Does a character need to know a creature to use Polymorph?

If yes, is a little information found in an old book enough, or does it have to be an encounter with said creature? If no, does the character know everything about all creatures he is able to polymorph into, including Resistances and abilities?

Is it something in the middle like: Hey I learned Polymorph, now I know all the beasts out there, but I only know their shape and size and nothing about abilities etc...

Thanks for your help

  • \$\begingroup\$ Very interestingly, Mass Polymorph reads "The new form can be any beast you have seen whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's". Which strikes me as really odd because mass polymorph based on the description is just polymorph onto 10 people. It has one other mechanical difference, it uses temporary hitpoints for the beasts hitpoints. Might be a mistake, but this is just guessing designer intent. \$\endgroup\$
    – findusl
    Commented Aug 28, 2020 at 22:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Has it occurred to you that the character grew up from child hood to adult hood over the course of 20 to 100 years, depending on character race. How may different kinds of beasts will one have seen during their coming of age period? Think about all of the things you learned about growing up before you began working... which makes this question a glaring case of not accounting for the fiction of the Character as something more than a collection of numbers. I'd offer an answer but most of the ones you already have cover most of the ground I would have covered. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 31, 2023 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @findusl The reason for Polymorph not having that requirement is that when you cast Mass Polymorph, you get to choose the type of creature they turn into, whereas in Polymorph it is the DM's choice. There's no point in having such a limitation when you don't have a choice to begin with. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kryomaani
    Commented Aug 13, 2023 at 15:59

4 Answers 4


The description of the spell says:

The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target’s.

Beast is a defined type of creature within the game, as per page 6 of the Monster Manual:

Beasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals.

A reasonable interpretation is that the PC needs to have knowledge of the beast.
But how much knowledge? It seems reasonable that the caster can turn the target into a frog, even if the caster is not a frog expert. The caster may not even know much about frogs at all, except maybe that they hop. To my mind, it seems reasonable that the magic fills in the gaps. That if frogs say ribbet, then the transformed creature probably says ribbet, too, even if the caster doesn't know that frogs say ribbet.

Regarding your question about a little information in an old book, that is an interesting question. What if the old book is wrong? Old books are often filled with creatures which never actually existed. What if it is a new book? What if the book is fiction? What if the book is fiction and the caster wrote it? What if the book is fiction and the caster wrote it just now?

In the end, it is up to the players, particularly the GM to determine whether what the caster intends fits within the definition of "any beast".

As a GM, I would tell the player, that's an interesting idea, I suppose you could give it a try if you wanted. I would let the player use any source of in-game information, including the character's own imagination. I would also expect the character to be able to hold the concept of the target creature in its mind and that the player be able to state the target fairly succinctly. After all, it has a casting time of one action. If the intended results were out of balance with the power of the spell, I would modify those results. "I transform the big bad wolf into a cute kittycat", might work pretty well, at least the kittycat part. "I transform the big bad wolf into a piggy" would probably work. "I transform the big bad wolf into a flying piggy" might even work. Of course, if it were a chaotic evil wolf inclined to eat first and ask questions later, then the kitten, piggy, and flying piggy, would all be chaotic evil inclined to eat first and ask questions later, too. Having a face full of avian wild boar might not have been what the caster intended. The more absurd the caster's intention, the more absurd the results would be. That seems like rules-as-fun.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Nice thoughts. One point of order, the spell description does say "chosen beast," so I think it's fair to say that RAW support the form being chosen, not random (in line with previous editions). \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim Grant
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 15:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Excellent point. I will amend my answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jack
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 15:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Rules as fun" - Did you make that up just now or is that a common saying? If the latter, why haven't I heard of it until now!? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 17, 2017 at 13:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @EthanTheBrave: bit late to the party, but "Philosophy Behind Rules And Rulings". \$\endgroup\$
    – outis
    Commented Apr 13, 2021 at 9:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Given the mythical power of bears in history (to the point where some words for bears are known to be euphemisms because everyone knew that uttering the actual word would summon a bear), this provides an amusing image of someone polymorphing someone else into a bear and that person suddenly gaining the ability to change size, shadowwalk, rend souls, etc... \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 31, 2023 at 11:50

Polymorph spell (PHB p.266)

This spell transforms a creature that you can see within range into a new form.

The target’s game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast.

RAW, there is no restriction on the beast form excepting the Challenge Rating allowed and the caster's ability to choose it. For a person to make a choice they need to know the choice exists and so that is all that this spell requires, the rest is handled by magic.

The important thing here is the difference between what the player knows and what the caster, the character, knows. It is the character that needs to know the about the beast form. The DM will be the final judge on what beasts the character knows about, particularly when a player pushes the limits of the spell, and they will.

For example: turning someone into a frog. This seems entirely reasonable (baring exceptional circumstances) as knowing about frogs is commonplace, even if you have never seen one (e.g. because the character comes from a desert setting that has no frogs). The frog is quite possibly an example of what the spell can achieve written in in "arcane manuals" or even the spell itself given the "turn him into a frog" trope.

However, as a second example, turning someone into an Ankylosaurus is going to take justification, in my opinion. Knowledge of the existence of dinosaurs, let alone specific dinosaurs, is quite possibly very rare, but again setting dependant. So while the player may have read the Monster Manual, the character has not and would have to have knowledge from some in-character source to be able to say "Siiiiiize of a Triceratops!" as part of their spell.

Do you need to know the creature to use Polymorph to change someone into that creature?

YES, the character needs to know about the creature to be able to choose it and it is down to the DM's judgement whether they do.

Of course the character casting the spell may know the beast form but may not have a good idea of the beast form's strength (the players will know this as its CR) compared to the target.

When it comes down to it this is a role-playing issue, where the player of the casting character has a responsibility to be reasonable and come armed with good in-character, good story, reasons to be able to use the beast form they want to use.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Very minor, but "baring" probably ought to be "barring". \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 31, 2023 at 11:51

The spell description describes taking on the statistics of the "chosen beast." That would seem to imply that:

  1. the caster merely has to identify the creature, and that
  2. the target form is a sort of "multiple choice" of existing creatures.

You might think of the new form being instantiated based upon a "platonic ideal."

Allowing flying piggies definitely seems like more fun though. Lots of opportunities for things to go slightly haywire there.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The multiple choice of existing creatures bothers me a bit. Because how does the caster or the magic know what the existing creatures are? Creatures like existing beasts seem pretty reasonable as beasts. Sus scrofa domesticus avians seems like a beast to me. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jack
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 15:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ Multiple choice was not exactly the best phrasing. The caster would have to be able to identify the beast. Just like choosing what you car you want: you can't choose something that doesn't exist, and you can't choose something if you've never heard of it. I'll add that I think it's reasonable that any spell caster who learns this spell would want to spend a few evenings perusing a bestiary for ideas. (Whatever is in said bestiary is up to the DM, of course.) \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim Grant
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 16:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ You have a good point. I guess what does "identify" mean exactly? What bestiary? How do we know it is accurate? I think how the beast gets chosen is well within player/GM interpretation. The RAW doesn't say anything regarding the possible beasts available to the caster. Unlike the druid transformation, it doesn't even say the caster has to have seen the target beast. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jack
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 16:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Here's how I do it: "I guess what does 'identify' mean exactly?" - Naming it. "What bestiary?" - The Monster Manual, but not other books, plus other reasonable choices, like blood hound. "How do we know it is accurate?" We don't. The DM can spring surprises on you, but they ought to be careful not to ruin the spell that way. One other house rule of mine is if the caster has minimal knowledge of the creature, then the creature might look strange to observers very familiar with it, especially members of that species. (That's just straight out of DS 9.) \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim Grant
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 17:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @mattdm - I didn’t mean multiple choice from the MM. but from the beasts within the world which the caster can name \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim Grant
    Commented Oct 17, 2017 at 3:08

Everyone else already went into a deep dive into what they believe the spell means, so I'll keep mine short.

My answer is no, the player doesn't have to know the creature exists, nor does the player have to have seen the beast before.

In the first sentence of Wild Shape, it gives you the limitation that the player has to have seen the beast before.

Nowhere in the five paragraphs of Polymorph, does it states this, so you do not need to have seen it.

I'd even venture to say you could create your own beast, but then it wouldn't have a stat block which ends up putting more stress on your DM to come up with one.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .