Side Quest II [Putting the Dead to Rest]

[reefwood]

Re: Polymorph any object

I'm pretty sure that "type" does not change when a few form is assumed, so a dragon in human-form or cat-form would not be subject to charm person or charm animal. I like the essence of a creature remaining the same, so the more I think about it, the more I prefer that for objects as well. A nonmagical object does not receive saving throws, but it is also immune to most spells and is often less effected by energy attack. Plus, I like the idea of a human vs human-form dragon vs human-form wooden chair all reacting differently to a fireball.

I'm going to work on a few examples with a human and red dragon and piece of wood all being turned into the other and see how that plays out with what I have going in my head for this. Will probably get them posted sometime later this week.

---

May 22, 2011 10:44:39 GMT -5 icnivad said:

May 22, 2011 2:20:57 GMT -5 reefwood said:

I would base it on the creature it was in life. A dead horse is still a horse body, and its cells are animal cells, even if they are now reanimated all creepy and undead.

How would this affect spells and abilities that are linked to these undead? For example, what would happen to my control from animate dead or control undead if I turned a skeleton into a dragon? I think, as you said about wearing a costume, that it wouldn't actually change your type, and thus a skeleton turned into a dragon would still be considered undead, and so nothing would change? Although mindless undead would get Int, Wis, and Cha scores of 5, so they would become mindful undead while the spell was in effect.

Correct, a skeleton in dragon-form is still treated as undead. Though, whatever dragon form provides could remove immunities and whatnot, but I don't know exactly what off the top of my head.

And yeah, it would gain Int 5 to go from mindless to being able to understand simple things, but Wis & Cha would remain the same cos they already have those.

It seems like the spell would operate slightly differently on objects vs creatures. The fact that they get stats indicates that it turns them into the creature, while with existing creatures, it just modifies the creature.

Seems like an object would get turned into a base version of the creature as in the monster manual (although, with the creatures mindset, which would unlikely be friendly to the caster).
While an existing creature would maintain hit points based on their HD and constitution score.

No, this spell doesn't turn objects into creatures, and no, using base monster stats goes against the flow of every other polymorph spell. Doing this could get really overpowered, and I don't want have to have certain rules for a pebble in rat-form (where rat stats would be no big deal) vs pebble in dragon-form (where dragon stats would be too much).

For the most part, a person in a monster costume should not be as good as an actual monster, and an object in a monster costume should definitely not be as good as an actual monster. If anything, an object should more often be less good in a monster costume than a person in a monster costume.

Since there's no spell to base turning into an object on, wouldn't it be simpler just to get the actual object's hardness? There are at least already rules and guidelines for that.

Yes, that might be a way to go.

If the target of the spell does not have physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution), this spell grants a base score of 10 to each missing ability score. If the target of the spell does not have mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), this spell grants a score of 5 to such scores.

A pebble turned into a dragon would have con score of 12(10 base, +2 Form of the Dragon I), which would grant +1 HP per HD on top of what the pebble already had.

There aren't really any rules to indicate this, but it seems like it might make the most sense to handle the spell a little differently for object and creatures. Using the various transmutation spells for creatures as the polymorph chain works, but actually turning an object into a real version of the creature using the standard creature

Except that it lacks HD, so a Con bonus +2 would still provide no extra hp.


Okay, back to work!

[michael]

A pebble turned into a dragon would have con score of 12(10 base, +2 Form of the Dragon I), which would grant +1 HP per HD on top of what the pebble already had.

There aren't really any rules to indicate this, but it seems like it might make the most sense to handle the spell a little differently for object and creatures. Using the various transmutation spells for creatures as the polymorph chain works, but actually turning an object into a real version of the creature using the standard creature

Except that it lacks HD, so a Con bonus +2 would still provide no extra hp.

If you gain a CON score, that actually represents something. That thing has physical health; it can contract diseases, be poisoned, die if its CON goes to zero. Gaining a CON score means these polymorphed things are more closely related to life than constructs or undead. It doesn't fit that in every other sense that is associated with physical health, they're still an object.

Normally unattended objects don't receive saves, so would a pebble turned dragon receive a saving throw? Would it be treated as an object or dragon? If it did receive a saving throw, I might go with the idea that I use for the phantom steed - a spell that can target any creature can target it, but spells that target specific creatures cannot.

An object polymorphed into a creature gains sentience. They have INT, WIS, and (unless they're undead) CHA. Can something sentient *ever* be considered unattended? Don't they just attend to themselves?


Having said all of that; While I think it makes more sense for a polymorphed object to gain hit dice, if you want to hold to your original ruling for simplicity's sake, or to keep the spell from being overpowered, I really have no problem with that.

In fact, if we're going for simplicity and reduction of abusability, I'd be fine with ditching *any* polymorphing of objects into creatures and vice versa. Allow objects to be turned into different objects, and creatures into creatures, and that's it beyond duplicating other spells. I know the spell allows for more, but it's so unclear, and every interpretation seems to have a lot of problems.

[reefwood]

Re: Polymorph Any Object

May 22, 2011 16:45:02 GMT -5 michael said:

An object polymorphed into a creature gains sentience. They have INT, WIS, and (unless they're undead) CHA. Can something sentient *ever* be considered unattended? Don't they just attend to themselves?

The sentience part really boggles my mind. What would a pebble that is given human form with really low Int/Wis/Cha want to do or care about? I guess it could partly depend on what it was able to perceive as an object. I thought there was a spell that allowed the caster to communicate with an object and that it may help outline what an object can sense...but I cannot find the spell now. Maybe it was a 3.5 expansion spell? Or maybe I am making this up?

I go back and forth on the saving throw idea, but right now I'm leaning back toward allowing "creature" saves since the object resistance to energy is really based on the material of which it is composed, so taking a fleshy form would probably lose that, and then it would be completely defenseless against energy without a saving throw.

May 22, 2011 16:45:02 GMT -5 michael said:

Having said all of that; While I think it makes more sense for a polymorphed object to gain hit dice, if you want to hold to your original ruling for simplicity's sake, or to keep the spell from being overpowered, I really have no problem with that.

In fact, if we're going for simplicity and reduction of abusability, I'd be fine with ditching *any* polymorphing of objects into creatures and vice versa. Allow objects to be turned into different objects, and creatures into creatures, and that's it beyond duplicating other spells. I know the spell allows for more, but it's so unclear, and every interpretation seems to have a lot of problems.

I don't want to remove the creature-object crossover. I'm just struggling to wrap my head around it, but all the questions do help me notice new things to consider, and creating some examples will probably help me getting a better feeling for the stats.

[reefwood]

Re: Base Building

May 16, 2011 11:34:55 GMT -5 reefwood said:

Day 74

Settlements on the Hydrahead Peninsula are few and usually far between. This has much more to do with the independent nature of the people and the dangerous wilds than a lack of good land. Verdas is the only major city anywhere near the center of the Hydra, and the only notable populations in the vicinity lie to the west. The Boulder Fields to the north are haunted and run near the treacherous Blackfens, and all prior settlements were destroyed by the Acid Queen. Meanwhile, the land to the east and south borders the Tinth Forest that is home to enormous beasts.

Verdas sits in the center of a valley that extends for 5 miles outside the city. Some of this land has been used for farming - though, the fields were scorched to prevent Nemedor from using the crops - but there is nothing wrong with the valley floor that is still covered in grass. It is not unstable. There has merely been no need to expand the farms across the entire valley.

Outside the valley, tall grass-covered rolling hills with scattered patches of clumped trees extend northwest and west and southwest out to the coast and south several miles. The land to the northeast and east and southeast is flat with shorter grass and even fewer trees. The Boulder Fields to the north are also flat and even more barren.

Also, a military compound will be built directly outside Verdas to provide protection for the city, and Brion is welcome to locate a base on this premises.


[OOC: Diplomacy 26, 2 hrs - it is now 6pm for Brion.]

This is where Brion left off, and it sounds like the plan is to build a base near Verdas (which is in the middle of a valley that stretches 5 miles in all directions) by chopping down trees outside the valley. Right now the nearest trees are 5 miles away, and how far they need to be carried just depends on where you want to locate the base. It could be 1 mile from the trees and 4 miles from Verdas, or vice versa, or something in between. I guess this is assuming the base is located in the valley, but it could be at the top of the valley too. Near the trees or not.