True Polymorph Into An Ancient Brass Dragon

[druid91]

Except that this isn't what has been happening at all, and everything you just typed is basically lies. Which is why I keep coming back.
Let me demonstrate:

1 & 2: Here you are correct, but you imply our two roles in the opposite manner. It's misleading.

3: As I have explained to you, and even explained how you can easily verify it for yourself, NPCS are not mentioned in the MM at all except in Appendix B. If they are not mentioned until after page 300, then how can they be clearly defined as ANYTHING on page four?
You're extrapolating and calling it RAW. Extrapolation isn't RAW because it isn't written. So that's not misleading, that's just a lie.

4: Clearly not open and shut logic, or this debate wouldn't be happening.

5: You're right about that, but the rules lawyer cheese isn't coming from me, where yu attribute it. I'm not the one pointing to "clearly defined" text that doesn't exist.

6: Yes, "kinds of" creatures means races and subraces and types, not specific NPCs. That's the interpretation we're going with. So you typed something correctly here, even though you did it while laughing and trying to be funny.
Well done, I guess?

7: The rules are not clearly against them by default. Your interpretation of the rules are against them. The rules can be read either way.
You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Firstly, I was not speaking of myself at all in 1 & 2. Nor of Sharkforce.

No but "Creatures who can be fought and killed" are. Funnily enough. Then the supporting text stating that it applies to "Civilized Folk" as well is just the final nail in the coffin. Given that the bulk of the stats in the Appendix NPC's deal with, gasp, how to fight and when they die. Just like every other creature in the monster manual.... The only lie being perpetuated here is not of my manufacture.

This debate is happening due to people not liking the rules as they are and trying to insist they can't work that way.

Funnily enough, I didn't say there was actually any rules lawyer cheese. I simply said that that's what one side of the argument was asserting.

That's [snipped] legalese rules lawyering, which basically has no place in 5e.

No, Kind means any group of similar creatures. Archmagi are a group of similar creatures. Bandits are a group of similar creatures. Assassins are a group of similar creatures. Young Green Dragons are a group of similar creatures. Zombies are a group of similar creatures.

The rules can't be read either way. They can be forcibly misconstrued with sufficient smoke and mirrors one way, and read the other.

[calebrus]

No but "Creatures who can be fought and killed" are. Funnily enough. Then the supporting text stating that it applies to "Civilized Folk" as well is just the final nail in the coffin.

<snip>

The rules can't be read either way. They can be forcibly misconstrued with sufficient smoke and mirrors one way, and read the other.

Here's your problem, as arch explained.
You're unwilling to even admit that "Creatures that can be fought and killed" can be read as "humans/elves/dwarves/hafllings/gnmoes/etc/etc/etc that can be fought and killed" as a reasonable reading of it, and you insist, with zero room for different reading, that "Archmages that can be fought and killed" is the only reasonable interpretation.
The wonderful Page 4 that you love so much doesn't say anything about NPCs at all, even though you continue to claim that it does.
You are extrapolating and calling it RAW. Extrapolation is not Rules As Written because if it requires extrapolation then it was NOT written.
You're arguing RAW when RAW doesn't apply. RAI applies, as whatever you interpret the Intent to be.
It can absolutely be read either way.
You won't admit that it can be read it either way, and will not accept that your interpretation isn't the only one.
The smoke and mirrors is coming from your corner.

[charcoalninja]

Here's your problem, as arch explained.
You're unwilling to even admit that "Creatures that can be fought and killed" can be read as "humans/elves/dwarves/hafllings/gnmoes/etc/etc/etc that can be fought and killed" as a reasonable reading of it, and you insist, with zero room for different reading, that "Archmages that can be fought and killed" is the only reasonable interpretation.
The wonderful Page 4 that you love so much doesn't say anything about NPCs at all, even though you continue to claim that it does.
You are extrapolating and calling it RAW. Extrapolation is not Rules As Written because if it requires extrapolation then it was NOT written.
You're arguing RAW when RAW doesn't apply. RAI applies, as whatever you interpret the Intent to be.
It can absolutely be read either way.
You won't admit that it can be read it either way, and will not accept that your interpretation isn't the only one.
The smoke and mirrors is coming from your corner.

How do you reconcile your banning of True Polymorph to allow you to transform into an NPC based on ruling them as not being creatures, and then allow them to be targeted by every other spell in the game that works on creatures.

You cannot have it both ways. Either PCs, NPCs and everything with a gorram pulse is a creature, and thus can be transformed into (as long as they have a CR), or they are not creatures and therefore invalid targets not only for True Polymorph but nearly every other spell in the game.

[calebrus]

How do you reconcile your banning of True Polymorph to allow you to transform into an NPC based on ruling them as not being creatures, and then allow them to be targeted by every other spell in the game that works on creatures.

There's nothing to reconcile.
Archmage isn't a creature, and can't be polymorphed into.
That Archmage? He's a human, or an elf, or whatever, and human/elf/whatever is a creature which can be targeted by spells.
Archmage isn't the polymorph option. Human is.

[hawklost]

Heres the big killer to the NPCs being a 'creature' directly.

They are the only ones who have stats that use 'humonoid (ANY RACE) inside their stat block. This fully implies that they are templates to put on top of a Race (creature), not a creature in their own right.

Also, in the Appendix B: introduction of it says "These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs". It does not say "These Monsters, or these Creatures, but these stat blocks. Very clearly states that these are stats and not individual creatures.

EDIT:

How do you reconcile your banning of True Polymorph to allow you to transform into an NPC based on ruling them as not being creatures, and then allow them to be targeted by every other spell in the game that works on creatures.

You cannot have it both ways. Either PCs, NPCs and everything with a gorram pulse is a creature, and thus can be transformed into (as long as they have a CR), or they are not creatures and therefore invalid targets not only for True Polymorph but nearly every other spell in the game.

Actually you can have it both ways because you are trying to equate two different things.

What you target for a spell is a Creature (ie. that Human there. Or that Dragon there. You don't target that Human who is named Archmage Bob and has used up all his spells that I know of.). So for targetting purposes you get "Human there, Dragon here, Zombie in square C5/b7 ect)

When True Polymorph then sees the target it sees is the following:

Player: Targets Marcos the Magnificent Mage(Human Mage in xyz coords) and uses TP to make them a frog named jupiter who has a gimped leg (old pet from the Caster)

TP spell sees: Target Creature in xyz coords and turn into Creature Frog
- Does Target Save? Y/N
- If yes: End now
- If No: Target becomes Creature Frog

Nowhere in the spell does it care that you called the person by name or class and nowhere does it care that you named the frog or claimed it had a gimped leg

------------------------------
I as a person am a I am a Creature, I am also a subset known as a Humanoid creature, I am also a subset of that known as a human being, I am also a subset of that known as a Male, and also defined as Caucasian. On top of all those things, I am a Programmer and Gamer (pretend stats go with this). So if someone were to turn a rock into Hawklost (trying to duplicate me), instead they would get a Caucasian human Male. If instead i was a Bluejay bird, they would get a bluejay as what they turned it into, Not me.

[Xetheral]

Not at all. It's safe to say that one person is intent on quashing what they see as cheese, and is grasping at any straw necessary to do so. And a slightly more reasonable person is supporting his argument.

...

It's perfectly fine if that's the way they want to play it, but the rules are pretty clearly against them by default.

I don't find your argument persuasive either. 5e tends to minimize use of defined game terms, preferring natural language. (I think this approach has created more problems than it solved, but that's a different discussion.) Accordingly, I see no reason to assume that the word "creature" has the same scope in the spell description as it has in the monster manual.

[charcoalninja]

There's nothing to reconcile.
Archmage isn't a creature, and can't be polymorphed into.
That Archmage? He's a human, or an elf, or whatever, and human/elf/whatever is a creature which can be targeted by spells.
Archmage isn't the polymorph option. Human is.

Yes you're right you're not turning into a formless template.

You're transforming into THAT archmage over there, who HAS a specific statblock and who IS a creature and can be targeted by spells therefore can be turned into.
The spell literally says: find a creature that's your CR or lower. Is this particular Archmage a creature? Yes you have just said he is. Is he your CR or lower? Yes he is, his CR is 12. Thus you can turn into this particular archmage and must use his statblock. You can't segment statblocks based on percepted cheese. You either gain all of a creature's stats, or none of them.

That's how the spell works.

EDIT: consider that Bob the builder is a specific person yes, but he's still a creature. Sort of like the Kingdom pyramid.

Creature
Living
Race
Individual

Each of these is a subdivision of the overarching layer above it. Simply because Bob the builder is an individual doesn't mean he stops being a creature anymore than a particular magical beast ceases being a creature.

[calebrus]

Yes you're right you're not turning into a formless template.

You're transforming into THAT archmage over there, who HAS a specific statblock and who IS a creature and can be targeted by spells therefore can be turned into.
The spell literally says: find a creature that's your CR or lower. Is this particular Archmage a creature? Yes you have just said he is. Is he your CR or lower? Yes he is, his CR is 12. Thus you can turn into this particular archmage and must use his statblock. You can't segment statblocks based on percepted cheese. You either gain all of a creature's stats, or none of them.

That's how the spell works.

No, that's how you, personally, read the spell to work. Obviously not everyone here agrees with that reading, so claiming "that's how the spell works": has no basis in fact. It does, however, have basis in interpretation.
That's the wrong interpretation, as far as many of us are concerned, but it's certainly an interpretation.

[Forum Explorer]

Honestly I think part of the problem is that the PHB seems to assume that the player does not have a Monster Manual or a DMG. The Monster Manual is a 'DM only' book, so you don't get to pick a stat block and choose what exactly you want, but instead say a creature and the DM is expected to provide the stats.

[Ardantis]

As the OP said, why not Polymorph? Even if the variant dragon is off limits and you lose all spell casting, regardless of which side of the semantic argument wins, why not upgrade to an equal CR chassis and go from there? I say it's still a viable advancement path for max level characters.

Also, after the hour runs out, I'd say that even though the RAW is ambiguous, RAI seems pretty clear to me that it is a permanent condition or state, as opposed to a permanent magical effect. You need not fear a dispel; you are truly the new creature!

Right now True Polymorph is the only path to ascend to near-deity levels of power. Which makes sense because the higher and lower realms are not peopled with high level adventurers, but rather the very high CR creatures we would consider Polymorphing into.

QED

[PinkysBrain]

In my opinion the only thing this spell can do 100% certainly is turn a fighter into something better with permanent duration (permanent being dispellable is entirely up in the air, but it doesn't really matter). Most everything else is up to the DM.

I know it's a 9th level spell and all, but that excuse is not good enough ... and after 3e they have no excuse at all in my opinion, they knew polymorph needed some care and they paid it none.

[Myzz]

Here's the bottom line.
NPCs are not "kinds" of creatures.
Races are "kinds" of creatures.
NPCs are "kinds of kinds of" creatures.
Specific examples.
You could polymorph into a Human, because that's a kind of creature.
You can not polymorph into an Archmage, because that's not a kind if creature. That's a kind of human.

You can become an old man, but you cannot become Gandalf.
An Archmage, or any NPC in the MM for that matter, are not kinds of creatures. They're specific individuals, like Gandalf, that just don't have names yet.
There is no general Archmage for you to poly into.
There is a general human, but you would never choose that, so it's moot.

NPCs are not kinds of creatures, they are specific individual examples of certain kinds of creatures.
But that's not what poly tells you that you can become. Poly says only "kinds" are allowed.
You can't say Archmage any more than you could say Gandalf.
You could, however, say Human.

Ok I had to step in here... not sure if its been resolved since page 5. But this above POV is inaccurate.

Creatures is in fact very specific and is NOT (that I've found) ever defined.

Player Characters are in fact creatures, or spells that specifically state they affect target creature (or 1 creature, up to X creatures, etc...) ALL the spells that are 'Buffs' like Bless or whatever, target a creature.

You've admitted that all monsters are in fact creatures... Why would NPC's be different then PC's AND Monsters?

TP does NOT state you have to choose a non-specific creature, it simply says creature. So saying "I TP myself into an Ancient Dragon" should be as equally viable as "I TP myself into an Ancient Blue Dragon" as well as "I TP myself into the Ancient Blue Dragon Billybobbabbymagibbitts" . Everyone of them is a creature, and as such is a viable option for the spell True Polymorph.


I believe it was Sharkforce (sorry to name drop ya again) who stated that he would require actually picking a specific known creature for TP (as a houserule), and I think I'll be employing the same idea.

[Vogonjeltz]

Covered on page 1.

Ah you're right, someone already pointed out that they would fail to cast the continued concentration automatically, making it impossible to True Polymorph ones self. Thanks!

Human is a creature.
Archmage is a person. A specific person.
Archmage is not an option. Human is the option.

Exactly.

The Archmage listed in the back is a creature, specifically a human who has the role or profession of Archmage. True Polymorph and Shapechange turn you into the creature, NOT the role or profession.

If two reasonable people can read the same rules and come to opposite conclusions,

Aye, there's the rub

Why?

Wish -> Simulacrum Awesome McMageface. Congrats, you now are both the better mage and yourself.

Here's a fun question. If you True Polymorph your Simulacrum into yourself, does it then become able to recover spell slots?

So you want to burn a 9th level spell to create a Simulacrum, and then at some later point layer a True Polymorph spell on top of that? Why? I mean, what's the point? Why not just True Polymorph a rock into something?

You can polymorph into specific individuals based on the wording of the spell because, as others have already said they are creatures.

You have run afoul of Aristotle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

True Polymorph allows you to become a creature, you retain your own personality, therefore you can not become a specific individual.

[hawklost]

By logic of those who like cheeze

A lvl 18 Wizard can transform into a Demilich (not in lair) because it is only CR 18 then feed a single soul to its phylactery (therefore turning itself into a Lich (CR 21) with Wizard spells of 9th level).

Then they can turn themselves into an Ancient Black Dragon, Ancient Copper Dragon, or Solar.

All this could be done in effectively 2 days (2 level 9 spells cast). And a single soul of someone who doesn't matter.

Addendum:
Heck, ignoring that, they can build themselves a lair as a lich, becoming a CR 22 creature. Then use the TP to become an Ancient Bronze Dragon or Ancient Green Dragon.

[Wartex1]

Why not just become an Adult Gold Dragon and then just wait a few hundred or so years?

[druid91]

Here's your problem, as arch explained.
You're unwilling to even admit that "Creatures that can be fought and killed" can be read as "humans/elves/dwarves/hafllings/gnmoes/etc/etc/etc that can be fought and killed" as a reasonable reading of it, and you insist, with zero room for different reading, that "Archmages that can be fought and killed" is the only reasonable interpretation.
The wonderful Page 4 that you love so much doesn't say anything about NPCs at all, even though you continue to claim that it does.
You are extrapolating and calling it RAW. Extrapolation is not Rules As Written because if it requires extrapolation then it was NOT written.
You're arguing RAW when RAW doesn't apply. RAI applies, as whatever you interpret the Intent to be.
It can absolutely be read either way.
You won't admit that it can be read it either way, and will not accept that your interpretation isn't the only one.
The smoke and mirrors is coming from your corner.

Because you're reasoning isn't reasonable in the least. It doesn't follow through logically or reasonably, and the only reason I can see for someone to jump through the mental hoops necessary is overzealous cheese-stomping. And also because, as I said, you cannot fight 'just a dwarf'. 'Just a dwarf' lacks the game statistics necessary to engage in combat. You could fight a dwarven commoner. Or a Dwarven Archmage. Or a Dwarven Bandit even. Dwarf is a trait. Commoner, Archmage, and Bandit are creatures that can possess that trait.

Heres the big killer to the NPCs being a 'creature' directly.

They are the only ones who have stats that use 'humonoid (ANY RACE) inside their stat block. This fully implies that they are templates to put on top of a Race (creature), not a creature in their own right.

Also, in the Appendix B: introduction of it says "These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs". It does not say "These Monsters, or these Creatures, but these stat blocks. Very clearly states that these are stats and not individual creatures.

EDIT:


Actually you can have it both ways because you are trying to equate two different things.

What you target for a spell is a Creature (ie. that Human there. Or that Dragon there. You don't target that Human who is named Archmage Bob and has used up all his spells that I know of.). So for targetting purposes you get "Human there, Dragon here, Zombie in square C5/b7 ect)

When True Polymorph then sees the target it sees is the following:

Player: Targets Marcos the Magnificent Mage(Human Mage in xyz coords) and uses TP to make them a frog named jupiter who has a gimped leg (old pet from the Caster)

TP spell sees: Target Creature in xyz coords and turn into Creature Frog
- Does Target Save? Y/N
- If yes: End now
- If No: Target becomes Creature Frog

Nowhere in the spell does it care that you called the person by name or class and nowhere does it care that you named the frog or claimed it had a gimped leg

------------------------------
I as a person am a I am a Creature, I am also a subset known as a Humanoid creature, I am also a subset of that known as a human being, I am also a subset of that known as a Male, and also defined as Caucasian. On top of all those things, I am a Programmer and Gamer (pretend stats go with this). So if someone were to turn a rock into Hawklost (trying to duplicate me), instead they would get a Caucasian human Male. If instead i was a Bluejay bird, they would get a bluejay as what they turned it into, Not me.

That. Is actually a half decent argument. And I thank you for presenting it. How do you reconcile that with the lack of basic statistics for 'just a human'? See above, for details. The fact is, Races are traits. Not creatures. Some races are ALSO creatures. (And indeed the DMG gives race breakdowns for a few creatures you might want. Including the Dreaded Aaracrokra.)

I don't find your argument persuasive either. 5e tends to minimize use of defined game terms, preferring natural language. (I think this approach has created more problems than it solved, but that's a different discussion.) Accordingly, I see no reason to assume that the word "creature" has the same scope in the spell description as it has in the monster manual.

Yes, and in using Natural langauge, why would you use creature to mean two entirely different things? The word creature isn't defined in the monster manual. The word Monster is. That definition is "A creature that can be interacted with, Fought, and Killed."

Human [insert NPC type here] can be interacted with, fought, and killed. Humans apart from the NPC type lack the bulk of the traits necessary to be played.

Races are traits, not creatures in and of themselves. With exceptions.

[SharkForce]

I believe it was Sharkforce (sorry to name drop ya again) who stated that he would require actually picking a specific known creature for TP (as a houserule), and I think I'll be employing the same idea.

that isn't my houserule. my houserule is quite vague and requires a lot of DM decision-making, with only guidelines; with that said, i would expect much of the time the guidelines will be applied the same way by most people, it'll be a few specific examples that cause problems.

my ruling would be that you neither gain nor lose class abilities (or other trained behaviour, like feats). a fighter in dragon form is still a fighter, a wizard in dragon form is still a wizard, and neither of them in archmage form will gain any spellcasting from it.

the problem becomes defining what exactly is a trained ability, and what isn't, because that is not clearly defined anywhere.

so yeah, not sure who's houserule that is, but it isn't mine.

[calebrus]

The fact is, Races are traits. Not creatures.

You really, honestly, truly should go back and read that page that you keep claiming "clearly defines" what a creature is one more time, because that EXACT page says that you're wrong. It's even in the same paragraph.
You keep saying that what a creature is is clearly defined, and yet:
-- the things that you claim are clearly defined as creatures (NPCs) are not defined as such
-- the things you say are not creatures (races) are in fact the things which are clearly defined as such

[SharkForce]

You really, honestly, truly should go back and read that page that you keep claiming "clearly defines" what a creature is one more time, because that EXACT page says that you're wrong. It's even in the same paragraph.
You keep saying that what a creature is is clearly defined, and yet:
-- the things that you claim are clearly defined as creatures (NPCs) are not defined as such
-- the things you say are not creatures (races) are in fact the things which are clearly defined as such

an archmage is a member of those races. those races are creatures. therefore, an archmage is a creature.

[calebrus]

an archmage is a member of those races. those races are creatures. therefore, an archmage is a creature.

Only insofar as he belongs to one of those races.
You know what else belongs to one of those races of creatures? Literally every living thing, ever.... and quite a large portion of things which are no longer living.

Archmage is a profession, just like Farmer or Sailor or Cab Driver or Rules Lawyer.
You can't polymorph into any of them any more than you could polymorph into Gandalf.
Human? That's a choice.
Cab Driver? Sailor? Farmer? Archmage? Gandalf? Not a choice.

[Forum Explorer]

Only insofar as he belongs to one of those races.
You know what else belongs to one of those races of creatures? Literally every living thing, ever.... and quite a large portion of things which are no longer living.

Archmage is a profession, just like Farmer or Sailor or Cab Driver or Rules Lawyer.
You can't polymorph into any of them any more than you could polymorph into Gandalf.
Human? That's a choice.
Cab Driver? Sailor? Farmer? Archmage? Gandalf? Not a choice.

Well by their reading you could polymorph into specifics. Any specific. Turn yourself into the king, and not only will you be physically the same, but you'll also possess full knowledge of all his political skills and depending on the reading, all of his secrets, knowledge of what's in the treasury, and information on which noble is which.

Which I think is ridiculous.

So I'll go by the quasi-raw of no specifics, and yes Archmage is a specific. An ancient dragon? That's fine. A lich? Eh, kinda iffy and needs some specific changes to work properly. A zombie? Sure, but why? A Roc? No problems. A goblin chief? No, that's a specific goblin.

[calebrus]

So I'll go by the quasi-raw of no specifics, and yes Archmage is a specific. An ancient dragon? That's fine. A lich? Eh, kinda iffy and needs some specific changes to work properly. A zombie? Sure, but why? A Roc? No problems. A goblin chief? No, that's a specific goblin.

This, Exactly.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The spell says turn a creature or object into another creature. A creature. Not a creature type. Not a specie of creature. Ergo, polymorphing into a specific creature would appear to be completely legal. In which case you get their full game statistics.

[SharkForce]

Well by their reading you could polymorph into specifics. Any specific. Turn yourself into the king, and not only will you be physically the same, but you'll also possess full knowledge of all his political skills and depending on the reading, all of his secrets, knowledge of what's in the treasury, and information on which noble is which.

Which I think is ridiculous.

So I'll go by the quasi-raw of no specifics, and yes Archmage is a specific. An ancient dragon? That's fine. A lich? Eh, kinda iffy and needs some specific changes to work properly. A zombie? Sure, but why? A Roc? No problems. A goblin chief? No, that's a specific goblin.

not exactly. according to the spell, you could polymorph into *a* king. you would have any inherent abilities that would be found in the stat block of a king. you could not turn into that king standing right over there, however, as he is not a kind of creature, he is a specific creature, and creature-to-creature polymorph does specify a kind of creature as what you can turn into (though the main heading merely states a creature, so i suppose you could make the argument that it doesn't have to be a kind of creature and you can choose individuals). a king is a kind of creature; there can be many kings. if you put them all in the same room, you would have a group of kings. king richard who went on the crusade to jerusalem, on the other hand, is not a kind of creature, that's a specific individual, and there is only one.

and yes, pretty much everyone thinks it is ridiculous as far as i can tell that you would somehow gain the accumulated knowledge of what you turn into. i haven't seen a single person say that they would consider that to be reasonable. many of us have expressed a desire to see it changed, and have noted houserules we would use. i think someone might have said they plan on using the spell as written because they can't come up with a simple, straightforward method of determining what you should be able to gain, and while it makes no sense, they don't consider it broken to be able to polymorph into a CR 12 archmage, or at least, no more broken than turning into a CR 12 erinyes.

and some of us seem to think that we can alter reality if we deny it long and hard enough. personally, my money is on that not working, but since i can't really do anything to keep them from trying (so far, persuading them of the irrationality of that decision is not working), well, i expect they're going to go right on doing that.

[calebrus]

The spell says turn a creature or object into another creature. A creature. Not a creature type. Not a specie of creature. Ergo, polymorphing into a specific creature would appear to be completely legal. In which case you get their full game statistics.

Creature into Creature: If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose whose challenge rating.... yadda yadda yadda

Kind.
That means type. Specific creatures do not fall under this umbrella by many interpretations.
So while a specific creature may be fine at some tables, it is not fine at many other tables.
It's not a question of legality. The wording is ambiguous enough to allow for both rulings, making both rulings perfectly reasonable.

[silveralen]

TP does NOT state you have to choose a non-specific creature, it simply says creature. So saying "I TP myself into an Ancient Dragon" should be as equally viable as "I TP myself into an Ancient Blue Dragon" as well as "I TP myself into the Ancient Blue Dragon Billybobbabbymagibbitts" . Everyone of them is a creature, and as such is a viable option for the spell True Polymorph.

I believe it was Sharkforce (sorry to name drop ya again) who stated that he would require actually picking a specific known creature for TP (as a houserule), and I think I'll be employing the same idea.

Well, the thing is true polymorph doesn't, in the creature to creature or creature to object portion, specify "a creature" it specifies "a kind of creature". The Ancient Blue Dragon Billybobbabbymagibbitts is a creature, but Ancient Blue Dragon Billybobbabbymagibbitts is not a kind of creature, ancient blue dragon would however be a kind of creature, as would blue dragon or dragon.

That's actually my houserule you are referencing I think. I like it as it makes more sense to turn into a specific archmage than some sort of generic platonic ideal of an archmage imo. But it is a houserule, and not something I think the rules support very well.

[Xetheral]

Yes, and in using Natural langauge, why would you use creature to mean two entirely different things?

Because they are being used in different contexts. Moreover, the potential difference is only one of scope.

[Forum Explorer]

Creature into Creature: If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose whose challenge rating.... yadda yadda yadda

Kind.
That means type. Specific creatures do not fall under this umbrella by many interpretations.
So while a specific creature may be fine at some tables, it is not fine at many other tables.
It's not a question of legality. The wording is ambiguous enough to allow for both rulings, making both rulings perfectly reasonable.

Exactly this. The wording is loose enough that either interpretation is valid, and since one makes the spell even more broken, I know I'm going with mine instead.

[SharkForce]

it really isn't loose enough that either is valid. a human archmage is a kind of creature, just like a human is a kind of creature, and just like an ancient blue dragon is a kind of creature. unless you are suggesting that human archmages are both a kind of creature, and not a kind of creature at the same time.

something either is or is not a kind of creature. a human archmage is a kind of creature. now, i personally don't *want* the spell to let you turn into a human archmage and gain all their spellcasting knowledge. i would houserule it in any game where it comes up and i'm the DM. but again, that has no bearing on what the spell actually says.

as written, you can true polymorph into an archmage. it doesn't make much sense, but that's what the spell says. you can certainly say that you don't like it, or that you will houserule it, or that you don't think it was intended to work like that, or that it shouldn't work like that, and that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it (well, the "you will houserule it" part is more like a statement of intent than an opinion, but you get the point).

but that won't alter reality and make it so that when i open my book and read the text of the spell, i will find that the words have magically changed so that it is no longer true that the spell allows such things.

[Forum Explorer]

it really isn't loose enough that either is valid. a human archmage is a kind of creature, just like a human is a kind of creature, and just like an ancient blue dragon is a kind of creature. unless you are suggesting that human archmages are both a kind of creature, and not a kind of creature at the same time.

something either is or is not a kind of creature. a human archmage is a kind of creature. now, i personally don't *want* the spell to let you turn into a human archmage and gain all their spellcasting knowledge. i would houserule it in any game where it comes up and i'm the DM. but again, that has no bearing on what the spell actually says.

as written, you can true polymorph into an archmage. it doesn't make much sense, but that's what the spell says. you can certainly say that you don't like it, or that you will houserule it, or that you don't think it was intended to work like that, or that it shouldn't work like that, and that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it (well, the "you will houserule it" part is more like a statement of intent than an opinion, but you get the point).

but that won't alter reality and make it so that when i open my book and read the text of the spell, i will find that the words have magically changed so that it is no longer true that the spell allows such things.

I wouldn't say they are a kind of creature, anymore then saying a fighter is a kind of creature. I mean those NPC statblocks don't even include what actual race they are in the stats. By that logic, you'd be able to transform into a Sorcerer, burn through all of the spells, then transform back, and still have all the wizard spell slots left.

Also that bolded sentence. RAW frequently doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that if you tried to play by 100% pure RAW and nothing else you'd find the game nigh unplayable. The DM's job is basically to interpret RAW in a manner that makes sense.

Basically? I don't give one flying **** about RAW. RAW is useless, and only serves to fight with people on the internet about. RAI (rules as interpreted/intended) and RACS (Rules as common sense) and RAF (rules as fun) are all that matters to me.

You want to pretend all common sense goes out the window when you start playing? Go for it. But don't try and tell me that it's the proper way to play the game, or that the developers intended for you to play that way.