Polymorph any Object

[Sirperry]

Polymorph any Object says that it works as Polymorph (which works like Alter Self) but also changes the INT score of the subject. So my caster could PaO on himself to become smarter, perhaps permanently ?

I know this horse has been beat to death over the years but I haven't seen this particular question answered to my satisfaction, so thank you for your time ladies, gentlemen and gamers.

[Biggus]

I don't see anything preventing you from doing that. What's the argument against it?

[Thunder999]

Yes, though there's not a lot of forms that actually have more int than a 15th level wizard, and you'll struggle to get any of them permanent (unless of course your GM agrees with the argument that you can cast it twice and have it be permanent since you already matched exactly for the 2nd casting).
A sorcerer obviously has more options, though less motivation (since int doesn't really do much for them)

[Darg]

(unless of course your GM agrees with the argument that you can cast it twice and have it be permanent since you already matched exactly for the 2nd casting).

"Original state" is quite the hurdle. The only state that cannot be invalidated by logical reasoning is your base, unmagicked state.

[Anthrowhale]

Getting a permanent PAO boosting Int seems generally viable. You only need two of {same class, same size, related} which seems plausibly doable with the right character choice and Sarrukh for example (Int 30). Same size is almost a freebie as it's medium. Black Ethergaunt (Int 31) ---you need Reserves of Strength and I'm not sure there is anything which is the same class other than other ethergaunts (aberrations are freaky that way). Maybe related could be done somehow?

[Soranar]

The typical best form gives you 30 int

Problem is a race with a +2 starts with 20, +5 from levels and + 5 from inherent (wish or books) which equals 30 too and that form can't be dispelled

[Quertus]

So… great for the 20th level Sorceress who wants to start taking levels in Wizard? Or for the high-level Wizard who wants to give his kin a leg up on becoming powerful Wizards, or who just wants someone worth his time to talk to?

Maybe not something you’d see on the char-op boards, but I can see plenty of reasons why someone might care.

[Anthrowhale]

The typical best form gives you 30 int

Problem is a race with a +2 starts with 20, +5 from levels and + 5 from inherent (wish or books) which equals 30 too and that form can't be dispelled

The +5 inherent should carry over, as it's an 'inherent bonus', so you end up with Int 41=30+5(inherent)+6(enhance). It's a solid Int, but dispellable.

If you can do level buyoff, there are other approaches which give a much higher Int that is not dispellable. For example, primordial half-giant with a level of Lich (https://web.archive.org/web/20201111212934/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031212a) and a level of half-dragon (https://web.archive.org/web/20161101074338/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20030912a) could be fully bought off by level 9 and have a racial Int bonus of +8.

[Crake]

Getting a permanent PAO boosting Int seems generally viable. You only need two of {same class, same size, related} which seems plausibly doable with the right character choice and Sarrukh for example (Int 30). Same size is almost a freebie as it's medium. Black Ethergaunt (Int 31) ---you need Reserves of Strength and I'm not sure there is anything which is the same class other than other ethergaunts (aberrations are freaky that way). Maybe related could be done somehow?

Black ethergaunt could be doable if you start off as an elan. Aberration to aberration seems to fit "same class".


The +5 inherent should carry over, as it's an 'inherent bonus',

I don't really agree with this. Would +5 inherent bonus to strength carry over to a polymorphed form too? I don't think so. What about feeblemind? That sets your int to 1, would you then get your +5 inherent bonus ontop of that too?

Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, they are not continuous bonuses, and thus can be overridden in my interpretation of the rules.

[Anthrowhale]

Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, they are not continuous bonuses, and thus can be overridden in my interpretation of the rules.
So, in your interpretation, you can stack two +5 inherent bonuses to get +10? That seems abusable.

[Beni-Kujaku]

So, in your interpretation, you can stack two +5 inherent bonuses to get +10? That seems abusable.

What? No, he's just saying it acts as a part of the creature inherent characteristics now, and is applied before effects that set the ability score to a specific value, the same way Ability Score Increases each 4 level work. They still have a type, and could not stack with themselves, especially not beyond +5. If you PAO into something else, then apply inherent bonuses to that form, then revert back, the inherent bonus would not carry over back. If you apply inherent bonuses to a Feebleminded character, they would have (for example) 6 Int, but these inherent bonuses would overlap (not stack) with existing inherent bonuses they already had after feeblemind has been cured.

[Crake]

What? No, he's just saying it acts as a part of the creature inherent characteristics now, and is applied before effects that set the ability score to a specific value, the same way Ability Score Increases each 4 level work. They still have a type, and could not stack with themselves, especially not beyond +5. If you PAO into something else, then apply inherent bonuses to that form, then revert back, the inherent bonus would not carry over back. If you apply inherent bonuses to a Feebleminded character, they would have (for example) 6 Int, but these inherent bonuses would overlap (not stack) with existing inherent bonuses they already had after feeblemind has been cured.

Essentially this, yes.

[False God]

I'd argue yes, but quite frankly once my players are casting 8th and 9th level spells, the game is pretty gonzo anyway. So if your goal is "Me, but with a 30 int.", you're not even on my radar of "stuff I need to be concerned with." If your goal is "Me, but with a 3000 int.", I'm going to be wondering what you're up to.

So as always, check with your DM, if you are the DM, its up to you, and whichever side you're on, don't ruin everyone's fun.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The typical best form gives you 30 int

Problem is a race with a +2 starts with 20, +5 from levels and + 5 from inherent (wish or books) which equals 30 too and that form can't be dispelledYou'd still get the non-racial bonuses (since PAO changes your race and doesn't explicitly override other bonuses you've got, and you still have the levels and the other bonuses affecting you), so just replace your rolled (or point-buy'd) stat and racial bonuses with the new form's stat and racial bonuses, then add the other bonuses on top.

[NichG]

PaO would be a lot easier to rule if there were a consistent metaphysics about where different mechanical aspects of a character 'lived' in-world. Where does your level live? Where do stat bonuses from level-up live? Where do stat bonuses from magic permanently altering your being live? If PaO can change your brain, can it change your memories? Can it change your XP total, and if so, when - there are examples of giving HD to a rock, so can you just PaO yourself into a higher level version of yourself? Why or why not, other than 'the rules don't let you'?

If characters have body, mind, soul, and fate, all separate, and those elements each carry different mechanical things which have happened to the character, then its a lot easier to say e.g. 'Polymorph replaces your body with the body of something else; Polymorph Any Object replaces your body and mind with the body and mind of something else; etc'

Being polymorphed doesn't make you immune to further transmutation, so its harder for me to make sense of a world where the inherent bonuses live on the 'body' layer of reality but at the same time, someone who has been polymorphed already can't wish for +1 to Strength or something like that. If a standing Polymorph overrided subsequent attempts to further transmute you, sure, then it'd make sense that the thing trying to give you an inherent bonus is immediately deleted by the ongoing spell effect. But since it doesn't, either inherent bonuses live on the body layer and after polymorphing yourself you just have to re-apply them (expensive but you can do it), or they live on a higher layer and apply after everything else with regards to your body is settled.

Stat bonuses from levelup as well - I'd be more inclined to subtract possible stat bonuses from HD of the base creature then add back in whatever stat bonuses the character took on levelup as long as PaO isn't actually modifying your levels and HD (e.g. we're not in the 'turn a stone into a gryphon' territory). But that's probably the most problematic part of PaO for me - one use lets you create life force/soul energy/XP from nothing, the other holds those things fixed. This probably would require something like 'racial HD exist at the body level, but further xp gains exist at a different level', but in that case PaO should actually give you the racial HD of any form you polymorph yourself into on top of your character levels! Which it clearly doesn't do...

[Crake]

You'd still get the non-racial bonuses (since PAO changes your race and doesn't explicitly override other bonuses you've got, and you still have the levels and the other bonuses affecting you), so just replace your rolled (or point-buy'd) stat and racial bonuses with the new form's stat and racial bonuses, then add the other bonuses on top.

Dont think youd find too many people who agree with this statement. Again, as I said earlier, if you get feebleminded, your int doesnt become “1 plus your inherent bonus, plus your racial bonus, plus your levelup bonus”, it just becomes 1. Same thing applies to polymorph any object.


one use lets you create life force/soul energy/XP from nothing, the other holds those things fixed.

I dont think PaO creates life force or whatever any more than say, animate objects or astral construct do. They’re just temporary spell effects that emulate life and animation, its not really a stretch to simply say a creature created by PaO isnt alive, but merely a magical simulation of life.

[NichG]

Dont think youd find too many people who agree with this statement. Again, as I said earlier, if you get feebleminded, your int doesnt become “1 plus your inherent bonus, plus your racial bonus, plus your levelup bonus”, it just becomes 1. Same thing applies to polymorph any object.

I dont think PaO creates life force or whatever any more than say, animate objects or astral construct do. They’re just temporary spell effects that emulate life and animation, its not really a stretch to simply say a creature created by PaO isnt alive, but merely a magical simulation of life.

Depends on the metaphysics. If we're going strictly by rules, there's no special property that a stone PaO'd into a gryphon has that would prevent e.g. undead from level-draining it, or from gaining benefits from doing so. Would make for a good subtype like [Ephemeral] or [Simulation] or something (as well for conjured creatures) to make for an explicit difference - no permanent resources can be harvested from such entities, be it body parts or sustenance or energy or XP or whatever.

[Crake]

Depends on the metaphysics. If we're going strictly by rules, there's no special property that a stone PaO'd into a gryphon has that would prevent e.g. undead from level-draining it, or from gaining benefits from doing so. Would make for a good subtype like [Ephemeral] or [Simulation] or something (as well for conjured creatures) to make for an explicit difference - no permanent resources can be harvested from such entities, be it body parts or sustenance or energy or XP or whatever.

I mean, just because its simulated, doesnt mean an undead cant drain it for sustenance. There are, after all, plenty of spells that provide nourishment for all manner of creatures. Keep in mind also, that something with HD can be drained of that HD, whilst not actually having xp for that HD. Lycanthropes are a perfect example, you can have more HD than you have xp to sustain it, so theres nothing to say a simulated creature has any xp to give (if anything, the simple fact that it has just come into existence at this very moment seems entirely indicative that it has 0 xp).

A vampire that created humans from stones to drain using polymorph any object sounds kinda neat tbh. Like humans eating lab grown meat irl.

Ultimately though, bogging it all down by trying to define it all, rather than just using common sense, is one of the biggest problems with 3.5 I think. Too much pedanticism over rules, when I think the answer is, for the most part, pretty clear. Instantaneous bonuses do not apply when base numbers are changed, ongoing effects do, no need to apply this body mind soul etc whatever layer to it.

[NichG]

Whereas I'd say that trying to use common sense to figure these things out is all about determining a metaphysics that makes sense first, such that you can then answer questions like 'what should the rules be?'.

[Crake]

Whereas I'd say that trying to use common sense to figure these things out is all about determining a metaphysics that makes sense first, such that you can then answer questions like 'what should the rules be?'.

Right, but metaphysics can vary a lot, based on how the DM wants to write things for their setting. Its a typical fluff vs crunch argument, you can fit the crunch to whatever fluff you want, in this case that means fitting the rules to whatever metaphysics you want, but in either case, the rules remain the same.

[NichG]

Right, but metaphysics can vary a lot, based on how the DM wants to write things for their setting. Its a typical fluff vs crunch argument, you can fit the crunch to whatever fluff you want, in this case that means fitting the rules to whatever metaphysics you want, but in either case, the rules remain the same.

Not everything fits equally well. If you have solid, comprehensible metaphysics you can easily go beyond the rules or know how to change the rules to make things fit better. If you've got good metaphysics that makes the rules make sense, you won't have to change much or say 'its just this way because, stop poking it' too much.

[Crake]

Not everything fits equally well. If you have solid, comprehensible metaphysics you can easily go beyond the rules or know how to change the rules to make things fit better. If you've got good metaphysics that makes the rules make sense, you won't have to change much or say 'its just this way because, stop poking it' too much.

Right, but my whole point was that you can't base your rules on metaphysics without first defining the metaphysics in the rules, and, in my opinion, that is a step too far into the DM's domain of worldbuilding. By forcing a particular set of metaphysics, you force the DM to have to do a whole slew of homebrew of those metaphysics if they want to implement their own.

[Anthrowhale]

Several points here:


W.r.t. Feeblemind, it doesn't seem relevant. The text of Feeblemind says: "...Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1." which appears to apply regardless of what bonuses are applied an ability score.
Inherent bonuses & level ups aren't the same thing language-wise.

The PHB page 23 describes the level up attribute increase as an "ability increase" or "ability improvement" that is permanent. When you PAO and have a stat overwritten, you don't benefit from the ability increase.

In contrast, an 'inherent bonus' is an explicit bonus in the RC page 21 which says "A creature is limited to a total inherent bonus of +5 to any ability score". So individual creatures must effectively track their inherent bonuses.
(2) suggests the relevant question is:If a creature with an inherent bonus is PAOd, is it a different creature?

PAO says: "...changes one object or creature into another." which suggests yes. That implies an inherent bonus does not carry over.

Polymorph says: "...change the willing subject into another form of living creature." which suggests no. That implies an inherent bonus does carry over.

Alter self says: "You assume the form of a creature..." which suggest no and implies an inherent bonus does carry over.

Shapechange say: "you ... assume the form of any single nonunique creature" which suggests no and implies inherent bonuses carry over.


There's a distinction here amongst PAO & Poymorph that I hadn't quite appreciated. There's also an implication on experience points. If you PAO into a stone giant, presumably the level adjustment for a stone giant (+4) applies to experience gained because you are actually a stone giant.

[NichG]

Right, but my whole point was that you can't base your rules on metaphysics without first defining the metaphysics in the rules, and, in my opinion, that is a step too far into the DM's domain of worldbuilding. By forcing a particular set of metaphysics, you force the DM to have to do a whole slew of homebrew of those metaphysics if they want to implement their own.

I mean, D&D is already doing this by saying that spells go into slots, that PaO is a thing, that alignments exist and Paladin powers depend on them following codes, etc.

There are much more generic systems out there.

And anyhow, it's not like there's new official 3.5 material that will come out with these metaphysics. The point of talking about such things is to benefit DMs by giving them ideas for how they might make things consistent and make sense of oddities and tangles in the open-ended parts of the rules. E.g. to say 'hey DMs, why not give rules analysis a break and actually come up with consistent metaphysics to explain why things work, then use that metaphysics to guide rulings rather than digging through errata or answers designers gave to questions somewhere'

[Sirperry]

Thanks all, for the responses. I'm looking for fun things to do, not necessarily broken or optimized, this gives me some options.

[Crake]

The point of talking about such things is to benefit DMs by giving them ideas for how they might make things consistent and make sense of oddities and tangles in the open-ended parts of the rules. E.g. to say 'hey DMs, why not give rules analysis a break and actually come up with consistent metaphysics to explain why things work, then use that metaphysics to guide rulings rather than digging through errata or answers designers gave to questions somewhere'

Thats fair, but I would, as a DM, handle that outside of the rules, rather than try to codify it into an additional ruleset that might just end up being confusing or misleading to players due to english being an imperfect language.

I think most consistent DMs already do this to a degree, its just not something we tend to discuss on forums like this, because everyone will have a different set of metaphysics in mind for their games, so theres no consistent backbone to discuss around.


Several points here:


W.r.t. Feeblemind, it doesn'ty seem relevant. The text of Feeblemind says: "...Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1." which appears to apply regardless of what bonuses are applied an ability score.
Inherent bonuses & level ups aren't the same thing language-wise.

The PHB page 23 describes the level up attribute increase as an "ability increase" or "ability improvement" that is permanent. When you PAO and have a stat overwritten, you don't benefit from the ability increase.

In contrast, an 'inherent bonus' is an explicit bonus in the RC page 21 which says "A creature is limited to a total inherent bonus of +5 to any ability score". So individual creatures must effectively track their inherent bonuses.
(2) suggests the relevant question is:If a creature with an inherent bonus is PAOd, is it a different creature?

PAO says: "...changes one object or creature into another." which suggests yes. That implies an inherent bonus does not carry over.

Polymorph says: "...change the willing subject into another form of living creature." which suggests no. That implies an inherent bonus does carry over.

Alter self says: "You assume the form of a creature..." which suggest no and implies an inherent bonus does carry over.

Shapechange say: "you ... assume the form of any single nonunique creature" which suggests no and implies inherent bonuses carry over.


There's a distinction here amongst PAO & Poymorph that I hadn't quite appreciated. There's also an implication on experience points. If you PAO into a stone giant, presumably the level adjustment for a stone giant (+4) applies to experience gained because you are actually a stone giant.

For 1: feeblemind is an instantaneous effect. It sets your score to 1, but then the magic is over. If you put on a headband of intellect +6 after that, youd have 7 int. So if your logic is “inherent bonuses apply constantly” then someone with a +5 inherent bonus to int would have 6 int after a feeblemind spell.

I think the thing to keep in mind is that inherent bonuses, while they are set bonuses and cant stack, they ARE still instantaneous effects, and so can still be overridden.

[NichG]

Thats fair, but I would, as a DM, handle that outside of the rules, rather than try to codify it into an additional ruleset that might just end up being confusing or misleading to players due to english being an imperfect language.

I think most consistent DMs already do this to a degree, its just not something we tend to discuss on forums like this, because everyone will have a different set of metaphysics in mind for their games, so theres no consistent backbone to discuss around.

That would make it much more valuable to discuss IMO. What are the different things people have come up with, why do those things make sense to them, what do they resolve, what issues have been introduced? I think that would be much more useful than e.g. a thread about whether drown healing is actually RAW or not. You wouldn't be able to win such a thread or prove that your interpretation is the correct one, but you'd generate and be exposed to a lot of different ideas, which you could take your pick from and use to enhance your own game.

[Anthrowhale]

For 1: feeblemind is an instantaneous effect. It sets your score to 1, but then the magic is over. If you put on a headband of intellect +6 after that, youd have 7 int.

What happens if you have a headband of intellect on, are feebleminded, and then take off the headband?


I think the thing to keep in mind is that inherent bonuses, while they are set bonuses and cant stack, they ARE still instantaneous effects, and so can still be overridden.
Where is the rule around inherent bonuses being instantaneous effects?

[Crake]

What happens if you have a headband of intellect on, are feebleminded, and then take off the headband?

Since the headband is an ongoing effect, when feeblemind sets your int to 1, the headband would kick in immediately ad bump it to 7, so taking it off would drop it back down to 1. You see this same interaction with druids who wildshape whilst having ability score buffs on. A druid who has a wild clasp +4 belt of str then turns into a wolf, would have their strength set to 13, and then gain 4 strength from the belt, it is not just set to 13 and they have to remove the belt or fiddle around with it somehow.


Where is the rule around inherent bonuses being instantaneous effects?

Its less a hard rule and more that the sources of inherent bonuses are from effects that are instantaneous. Wish, miracle, reality revision being the main ones, and the books, which are based on wish.


That would make it much more valuable to discuss IMO. What are the different things people have come up with, why do those things make sense to them, what do they resolve, what issues have been introduced? I think that would be much more useful than e.g. a thread about whether drown healing is actually RAW or not. You wouldn't be able to win such a thread or prove that your interpretation is the correct one, but you'd generate and be exposed to a lot of different ideas, which you could take your pick from and use to enhance your own game.

Right, but the issue is that discussions like that tend to get little traction on these boards in my experience, so as much as I agree that it would be an interesting conversation, it would appear that, at least in this section of the forum, its not the place for it to occur.

[NichG]

Right, but the issue is that discussions like that tend to get little traction on these boards in my experience, so as much as I agree that it would be an interesting conversation, it would appear that, at least in this section of the forum, its not the place for it to occur.

I've had plenty of that kind of discussion. I've also seen people pre-emptively try to shut that kind of discussion down with this sort of argument about 'well except for RAW there's no common ground'. Often even when people are otherwise successfully discussing things!

[Crake]

I've had plenty of that kind of discussion. I've also seen people pre-emptively try to shut that kind of discussion down with this sort of argument about 'well except for RAW there's no common ground'. Often even when people are otherwise successfully discussing things!

Fair enough, maybe I've just given up even bothering to look for that kind of discussion around here, I tend go elsewhere for those kinds of talks, usually chatting directly with other DM friends, rather than seeking it here where people seem very hyper focused on RAW discussion. Honestly though, even just one forum level up in the roleplay forums, it's much more open to that kind of discussion.

[Anthrowhale]

Since the headband is an ongoing effect, when feeblemind sets your int to 1, the headband would kick in immediately ad bump it to 7, so taking it off would drop it back down to 1.

This seems like a reasonable approach.


Its less a hard rule and more that the sources of inherent bonuses are from effects that are instantaneous. Wish, miracle, reality revision being the main ones, and the books, which are based on wish.

This may be a weak point in the argument. An instantaneous effect which provides a permanent inherent bonus is not the same thing as an instantaneous effect which provides an instantaneous bonus. As far as I can tell an inherent bonus is permanent, and needs to be so in order to avoid accumulating in indefinite number of them. It's not like healing magic which instantaneously raises your hit points, for example.

[Darg]

Permanent means dispellable. You don't want your wishes wasted on dispellable bonuses. It's exactly the same with healing, temporary health is dispellable while instantaneous health is not. Your level and aging bonuses to not get added to your baleful polymorph scores, nor would a previous casting of fox's cunning be relevant to a target turned into stone.


One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. For example, if a wizard is using a shapechange spell to take the shape of an eagle, a polymorph spell could change her into a goldfish. The shapechange spell is not negated, however, and since the polymorph spell has no effect on the recipient’s special abilities, the wizard could use the shapechange effect to take any form the spell allows whenever she desires. If a creature using a shapechange effect becomes petrified by a flesh to stone spell, however, it turns into a mindless, inert statue, and the shapechange effect cannot help it escape.

In the case of the headband of intellect and a feeblemind clash, the last one takes precedence. Taking off the headband does not reduce your intelligence below 0, your score is simply just 1. Having it put back on however will increase your intelligence again.

Let's put it this way, you have 20 int and your item gives a +4 bonus. What is your int score? 24. At the time of casting, feeblemind that score is reduced to 1. It does not say anything about reducing your base/original score only. The headband is an ongoing effect, not a constantly reapplying effect.

[Soranar]

So, from what I read of the rules, here's how we interpret PAO at our table. It might not agree with your interpretation but it's what the RAW seems to indicate

PAO is just like polymorph but permanent (if you pick the right form)
permanent just means the duration lasts forever, it doesn't change the fact that you're under a spell
it can be dispelled (which is a real issue in spellcaster fights or through no magic zones and the like) and your original form never changes (meaning you can't cast PAO multiple times to attain a different type that's too far from your original form, you're always affected as if you were the original form

with this in mind:

-your base creature stats never truly change, they're just polymorphed (meaning the bonus skillpoints from a high INT don't apply)
-your level up stat bonuses don't apply to modified stats either (so only wisdom or charisma would benefit while polymorphed)
-your inherent bonuses (book or wishes or the like) also don't apply to your polymorphed form
-your age category also does not apply (except to CHA and WIS)
-your original hitpoints aren't changed either
-even your templates don't carry over to your new form (so being a lich doesn't even help)

magic items or spells that boost INT do work (so a headband of intellect or such)
with all of this in mind PAO is not ideal for an INT based spellcaster

if you want a very high INT, you're better off playing an empowered awakened tree that rolled max INT
or a venerable primordial giant lich with maxed INT or the like

it's still useful for all the reasons polymorph is useful (high STATS, movement modes and the like)
it also gives low INT races a way to attain 30 INT without too many shenanigans : no books, no wish, no fancy race or templates , just 1 spell and the right form
finally it can transform mindless creatures (like constructs) into useful ones that can act on their own

[Anthrowhale]

Permanent means dispellable.

This is true for a magical effect. I'm not aware of any evidence that instantaneous bonuses are magical? I certainly agree they can be granted by magic.

[Crake]

This is true for a magical effect. I'm not aware of any evidence that instantaneous bonuses are magical? I certainly agree they can be granted by magic.

I don't think there's any cases of nonmagical inherent bonuses, so this is kinda a moot point. If you think inherent bonuses granted by wish are an example of an instantaneous effect that provides a permanent bonus, do you then negate instantaneous effects within an antimagic field or dead magic zone? Can an enemy wizard dispel those inherent bonuses? If you answered yes, then props to you for at least being consistent, but I'd say at that point we need to agree to disagree, because we can't align on the very fundamental principle of how an inherent bonus works.

[Darg]

This is true for a magical effect. I'm not aware of any evidence that instantaneous bonuses are magical? I certainly agree they can be granted by magic.

Permanent is a type of duration that is dispellable. Instantaneous is not because the effect is instantaneous, not permanent.

[Crake]

Permanent is a type of duration that is dispellable. Instantaneous is not because the effect is instantaneous, not permanent.

Well, that's not ENTIRELY true. Permanent is a type of duration that implies an ongoing effect. Not all effects are, themselves, dispellable. A permanent supernatural effect, for example, is not dispellable (at least not by traditional means), but it WOULD still be affected by an AMF. The important distinction is that permanent means the effect is still in place, and ongoing, wheras instantaneous means that the effect has taken place, but there's no ongoing effect KEEPING it in place. That is why I say inherent effects are overridden by PaO, wheras, if they were ongoing permanent effects, then yes, i could see the argument for saying that they remain in place ontop of the changes of PaO

[Daisy]

I would argue that instantaneous effects are not dispellable using this scenario:

1. Magic (e.g. Wish) used to create an acorn.
2. Acorn is planted and over many years grows into a tree.
3. Tree produces thousands of acorns over the years, which are harvested and planted all over the world. Eventually every forest consists of a majority of descendents of the original magically-created acorn.
4. During a routine encounter in a forest, a wizard casts an area dispel and rolls incredibly well on his dispel checks.

Would any DM on the planet rule that most of the trees in the area, as part of the ongoing magical effect of the original spell, suddenly disappear? What about all the wooden items (weapon hafts, arrows, etc.) made from wood from those trees? Would half the wooden things in the world (well, oaken things anyway) be susceptible?

[Anthrowhale]

... Permanent is a type of duration that implies an ongoing effect. Not all effects are, themselves, dispellable...

Yeah, this is my thinking: Inherent bonus = permament nonmagical effect. It's nonmagical since there is no evidence that it is dispellable. It's permanent-or-instantaneous since it lasts forever. It's permanent-not-instantantaneous since an individual creature tracks and limits the amount of inherent bonus. Anyways, I'm not sure there is a game distinction between permanent-nondispellable and instantaneous.

[Chronos]

Quoth Crake:

Black ethergaunt could be doable if you start off as an elan. Aberration to aberration seems to fit "same class".
Maybe, but probably not. "Kingdom" and "Class" aren't well-defined in the D&D rules (which is part of the problem with PAO), but they don't mean the same thing as "creature type". A cat and a raven are both type: animal, but they're not the same class. And I'd assume, in general, that two aberrations are at least as different from each other as two animals are.

[Darg]

Yeah, this is my thinking: Inherent bonus = permament nonmagical effect. It's nonmagical since there is no evidence that it is dispellable. It's permanent-or-instantaneous since it lasts forever. It's permanent-not-instantantaneous since an individual creature tracks and limits the amount of inherent bonus. Anyways, I'm not sure there is a game distinction between permanent-nondispellable and instantaneous.

Wish is magical. It cannot be nonmagical. A spell with a permanent duration by definition is dispellable or at the very least affected by an AMF. In terms of spells "permanent" has a specific meaning. Instead if you want a spell to be not dispellable it needs to have specific text saying it or it needs an instantaneous duration. It's implied that wish providing an inherent bonus is instantaneous because every effect not duplicating a spell is an instantaneous effect. You can say it's permanent, which would be technically correct, but in context it can provide confusion.

[Crake]

Maybe, but probably not. "Kingdom" and "Class" aren't well-defined in the D&D rules (which is part of the problem with PAO), but they don't mean the same thing as "creature type". A cat and a raven are both type: animal, but they're not the same class. And I'd assume, in general, that two aberrations are at least as different from each other as two animals are.

Right, but elan and ethergaunt are both “medium humanoid shaped abberations with innate supernatural abilities”. Kingdom is pretty clearly defined, it says the different kingdoms in the spell, but class id agree is quite loose. That being said, I’d say elan and ethergaunt are sufficiently close to be considered the same class

[Jack_Simth]

Right, but elan and ethergaunt are both “medium humanoid shaped abberations with innate supernatural abilities”. Kingdom is pretty clearly defined, it says the different kingdoms in the spell, but class id agree is quite loose. That being said, I’d say elan and ethergaunt are sufficiently close to be considered the same class

The gotcha being that there's enough looseness in the rules that different DMs will have different rulings on the matter... and it's the DM's ruling that matters.

[bookkeeping guy]

In theory... if you get benefits of the pluses of the race, then you'd have to take some demerits also. Plus this makes sense because if you convert 100 pounds of one matter to another form... it should still be the same number of pounds or less, not more.

But would you also need a permanency spell to fully have it be permanent too?

[Jack_Simth]

In theory... if you get benefits of the pluses of the race, then you'd have to take some demerits also. Plus this makes sense because if you convert 100 pounds of one matter to another form... it should still be the same number of pounds or less, not more.

But would you also need a permanency spell to fully have it be permanent too?

3.5 doesn't have Conservation of Mass when it comes to spells (PaO (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm) is one of the more egregious offenders - "Shrew to manticore" is one of the examples). And yeah, you do get some drawbacks - lose most the benefits of your original race, you now look like the new race (like, Black Ethergaunts are VERY nutty looking - have fun walking into the palace to meet the local lord....), it goes away in an AMF and can be dispelled....

As for duration, you need only get the duration factor up to 9 or better - that's "Same Kingdom" plus at least two of Class, Size, Related, or Same or lower Intelligence. So an Elan would almost certainly be "Same Kingdom" as a Black Ethergaunt (both are Abberations). They're also both Medium sized. Intelligence is why the OP is doing this, so that one's out; "Related" and "Class" are very much up to interpretation, but if you can argue at least one of them, that's the +9 duration factor for it.

[Khedrac]

So an Elan would almost certainly be "Same Kingdom" as a Black Ethergaunt (both are Abberations).

Polymorph any object - the spell that relies on a load of factors not defined for 90% of the creates in the game - why, oh why did WotC not re-write it?

Give that "Aberration" probably ties with "Outsider" for the type with the greatest variety of creatures in it, I don't think the assumption that they are the same "kingdom" is remotely safe.
Add in the fact that ethergaunts are not native to the same planes as elan and I would say the chance of being the same domain (the level above kingdom) is pretty remote.

When I was at school there were generally said to be 5 kingdoms here on earth, looking at Wikipedia the current number seems to be 7 or 8 - and I am sure I have heard of a 15 kingdom model!

[Crake]

like, Black Ethergaunts are VERY nutty looking - have fun walking into the palace to meet the local lord....

Sure, but thats when you use the level 1 psion acf minor change shape to just make yourself look like you would normally, while maintaining the benefits of the ethergaunts high int. Best part is, if someone looks at you with true seeing, they would just see you normally anyway, so its about as silent of a buff as you can get.

Whether or not elan and ethergaunt are in the same kingdom though, well ultimately thats up to the DM to decide, i wasnt intending to suggest creature type was all the same kingdom, just that theyre both magically derived, humanoid, medium sized aberrations. Just depends where you draw the lines for kingdoms, its pretty vague, so its ultimately a dm call.

I dont really ever see pao in use at my table though, like, ever. Its just dispel bait, and nobody at my table likes the idea of being able to be stripped of your power by an errant spell.