So, I hope this is the correct thread to be asking this question in, but I have a bit about True Polymorph I'm stumped about. Specifically a "Creature to Creature" change.
"The spell lasts for the duration, or until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies. If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the spell lasts until it is dispelled."
So if you concentrate on the spell for the full duration, the creature is permanently in that form until it is dispelled, right? What happens if that new form is reduced to 0 hit points at that point? I'm not sure if the creature just dies because the spell wasn't dispelled or if "until dispelled" is similar to "duration becomes indefinite without needing concentration" and they would return to their original form. Like, is the target dropping to 0 or dying the same as it getting dispelled?
It's effectively a permanent effect until Dispel Magic is cast on it. The caster no longer needs to concentrate on it, and reducing the target to 0 hit points just makes them a dying creature of the kind they were True Polymorphed into; they'd have to have the effect dispelled in order to return to the creature they once were.
It's effectively a permanent effect until Dispel Magic is cast on it. The caster no longer needs to concentrate on it, and reducing the target to 0 hit points just makes them a dying creature of the kind they were True Polymorphed into; they'd have to have the effect dispelled in order to return to the creature they once were.
Wait, but the spell says it lasts "until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies", wouldn't they revert back to their true form when they drop to 0 HP then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
It's effectively a permanent effect until Dispel Magic is cast on it. The caster no longer needs to concentrate on it, and reducing the target to 0 hit points just makes them a dying creature of the kind they were True Polymorphed into; they'd have to have the effect dispelled in order to return to the creature they once were.
Wait, but the spell says it lasts "until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies", wouldn't they revert back to their true form when they drop to 0 HP then.
Not if the caster concentrates for the full duration. If that happens, then the sentence that starts "If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration..." comes into effect, leaving only one method of reversing it.
Hmm... Well that definitely isn't RAI, but... The spell no longer "lasts until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies," since that was specifically replaced by the next sentence.
Crawford claims that the spell having "no effect on a creature with 0 hit points," means that the spell still ends, but that is kind of a stretch.
It would be a simple errata to fix (just change to "the duration becomes until dispelled") or just put something in the SAC. Until then, the RAW is that the spell lasts until dispelled (period) and there is nothing official saying otherwise.
His tweet makes no sense at all. The spell having no effect on creatures with 0 hp has nothing to do with a creature that is already affected by the spell dropping to 0 hp after the spell duration has become "until dispelled" by having concentrated on it for the full duration. :/
His tweet makes no sense at all. The spell having no effect on creatures with 0 hp has nothing to do with a creature that is already affected by the spell dropping to 0 hp after the spell duration has become "until dispelled" by having concentrated on it for the full duration. :/
I think he's referring to the second paragraph, which the until dispelled line doesn't replace:
This spell has no effect on a shapechanger or a creature with 0 hit points.
It's easy to read this as "you cannot cast this spell on a shapechanger or a creature with no hit-points", but that's not actually what it says. It means we have two sentences that both state that a creature with zero hit-points isn't transformed.
Though this would raise an interesting question about whether you're allowed to true polymorph a non-shapechanger into a shapechanger?
It's definitely not well worded if the intention for the concentration is that the time limit (and concentration) are lifted.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No, the spell not working on a creature with 0 HP is not an issue. The issue is when a creature that has more than 0 HP gets Polymorphed and the caster concentrates for the full duration THEN the creature gets reduced to 0 HP.
When the spell is cast it doesn't affect a creature with 0 HP. While the caster is concentrating if the creature is reduced to 0 HP the creature reverts. If the caster concentrates for the full duration then the duration of the spell becomes "until dispelled" so the creature should no longer revert if reduced to 0 HP since at this point it's already been affected by the spell thus rendering the "spell has no effect on creatures with 0 HP" line irrelevant.
If they wanted a creature that drops to 0 HP to always revert they should have made the line stating the new duration as "until dispelled or the creature is reduced to 0 HP"
That's why there's confusion, it is, as you say, poorly written.
No, the spell not working on a creature with 0 HP is not an issue. The issue is when a creature that has more than 0 HP gets Polymorphed and the caster concentrates for the full duration THEN the creature gets reduced to 0 HP.
When the spell is cast it doesn't affect a creature with 0 HP. While the caster is concentrating if the creature is reduced to 0 HP the creature reverts. If the caster concentrates for the full duration then the duration of the spell becomes "until dispelled" so the creature should no longer revert if reduced to 0 HP since at this point it's already been affected by the spell thus rendering the "spell has no effect on creatures with 0 HP" line irrelevant.
If they wanted a creature that drops to 0 HP to always revert they should have made the line stating the new duration as "until dispelled or the creature is reduced to 0 HP"
That's why there's confusion, it is, as you say, poorly written.
Right. That is why I said Crawford's claim that that rule applied for that situation was a stretch.
I also think I might have misunderstood Haravikk, too. Felt like they were disagreeing but upon re-reading I don't get that feeling. Bah, I really shouldn't comment when I'm tired, lol
Sorry if I wasn't clear; I wasn't disagreeing with how the spell should be played, I think we all agree on that, I was just wondering out loud about that second paragraph being what crawford was referring to.
Basically we have two lines that say "no effect if you have zero hp", but one is more obvious in how to interpret it than the other. The first basically says "spell ends if you go to zero hp" while the other says "spell can't effect a creature on zero hp"; the first is obvious in when it happens because it can only take effect once you've transformed as it's a condition on the spell duration, meanwhile the second reads like it's supposed to be a limitation of who you can target (can't polymorph shape-changers or dying creatures) but it doesn't actually say that it only applies when you cast the spell, so that part is open for interpretation.
On that basis you could say that there are two sentences that tell us the spell ends when you hit zero, and one of them is there regardless of the change in duration (the spell duration may now be until dispelled, but the effect can still end by falling to zero hp), but it raises a weird case that we're also being told we can't turn into shape changers*, and what's supposed to happen if the spell is "until dispelled", you go to zero but then get healed (do you transform again)? It raises more questions than it answers.
There's no doubt in my mind it's supposed to end at zero hp no matter what, and that Crawford should have put it on the list for getting an errata rather than giving a weird answer.
*I think changing into creatures with the Change Shape or similar features would still be fine, iirc "shape-changers" are only certain types of changeling (identified by their type).
Update: Also I forgot but there's actually a third mention under Creature into Creature which states "If it reverts as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, …" which reinforces that this is something that happens, this should be more than enough to ensure this condition always applies.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Sorry if I wasn't clear; I wasn't disagreeing with how the spell should be played, I think we all agree on that, I was just wondering out loud about that second paragraph being what crawford was referring to.
Basically we have two lines that say "no effect if you have zero hp", but one is more obvious in how to interpret it than the other. The first basically says "spell ends if you go to zero hp" while the other says "spell can't effect a creature on zero hp"; the first is obvious in when it happens because it can only take effect once you've transformed as it's a condition on the spell duration, meanwhile the second reads like it's supposed to be a limitation of who you can target (can't polymorph shape-changers or dying creatures) but it doesn't actually say that it only applies when you cast the spell, so that part is open for interpretation.
On that basis you could say that there are two sentences that tell us the spell ends when you hit zero, and one of them is there regardless of the change in duration (the spell duration may now be until dispelled, but the effect can still end by falling to zero hp), but it raises a weird case that we're also being told we can't turn into shape changers*, and what's supposed to happen if the spell is "until dispelled", you go to zero but then get healed (do you transform again)? It raises more questions than it answers.
There's no doubt in my mind it's supposed to end at zero hp no matter what, and that Crawford should have put it on the list for getting an errata rather than giving a weird answer.
*I think changing into creatures with the Change Shape or similar features would still be fine, iirc "shape-changers" are only certain types of changeling (identified by their type).
Thank you, this is essentially where my confusion came from. Other than the shapechangers parts.
Were-creatures like Werewolves have the Shapechanger trait subtype too. Here is the search list of Shapechanger monsters.
The stipulation about shapechangers is probably to prevent casting the spell on that type of creature, not prevent turning someone into one. I imagine because then you could simply (with a 9th-level spell slot, which isn't exactly simple) turn a wereperson into a not-wereperson "permanently".
Were-creatures like Werewolves have the Shapechanger trait too. Here is the search list of Shapechanger monsters.
The stipulation about shapechangers is probably to prevent casting the spell on that type of creature, not prevent turning someone into one. I imagine because then you could simply (with a 9th-level spell slot, which isn't exactly simple) turn a wereperson into a not-wereperson "permanently".
That list is inaccurate. Shapechanger isn't based on having the trait named Shapechanger (or some ineffable "tag" named Shapechanger), it's based on having Shapechanger as your type or subtype. The current list, ignoring named Adventurer NPCs, is Volo's Barghest, Volo's Deep Scion, MTF Graz'zt, Volo's Yuan-Ti (Anathema, Mind Whisperer, Nightmare Speaker, Pit Master), and these:
Note that e.g. the Loup Garou above has the shapechanger subtype but has no trait named shapechanger - you can have the subtype without the trait just as you can have the trait without the subtype, and only having the subtype qualifies you.
Some monster names above differ from dndbeyond's but refer to the same monster - in particular, dndbeyond refers to a "giant mimic" which I have listed above as a "dining table mimic", but they're the same beast (the NPC in question has no listed statblock, so it's a fine question what its correct name is).
So, I hope this is the correct thread to be asking this question in, but I have a bit about True Polymorph I'm stumped about. Specifically a "Creature to Creature" change.
"The spell lasts for the duration, or until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies. If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration, the spell lasts until it is dispelled."
So if you concentrate on the spell for the full duration, the creature is permanently in that form until it is dispelled, right? What happens if that new form is reduced to 0 hit points at that point? I'm not sure if the creature just dies because the spell wasn't dispelled or if "until dispelled" is similar to "duration becomes indefinite without needing concentration" and they would return to their original form. Like, is the target dropping to 0 or dying the same as it getting dispelled?
It's effectively a permanent effect until Dispel Magic is cast on it. The caster no longer needs to concentrate on it, and reducing the target to 0 hit points just makes them a dying creature of the kind they were True Polymorphed into; they'd have to have the effect dispelled in order to return to the creature they once were.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
That's what I had initially thought as well for the longest time. It was just today that I thought about it and wasn't entirely sure.
Wait, but the spell says it lasts "until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies", wouldn't they revert back to their true form when they drop to 0 HP then.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Not if the caster concentrates for the full duration. If that happens, then the sentence that starts "If you concentrate on this spell for the full duration..." comes into effect, leaving only one method of reversing it.
Hmm... Well that definitely isn't RAI, but... The spell no longer "lasts until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies," since that was specifically replaced by the next sentence.
Crawford claims that the spell having "no effect on a creature with 0 hit points," means that the spell still ends, but that is kind of a stretch.
It would be a simple errata to fix (just change to "the duration becomes until dispelled") or just put something in the SAC. Until then, the RAW is that the spell lasts until dispelled (period) and there is nothing official saying otherwise.
Right? Hence my confusion.
His tweet makes no sense at all. The spell having no effect on creatures with 0 hp has nothing to do with a creature that is already affected by the spell dropping to 0 hp after the spell duration has become "until dispelled" by having concentrated on it for the full duration. :/
I think he's referring to the second paragraph, which the until dispelled line doesn't replace:
It's easy to read this as "you cannot cast this spell on a shapechanger or a creature with no hit-points", but that's not actually what it says. It means we have two sentences that both state that a creature with zero hit-points isn't transformed.
Though this would raise an interesting question about whether you're allowed to true polymorph a non-shapechanger into a shapechanger?
It's definitely not well worded if the intention for the concentration is that the time limit (and concentration) are lifted.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No, the spell not working on a creature with 0 HP is not an issue. The issue is when a creature that has more than 0 HP gets Polymorphed and the caster concentrates for the full duration THEN the creature gets reduced to 0 HP.
When the spell is cast it doesn't affect a creature with 0 HP. While the caster is concentrating if the creature is reduced to 0 HP the creature reverts. If the caster concentrates for the full duration then the duration of the spell becomes "until dispelled" so the creature should no longer revert if reduced to 0 HP since at this point it's already been affected by the spell thus rendering the "spell has no effect on creatures with 0 HP" line irrelevant.
If they wanted a creature that drops to 0 HP to always revert they should have made the line stating the new duration as "until dispelled or the creature is reduced to 0 HP"
That's why there's confusion, it is, as you say, poorly written.
Right. That is why I said Crawford's claim that that rule applied for that situation was a stretch.
Aye, completely agree.
I also think I might have misunderstood Haravikk, too. Felt like they were disagreeing but upon re-reading I don't get that feeling. Bah, I really shouldn't comment when I'm tired, lol
Sorry if I wasn't clear; I wasn't disagreeing with how the spell should be played, I think we all agree on that, I was just wondering out loud about that second paragraph being what crawford was referring to.
Basically we have two lines that say "no effect if you have zero hp", but one is more obvious in how to interpret it than the other. The first basically says "spell ends if you go to zero hp" while the other says "spell can't effect a creature on zero hp"; the first is obvious in when it happens because it can only take effect once you've transformed as it's a condition on the spell duration, meanwhile the second reads like it's supposed to be a limitation of who you can target (can't polymorph shape-changers or dying creatures) but it doesn't actually say that it only applies when you cast the spell, so that part is open for interpretation.
On that basis you could say that there are two sentences that tell us the spell ends when you hit zero, and one of them is there regardless of the change in duration (the spell duration may now be until dispelled, but the effect can still end by falling to zero hp), but it raises a weird case that we're also being told we can't turn into shape changers*, and what's supposed to happen if the spell is "until dispelled", you go to zero but then get healed (do you transform again)? It raises more questions than it answers.
There's no doubt in my mind it's supposed to end at zero hp no matter what, and that Crawford should have put it on the list for getting an errata rather than giving a weird answer.
*I think changing into creatures with the Change Shape or similar features would still be fine, iirc "shape-changers" are only certain types of changeling (identified by their type).
Update: Also I forgot but there's actually a third mention under Creature into Creature which states "If it reverts as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, …" which reinforces that this is something that happens, this should be more than enough to ensure this condition always applies.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thank you, this is essentially where my confusion came from. Other than the shapechangers parts.
Were-creatures like Werewolves have the Shapechanger
traitsubtype too. Here is the search list of Shapechanger monsters.The stipulation about shapechangers is probably to prevent casting the spell on that type of creature, not prevent turning someone into one. I imagine because then you could simply (with a 9th-level spell slot, which isn't exactly simple) turn a wereperson into a not-wereperson "permanently".
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
That list is inaccurate. Shapechanger isn't based on having the trait named Shapechanger (or some ineffable "tag" named Shapechanger), it's based on having Shapechanger as your type or subtype. The current list, ignoring named Adventurer NPCs, is Volo's Barghest, Volo's Deep Scion, MTF Graz'zt, Volo's Yuan-Ti (Anathema, Mind Whisperer, Nightmare Speaker, Pit Master), and these:
Anchorite of Talos
Changeling
Death Slaad
Dining Table Mimic
Doppelganger
Gingwatzim
Gnoll Vampire
Goliath Werebear
Gray Slaad
Green Slaad
Incubus
Jackalwere
Juvenile Mimic
Large Mimic
Loup Garou
Mimic
Mimic Chair
Rowboat Mimic
Shard Shunner
Spitting Mimic
Succubus
Vampire
Vampire Spellcaster
Vampire Warrior
Werebat
Werebear
Wereboar
Werejaguar
Wererat
Wereraven
Weretiger
Werewolf
Yochlol
Young Wereraven
Yuan-ti Abomination
Yuan-ti Malison (Types 1-5)
Yuan-ti Priest
Note that e.g. the Loup Garou above has the shapechanger subtype but has no trait named shapechanger - you can have the subtype without the trait just as you can have the trait without the subtype, and only having the subtype qualifies you.
Some monster names above differ from dndbeyond's but refer to the same monster - in particular, dndbeyond refers to a "giant mimic" which I have listed above as a "dining table mimic", but they're the same beast (the NPC in question has no listed statblock, so it's a fine question what its correct name is).