing happens. You dont roll for a hit, because the target is not valid in the first place. Your perception of the validity of the target is irrelevant to this process.

Greywander

2022-01-15, 11:30 PM

Does Eldritch Blast say this?

"On a hit, the creature takes 1d10 force damage."

Or this?

"On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."
This is what Eldritch Blast says:

"A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range."

Only creatures are a valid target for the spell.

Unoriginal

2022-01-16, 08:44 AM

Let's examine it more closely . . .

Does XGtE say this?

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be targeted by the spell, nothing happens to that target, "

Or this?

"If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target,"

Does Eldritch Blast say this?

"On a hit, the creature takes 1d10 force damage."

Or this?

"On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage."

It's in the bit leading up to the citation already referenced . . .

How does "for example, someone might cast Charm Person at a creature believed to be an humanoid" translates to "you *must* believe the target is valid"?

CapnWildefyr

2022-01-16, 10:09 AM

AIR, you have repeatedly ignored my rewrite-explanation of your central thesis, showing where you are making your logical mistakes. Here is another attempt with something else.

Technically, RAW, truesight can be read to literally disallow you from knowing that the statue was the BBEG:

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic.

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range... perceive the original form of... a creature...

Verb: perceive
Object of verb: the form
Adjective on the object of the verb: original
Prepositional phrase, modifying the object of the verb: of a creature.

So, who or what's form is perceived? A creature's. Which form is it? Not the current one, the original one. But there is no creature. There is a statue. That is what transformation magic does. Therefore it can be argued that, RAW, truesight does not let someone perceive a single thing about a creature transformed into anything other than another creature. Literally, truesight allows you to tell the BBEG was/is transformed into an orc, but provides no information about the BBEG transformed into anything that is not a creature, because truesight only allows you to learn about the original forms of what are currently creatures. What I am saying is that it is a valid reading to interpret truesight as only working on current-form-creatures, a creature that is transformed into another creature. It does not say "perceive the original form of a shapechanger or perceive the original form of a creature that is transformed by magic or perceive the original form of an object that is transformed by magic."

Besides, as has been stated over and over and over, truesight and true seeing have nothing to do with spell targeting. Just because you can see it (or in your argument, perceive it via truesight), doesn't mean you can target it with any spell you want. Spells target specific things. EB targets creatures. Dispel Magic targets magical effects. Etc. If you can determine that the BBEG = BBES (S for statue) at the present time, then Congratulations! You can now target the BBES with an appropriate spell -- one that targets objects or one that targets magical effects. The BBES is still a statue.

Edits in green.

bid

2022-01-16, 08:22 PM

On the contrary, the question is a valid one. You are confusing target with affect and your confusion should not be projected into the rules.
The question is only a way to skirt around answers that makes the point moot.

Trying to bring confusion about won't make them disappear. You either take them head on or implicitely admit the trick just doesn't work.

I think a list of unanswered points should be brought up. If some of them have no counter, the edifice crumbles.

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 01:11 AM

If you cast Eldritch Blast at an invalid target, nothing happens. You dont roll for a hit, because the target is not valid in the first place. Your perception of the validity of the target is irrelevant to this process.

This isn't what XGtE tells you to do.

This is what Eldritch Blast says:

"A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range."

Only creatures are a valid target for the spell.

Sure. But XGtE tells us that spells can target invalid targets if the caster believes the target is valid.

So let's dig deeper into what that means.

Let's say I cast Eldritch Blast at a creature and I roll to hit and miss.

What effect does Eldritch Blast have on the creature that you miss? In other words how does Eldritch Blast affect creatures that are missed?

JackPhoenix

2022-01-17, 01:35 AM

Sure. But XGtE tells us that spells can target invalid targets if the caster believes the target is valid.

XGtE also tells us what happens when you cast a spell at invalid target: You expend the spell slot (if appropriate) and nothing happens. It's not "your belief somehow makes it work anyway".

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 01:49 AM

XGtE also tells us what happens when you cast a spell at invalid target: You expend the spell slot (if appropriate) and nothing happens. It's not "your belief somehow makes it work anyway".

You are not accurately paraphrasing XGtE at all.

The rule says this . . .

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended

Not this . . .

If you cast a spell at an invalid target, nothing happens, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended

Those two statements are very different.

Squire Doodad

2022-01-17, 01:51 AM

XGtE also tells us what happens when you cast a spell at invalid target: You expend the spell slot (if appropriate) and nothing happens. It's not "your belief somehow makes it work anyway".

Pretty much this.
It doesn't matter whether or not Truesight lets you see that the Adamantium statue was once the BBEG. The BBEG has used True Polymorph and turned into an object, and therefore spells that require a creature to target cannot target the BBEG.
Now, you can make a case to the DM that Eldritch Blast should still deal partial damage or somehow impact the polymorph - but even though I would let that slide in my game, that isn't what the rules say. You character can choose to fire, knowing that the statue is a transformed BBEG, but the BBEG is currently an object and cannot be targeted by the effect.
Just like how you can't use Charm Person on a corpse, at least not without reviving it first.

Those two statements are very different.

The distinction is a largely semantical one. Simply put, when you fire a spell at an invalid target, nothing happens to that target. You can cast Squire's Creature-Harming Impact Explosive at the statue, treating it as the center of effect and deal damage to the minions around the statue. But, it still does nothing to the statue, as the statue is not a valid target for the effect itself.

Greywander

2022-01-17, 01:59 AM

Sure. But XGtE tells us that spells can target invalid targets if the caster believes the target is valid.
Yeah, but nothing will happen. You'll cast the spell, and the target will appear to have resisted the effect.

With a save-based spell, they'll look like they passed their save. Not sure how an attack spell would be handled. Presumably it would appear to hit the target, but not have any visible effect, i.e. either the target is immune to the spell or they're just so tough that they don't even flinch. I suppose since armor is figured into AC, an effect could appear to "hit", but actually be a miss, as the armor absorbs the blow entirely.

So let's dig deeper into what that means.
Do we have to?

Let's say I cast Eldritch Blast at a creature and I roll to hit and miss.

What effect does Eldritch Blast have on the creature that you miss? In other words how does Eldritch Blast affect creatures that are missed?
Not sure what profound truth you think you're uncovering here. Eldritch Blast only lists an effect on a hit. There is no effect on a miss. Nothing happens. Some spells will list an effect if the target passes a saving throw (e.g. half damage), but typically if a roll of any kind is called for and only the effects for one result are listed, any other result is assumed to not have any effect. How is this relevant?

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 02:09 AM

Yeah, but nothing will happen. You'll cast the spell, and the target will appear to have resisted the effect.

With a save-based spell, they'll look like they passed their save. Not sure how an attack spell would be handled. Presumably it would appear to hit the target, but not have any visible effect, i.e. either the target is immune to the spell or they're just so tough that they don't even flinch. I suppose since armor is figured into AC, an effect could appear to "hit", but actually be a miss, as the armor absorbs the blow entirely.

You are also not paraphrasing correctly.

XGtE says this . . .

[If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended]

It does not say this . . .

[If you cast a spell at an invalid target, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended.]

Not sure what profound truth you think you're uncovering here. Eldritch Blast only lists an effect on a hit. There is no effect on a miss. Nothing happens. Some spells will list an effect if the target passes a saving throw (e.g. half damage), but typically if a roll of any kind is called for and only the effects for one result are listed, any other result is assumed to not have any effect. How is this relevant?

Cool. So the only time Eldritch Blast affects its target is on a hit. Some crackling beams are sent at the target but on a miss nothing happens to the target.

What effect does Eldritch Blast have on a target that is hit?

Squire Doodad

2022-01-17, 02:12 AM

You are also not paraphrasing correctly.

XGtE says this . . .

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended

It does not say this . . .

If you cast a spell at an invalid target, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended

I hate to be that guy, but none of this is meaningfully relevant to your argument.
The two statements mean the same thing in the context of the example.

It doesn't matter if the BBEG Statue is an "invalid" target, it isn't affected by the spell, because it is an object. Knowing it was once a creature has no impact on it currently being an object.

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 02:28 AM

I hate to be that guy, but none of this is meaningfully relevant to your argument.
The two statements mean the same thing in the context of the example.

It doesn't matter if the BBEG Statue is an "invalid" target, it isn't affected by the spell, because it is an object. Knowing it was once a creature has no impact on it currently being an object.

The two statements are very different. You need to accurately follow the actual rules on the page and not some bad paraphrase of the rule that alters the rule, because if you do you are house ruling. Of course a DM can house rule if they like but they should not pretend to not be house ruling when they actually are?

Squire Doodad

2022-01-17, 02:30 AM

Nope. The two statements are very different. You need to accurately follow the actual rules on the page and not some bad paraphrase of the rule that alters the rule, because if you do you are house ruling.

The statements are completely irrelevant. They have no impact on whether or not you can do what you mention in the OP without a house ruling.

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 02:40 AM

The statements are completely irrelevant. They have no impact on whether or not you can do what you mention in the OP without a house ruling.

Are objects affected by force damage?

Squire Doodad

2022-01-17, 02:43 AM

Are objects affected by force damage?

Can you use Charm Person on a corpse?

More to the point:
If you assume Eldritch Blast can be treated as a beam of force damage instead of something creature-sensitive, then True Sight isn't relevant. You don't have to know a statue was once a person to use it. Eldritch Blast will be equally able to target the statue as it would the BBEG, just like a Fireball or a Magic Missile would.

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 02:46 AM

Can you use Charm Person on a corpse?

If a spell deals force damage by overloading the target's neurons (permit me the assumption a spell like that somehow exists), does it still work on a corpse?

You evaded the question.

Do you disagree with the true statement that objects are affected by force damage?

Squire Doodad

2022-01-17, 02:47 AM

You evaded the question.

Do you disagree with the true statement that objects are affected by force damage?

My apologies, I edited my post while you were writing this. Please see my revised post.

Greywander

2022-01-17, 02:49 AM

You are also not paraphrasing correctly.

XGtE says this . . .

It does not say this . . .
Under what conditions would "someone or something not be affected by the spell"? Please tell me you're not suggesting the entire point of this excerpt from XGtE was to clarify that yep, if they pass their save, you still lose the spell slot.

You have to read this in the given context. What is the context? Invalid targets. Again, here's the whole text, not just a cherry-picked excerpt:

Invalid Spell Targets

A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
Look! It even calls out invalid targets in the very next sentence! "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target)." It's clear that the "invalid target" is referring to the previously mentioned "someone or something that can't be affected by the spell".

Cool. So the only time Eldritch Blast affects its target is on a hit. Some crackling beams are sent at the target but on a miss nothing happens to the target.

What effect does Eldritch Blast have on a target that is hit?
If the target is "someone or something that can be affected by the spell," AKA a valid target, it takes damage. If the target is "someone or something that can't be affected by the spell," AKA an invalid target, nothing happens.

Let's consider the example of casting Hold Person on a vampire. Here's the text for Hold Person:

Choose a humanoid that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed for the duration. At the end of each of its turns, the target can make another Wisdom saving throw. On a success, the spell ends on the target.
Ah, so if we believe that the vampire is a humanoid, we are allowed to target them with the spell. Since they are the target, they must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed. Wow, turns out being an idiot is super overpowered! I just have to believe that everything is a humanoid, and then Hold Person works on everything! It's the exact same wording as Eldritch Blast. Oh yeah, not only that, but under this interpretation, truesight would actually handicap you by revealing that the vampire was, in fact, a vampire, and not a humanoid, and thus you would be unable to target them with Hold Person.

AIResearch

2022-01-17, 02:52 AM

My apologies, I edited my post while you were writing this. Please see my revised post.

You are still evading the question.

Are objects affected by force damage?

Please answer the question.

We are working our way through what XGtE is actually telling us to do and throwing out any and all bad paraphrasing.

Squire Doodad

2022-01-17, 02:54 AM

<Snip>
This, too, is arguably irrelevant if you assume Eldritch Blast applies force damage to wherever the beam lands, regardless of said landing spot's qualities. Since then it's kind of just a force laser.

Of course, as Eldritch Blast specifies it has these properties about targeting, one can assume there is a reason why it does not say it can target anything, as well as that letting it target things it cannot is a DM ruling.

You are still evading the question.

Are objects affected by force damage?

It is irrelevant, because Eldritch Blast isn't Fireball. It's, as mentioned, arguably closer to a force-dealing Hold Person.
Hold Person does not work on vampires.
Eldritch Blast does not work on objects. Maybe it should, but from what I understand it does not - that is the point of your first post.
If you assert it should work on objects, either it will not work or you are not casting a strict by the books Eldritch Blast.
If you would like to talk about a way to rewrite Eldritch Blast as a force laser that can be used to seek out a specific creature, that's a completely different, rather interesting topic.
That is all there is to say.

JackPhoenix

2022-01-17, 03:14 AM

You are still evading the question.

Are objects affected by force damage?

Please answer the question.

Not if the force damage comes from Eldritch Blast.

We are working our way through what XGtE is actually telling us to do and throwing out any and all bad paraphrasing.

We (as in, everyone but you) know what XGtE is telling us. You're {scrubbed} focusing on irrelevant semantics.

SpanielBear

2022-01-17, 06:44 AM

{Scrubbed}

pwykersotz

2022-01-17, 04:58 PM

The two statements are very different. You need to accurately follow the actual rules on the page and not some bad paraphrase of the rule that alters the rule, because if you do you are house ruling. Of course a DM can house rule if they like but they should not pretend to not be house ruling when they actually are?

I disagree 100% with this. The slavish legalism of theorycrafting is the thing that has no place in games. A GM should avoid theorycrafting "logic" whenever possible, it almost always makes the game worse. I would classify your argument as the house rule, not the other way around, as it flies in the face of common understanding.

Greywander

2022-01-17, 05:34 PM

I disagree 100% with this. The slavish legalism of theorycrafting is the thing that has no place in games. A GM should avoid theorycrafting "logic" whenever possible, it almost always makes the game worse. I would classify your argument as the house rule, not the other way around, as it flies in the face of common understanding.
A lot of theorycrafting isn't necessarily meant to be used in an actual game. For example, Punpun was never meant to be played, just as a demonstration of what you could do if you did follow the rules as written. Theorycrafting can be quite fun, and it's a good way to deepen your knowledge of the system, which will help you when you are actually playing.

The real problem here is how badly the rules are being misinterpreted. It would be one thing if the rules actually said you could do X, but if they rules actually say you can do Y, then insisting that they allow you to do X is just wrong. If theorycrafting is like a puzzle, then this is like forcing a puzzle piece into the wrong spot.

AIResearch, I'd like to see your response to this excerpt from my last post:

You have to read this in the given context. What is the context? Invalid targets. Again, here's the whole text, not just a cherry-picked excerpt:

Invalid Spell Targets

A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? For example, someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule.

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.
Look! It even calls out invalid targets in the very next sentence! "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target)." It's clear that the "invalid target" is referring to the previously mentioned "someone or something that can't be affected by the spell".
Let me also add this to it: "But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? [...] If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule." And what is the "following rule"? "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell..." So yes, this is definitely, 100% talking about invalid targets.

Unoriginal

2022-01-17, 06:25 PM

A lot of theorycrafting isn't necessarily meant to be used in an actual game. For example, Punpun was never meant to be played, just as a demonstration of what you could do if you did follow the rules as written. Theorycrafting can be quite fun, and it's a good way to deepen your knowledge of the system, which will help you when you are actually playing.

The real problem here is how badly the rules are being misinterpreted. It would be one thing if the rules actually said you could do X, but if they rules actually say you can do Y, then insisting that they allow you to do X is just wrong. If theorycrafting is like a puzzle, then this is like forcing a puzzle piece into the wrong spot.

AIResearch, I'd like to see your response to this excerpt from my last post:

Let me also add this to it: "But what happens if a spell targets something that isn't a valid target? [...] If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule." And what is the "following rule"? "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell..." So yes, this is definitely, 100% talking about invalid targets.

And if the exact wording matters, note the rule says "can't be affected by the spell", not " can't be affected by the effects of the spells".

pwykersotz

2022-01-17, 08:16 PM

A lot of theorycrafting isn't necessarily meant to be used in an actual game. For example, Punpun was never meant to be played, just as a demonstration of what you could do if you did follow the rules as written. Theorycrafting can be quite fun, and it's a good way to deepen your knowledge of the system, which will help you when you are actually playing.

The real problem here is how badly the rules are being misinterpreted. It would be one thing if the rules actually said you could do X, but if they rules actually say you can do Y, then insisting that they allow you to do X is just wrong. If theorycrafting is like a puzzle, then this is like forcing a puzzle piece into the wrong spot.

I see most theorycrafting (at least on these forums) as gross misinterpretation of the rules, Pun Pun definitely included. Like I said earlier in the thread, it see this issue as a 9/10 on the 3.5 scale of theorycrafting. But I agree with your point overall, and I recognize that my opinion (especially here) is probably in the minority.

But yeah, this point is pretty silly. It's fun to read the continual justifications of it though, and fun to read everyone's responses.

Keltest

2022-01-17, 11:46 PM

I see most theorycrafting (at least on these forums) as gross misinterpretation of the rules, Pun Pun definitely included. Like I said earlier in the thread, it see this issue as a 9/10 on the 3.5 scale of theorycrafting. But I agree with your point overall, and I recognize that my opinion (especially here) is probably in the minority.

But yeah, this point is pretty silly. It's fun to read the continual justifications of it though, and fun to read everyone's responses.

On these boards, a lot of theorycrafting IMO tends to end up as arguing "what the rules say" rather than "what the rules mean." ie that in a given scenario, if you could theoretically interpret the rules in a given way, even if it requires maliciously ignoring the obvious intended meaning and context, that its a legitimate read. Fair enough if you like that sort of thing as an amusing thought exercise, but i dont think it has any place in any sort of discussion about how to actually play the game.

Greywander

2022-01-18, 10:22 AM

On these boards, a lot of theorycrafting IMO tends to end up as arguing "what the rules say" rather than "what the rules mean." ie that in a given scenario, if you could theoretically interpret the rules in a given way, even if it requires maliciously ignoring the obvious intended meaning and context, that its a legitimate read.
Discussions of RAW are important because it provides the baseline that all tables work off of. I don't know how your DM runs things, so unless you share your houserules I have to assume that they're running it by the book. This is why I think RAW is important and worth discussing: it's a common point of reference.

As for "what the rules say" vs. "what the rules mean", in my opinion, the only thing that matters is what the rules say. I've seen the devs occasionally come out and say, "What we meant was..." but that isn't what they wrote. This is just an admission that the rules have been poorly written, because they didn't write what they meant. I don't have the devs at my table, I can't ask them what their intentions were for each rule. All I have is the rulebook, and thus all I have to go off of is what the rules actually say. When a dev says, "What we meant was..." all they're really doing is sharing their houserules with you. Your DM is always the final authority at the table, but after the DM it is the book, not the devs, that are the authority.

I don't support "malicious" readings of the rules, either. The rules are meant to be interpreted as a whole, so taking a passage out of context and twisting its meaning isn't RAW. I do support literal readings of the rules that don't attempt to infer the intentions of the developers, because again, the devs aren't at my table and I can't ask them what their intentions were. Another important aspect of RAW discussions is to identity poorly written rules so that they can be patched with a houserule (which may happen to coincide with an "intention" expressed by the devs, but it's still a houserule). RAW is a common point of reference, but that doesn't mean RAW is infallible, and so you should implement houserules to cover the parts of RAW that are poorly written.

You also don't want to put someone in the situation where you've shared your houserule with them but they've mistaken it for RAW, and they take it to their DM and the DM dismisses it because they can't find it in the rules. When someone asks about the rules, make it clear whether what you're telling them is RAW or whether it's a houserule.

Hopefully where I'm coming from with this makes sense. This is why I'll often make a big deal about the distinction between what is RAW and what is a houserule, between what the rules should say and what the rules actually say. I think it's important to establish the baseline of RAW, and then we can start discussing possible solutions to issues within RAW. For example, I agree that EB (and a lot of other spells) probably should be able to affect objects, but that would be a houserule, not RAW.