True Polymorph Into An Ancient Brass Dragon

[SharkForce]

A kind of creature can have multiple meanings as already stated. The example above about dogs is a good example of that. If you point at a pit bull and ask "what kind of creature is that?" People will likely say dog or maybe pit bull. If you do that to a human being, they might say it is a human, possibly describe gender.

The point he brings up is that occupation usually won't get brought up if asked to describe what kind of creature something is. Which is reasonable. In fact, when used in this manner it is often sarcastic. I can think of a few times the "what manner of creature is this?" line has been turned into a joke thanks to someone giving back a name, title or occupation, the idea behind said joke being they aren't actually a different kind of creature. Also manner and kind are synonyms (kind is literally the definition of manner when used as such), just in case someone felt the need to point that out.

It's vague. It's going to vary. Whether kind of creature represents any category of creature or a category based on creature type is slightly vague in the English language, both are in usage making this an imprecise spell that can be read in multiple ways. It lacks a strict well defined RAW and depends on RAI.

and yet at no point would you say they are not a kind of creature, unless you arbitrarily re-define kind to mean something other than what it means.

human wizards are a group of similar persons or things, and are creatures. they are a kind of creature. humans are also a group of similar persons or things. they are also a kind of creature. there is no indication anywhere that we are to draw a line between "human" and "human wizard" any more than there is any indication that we should draw a line between "human" and "humanoid". there is no basis to point to it and say "this is the point where something stops being a kind of creature for the purpose of this spell". the spell merely refers to kinds of creatures. anything more limiting than that is something which we have added ourselves, because we want to add it. which is fine, for the purpose of the game. but since it still doesn't rewrite the rules that are in the book, i'm still going to have to say that the rules in the book allow you to true polymorph into an archmage.

in contrast, when we look at the shapechange spell, we can clearly see that you are *not* allowed to polymorph into an archmage. they clearly considered the possibility that someone would want to do such a thing, and included rules covering the scenario. true polymorph lacks any such indication. there is absolutely nothing that says "kind of creature" cannot refer to "half-orc bandit" or "dwarf gladiator" in the spell. any such indication is coming from the minds of the people reading it.

furthermore, "kind of creature" not being arbitrarily limited matches better with the main section of the spell, which does not mention anything about kinds of creature at all, but simply states you can turn things into "a different creature" (referring to creature to creature) and "a creature" (referring to object to creature).

then there's the fact that they consider the possibility that your new form is a spellcaster in terms of spell components (vocal, somatic, etc). it can't be referring to innate spellcasters, because they all have modifiers on their spells that remove the need for components they can't reasonably be expected to supply anyways. so what could they possibly be referring to if not to polymorphing into a trained spellcaster?

there is no supporting text for an interpretation of "kind of creature" being limited at a certain point. if something is a kind of creature, regardless of what else it may be and regardless of whether you could define it as a kind of creature in other ways, you can true polymorph into it, based on what the rules say.

[druid91]

Wasn't there a huge argument earlier about how all creatures are monsters? Or was it vice versa?

Anyways, I don't think you can have a 'generic' archmage. Those stats exist sure, but the creature doesn't exist. Like Half-dragons. They are a template you add to things. Just Archmages are a more finished template, needing only racial stats and perhaps items. (or a change in spells).

Well yes. But the disbarring bit comes from the "The target is turned into a kind of creature with a CR equal or less than the targets (Or levels, if the target lacks a CR)" Forgive me, paraphrasing don't have my books in front of me.

Anyway, the jist is that to transform into something. It needs to be a creature and it needs to have a CR.

Also you have it backwards. Racial stats are the template that needs to be applied to the archmage. This still leaves you with a group of readily identifiable spellcasters known under the collective heading of 'archmages.'

[hawklost]

and yet at no point would you say they are not a kind of creature, unless you arbitrarily re-define kind to mean something other than what it means.

human wizards are a group of similar persons or things, and are creatures. they are a kind of creature. humans are also a group of similar persons or things. they are also a kind of creature. there is no indication anywhere that we are to draw a line between "human" and "human wizard" any more than there is any indication that we should draw a line between "human" and "humanoid". there is no basis to point to it and say "this is the point where something stops being a kind of creature for the purpose of this spell". the spell merely refers to kinds of creatures. anything more limiting than that is something which we have added ourselves, because we want to add it. which is fine, for the purpose of the game. but since it still doesn't rewrite the rules that are in the book, i'm still going to have to say that the rules in the book allow you to true polymorph into an archmage.

in contrast, when we look at the shapechange spell, we can clearly see that you are *not* allowed to polymorph into an archmage. they clearly considered the possibility that someone would want to do such a thing, and included rules covering the scenario. true polymorph lacks any such indication. there is absolutely nothing that says "kind of creature" cannot refer to "half-orc bandit" or "dwarf gladiator" in the spell. any such indication is coming from the minds of the people reading it.

furthermore, "kind of creature" not being arbitrarily limited matches better with the main section of the spell, which does not mention anything about kinds of creature at all, but simply states you can turn things into "a different creature" (referring to creature to creature) and "a creature" (referring to object to creature).

then there's the fact that they consider the possibility that your new form is a spellcaster in terms of spell components (vocal, somatic, etc). it can't be referring to innate spellcasters, because they all have modifiers on their spells that remove the need for components they can't reasonably be expected to supply anyways. so what could they possibly be referring to if not to polymorphing into a trained spellcaster?

there is no supporting text for an interpretation of "kind of creature" being limited at a certain point. if something is a kind of creature, regardless of what else it may be and regardless of whether you could define it as a kind of creature in other ways, you can true polymorph into it, based on what the rules say.

See, but your interpretation pretty much makes it 100% open ended.

Lets take it farther. It doesn't limit Kind of Creature in anyway way. Alright. So, as a Player I turn into a CR 20 God (don't worry DM, I will write up the stats to fit the CR criteria so its only lvl 20). It can't be stopped because nothing in the spell says that it can. A God is a kind of creature, and If I have to I will create a stat block for a generic 20 CR god. See, nothing in the spell says the creature has to be from DnD either. Nor does it say that it has to be DM approved. Those are just implied by the language of spells in general.

Next I am going to TP into something with 9th level spells. Well, since I turn into this 'creature' with a spell list and the book specifically allows me to modify the stat block on spells (so there are 'kinds' of archmages with whatever spell I wish from wizards spell list). I am going to burn through all the spells on him including a 9th level spell and then turn back into myself. Fully legit by your interpretation.

Now I am going to rearrange the whole block of stats of a class. Since there are no rules on what can and cannot be placed in this, I am going to give this class a massive boost (lets say the Wizard can now use his ability to regain 9th level spell slots) but remove other class abilities so it stays 'in line' with whatever. I am going to TP into this class because there are 'kinds' of these 'creatures' use up all the spells (but the second 9th level slot), wait an hour for it to become permanent and do it all over again, 24/7.

finally, instead of using the common logic of creature, I am going to use the broadest definition of it I can find. Since there is a definition of creature as "A person or organization considered to be under the complete control of another:" i will use this one. So I will turn an Ancient Gold Dragon into an Ancient Gold Dragon (but who is under my complete control). It fits because it is a 'kind' (ancient gold dragon) and a creature (under my complete control) so it is fully allowed since you have already said that we are using the largest interpretation of words we can find.


All of these are extreme examples of using the interpretation style you are using. Just because it is possible to interpret things this way does not mean it makes sense or even should be considered. But since we already wish to push the bounds of something by arguing that one word is the broadest since of the word, I figured why not take all the words and use the most broad sense to them instead of trying to limit ourselves and be restricted.

EDIT:

Well yes. But the disbarring bit comes from the "The target is turned into a kind of creature with a CR equal or less than the targets (Or levels, if the target lacks a CR)" Forgive me, paraphrasing don't have my books in front of me.

Anyway, the jist is that to transform into something. It needs to be a creature and it needs to have a CR.

Also you have it backwards. Racial stats are the template that needs to be applied to the archmage. This still leaves you with a group of readily identifiable spellcasters known under the collective heading of 'archmages.'

It also needs to be a creature and Archmage is not a creature in its own right since it is missing a major part of being a creature (the Race, which all creatures in both RL and Fantasy have). So since archmage is missing that aspect, it isn't in an of itself a creature. In fact, it is a template you can put on top of a creature for convenience instead of having to do all those calculations yourself before you can use it.

[druid91]

It also needs to be a creature and Archmage is not a creature in its own right since it is missing a major part of being a creature (the Race, which all creatures in both RL and Fantasy have). So since archmage is missing that aspect, it isn't in an of itself a creature. In fact, it is a template you can put on top of a creature for convenience instead of having to do all those calculations yourself before you can use it.

It is a creature. It has all the necessary stats to being fought and killed the fact that it has "Select a race before use" as PART of those stats changes nothing.

Also, a manticore does not have a race, yet it is still a creature.

[SharkForce]

in order for there to be a kind of creature of a specific type, there must first exist a group of persons or things with similar characteristics. if there is no group of CR 20 gods (something which is up to your DM to decide), then that is not a kind of creature.

in order for you to polymorph into a member of your new specialized class, that class must already exist (otherwise there is no group of them), and you should have been able to choose it when you made the character anyways.

and if turning into a spellcaster for an hour is a more powerful option than turning into anything else with an equal CR, that is a problem with the CR rules, NOT with true polymorph (which is not to say that true polymorph doesn't have problems, merely that this is not one of them). if i cannot do as much with a CR 12 erinyes as i can do with a CR 12 archmage, that is not the fault of true polymorph.

(on a side note, i already can generate a full extra set of spells minus my level 9 spell, and it comes with an extra set of actions to boot. i just need to wish for a simulacrum of myself, which will as a rule be much better than polymorphing into an archmage, losing out on several class abilities that the archmage doesn't have, not being able to use any of my equipment, and not getting that second set of actions every round).

[hawklost]

It is a creature. It has all the necessary stats to being fought and killed the fact that it has "Select a race before use" as PART of those stats changes nothing.

Also, a manticore does not have a race, yet it is still a creature.

The 'select a race before use' is extremely important aspect, that is what makes it in and of itself not a creature. Archmage is not a creature but a description of many different creatures that could all be an 'archmage'. Since it isn't a creature (and trying to say 'stats to beign fought and killed' defines a creature when it defines actually a monster if the thing is a creature is kind of using circular logic. Its a monster who can be fought and killed, so it is a creature, which can be fought or killed so its a monster, repeat indefinitely).

As to Manticore and other Monsterous monsters. The MM specifically calls out all monsterous things in the book as being Monsters. Since the definition of Monster in the book is a creature who can be interacted with and potentially killed. They are slipped in whether or not they have a race. Its called a special exception because the rules call it out as such.

[Gwendol]

Well, since you are already concentrating on TP you can't "burn through spells" (at least not cast another spell that requires concentration). But as has been noted already, the discussion is mostly academic since most of the cases regarding NPC's can't be viewed as optimal anyways.

[SharkForce]

The 'select a race before use' is extremely important aspect, that is what makes it in and of itself not a creature. Archmage is not a creature but a description of many different creatures that could all be an 'archmage'. Since it isn't a creature (and trying to say 'stats to beign fought and killed' defines a creature when it defines actually a monster if the thing is a creature is kind of using circular logic. Its a monster who can be fought and killed, so it is a creature, which can be fought or killed so its a monster, repeat indefinitely).

As to Manticore and other Monsterous monsters. The MM specifically calls out all monsterous things in the book as being Monsters. Since the definition of Monster in the book is a creature who can be interacted with and potentially killed. They are slipped in whether or not they have a race. Its called a special exception because the rules call it out as such.

or...

you give them a race, and suddenly they're a creature.

[hawklost]

or...

you give them a race, and suddenly they're a creature.

im sorry, that modifies a stat block into something that requires DM approval. Since racial modifiers will have to be applied. so I don't think it is defined as a creature in the MM. as such, DMs must approve it before it can be used by the spell (by your claims earlier).

[Forum Explorer]

It is a creature. It has all the necessary stats to being fought and killed the fact that it has "Select a race before use" as PART of those stats changes nothing.

Also, a manticore does not have a race, yet it is still a creature.

Sure it does, it's race is Manticore. The baseline manticore is given out, if you wanted to you could add the Archmage chassis to a Manticore for an Archmage Manticore. (Which would be silly and difficult, but it could be done).


I'd say race is a pretty big thing to select before you can actually fight it and interact with it. Like I said, there is no generic Archmage, just like there is no generic Half-dragon.

But your interpretation is based off a weird grouping of 'any kind of thing that has a CR'. Which is a valid interpretation, but it's one I don't like because of a couple of reasons. First off, it's based off of a meta term, rather then an actual in-universe criteria. The other reason is it has a broken in universe logic, where everything is a valid target, so long as it has a CR. But a level 1 warlock cannot be transformed into. Neither can the lv 18 High Priest of Doom God of DOOM!

[weaseldust]

I've never had to deal with this spell. Is there a consensus on whether 'the statistics of the new form' includes things like lair actions? E.g. if my character is transformed into a red dragon, do they get the ability to summon lava?

Does it cover spell-slots, for forms that have them? E.g. if my character has no spell slots and is turned into a hypothetical creature that gets a single level-1 spell slot, are the slots counted as part of the statistics, in which case I would gain a slot, whether or not I could use it? Or perhaps only the number of spell-slots per day is part of the statistics, so I might or might not gain the slot when my character was transformed, but I definitely would if they spent long enough in that shape to take a long rest?

[druid91]

Sure it does, it's race is Manticore. The baseline manticore is given out, if you wanted to you could add the Archmage chassis to a Manticore for an Archmage Manticore. (Which would be silly and difficult, but it could be done).


I'd say race is a pretty big thing to select before you can actually fight it and interact with it. Like I said, there is no generic Archmage, just like there is no generic Half-dragon.

But your interpretation is based off a weird grouping of 'any kind of thing that has a CR'. Which is a valid interpretation, but it's one I don't like because of a couple of reasons. First off, it's based off of a meta term, rather then an actual in-universe criteria. The other reason is it has a broken in universe logic, where everything is a valid target, so long as it has a CR. But a level 1 warlock cannot be transformed into. Neither can the lv 18 High Priest of Doom God of DOOM!

No it lacks a race. It's just a manticore it is a fiat creature called a manticore that works the way it does because that's the way the book says it works. And to add two seperate monsters together, you'd either need the racial stats for the monster (Of which there are a few in the DMG. I kinda wanna make a skeleton Ranger because of that.)

OR make your own custom creature and CALL it a hybrid.

Still, I kinda love how people are like "OH dear Omnissiah no, we can't have players turning into suboptimal archmages. What? It can permanently turn chickens into spheres of annihilation? Not as broken as archmages!"

im sorry, that modifies a stat block into something that requires DM approval. Since racial modifiers will have to be applied. so I don't think it is defined as a creature in the MM. as such, DMs must approve it before it can be used by the spell (by your claims earlier).

Not really. The statblock pretty much says [insert race here].

[SharkForce]

I've never had to deal with this spell. Is there a consensus on whether 'the statistics of the new form' includes things like lair actions? E.g. if my character is transformed into a red dragon, do they get the ability to summon lava?

Does it cover spell-slots, for forms that have them? E.g. if my character has no spell slots and is turned into a hypothetical creature that gets a single level-1 spell slot, are the slots counted as part of the statistics, in which case I would gain a slot, whether or not I could use it? Or perhaps only the number of spell-slots per day is part of the statistics, so I might or might not gain the slot when my character was transformed, but I definitely would if they spent long enough in that shape to take a long rest?

as written, spellcasting (and innate spellcasting) are part of a creature's statistics.

the present debate has progressed from whether or not you gain those (you do) to whether or not you can even polymorph into something that has the spellcasting ability at all. obviously, being one of the main debaters on a given side, i don't feel like a particularly neutral party to summarize that part of the discussion for you.

that said, the general discussion seems to be that most everyone either thinks it shouldn't, or thinks it does as written but don't particularly want it to work that way and would change it in their games. ask your DM, but current trends suggest that you won't be able to turn into something with spellcasting (i can't say for certain, but i think based on the other side's argument even they would give you innate spellcasting as it is something which baseline version of the creature have).

regarding lair actions, as i recall there is a note somewhere that you don't gain legendary status from polymorph, and the lair rules are crammed full of references to legendary creatures being able to get lair actions, but it never specifically says that non-legendary creatures don't get lair actions. ask your DM, but my personal ruling would be that you don't because you are not legendary, and you have not had time to establish a lair when you just polymorphed into something a few seconds ago even if you were legendary.

[weaseldust]

as written, spellcasting (and innate spellcasting) are part of a creature's statistics.

Can I ask what part of the rules you know that from? I don't mean that in a hostile way, I just feel like I'm missing some background that's presumed by the spell description. When I see 'statistics', that makes me think numbers. At first I thought it just meant ability scores, but if it meant just that it would say just that, so other things like the bonuses to various skills should count too. And then I thought that it would be silly to e.g. not get a bear's natural weapons when you turn into a bear, so those should come under 'statistics' too. But 'statistics' still sounds like the wrong sort of word for that kind of feature. And if you get natural weapons, where's the line between that and getting lair actions and so on?

In the above discussion (I haven't read all 10 pages), most posters seem pretty confident that 'statistics' basically means the entire description of a particular monster in the DMG (or wherever). Where did you all learn that that's what it means? (Again, in the somewhat-fraught context of this thread, I should note that this is a genuine request for enlightenment, not an implicitly hostile challenge to anyone's position.)

[Giant2005]

Can I ask what part of the rules you know that from? I don't mean that in a hostile way, I just feel like I'm missing some background that's presumed by the spell description. When I see 'statistics', that makes me think numbers. At first I thought it just meant ability scores, but if it meant just that it would say just that, so other things like the bonuses to various skills should count too. And then I thought that it would be silly to e.g. not get a bear's natural weapons when you turn into a bear, so those should come under 'statistics' too. But 'statistics' still sounds like the wrong sort of word for that kind of feature. And if you get natural weapons, where's the line between that and getting lair actions and so on?

In the above discussion (I haven't read all 10 pages), most posters seem pretty confident that 'statistics' basically means the entire description of a particular monster in the DMG (or wherever). Where did you all learn that that's what it means? (Again, in the somewhat-fraught context of this thread, I should note that this is a genuine request for enlightenment, not an implicitly hostile challenge to anyone's position.)

Pages 6-11 of the Monster Manual outline what constitutes "Statistics".

[druid91]

regarding lair actions, as i recall there is a note somewhere that you don't gain legendary status from polymorph, and the lair rules are crammed full of references to legendary creatures being able to get lair actions, but it never specifically says that non-legendary creatures don't get lair actions. ask your DM, but my personal ruling would be that you don't because you are not legendary, and you have not had time to establish a lair when you just polymorphed into something a few seconds ago even if you were legendary.

There's nothing that I saw, in either the MM blurb on Legendary creatures, Polymorph spell desc, or True Polymorph spell desc to say you don't gain legendary status along with everything else. Though Polymorph only allows beasts, rather than the sort of zanyness true polymorph does.

That being said, I'd be inclined to agree. The description for lair actions is pretty much "This uber powerful beasty has been around for a while, it's magic has soaked into the environment and has effects because of that." At least in the case of the lich it's explicitly called out as being traps the lich personally set up.

While RAW, you do get lair actions, you also don't have a lair to have lair actions in, and there's no RAW rules to gain one so that's entirely up to the DM.

[calebrus]

the present debate has progressed from whether or not you gain those (you do) to whether or not you can even polymorph into something that has the spellcasting ability at all.

That's not what this discussion has even been about.
This discussion has been about whether NPCs, PCs, and other subsets of kinds of creatures are considered "kinds of creatures" or whether they're considered "specific individuals."

The dog example was a good one.
What kind of dog is that? Your answer would not be "seeing eye dog" because that's its function or purpose or profession. Your answer would be "German Shepard" because that's what KIND of dog it is.

Just like if someone asked you what kind of creature that spellcaster was. Your answer would not be "Archmage" because that's its function or purpose or profession. Your answer would be "Elf" because that's what KIND of creature it is.

[druid91]

That's not what this discussion has even been about.
This discussion has been about whether NPCs, PCs, and other subsets of kinds of creatures are considered "kinds of creatures" or whether they're considered "specific individuals."

The dog example was a good one.
What kind of dog is that? Your answer would not be "seeing eye dog" because that's its function or purpose or profession. Your answer would be "German Shepard" because that's what KIND of dog it is.

Just like if someone asked you what kind of creature that spellcaster was. Your answer would not be "Archmage" because that's its function or purpose or profession. Your answer would be "Elf" because that's what KIND of creature it is.

Actually no, I'd answer Archmage, because that's a far more accurate description of the creature in front of me than "elf"

I mean, Elf, Orc, Human, Dwarf, An Archmage is an Archmage. It doesn't particularly matter what race they are in attempting to describe them. I mean, at best it's a +/- 1 to their spell attacks/saving throws.

[Gwendol]

Calebrus, you're not wrong but the spell only limits the choice by CR. It gets complicated when a creature (like gnolls) have several entries in the MM. Can you turn into a pack lord, if not, why?

[SharkForce]

That's not what this discussion has even been about.
This discussion has been about whether NPCs, PCs, and other subsets of kinds of creatures are considered "kinds of creatures" or whether they're considered "specific individuals."

The dog example was a good one.
What kind of dog is that? Your answer would not be "seeing eye dog" because that's its function or purpose or profession. Your answer would be "German Shepard" because that's what KIND of dog it is.

Just like if someone asked you what kind of creature that spellcaster was. Your answer would not be "Archmage" because that's its function or purpose or profession. Your answer would be "Elf" because that's what KIND of creature it is.

except that if i answered "seeing eye dog", i wouldn't be wrong (provided of course it is in fact a seeing eye dog and not, say, a guard dog).

and in fact, the whole thread started off with whether you can turn into a dragon and retain your spellcasting. which is when the discussion about whether spellcasting is or is not part of your statistics came up. if it is not, then you don't lose (or gain) it, for the record.

so yes, the discussion pretty much did start off with whether or not spellcasting is part of your statistics.

[MadBear]

Actually no, I'd answer Archmage, because that's a far more accurate description of the creature in front of me than "elf"

Really?

Are you referring to this in a metagame way, or normal speech (Player talking about creature that the DM just through out, or what your PC is actually asking).

You'd be correct in the first, but incorrect on the second.

If I walked into a bar and saw a bartender serving beer that was taller, had tusks, and smelled a bit fouler then most humanoids, and I asked my friend:

"what kind of creature is he"

I wouldn't be happy with

"bartender"

that wouldn't have addressed my question at all.

In the end, I think it's easy to say that there are different definitions to the word "kind". Sharkforce and others seem to want to use it in the broadest of senses, which they justify by noting that there are not any limitations on the wording to make it more specific. With that said, 5e was written to be written more organically, and when we talk about Kinds of creature, I think that using race is a perfectly valid way to infer the meaning. Otherwise we end up with silly interpretations (or at least what I consider to be silly).

[SharkForce]

and if you saw a group of people walking around with magical staffs and spellbooks and asked "what are they", you wouldn't be satisfied with an answer of "oh, they're a mixed group of elves, humans, and half-elves".

and while you might not have been looking for an answer of "bartender", you wouldn't say "no, you're wrong, that's not a bartender".

and again, there are a variety of contextual indications that "wizard" is actually a perfectly reasonable answer to the question as far as true polymorph is concerned.

[JAL_1138]

At this point, the "kind has multiple meanings" debate is not so much about which interpretation is right but about whether people can disagree about what the word means in the spell. But the side saying "kind is any statblock" is refusing to acknowledge that it can be read differently at all. Nobody's saying their reading of "kind" is not a possible one. It can be read that way too. All we're saying at this point is that RAW subject to this much debate with no page number to point to and clear it up (e.g., which kind of kind) is unclear, and that saying one interpretation of something vague is correct and the other isn't is a RAI argument, not the RAW.

It does not matter which version someone thinks is "correct" as long as the other version makes linguistic sense whatsoever, if the argument is "the RAW is vague" rather than "this and only this is what the RAW is."

But the reaction to "the RAW is vague" is as if it's being taken as "your version is not a linguistically valid reading whatsoever," when it isn't that.

[calebrus]

and if you saw a group of people walking around with magical staffs and spellbooks and asked "what are they", you wouldn't be satisfied with an answer of "oh, they're a mixed group of elves, humans, and half-elves".

You wouldn't ask: "What are they?"
You'd ask: "Who are they?"
Arcahmagi is WHO they are as individuals, not WHAT they are as creatures.

At this point, the "kind has multiple meanings" debate is not ao much about which interpretation is right but about whether people can disagree about what the word means in the spell. But the side saying "kind is any statblock" is refusing to acknowledge that it can be read differently at all. Nobody's saying their reading of "kind" is not a possible one. It can be read that way too.

Repeating for good measure.

They will never admit that the word Kind matters, or that there can be multiple ways to interpret that word, or that the interpretation of that word makes multiple readings possible, because to admit any of those things tosses their entire argument out the window.

[druid91]

You wouldn't ask: "What are they?"
You'd ask: "Who are they?"
Archmagi is WHO they are as individuals, not WHAT they are as creatures.

Actually, no. I reserve "Who" for individuals. Groups are by definition not individuals.

What: That's a pair of Archmagi.

Who: That's Bob the Archmage, and that's Jim the Archmage. (Note how easily you could replace Archmage with Hydra, or bugbear, and it would still make sense.)

[MadBear]

and if you saw a group of people walking around with magical staffs and spellbooks and asked "what are they", you wouldn't be satisfied with an answer of "oh, they're a mixed group of elves, humans, and half-elves".

Notice that the only way to make your point is to not use the word "kind" at all. In fact if we bring back the language in debate, you help make my point for me.

and if you saw a group of people walking around with magical staffs and spellbooks and asked "what kind of creatures are they", you would be satisfied with an answer of "oh, they're a mixed group of elves, humans, and half-elves", you wouldn't be satisfied with "adventurers".

and while you might not have been looking for an answer of "bartender", you wouldn't say "no, you're wrong, that's not a bartender".

And yet, you are the one accusing others of "being wrong". Everyone's aknowledge that your way of interpreting the definition of Kind is a valid way of looking at it. That's not under debate. You're the one looking at other definitions and going "Nope, not correct". It's funny to me that you can see that "bartender" would be correct depending on the interpretation of words, but you don't see it in regards to the issue at hand.

and again, there are a variety of contextual indications that "wizard" is actually a perfectly reasonable answer to the question as far as true polymorph is concerned.

So are you saying that the context of the word "kind" is such that your definition of its use is the only reasonable way to interpret it? If so, please provide that argument, because that would in fact help whatever point you're trying to make.

[Gwendol]

You wouldn't ask: "What are they?"
You'd ask: "Who are they?"
Arcahmagi is WHO they are as individuals, not WHAT they are as creatures.



Repeating for good measure.

that doesn't hold water, sorry. If you turn into a dragon can't you then choose which type and age? No matter which they are the same kind of creature. The same for the gnoll pack lord, or the hobgoblin warlord.
Giants listed in the MM are likely stats for individuals of adult age and hardly representative of the totality of the giant population. Yet, they are all the same kind of creature.
The spell is written in such a way to give the player and DM a lot of freedom concerning its interpretation, and I happen to think that's a good thing.

Edit: and as for metagame knowledge, thanks to the limit being CR of what creature to choose, the spell doesn't really function without a healthy dose of metagaming, which is part of the reason this discussion is so difficult.

[SharkForce]

no, if i point to a group of people and ask "what are they", their profession is just as legitimate of an answer as their species. if i asked "what are they", you wouldn't answer with race or species, you'd answer with job title. "who are they" would be more likely to get you names or perhaps the name of any organization they belong to ("they are the circle of twelve, an order of powerful wizards", for example).

you may not like that, but it is a perfectly valid way to ask the question.

and as i said, there are no limitations shown in the spell description. it doesn't say "any basic unmodified creature without class levels or trained abilities", it just says you can turn into any kind of creature. if something is a kind of creature, you can turn into it (or turn someone or something else into it), provided your target meets the CR/level requirements.

then you add in the context that shows they've considered the possibility of polymorphing into something that has spellcasting. not innate spellcasting, where all components are modified as needed anyways and any that your new form wouldn't be able to handle are not required for the innate spells, but regular, plain old, ordinary spellcasting. but we know that according to the rules you lose your spellcasting. so what spells are you casting if not spells granted by your new form?

[Gwendol]

Agreed. But again, the particulars of that will have to be worked out at the table thanks to the generous wording of the spell. I mean, say someone is turned into a CR 9 dwarf. What kind of equipment would they wield? If any?

[druid91]

Notice that the only way to make your point is to not use the word "kind" at all. In fact if we bring back the language in debate, you help make my point for me.






And yet, you are the one accusing others of "being wrong". Everyone's aknowledge that your way of interpreting the definition of Kind is a valid way of looking at it. That's not under debate. You're the one looking at other definitions and going "Nope, not correct". It's funny to me that you can see that "bartender" would be correct depending on the interpretation of words, but you don't see it in regards to the issue at hand.



So are you saying that the context of the word "kind" is such that your definition of its use is the only reasonable way to interpret it? If so, please provide that argument, because that would in fact help whatever point you're trying to make.

Frankly the very restrictive reading of the word kind to mean species and only species isn't in keeping with the word at all.

kind1
kīnd/
noun
noun: kind; plural noun: kinds

a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
"all kinds of music"
synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre;
"all kinds of gifts"

character; nature.
"the trials were different in kind from any that preceded them"
synonyms: character, nature, essence, quality, disposition, makeup

Does an Elven Barbarian have more in common with an Elven Archmage? Or a Human Barbarian?