Difference between revisions of "Talk:Polymorph Self, Tome (3.5e Spell)"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Dismissibility)
(Dismissibility)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
::If anything, I think that argument may work by saying "you" dismiss it, from whichever undefined position you occupy. But there's also the separate argument about going against F&K's intent for balance reasons. [[User:Bigode|Bigode]] 03:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 
::If anything, I think that argument may work by saying "you" dismiss it, from whichever undefined position you occupy. But there's also the separate argument about going against F&K's intent for balance reasons. [[User:Bigode|Bigode]] 03:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::The balance argument may be valid. I'm just noting that the RAW argument isn't. I have no opinion on whether or not it would be better-balanced with either change. --[[User:DanielDraco|DanielDraco]] 03:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:39, 30 July 2012

Dismissibility

RAW, this spell can't be dismissed, because the "(D)" clause can only be used by the caster - which is absent during the effect. Might say explicitly "the monster can end the spell"; OTOH, forcing the caster to commit to a form for the entire duration (removing the "(D)") may help balance its truly enormous potential. Bigode 02:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

RAW, yes it can dismiss it. It says you "vanish", but that statement shares all the same problems as death, i.e. it is totally undefined and has no consequences. It never says you cannot take actions. So in order to declare that you cannot dismiss it, we must apply some RAI and assume that F&K intends that the caster ceases to exist, not occupying any space, unable to take any actions or perceive anything. And if we're applying RAI to go that far, we may as well apply RAI a little further and assume that, because they deliberately made it dismissible, someone must be able to dismiss it — and the only real candidate for that someone is the conjured monster. So I contend that if any changes should be made, it should be adding text that explicates the monster's ability to dismiss the spell. --DanielDraco 03:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If anything, I think that argument may work by saying "you" dismiss it, from whichever undefined position you occupy. But there's also the separate argument about going against F&K's intent for balance reasons. Bigode 03:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The balance argument may be valid. I'm just noting that the RAW argument isn't. I have no opinion on whether or not it would be better-balanced with either change. --DanielDraco 03:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)