True Polymorph Into An Ancient Brass Dragon

[Fwiffo86]

I challenge you to state the class of the priestess, since she has none listed. Gender is not really qualifying, since a majority of the creatures one can choose have one. That has to be a valid choice.

Priestess is essentially nothing more than a title. I could argue that it doesn't mean spell-caster any more than Garbageman now can't I?

If we accept it in it's usual connotation, it is equal to "cleric" which carries the spell-casting connotation and is a "class".

Class is not listed under True Poly as a selection or qualifier anywhere in its description.

By choosing a CR based on age (and color) and not the kind of creature you are in fact treating dragons as a special case.

Only out of the necessity of Dragon Mechanics. This is done based on the way Dragons work in game. It's own mechanics require this qualification. I am not treating it as a special case. It is the way Dragons work mechanically.

AGE does not equal KIND. If anything, in the case of Dragons, color indicates kind. I could get behind that logic somewhat. But again, this applies to the way Dragons work mechanically separate from True Polymorph.

[Gwendol]

Nope. You said it was the the standard, or average representative of the race that can be chosen. You keep treating dragons differently for no particular reason. Ancient dragons are far from standard.

[jkat718]

Obviously, this is not going to satisfy most people, as clearly evidenced by the different opinions presented before, but here's how I'm planning on ruling this spell, if/when it comes up in one of my campaigns:

Spoiler: My Houserule

Show

In order to transform a target into the following creatures, the target or spellcaster must have permission from that creature's creator (indicated in parentheses):

• Angels (any deity)
• Drow Priestess (Lolth)
• Drider (Lolth)
• Ghast (Orcus)
• Gnoll Fang of Yeenoghu (Yeenoghu)
• Kua-Toa Archpriest (any deity)
• Kua-Toa Whip (a Kua-Toa Archpriest)
• Lizardfolk Shaman (Semuanya)
• Lizardfolk King/Queen (Sess'inek)
• Modron (Primus)
• Orc Eye of Gruumsh (Gruumsh)
• Orog (Luthic)
• Sahuagin Priestess (Sekolah)

The following creatures may not be directly transformed into. Rather, certain experiences, training, or rituals must be completed before the target can proceed from the base form (indicated in parentheses). Conditions marked with * may be fulfilled prior to the time of casting, in which case the target may proceed directly to advanced form:

• Death Tyrant (Beholder: target must go insane while dreaming)
• Demilich (Lich: target must devolve from true Lichdom)
• Death Knight (Paladin: target must die without fulfilling a Paladin Oath)*
• Dracolich (Dragon: target must assume Lichdom)*
• Shadow Dragon (Dragon: target must be located in the Shadowfell at the time of casting)
• Drow Elite Warrior (Drow: target must recieve training from Drow Warrior)*
• Drow Mage (Drow: target must recieve training from Drow Mage)*
• Gnoll Pack Lord (Gnoll: target must lead a pack of Gnolls)*
• Goblin Boss (Goblin: target must lead a tribe of Goblins)*
• Hobgoblin Captain (Hobgoblin: target must lead a band of Hobgoblins)*
• Hobgoblin Warlord (Hobgoblin or Hobgoblin Captain: target must lead a legion of Hobgoblins)*
• Mummy Lord (Mummy: target must endure the procedure of the Mummy Lord's Heart)
• Orc War Chief (Orc: target must lead a tribe of Orcs)*

The following creatures are not viable for use with True Polymorph:

• Young Red Shadow Dragon
• Half-Red Dragon Veteran
• Quaggoth Spore Servant
• Vampire Spawn (Not sure if this is supposed to be a human > spawn example, or if it's a separate statblock, but I'm assuming the former, so it goes here)
• All NPCs listed in Appendix A of the Monster Manual

The following creatures have special rules for assigning a statblock, based on the target's age:

• Dragon: use the statblock for target's current age (if CR would be too high, use maximum CR-appropriate statblock, and calculate age by adding lowest age for statblock + target's pre-Polymorph age)
• Remorhaz: no age given, so just use CR-appropriate statblock
• Salamander: use the statblock for target's current age
• Slaadi: must start as Slaad Tadpole; after 2d12 hours, transforms into Blue Slaad; if previous form had the ability to cast 3rd level spells or higher, must transform into Green Slaad instead

Ignore the third paragraph of the Creature into Creature subheading of True Polymorph, replacing it with the following:
Target may retain any number of their previous form's class features and racial traits (if any) at the descretion of the DM. They cannot take any action that requires hands unless their new form is capable of performing such actions, or any action that requires speech unless their new form is capable of performing such actions. This may limit spellcasting and/or speaking. Optionally, the DM may rule that the target can re-learn or re-adapt their lost features and traits to their new form (For example, a Fighter that has been polymorphed into an octopus might be able to teach herself to fire a bow and arrow with her tentacles, even though an octopus does not normally have this ability).

What do people think of this houserule?

[SharkForce]

clearing up a few misconceptions:

1) polymorph is not a purely physical thing. you gain the statistics, including mental attributes and abilities, of whatever you become. you lose your own statistics, including purely mental abilities.

2) it is not broken to be able to polymorph yourself into an archmage, use up your spells, and then revert. it has a 1 hour time limit, requires your concentration, and costs you class abilities that you would have if you were not in archmage form. this is not remotely as good as wishing for a simulacrum of yourself, which will have almost all of your spells (not your level 9), gets an entirely new set of actions, does not require concentration (and in fact gives an extra concentration slot), and does not have a duration of 1 hour. bonus points if you have an ally that is more worth making a simulacrum of, or an enemy in sight that is stronger than you which you could make a simulacrum of (unless the target's functionality is largely dependent on their HP, which is the only drawback to simulacrum, other than of course the fact that it is not completely without resource cost). in addition to all my earlier points about how if you can't accomplish as much with any other CR 12 creature, the problem is with CR, not with true polymorph; after all, if an erinyes is not as powerful of a battle presence, it shouldn't be CR 12.

3) creature is defined in-game to include monsters. we don't use the dictionary definition because, unlike "kind", we have a rules definition that defines it otherwise. there is no definition of "kind" in the D&D rules, so we stick with the dictionary defintion. so, if something is a "kind" of creature (which human archmages, or elven archmages, or any other archmage, is) it is a valid option. in order to be a kind of creature, it needs to be a creature, and you must be able to group them together with other creatures based on similar characteristics.

4) it is not unbalanced for someone to be able to kill people by turning them into vampires (or at least, if it is, no more so than a widely accepted as perfectly valid use of true polymorph). why? because he could just polymorph that person into a rock, instead, and get the same result, except that they wouldn't be able to spend all the time up until sunrise trying to murder him and/or break his concentration.

it isn't a balance issue for true polymorph to be able to create archmages. it's a flavour issue for many of us; we don't want to be able to polymorph things into wizards, or priests, or tribal chieftains. but it is balanced. or at least, it's as balanced as being able to turn into a dragon or demon or angel is.

edit: @jkat, i actually have no particular problem with a ruling like that. it isn't what i would use exactly, but it seems fairly reasonable (except the kuo-tua archpriest... they're actually making their own deity on the strength of their insanity. i would require that they be completely barking mad, rather than getting permission from an existing deity). as i've said repeatedly, i'm not discussing what i would like the rules to be. i'm discussing what the rules in the book are.

[calebrus]

clearing up a few misconceptions:

You listed four things, one of which was not a misconception at all (as it's stated right in the spell description) and three of which were purely opinion.
Not one "misconception" that you "cleared up" was ever a misconception to begin with. All you've cleared up is that you have your opinion on how the word Kind should be interpreted, and that you have your opinion on what is and is not broken.
Every single thing you just "cleared up" for us was never in question, because you've been repeating it for a dozen pages.
That still doesn't mean that we agree with you.

[SharkForce]

You listed four things, one of which was not a misconception at all (as it's stated right in the spell description) and three of which were purely opinion.
Not one "misconception" that you "cleared up" was ever a misconception to begin with. All you've cleared up is that you have your opinion on how the word Kind should be interpreted, and that you have your opinion on what is and is not broken.
Every single thing you just "cleared up" for us was never in question, because you've been repeating it for a dozen pages.
That still doesn't mean that we agree with you.

maybe you should go back over the last page or so of this thread, because each of those were directed at things that people have posted here, and they are misconceptions.

if creature A with CR 12 is more powerful than creature B with CR 12, and especially if it is more powerful than creature C with CR 17, that is not a problem with true polymorph. it does not matter what creature A, B, or C are... the problem comes from improper CR, not true polymorph. if an archmage is so awesome that they are more powerful than a CR 17 creature, they should not be CR 12. and causing death delayed by several hours during which time your target can attempt to do something about their impending doom is not more powerful than causing instant death (or a sufficiently close equivalent as to be indistinguishable from death).

[calebrus]

maybe you should go back over the last page or so of this thread, because each of those were directed at things that people have posted here, and they are misconceptions.

I'll go back over your last post, how about that?

clearing up a few misconceptions:

OK, let's see what misconceptions have been cleared up.

1) polymorph is not a purely physical thing. you gain the statistics, including mental attributes and abilities, of whatever you become. you lose your own statistics, including purely mental abilities.

Not a misconception. That's clearly spelled out in the spell description.

2) it is not broken to be able to polymorph yourself into an archmage, use up your spells, and then revert. it has a 1 hour time limit, requires your concentration, and costs you class abilities that you would have if you were not in archmage form. this is not remotely as good as wishing for a simulacrum of yourself, which will have almost all of your spells (not your level 9), gets an entirely new set of actions, does not require concentration (and in fact gives an extra concentration slot), and does not have a duration of 1 hour. bonus points if you have an ally that is more worth making a simulacrum of, or an enemy in sight that is stronger than you which you could make a simulacrum of (unless the target's functionality is largely dependent on their HP, which is the only drawback to simulacrum, other than of course the fact that it is not completely without resource cost). in addition to all my earlier points about how if you can't accomplish as much with any other CR 12 creature, the problem is with CR, not with true polymorph; after all, if an erinyes is not as powerful of a battle presence, it shouldn't be CR 12.

Not a misconception. That's your personal opinion on what is and is not broken.

3) creature is defined in-game to include monsters. we don't use the dictionary definition because, unlike "kind", we have a rules definition that defines it otherwise. there is no definition of "kind" in the D&D rules, so we stick with the dictionary defintion. so, if something is a "kind" of creature (which human archmages, or elven archmages, or any other archmage, is) it is a valid option. in order to be a kind of creature, it needs to be a creature, and you must be able to group them together with other creatures based on similar characteristics.

Not a misconception. That's your personal opinion on the way that the word Kind should be interpreted.

4) it is not unbalanced for someone to be able to kill people by turning them into vampires (or at least, if it is, no more so than a widely accepted as perfectly valid use of true polymorph). why? because he could just polymorph that person into a rock, instead, and get the same result, except that they wouldn't be able to spend all the time up until sunrise trying to murder him and/or break his concentration.

it isn't a balance issue for true polymorph to be able to create archmages. it's a flavour issue for many of us; we don't want to be able to polymorph things into wizards, or priests, or tribal chieftains. but it is balanced. or at least, it's as balanced as being able to turn into a dragon or demon or angel is.

Not a misconception. That's your personal opinion on what is and is not balanced.

And none of that is news to us, because you've been saying it all for a dozen pages now.
There are no misconceptions here that need to be cleared up. Not one.
It's just a whole lot of SharkForce's personal opinions, about which none of us were even slightly confused.

[SharkForce]

- the first is a misconception because within the last page, someone said that polymorph is a purely physical thing. so yes, that is clearing up a misconception. i know it's in the spell. you know it's in the spell. someone else didn't. since the entire universe does not revolve around you, it does not have to be your personal misconception to be a misconception.

- the second is not merely my opinion. i've listed a number of very strong supporting facts that demonstrate that there are better ways to (almost) double your daily spell slots than with archmage. unless you can disprove those facts, it is not mere opinion. because the other option provides as much or more benefits, and fewer drawbacks, it is not better than what is already in the game.

- the third related to the definition of creatures, not kind, and since it is defined in the rules, not just by me, is not just my opinion. what's more, the defiition of kind is not mine. it is the dictionary definition of kind, so that is also definitely not just my opinion.

- the fourth is once again a comparison to other available options. is it more unbalanced to let someone have several hours to act before they die (and can be raised) than it is to instantly cause them to be removed from the fight as effectively as if they had died instantly? this is not merely opinion. the second has all the same benefits (the target is dead, for all intents and purposes) and fewer drawbacks.

[Xetheral]

- the second is not merely my opinion. i've listed a number of very strong supporting facts that demonstrate that there are better ways to (almost) double your daily spell slots than with archmage. unless you can disprove those facts, it is not mere opinion. because the other option provides as much or more benefits, and fewer drawbacks, it is not better than what is already in the game.

Isn't whether or not something is broken always a matter of opinion? It's a subjective standard. Also, the existence of a more-powerful option doesn't mean a lesser option isn't also broken.

- the third related to the definition of creatures, not kind, and since it is defined in the rules, not just by me, is not just my opinion. what's more, the definition of kind is not mine. it is the dictionary definition of kind, so that is also definitely not just my opinion.

Isn't the meaning of "kind" and the role it plays in the rules of True Polymorph the central question under debate?

[calebrus]

Isn't whether or not something is broken always a matter of opinion? It's a subjective standard. Also, the existence of a more-powerful option doesn't mean a lesser option isn't also broken.

Isn't the meaning of "kind" and the role it plays in the rules of True Polymorph the central question under debate?

Apparently not, because he claims that unless we try to prove his opinion wrong, it becomes fact rather than opinion.
And yes, the way that the word Kind is interpreted is the whole shebang. But as they are unwilling to admit that it can be interpreted different ways, and they proclaim that their own personal interpretation is the only one possible, we've been at an impasse for pages and pages now.

[druid91]

Not one word that I've aid so far in this entire thread has been anything even approaching reasonable?
Really?
You're saying that applies to the things that I've said?
Let us recap, shall we?

First, you claim that you are interested in RAW:

Then you claim that by RAW, NPCs are monsters, because a monster is defined as anything that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed.
Then you claim that NPCs are specifically called out as being included in that description (which they are not, Races are, but NPCs are not)

Then, even though a human can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed, which is your description of what a creature is, you claim that humans are not creatures.

I'd like to point out that, at this point, you are ignoring what page 4 of the MM states. You remember that page, right? That's the one that you were vehemently arguing clearly defines what a creature is. That same paragraph states that humans are, in fact, monsters, which by your definition makes them creatures.
So now you're not only contradicting yourself, but now you're also contradicting the RAW that you claim to be interested in.
Then, even though you claimed just a bit ago that NPCs were specifically called out as monsters, and as all monsters are creatures, all NPCs are creatures.... then you claim that NPCs are not, in fact creatures.1

Then, even though races are creatures which can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed, and are specifically called out on page 4 as monsters, and therefore creatures, you then claim that races are not creatures, and are in fact traits.

Then you change your story yet again and call races a template.


Phew, lemme wipe my brow and take a break. I'm getting dizzy over here.
But yeah, I'm the one that hasn't said anything approaching reasonable in this thread.


For someone that claims to be interested in RAW, you sure like to ignore it and change it to suit your own needs a lot.... over and over and over again.
First get your damn story straight, bro, and then maybe you can tell me that I'm the one who isn't being reasonable.
But even before you do that, before you get your story straight, someone that claims to be interested in the RAW should probably familiarize themselves with the Rules as they are Written. That might help you out a bit. One of the very specific example given is that humans are monsters, which makes them creatures. So familiarize yourself with what the words actually do and do not say, and after you do that you can get your story straight.
We'll be waiting.

1 Hilariously. I actually corrected myself on that one. You're a bit late to be calling me on that.

Also hilariously. As it specifically says humans are monsters, there's no reason to claim them as creatures. And indeed, is more reason to support that they don't traditionally qualify for the title. Why else would they need to call it out?

Monsters = Creatures that can be interacted with, fought, killed, or humans, dwarves, blablabla. By including that exception in the definition. You preclude the necessity of them being creatures in their own right. And given that they are obviously not creatures, but templates to be added to actual creatures. This is self evident in the rules. And even in the way we state our characters.

You don't say a 1st level fighting human. You say a 1st level human fighter. 1st level fighting elf, 1st level elven fighter. Which sounds more like it's the primary thing? Elven is a quality ascribed to the thing, which is the fighter.

Etc. Etc. Blablabla.

[SharkForce]

Isn't whether or not something is broken always a matter of opinion? It's a subjective standard. Also, the existence of a more-powerful option doesn't mean a lesser option isn't also broken.



Isn't the meaning of "kind" and the role it plays in the rules of True Polymorph the central question under debate?

- *everything* we can talk about is someone's opinion. even science is just people's opinions with supporting facts if you view it in that light. in this case, the existence of the more powerful option indicates that the people who wrote D&D, who are a much better authority in general than random people talking on the internet on the subject of the balance of the game, feel that a more powerful option is not overpowered. as the only existing authorities on the subject of D&D game balance, we're kinda stuck taking their word for it.

- the meaning of "kind" is very relevant to the central question at this point (the central question is actually whether you can polymorph into something with learned abilities according to the rules). but that isn't the misconception i cleared up in that post. i cleared up the claim that creatures could also be referring to animals because of a dictionary definition (which claim someone made within the past page or so of discussion). we have a definition of creatures in the rules that explicitly goes beyond that, so that is not a valid definition for D&D.

but as i noted, even it was something i cleared up, it isn't my opinion. it's the dictionary definition. which, once again, is admittedly someone's opinion, but that someone happens to be a group of people who have done a great deal of studying to become experts on the subject matter, thus making their opinion generally more accepted as valid than that of some random person on the internet.

[calebrus]

Also hilariously. As it specifically says humans are monsters, there's no reason to claim them as creatures. And indeed, is more reason to support that they don't traditionally qualify for the title. Why else would they need to call it out?

Monsters = Creatures that can be interacted with, fought, killed, or humans, dwarves, blablabla. By including that exception in the definition. You preclude the necessity of them being creatures in their own right. And given that they are obviously not creatures, but templates to be added to actual creatures. This is self evident in the rules. And even in the way we state our characters.

Are you even listening to yourself right now?
Monsters = creatures
Human = monsters.
But somehow, amazingly, you don't read this to mean humans = monsters = creatures, but instead read it to mean humans =/= creatures.
The page that you love quoting so much even specifically says that they are.
Get your story straight. Are you interested in RAW as you claim to be, or are humans not creatures? Because those two things are mutually exclusive. You need to choose.

Remember, this is the EXACT paragraph that you quoted as stating "clearly defined" NPCs are monsters (which it doesn't). But this is what you were quoting, over and over and over again.

WHAT Is A MoNSTER?
A monster is defined as any creature that can be
interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even
something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as
a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term
also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other
civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player
characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D
world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped:
rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking
undead, summoned elementals- the list goes on.

Since that term applies to humans, as shown, we can rewrite the first sentence.
Remember, humans are clearly defined as monsters. NPCs aren't, even though you kept claiming that they were. But humans certainly are.
So we can rewrite the first sentence as:
A Human is defined as a certain kind of creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed.

But you're sill going to say that a human isn't a creature?
And you're still going to say that yours is RAW and mine is made up?

[Fwiffo86]

Nope. You said it was the the standard, or average representative of the race that can be chosen. You keep treating dragons differently for no particular reason. Ancient dragons are far from standard.

Please indicate where one would find "non-standard" ancient dragons. I would like a reference for a "non-standard" ancient dragon of each color.

Ancient Dragon is a type of dragon. Because of the way DnD represents dragons, each age category is essentially its own monster type. They have different CRs.

Do you see a different CR for a 1000 year old Drow? I do not. Because its age is irrelevant to every other creature EXCEPT Dragons.

Again. I am not treating Dragons any different that DnD itself is treating them. Your thinking that they are the same as others and that their age is irrelevant is flawed.

[weaseldust]

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

Thanks. I don't own the MM, but I checked the 'Basic Rules for DMs' and at the beginning it outlines the various elements of stat blocks under the heading 'Statistics'. I'm guessing there's a similar thing in the MM, in which case I now understand where everyone is coming from.

[Xetheral]

- *everything* we can talk about is someone's opinion. even science is just people's opinions with supporting facts if you view it in that light.

There is a difference between a testable claim and an unprovable value judgment.

in this case, the existence of the more powerful option indicates that the people who wrote D&D, who are a much better authority in general than random people talking on the internet on the subject of the balance of the game, feel that a more powerful option is not overpowered. as the only existing authorities on the subject of D&D game balance, we're kinda stuck taking their word for it.

Your logic has a problem: it necessarily leads to the (untenable) conclusion that nothing in the game can possibly be broken or overpowered.

- the meaning of "kind" is very relevant to the central question at this point (the central question is actually whether you can polymorph into something with learned abilities according to the rules). but that isn't the misconception i cleared up in that post. i cleared up the claim that creatures could also be referring to animals because of a dictionary definition (which claim someone made within the past page or so of discussion). we have a definition of creatures in the rules that explicitly goes beyond that, so that is not a valid definition for D&D.

but as i noted, even it was something i cleared up, it isn't my opinion. it's the dictionary definition. which, once again, is admittedly someone's opinion, but that someone happens to be a group of people who have done a great deal of studying to become experts on the subject matter, thus making their opinion generally more accepted as valid than that of some random person on the internet.

To my (potentially limited) ability to follow the ins and outs of this thread, some posters still dispute your claim that "creature" is actually defined in the rules (let alone used consistently). Furthermore, I'm unaware of anyone actually disputing a dictionary definition--instead the debate is over how those definitions apply to this context.

[Forum Explorer]

How specific is a drow priestess exactly? The MM statistic looks fairly generic.

And again, why is age an allowed choice for dragons when it has such impact on the creature? An ancient dragon is likely a much more specific creature than a generic drow priestess.

Edit: What I mean to say is that the distinction borders on munchkinery, in a way. "Only the lowest CR creature of the type allowed, except for dragons because you get to pick the age of the creature you choose"

Pretty specific. Only an individual can be a drow priestess. To put it another way, there are many people all named Dave. Though this is a massive group of people named Dave, they are all still individuals. They are not a baseline in of themselves and you could not polymorph into a Dave.

Not at all, you can turn into a Yuan-ti Abomination, or a Storm Giant. Or a Grick Alpha if you want a specific example of same species, different CRs and you can use the higher one. The key point is that the trait in question is not a trained one, but an inherent one. A priestess trains to become a priestess, and you don't get their mental training and knowledge by transforming into one. Because then you get cheezy stuff like interrogating prisoners by simply transforming into them, and 'remembering' all that they know.


But as far as munchkin stuff goes, well let me ask as question. Can anyone here think of a realistic example where you would transform into a specific individual and not be seeking to cheese that game via something like 'casting a bunch of spells and then reverting to normal with your full spell list ready to go?'

Because I seriously can't think of a single one that can't be covered by a much lower level spell.

I mean the spell is still absurdly powerful, even under our interpretation. Why would you interpret the spell in a way that makes it trivial to break the game?

Obviously, this is not going to satisfy most people, as clearly evidenced by the different opinions presented before, but here's how I'm planning on ruling this spell, if/when it comes up in one of my campaigns:

Spoiler: My Houserule

Show

In order to transform a target into the following creatures, the target or spellcaster must have permission from that creature's creator (indicated in parentheses):

• Angels (any deity)
• Drow Priestess (Lolth)
• Drider (Lolth)
• Ghast (Orcus)
• Gnoll Fang of Yeenoghu (Yeenoghu)
• Kua-Toa Archpriest (any deity)
• Kua-Toa Whip (a Kua-Toa Archpriest)
• Lizardfolk Shaman (Semuanya)
• Lizardfolk King/Queen (Sess'inek)
• Modron (Primus)
• Orc Eye of Gruumsh (Gruumsh)
• Orog (Luthic)
• Sahuagin Priestess (Sekolah)

The following creatures may not be directly transformed into. Rather, certain experiences, training, or rituals must be completed before the target can proceed from the base form (indicated in parentheses). Conditions marked with * may be fulfilled prior to the time of casting, in which case the target may proceed directly to advanced form:

• Death Tyrant (Beholder: target must go insane while dreaming)
• Demilich (Lich: target must devolve from true Lichdom)
• Death Knight (Paladin: target must die without fulfilling a Paladin Oath)*
• Dracolich (Dragon: target must assume Lichdom)*
• Shadow Dragon (Dragon: target must be located in the Shadowfell at the time of casting)
• Drow Elite Warrior (Drow: target must recieve training from Drow Warrior)*
• Drow Mage (Drow: target must recieve training from Drow Mage)*
• Gnoll Pack Lord (Gnoll: target must lead a pack of Gnolls)*
• Goblin Boss (Goblin: target must lead a tribe of Goblins)*
• Hobgoblin Captain (Hobgoblin: target must lead a band of Hobgoblins)*
• Hobgoblin Warlord (Hobgoblin or Hobgoblin Captain: target must lead a legion of Hobgoblins)*
• Mummy Lord (Mummy: target must endure the procedure of the Mummy Lord's Heart)
• Orc War Chief (Orc: target must lead a tribe of Orcs)*

The following creatures are not viable for use with True Polymorph:

• Young Red Shadow Dragon
• Half-Red Dragon Veteran
• Quaggoth Spore Servant
• Vampire Spawn (Not sure if this is supposed to be a human > spawn example, or if it's a separate statblock, but I'm assuming the former, so it goes here)
• All NPCs listed in Appendix A of the Monster Manual

The following creatures have special rules for assigning a statblock, based on the target's age:

• Dragon: use the statblock for target's current age (if CR would be too high, use maximum CR-appropriate statblock, and calculate age by adding lowest age for statblock + target's pre-Polymorph age)
• Remorhaz: no age given, so just use CR-appropriate statblock
• Salamander: use the statblock for target's current age
• Slaadi: must start as Slaad Tadpole; after 2d12 hours, transforms into Blue Slaad; if previous form had the ability to cast 3rd level spells or higher, must transform into Green Slaad instead

Ignore the third paragraph of the Creature into Creature subheading of True Polymorph, replacing it with the following:
Target may retain any number of their previous form's class features and racial traits (if any) at the descretion of the DM. They cannot take any action that requires hands unless their new form is capable of performing such actions, or any action that requires speech unless their new form is capable of performing such actions. This may limit spellcasting and/or speaking. Optionally, the DM may rule that the target can re-learn or re-adapt their lost features and traits to their new form (For example, a Fighter that has been polymorphed into an octopus might be able to teach herself to fire a bow and arrow with her tentacles, even though an octopus does not normally have this ability).

What do people think of this houserule?

It seems like a pretty big nerf to the spell in general. But that's not really a bad thing.

[Gwendol]

Please indicate where one would find "non-standard" ancient dragons. I would like a reference for a "non-standard" ancient dragon of each color.

Ancient Dragon is a type of dragon. Because of the way DnD represents dragons, each age category is essentially its own monster type. They have different CRs.

Do you see a different CR for a 1000 year old Drow? I do not. Because its age is irrelevant to every other creature EXCEPT Dragons.

Again. I am not treating Dragons any different that DnD itself is treating them. Your thinking that they are the same as others and that their age is irrelevant is flawed.

I have no issue with transforming into a dragon of specific age. It's the logical contortions I see in this thread trying to explain away how "any kind of creature" have different meanings depending on the type of creature being considered. Furthermore, that metagame knowledge application seems to operate on a separate (and for me still unknown) set of rules.
I mean: Yuan-Ti; are there different races or can they ascend individually?
I thought drow priestesses were essentially born into the role, and the same for other roles in their society. Divine spellcasting (I know, the distinction doesn't exist, but you know what I mean) isn't acquired through training but through divine intervention. Sorcerous spellcasting is innate.
Death knights and liches are examples of monsters that have ascended individually: are they also then off the table?

[SharkForce]

my claim is not that nothing is broken or overpowered. my claim is that if you are using something in a way that was obviously intended (and simulacrum, for example, very obviously was intended to be something you could use on spellcasters because they address that possibility right in the spell description) it will have been considered and deemed to be not overpowered.

in contrast, having your simulacrum make a simulacrum, and then that simulacrum make a simulacrum, etc, ad nauseum, was unlikely to have been considered.

if true polymorph as a means of getting spell slots is less powerful than something which was obviously intended to be a possibility and was deemed to be reasonable, it is not broken or overpowered because of that.

@forum explorer: you really can't think of any time when someone might want to keep a relatively human form and temporarily gain a sudden increase in physical prowess or anything like that? alter self can make you look strong. true polymorph can let you be strong, carry a weapon like someone who is competent in its use, wear armour without being an embarassment to soldiers everywhere, and wrestle as well as even the most skilled of warriors (almost) if you turn into a gladiator. similarly, you may need to blend in with a group of thieves, or a group of merchants, and so on. true polymorph can let you do those things when you don't have the proficiencies or attributes required. other spells can't.

and while i would agree that i don't particularly like true polymorph giving training to others, it definitely does modify people's minds (after all, you lose your own class abilities and such), and it's a pretty much arbitrary restriction; a bird is not born knowing how to fly, it is something the parents teach. a young wolf will learn to hunt from the pack. and so on. when we decide we don't want class abilities to be allowed, we're making a fairly arbitrary restriction on what sort of learned ability polymorph can grant.

now, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. i still don't want polymorph to allow it.

but i can't argue that on the basis of balance, and i can't argue that based on the rules. neither has enough support to make that argument.

[Gritmonger]

Fluff-wise we may be thinking this through in a way that is more modern: wearing a new body like a suit, for instance (more akin to alter self) rather than True Polymorph altering something like the purpose one has in life, which would make it more likely that if your "true purpose" was altered, you would gain whatever you needed to fulfill your purpose, while simultaneously sloughing off things which didn't have any bearing on that purpose.

[Gwendol]

That does make a lot of sense.

[SharkForce]

well, true polymorph definitely alters your mental attributes and abilities. that isn't in question.

but it leaves you with the same alignment and personality, which would suggest that your purpose remains the same, just the methods available to you have changed.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Otherwise, you'd have to rule that someone True Polymorphed couldn't speak Common if its language was listed as "Orcish."

That is correct, a human polymorphed into an orc would not know how to speak Common anymore. Unlike shapechange or Wild Shape, true polymorph transforms the target completely, including its mental attributes. Does "alignment and personality" include memory? I don't think it does, but I admit that's unclear.

[TheYell]

Hate to beat a dead horse but if you're inferring the RAW by deduction from the RAW of a differently worded ability you're divining the RAI.

I mean, there's no doubt that an Ancient Brass Dragon gets something different from its Change Shape power than the True Polymorph Creature to Creature spell, but since "game statistics" has never been formally defined, it is open to interpretation.

Strictly speaking, the ability to cast True Polymorph on oneself is RAI, not RAW. I'm sorry to say much of the wrangling over what can and cannot be done by a creature whose "game statistics" have been changed is clarified if you do not allow True Polymorph to target self.

For example, the Creature to Object text is worded to be a temporary transformation, ("when the spell ends") which either can be interpreted to mean that a caster who transforms himself into a +3 vorpal adamantine greatsword retains the mental facuity to end concentration and the transformation, which is something the strictest RAI of Creature to Creature "game statistics" interpretations doesn't permit,

or

You can't cast True Polymorph on yourself, so you don't worry about whether you maintain concentration as a creature or an object at all.

I know it's more fun to allow True Polymorph to be cast on yourself, but Occam's Razor shaves that barber...

[Jacobo1226]

Okay so I know I'm probably super late to the party but a few things of note:
1. You can turn into the ancient brass/ adult silver dragon and change shape back into your original self, however RAW you lose the ability to cast spells as it is considered in technical terms a class feature, according to sage advice however it was intended to refer to things such as multi attack, unarmored defense, and cunning action, not spell casting, so there's no wrong answer to that one.
2. In case some people were wondering you can cast the spell and maintain concentration on it even if you turn yourself into something without the ability to cast spells. The reasoning given was that even players without spellcasting can maintain concentration on spells cast by other means, such as magical items. The ability to cast a spell isn't required to concentrate on one.
3. NPC's are creatures, no two ways about it, if they werent you couldn't cast spells on them. However you still cannot become the archmage template because that's what it is, a template to be applied to a specific creature, not a creature unto itself. As far as transforming into a specific creature the text "kind of creature" seems very ambiguous but leaning towards a generalization over a specific creature. Change shape however can turn you into a specific creature.
4. Removing all of their class levels is a perfectly fair interpretation of the rules, however it's dnd man, and in the end it's about fun, so if they ruin the fun of everyone else, then talk to them, or strip their class levels away, if they don't and it only adds to the fun to have a giant dragon buddy, then let them do it, because it's fun.
5. On receiving trained skills It is superrr ambiguous, but if you go with the ruling that because they're fundamentally changing themselves so much they lose their class levels and abilities, it is only fair to reach that interpretation because they are gaining the new abilities of their form, for example, Let's say you turn your fighter into a lich, he is losing everything that made him a fighter, because he is being irrevocably changed, so if he is being changed so much as to lose a lifetime of memory and skill, why is it considered too much of a stretch to say that all of that memory and skill is being replaced with the knowledge of spellcasting available to a lich? Tldr if it's so powerful it can strip away all of you skills and memory, it is then powerful enough to replace it, but to say it is capable of the first but not the second is just giving the middle finger to your players because you don't like what they're doing.