Re: session re****t

In article <ep3249$7ue$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>The problem (a familiar one to computer programmers, I think) is
>that Polymorph is an "im****t" spell.  It im****ts into the core rules any
>mistake made by the authors of whatever monster manual or other monster
>source you are using:  for example, if they rule that something is an
>ability of a type emulatable by Polymorph when it should have been
>something of a type not emulatable, you're suddenly confronted with
>an ability that you thought was ruled out.

Wizards of the Coast has, belatedly, acknowledged this problem:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a

Their latest approach is basically to throw up their hands in frustration
and firewall Polymorph away from the rest of the system, so that it's
easier for DMs to ban.

As a replacement, they created a new "polymorph subschool" series of
spells,
each of which allows you to change into one specific form.  Examples here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=5

>Things are certainly better if one avoids all of the splatbooks.
>The warlock's magical damaging attack is given no type!  We had a long,
>long discussion of this when we discovered it.  The damage has to be
>some type or other so that we know what can defend against it, but
>there is no hint in the class writeup.

I think that's actually supposed to be a feature, not a bug; since the
damage is untyped, only spell resistance protects against it.  

-- 
Justin Fang (justinf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)