Be careful what you polymorph into…

[RSP]

I may be alone in this, but was completely unaware of a significant aspect of the Attunement rules:

“A creature’s attunement to an item ends if the creature no longer satisfies the Prerequisites for attunement, if the item has been more than 100 feet away for at least 24 hours, if the creature dies, or if another creature attunes to the item. A creature can also voluntarily end attunement by spending another Short Rest focused on the item, unless the item is Cursed.”

Bold mine for emphasis. I was aware that being Revivified knocks out all Attunement, however the bold part escaped my notice until now.

So, if a Spellcaster is Attuned to an item that has an Attunement Prerequisite of “Spellcaster”, and they get Polymorphed into a Giant Ape, they lose the Spellcaster feature (via the replacement of stat blocks). Therefore, they no longer meet the requirement for Attunement.

So Polymorphing will break Attunement with any such items.

Never realized that before.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Hmm…this might need to be changed in OneD&D, as the proposed change to Wildshape, does not , (I believe), currently allow a Druid to keep their class abilities.

A OneD&D Druid that uses Wildshape would lose Attunement to their attuned items., (assuming the 5e Attunement wording is still in place). That seems a harsh side effect for use of a seminal class ability.

Any Magical Weapon or Armor that requires proficiency or class as an Attunement requirement would also fall prey to what RSP has enumerated.

A Paladin with a Holy Avenger that is Polymorphed into a Giant Ape as an in combat super heal, would lose Attunement to the Holy Avenger.

Shapechange and Wildshape both have verbiage that mitigate the relevant clause from the Attunement rules.

[Mastikator]

Well for sure they definitely shouldn't get to use their magic items while polymorphed.

[RSP]

Well for sure they definitely shouldn't get to use their magic items while polymorphed.

Sure, but the issue becomes if, say, a Bard PC is Attuned to a Staff of Healing. That Bard polymorphs into a Giant Ape. As soon as that happens, said character is no longer a Bard (they have the stat block of a Giant Ape), so they’re no longer Attuned to the Staff of Healing.

When Polymorph ends, they’re now unable to use the Staff of Healing, without first taking a SR to Attune to it once again.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, but the issue becomes if, say, a Bard PC is Attuned to a Staff of Healing. That Bard polymorphs into a Giant Ape. As soon as that happens, said character is no longer a Bard (they have the stat block of a Giant Ape), so they’re no longer Attuned to the Staff of Healing.

When Polymorph ends, they’re now unable to use the Staff of Healing, without first taking a SR to Attune to it once again.

Read the whole spell description. Like this part.

The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment. I'll get the popcorn now ...
your premise is wrong

[Keravath]

I would agree with Korvin. While the creature is polymorphed, the items don't exist, they have been incorporated into the new form. The items and their attunement is no longer relevant.

When the creature returns to its normal form, the items return and all attunement requirements are met so personally, I would rule that nothing happens to the attunement of magic items while a creature is polymorphed.

On the other hand, if a character dropped an attuned item on the ground and the item continued to exist while the attuned creature was polymorphed into something incapable of continuing the attunement then I'd rule the attunement would end.

[RSP]

Read the whole spell description. Like this part.
I'll get the popcorn now ...
your premise is wrong

Not sure this is correct. It’s an interesting thought, but I’d say the item still exists.

Moreover, your premise seems to be that Attunement and the item cease to exist, which would still, then require Attuning again once the item “exists again”.

Your thought also runs into a few issues, starting with, the item doesn’t have to meld with the character. For instance, if they aren’t holding the staff when they Polymorph. Does Attunement to any item (not just ones with prerequisites) not melded then end anyway?

What if they’re holding someone else’s attuned item? Does it melding with the polymorph break Attunement, seeing as it ceases to exist?

What about Polymorphing, then Attuning to an item while changed? Could you have 3 Attunements, polymorph and Attune more?

Druids can have their items meld as well with Wild Shape. Does that mean every time a Druid WS they either lose Attunement or need to drop their items?

Also, you don’t cease being the same creature: you just change forms: “This spell transforms a creature that you can see within range into a new form.” So even if the item “ceases to exist”, the creature doesn’t (it’s just in a new form).

And the Attunement rule cares about the creature maintaining its prerequisites, which clearly change.

[JonBeowulf]

I don't really wanna push this any further toward a RAW v. RAI debate, but I refuse really don't want to believe the designers meant for Polymorph or Shapechange to remove attunement to items.

And if they did, I'm gonna ignore it. It punishes the characters for simply having abilities.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would agree with Korvin. While the creature is polymorphed, the items don't exist, they have been incorporated into the new form. The items and their attunement is no longer relevant. Yes.

When the creature returns to its normal form, the items return and all attunement requirements are met so personally, I would rule that nothing happens to the attunement of magic items while a creature is polymorphed. Yes, the temporary condition is over.

On the other hand, if a character dropped an attuned item on the ground and the item continued to exist while the attuned creature was polymorphed into something incapable of continuing the attunement then I'd rule the attunement would end. I agree with that. And I am glad you mentioned that. :smallsmile: It may be useful in a session coming soon.

[RSP]

I don't really wanna push this any further toward a RAW v. RAI debate, but I refuse to believe the designers meant for Polymorph or Shapechange to remove attunement to items.

And if they did, I'm gonna ignore it. It punishes the characters for simply having abilities.

Originally I agreed this couldn’t be the intent, but the example they give for prerequisites is Spellcasting. The only other prerequisite I see come up are class ones.

How can anyone lose those prerequisites other than something like Polymorph?

I’ll also add, whoever wrote these rules may not have had the same intent as others.

I’d not play them that way anyway, but it’s an interesting rule.

[TIPOT]

Originally I agreed this couldn’t be the intent, but the example they give for prerequisites is Spellcasting. The only other prerequisite I see come up are class ones.

How can anyone lose those prerequisites other than something like Polymorph?

I’ll also add, whoever wrote these rules may not have had the same intent as others.

I’d not play them that way anyway, but it’s an interesting rule.

Feeblemind would disable spellcasting (and that explicitly says you cannot activate magic items)

[Thunderous Mojo]

your premise is wrong

I think this is the most reasonable way to run the game. The creature and it’s items transform and meld simultaneously, preserving attunement.

Otherwise, it is just a hassle, that doesn’t add too much spice to the game.

Good Call Korvin!

[RSP]

Feeblemind would disable spellcasting (and that explicitly says you cannot activate magic items)

Feeblemind makes it so the target cannot cast spells, so, yes, I’d imagine that would remove the prerequisite and, therefore, the Attunement, if the prerequisite is “the ability to cast spells”.


I think this is the most reasonable way to run the game. The creature and its items transform and meld simultaneously, preserving attunement.

Otherwise, it is just a hassle, that doesn’t add too much spice to the game.

Good Call Korvin!

By all means, ignore the rule, but that doesn’t make the reading of it “wrong”.

Attunement happens to creatures. Polymorph doesn’t change the creature, just the form.

So if a creature is attuned to items and gets polymorphed, they are still attuned in their new form:

Polymorph:
“This spell transforms a creature that you can see within range into a new form.”

New form, not a new creature.

Attunement:
“Some magic items require a creature to form a bond with them before their Magical Properties can be used. This bond is called attunement…

…A creature’s attunement to an item ends if the creature no longer satisfies the Prerequisites for attunement, if the item has been more than 100 feet away for at least 24 hours, if the creature dies, or if another creature attunes to the item. A creature can also voluntarily end attunement by spending another Short Rest focused on the item, unless the item is Cursed.”

So, melding the items during Polymorph is not, in and of itself, a manner in which Attunement ends (unless a prerequisite is gone, such as Spellcssting), as we see here.

So Korvin isn’t correct: the creature in a new form is still the creature that is attuned: they just cannot benefit from any magic items that are melded in their form.

Note, however, that Cursed items the Polymorpher is Attuned to would still function even when melded, assuming the Curse doesn’t provide a benefit.

[Thunderous Mojo]

By all means, ignore the rule, but that doesn’t make the reading of it “wrong”.

*Note, deleted prior post*

What strikes me as problematic, is you seem to be applying causality to only one party, (the PC), and not to the gear.

The Polymorph spell indicates that the PC statblock and the statblocks of their melded gear become the beast statblock.

If a Wizard that is wearing a Robe of the Archmagi is transformed into a sheep by the Polymorph, both the Wizard’s and Robe’s statblock have been suppressed and replaced by the sheep’s statblock.

If you wish to read this line, literally, you may:
The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.

It leads to some odd places. Say for example, that Sir Wizbang, the Eldritch Knight gives his Weapon Bonded sword to his squire Oscar to hold. Oscar is then Polymorphed into a sheep.

If items still actively persist, while melded into sheep form, then Sir Wizbang can use Weapon Bond to call his sword. If items still persist, mechanically, while melded into a beast due to Polymorph, one could use Locate Object or Scry on the melded gear.

These type of results can only happen by applying the consequences of being Polymorphed to the PC and not to the melded equipment.

Violating causality, strikes me as a pretty good indication, that perhaps a point of view, might need further consideration.

[Chronos]

If items still actively persist, while melded into sheep form, then Sir Wizbang can use Weapon Bond to call his sword. If items still persist, mechanically, while melded into a beast due to Polymorph, one could use Locate Object or Scry on the melded gear.
What's weird about either of those? Of course you can still do those things, because the items still exist. It'd lead to some major weirdness if they stopped existing. "Melded into a form" is not at all the same thing as "cease to exist".

[Segev]

If changing into a cat via polymorph or any other effect was intended to break attunement to items based on losing prerequisites, then the RAW would explicitly point it out in those features, not leave it to be implied by something that took a decade or so for anybody to read into the rules. Given the emphasis on "rulings, not rules," in 5e, I believe it to be an incorrect effort to generalize the loss of features as applying in this fashion.

I am firmly convinced that the "if you lose the prerequisite to attunement, the attunement breaks" ruling was to prevent shenanigans with finding a way to temporarily gain features (such as Spellcasting), attune the item, and then lose the feature but keep the attunement. It strikes me as more a form of future-proofing than as a stealth weakness of shapeshifting.

[tokek]

If changing into a cat via polymorph or any other effect was intended to break attunement to items based on losing prerequisites, then the RAW would explicitly point it out in those features, not leave it to be implied by something that took a decade or so for anybody to read into the rules. Given the emphasis on "rulings, not rules," in 5e, I believe it to be an incorrect effort to generalize the loss of features as applying in this fashion.

I am firmly convinced that the "if you lose the prerequisite to attunement, the attunement breaks" ruling was to prevent shenanigans with finding a way to temporarily gain features (such as Spellcasting), attune the item, and then lose the feature but keep the attunement. It strikes me as more a form of future-proofing than as a stealth weakness of shapeshifting.

I heartily agree with this. I think that part of the rule was to prevent shenanigans like being True Polymorphed into a spellcaster just long enough to attune the item.

I do think that if a DM wanted a way to rein in polymorph type spells and declared a ruling that they might cause you to lose attunement in session zero its fair game. The rule interaction can be read that way and polymorph spell is powerful enough that a restriction on it would limit but not invalidate the spell. It would still do nothing to Shapechange spell, that spell is almost all gain and no loss other than creature type which is very rarely a requirement for attunement.

[RSP]

If changing into a cat via polymorph or any other effect was intended to break attunement to items based on losing prerequisites, then the RAW would explicitly point it out in those features, not leave it to be implied by something that took a decade or so for anybody to read into the rules. Given the emphasis on "rulings, not rules," in 5e, I believe it to be an incorrect effort to generalize the loss of features as applying in this fashion.

I am firmly convinced that the "if you lose the prerequisite to attunement, the attunement breaks" ruling was to prevent shenanigans with finding a way to temporarily gain features (such as Spellcasting), attune the item, and then lose the feature but keep the attunement. It strikes me as more a form of future-proofing than as a stealth weakness of shapeshifting.

Interesting conclusion. I agree that playing with the rule is probably more onerous than ignoring it, but I don’t agree with the “future proofing logic: what abilities have come out that would allow abuse of this? If in the decade the rules have been out, no one’s thought of any that would have required this, it seems poor evidence on which to base the assumption.

It may be more an artifact from play testing.


I heartily agree with this. I think that part of the rule was to prevent shenanigans like being True Polymorphed into a spellcaster just long enough to attune the item

I doubt this is what the devs were worrying about, given how many holes they missed. If you’re getting True Polymorph castings in game, you’re breaking plenty of other things than “the Fighter can use a magic item that the other players could have used anyway…”



If items still actively persist, while melded into sheep form, then Sir Wizbang can use Weapon Bond to call his sword. If items still persist, mechanically, while melded into a beast due to Polymorph, one could use Locate Object or Scry on the melded gear.

Why wouldn’t they still exist? Do you escape cursed items by polymorphing? The rules say no.

If polymorphing meant the items no longer exist, then the rules could easily have said that rather then saying “The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”

Wouldn’t it have been way easier just to say “the items don’t exist while melded”?

[Pooky the Imp]

If changing into a cat via polymorph or any other effect was intended to break attunement to items based on losing prerequisites, then the RAW would explicitly point it out in those features, not leave it to be implied by something that took a decade or so for anybody to read into the rules. Given the emphasis on "rulings, not rules," in 5e, I believe it to be an incorrect effort to generalize the loss of features as applying in this fashion.

I am firmly convinced that the "if you lose the prerequisite to attunement, the attunement breaks" ruling was to prevent shenanigans with finding a way to temporarily gain features (such as Spellcasting), attune the item, and then lose the feature but keep the attunement. It strikes me as more a form of future-proofing than as a stealth weakness of shapeshifting.

That may have been the intent, but RAW does not distinguish between features that are temporarily gained vs. features that are temporarily lost.

If you temporarily gain access to a class feature that allows you to attune a specific item, then the instant you lose that class feature you also lose the attunement.

However, if you accept this scenario, then there is absolutely nothing that stops it working in reverse. If you normally have a class feature that allows you to attune to a specific item, then the instant you lose it (e.g. by turning into a form that lacks that class feature) you also lose the attunement.

I'm doubtful that this was the intent, but it does seem to be the RAW.


Aside: I feel stuff like this could be resolved more easily if shapechange effects weren't so vague in their wording. It seems laughable to futureproof attunement when existing interactions are a small step shy of "you turn into a bear and stuff". :smalltongue:

[Segev]

Note that I am not disputing that the RAW can be read as the OP suggests. I am saying that assuming it to be intended is unwise, and that "rulings, not rules" says not to worry about this being "technically true in the RAW" when it is unlikely to be how anybody ran it prior to this 'discovery.'

[stoutstien]

Note that I am not disputing that the RAW can be read as the OP suggests. I am saying that assuming it to be intended is unwise, and that "rulings, not rules" says not to worry about this being "technically true in the RAW" when it is unlikely to be how anybody ran it prior to this 'discovery.'

I don't think any part of the game hold up if one reads it in an overly narrow and/or literal sense.

[RSP]

Note that I am not disputing that the RAW can be read as the OP suggests. I am saying that assuming it to be intended is unwise, and that "rulings, not rules" says not to worry about this being "technically true in the RAW" when it is unlikely to be how anybody ran it prior to this 'discovery.'

I’m not sure there’s a way to read the RAW differently, but a table should always play with whatever rules create the most fun for that specific table.

However, though the devs may not have thought of this particular interaction, I think it’s plenty fair to assume their intent was both to have the prerequisite removal rule of Attunement act as described, and have Polymorph act as described.

It’s like how originally the official word on Trance wasn’t to allow a LR in 4 hours, but upon reflecting on the rules which created that situation, they went with they intended those separate rules to act in such a way that it allowed the 4 hour LR Trance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note that I am not disputing that the RAW can be read as the OP suggests. I am saying that assuming it to be intended is unwise, and that "rulings, not rules" says not to worry about this being "technically true in the RAW" when it is unlikely to be how anybody ran it prior to this 'discovery.'


I don't think any part of the game hold up if one reads it in an overly narrow and/or literal sense.

Yeah.. Which is why I basically ignore the whole RAW says... argument. The strict RAW is usually the least useful interpretation of the text. And yes, taking things literally is an interpretation, and in English it's usually the wrong one. And doing so at the clause or even sentence level is even worse due to ignoring context.

[Segev]

I’m not sure there’s a way to read the RAW differently, but a table should always play with whatever rules create the most fun for that specific table.

However, though the devs may not have thought of this particular interaction, I think it’s plenty fair to assume their intent was both to have the prerequisite removal rule of Attunement act as described, and have Polymorph act as described.

It’s like how originally the official word on Trance wasn’t to allow a LR in 4 hours, but upon reflecting on the rules which created that situation, they went with they intended those separate rules to act in such a way that it allowed the 4 hour LR Trance.I don't think it is good for the game in general for polymorh to cancel attunements. It is trying, at best, to violate Grod's Law.

The thing about Trance is that we know the original intent, and we know the designers who have come out and said, "You know what, the 4 hour long rest thing for elves is fine," based that on actual thought about the thing, and what the balance implications are. It also is a straightforward reading of the RAW, not something terribly obscure; there's plenty one can assume about how attunement works and about how polymorph works without stopping to say, "wait, why would these things be like this if the interaction wasn't intended?" The trance thing... what good is 4 hours vs. 6 hours of "inactive time" if you need 8 hours of rest anyway to count the long rest as done? (Remember, the 8 hour long rest isn't assuming the non-elves are sleeping the whole time; there's 1-2 hours of non-sleep in there.)


Yeah.. Which is why I basically ignore the whole RAW says... argument. The strict RAW is usually the least useful interpretation of the text. And yes, taking things literally is an interpretation, and in English it's usually the wrong one. And doing so at the clause or even sentence level is even worse due to ignoring context.
Yeah. Though, interestingly, English is one of the SAFER languages to take literally, because it is one of the more precise ones. Many others have much more metaphor and figurative usage and rely more heavily on implication because they are not as precise but often are much more poetic. But even so, we use a lot of idioms and other figures of speech. "Go break a leg" is almost certainly not meant literally when spoken from a friend to a performer about to go on stage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I
Yeah. Though, interestingly, English is one of the SAFER languages to take literally, because it is one of the more precise ones. Many others have much more metaphor and figurative usage and rely more heavily on implication because they are not as precise but often are much more poetic. But even so, we use a lot of idioms and other figures of speech. "Go break a leg" is almost certainly not meant literally when spoken from a friend to a performer about to go on stage.

The issue for me isn't as much metaphor and idiom as it is polysemy. Words mean different things depending on context. So you can't take paragraphs apart and look at individual words very well--meaning only exists in context. And picking the "literal" meaning of each word generally ends up in weird territory. And forum RAW depends heavily on picking clauses and insisting that they have independent meaning.

We must never forget it is a game that we're expounding (to paraphrase justice Marshall).

[Keravath]

Why wouldn’t they still exist? Do you escape cursed items by polymorphing? The rules say no.


If polymorphing broke attunement then a character would indeed escape cursed items by polymorphing since they would no longer be attuned to them.

If the rules say that you can't escape cursed items by polymorphing then it also means that polymorphing does not break attunement to these items ... and if it doesn't break attunement to these items why would it break attunement to any items?

[Samayu]

Feeblemind makes it so the target cannot cast spells, so, yes, I’d imagine that would remove the prerequisite and, therefore, the Attunement, if the prerequisite is “the ability to cast spells”.

Spellcasting for these purposes means a class feature that allows it. A temporary loss of the ability to cast a spells doesn't count for breaking attunement. So Feeblemind won't do it, nor will unconsciousness.

I think almost all of us agree that the rules regarding Polymorph could be interpreted either way, and most of us agree that we wouldn't play it this way. I'm left with the question, what kind of a-hole GM would rule that it breaks attunement? And the follow-up question, why even bring this up?

I mean, apart from the whole fun-killing argument, why would you rule against keeping attunement? Realism? It creates a greater challenge for the players, and gives them more pleasure in having to negotiate more pieces of the puzzle? Things are already too easy for them?

[RSP]

Spellcasting for these purposes means a class feature that allows it. A temporary loss of the ability to cast a spells doesn't count for breaking attunement. So Feeblemind won't do it, nor will unconsciousness.

Depends on the Prerequisite: the rule specifically point out that being able to cast a spell via racial abilities counts as the Spellcasting requirement: “If the prerequisite is to be a Spellcaster, a creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its Traits or Features, not using a magic item or the like.” So it doesn’t have to be a clas feature.

And if changing into a form that doesn’t have those traits isn’t a way to lose those features, what would be? RAW, how else can you lose a class you’ve got a level in, or lose a racial trait without already having died?

I’m sure I could be missing something, but Polymorph is the only way I can think of achieving that.

[Thunderous Mojo]

What's weird about either of those? Of course you can still do those things, because the items still exist. It'd lead to some major weirdness if they stopped existing. "Melded into a form" is not at all the same thing as "cease to exist".

In a physical sense, the items do precisely cease to exsist.
The Polymorph’ed creature is prohibited from using their melded items, as a matter of text.

Other creatures are prohibited from using melded items, because said melded items no longer have a usable form.

If Bob is transformed into a rat, Bob’s friend Simon isn’t grabbing a swig of water from Bob’s melded waterskin, are they?

An item that has been melded into a creature, posses a complicated existence. A melded item is more akin to a Platonic Ideal than an actual object. The idea of the melded object exists, but the actual item itself has been subsumed into the melded form.

The exact consequences of this are left to the players to decide. The 5e system provides little to no details on how to adjudicate this.

Would an Eldritch Knight that calls their Bonded Blade that has been meld into another creature cause that creature damage?

That is going to be a judgment for the game table.

Scrying on a polymorph’ed creature also will lead to table judgments.
Say for example you have a bit of dried blood from a Hobgoblin Warlord.
The Hobgoblin Warlord is currently transformed into a Cat via the Polymorph spell.

Does the dried blood from the Hobgoblin help with a Scry? Would the hobgoblin blood lead to the cat?

These are philosophical questions, that the system does not answer.

[RSP]

In a physical sense, the items do precisely cease to exsist.
The Polymorph’ed creature is prohibited from using their melded items, as a matter of text.

Other creatures are prohibited from using melded items, because said melded items no longer have a usable form.

If Bob is transformed into a rat, Bob’s friend Simon isn’t grabbing a swig of water from Bob’s melded waterskin, are they?

An item that has been melded into a creature, posses a complicated existence. A melded item is more akin to a Platonic Ideal than an actual object. The idea of the melded object exists, but the actual item itself has been subsumed into the melded form.

The exact consequences of this are left to the players to decide. The 5e system provides little to no details on how to adjudicate this.

Would an Eldritch Knight that calls their Bonded Blade that has been meld into another creature cause that creature damage?

That is going to be a judgment for the game table.

Scrying on a polymorph’ed creature also will lead to table judgments.
Say for example you have a bit of dried blood from a Hobgoblin Warlord.
The Hobgoblin Warlord is currently transformed into a Cat via the Polymorph spell.

Does the dried blood from the Hobgoblin help with a Scry? Would the hobgoblin blood lead to the cat?

These are philosophical questions, that the system does not answer.

RAW the items still exist, the transformed creature just can’t use them or benefit from them and they’re currently melded. Saying the items don’t exist is similar to saying the creature no longer exists, which is false: it still very much exists, even though it’s stat block has changed.

Spells and effects don’t usually care about the form the creature takes. If you have blood from a creature, then that blood makes it easier for you to Scry them.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Good thing, I’m not saying the items do not fundamentally exist.

The items, practically speaking, do not exist in their normal, physical form, and said items will be unusable since, melded items have essentially been reduced down to atoms that partially comprise the form produced by Polymorph.

As for the question of Identity…no the game actually does not specify that blood collected in one form would work if the creature was transformed into another.

That is up to the metaphysics of a particular game world.

If someone needs a ‘RAW’ argument…a PC’s name could be considered part of their statblock…which has been completely subsumed by the Beast’s Statblock.

Conan doesn’t necessarily have to become become Conan the Cat, when Polymorph’ed. Conan is gone. All that is left is Cat.

The game still works fine with a metaphysical construction, like this.

[RSP]

As for the question of Identity…no the game actually does not specify that blood collected in one form would work if the creature was transformed into another.

That is up to the metaphysics of a particular game world.

If someone needs a ‘RAW’ argument…a PC’s name could be considered part of their statblock…which has been completely subsumed by the Beast’s Statblock.

Conan doesn’t necessarily have to become become Conan the Cat, when Polymorph’ed. Conan is gone. All that is left is Cat.

The game still works fine with a metaphysical construction, like this.

You seem to be missing the part where the rules specify “creature”.

Scrying:
“You can see and hear a particular creature you choose that is on the same plane of existence as you.“

The rules regarding blood don’t change this: “Body part, lock of hair, bit of nail, or the like”

Polymorph:
“This spell transforms a creature that you can see within range into a new form.

So when you Scry, you target a creature. Scrying doesn’t care what form that creature is in, as it’s still the same creature. Likewise, blood from the creature is still blood from the creature, regardless of what form the creature was in when the blood was taken.

[JackPhoenix]

Depends on the Prerequisite: the rule specifically point out that being able to cast a spell via racial abilities counts as the Spellcasting requirement: “If the prerequisite is to be a Spellcaster, a creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its Traits or Features, not using a magic item or the like.” So it doesn’t have to be a clas feature.

And if changing into a form that doesn’t have those traits isn’t a way to lose those features, what would be? RAW, how else can you lose a class you’ve got a level in, or lose a racial trait without already having died?

I’m sure I could be missing something, but Polymorph is the only way I can think of achieving that.

There's no limitation on what the requirements for attunements can be. Even in the DMG, there are items that require certain alignment, and there are ways to change alignment permanently. Ravnica, while released much later, has items that require a membership in certain guild to attune. While no such item exist, you can easily have an item that requires attunement by a creature wearing certain article of clothing, being the current leader of a royal guard or similar transitory requirements.

[Sigreid]

Even if we take the premise as stated, we'd need to look at the item. Is the requirement able to cast spells, or x type spell caster? I think a fighter is still a fighter when polymorphed, and a wizard is still a wizard; in both cases they just traded these abilities for those for a short time.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So when you Scry, you target a creature. Scrying doesn’t care what form that creature is in, as it’s still the same creature. Likewise, blood from the creature is still blood from the creature, regardless of what form the creature was in when the blood was taken.

The system itself does not mandate a continuous chain of Identity.
There is no official 5e Ship of Theseus Identity rule in 5e.

There is room here, for a gaming group to explore, more options than simply “The Cat is Conan”.

[RSP]

The system itself does not mandate a continuous chain of Identity.
There is no official 5e Ship of Theseus Identity rule in 5e.

There is room here, for a gaming group to explore, more options than simply “The Cat is Conan”.

If the game says the creature is the same, regardless of human form or cat form, then the creature is the same.

You can decide you don’t like that, and change it at your table. But the system, the RAW, 5e, all say the creature stays the same even when changing forms.

The creature doesn’t cease to exist when Polymorphed: it stays the same creature even if it changes forms.

[Chronos]

Quoth Keravath:

If polymorphing broke attunement then a character would indeed escape cursed items by polymorphing since they would no longer be attuned to them.

If the rules say that you can't escape cursed items by polymorphing then it also means that polymorphing does not break attunement to these items ... and if it doesn't break attunement to these items why would it break attunement to any items?
That doesn't follow. There are a lot of ways to break attunement for a normal, non-cursed item: You can be physically separated from it over a sufficient distance and time, someone else can attune to it, you can just plain choose to de-attune. But none of those work for cursed items. So it's quite plausible that, likewise, loss of an attunement prerequisite (however that happens) would de-attune a normal item but not a cursed item.

[Bundin]

TL;DR: Equipment is part of game statistics, so it doesn't exist as long as the spell is active. It resumes existing after the spell ends. Nothing is changed about the game statistics of the target after the spell ends (bar 1 specifically mentioned example), attunement is not broken.

Conan the Barbarian is polymorphed into a brown bear.

True Polymorph states " The target’s game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the new form. It retains its alignment and personality."

You're still you, but in a different form and shape, with different statistics. Conan the Barbarian is now Conan the Bear.

PHB, chapter 1 states: "Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination".
MM in the introduction also lists Equipment under 'Statistics'.
It's safe to conclude that equipment is part of 'game statistics'. This means that the Equipment statistic gets replaced with that of the new form.

When polymorph is successfully cast, Conan ceases to be a barbarian (game statistic), and becomes a bear. Everything on his character sheet except alignment/personality, is replaced by the bear's stat block. Conan is still Conan though, after all, he retains alignment and personality. The bear that now exists is not just any bear, it's Conan the Bear. There is no barbarian, there is no barbarian's equipment. There is a bear with personality.

So, Conan the Barbarian's equipment gets replaced by the (empty) list of equipment in the bear's stat block. Conan the Barbarian's inventory ceases to be, and is replaced by nothing. Why mention "equipment melds into the new form" then, when it's already clear that the equipment no longer exists? To make completely clear that there's nothing left behind: there's not a bear + backpack + magical 2h axe + clothing, just a bear. That bear can't count on a +hit/damage from equipment, and items can't be taken by anyone else.

When the spell ends, the effect ends: game statistics are no longer replaced by those of the new form. The original statistics are valid again, so the equipment on the character sheet, including that magical 2h axe suddenly re-appear in the possession of Conan the (once again) Barbarian.

In short: for a time, there was no Conan the Barbarian and there was no magical axe. Would that break attunement? I'd vote no. The item ceased to be, so there was nothing to break attunement with. On ending the spell effect, both the barbarian and the axe reappeared, prerequisites are met, the attunement isn't affected, even though time has passed.

And as a reinforcement: it's explicitly stated that hit points aren't affected either (unless damage spills over). Barbarian on 1 hp changes into a full hp bear, and afterwards is back to 1 hp. Nothing changes about Conan the Barbarian's statistics after being polymorphed (unless damage spills over, but that's explicitly mentioned), so why would attunement?

[RSP]

It's safe to conclude that equipment is part of 'game statistics'. This means that the Equipment statistic gets replaced with that of the new form.

Equipment is equipment. If a human drops their long sword, they stop doing 1d8+Str damage on their attacks. If they pick up a spear, they do 1d6+Str damage.

If human Conan drops his sword and is TP’d into a Marilith, Marilith Conan can pick up the sword.

If you were correct that equipment is stats and stops existing when the owner Polymorphs, that wouldn’t be possible.

The spell does what it says it does, and it doesn’t say it removes equipment from existence.

Do you believe a character with three Attunement can TP into a new form and then Attune three new items?

The rules say no, because Attunement is with the character, not the form. So regardless of form, the character remains Attuned.

If you were correct, the character would now be attuned to items that no longer exist, which doesn’t make any sense.

Further, as previously stated, the spell doesn’t say the items no longer exist: it says the character can not use them or benefit from them. That’s not the same thing as them not existing (again, there’s no reason to state the character can’t use the items or benefit from them, if they don’t exist anymore).

[Samayu]

Further, as previously stated, the spell doesn’t say the items no longer exist: it says the character can not use them or benefit from them. That’s not the same thing as them not existing (again, there’s no reason to state the character can’t use the items or benefit from them, if they don’t exist anymore).

The reason they can't be used is because they've melded into the new form. Much like Conan's kidneys. Conan can't take advantage of his kidneys because they no longer exist. They've been melded. The statement of the items not being able to be used, is in case somebody tries to claim they're merely inside the new body. "That's what melded means, right? I can just cut it out of him!"

Why is it so important to you that the game be ruled this way? What problem does it solve? How does it make the game better?

[Bundin]

Equipment is equipment. If a human drops their long sword, they stop doing 1d8+Str damage on their attacks. If they pick up a spear, they do 1d6+Str damage.

If human Conan drops his sword and is TP’d into a Marilith, Marilith Conan can pick up the sword.

If you were correct that equipment is stats and stops existing when the owner Polymorphs, that wouldn’t be possible.
If the sword is dropped pre-polymorph, it isn't on the Barbarian's character sheet when the spell takes effect. We usually don't bother removing dropped items from sheets, but here it matters. When the spell takes effect, the sword remains, as the game statistics are replaced but the sword isn't part of it.

Conan the Marilith is the same character, attunement happens on a per-character basis, so Conan the Marilith is still attuned to it.


The spell does what it says it does, and it doesn’t say it removes equipment from existence.
But it does, any item on the sheet at the moment of polymorphing, ceases to be as it is no longer part of an active game statistic.


Do you believe a character with three Attunement can TP into a new form and then Attune three new items?

The rules say no, because Attunement is with the character, not the form. So regardless of form, the character remains Attuned.

If you were correct, the character would now be attuned to items that no longer exist, which doesn’t make any sense.
I would rule that, when the polymorph ends, the game statistics revert to the status quo ante: any pre-spell attunements are restored unless some condition prevents it, any during-spell attunements are lost.

To me, this is the essence of polymorph: Game statistics are replaced by those of the new form when the spell takes effect, and they are restored exactly as they were when the spell ends. The only exceptions being the damage condition that is stated in the spell description, and changes to the world during the spell that supercede the restored game statistics:
Barbarian owns a mansion, it gets burned down during the polymorph, ending the spell does not restore the mansion. Same goes with attuned items that weren't merged into the new form:
if the dropped sword from your example, which did not get merged, is picked up by someone else and they attune to it, the attunement won't be restored. It is broken as per the usual attunement rules.

So yeah, Conan the Marilith can attune to new items, as the Barbarian attunements to merged items cease to be. But when the spell ends, those attunements are lost. The Marilith game statistics are replaced by the Barbarian statistics.


Further, as previously stated, the spell doesn’t say the items no longer exist: it says the character can not use them or benefit from them. That’s not the same thing as them not existing (again, there’s no reason to state the character can’t use the items or benefit from them, if they don’t exist anymore).
I guess we'll continue to interpret this differently, which is fine by me.

[Jerrykhor]

I dont think a druid stops being a Spellcaster when he/she is wildshaped, otherwise the Lv18 feature Beast Spells won't work. Beast spells technically didn't give you back the spellcasting feature (because you never lost it in the first place). You are just enabled to cast certain spells.

[JackPhoenix]

I dont think a druid stops being a Spellcaster when he/she is wildshaped, otherwise the Lv18 feature Beast Spells won't work. Beast spells technically didn't give you back the spellcasting feature (because you never lost it in the first place). You are just enabled to cast certain spells.

Wild Shape =/= Polymorph. Different features, different rules.

[RSP]

The reason they can't be used is because they've melded into the new form. Much like Conan's kidneys. Conan can't take advantage of his kidneys because they no longer exist. They've been melded. The statement of the items not being able to be used, is in case somebody tries to claim they're merely inside the new body. "That's what melded means, right? I can just cut it out of him!"

Why is it so important to you that the game be ruled this way? What problem does it solve? How does it make the game better?

The reason they can’t be used is because the rule says they can’t be used. Same reason the character can’t benefit from them.

As for the second part: I’ve made my stance on this very clear. If you just want to assume things about me, I can’t do anything to help you with that: it’s on you.



So yeah, Conan the Marilith can attune to new items, as the Barbarian attunements to merged items cease to be. But when the spell ends, those attunements are lost. The Marilith game statistics are replaced by the Barbarian statistics.

I guess we'll continue to interpret this differently, which is fine by me.

So if the character’s castle is written on their character sheet, it vanishes when the character is polymorphed??? Interesting way to rule, but not the RAW.

Characters attune, not forms. That’s what the RAW says. Feel free to rule anyway you’d like, but it’s not what the rules say.


I dont think a druid stops being a Spellcaster when he/she is wildshaped, otherwise the Lv18 feature Beast Spells won't work. Beast spells technically didn't give you back the spellcasting feature (because you never lost it in the first place). You are just enabled to cast certain spells.

Following on Jack’s post: WS doesn’t remove the Druid’s class features, so the Druid continues having the Spellcaster feature, even while WS’d.

[Thunderous Mojo]

So if the character’s castle is written on their character sheet, it vanishes when the character is polymorphed??? Interesting way to rule, but not the RAW..

This made me chuckle…(but sadly largely from disdain).
[The quoted comment above, strikes me as a misrepresentation of Bundin’s views, and a fairly obvious attempt to make a reductio ad absurdum argument].

Thanks for the topic, RSP!

I don’t believe, I will find a further examination of Identity to be fruitful, but appreciate the effort to start the thread.

Great posts, Bundin, BTW.

[RSP]

[The quoted comment above, strikes me as a misrepresentation of Bundin’s views, and a fairly obvious attempt to make a reductio ad absurdum argument].


The comment is due to the fact that things persist in the game world, regardless of what’s currently in the control of a character. A character picking up a sword doesn’t suddenly make the sword’s existence in the game world dependent on that character.

The character itself actually persists regardless of stat block. A PC continuing to Concentrate on their own Polymorph spell, even while Polymorphed, is another example of this.

Saying something ceases to exist because of Polymorph isn’t supported by the rules.

Again, a DM should rule in a way that creates the most fun for their table, and if that’s stuff stops existing, go for it.

But it’s not what the rules say.

[MoiMagnus]

But it’s not what the rules say.

Maybe, but a more interesting question, is should the devs actually care about RAW being broken?

When the intention is clear, is it really necessary to add legalese after legalese that will confuse new players and GMs with unnecessary details just to ensure that the rare RAW-followers don't burn their game with absurd interpretation of the rules?

Sure, when the intention is not clear and misleading, it's an issue, but here the shapeshifting clearly assume that the "meld into" wording replaces the usual rules for handling equipments with GM fiat (leaving to the GM the choice of what happen to sentient gears and other rare corner cases).

Sometimes, I feel like a lot of "RAW-proofing" of the rules actually make them less pleasant to read, and the designers would make a better product by completely giving up on peoples trying to follow RAW and rather focus on clearly communicating their intention and the end-result they aim for. That would give the tools for GM to handle weird interactions by determining what the rules should have been to reach the intended result rather than just combining pieces of rules and observe what absurd result one gets.

[RSP]

Maybe, but a more interesting question, is should the devs actually care about RAW being broken?

When the intention is clear, is it really necessary to add legalese after legalese that will confuse new players and GMs with unnecessary details just to ensure that the rare RAW-followers don't burn their game with absurd interpretation of the rules?

I’m not sure there’s a RAI, in the sense it’s usually used on these boards: it may well have been the intent of the writer, but JC, or others didn’t realize the implications (see Trance for an example of the devs not realizing how the RAW can interact in unexpected ways. I’d propose Pact Weapon is another rule set written one way, with other writers not realizing what the rules actually meant.)

I hadn’t realized this particular rule existed. The thread was my way of pointing out its existence. I’m fine with any discussion that ensues (though I try to correct bad arguments that argue the rules don’t say what they say).

As I see it, there’s at least a couple positives that may come out of realizing this rule:

1. Devs may want to change the wording in the 2024 rules (based off the UA, I believe they did this with Spiritual Weapon: in 5e the spell creates a “weapon”, which means it can be used following the rules of weapons - like being picked up and used as any mundane long sword. In the new rules, they changed the wording so it isn’t an actual weapon).

2. It could create different, yet fun ways to play. Just because people hadn’t realized this interaction, doesn’t mean playing as such is wrong or unfun (turning an attuned bad guy into something else to make their magic staff a non-threat could be a viable strategy, for instance).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Maybe, but a more interesting question, is should the devs actually care about RAW being broken?

When the intention is clear, is it really necessary to add legalese after legalese that will confuse new players and GMs with unnecessary details just to ensure that the rare RAW-followers don't burn their game with absurd interpretation of the rules?

Sure, when the intention is not clear and misleading, it's an issue, but here the shapeshifting clearly assume that the "meld into" wording replaces the usual rules for handling equipments with GM fiat (leaving to the GM the choice of what happen to sentient gears and other rare corner cases).

Sometimes, I feel like a lot of "RAW-proofing" of the rules actually make them less pleasant to read, and the designers would make a better product by completely giving up on peoples trying to follow RAW and rather focus on clearly communicating their intention and the end-result they aim for. That would give the tools for GM to handle weird interactions by determining what the rules should have been to reach the intended result rather than just combining pieces of rules and observe what absurd result one gets.

Yeah. Personally, RAW is the least important thing for me at the table. Table fun is #1, consistency with the rest of the ruleset is #2 (ie not setting bad precedent), setting consistency is #3, and everything else is below that.

The text of the rules is just a starting point for further discussion. And the stilted, hyper-artificial reading known on forums as "RAW" is not even on the table, as it relies on ignoring context (including the critical context that it's a game whose rules we're discussing) and ignoring the basic rules of English parsing a lot of the time.

[JLandan]

I would not have polymorph end attunement due to being unable to cast spells. My reasoning:

1) The description of polymorph says "can't cast spells" not "no longer has the Spellcasting class feature".

2) There are many circumstances under which a spellcaster cannot cast spells, i.e. tied and gagged, out of spell slots, unconscious, asleep, wearing armor one is not proficient with, had its tongue and hands cut off, etc. None of which break attunement. (Or is the argument that they do...?)

3) There is nothing I know of that alters Class Features. Once a PC has a level of a class, it has it for life, and possibly after life.

4) If the attunement prerequisite is "Spellcasting", which is a Class Feature, attunement cannot be lost due to "can't cast spells", which is a circumstance, probably temporary, and not a Class Feature.

[RSP]

1) The description of polymorph says "can't cast spells" not "no longer has the Spellcasting class feature".

It’s the replacing of the character’s abilities/stats with those of the new form. The character no longer has the Spellcasting class feature because they lose all racial and class features when they’re replaced by the stat block of the new form.

“The target's game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast.”

[JLandan]

It’s the replacing of the character’s abilities/stats with those of the new form. The character no longer has the Spellcasting class feature because they lose all racial and class features when they’re replaced by the stat block of the new form.

“The target's game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast.”

Is game statistics the same thing as a stat block?

In my view, a character is not a stat block. Many monsters/npcs have spells, but nowhere does the stat block say they have a spellcasting class.

I would not delete attunement from form change as a DM. As a player, if a DM ruled that way, it would be my last session with that DM.

[Segev]

I would not delete attunement from form change as a DM. As a player, if a DM ruled that way, it would be my last session with that DM.

Eh, while I agree that the argument of this thread is not really a sound one wrt how the game is and is expected to be played, I think a DM having a strange house rule is not sufficient reason to never game with him again. If it's truly a problem for your build, specifically, I could see changing builds to avoid the problem, though.

[greenstone]

My take on this is that the rules are clear. If you polymorph into something without a spellcasting feature then you lose attunement with any items that require spellcasting.

I think its a bad rule and at my table I'd ignore it because I like it when players use polymorph and I want to encourage it more. It's entertaining when t-rexes and giant apes are on the board, especially when the players play up the animal intelligence part of it.

For example, the last battle I ran was against Tsuggtmoy the Queen of Fungus. There were lots of big animated mushrooms. The t-rex didn't attack the the big bad, attacking the mushrooms instead because they tasted nice. :-)

[Segev]

My take on this is that the rules are clear. If you polymorph into something without a spellcasting feature then you lose attunement with any items that require spellcasting.

I think its a bad rule and at my table I'd ignore it because I like it when players use polymorph and I want to encourage it more. It's entertaining when t-rexes and giant apes are on the board, especially when the players play up the animal intelligence part of it.

For example, the last battle I ran was against Tsuggtmoy the Queen of Fungus. There were lots of big animated mushrooms. The t-rex didn't attack the the big bad, attacking the mushrooms instead because they tasted nice. :-)

I don't think the rule is that clear, though I can see how people will argue it once they notice the possibility. The fact that it only came up this past week or so when the rules it references have been around for nearly a decade illustrates why I do not think it "clear."

[RSP]

I don't think the rule is that clear, though I can see how people will argue it once they notice the possibility. The fact that it only came up this past week or so when the rules it references have been around for nearly a decade illustrates why I do not think it "clear."

There’s a difference between something being unclear, and the interaction of two things going unnoticed.

Do Polymorphed characters retain the stats of their original, non-Polymorphed form? No. Using your “nearly a decade” bar for a rule being clear, this has been clear and understood, and played as such at least in the vast majority of tables.

Does losing a prerequisite break Attunement? I imagine anyone who had to deal with an alignment prerequisite on an Attuned item, and had an alignment change that loses that prerequisite, would agree by the rules, Attunement is broken.

The fact that people didn’t necessarily put those two together, doesn’t mean the rules aren’t clear.


Is game statistics the same thing as a stat block?

It’s never come up in my games, but I think equipment is different than a stat block, though the MM doesn’t seem to care about this.

The basic way I’ve seen this is the endless ammo/thrown weapons some creatures have: though they don’t state the creatures has any ammo, the attack is in their stat block and the DM just assumes they have what they need for combat.

I think the expectation at most tables, is PC don’t have unlimited thrown weapons or ammo (though particularly with ammo, some tables may not care to track). At the least, I would expect equipment to be tracked when needed (like a sword being damaged by an ooze).

[Segev]

There’s a difference between something being unclear, and the interaction of two things going unnoticed.

Do Polymorphed characters retain the stats of their original, non-Polymorphed form? No. Using your “nearly a decade” bar for a rule being clear, this has been clear and understood, and played as such at least in the vast majority of tables.

Does losing a prerequisite break Attunement? I imagine anyone who had to deal with an alignment prerequisite on an Attuned item, and had an alignment change that loses that prerequisite, would agree by the rules, Attunement is broken.

The fact that people didn’t necessarily put those two together, doesn’t mean the rules aren’t clear.

I disagree. Where clarity exists, there is no fuzzy "wait...does this mean...?" that comes about. Clarity is clear to all who look at it. The question here is over whether polymorph counts as "losing prerequisites." If it very clearly did that, it would've been noticed and discussed years ago. It does not very clearly do that. Hence the question, and also hence how long it took to notice. If it were actually a "clear" interaction, it would've been written clearly to call it out. It's not like polymorph fails to discuss what happens to equipment. And yet it doesn't mention loss of attunement.

[Telok]

What happened to the chorus of "the spell only does what it says it does"? That's how we always shut down everything but the exact text written in the spell without regards to any other rules or consistency or anything.

[JackPhoenix]

It’s never come up in my games, but I think equipment is different than a stat block, though the MM doesn’t seem to care about this.

The basic way I’ve seen this is the endless ammo/thrown weapons some creatures have: though they don’t state the creatures has any ammo, the attack is in their stat block and the DM just assumes they have what they need for combat.

I think the expectation at most tables, is PC don’t have unlimited thrown weapons or ammo (though particularly with ammo, some tables may not care to track). At the least, I would expect equipment to be tracked when needed (like a sword being damaged by an ooze).

"A monster carries enough ammunition to make its ranged attacks. You can assume that a monster has 2d4 pieces of ammunition for a thrown weapon attack, and 2d10 pieces of ammunition for a projectile weapon such as a bow or crossbow."

Oh, and: "A stat block rarely refers to equipment, other than armor or weapons used by a monster. A creature that customarily wears clothes, such as a humanoid, is assumed to be dressed appropriately."

[Segev]

What happened to the chorus of "the spell only does what it says it does"? That's how we always shut down everything but the exact text written in the spell without regards to any other rules or consistency or anything.

I mean, that's kind-of implied. Both sides are, as usual, relying on it (which is fair), but interpreting it differently. It's good that nobody is trying to assert this overtly, as it implies the other side isn't following the same principle, and in this case would devolve into meta-argument over what each other side is saying they mean.

[Telok]

I mean, that's kind-of implied. Both sides are, as usual, relying on it (which is fair), but interpreting it differently. It's good that nobody is trying to assert this overtly, as it implies the other side isn't following the same principle, and in this case would devolve into meta-argument over what each other side is saying they mean.

Is it implied though? The whole thing is about a knock on effect of an unrelated rule based on the question "what is a character?". Because the argument is always that if the text of a spell doesn't explicitly say it does something then it doesn't do that thing. If we accept that the spell makes things happen that are not mentioned in it's text then you violate that principal. If changing a character's stat block breaks the ongoing effect/status of "attuned magic item" which isn't mentioned in the spell then does it also break other effects/statuses that are not mentioned in the spell?

[Segev]

Is it implied though? The whole thing is about a knock on effect of an unrelated rule based on the question "what is a character?". Because the argument is always that if the text of a spell doesn't explicitly say it does something then it doesn't do that thing. If we accept that the spell makes things happen that are not mentioned in it's text then you violate that principal. If changing a character's stat block breaks the ongoing effect/status of "attuned magic item" which isn't mentioned in the spell then does it also break other effects/statuses that are not mentioned in the spell?

My pedantic urge to explain both sides of the argument from the perspective of "the rules do what they say they do" is strong. But because I don't want to start an argument or anything, I will ask: is such an illustration desired? Note that I will be trying not to make either case in such an analysis, but rather just explaining where I could see both sides claiming they're on the "rules do what they say they do" side.

[RSP]

I disagree. Where clarity exists, there is no fuzzy "wait...does this mean...?" that comes about. Clarity is clear to all who look at it. The question here is over whether polymorph counts as "losing prerequisites." If it very clearly did that, it would've been noticed and discussed years ago. It does not very clearly do that. Hence the question, and also hence how long it took to notice. If it were actually a "clear" interaction, it would've been written clearly to call it out. It's not like polymorph fails to discuss what happens to equipment. And yet it doesn't mention loss of attunement.

So if an elf Polymorphs into a brown bear, does it still have Darkvision? Or is that part of what’s replaced by the stat block of a brown bear?

Spellcasting is no different a feature than Darkvision when it comes to what’s replaced. I think the vast majority of D&D players would agree the Darkvision trait is lost in the brown bear form.

Or, more appropriately, if a Dwarf is Attuned to a Dwarven Thrower (which requires Attunement by a Dwarf), and they Polymorph into a brown bear, do they maintain the Prerequisite for Attunement? I think the vast majority of D&D players would agree a brown bear is not a dwarf (though they may rule differently on whether Attunement is lost in this case).

The argument that a brown bear is a dwarf isn’t an argument you’d see many take on. (It also would have significant ramifications with spells that target only certain creature types).

[Segev]

So if an elf Polymorphs into a brown bear, does it still have Darkvision? Or is that part of what’s replaced by the stat block of a brown bear?

Spellcasting is no different a feature than Darkvision when it comes to what’s replaced. I think the vast majority of D&D players would agree the Darkvision trait is lost in the brown bear form.

Or, more appropriately, if a Dwarf is Attuned to a Dwarven Thrower (which requires Attunement by a Dwarf), and they Polymorph into a brown bear, do they maintain the Prerequisite for Attunement? I think the vast majority of D&D players would agree a brown bear is not a dwarf (though they may rule differently on whether Attunement is lost in this case).

The argument that a brown bear is a dwarf isn’t an argument you’d see many take on. (It also would have significant ramifications with spells that target only certain creature types).

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, here. Are you trying to say there's a question about these things? That it's unclear? Because that seems contrary to your claim that the rules ARE clear. Are you trying to claim that the rules are clear that, yes, an elf loses darkvision when polymorphed into a bear? I'm not sure how that establishes clarity on anything but that specific point.

The fact that you acknowledge the ambiguity on whether a dwarf attuned to a dwarven thrower loses attunement if he polymorphs into a bear shows you recognize the unclarity. The fact that it's not clear is all I was asserting.

[RSP]

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, here. Are you trying to say there's a question about these things? That it's unclear? Because that seems contrary to your claim that the rules ARE clear. Are you trying to claim that the rules are clear that, yes, an elf loses darkvision when polymorphed into a bear? I'm not sure how that establishes clarity on anything but that specific point.

The fact that you acknowledge the ambiguity on whether a dwarf attuned to a dwarven thrower loses attunement if he polymorphs into a bear shows you recognize the unclarity. The fact that it's not clear is all I was asserting.

I don’t think it’s unclear.

Are you saying you think it’s unclear whether a character loses Darkvision if they Polymorph into a brown bear?

Are you saying you think a Dwarf that gets Polymorphed into a brown bear is still a Dwarf?

Would the brown bear now get affected by Hold Person? Can you not talk to the bear with Speak to Animals?

If you actually think there’s a question here, please share: it’s my understanding these aren’t actual questions for the majority of 5e players.

[Segev]

I don’t think it’s unclear.

Are you saying you think it’s unclear whether a character loses Darkvision if they Polymorph into a brown bear?

Are you saying you think a Dwarf that gets Polymorphed into a brown bear is still a Dwarf?

Would the brown bear now get affected by Hold Person? Can you not talk to the bear with Speak to Animals?

If you actually think there’s a question here, please share: it’s my understanding these aren’t actual questions for the majority of 5e players.

None of those are the point in contention. The unclarity is over whether attunement breaks when you polymorph. That's it. I understand your reasoning. I am not even saying you're necessarily wrong. I am saying that it is unclear that it works the way you are interpreting it, and likely not intended to work the way you're interpreting it. Not that it can't be read the way you're interpreting it.

[Telok]

If you actually think there’s a question here, please share: it’s my understanding these aren’t actual questions for the majority of 5e players.

Petrification (the ones I recall off the top of my head) takes two failed saves. What happens if a character fails the first save and is polymorphed before the second save comes due? Is it the same character and they need to make the second save? Does replacing the stat block make them a different character who isn't being petrified?

If someone is polymorphed into a form that's an illegal target for an ongoing effect, status, or condition does it still affect them or are they cleared of it? Is attunement even a condition or status?

[RSP]

Petrification (the ones I recall off the top of my head) takes two failed saves. What happens if a character fails the first save and is polymorphed before the second save comes due? Is it the same character and they need to make the second save? Does replacing the stat block make them a different character who isn't being petrified?

Same character. Just like if a Druid casts Barkskin and then Wild Shapes, any spell and any effects from spells, carry over. Likewise, with other effects: if Strength Drain from a Shadow affects the character, then the Polymorphed form has strength drain of an equal amount.

Polymorph states it’s still the same character, just in a different form. So if failed the first save of Petrification, then Polymorphs and fails the second save, the character is now a petrified Giant Ape (or whatever).



If someone is polymorphed into a form that's an illegal target for an ongoing effect, status, or condition does it still affect them or are they cleared of it? Is attunement even a condition or status?

Can you give an example of an instance where an ongoing effect has illegal targets? Targeting restrictions come into play only when a character is actually made the target; once they’ve been targeted, the conditions for targeting no longer apply in terms of racial requirements. For example, Charm Person could target a Dwarf. The Dwarf character is then under the effect of the spell. If Polymorphed, that character is still under the effects of the spell.

“You attempt to charm a humanoid you can see within range. It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.”

The spell tells you the targeting restriction. So long as it’s humanoid and in range when targeted, it’s a valid target.

Likewise, the effected character cannot just move out of range to end the spell: the range restriction is just on targeting.


None of those are the point in contention. The unclarity is over whether attunement breaks when you polymorph. That's it. I understand your reasoning. I am not even saying you're necessarily wrong. I am saying that it is unclear that it works the way you are interpreting it, and likely not intended to work the way you're interpreting it. Not that it can't be read the way you're interpreting it.

You’ve answered your own question: if the stat block changes, and prior racial and class features are lost via the Polymorph, then any rule that says “X happens if feature Y is lost” would apply.

It appears to me like you’re arguing intent, rather than clarity. The two rules sets are clear as you’ve just stated, yet you’re arguing they’re not clear.

[Segev]

You’ve answered your own question: if the stat block changes, and prior racial and class features are lost via the Polymorph, then any rule that says “X happens if feature Y is lost” would apply.

It appears to me like you’re arguing intent, rather than clarity. The two rules sets are clear as you’ve just stated, yet you’re arguing they’re not clear.

I am arguing intent and clarity, not one or the other.

If the ruling you're working with were clear, it would not be a decade in the discovery, and, frankly, would've been something the writers caught and did something about to clarify their intent into the rules, one way or the other. (Either to say, "This means attunement to items you no longer qualify for breaks," or to say, "Items remain attuned," in some fashion.)

[Telok]

Same character. Just like if a Druid casts Barkskin and then Wild Shapes, any spell and any effects from spells, carry over. Likewise, with other effects: if Strength Drain from a Shadow affects the character, then the Polymorphed form has strength drain of an equal amount.

Polymorph states it’s still the same character, just in a different form.

So since it's the same character and the spell doesn't say it breaks attunement why should attunement break? It already checked at the start and went fine. Or is the argument that the stat block is the character?

Honestly this all just feels to me like searching for a justification to punish players for using fun abilities.

[RSP]

So since it's the same character and the spell doesn't say it breaks attunement why should attunement break? It already checked at the start and went fine. Or is the argument that the stat block is the character?


The rules for Attunement state if you lose the prerequisite, you lose attunement: so it’s clearly not a “checked at the start and went fine” situation: it’s constantly “checked”.


I am arguing intent and clarity, not one or the other.

If the ruling you're working with were clear, it would not be a decade in the discovery, and, frankly, would've been something the writers caught and did something about to clarify their intent into the rules, one way or the other. (Either to say, "This means attunement to items you no longer qualify for breaks," or to say, "Items remain attuned," in some fashion.)

The fact that people on these boards didn’t notice it, doesn’t mean it’s not clear: it just means people on these boards didn’t notice it.

Again, i’m sure a lot, if not most, on these boards would be aware that the rule is you lose attunement if someone posted “Do I lose Attunement to my Dwarven Thrower if I’m no longer a Dwarf?”

[Segev]

Probably, but that isn't actually the rule you're debating the clarity of.

[Telok]

The rules for Attunement state if you lose the prerequisite, you lose attunement: so it’s clearly not a “checked at the start and went fine” situation: it’s constantly “checked”.


So you are then saying that the stat block is the full and complete definition of the character? See, this is where you lose me. If the stat block is the character and attunement breaks because the stat block doesn't have some keyword on it anymore then there's an issue that the stat block also doesn't have any attuned items so what's losing attunement? On the other hand if the stat block isn't the sum total of the character then there's no call to break attunement.

Since it was answered that the character still retains all effects on transformation that's saying the stat block isn't the totality of the character because if it was the new creature wouldn't be under the effects carried over from the old one. But you're apparently saying that the change in stat block does make it a totally different character except that some effects carry over and others don't but the difference is in some specific reading of a chunk of text without trying to look at any other text.

And the polymorph spell still only says you use the game statistics of the new form without defining what those are, thus the spell doesn't say it makes a transformed creature ineligible for anything beyond the regular limits of it's physical form. Which means we are adding new effects to a spell to do something the spell dorsn't say it does.

Clear as mud? Because none of the arguments I've seen in this thresd for breaking magic item attunement fit with the forum mantra of "players aren't allowed anything except exactly and only what the most limited reading of a spell description allows". Spell doesn't say it does something then players aren't allowed.

[RSP]

Probably, but that isn't actually the rule you're debating the clarity of.

Same rules:

Does Polymorph replace one set of stats with another? Yes.

Does attunement end if a prerequisite for Attunement is lost? Yes.

Again, if people missed those rules interacting, that’s not a clarify question: they just failed their Investigation checks.


So you are then saying that the stat block is the full and complete definition of the character?

No, I’m not. Characters persist regardless of stat blocks: that’s what Polymorph tells us: same character, different form. Polymorph tells us when you change forms you change stat blocks.

But Attunement is done with the character, not the form. So changing forms doesn’t change whether or not that the character is attuned to items.


But you're apparently saying that the change in stat block does make it a totally different character except that some effects carry over and others don't but the difference is in some specific reading of a chunk of text without trying to look at any other text

At no point have I made this argument. Please don’t argue I’m saying stuff I’m clearly not.

[Segev]

Same rules:

Does Polymorph replace one set of stats with another? Yes.

Does attunement end if a prerequisite for Attunement is lost? Yes.

Again, if people missed those rules interacting, that’s not a clarify question: they just failed their Investigation checks.

So, then, the solutions to all real-world mysteries are clear; people just fail investigation checks? What happened to Amelia Erhardt is clear? Every unsolved disappearance's whereabouts and how they disappeared and why is clear? The way every magic trick ever devised and performed is accomplished is clear? (I specify "real-world" because the mysteries have solutions, since they did happen, whereas a badly-written fictional one could actually not have the official solution make sense.)

[RSP]

I specify "real-world" because the mysteries have solutions, since they did happen, whereas a badly-written fictional one could actually not have the official solution make sense.

Again, I fail to see what is unclear in the rules. You keep saying it’s not clear, yet agreeing the rules are what they say they are.

If the only argument you have is “no one else noticed it”, then either it was missed, or others noticed it and didn’t care.

It doesn’t make the rules any less clear though.

[Segev]

Again, I fail to see what is unclear in the rules. You keep saying it’s not clear, yet agreeing the rules are what they say they are.

If the only argument you have is “no one else noticed it”, then either it was missed, or others noticed it and didn’t care.

It doesn’t make the rules any less clear though.

You did not answer the question. Are all real-world unsolved mysteries' actual solutions "clear?"

[MoiMagnus]

Again, I fail to see what is unclear in the rules. You keep saying it’s not clear, yet agreeing the rules are what they say they are.

It's unclear because one can reasonably expect the shape shifting rules to exhaustively cover the most important rules interactions with magical items, probably over-writing the usual rules. Since it doesn't cover this specific interaction while listing some interactions with magic items, one can reasonably think that this unlisted interaction is overwritten by "nothing", that is erased.

Generally, redundancy of information is necessary to have something qualify as clear.

Does that mean that under that standard, I consider that almost every rule interaction that is not explicitly described is unclear? Yes. But I don't think we need clear rules, since often one can guess the intended interpretation of the rules with good enough accuracy.

[Chronos]

If we did ever find out what happened to Amelia Erhardt, then yes, it would be crystal clear. In fact, it pretty much is already clear: She crashed in some deep part of the ocean. We haven't found the wreckage of her plane, yet, but we might someday, when people get luckier on their search.

[RSP]

It's unclear because one can reasonably expect the shape shifting rules to exhaustively cover the most important rules interactions with magical items, probably over-writing the usual rules.

So it isn’t “are the rules clear”, but a question of if the intent is they interact in a certain way.

The rules are clear. No one reads them and says “hmmm, I wonder if you keep attunement with a magical item if you lose the prerequisite to attune to it”. It’s right there in the rules that you do.

“Did they intend for these rules to interact this way?” is a valid question (as is “is it fun to run the rules this way at a table?”).

But the rules themselves are clear.

Also, I don’t think it’s reasonable to reiterate every rule in every other rule: you wouldn’t have a coherent book, just a run on sentence of every rule interaction.

It’s reasonable to write rules and expect players to know them, and use which ones they like; change the ones they don’t.


You did not answer the question. Are all real-world unsolved mysteries' actual solutions "clear?"

If you want to discuss real world unsolved mysteries, create a thread.

This thread is about the interaction of rules involving Polymorph and Attunement.

I don’t agree that just because you didn’t realize a rule interaction, that it means the rules are unclear. (General “you”: up until I noticed the rules, I too hadn’t realized the interaction, but whether or not I realized it, it was a clear rule.)

People miss stuff, and that’s okay: literally happens all the time on these threads with questions of “how does this work…?”

But the rules on this are clear.

[Segev]

If we did ever find out what happened to Amelia Erhardt, then yes, it would be crystal clear. In fact, it pretty much is already clear: She crashed in some deep part of the ocean. We haven't found the wreckage of her plane, yet, but we might someday, when people get luckier on their search.So, that she crashed, the precise location of where she crashed, the exact cause of her crash, precisely at what point she died and of what precise cause, are all clear?

Except...you said, "if we ever found out." Why do we need to find out for the answer to be clear? Is there anything that one can know that is not clear?



If you want to discuss real world unsolved mysteries, create a thread. No, no, good sir, you made a claim that things can be clear despite everyone failing their investigation checks, and hung your assertion that the rules regarding polymorph and loss of item attunement were "clear" on that assertion. You don't get to dodge a challenge to that assertion by claiming this isn't the thread for it, not without tacitly admitting your assertion is indefensible.


I don’t agree that just because you didn’t realize a rule interaction, that it means the rules are unclear. (General “you”: up until I noticed the rules, I too hadn’t realized the interaction, but whether or not I realized it, it was a clear rule.)

People miss stuff, and that’s okay: literally happens all the time on these threads with questions of “how does this work…?”

But the rules on this are clear.

You have not defined "clear" in a way you are as-yet willing to defend or discuss in order to justify that claim.

[Telok]

At no point have I made this argument. Please don’t argue I’m saying stuff I’m clearly not.

Honestly, given the tendency this forum to cut up posts for argument sound bites without context, and my difficulty following that style of stuttering and disjointed posting. As I've said before, I have a hard time telling most of you apart once the multiquote frenzy starts getting out of hand. One or two I can handle, if they try to address an entire post or independent subsection. But the snipping out of single sentences a whole bunch of times often seems to indicate someone ignoring much of a post and only trying to argue bits without context or important related parts.

So please don't be offended if I occasionally mistake you for someone else. It's the massive multiquote spam that makes posts blur together in a haze of disconnected decontextualized misquotings.

[greenstone]

None of those are the point in contention. The unclarity is over whether attunement breaks when you polymorph.

I don't think that is the root question here. Attunement is just a symptom.

One of many symptoms of the big question: what does polymorph change and not change?

If Bruenor the dwarf polymorphs into a bear, are they still a dwarf? Are they still Bruenor?

Will charm person work on the polymorphed dwarf? Will beast bond work on them? Speak with animals? Will locate animals (find the nearest bear) find them? Will locate creature (find Bruenor) find them¹? Will scrying (find Bruenor) find them? If Bruenor was under the effect of Rary's telepathic bond, is he still under its effect as a bear? Can that spell be cast on the bear? If Bruenor was excluded from spirit guardians, is the bear excluded? If an evoker used sculpt spell to exclude Bruenor from some long-duration spell, is the bear excluded? If someone on another plane uses gate to summon Bruenor, do they get the bear?

I'd like to see one consistent answer listed in the description of the polymorph spell, rather than lots of partial answers scattered over lots of books.


In case anyone is interested, in my games the answer to the question is "nothing". Polymorphed Bruenor is no longer Bruenor. This is because I like plots like "evil mage keeps the heir to the throne hidden by polymorph" and "wanted criminal hides from justice by polymorph".

_____
¹ Yes, I know that spell has an explicit answer, I still think it is useful as an example of the general issue.

[RSP]

I don't think that is the root question here. Attunement is just a symptom.

One of many symptoms of the big question: what does polymorph change and not change?

Polymorph changes the form and the stats: the creature (and its alignment and personality) stays the same.

It’s still Bruenor, but not a dwarf.



No, no, good sir, you made a claim that things can be clear despite everyone failing their investigation checks, and hung your assertion that the rules regarding polymorph and loss of item attunement were "clear" on that assertion. You don't get to dodge a challenge to that assertion by claiming this isn't the thread for it, not without tacitly admitting your assertion is indefensible.

I’m not sure what obligations you think I have to answer your unrelated scenarios, but there isn’t any.

You’re trying to compare two very different things. The rules are clear. Selecting random events and asking if what we know about them is clear is completely unrelated to this thread and the discussion.

If you want to partake in discussing the rules, great, I’ll continue.

If your intent is to derail the discussion into what happened to Amelia Earhart, please just start a new thread.

[Segev]

My questions are using your logic for claiming "the rules are clear" on similar scenarios, and asking if you find those scenarios equally clear base on the same logical analysis and definition of "clear." There is no derail onto debating Amelia Earhart.

"I will not discuss things which demonstrate the folly of my position; such things are derails!" is hardly a persuasive argument.

All of that said, in the end, the question boils down to whether the target's stat block exists to be interacted with while it is using the other stat block, and whether that existence (if any) is sufficient to maintain attunement.

I think, if it can be said to exist, then the attunement of that stat block is maintained. If it does not exist, then there is no stat block that breaks attunement, as the moment it exists again, attunement requirements are met.

RSP's reading seems to me to be also valid, but not the "clearly" right and only one.

Ultimately, rulings, not rules, will prevail, and I think this murky enough and case-dependent enough to mean a DM can rule however he likes on the subject and not be said to be contradicting the RAW.

[RSP]

My questions are using your logic for claiming "the rules are clear" on similar scenarios, and asking if you find those scenarios equally clear base on the same logical analysis and definition of "clear." There is no derail onto debating Amelia Earhart.

You previously agreed those points are not in question, so I’m not sure why you want to revisit them now:


None of those are the point in contention. The unclarity is over whether attunement breaks when you polymorph. That's it.



All of that said, in the end, the question boils down to whether the target's stat block exists to be interacted with while it is using the other stat block, and whether that existence (if any) is sufficient to maintain attunement.

I think it’s an error in referring to them as “stat blocks” rather than “stats” (an error others, including myself, made at points as well, and the book says they’re used the same, at times, but for how to view this, I think it causes confusion.).

The Polymorph rules state stats, not “stat block”:

“The target's game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast. It retains its alignment and personality.”

I think this is an important distinction: the Polymorphed creature’s character sheet isn’t put aside for the new MM stat block, though that may be how we do it at the table for ease of play.

Instead, the stats of the creature are replaced by those of the chosen beast.

I think it helps to view it as it’s said: each of the stats are being replaced.

So Str is replaced, Dex replaced, movement and any special movement means are replaced, perception and any special senses are replaced, abilities, skills, etc, each get replaced.

But the original character sheet is never gone or “out of existence”. The creature stays the same, so anything dealing with that creature, carries over. (“This spell transforms a creature that you can see within range into a new form.” Same creature, new form. But that new form has different statistics. )

Since the creature is the same regardless of Polymorphed form, Attunement is the same, regardless of Polymorph form, as Attunement attaches to the creature, not the form: “Some magic items require a creature to form a bond with them before their Magical Properties can be used. This bond is called attunement, and certain items have a prerequisite for it.”

So, unless the creature changes, the attunement stays with it, because it’s still the same creature it was before Polymorph changed its form.

Likewise with other effects that target creatures: Haste, for instance, affects a creature, so if you Hasted a creature, then changed its form via Polymorph, it’s still the same Hasted creature it was before it’s form changed.

[Segev]

"Game statistics" and "Stat block" are interchangeable as I use them. (Edit: Well, mostly. In this case, they are, since all game statistics except for alignment are involved.)

Like I said, there's room for a DM to rule as you interpret it. There is also room to rule otherwise. The rules are not clear, and the only definition you've given of "clear" that makes them so also would make it clear what happened to Amelia Earhart, "people just have failed their investigation checks."

[RSP]

"Game statistics" and "Stat block" are interchangeable as I use them. (Edit: Well, mostly. In this case, they are, since all game statistics except for alignment are involved.)

Like I said, there's room for a DM to rule as you interpret it. There is also room to rule otherwise. The rules are not clear, and the only definition you've given of "clear" that makes them so also would make it clear what happened to Amelia Earhart, "people just have failed their investigation checks."

It’s clear because we agree on the rules.

It’s not “Amelia Earhart”. It’s more like a math equation.

Never before have I needed to add 159+12,637. I’ve never noticed that particular interaction of numbers in my life before (which is more than the years the 5e rules have been out), yet I can say the answer is clear.

Again, the fact that it wasn’t looked at until now, doesn’t mean it isn’t clear.

By your logic, that equation MUST BE unclear, because for over 10 years, I didn’t notice it.

But that doesn’t make any sense, because people can not notice something, and it still be logical and clear once viewed.

[Segev]

It’s clear because we agree on the rules.

It’s not “Amelia Earhart”. It’s more like a math equation.

Never before have I needed to add 159+12,637. I’ve never noticed that particular interaction of numbers in my life before (which is more than the years the 5e rules have been out), yet I can say the answer is clear.

Again, the fact that it wasn’t looked at until now, doesn’t mean it isn’t clear.

By your logic, that equation MUST BE unclear, because for over 10 years, I didn’t notice it.

But that doesn’t make any sense, because people can not notice something, and it still be logical and clear once viewed.

In that case, yes, your logic is clear, but the rule still isn't, because if it were, it would not be in contention. But the interaction your logic is parsing is, itself, unclear, and as the interaction of two rules is part of what makes a particular rule set clear, no, the rules are not clear.

That particular sum is clear, once brought up as a problem. But that is not clearly a sum anybody should consider, at least not without context. In the context of D&D's ruleset, the conjunction of attunement and polymorph is not a clear one to make, and therefore any interaction of them is not "clearly" part of the rules.

Further, I do not think your ruling is the only logical way to read the RAW, even once the juxtaposition of the two is made. Again, your logic as to why you believe it should be ruled that way is clear. But that your premises are the best ones to run with is not "clear." And, before you say it, if you believe that your premises are strictly what is written in black and white, then you are mistaken; you have a few unspoken assumptions about how to parse them. How to parse the black-and-white is where all the disagreement and unclarity lies.

[Tawmis]

To me, Polymorph would not break attunement - because the item shifts. It's like an elf polymorphed into a giant ape - has this tiny dagger that's normally attuned to them on their person.
Both the elf, and all that they wear are shunted into a magical sphere, where they're now a giant ape instead, with giant ape stats. The giant ape doesn't have the elf's strength, intelligence, all of that. The elf becomes a giant ape. And then when (if) all the damage the giant ape has in HP is knocked down - that damage brings the elf back, and the elf takes any excess damage.

Now, if said elf is slain, and the dagger attunement requires it to be an elf, and the elf is reincarnated (not resurrected) - and comes back a dwarf, then the attunement is broke, I'd say.

But polymorph shunts it (the item and pretty much the person) into a magical "globe" if you will as they become the thing they've been polymorphed into.

Otherwise, it'd be easy to shut down big bosses with a polymorph, or even end a curse if there's a curse item attuned to a person.

If polymorph broke attunement, I'd assume it'd be in the spell description and say something along the lines "... and this would also remove cursed attunements" if it messed with attunement at all.

[RSP]

But polymorph shunts it (the item and pretty much the person) into a magical "globe" if you will as they become the thing they've been polymorphed into.

Otherwise, it'd be easy to shut down big bosses with a polymorph, or even end a curse if there's a curse item attuned to a person.

If polymorph broke attunement, I'd assume it'd be in the spell description and say something along the lines "... and this would also remove cursed attunements" if it messed with attunement at all.

I don’t agree with your “shunting away” view of Polymorph. The creature very much is still there: Polymorph tells us that.

You also seem to be arguing both ways.

If the Attunement is still present, a Cursed item would persist regardless of Polymorphed form.

If Attunement goes away with changing form, then the Curse would go away as well.

The Polymorph spell doesn’t say a whole lot either way, other than what’s already been presented, so I don’t see a way to extract whether or not Attunement is maintained strictly from whether or not it’s mentioned in the rules: you could argue it’s maintained because it doesn’t say it’s broken, and argue it’s broken because it doesn’t say it’s maintained.

If a creature is targeted with Haste, then Polymorphed, is their new form still Hasted? The spell description doesn’t explicitly say either way. But it does say it’s still the same creature: which is what Polymorph targets and effects. So, since the creature didn’t change into a different creature (just a different form), it’s still the same creature under the effect of Haste.

Also, for the Reincarnation example: attunement ends when a creature dies, so it’s moot at that point.

[Chronos]

Are there even any cursed items that have prerequisites for their attunement?

[RSP]

Are there even any cursed items that have prerequisites for their attunement?

I don’t think that’s relevant as Curses are being used here.

The idea is “if a creature is Cursed by a magic item they are carrying, and that creature is Polymorphed with the cursed item melding into the new form, does the Polymorphed creature still suffer the effects of the curse?”

Basically, Polymorph states you can’t benefit from any fear, but a Curse, in theory, isn’t a benefit, so it would therefore, still be active, even when melded: “The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”

If Polymorph meant the gear no longer existed while melded, they would have said that.

To expound on this, look at Armor of Vulnerability:

“While wearing this armor, you have Resistance to one of the following damage types: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. The GM chooses the type or determines it randomly.
Curse. This armor is Cursed, a fact that is revealed only when an identify spell is cast on the armor or you attune to it. Attuning to the armor Curses you until you are targeted by the remove curse spell or similar magic; removing the armor fails to end the curse. While Cursed, you have vulnerability to two of the three Damage Types associated with the armor (not the one to which it grants resistance).”

So if the Cursed wearer of the armor is Resistant to Slashing damage, while cursed with Vulnerability to Bludgeoning and Piercing, and is then Polymorphed, with the armor melding into the new form, the cursed creature is now Vulnerable to Bludgeoning and Piercing, but loses the Resistance to Slashing (because they cannot benefit from equipment that’s melded).

The benefits are lost, but not any detrimental effects.

[Tawmis]

I don’t agree with your “shunting away” view of Polymorph. The creature very much is still there: Polymorph tells us that.
You also seem to be arguing both ways.
Also, for the Reincarnation example: attunement ends when a creature dies, so it’s moot at that point.

True about death and attunement.
However, wasn't arguing both ways - was saying that attunement wouldn't break for polymorph. Because I believe the spell would say something if it did.
"A polymorphed creature will lose any attunement to items" or something to that degree.
Because that would be a big thing to note in a spell if it did that.


Are there even any cursed items that have prerequisites for their attunement?

Yes. Things like Armor of Vulnerability. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/5376-armor-of-vulnerability)

[greenstone]

To me, Polymorph would not break attunement - because the item shifts.
What if it doesn't?

Consider an elf attuned to an item that requires attunement by an elf. The elf is polymorphed into a bear while not holding the item. What happens now?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Consider an elf attuned to an item that requires attunement by an elf. The elf is polymorphed into a bear while not holding the item. What happens now?

If the Elf was 100’ away from the item for 24 Hours, the Elf already lost Attunement.

Cause and Effect, are important concepts.

The Polymorph spell details that a creature and their items transform into the new form. The item is suppressed. Applying Causality to only the creature, and not to it’s items is an error in reasoning.

If the following clause is interpreted, literally:
“ The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”
…….then cursed items, might still have their curse in effect.
It depends upon how one interprets the word ‘Benefit’ given the context.

Armor of Vulnerability requires one to be wearing the armor, which as we can see from the Polymorph spell is prohibited. One isn’t using melded armor.

[Chronos]

Quoth Thunderous Mojo:

If the Elf was 100’ away from the item for 24 Hours, the Elf already lost Attunement.

Sure, but what if they weren't?

Quoth Tamis:

Yes. Things like Armor of Vulnerability.
What prerequisite does that have?

[RSP]

s.
The Polymorph spell details that a creature and their items transform into the new form. The item is suppressed. Applying Causality to only the creature, and not to its items is an error in reasoning.

If the item is suppressed, why then state the creature cannot benefit from the items? (Also, where does it say the item is suppressed?)



If the following clause is interpreted, literally:
“ The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”
…….then cursed items, might still have their curse in effect.
It depends upon how one interprets the word ‘Benefit’ given the context.

Armor of Vulnerability requires one to be wearing the armor, which as we can see from the Polymorph spell is prohibited. One isn’t using melded armor.

there’s no legitimate way to interpret Vulnerability to two of Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning as benefits.

And no, you do not need to be wearing the armor to suffer the curse:

“Attuning to the armor Curses you until you are targeted by the remove curse spell or similar magic; removing the armor fails to end the curse. While Cursed, you have vulnerability to two of the three Damage Types associated with the armor (not the one to which it grants resistance).”

The Curse maintains.


True about death and attunement.
However, wasn't arguing both ways - was saying that attunement wouldn't break for polymorph. Because I believe the spell would say something if it did.
"A polymorphed creature will lose any attunement to items" or something to that degree.
Because that would be a big thing to note in a spell if it did that.

For the record, I don’t think anyone is suggesting merely polymorphing ends all attunement.

The rules state the attunement ends if a prerequisite for attunement is no longer met, so the idea is if Polymorph takes away a prerequisite (either class based, like Spellcasting; or racial based), then that attunement would end.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If the item is suppressed, why then state the creature cannot benefit from the items? (Also, where does it say the item is suppressed?)

Here: The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.

Logically, melded equipment can’t be used by anyone. I would find it nonsensical to rule that a PC turned into a newt couldn’t use their transformed Torches and Oil, but someone else could.

How exactly would this third party grab the Torch and Oil from the Newt?
Would they become King of Britain if they draw the Torch from the Polymorphed Newt, like King Arthur Drawing Excalibur from a stone?🃏

The logical conclusion of melded equipment, is it is unusable by anyone, would you not agree?

there’s no legitimate way to interpret Vulnerability to two of Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning as benefits.

There are plenty of “legitimate” ways to read the word “benefit” in the above sentence as meaning ‘interact’ with the melded equipment.

It just require a less than literal, word by word, reading.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I don't know if this has been said here before, but the truly scary part of this thought is applying Polymorph to an enemy BBEG with the specific intention of breaking attunement, or said BBEG doing that to a PC, and it working just like that.

"You break the evil wizard's concentration, now your Paladin friend is not a rat anymore. Also, he can't use his Holy Avenger during the fight, because the attunement was lost" is a big turn from an epic comeback to frustration. I see the point of the post, but it really doesn't seem to be the intention of the spell, and I wouldn't ever run it like that.

[RSP]

Here: The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.

Logically, melded equipment can’t be used by anyone. I would find it nonsensical to rule that a PC turned into a newt couldn’t use their transformed Torches and Oil, but someone else could.

How exactly would this third party grab the Torch and Oil from the Newt?
Would they become King of Britain if they draw the Torch from the Polymorphed Newt, like King Arthur Drawing Excalibur from a stone?🃏

The logical conclusion of melded equipment, is it is unusable by anyone, would you not agree?

No, I wouldn’t. If the rule was meant to be the items stop existing, or were completely without effect, the rule would have stated that.

As discussed, I think it’s 100% logical that cursed and negative effects persist, assuming they’re connected to the creature (and not the form).

If a creature takes a magic weapon that has been ritually bound to a Warlock as a Pact Weapon, and that creature is then Polymorphed, is their Pact Weapon now non-existent?

I’d say it still exists. Ruling wise, I’d allow the Warlock to summon the weapon (though this is DM ruling territory as there is no RAW about this). If I’m the player of the Warlock, I’d not want my class power to be so easily negated.



There are plenty of “legitimate” ways to read the word “benefit” in the above sentence as meaning ‘interact’ with the melded equipment.

It just require a less than literal, word by word, reading.

If you wish to argue that being vulnerable to two of S/P/B is a “benefit” in 5e, knock yourself out: but I’ll disagree.


I don't know if this has been said here before, but the truly scary part of this thought is applying Polymorph to an enemy BBEG with the specific intention of breaking attunement, or said BBEG doing that to a PC, and it working just like that.

"You break the evil wizard's concentration, now your Paladin friend is not a rat anymore. Also, he can't use his Holy Avenger during the fight, because the attunement was lost" is a big turn from an epic comeback to frustration. I see the point of the post, but it really doesn't seem to be the intention of the spell, and I wouldn't ever run it like that.

The conversation has touched on it being a valid way to play: it’s probably just not the most fun way, given what player expectations are.