Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[Username17]

There's any of a number of things Pathfinder can do to non-core spells. Including changing the rules for the characters using them. I mean fuck, they used a high-end service call to put Remove Disease on the Dread Necromancer list without ever even mentioning the Dread Necromancer class.

Saying that they "couldn't" have done anything about Shadow Spray is horseshit. They didn't do anything about Shadow Spray, so anything they do to Glitterdust means jack shit.

-Username17

[Vnonymous]

Didn't they make the characters using those spells explicitly better anyway, with more feats/stat points/cool things?

[RandomCasualty2]

There's any of a number of things Pathfinder can do to non-core spells. Including changing the rules for the characters using them. I mean fuck, they used a high-end service call to put Remove Disease on the Dread Necromancer list without ever even mentioning the Dread Necromancer class.

Saying that they "couldn't" have done anything about Shadow Spray is horseshit.

This is expecting way way too much Frank. Pathfinder is one book meant to replace the PHB, It's not going to rewrite and fix every crappy splatbook written in the entire life cycle of 3.5. I mean damn, you talk like Bulman has to be Jesus before you'll give him any respect at all. If he could just make the core work well (which honestly, he didn't), then I'd respect PF. I don't expect him to fix all 30+ splatbooks that have been released for 3.5. That's just asking far too much out of one book.

And even if he did, people would probably dumpster dive back to 3.0. I mean if you absolutely want to break the game, you totally can. But you can't blame a core rules rewrite for not fixing all the splatbook dung that came out of WotC for the past 8 years.

[Username17]

But you can't blame a core rules rewrite for not fixing all the splatbook dung that came out of WotC for the past 8 years.

If it says "balances the game and is compatible with every WotC splatbook from the last 8 years!" you totally can.

If you want to balance things in the core rules such that they are compatible with the splat books, you have many choices. You can balance the core rules crap up to the splat material people actually want to use. You can add across the board rules that hamper peoples´access to or use of the more powerful material. You can make people in general more resistant to "stuff" such that the high end rocket launchers are not as big a deal.

And so on and so forth. Fuck, if you wanted to make the lower key Glitterdust into the new standard, you could have instituted a straight rule that people get a save to break out of standard conditions each round. Instantaneously Cloud of Bewilderment would get a similar down-ratchet in power even though it was never mentioned. Or you could take the Wizard class and make them spend higher level or specialist slots to prepare non-core spells. That would down-ratchet Cloud of Bewilderment as well.

When the game has over two thousand spells, and you nerf eight of them and then proudly proclaim that the game is "all fixed now" and is "fully compatible" with all 2000 spells, you´re being an irredeemable tool. That kind of shit is an obvious lie, and I´m embarrassed for you.

If he could just make the core work well (which honestly, he didn't), then I'd respect PF.

This I will agree with. Had the goal simply been to make a core system that was functional, with an "add other crap at your own discretion/peril" methodology, I would judge it on those terms. In fact, even if that hadn´t been the sales pitch and it worked under those considerations, I would respect it and consider making material for it rather than DnD standard.

But he didn´t do any of those things. He claimed that he was making something to work with the whole of DnD and his stuff fails on every level. It doesn´t balance a thing and it has a bunch of huge problems with interactivity.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Fuck, if you wanted to make the lower key Glitterdust into the new standard, you could have instituted a straight rule that people get a save to break out of standard conditions each round.

There just aren't enough wide area general fixes you can toss out without fucking up something else. The fact is that a lot of splatbooks churned out things that you're better off just crossing off and not using. Shivering Touch for instance. It's probably not worth your time trying to fix it by changing base mechanics, because the problem isn't with base mechanics, it's with that one spell. And it's really not a spell you even want to bother to salvage, so it's not worth screwing with the core mechanics to try to accommodate it.

I mean just having compatibility alone doesn't necessarily mean that your game is automatically going to be balanced for those rules. Really, the best you can realistically hope for is to balance out your core rules to the MM with something like the same game test, and then just throw out a caveat that splatbooks may fuck up the game.

I mean as a designer, really the best you can do is try to write the best product you can. You're better off picking a balanced power level and going with it, rather than let your project be influenced by the fact that some tool wrote a broken spell and that your project has to be similarly broken. That design strategy just leads to a game that can literally never be fixed, because everyone has to build off the mistakes of a previous designer.

Rewriting the core rules should be a time to start fresh.

But he didn´t do any of those things. He claimed that he was making something to work with the whole of DnD and his stuff fails on every level. It doesn´t balance a thing and it has a bunch of huge problems with interactivity.

Yeah, Pathfinder is ass. No doubt about that. It's really just like the same level of change that 3.5 did over 3.0. Some things got fixed, Some things got totally fucked up (like CMB), and most of the balance problems are left unchanged.

[Roy]

Thing is, even if they actually do nerf some 'win' spells at a given level, all it means is that a smaller pool of spells gets spammed more, it doesn't actually make the spellcasters any worse. If every single one of them were nerfed then that would count... for all of about two levels, except they can't do that even if they try.

More to the point though, how practical is the glitterdust nerf, really? You cast it on round 1, and they get a save on round 2. By now your party has had 2 rounds to work on the enemy... suffice it to say they're dead or very close to it, so not also being blinded is largely academic (not to mention, at the level you first get Glitterdust it has a good chance of working even on divine caster, so making another save isn't going to help too much). In any case the third round will finish the job.

Likewise with the melee thing, see that's a trap. Melee characters already were obsolete, and the presence or absence of a bear doesn't change that. Even the competent ones don't really have a party role, so even if Polymorph/Wild Shape/etc were nerfed it's just a smokescreen, they can still actually cast spells, which means all the Paizils did is remove a trap option.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Of course, you can still pick one of the eight unnerfed spells that are all better than Polymorph because Polymorph is a shitty spell and you should feel bad for bringing it up as something actually worth taking. But yes, if you want your AoE spell that limits weak creatures that can't fly or teleport, you have to deal with a slightly weaker version that has pretty much the same chance of success.

I do feel dirty anytime I take Polymorph - it was an abysmally designed spell . However, people still take it in 3.5...all the time. My point is that if you take a wizard, nerf his best spells, and you replace them with inferior spells, then you are on weak ground saying the wizard got more powerful when the power of a wizard is 95% the spells.

But the answer is 'it depends' because I don't know whether or not you are a backwards compatibility asshole or not.

Umm....does agreeing with FT's OP regarding backwards compatibility make me an asshole or not? If so, then yes, I'm a "backwards compatibility asshole". Though I prefer the term "realist" personally "

Wizard still standing strong.

I am in agreement with FT's point in his OP that Pathfinder is not 3.5 compatable.

I don't find referencing "Cloud of Bewilderment" any more relevant to discussing Pathfinder Wizards than referencing 2nd ed material when discussing 3.5. It should be relevant, but the reality is that it isn't. If you agree with FT's OP in it's entirety, then we agree that Cloud of Bewilderment is irrelevant to Pathfinder. Far moreso than 3.0 material is to 3.5.

Saying that they "couldn't" have done anything about Shadow Spray is horseshit. They didn't do anything about Shadow Spray, so anything they do to Glitterdust means jack shit.

Only if we agree that your point about backward compatibility in the OP was incorrect.

If we agree that Pathfinder is not backwards compatible (I certainly think it isn't), then what Shadow Spray can do is irrelevant since it comes from incompatible material.

Your OP suggested that Pathfinder was not compatible with 3.5, then said that nerfing certain spells didn't matter because there were other spells just as good you could take instead. This implies that you have replacements in mind from Pathfinder material.

That is the point I'm debating. I've been working on a Wizard's guide for Pathfinder to update my "Being a God" thread - and I can't make a Pathfinder wizard that compares with a 3.5 wizard. I can get more HP, I can get more skills, I can get more feats - but the spells are inferior.

This makes the Wizard inferior. Spells are what makes a wizard powerful. Extra HP mean next to nothing in comparison.

I came here to find out what I was missing, or whether you were mistaken. It has to be one of the two.

As for backwards compatibility - I expect that is pure intentional manipulation by Paizo marketing. Give you promises that if you invest in Pathfinder, you will still get to use that library of 3.5 material on your bookshelf.

However, if you could use that material, they wouldn't sell you all those splat books they are planning, so backwards compatibility was never in their best interest. Once people start playing Pathfinder, they will gobble up Paizo released splatbooks like crazy, and that 3.5 material will gather the same dust as if you switched to 4.0.

I disagree that Pathfinder should have been backwards compatible. I just think that they should have been honest that it wasn't going to be. Shame on them for that.

I will say that Pathfinder "feels" more like 3.5 than 4th ed does. However, I won't dwell on that here because it is difficult to qualify, but is the reason my 4th ed books are gathering dust now.

I did respond to a post on BG yesterday where someone wanted to make a "God" wizard in Pathfinder, and he said that his DM was allowing the Spell Compendium - I immediately told him to use that resource as much as he could (He had actually stated in his OP that he intended "Ray of Enfeeblement" to be a staple spell - I let him know that wasn't a good idea in Pathfinder ) However, this will probably be the first and last Pathfinder campaign he gets to do that, for exactly the reason you stated regarding compatibility.

I think this addresses your next post as well, since again, it is about how backwards compatibility should have happened.

So to sum up: I AGREE that Pathfinder isn't compatible with 3.5, I DISAGREE that there are equivalent spells for the spells that got nerfed at any given level. Since spells are the reason wizards are powerful in the first place, I disagree that some extra HP, Skills, and a couple minor class abilities overshadows this.

Bringing up backwards compatibility doesn't address the point.

Edit: Addressed Kaelic's "Asshole" comment and added some paragraph breaks and bolding.

[Kaelik]

I do feel dirty anytime I take Polymorph - it was an abysmally designed spell . However, people still take it in 3.5...all the time. My point is that if you take a wizard, nerf his best spells, and you replace them with inferior spells, then you are on weak ground saying the wizard got more powerful when the power of a wizard is 95% the spells.

I think you might be confused. Polymorph is not dirty because it is too powerful. It is dirty because it is ass. Saying Polymorph is a powerful 4th level spell in 3.5 is being stupid. Polymorph is a terribly not powerful spell that tricks people into doing stupid things.

Shapechange, sure, PaO, yes. Polymorph? Ass.

Umm....does agreeing with FT's OP regarding backwards compatibility make me an asshole or not? If so, then yes, I'm a "backwards compatibility asshole". Though I prefer the term "realist" personally

I would call your opinion the exact opposite of realism. People do use 3.5 material in their Pathfinder games. Go read any goddam Pathfinder playtest ever and you'll see bullshit like:

Warblade 12
Warlock 12
Wizard 5/PrC 10
Bard 10/Sublime Chord 5

But that aside, your position about lack of compatibility, though not being realist, is not what I was referring too. I was talking about people who claimed Pathfinder still could make every character, and a worthwhile Bard, because you could use 3.5 material, such as Sublime Chord.

Although, the real Backwards compatibility assholes are those who when told that Pathfinder is a shitty game with few working character concepts, pull out compatibility, but then five seconds later when talking about balance, talk about spell nerfs.

[Orion]

Kaelik -- you're kidding, right? You've never polymorphed the party spearfighter into a Stone Giant?

[Psychic Robot]

CMD is a terrible system, and it angers me that they thought it was okay.

[Treantmonklvl20]

I think you might be confused. Polymorph is not dirty because it is too powerful. It is dirty because it is ass. Saying Polymorph is a powerful 4th level spell in 3.5 is being stupid. Polymorph is a terribly not powerful spell that tricks people into doing stupid things.

Your right - I was confused. Surely you understand why? There is no response to this that won't come off insulting, so I think we'll agree to disagree.

I would call your opinion the exact opposite of realism. People do use 3.5 material in their Pathfinder games. Go read any goddam Pathfinder playtest ever and you'll see bullshit like:

I don't understand your point (in that saying they are incompatable is the opposite of realism). I'm consistant in that I believe that Pathfinder and 3.5 are not compatable, and that Paizo is either nieve or manipulative when they say it is. (I lean towards the second, but cannot be certain).

This seems to be Frank's view in his OP. To quote directly:

I heard that Pathfinder is compatible with 3rd edition rules. As such, does it really make any difference if I use pathfinder or not?

Unfortunately, it does. Pathfinder makes a lot of minor rules modifications that really add up to being quite confusing. It even calculates defenses and hit points slightly differently so that monsters out of the monster manual are not usable as-is. With almost inconsequential changes to almost every spell as well as the basic monster combat routines, you'll be running into something you have to look up almost every combat round - and that seriously slows down play. Pathfinder is less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd edition sourcebooks or d20 modern sourcebooks are.

Being that is the case, and that I agree with his quoted point, bringing up Splatbook material to show how Wizards maintain...nay, increase their power in Pathfinder is inconsistant with this point.

You called someone who wants it both ways a "compatability asshole", I wouldn't agree that they are necessarily assholes (they could be I suppose), but I would say it is disingenuous.

If you LOVE everything about Pathfinder, suddenly you get to have it both ways (as in the example you gave), and if you HATE everything about Pathfinder...ditto (as in the responses to my original post). Neither view is consistant, logical, or honest.

So which is it? Is it backwards compatable, or are you the opposite of a realist too?

Kaelik -- you're kidding, right? You've never polymorphed the party spearfighter into a Stone Giant?

Personally, I like Polymorphing Monks into Treants. (Obviously) Nothing like a Treant performing a flying jump kick.

It actually makes the Monk NOT entirely useless.

However, there are MULTIPLE threads devoted to the incredible versatility of Polymorph (and the power increased with every Monster Manual they printed). I'm pretty certain Kaelic is on his own in that view.

[Username17]

Being that is the case, and that I agree with his quoted point, bringing up Splatbook material to show how Wizards maintain...nay, increase their power in Pathfinder is inconsistant with this point.

They increase their power because spell focus/penetration are cheaper and they all get a boost to their casting stat.

Individual spell nerfs are meaningless because there are unnerfed spells anywhere in the system, and the designers even tell you point blank that you can dumpster dive through the spell compendium.

As it happens, spells are the one part of the game that really is compatible.

-Username17

[Treantmonklvl20]

They increase their power because spell focus/penetration are cheaper and they all get a boost to their casting stat.

Certainly that is the case if spells from 3.5 sources are OK, because then your point regarding spell swapping works.

Individual spell nerfs are meaningless because there are unnerfed spells anywhere in the system, and the designers even tell you point blank that you can dumpster dive through the spell compendium.

Why does what the designers say matter? The designers say that ALL of 3.5 is compatable. However, once again if Pathfinder is backwards compatable when it comes to spells, then in this case they would be right.

As it happens, spells are the one part of the game that really is compatible.

Thank you, that is an answer that is logically consistant.

For the record I disagree (not that it matters - it is opinion based, not fact based). Most spells will work fine, but those that reference altered spells, use rules that have changed (tripping or grappling for example), or any number of conflicts I haven't thought of, will need tweaking or changes, or the banhammer to work properly with the Pathfinder rules. Of course, these will all need to be done on a case-by-case basis, or you could find yourself making snap judgements to make things work in gameplay.

Pretty much the way the rest of the game is "compatible" (sorry for all my misspells earlier).

However, your position that the game is not compatable except for spells works with the rest of your position on the "gap". Are you going to correct your OP to reflect this?

[ubernoob]

Actual Polymorph (the 4th level spell, not the 2nd, 5th, 8th, or 9th version) sucks. It's an issue of action cost at the level you get it.

I play transmutation domain wizards all the time (required to prep polymorph). I almost NEVER cast it and NEVER cast it in combat.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik -- you're kidding, right? You've never polymorphed the party spearfighter into a Stone Giant?

No. I've never played with anyone who wasted my time playing a Spear Fighter, and I wouldn't have wasted my Standard action and 4th level spell on them if they did.

I don't understand your point (in that saying they are incompatable is the opposite of realism). I'm consistant in that I believe that Pathfinder and 3.5 are not compatable, and that Paizo is either nieve or manipulative when they say it is. (I lean towards the second, but cannot be certain).

It is the opposite of realism, because over here in reality, the vast majority of Pathfinder players choose to use 3.5 classes or feats or races under Pathfinder rules. There is very little preventing you from using a given class or feat or spell in Pathfinder, and so it is quite compatible in the regard that you can use some 3.5 material on your PCs. It is not compatible in other regards, and regarding other materials, such as spells that reference trip/grapple/bullrush.

It is also not compatible in the sense that you lose any reason to play a Fighter with the existence of Warblades, so perhaps the Warblade shouldn't be used. But shouldn't be is very different from can't be.

This seems to be Frank's view in his OP. To quote directly:

I heard that Pathfinder is compatible with 3rd edition rules. As such, does it really make any difference if I use pathfinder or not?

Unfortunately, it does. Pathfinder makes a lot of minor rules modifications that really add up to being quite confusing. It even calculates defenses and hit points slightly differently so that monsters out of the monster manual are not usable as-is. With almost inconsequential changes to almost every spell as well as the basic monster combat routines, you'll be running into something you have to look up almost every combat round - and that seriously slows down play. Pathfinder is less compatible with 3.5 rules than 3rd edition sourcebooks or d20 modern sourcebooks are.

Being that is the case, and that I agree with his quoted point, bringing up Splatbook material to show how Wizards maintain...nay, increase their power in Pathfinder is inconsistant with this point.

I think you should read more carefully. The question is not if it is more compatible, it was asked if it matters which is being used, and how that affects your game.

Frank's only response is that it makes the game more annoying, because you have to keep looking things up, and that every Monster is not compatible as is, and requires adaptation because of new rules.

That says nothing at all about player options when building a PC. You can easily build a PC under the Pathfinder rules that happens to have the class "Warblade" or use the spell "Orb of Fire" without any extra working looking anything up or adjusting things.

Modules and Pre generated NPCs and Monsters are incompatible, but most PC options are just as viable, and I don't see Frank claiming otherwise.

You called someone who wants it both ways a "compatability asshole", I wouldn't agree that they are necessarily assholes (they could be I suppose), but I would say it is disingenuous.

This isn't a bitch forum. You can just call people who are assholes assholes. And people who deny access to 3.5 material to claim Pathfinder is balanced, and then claim it has all the same options are assholes.

If you LOVE everything about Pathfinder, suddenly you get to have it both ways (as in the example you gave), and if you HATE everything about Pathfinder...ditto (as in the responses to my original post). Neither view is consistant, logical, or honest.

I can't understand this, probably because it's all gibberish, but I'm guessing this is the part where you claim that everyone has the same double standard and blah blah hippy bullshit/stealth troll.

Leave off your amateur philosophy and don't hide your trolls in gibberish. See, 'not a bitch forum' remark earlier.

So which is it? Is it backwards compatable, or are you the opposite of a realist too?

It is incompatible in the sense that you can't use all the material. I am realistic enough to admit that people will take the things that are compatible, mostly spells/feats/base classes, PrCs to a lesser extent, and use them in their games.

I also know that any DM is going to answer the question 'no' after the eighteenth billion time they have to go over a stat block to fix it.

[Orion]

Well, our "spear fighter" was actually an Eldritch Knight with an artifact longspear who polymorphed himself before fights, but still. As a self-buff, it's significantly beter than the dreaded Divine Power, and longer-duration too. I know there's no DMM, but it's not as if there aren't ways to get arcane buffs going without wasting your combat actions.

[Kaelik]

Well, our "spear fighter" was actually an Eldritch Knight with an artifact longspear who polymorphed himself before fights, but still. As a self-buff, it's significantly beter than the dreaded Divine Power, and longer-duration too. I know there's no DMM, but it's not as if there aren't ways to get arcane buffs going without wasting your combat actions.

If it doesn't take a standard action to cast, or if you Persist it, it is certainly great.

But Divine Power isn't that great without Persist either, and casting Polymorph on your average Barbarian/Fighter isn't more of a buff than Divine Power.

It's only more of a buff if they have shitty Str, in which case, fuck them in the eye.

[Orion]

A Troll has a base Str 23, and is available at level 7. Assuming you're playing with high stats, you party fighter *probably* has a base of 18 by then. If you're using noncore races and so on he might have 20. So with Divine Power he'd come out marginally ahead with a 18+6=24.

Except for two things you're forgetting:

First of all, not every character is going to start with an 18 strength. If you're on point buy, or he's unlucky, and he's a cleric or fighter/wizard or something or a gnome paladin or whatever he might only have a base strength of 14. Especially if he put all his points into CON, INT, and WIS because screw STR/DEX I have polymorph.

But more importantly, Divine Power gives an Enchancement bonus to Strength. Polymorph Doesn't. So If you polymorph into a troll you can stack that with Gauntles of Ogre Power, Bull's Strength, or even Divine Power is the party Wizard is polymorphing the party Cleric, who will then have 29 STR at level seven.

Becoming a Troll also gives you +5 Natural Armor, and the extra reach of a large creature. That's a pretty ridiculous buff. And of course, it only gets better. At level 14 when you have lots of 4th level spell slots lying around, you can polymorph stuff like the Stone Giant, with STR 28, DEX 13, and +10 Natural Armor.

[ubernoob]

Polymorph is competing with Evard's Black Tentacles. This means that it will never be cast in combat because EBT will simply win a combat. Polymorph is only handy for when you have time to buff before a battle (pretty exclusively dungeon crawls). Unless you can fight at least two battles in a row buffed with one casting of polymorph, it is flat out worse than using that slot on EBT in every way.

Polymorph is weak. Its friends are good, but polymorph itself is way too overrated.

[Orion]

PUnless you can fight at least two battles in a row buffed with one casting of polymorph, it is flat out worse than using that slot on EBT in every way.

This is incorrect. Beyond a certain level, you don't CARE about your fourth level spells slots, only about actions.

And Evard's Black Tentacles is a fantastic spell... at level seven. It remains decent as an attack for a long time but it doesn't "win" a fight against demons, dragons, or other high level people you care about since they fly, teleport, cast spells, and out-grapple anything.

[Kaelik]

A Troll has a base Str 23, and is available at level 7. Assuming you're playing with high stats, you party fighter *probably* has a base of 18 by then. If you're using noncore races and so on he might have 20. So with Divine Power he'd come out marginally ahead with a 18+6=24.

1) Or, they could be a Core Fighter and have a base Str of 23 at level 7. Whoops. That was dumb wasn't it!

2) We are Comparing Divine Power to Polymorph, Divine Power is cast on 3/4ths BAB Cleric. So it gives +6 Str and +2 BAB, and grants the Cleric an iterative attack.

So far we have +0 Str vs +6 Str and +2 BAB.

At level 14 when you have lots of 4th level spell slots lying around, you can polymorph stuff like the Stone Giant, with STR 28, DEX 13, and +10 Natural Armor.

And a level 14 Fighter can have a base Str of 30. Now we are dealing with penalty to Str. And Dex too.

Also, Stone Giants have Str 27.

Yes, starting with an 18 or intelligent race selection aren't universal. I fail to see the justification for a spell with a crappy duration, that requires looking through a whole nother book for a shitty level 1 spell.

So you start with a 16 PB or roll, now you have Str 28. So you have no Orc either, now you are getting a whole +3 Str, like enlarge person but worse. Still not seeing this super freaking awesome spell.

Polymorph adds +3 to the Str of Human Fighter that started with 16 Str, and gives him Large size.

So does Enlarge Person, except +1 more Str.

Wow, your level 4 spells are freaking awesome.

[Treantmonklvl20]

Sigh...we are probably off topic...oh well

I can't believe I need to convince anyone that Polymorph is a powerful spell. Absolutely insane.

The Polymorph spell is easily the most versatile spell for 4th level, and versatility = power. (This is why wizards are powerful - spells=versatility) There is a reason Wizards kept errating this spell and eventually just gave up. It's broken, broken, broken.

If you allow the polymorphed creature to take the type and subtype and all natural abilities of the form assumed, and place no limit on the choices of form that can be taken, it is beyond repair. Wizards never figured that out with all their "fixes", so the final errated Polymorph was still one of the most broken spells in 3.5 (it's competitors are all it's cousins - Alter Self, Draconic Polymorph, Polymorph any object (broken most of all), and Shapechange)

Of course, saying it's so without backup means little, so here are some of the more common tricks:

Some options For Combat:

War Troll: NA +14, Base str 31, Large Size, Dazing blow (ex). You can take this form and get the nice NA and still cast. If you cast Enlarge Person beforehand, the character can continue to use their armor, otherwise, they can still use magic items and weapons, though to get the dazing blow they need to attack ah-natural.

12 headed hydra:Totally broken. NA +13, 12 attacks are one standard action - including on a charge. Make it Cryo or Pyro is fire or cold immunity is helpful. This is the form of choice for any charge build. Instead of applying the power attack bonus to one attack, apply it to 12. This just scratches the surface. Imagine this form + scout for example. Move 10', attack 12 times, move 10', attack 12 times (now add power attack). You can use this abuse long before 12th level, just reduce the number of heads, making it a form that improves as you do.

Astral Deva: Na+15, Fly perfect 100, Deva immunities, All simple/martial weapon profs, (this one is for the wizard - the fly 100 perfect is awesome, the immunities are nice, defensively solid, doesn't prevent casting - you need to be "Otherworldly" or a natural outsider)


Versatility: Insane versatility

depeding on your need:

Immunities: Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, Gaze attacks, illusions, Petrification, Poison, Sleep, Mind-affect (as with Mind Blank, an 8th level spell), Stunning, Paralysis, Critical hits, sneak attack

Movement: Fly, Earth Glide, Swim, Burrow

Abilities: Rust (rust monster), Invisibility (Will-o-wisp), Pounce, Rake, Improved grab, Rend, Poison, Constrict, paralization for starters

Enough? No?

OK - by RAW I can polymorph your character into a human or strongheart halfling and you get a bonus feat of choice. Stupid but true (very very very very stupid)

There is no end to the abuse possible.

You guys are CO - how do you not know this stuff?

[Roy]

First of all, Polymorph doesn't give most of the special abilities. It gives a few like Pounce and Rake (Ex) but not any of the nice ones.

Second, most of the forms you named are 12th level or higher. By this point you have the 5th level spell Draconic Polymorph, which is just flat out better in every way (and also has been admitted to be better). More to the point, you're past the point where HP damage really matters... which means you're devoting resources to slitting the throats of cripples. Don't do that.

[RandomCasualty2]

Becoming a Troll also gives you +5 Natural Armor, and the extra reach of a large creature. That's a pretty ridiculous buff. And of course, it only gets better. At level 14 when you have lots of 4th level spell slots lying around, you can polymorph stuff like the Stone Giant, with STR 28, DEX 13, and +10 Natural Armor.

Yeah, honestly poly is an insane buff if you just consider the natural armor alone on some monsters. Mainly because there's nothing stopping you from wearing normal armor over it. So you can very well be a stone giant in your magic full plate. And a +10 or so jump in AC will make you effectively unhittable.

[Treantmonklvl20]

First of all, Polymorph doesn't give most of the special abilities. It gives a few like Pounce and Rake (Ex) but not any of the nice ones.

Second, most of the forms you named are 12th level or higher. By this point you have the 5th level spell Draconic Polymorph, which is just flat out better in every way (and also has been admitted to be better). More to the point, you're past the point where HP damage really matters... which means you're devoting resources to slitting the throats of cripples. Don't do that.

It grants all natural abilities, anything from your type/subtype and untyped. Every ability I mentioned is one of those. Stupid but true. If you are skeptical, give me an example and I'll find you a form where the ability is natural or (Ex). This isn't something I've made up, discovered first, or haven't discussed at length before. Honest.

The forms I named were 12th level (all). Draconic Polymorph is superior in certain cases, but it is 5th level and a personal spell, so it depends what you want from it. You cannot change the charge fighter into a 12 headed hydra (or anything for that matter) with Draconic Polymorph. Draconic Polymorph is broken too - but for different reasons. See "Cheater of Mystra".

Buffing remains a worthwile enterprise for Wizards at 12th level. Increasing HP damage potential is one of those worthwhile pursuits. You 1) control the battlefield, 2) Debuff, 3) buff (often in that order) - this is a proven method of wizard strategy in combat. Turning the fighter into a 12 headed hydra may not be a good move on round 1, but by round 3 it can be the finisher. You set the opponents up to die, then you kill them. The fighter is a useful, and even necessary tool to achieve this.

I'm new to these boards, but I assure you, I'm not new to wizard strategy.