Rest in Peace, Blue Mage

[shirak]

When you cast polymorph* twice in succession on the same target, does it keep any of the abilities gained from the first spell’s form?
No. This falls into the category of “one effect makes another irrelevant” (see page 172 in the Player’s Handbook). A polymorphed elf wizard who then casts shapechange wouldn’t retain any of the abilities gained from polymorph—only the wizard’s original form (elf) and new form (from shapechange, the last spell cast) matter.
*The question and answer uses “polymorph” to refer specifically to spells that rely on the polymorph or alter self spell to adjudicate their effect (including alter self, polymorph, polymorph any object, and shapechange), psionic powers based on the metamorphosis power (including metamorphosis and greater metamorphosis), and any other effect based on either of these lists.

So, yeah. Unless this is wrong, bye bye Polymorph stacking builds.

Note: This won't be the first time the FAQ is stupid. What is the "officialness" of it anyway? If the FAQ says yes and the rules say no, who has precedence?

[Falgund]

FAQ only explains difficult rules, it can't change them. If the rules say no, the FAQ can't change it to yes, you need something like an errata to do it.

[shirak]

1182167572[/unixtime]]FAQ only explains difficult rules, it can't change them. If the rules say no, the FAQ can't change it to yes, you need something like an errata to do it.

Well, about half the answers in there would disagree with you. That's all i'm saying. I think the FAQ can go take a flying leap. Is there an official ruling (like the Rules of Precedence)?

[Falgund]

IIRC the Primary Source has precedence. It was talked about a few times already on this board:
http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewth ... br][br][br]

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spellschapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, specialmaterial construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manualis the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities

[shirak]

Dude, i get all that. My question is, if my DM says I can't make Blue Mages cause the FAQ blah blah blah, what do I say?

"Yes, Master"
or
"Dude, the FAQ can go fuck itself, it has no power to contradict rules"

[Zherog]

The latter.

[Brobdingnagian]

Don't Blue Magi classically gain their magic by getting hit by (and surviving) it?

[Username17]

You know, this is how it should work anyway. Well, more than that, you shouldn't be able to dumpster dive through the monster books for killer applications at all, but you damn sure shouldn't be able to mix and match them together.

--

Unfortunately, the Polymorph spells are so verdamnt complicated now that they actually work however your DM says that they do. Seriously, when you cast polymorph you are expected to:

1. Read the Polymorph Subschool rules in the PHBII.
   
2. Read the alter self spell in the PHB.
   
3. Read the errata to the alter self spell.
   
4. Read the polymorph spell in the PHB.
   
5. Read the errata to the polymorph spell.

With each piece of text having precedence over the previous texts, and after going through all five contradictory offerings, there's the FAQ loses to all five of them and is really just advisory.

The problem is that this exceeds the complexity threshold of what a game can sustain, especially in combat. Seriously, you replace your entire character with a monster entry except that you retain all of your class abilities and don't get their supernatural or spell-like abilities. So... you gain whatever "spellcasting" the monster has and don't lose your own. No DM is going to let that stand, and even explaining why it is "supposed" to work like that is going to take longer than the game session will last.

So yeah, the literal wording of the polymorph spell does allow you to mix and match it for credit in numerous ways. And the FAQ does not "beat" that description. But seriously, the FAQ answer is short, to-the-point and reasonable, while the actual spell description is a bloated contradictory mess spread across five entries in three books before it even gets in to the service calls across literally thousands of pages of arbitrary monster abilities.

It's an argument where you'll be "right", but it's not an argument you can win.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Besides, I'd just say that anything you get from Polymorph is from Polymorph - and things that are from the same source don't stack.

So either you're a sheep or you're a dragon, but you're not a dragon sheep unless that itself is a polymorph spell.

-Crissa

[tzor]

1182181694[/unixtime]]Dude, i get all that. My question is, if my DM says I can't make Blue Mages cause the FAQ blah blah blah, what do I say?

"Yes, Master"
or
"Dude, the FAQ can go fvck itself, it has no power to contradict rules"

The former.
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
Rule 1: When in doubt consult rule 0.
Rule 2: If you really disagre, find another DM.

The use of the Eratta to address only major typos in the books, and the use of the FAQ to address major design flaws discovered only well after the fact is a "House Rule" of WOTC that has been going on ever since 3.0.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

That's the problem, ceratin monsters SHOULD work differently than the spell. A dragon that shape-changes into a human should be a super-human with fire-breath or something, while a human that polymorphs into a dragon then shapechanges back to a human shouldn't. Like the above has said, it really works how your DM says it does.

Polymorph is an amazingly powerful spell out of the gate, there are plenty of abuses that you can exploit without even trying (Treant instead of Hydra as a self-nerf to keep everyone happy). The problem is that once you start to try the broken route, you are likely to have the whole spell banned.

[rapanui]

Rule 0 is worst rule of them all.

[RandomCasualty]

1182217335[/unixtime]]
Polymorph is an amazingly powerful spell out of the gate, there are plenty of abuses that you can exploit without even trying (Treant instead of Hydra as a self-nerf to keep everyone happy). The problem is that once you start to try the broken route, you are likely to have the whole spell banned.

Yeah, I can't think of a group I've played in that has allowed polymorph. Alter self is about the highest level polymorph style spell that you see.

[Judging__Eagle]

Rule 0 is not a rule.

I disagree with it on the principle that idiot DMs use it as a crutch.

[RandomCasualty]

Heh, without rule 0 the game would completely fall apart. I mean can you imagine playing everything exactly by RAW? It'd be pretty crazy.

DMs need the ability to ban crap that is totally unbalanced like the thought bottle or dust of sneezing and choking.

[MrWaeseL]

Rule 0 is a controlling power in a situation where you want everyone on the same page. It's useful.

[Amra]

1182267377[/unixtime]]Heh, without rule 0 the game would completely fall apart. I mean can you imagine playing everything exactly by RAW? It'd be pretty crazy.

That's precisely what I AM trying to do... or at least, trying to prove can't be done. So far it doesn't look like my group is even going to make it through character creation without the universe imploding even though the players are trying to make that NOT happen.

[Brobdingnagian]

Without Rule 0, we get
[counturl=68]this[/counturl].

[PhoneLobster]

There's rule 0 and then there is rule 0.

If rule 0 read "The DM can intervene and change shit for the good of the game"

or even "The DM can ignore rules that are obviously stupid"

That would be totally OK.

But unfortunately rule 0 usually reads "The DM is fvcking god".

I got no time for that DM.

I'm afraid I'm with [counturl=69]Eric the Cavalier[/counturl] on this one...

(Warning if you don't know who Eric is you don't care about the link, infact, even if you do...)

[tzor]

Rule 0, using a baseball term, is best dscribed as "The DM is the Umpire." Actually he is more powerful than the Umpire, but it's still a good metaphore.

Every stadium has it's own special rules. The game is no different. Instead of what happens when the ball hits the overhead lights, or bounces off of the wall, his decisions are which supplements to use and so forth.

The purpose of the umpire is to make calls. He can ask for the asssitance of other referees, and he can be judge after the fact by fancy device, but in the end he has to make the call.

The problem with the metaphore is that the DM also plays one of the teams (the monsters and the NPCs). Of course it is also one of the goals to ensure that one of the teams (the players) win in the end. But the DM still has to be "impartial" even though one of the teams is his own.

[rapanui]

That's one problem. The metaphor also breaks down for other reasons.

The Umpire can't just get up and say "OK, tonight, wooden bats are outlawed because they are broken. Also, because I like the Yankees better, they get 4 outs instead of 3." There is a higher commission than the umpire, which supervises and regulates what he can do. (Not to mention angry fans that will be all too happy to set him on fire.)

The problem with rule 0 is that it basically makes all the other rules, (you know the ones you PAY FOR) utterly worthless because none of them are permanent. Really. Even basic stuff like saving throws... everyone fudges saving throws.

You can't play d20 by the book. Hell, you can't play most roleplaying games by the book. That's why they have to slap that big fvck you right in the beginning: "Hey, we know our rules lick balls, so, like disregard them whenever you want, mkay? And we know it leads to DM stupidity, favoritism, egomania, and immaturity, but hey... waddaya want? Playable material? Ha!"

Rule 0 could be good if it said: "The GM is allowed, with approval of the majority of the table to ban certain items, techniques, and combinations thereof that are known to be overly powerful. If the GM does, he agrees to abide by the table's rules. In the case of rules ambiguity, or a player attempting something not covered by the text, a provisional ruling may be made, again with the agreement of the players."

Now, you can say that this is actually the de facto system because any GM retarded enough to rule haphazardly will find himself without a group pretty damn quick. However, the reality is that many players are just happy to find a group, so often a shitty GM will be tolerated simply because that's the only way to play.

Tzor, I agree with you that something like rule 0 is necessary to ensure the game doesn't get bogged down by arguments and the like, but a better way would be simply to have rules that work. A man can dream can't he?

[RandomCasualty]

1182399632[/unixtime]]
Tzor, I agree with you that something like rule 0 is necessary to ensure the game doesn't get bogged down by arguments and the like, but a better way would be simply to have rules that work. A man can dream can't he?

Yeah, problem is that having perfect rules is pretty much not going to happen. RPGs are just too complex to have rules that are going to work in every circumstance.

Also, lots of players just don't understand why some stuff is broken, so majority votes don't work. As a DM, I don't want to waste a lot of time explaining to people why polymorph is broken. I really don't. I just want to ban it and get on with things. If someone doesn't like it, I can explain to them in a brief bit why I've banned it, but I don't want the game to turn into some democratic voting system, because like most democracies a lot of the voters may well be ignorant to the facts.

I mean sure, if you had an enlightened group of players who know a lot about the system, then voting might be fine, but most of the time, this isn't the case, so I generally prefer the "DM is god" thing.

Also, there's the simple fact that you can afford to lose a player or two, but you can't afford to lose the DM. Not if you want to preserve the campaign anyway.

As far as bad DMs, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Rules won't help make better DMs. They really don't. DMs who are willing to use arbitrary rule 0 to terrorize their players with bullshit like arrow to the neck and similar crap are going to suck no matter what. Best thing to do is just leave their game. No magic rules set is going to make these guys good.

[Cielingcat]

Rules may not be able to make good DMs, but systems can actively encourage certain mindsets.

[rapanui]

Damn straight.

"Yeah, problem is that having perfect rules is pretty much not going to happen. RPGs are just too complex to have rules that are going to work in every circumstance."

Wrong, it just depends on the level of complexity and abstraction the player is willing to accept. Many computer RPGs and video games manage to present interesting tactical options to the player without being broken to hell and back. They do so by sacrificing the freedom the player has to take certain actions or by making certain actions more abstract. In a CRPG your characters may not be able to flip a table and take cover, or swing from a chandelier, but the game is still fun.

The more character optimization choices, the more likely some highly powerful synergies will manifest, however that in itself may not be too bad. But then there's just stupid shit. Gate? Who the fuck wrote the text to Gate? Were they even thinking?

"Also, lots of players just don't understand why some stuff is broken, so majority votes don't work ...If someone doesn't like it, I can explain to them in a brief bit why I've banned it, but I don't want the game to turn into some democratic voting system, because like most democracies a lot of the voters may well be ignorant to the facts. I mean sure, if you had an enlightened group of players who know a lot about the system, then voting might be fine, but most of the time, this isn't the case, so I generally prefer the "DM is god" thing."

Wow. The level of contempt you're showing the average player here is really astounding. It takes 1 minute of game time to explain to someone why Polymorph is retarded. The person is more likely to have an issue with you banning it ad hoc rather than in some pre-game conversation, so it's your duty as GM to explain house rules prior to beginning the game anyhow. Yeah, for D&D the list of stuff you'd reasonably want to ban from your game is fvcking long, but that's a case for D&D being a shitpile, not a case against Democratic DMing.

Ideally, the voting thing would only come up during an ad hoc ruling about something that's simply not covered in the text. Your character wants to spit lemonade in someone's eye to give them an attack penalty? OK, you make up a rule and if the player's agree the game goes on.

[RandomCasualty]

1182408494[/unixtime]]
Wow. The level of contempt you're showing the average player here is really astounding. It takes 1 minute of game time to explain to someone why Polymorph is retarded.

Are you kidding me? It takes longer than that just to explain what polymorph does and how it works, let alone how broken it is. Remember that big list Frank wrote out earlier? Yeah.. you've got to go through that whole thing just to show the player how it works. Then you can start getting into how you might abuse it.

Not to mention you get a lot of PCs who hate changing rules or have a "The Designers are gods" mentality and won't vote for any changes whatsoever.

Seriously, given the choice between making the DM god, or making Andy Collins god, I'll definitely take the average DM.

Ideally, the voting thing would only come up during an ad hoc ruling about something that's simply not covered in the text. Your character wants to spit lemonade in someone's eye to give them an attack penalty? OK, you make up a rule and if the player's agree the game goes on.

That tends to take forever though because people present a bunch of ideas, and some people like certain ideas and others don't. Also it leads to a total hodgepodge of rules being thrown around such that it's going to look like 2nd edition by the time you're done. Splashing beer in someone's eye may require only an attack roll, but using sand may give the target a reflex save... and so on.

As a player I generally am more worried about playing in the game than adjudicating rules. That's the DM's job anyway. If I trust the DM, well then I'll go with his ruling. Sure, he may blow a few calls in my opinion, but everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not going to let it bother me. If I think the DM sucks and is incompetent, then wtf am I doing there in the first place?