Talk:Polymorph Self, Tome (3.5e Spell)

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)

I noted this in chat but noting here again: I oppose this change, due to the existence of spells such as Major Image. Surgo 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We do need to decide (using whatever reasoning) which interpretation we want to use. As written, the biggest concern is that it is entirely unclear. Something needs to change for that reason, if for no other. --DanielDraco 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid hopping on the "let's nerf polymorph" train, since there is a perfectly usable alternative to this right in the Dungeonomicon where this also makes its appearance. So I would like to just clarify to say that the monster can dismiss the spell. Surgo 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicted. Gonna go ahead and post this anyway, in case others disagree with Surgo. I, for the record, agree that saying the monster can dismiss is the easiest change which remains closest to F&K's vision.

One thing that I think should be considered, though. If Bigode's response to my argument is the interpretation used (i.e., the caster himself dismisses it despite being absent), and if any monster exists that can cast this spell (and several do, because some monsters can advance by class and take wizard levels but still be "monsters" and valid targets), then there is an exploit which allows the caster to infinitely produce like-minded monsters that never go away. The wizard starts by casting Polymorph Self to turn into a monster that can cast Polymorph Self. This monster casts Polymorph Self to turn into anything at all. The wizard then dismisses Polymorph Self; he reappears and the first monster vanishes (but since it is already vanished, nothing further happens to it). At this point, the wizard and the second monster are present. So the first monster dismisses Polymorph Self; the first monster reappears and the second monster vanishes. Both spell effects are now expired so that nobody will vanish anymore, but the wizard and the spellcasting monster are both present.

So yeah, if the caster himself retains the ability to dismiss the spell, that hole should be patched too. --DanielDraco 01:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Using RAI where RAW seems unclear: looks to me like the first monster can't dismiss the second spell because it only exists as far as the first spell runs, so you'd have the original caster and the second monster, that exists as long as the duration of the second spell. But if true, that, while less crazy, is definitely outside of design intent as well. (While there *is* a purpose to the "vanish/reappear" language, it's the source of this problem.) Also: :clap::clap::clap: Bigode 04:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)