We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions? [Archive]

NNescio

2015-10-08, 06:20 AM

Hi everyone,
I have read here and there about the issues with polymorph, abused to turn your companions in T-rexes and so on. But does it seems to someone else that is even more dangerous if used on enemies? Turn the boss monster in a chicken and drown him or (as my player did) turn it in a turtle and throw him from a cliff shooting everything to him while in air. . . compared with similar spell of the same level (mainly banished as phylosophy) it is really stronger, more versatile and more dangerous.

Do someone applied restrictions to this spell? Did someone else deal with it?
You cannot place shapechangers everywhere . . .

Polymorph itself isn't particularly OP. It can offer a sizable buff to a single PC, but that requires concentration from the caster to maintain. More importantly, the polymorphed PC effectively becomes the chosen beast when polymorphed. He cannot use any of his class features, can't use any equipment, and would also have the mental stats of a beast, which usually sucks. Something like a Giant Ape (Int 7) may still act like normal, but a T-Rex with Int 2 will be somewhat limited in the tactics he can use.

It is important to note that a polymorphed creature still retains its alignment and personality, so the T-Rex wouldn't turn on his allies even if they're tastier. Unless, well, you have an evil teammate with a history of being a jerkass to other characters (stealing stuff, initiating PvP, etc.).

When used offensively, Polymorph usually only acts as a disabling debuff, since your target will revert to normal if it drops to 0 HP. This is usually inferior to Banishment.

Still, if you want to use it this way, the best choice of creature to choose would usually be a high HP aquatic creature (provided you're on land) with 0 walking speed.

Polymorph only runs into problems when combined with Conjure Woodland Beings, which can potentially summon up to 8 Pixies with 8 Polymorphs among them (among other spells).

Strill

2015-10-08, 06:24 AM

Polymorph only runs into problems when combined with Conjure Woodland Beings, which can potentially summon up to 8 Pixies with 8 Polymorphs among them (among other spells).

DM chooses which creatures you get.

NNescio

2015-10-08, 06:27 AM

DM chooses which creatures you get.

Which is why I say potentially. If people get to choice then it would be 8 pixies every time (since, well, why bother choosing anything else?).

Random pick gives you an average of 2~3 fairies.

Mara

2015-10-08, 06:33 AM

DM chooses which creatures you get.
Nope.

Abusive DMing should never be the answer. I don't see polymorph as an issue and I don't have to remove player agency to have that view.

NNescio

2015-10-08, 06:34 AM

Nope.

Abusive DMing should never be the answer. I don't see polymorph as an issue and I don't have to remove player agency to have that view.

Actually, uh, that's from Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_july2015).

...yeah, it kinda sucks for other Conjure spells.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 06:43 AM

Doesn't work. The boss turns back to normal, and at its previous HP total, when it reaches 0 HP.

I'm away from book but it depends on the wording.

If you use power word killon a Polymorph creature who has 70hp, that creature's straight up dies.

Does drowning cause a creature to go to 0HP and be unconscious/incapacitated? Or does it just set HP at 0? Because of the wording you may be able to drown a polymorphed creature and not worry about them reverting.

Strill

2015-10-08, 06:56 AM

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 06:58 AM

The DMG has no rules for drowning.

What about suffocation?

Found it in basic rules

Suffocating
A creature can hold its breath for a number of minutes equal to 1 + its Constitution modifier (minimum of 30 seconds). When a creature runs out of breath, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum 1 round). At the start of its next turn, it drops to 0 hit points and is dying, and it can’t regain hit points or be stabilized until it can breathe again. For example, a creature with a Constitution of 14 can hold its breath for 3 minutes. If it starts suffocating, it has 2 rounds to reach air before it drops to 0 hit points.

The key thing here is that it says 0 hp AND dying. So the polymorph would revert to its normal form BUT the creature would still be dying and can't stabilize till it can breath again. Drowning a polymorphed boss as a chicken would work... Just half way through the boss would be back in its normal form BUT still be dying. They can be at 1028584 HP after reverting to their normal HP but they are still in the process of dying as dying is a process of breathing and not a process of HP. If a cleric uses cure wounds on a suffocating/drowning creature it doesn't stop the creature from dying as they still can't breath.

Now a DM would need to make the call. Is the dying creature unconscious? Can a dying creature not be unconscious? That's the only really iffy part of the rules.

Strill

2015-10-08, 07:08 AM

What about suffocation?

The PHB says that when you run out of breath you drop to 0 HP and start dying.

Kryx

2015-10-08, 07:09 AM

One could use the CR of the creature must not be higher than the spell level used.

It would make it more inline with a moon druid. Still better, but concentration (mitigated by casting on ally)

Logosloki

2015-10-08, 07:28 AM

I'm away from book but it depends on the wording.

If you use power word killon a Polymorph creature who has 70hp, that creature's straight up dies.

Does drowning cause a creature to go to 0HP and be unconscious/incapacitated? Or does it just set HP at 0? Because of the wording you may be able to drown a polymorphed creature and not worry about them reverting.

Drowning isn't specifically mentioned in the PHB but Suffocation is and Drowning is just suffocation in a new and interesting medium. You can hold your breath for as many minutes as your constitution modifier (minimum 30s) and then suffocate for as many rounds as your constitution modifier (minimum 1 round). At the end of the suffocate you fall to 0 hp and are dying.

Now, a DM has a few RAI options. They can say the target reverts and is now in a state of drowning (they get another shot of suffocation), the target reverts and is now slightly damp and very much wishes to continue the fight or the target's polymorphed form starts making death saving throws and if they fail, they be dead.

Reverting from polymorph doesn't make a target unconscious but suffocation mentions dying not unconscious. However, dying isn't a keyword (to use the phrase) so the DM has some room for interpretation.

Onto the topic. If you are worried about Polymorph, set some boundaries with your players. One of the boundaries I chose as a DM is that the minimum CR for a polymorphed regular target is 1, the minimum for a BBEG is half their CR. I also sit down and work out a few agreements on the dos and don'ts with polymorph such as neutrals aren't to be the target of polymorph unless they agree to it, no polymorphing a polymorphed target, if they polymorph a person of power they are prepared for consequences, etc.

Strill

2015-10-08, 07:40 AM

Onto the topic. If you are worried about Polymorph, set some boundaries with your players. One of the boundaries I chose as a DM is that the minimum CR for a polymorphed regular target is 1, the minimum for a BBEG is half their CR. I also sit down and work out a few agreements on the dos and don'ts with polymorph such as neutrals aren't to be the target of polymorph unless they agree to it, no polymorphing a polymorphed target, if they polymorph a person of power they are prepared for consequences, etc.

That's totally unreasonable. There's plenty of ways to deal with Polymorph as-is.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 07:54 AM

That's totally unreasonable. There's plenty of ways to deal with Polymorph as-is.

Yeah, make Polymorph a ritual and not something to use in the heat of battle. Or at least not such a low level spell.

Edit: if you want it to be in battle at 4th level make the spell "willing target". Against an unwilling target this should be a 6th Level spell.

Mara

2015-10-08, 07:56 AM

Actually, uh, that's from Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_july2015).

...yeah, it kinda sucks for other Conjure spells.
Irrelevant. That is not what it says in the book.

DM > book > FAQ/Tweets/ect

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 07:59 AM

Irrelevant. That is not what it says in the book.

DM > book > FAQ/Tweets/ect

Where do DMs go to get advice?

FAQ/Tweet/etc > DM > book > FAQ/Tweet/etc > DM... Etc...

It's a cycle not a straight line. And really players are in there too as DMs should talk to the group and ask their opinions on things.

Grixis

2015-10-08, 07:59 AM

Polymorph is pretty incredible and game changing when you first get access to it. As you advance passed level 8 characters it gets comparatively less and less powerful since it's capped by the T-Rex. I agree with the other posts here that affirm that offensively used Polymorph is primarily a disabling tactic. If a DM has to completely ban or alter how a spell works in order to make their games balanced that's pretty sad. If you need to make your games more challenging just add in extra enemies.

Strill

2015-10-08, 07:59 AM

Yeah, make Polymorph a ritual and not something to use in the heat of battle. Or at least not such a low level spell.

Edit: if you want it to be in battle at 4th level make the spell "willing target". Against an unwilling target this should be a 6th Level spell.

That's total nonsense. Polymorph is already far more powerful when used on allies than on enemies! I don't understand why you'd have any problem with it against enemies, but not allies.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 08:02 AM

That's total nonsense. Polymorph is already far more powerful when used on allies than on enemies! I don't understand why you'd have any problem with it against enemies, but not allies.

Because it is unbalanced for its level. I don't case of people may use it on allies and not enemies but polymorph is an encounter ending spell and not spell under 6 should be encounter ending. Especially on one save

Strill

2015-10-08, 08:07 AM

Because it is unbalanced for its level. I don't case of people may use it on allies and not enemies but polymorph is an encounter ending spell and not spell under 6 should be encounter ending. Especially on one save

If you're considering using Polymorph on enemies, Banishment does the exact same thing! How can you possibly say it's overpowered?

not spell under 6 should be encounter endingNonsense! A Spellcaster's highest level spells are almost always encounter-ending. Sleep can end an encounter at level 1. Web can end an encounter at level 3. Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern can end encounters at level 5. Polymorph and Banishment can end encounters at level 7. Wall of Force can trivialize encounters at level 9.

I don't think you have much experience with the spell system.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 08:55 AM

If you're considering using Polymorph on enemies, Banishment does the exact same thing! How can you possibly say it's overpowered?

Nonsense! A Spellcaster's highest level spells are almost always encounter-ending. Sleep can end an encounter at level 1. Web can end an encounter at level 3. Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern can end encounters at level 5. Polymorph and Banishment can end encounters at level 7. Wall of Force can trivialize encounters at level 9.

I don't think you have much experience with the spell system.

Sleep is broken because, 1 it uses a different system completely (one that I'm not sure they actually thought out) and 2 because it does something that a level 1 spell shouldn't do. It bypasses all defenses. The roll for sleep is insanely awesome at early levels and gets almost useless at later levels. Sleep has always been that spell that didn't belong mechanically in the game at such a low level.

Just because there are other broken spells doesn't mean that another spell isn't broken too.

Most spells are not Save or Die, most are Save or Suck.

The problem with polymorph is that it is a Save or Win and you get multiple castings from the 4th and 5th level slots so you can just wait and spam it on the boss.

Wall of Force doesn't get rid of a problem permantly, wall of Force is an up to 10 minute "let's calm the he'll down" type spell. You still have to deal with those enemies eventually.

Polymorph specifically deals with a creature/enemy. It makes that enemy a non factor for up to the duration but I'm such a way that they become a non factor afterwards. Picking up a rabbit and punting it off the side of a cliff (or drowning it by putting it in a very sturdy metal box (one that the rabbit has to squeeze into), and throwing it in a pond for 10 mintes) is so much easier than if the creature wasn't polymorphed. You can beat creatures way higher than your CR with Polymorph that you can't with other spells.

Polymorph is broken because it is a Save or Die spell that lets you win encounters above your CR. Wall spells let you out off fighting or dealing with a creature for a while, as does banishment, but they aren't such auto win spells. Wall and Banishment is a "put off till later" type spells not "Save or Die" spells.

Mara

2015-10-08, 09:40 AM

Demonic Spoon

2015-10-08, 09:57 AM

To address the "turn allies into ancient dragons" problems, I would cap the CR of the permanent transformation to something like 1/2 to 1/4 of the normal limit. If you turn someone into, for example, a CR 20 creature, that creature turns back as soon as you end concentration or the normal duration expires.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 10:15 AM

I would not rule that killing the polymorph kills the target.

Turn a foe into a pet bunny? Sure

Turn a foe into a fish for auto kill? Sure. Auto kill fish now the target comes back with no roll over damage.

Killing just brings a target to 0 HP which ends the polymorph. It's not infinite damage.

Then you just make this spell even more broken (if cast on a friendly PC) and pull in onion druid level of brokenness.

The one thing that tried to make it balanced for PC use on friendly PC and you want to take it away? Then it should be a level 8, 9, or 10 spell with that ruling.

Free HP, immune to auto death spells, immune to death by mundane means, and immune to massive damage?

The spell is not balanced as is, but your suggestion just makes it worse.

Mara

2015-10-08, 10:21 AM

Then you just make this spell even more broken (if cast on a friendly PC) and pull in onion druid level of brokenness.

The one thing that tried to make it balanced for PC use on friendly PC and you want to take it away? Then it should be a level 8, 9, or 10 spell with that ruling.

Free HP, immune to auto death spells, immune to death by mundane means, and immune to massive damage?

The spell is not balanced as is, but your suggestion just makes it worse.

Considering the zero problems I have with the spell, I doubt that.

What do you mean by massive damage? If you take 1000 damage you die. If someone steps on you in ant form that wouldn't do 1000 damage. It would do like 1d3+str, most would roll over to the base form but would not be auto death.

NNescio

2015-10-08, 10:26 AM

Considering the zero problems I have with the spell, I doubt that.

What do you mean by massive damage? If you take 1000 damage you die. If someone steps on you in ant form that wouldn't do 1000 damage. It would do like 1d3+str, most would roll over to the base form but would not be auto death.

He's referring to the Instant Death rules:

INSTANT DEATH
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage
remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

Of course, this is overridden by the "any excess damage carries over to its normal form" clause.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-08, 10:55 AM

Because it is unbalanced for its level. No, it isn't.

not spell under 6 should be encounter ending
Rubbish. Your Monty Haul PoV is noted, and rejected. Part of why you bring spell casters along is to do magic stuff that swings the battle to your advantage.

This isn't your grandfather's polymorph, which didn't require concentration. As soon as the concentration is interrupted in its current form, the spell ends.
It takes an hour of dedicated concentration to make the change permanent. That is a significant limit to the power.

Compare this to its original form.

Here is grandfather Polymorph (from Men and Magic) at 4th level:

Polymorph Others...this spell lasts until it is dispelled. The spell gives all characteristics of the form of the creature, so a creature polymorphed into a dragon acquires all of the dragon's ability — not necessarily mentality, however. Likewise, a troll polymorphed into a snail would have innate resistance to being stepped on and crushed by a normal man. Range: 6". This is a "save or you are hosed" situation. The more hit dice the monster had, the lower the save. 3 HD saved with a 16, 10 HD saved with a 10.

The next generation, from 1e and 2e AD&D added a twist. this spell go downright nasty.
If you missed your save and your system shock roll, you were dead. Ouch!

Then, if your friend used dispel magic to revert you when a foe polymorphed you, here's another system shock roll again ... or you die.

Then there was the whole matter of whether or not you took on the mentality of the form you got changed into. When you revert back, you may still think you are that T Rex, etc. Very powerful and lethal magic, and a very complicated spell.

The scaling back of this spell's power provides a temporary problem for a foe, a temporary advantage to the party. Not to mention that as monsters get higher in CR, their save bonuses versus the Wizard's DC improve. A save renders it spent spell to no benefit. When it works, it's a real boost to your side, and when the save is made ... Crickets Chirp!

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 11:39 AM

He's referring to the Instant Death rules:

Of course, this is overridden by the "any excess damage carries over to its normal form" clause.

There are other forms of instant death. There are spells (Power Word Kill or Disintegrate) that are higher level and yet would be stopped by a level 4 slot under the proposed change to Polymorph.

If I punt the rabbit (1hp?) off a cliff (easy to do with a rabbit) that creature is going to take a lot of falling damage. All that damage would go toward the rabbit and then the monster. With the proposed change it, the xd6 damage would go toward the rabbit, kill the rabbit, and none would go to the monster after it changes back.

Spells shouldn't be that powerful at level 4, the original spell or the proposed change. No other spell is that powerful at that level. Other level 4 spells are, at most, "let's deal with this later" or deal HP damage.

About the only way to balance Polymorph is to get rid of it, raise it to level 6, or perhaps allow a con/wis Save each round to reverse the effects.

Rusty Killinger

2015-10-08, 11:52 AM

With the Rules As Written I only see one real problem, that character level is not even close to equal to challenge rating. Hence the T-Rex problem. I would probably rule that it follows the moon druid progression, that the max CR is 1/3 the character level rounded down.

As for the offensive options it all seems fine. It lets you pull one enemy out of a fight temporarily and finish him off later when it's 4 on 1. That seems consistent with the 4th level slot, the save and the concentration requirement.

I can't decide if the mid-air transformation back is broken or clever.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-08, 11:55 AM

Spells shouldn't be that powerful at level 4, That's funny, the game's authors disagree with you.

Where does your "should" come from?
Thin air.
Fabrication from whole cloth is noted.

Your bunny example is evidence of some interesting tunnel vision as well as special pleading:

The spell is not cast in a vacuum. What else is going on during this encounter when the caster tries to disable one of the foes with this spell? How does the target's party or allies respond?

The spell breaks with one missed con save by the caster who is concentrating.

This spell forecloses the choice of some other spell during this encounter while the caster concentrates on it.

The spell does not automatically succeed.

Now, if the party cleverly takes advantage of this spell by tossing the bunny over the cliff .. that's called SYNERGY and is what good parties are supposed to try to achieve.
(I frankly like your idea on the "revert to zero" what happens, depending on how far the fall and thus how far beyond 0 HP the bunny goes. There are rules about falling damage. Use them. There are rules about "zero HP" and "instant death" so use them).

DragonLordIT

2015-10-08, 12:39 PM

Lvl 2 Expert

2015-10-08, 12:49 PM

no polymorphing a polymorphed target

Ahhhh...

Can we just do it ones? Have a giant ape dance their front lines into disarray and when they've finally cornered is and beat it to zero, bam full HP tyrannosaurus?

Demonic Spoon

2015-10-08, 01:00 PM

Wow . . didn't mean to do all this noise, still I have some thoughts:

-Not all enemies goes around with a party of minions, many are solitary monsters that plague the land and can be "bunnied", "fished", "turtled" and killed all in time by characters lower than a normal CR calculation would suggest.
Banished blocks possible interactions with players keeping the creature "safe" at least from PC's torture, imprisonment and so on. Polymorph lets you do whatever you want with the creature

-Not all monsters have read the player's handbook . .. why the hell a group of ogres/kobolds/warriors etc could know that to turn their friend back they just have to hit him carefully? They would probably be scared by the event not just think "meh, another polymorph, let's hit John wiht the point of the knife" metagaming is around the corner even for DMs :smallamused:

-I don't think the concentration thing is a big deal, turn your friend in the monster you want and then simply defend yourself, take cover around or behind another friend and let the big lizard do the rest; does he revert to its normal form? Cast again, new pfs and the thing start again, does the enemy goes around? He lost a turn and is at your disposal .. .

I really don't think this spell is balanced with the other ones of the same level. This doesn't mean a spell like this should not exist. But some carefully thought limitations would be obliged

Oh, I misread this initially. I thought we were talking about True Polymorph.

Anyway, concentration is easy to break. Most monsters except those with animal-level intelligence would know that many magical effects need to be concentrated on, and don't get hit simply isn't an option for most casters.

Furthermore, even if it is a save or suck for a single creature, what's the problem? How is this different than Hold Person? Polymorph is one level higher and doesn't allow you to deal permanent damage to the creature in exchange for Polymorph not allowing a save every round. If you have problems with Polymorph, surely you have similar problems with all save or suck spells.

Regarding single monsters - Fights with single monsters with normal action economy are intrinsically very swingy because the monster either really messes up at least one party member, or the monster dies quickly and never does anything useful. That's true regardless of whether or not the party is using save or suck spells. That's why such creatures, if intended to be very difficult, should have legendary actions and legendary resistances.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 01:48 PM

That's funny, the game's authors disagree with you.

It is funny how much this doesn't matter since the Devs have specifically said that DM opinions on their rules matter more than their rules or their ruling on rules.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-08, 01:50 PM

Wow . . didn't mean to do all this noise, still I have some thoughts:

-Not all enemies goes around with a party of minions, many are solitary monsters that plague the land and can be "bunnied", "fished", "turtled" and killed all in time by characters lower than a normal CR calculation would suggest.
Banished blocks possible interactions with players keeping the creature "safe" at least from PC's torture, imprisonment and so on. Polymorph lets you do whatever you want with the creature

-Not all monsters have read the player's handbook . .. why the hell a group of ogres/kobolds/warriors etc could know that to turn their friend back they just have to hit him carefully? They would probably be scared by the event not just think "meh, another polymorph, let's hit John wiht the point of the knife" metagaming is around the corner even for DMs :smallamused:

-I don't think the concentration thing is a big deal, turn your friend in the monster you want and then simply defend yourself, take cover around or behind another friend and let the big lizard do the rest; does he revert to its normal form? Cast again, new pfs and the thing start again, does the enemy goes around? He lost a turn and is at your disposal .. .

I really don't think this spell is balanced with the other ones of the same level. This doesn't mean a spell like this should not exist. But some carefully thought limitations would be obliged
Even though the limitations are addressed, you choose to hand wave them away and say that the spell needs limitations.

Got it.

Demonic Spoon's point on "save or suck" spells is correct, and has been with the game since it was first printed.

Now, how many encounters per day are you running? This small detail seems to be missed by the crowd who complains about game balance in a single encounter. The game wasn't balanced for a single encounter per game day, and they state that very clearly.

TopCheese

2015-10-08, 02:23 PM

Even running at 8 encounters per say the caster can (eventually) use Polymorph as a 4th level spell in 6 battles. That is using just 4th level and 5th level slots. Using a 6th Level slot and 7th level slot means that they can cast Polymorph at least 1/encounter or 8/long rest.

What you fail to remember is that 5e is "balanced" around casters casting their spells.

And that's just using polymorph, the caster has a ton of other options at their disposal.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-08, 03:28 PM

Even running at 8 encounters per say the caster can (eventually) use Polymorph as a 4th level spell in 6 battles. That is using just 4th level and 5th level slots. Using a 6th Level slot and 7th level slot means that they can cast Polymorph at least 1/encounter or 8/long rest.

What level caster are you referring to here?

Why do you presume that the caster wants to use those other slots for polymorph?

mephnick

2015-10-08, 03:53 PM

DragonLordIT

2015-10-08, 04:24 PM

Intelligent creatures understand how the world they live in works, so they know that disrupting a caster will end a particularly brutal spell.

The wizard can cast polymorph any time he wants...he just has to get ready for 5 arrows to hit his face in the next 6 seconds.

If you're running combats against single enemies that can be ended in one action you have a whole other problem in the first place.

I was not imagining fights with guards, nobles or so on that may have lots of bodyguards and agents to solve their problems, and not even mages that would know the trick. I don't always run encounters with single enemies, it would be absurd, but monsters that live alone and are not intelligent exist.
Let's take the hydra, a solitary monster for his habit to eat everything around it, if a party is hunting for it, and would be a good adventure for a party of level 7, with a +0 in wis save, no kind of resistences, no ranged attacks and a likely CD of 15 from the party wizard 3 times out of 4 the hydra is out of the game.. . . wow :smallannoyed:, and now the bunny hydra can be captured, caged, brought in the air 100 mt from the ground and let fall . . . from a height of 100 mt I would likely consider everything killed . . and even if you roll all the dices of the damage from the fall the other party members are waiting for it to pop in its normal form and attack . .. very fair for a "hard" encounter.
After the hydra? Yeti, roc, remorhaz, purple wurm, stone and iron golems (ok magic resistent but with a +0 to the save), behirs are all mighty beasts that can be beaten with no efforts...

Hold person is meant to be cast on humanoids, the normally don't fight alone, and has a save each round; other spells have limitation on size, type and so on, this has not... a crawling undead hand could be transformed in a living beast! And so for a construct or even an ooze. :smallannoyed:

Yes I have a problem with fail or suck spells, never liked them :smallwink: I am a DM after all ... still never liked to use them against players

Strill

2015-10-08, 06:10 PM

Sleep is broken because, 1 it uses a different system completely (one that I'm not sure they actually thought out) and 2 because it does something that a level 1 spell shouldn't do. It bypasses all defenses. The roll for sleep is insanely awesome at early levels and gets almost useless at later levels. Sleep has always been that spell that didn't belong mechanically in the game at such a low level.Sleep doesn't bypass all defenses. It's based on hit points.

Just because there are other broken spells doesn't mean that another spell isn't broken too.So you're saying that ALL the spells I listed are overpowered? Are you saying that Wizards shouldn't ever be able to incapacitate things? Because that's the impression I'm getting.

Most spells are not Save or Die, most are Save or Suck. I never listed a single save-or-die spell.

The problem with polymorph is that it is a Save or Win and you get multiple castings from the 4th and 5th level slots so you can just wait and spam it on the boss.

Wall of Force doesn't get rid of a problem permantly, wall of Force is an up to 10 minute "let's calm the he'll down" type spell. You still have to deal with those enemies eventually.That's exactly how polymorph works too! After you polymorph the boss you still have to kill it!

Polymorph specifically deals with a creature/enemy. It makes that enemy a non factor for up to the duration but I'm such a way that they become a non factor afterwards.That's exactly what Wall of Force does.
Picking up a rabbit and punting it off the side of a cliffBy level 7, the creature should have enough HP to survive that and eventually come back for you.

(or drowning it by putting it in a very sturdy metal box (one that the rabbit has to squeeze into), and throwing it in a pond for 10 mintes)The creature is shunted outside the box after reverting to its original form.

You can beat creatures way higher than your CR with Polymorph that you can't with other spells.No you can't. Even if they don't resist the spell, you still have to kill them afterwards.

Polymorph is broken because it is a Save or Die spell that lets you win encounters above your CR. Wall spells let you out off fighting or dealing with a creature for a while, as does banishment, but they aren't such auto win spells. Wall and Banishment is a "put off till later" type spells not "Save or Die" spells.Polymorph is not a save or die spell. It works exactly the same as Wall of Force or Banishment.

JoeJ

2015-10-08, 06:24 PM

Let's take the hydra, a solitary monster for his habit to eat everything around it, if a party is hunting for it, and would be a good adventure for a party of level 7, with a +0 in wis save, no kind of resistences, no ranged attacks and a likely CD of 15 from the party wizard 3 times out of 4 the hydra is out of the game.. . . wow :smallannoyed:, and now the bunny hydra can be captured, caged, brought in the air 100 mt from the ground and let fall . . . from a height of 100 mt I would likely consider everything killed . . and even if you roll all the dices of the damage from the fall the other party members are waiting for it to pop in its normal form and attack . .. very fair for a "hard" encounter.

Assuming they catch the bunny, how do they get it up to 100 mt to drop? Hydras live in water, so it's a good bet they won't find one on top of a cliff, and the wizard can't cast Fly while concentrating on Polymorph.

If they somehow manage to do that, roll the dice. Falling has a maximum damage of 20d6. Hydras have an average of 172 hit points, so a fall of that height will hurt it but won't kill it. And unless the party managed to move quite a ways since they cast the spell, they probably dropped it in the water. So it's hurt, but it's also angry and in it's home terrain. That's still going to be a tough fight. Plus, a hydra isn't mindless; if it's getting low on hit points, it will most likely swim away and find a place to rest. The party has won this round, but the hunt continues.

SharkForce

2015-10-08, 07:36 PM

Assuming they catch the bunny, how do they get it up to 100 mt to drop? Hydras live in water, so it's a good bet they won't find one on top of a cliff, and the wizard can't cast Fly while concentrating on Polymorph.

If they somehow manage to do that, roll the dice. Falling has a maximum damage of 20d6. Hydras have an average of 172 hit points, so a fall of that height will hurt it but won't kill it. And unless the party managed to move quite a ways since they cast the spell, they probably dropped it in the water. So it's hurt, but it's also angry and in it's home terrain. That's still going to be a tough fight. Plus, a hydra isn't mindless; if it's getting low on hit points, it will most likely swim away and find a place to rest. The party has won this round, but the hunt continues.

not to mention the same wizard could have just used fly to kill the hydra from beyond the hydra's ability to retaliate in the first place.

NNescio

2015-10-08, 07:39 PM

There are other forms of instant death. There are spells (Power Word Kill or Disintegrate) that are higher level and yet would be stopped by a level 4 slot under the proposed change to Polymorph.

If I punt the rabbit (1hp?) off a cliff (easy to do with a rabbit) that creature is going to take a lot of falling damage. All that damage would go toward the rabbit and then the monster. With the proposed change it, the xd6 damage would go toward the rabbit, kill the rabbit, and none would go to the monster after it changes back.

Punt the bunny off the cliff, and it'll take falling damage to the bunny form (1 hp), morph back (because the bunny form is at 0 hp), then take the remainder damage to the normal form. If this is enough to bring the base form down to 0 hp, the remaining damage (Damage - Polymorph Hp - Base HP) is checked against the base form's maximum health for instant death.

Power Word: Kill causes the bunny to die, reverting it back to its normal form. It's still dead, however. The spell doesn't actually deal damage.

Disintegrate is a little iffy, since it actually deals damage, unlike PWK. I'll rule that the "excess damage carries over" is resolved first before the disintegrate effect, however.

Ah, sure, Onion this, Onion that, but I want Druids to consider using low HP forms for scouting. Otherwise it's all tanky meatshields, and Land Druids get shafted.

Also, really, Onion Druid ain't a problem before Level 20. There's only so many Wild Shapes you can use per short rest (by comparison, the Warlock gets to recharge his spells), and their damage kinda suck compared to the Fighter, Rogue, or other DPS classes anyway ('cept around Level 2~4 for Moon Druids).

Spells shouldn't be that powerful at level 4, the original spell or the proposed change. No other spell is that powerful at that level. Other level 4 spells are, at most, "let's deal with this later" or deal HP damage.

Unless you throw nothing but Solos without Legendary Resistance/Counterspell et al, Polymorph is also a "let's deal with this later" spell when used in combat. All it takes is an enemy to bonk the other guy over his head, and he's reverted back, if you're using a low hp form. (You can use a high hp form like a whale, but that thing is way harder to punt after the fight) Or bonk you to try to break your concentration (and believe me, you'll be public enemy number one). And that's assuming he even fails his save first.

Metagaming on the part of the DM? Eh, only if every encounter does that. The BBEG will probably have standing orders for his mooks to bonk him, however, if it's a common tactic used by the PCs.

About the only way to balance Polymorph is to get rid of it, raise it to level 6, or perhaps allow a con/wis Save each round to reverse the effects.

At most I'll consider dropping it to half CR, 'though really, Giant Apes and T-Rexes aren't much of an issue since they are effectively turned into friendly pets anyway. They only retain their alignment and personality. And again, bonk the caster.

Sure, the caster can try to sit out of the fight elsewhere while maintaining concentration, but that's like, two characters traded out for a T-Rex, which is a steep price to pay.

Markoff Chainey

2015-10-09, 03:54 AM

The best solution that I ever found is from Kryx!

Polymorph is unique in the way that its power depends not on the caster, but on the target! (When it is used to transform an ally.)

If you change the sentence: "The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's (or the target's level, if it doesn't have a challenge rating)."

to: "The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the level of the casting slot used to cast this spell."

the weirdness is gone that it depends on the power level of the target and it totally changes the offensive use of the spell and makes it balanced in my opinion.

Now, you do not need to "sacrifice" the worst of your own combatants anymore in order to bring a combat monster to the table... (It is not funny for the healer to always have to play the dumb dinosaur when he actually created a cleric...) you sacrifice your concentration and get a minor, but still recognizable ally by your side. And instead of your "healer" you can target your pet mouse or whatever.

And the spell still works the same as before when used on an opponent. - This is not a problem.

Mrglee

2015-10-09, 04:24 AM

A list of debuffs I would rather cast on the enemy than Polymorph
Blindness/Deafness
Command
Hold Person
Bestow Curse
Stinking Cloud
Banishment
Compulsion
Confusion
Dominate Beast
Evad Black Tentacles

Like, polymorphing something really only helps if you can then trap it someplace air tight and let it suffocate to death once its changes back(or just dies cause of suffocation). All of the above debuffs are just going to end the fight quicker.
Now, polymorph is an amazing buff spell, but due to how the hp works, it just adds hp until the target is dead for the most part.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-09, 06:38 AM

Hi everyone,
I have read here and there about the issues with polymorph, abused to turn your companions in T-rexes and so on. But does it seems to someone else that is even more dangerous if used on enemies? Turn the boss monster in a chicken and drown him or (as my player did) turn it in a turtle and throw him from a cliff shooting everything to him while in air. . . compared with similar spell of the same level (mainly banished as phylosophy) it is really stronger, more versatile and more dangerous.

Do someone applied restrictions to this spell? Did someone else deal with it?
You cannot place shapechangers everywhere . . .

A T-rex is CR 8, meaning your subject already has to be 8th level, it also costs a 4th level spell slot and concentration on the Wizard (meaning there are a substantial number of toys they can't play with while it is active).

In addition, it's vulnerable to two third level spells (dispel magic and counterspell) as well as any number of spells that incapacitate (breaking concentration). For example, a 7th level Wizard who can cast polymorph has an average of 27 hit points before con modifier which can add anywhere from 0-35 hp. The sleep spell, which provides no save, averages 22.5 hp in a 1st level slot +9/spell level over 1st. So, from a 2nd level spell slot a totally undamaged Wizard can be instantly incapacitated, neutralizing their 4th level spell. This can even be done with a 1st level slot if the Wizard has taken really, even a lick of damage or if the roll is better than average.

So no, I really don't see a problem with it given how absurdly vulnerable such a tactic is to disruption.

Irrelevant. That is not what it says in the book.

DM > book > FAQ/Tweets/ect

The book says the player doesn't choose the types of creatures, they only choose a package. The DM chooses the creatures, this is by the rulebook.

For emphasis: "Choose one of the following options" + "The DM has the creatures' statistics." The player's agency begins and ends at selecting one of the packages provided, they don't get to customize.

Mara

2015-10-09, 07:12 AM

For emphasis: "Choose one of the following options" + "The DM has the creatures' statistics." The player's agency begins and ends at selecting one of the packages provided, they don't get to customize.
You are free to run out that way. It's wrong and overly aggressive DMing, but if your players can't handle that then they can just find a new table.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-09, 03:37 PM

You are free to run out that way. It's wrong and overly aggressive DMing, but if your players can't handle that then they can just find a new table.

Prove your position. Provide the exact quote from that spell of the character being allowed to choose to summon a specific creature, and not the generic package. If you are truly correct, there would be evidence (there isn't).

You're wrong and have no proof, the correct answer is to do what is written in the spell, not what you really really really want to be true.

SharkForce

2015-10-09, 03:55 PM

Prove your position. Provide the exact quote from that spell of the character being allowed to choose to summon a specific creature, and not the generic package. If you are truly correct, there would be evidence (there isn't).

You're wrong and have no proof, the correct answer is to do what is written in the spell, not what you really really really want to be true.

but on the flip side, if the only thing that matters is what is written in the spell, it doesn't say *anyone* chooses the monster. merely that the DM has their stats.

Shaofoo

2015-10-09, 09:22 PM

but on the flip side, if the only thing that matters is what is written in the spell, it doesn't say *anyone* chooses the monster. merely that the DM has their stats.

But if the DM has the stats then the DM has full control over how the monster appears then since he can modify stats as he sees fit, only limited to the chasis so to speak.

You could summon 8 Pixies but those Pixies might be lacking Polymorph instead for another spell because the DM thinks that it would be more thematic to use another spell. You can't call him out on it since as a player you can't force the DM to follow the MM by the letter.

MaxWilson

2015-10-09, 09:36 PM

Re: Polymorph, if anyone in this thread has already mentioned using it to pit monsters against each other, I overlooked it. Polymorph that Black Pudding into a mouse, then toss it at the feet of the Iron Golem and release the spell. Voila! One dead Iron Golem and a whole bunch of Black Puddings, who can all be killed with a single Fireball spell when you're done.

Actually, uh, that's from Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_july2015).

...yeah, it kinda sucks for other Conjure spells.

Not so much. DM may make a random table or choose as appropriate for the environment, but the bottom line is there's no bad choice for most conjuring spells. If you Conjure Animals and get eight draft horses, that's still great.

At my table, because Conjure Animals is explicit about them being spirits shaped into animal form and not real animals, Conjure Animals lets the caster request specific animal forms. Likewise at my table, Conjure Minor Elementals is like Conjure Elemental: you can control what you get by choosing where to cast it, so if you want mud mephits you hose the ground down with water first before casting and if you want smoke mephits you light a bonfire. I haven't had to come up with a good one for Conjure Woodland Creatures but since you are conjuring real creatures I'd probably come up with a random table for specifying what is close by in Nevernever terms. In addition, I'd boost the CR of pixies to CR 2.

Mara

2015-10-09, 10:07 PM

But if the DM has the stats then the DM has full control over how the monster appears then since he can modify stats as he sees fit, only limited to the chasis so to speak.

Or it means the DM has the MM. Also if we are being real pedantic, the spell says the DM has the stats not that she makes up the stats.

Maybe 8 pixies just isn't an issue like people assume it is. The polymorphed druid is one failed concentration check from the whole party losing the buff. If the pixies are near the combat then they are basically one hit away from ending polymorph.

Shaofoo

2015-10-09, 10:41 PM

Or it means the DM has the MM. Also if we are being real pedantic, the spell says the DM has the stats not that she makes up the stats.

The DM has the MM or he might not, if you recall there was a time when the only book available was the PHB, the MM came out later.

And if we are being really pedantic please tell me where does the spell says that we can cross reference these statistics? Where is the point of reference, you can't say the MM because the spell doesn't reference that book. By your logic all summons should fail because there is no stats to reference because the spell fails to disclose any relevant information for the DM to give. There are no fey to summon.

Also the DM always makes up the stats, the DM makes up everything because it is the DM's world, the players are along for the ride.

Maybe 8 pixies just isn't an issue like people assume it is. The polymorphed druid is one failed concentration check from the whole party losing the buff. If the pixies are near the combat then they are basically one hit away from ending polymorph.

95% of all cries of imbalance and brokeness can be safely ignored. Most people use theorycrafting when it comes to these claims yet ignore huge swaths of the game itself and even blatantly ignore key parts in the game that might weaken their stance.

SharkForce

2015-10-09, 10:56 PM

well, no, 8 pixies really is a problem. set them beside other CR 1/4 creatures and they clearly don't belong there, not just when they're summoned, but in general. when you use the CR calculation system in the DMG, they actually come out to just over CR 1 assuming the +2 is supposed to be +2 categories instead of +2 CR (if it's supposed to be an actual increase in CR, iirc they come out to something silly like CR 3).

so yeah, 8 pixies is a problem. no, it isn't an unbeatable strategy. but it is very definitely a stronger strategy than most other uses for the spell. it isn't nearly as bad if you can only get 2 pixies though.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-10, 12:35 AM

SharkForce

2015-10-10, 09:53 AM

Don't they only have 1 hit point? AoE would, regardless of saves, kill them instantly.

Anyway, player only gets to select a package, so it's a moot point unless your DM is the kind who likes messing with the group to see what happens.

do you have an AoE available in every fight? are the pixies even at the fight (they don't need to be to turn the entire party into t-rexes or giant apes)? if so, do the enemies even know their location (they're tiny flying creatures with decent stealth). are the pixies grouped tightly enough together that a single AoE can even hit them all?

pixies have a lot of defences beyond just their hit points. yes, if they get hit, they're gone. thing is, it isn't that easy to hit a pixie. their defensive CR is actually something around 2 as i recall because of all their defensive abilities.

Shojiteru

2015-10-10, 10:45 AM

I remember that the dm picks the stats only. Says nothing about who picks. You can pick what you want to summon then the dm gives you the stats because he is the library. I dont bring my own book.

If my dm forced my spells to suck because he wants to underpower me then he is an ahole. The book gives the dm power and the dm goal is for player fun. If the player wants to end an encounter in 1 round because that would be most fun,LET THEM. THIS IS THEIR GAME TOO.

Dms need to remembrr to think of what the players want. If what they want seems powerful, up the difficulty. Use ingame mechanica to balance, not making the game lame so everything sucks so level 20s have trouble with 1 kobald.

Polymorph is fine. Kick a rabbit lff the cliff and after he loees hp, no instant death just him revert to original form then rest damage gets transferree. You would get more damage fast from levitate. Less time to get co centration broken and does the same thing.

If you have a problem with your players having fun and enjoying themselves and gou seek to punish them because they are being creative, why dont you all go not play a game that lets players do what they want?

The game is players > Dm >book. Players want to have fun. Dm makes it fun using the book as a guide. Players dont always do what is in the book so the dm is forced to be creative and think on the spot. If they do powergaming and you wanted to roleplay, either find a new group or adapt and make it a power game.

If it was a problem, it should have been changed in playtest. Although they missed elemental monks and the broken beserker and wild mage since they are so horrible.

Shaofoo

2015-10-10, 11:15 AM

I remember that the dm picks the stats only. Says nothing about who picks. You can pick what you want to summon then the dm gives you the stats because he is the library. I dont bring my own book.

The stats are the monster, if there is no stats there is no monster, you can't have a statless monster since you need something to be able to resolve events. You might want a pixie but if the DM wants the pixie to breathe fire instead of polymorph then that is what you'll get, you can't pick what the pixie has or doesn't have.

If my dm forced my spells to suck because he wants to underpower me then he is an ahole. The book gives the dm power and the dm goal is for player fun. If the player wants to end an encounter in 1 round because that would be most fun,LET THEM. THIS IS THEIR GAME TOO.

The goal is Player AND DM fun. The DM is not a babysitter and doormat for the players, the DM should be able to enjoy this as much as players are. If ending the encounter in one round isn't fun for the DM then maybe you should be considerate to the DM's wishes as well. As a player and a DM I don't want everything to be resolved in a single round. It is more than the DM's game or the player's game, it is everyone's game and all are entitled to fun.

Dms need to remembrr to think of what the players want. If what they want seems powerful, up the difficulty. Use ingame mechanica to balance, not making the game lame so everything sucks so level 20s have trouble with 1 kobald.

Friendly advice, tone down on the hyperbole if you want people to take you seriously. I doubt anyone is nerfing level 20 characters that they can't even take on 1 Kobold and to be honest I doubt the game would go on for so long if everyone is being nerfed to such an extent.

Also it is much easier to say no than it is to try to always say yes then figure it out how to balance the game. Also if it is something that goes against my own wishes then I will most likely say no anyway unless you give an actual argument.

Polymorph is fine. Kick a rabbit lff the cliff and after he loees hp, no instant death just him revert to original form then rest damage gets transferree. You would get more damage fast from levitate. Less time to get co centration broken and does the same thing.

Honestly the whole kick a rabbit of a cliff is ludicrous since it seems that the monster turned rabbit would just stand there to be easily picked up and chucked away like an empty can. You would still need to actually capture and chase the bunny around. Plus the fact that if this was a battle there should be others that would make finding the bunny much harder

also Levitate doesn't work the way that you say. You need an action to move the target around so you won't be casting spells all this time either. You are basically a target for other baddies.

If you have a problem with your players having fun and enjoying themselves and gou seek to punish them because they are being creative, why dont you all go not play a game that lets players do what they want?

I doubt it is less not letting the players have fun than it is more not having the players disrupt the game.

The game is players > Dm >book. Players want to have fun. Dm makes it fun using the book as a guide. Players dont always do what is in the book so the dm is forced to be creative and think on the spot. If they do powergaming and you wanted to roleplay, either find a new group or adapt and make it a power game.

Again it is players = DM when it comes to fun, the book doesn't even factor into the equation because the book can't have fun and I sincerely doubt that the makers of the game care how one particular group is playing their game, as long as they bought the books they could eat them for all they care.

If the DM wants to play a particular way and the player wants to play a different way then maybe you can both compromise and reach a happy medium instead of expecting the DM to do all the leg work. If one wants powergaming and another wants RP you can have a Powergame RP game, neither Powergaming or RP are mutually exclusive. Powergaming involves trying to min max your character while RPing means actually playing your character, both can coexist.

If it was a problem, it should have been changed in playtest. Although they missed elemental monks and the broken beserker and wild mage since they are so horrible.

A lot of things that people cry broken aren't really so when you actually play test it, including elemental monks, beserker and the wild mage; there are actual play cases where people are very happy and contribute meaningfully to the game. You might not personally like them and you might never play as them but that doesn't make them broken or horrible. You are free to never play those classes and pick another. Also no mention of BM rangers, those are the poster child of bad classes and yet even they have actual playtest where the players have fun.

Mara

2015-10-10, 11:46 AM

mephnick

2015-10-10, 12:17 PM

Maybe the system assumes the DM isn't an antagonistic moron?

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-10, 12:35 PM

do you have an AoE available in every fight? are the pixies even at the fight (they don't need to be to turn the entire party into t-rexes or giant apes)? if so, do the enemies even know their location (they're tiny flying creatures with decent stealth). are the pixies grouped tightly enough together that a single AoE can even hit them all?

pixies have a lot of defences beyond just their hit points. yes, if they get hit, they're gone. thing is, it isn't that easy to hit a pixie. their defensive CR is actually something around 2 as i recall because of all their defensive abilities.

For a party fighting a 7th level caster who can even cast conjure woodland beings? Yes I fully expect them to have an AoE available.

As this was a combat scenario, the pixies would be in combat, they have their own turn which may not happen until enemies have a chance to kill them.

I remember that the dm picks the stats only. Says nothing about who picks. You can pick what you want to summon then the dm gives you the stats because he is the library. I dont bring my own book.

If my dm forced my spells to suck because he wants to underpower me then he is an ahole. The book gives the dm power and the dm goal is for player fun. If the player wants to end an encounter in 1 round because that would be most fun,LET THEM. THIS IS THEIR GAME TOO.

Dms need to remembrr to think of what the players want. If what they want seems powerful, up the difficulty. Use ingame mechanica to balance, not making the game lame so everything sucks so level 20s have trouble with 1 kobald.

Polymorph is fine. Kick a rabbit lff the cliff and after he loees hp, no instant death just him revert to original form then rest damage gets transferree. You would get more damage fast from levitate. Less time to get co centration broken and does the same thing.

If you have a problem with your players having fun and enjoying themselves and gou seek to punish them because they are being creative, why dont you all go not play a game that lets players do what they want?

The game is players > Dm >book. Players want to have fun. Dm makes it fun using the book as a guide. Players dont always do what is in the book so the dm is forced to be creative and think on the spot. If they do powergaming and you wanted to roleplay, either find a new group or adapt and make it a power game.

If it was a problem, it should have been changed in playtest. Although they missed elemental monks and the broken beserker and wild mage since they are so horrible.

It does say the caster only is picking one of:
One fey of cr 2
Two of 1
Four of 1/2
Eight of 1/4

It's specifically non specific.

Player: "OK I summon magma mephrits to burn through the wood."

DM: "Lol no, get ice mephrits instead."

Player: "Why would I summon those?"

DM: "Quit being a munchkin."

If the above appears stupid to you, then maybe "well the spell says DM has the stats" is a **** excuse for such behavior.

If you cast conjure minor elementals you might get magma mephits, or you might get any combination of elementals that have the selected challenge rating. It's really not up to the player.

Shaofoo

2015-10-10, 12:44 PM

Player: "OK I summon magma mephrits to burn through the wood."

DM: "Lol no, get ice mephrits instead."

Player: "Why would I summon those?"

DM: "Quit being a munchkin."

If the above appears stupid to you, then maybe "well the spell says DM has the stats" is a **** excuse for such behavior.

Well how about this exchange instead for thought:

Player: "OK I summon magma mephrits to burn through the wood."

DM: "Lol no I am sorry, you can only get ice mephrits instead."

Player: "Why would I summon those?"

DM: "Quit being a munchkin. Because you are in a frozen forest so the spell would only try to conjure what is most readily available. If you really wanted magma mephits you could try to do an Arcana check but there might be some risks... your call"

You can't justify bad DM behavior especially if he goes lol unironically and calls you a munchkin for no reason at all. I would never have played with such a DM since I am sure a DM like that would have been aggravating since day 1, I don't play D&D to please an socially inept malcontent.

druid91

2015-10-10, 01:27 PM

TheMiningDwarf

2015-10-10, 01:54 PM

Again it is players = DM when it comes to fun, the book doesn't even factor into the equation because the book can't have fun and I sincerely doubt that the makers of the game care how one particular group is playing their game, as long as they bought the books they could eat them for all they care.

Can I sig this? Mostly just for the last sentence since it made me genuinely laugh out loud.

Reosoul

2015-10-10, 02:18 PM

...Snip

The game is players > Dm >book. Players want to have fun. Dm makes it fun using the book as a guide. Players dont always do what is in the book so the dm is forced to be creative and think on the spot. If they do powergaming and you wanted to roleplay, either find a new group or adapt and make it a power game.

I don't think this argument would work on most DM's who have to spend a lot of time carefully crafting their campaigns. I mean, yeah it's cool when players come up with nifty ideas for a scenario, but then when they try to turn into one-trick ponies and summon the same Pixies, or kick the bunny off the cliff, for the third time, much less the hundredth time, DM is going to be working against that tactic to keep the game interesting for everyone involved.

If a player approached me with this argument, they'd be lucky if I didn't eject them from the game.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-10, 02:29 PM

Simple Solution. Hurl the bunny off the cliff and then cease concentration. Bam. Bunny turns into an orcish warcheif and falls to his death.

Presumably they'd have to catch the bunny (are rabbits even statted?) which would probably be very difficult as I'd imagine rabbits have a high acrobatics check to avoid a grapple

Beleriphon

2015-10-10, 04:41 PM

Presumably they'd have to catch the bunny (are rabbits even statted?) which would probably be very difficult as I'd imagine rabbits have a high acrobatics check to avoid a grapple

Yeah, if you ever tried to catch a wild rabbit by hand good luck. Those things are fast, really fast. And small, likely super hard to catch. I had pet rabbits and the only reason I could catch them was because houses have corners and minimal natural cover.

SharkForce

2015-10-10, 05:48 PM

For a party fighting a 7th level caster who can even cast conjure woodland beings? Yes I fully expect them to have an AoE available.

As this was a combat scenario, the pixies would be in combat, they have their own turn which may not happen until enemies have a chance to kill them.

the 7th level caster who can conjure pixies mostly implies that one side has AoE spells. it does not remotely guarantee that the other side has AoE spells. it certainly does not guarantee that either side has AoE nukes if you for some reason encounter pixies that are attacking you for some reason other than being part of an encounter with a level 7+ spellcaster.

and why would the pixies have to be in combat to be useful in combat? the summoned pixies last an hour. polymorph also lasts an hour. there is no need for the pixies to be physically present to swing the fight in a major way.

ultimately, the pixies add far more than any other CR 1/4 creature could ever hope to add. you don't *need* to have AoE nukes to deal with wolves, or panthers, or even sprites. certainly, it is helpful to have AoE nukes against large groups of relatively weak creatures, but it isn't a requirement to have a hope of success.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-10, 06:24 PM

the 7th level caster who can conjure pixies mostly implies that one side has AoE spells. it does not remotely guarantee that the other side has AoE spells. it certainly does not guarantee that either side has AoE nukes if you for some reason encounter pixies that are attacking you for some reason other than being part of an encounter with a level 7+ spellcaster.

and why would the pixies have to be in combat to be useful in combat? the summoned pixies last an hour. polymorph also lasts an hour. there is no need for the pixies to be physically present to swing the fight in a major way.

ultimately, the pixies add far more than any other CR 1/4 creature could ever hope to add. you don't *need* to have AoE nukes to deal with wolves, or panthers, or even sprites. certainly, it is helpful to have AoE nukes against large groups of relatively weak creatures, but it isn't a requirement to have a hope of success.

We are talking about using CWB in combat, by necessity the pixies are in combat.

Shojiteru

2015-10-10, 07:05 PM

It is the game of the dm and players. If the players dont like the dm and his picking what you get in the spell then you can leave or have them let you swap out that spell for another because it doesnt do what you wanted. Both dm and player have to agree on it. Dont pick a spell that heals if you are in a campaign when combat never arises. The fun for dm should be watching the players enjoy their world and the players should respect the laws of the world the dm created.

The dm is who you ask questions to. If the dm isnt sure he can get others' opinions but the final decision is his alone. I like how you can ask questions online but not everyone realizes that 1 persons answer is t the answer of their dm.

In simple, players should discuss every aspect of their character with the dm beforehand so it fits properly. The dm should consult with the players on what they want to do and what would be most fun for them. The rules are mere guidlines and suggestions. Its the ones playing the game who get final verdict, be they dm or players.

If you think it is op, the only one who can change your mind is your dm/players in hopes of using that in that game.

Side note: some things can be fun and playable and broken at the same time. Personal opinion only. Any core feature that punishes you for using it isnt worth it imo. Wild mage will kill the party or the party will put a 60 restraini g order when spells are cast. Frenzy is only good when you know exactly a rest will follow after this encounter.

SharkForce

2015-10-10, 07:57 PM

We are talking about using CWB in combat, by necessity the pixies are in combat.

i can use CWB in combat without having cast it during the combat i want to use it in. it lasts an hour, and so do some of the effects of the spell. just as i can use mage armour in combat without needing to actually cast the spell during combat.

Mara

2015-10-10, 08:14 PM

Maybe the system assumes the DM isn't an antagonistic moron?
Possible ways to run it.

1. Player picks creature.

2. DM picks creature but just picks whatever the player wanted.

3. DM is an antagonistic moron.

Mara

2015-10-10, 08:17 PM

Well how about this exchange instead for thought:

You can't justify bad DM behavior especially if he goes lol unironically and calls you a munchkin for no reason at all. I would never have played with such a DM since I am sure a DM like that would have been aggravating since day 1, I don't play D&D to please an socially inept malcontent.
The DM you depict is just afraid to say what they really feel. He also needs context to seem reasonable. If the wood cage was in a forest, he is being a ****.

JoeJ

2015-10-10, 08:31 PM

Possible ways to run it.

1. Player picks creature.

2. DM picks creature but just picks whatever the player wanted.

3. DM is an antagonistic moron.

4. DM picks randomly from among those creatures that could plausibly appear in this terrain.

5. DM chooses whichever creature makes the most entertaining addition to the story at this point.

Mara

2015-10-10, 08:43 PM

4. DM picks randomly from among those creatures that could plausibly appear in this terrain.

5. DM chooses whichever creature makes the most entertaining addition to the story at this point.
Both of those are still number 3.

JoeJ

2015-10-10, 09:04 PM

Both of those are still number 3.

No, neither of them is. And it doesn't help your case to call the DM names just because you don't like how they ruled.

Mara

2015-10-10, 09:27 PM

No, neither of them is. And it doesn't help your case to call the DM names just because you don't like how they ruled.That is your opinion. If the players stay then you can say that ruling works for your group.

DM making up bull**** house rules to take away player agency can't be a good motivation. The DM pointing to the dev b-team to justify his crap is even worse.

Shaofoo

2015-10-10, 09:52 PM

The DM you depict is just afraid to say what they really feel. He also needs context to seem reasonable. If the wood cage was in a forest, he is being a ****.

And what does the DM really feel?

I am interested because I wanted to bring about a level headed and considerate DM while you seem to want to bring about someone who is lucky that his shadow didn't abandon him since he is so unbearable.

Like I said before, I have no wish to deal with unbearable people, if the DM is being antagonistic then he has plenty of chances to be antagonistic outside of a couple of spells, he has an entire world to make your life miserable so I doubt that his true colors would show as soon as you don't get what you want on a Conjure Elements spell, he'd probably have you face off against a lich riding an ancient dragon at level 1 and have you force to do menial tasks as he laughs in your face.

D&D cannot fix a bad person. Even if Conjure Elements gave you exactly what you wanted he will still make your life a living hell anyway. But it seems to me that you are more interested in demonizing DMs that don't rule your way once. It would really help your case if you didn't try to seem so bent out of shape because you got ice mephits instead of fire ones, I mean couldn't you just have said I Firebolt the wood or something to that effect?

Mellack

2015-10-11, 01:10 AM

That is your opinion. If the players stay then you can say that ruling works for your group.

DM making up bull**** house rules to take away player agency can't be a good motivation. The DM pointing to the dev b-team to justify his crap is even worse.

Since DM choice for CWB is the official word from the devs, it is not a house-rule. You seem to be very hostile to anyone who does not play it the way you want. Some people prefer to roll randomly, some want only what they think would be in the region. That is a different style of play. It does not make them a jerk, or unfair, or antagonistic. It is just not what you desire. Many times in life people will have differences of opinion, it does not mean they are all jerks. If you think so, perhaps the problem is with you and not others.

Mara

2015-10-11, 01:26 AM

Since DM choice for CWB is the official word from the devs, it is not a house-rule. You seem to be very hostile to anyone who does not play it the way you want. Some people prefer to roll randomly, some want only what they think would be in the region. That is a different style of play. It does not make them a jerk, or unfair, or antagonistic. It is just not what you desire. Many times in life people will have differences of opinion, it does not mean they are all jerks. If you think so, perhaps the problem is with you and not others.

The idea of a DM combing FAQs looking for reasons to remove player agency and to overcomplicate mechanics seems jerky to me.

Does the spell say to roll randomly? Does it say the DM picks? Does it say the DM should pick thematic answers? Nope. It doesn't say any of that. The only one picking in the spell is the player. The DM has the statistics.

You can call adding paragraphs of unneeded rules a difference of opinion. I call it poor game mastery.

JoeJ

2015-10-11, 02:43 AM

The idea of a DM combing FAQs looking for reasons to remove player agency and to overcomplicate mechanics seems jerky to me.

Does the spell say to roll randomly? Does it say the DM picks? Does it say the DM should pick thematic answers? Nope. It doesn't say any of that. The only one picking in the spell is the player. The DM has the statistics.

You can call adding paragraphs of unneeded rules a difference of opinion. I call it poor game mastery.

And the only thing the player picks in the spell is one of the specified options regarding number of creatures and CR. When you're the DM, you can run it however you like. Getting bent out of shape because some other DM won't adopt your house rule is very bad form.

Mara

2015-10-11, 02:52 AM

And the only thing the player picks in the spell is one of the specified options regarding number of creatures and CR. When you're the DM, you can run it however you like. Getting bent out of shape because some other DM won't adopt your house rule is very bad form.The spell only mentions the player doing anysort of picking.

It says nothing about the DM picking anything.

Dev words do not magically change what is in the book. The sage advice on this is them asking you to implement a houserule.

Logosloki

2015-10-11, 04:22 AM

The spell only mentions the player doing anysort of picking.

It says nothing about the DM picking anything.

Dev words do not magically change what is in the book. The sage advice on this is them asking you to implement a houserule.

I would have thought that a Developer's word does magically change the book. They are the alpha-RAW.

Kidding aside, if someone are having an issue with a DM then I would implore them to put aside time so that they and the DM can work through any issues that come up. They may even want to consult the rest of the group to find out where the group stands and talk with the DM with you about the issue. If the DM and the group have irreconcilable views with a person with an issue then I would say that they should probably move on from the group and find another that is closer to their preferences.

Yes the DM has the final say at the table but that doesn't mean they should never take a player's feelings or preferences into account. Likewise a player should understand that just because something is written, it is not automatically an ironclad rule that all must abide by nor does their interpretation carry special weight.

On to the topic. Under the heading "When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the DM or the spellcaster choose the creatures that are conjured" in the compendium is the sentence "The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option."

The preceding paragraph defined the options as the number/CR options.

It then goes on to say "A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene."

So the DM very much is in control of what is summoned but should take the feelings of a player and the mood of the scene into account.

NNescio

2015-10-11, 04:52 AM

I would have thought that a Developer's word does magically change the book. They are the alpha-RAW.

We already have instances of different developers contradicting each other. (Mearls and Crawford).

I just consider developer's rulings to be RAI, since otherwise the whole corpus of tweets, sage articles and other posts made for them would be one of the worst kinds of stealth errata ever (as if 3.PF wasn't bad enough) that is very, very hard to cross-reference.

Mara

2015-10-11, 05:05 AM

Logosloki

2015-10-11, 05:20 AM

We already have instances of different developers contradicting each other. (Mearls and Crawford).

I just consider developer's rulings to be RAI, since otherwise the whole corpus of tweets, sage articles and other posts made for them would be one of the worst kinds of stealth errata ever (as if 3.PF wasn't bad enough) that is very, very hard to cross-reference.

As per http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/25/golden-rule-xix/, the compendium and errata are the official word (RAI). Ultimately though, as they maintain, the final RAI is whatever your DM decides.

I suppose, a convoluted mental image would be that the PHB, MM, DMG, Encounters, Supplements, Errata and Compendium are combined the adult jogging just behind their darling little one (the DM) who is now riding a bike without training wheels or assistance from said adult. At that point it is the DM who is steering that bike, whether it stays on the footpath, or crashes into a tree.

Shaofoo

2015-10-11, 06:56 AM

A much cleaner solution is for the DM just to rework pixie polymorph as cr 1/4 or lower forms.

You don't need to add whole new mechanics and additional steps to running a whole series of spells to fix the one issue you might be having.

And you don't even fix the perceived issue, pixie polymorph is still possible AND you frustrate players.

Except your fix still doesn't prevent the problem either, having 8 enemies turn into useless animals can do wonders for crowd control, just hit the enemies one by one as the others can't do much. And if there are less enemies you can even have extra polymorphs for use as well.

A pristine solution if I may say so myself is just strike out polymorph from pixies and that should take care of that problem. As a DM he has full control over how the monsters are stated and he has full control over changing stats and abilities so it is in his full power to just remove Polymorph. You will most likely have a problem but personally the spell doesn't give you full control over the stats of the creature. The MM is not a book for the players and it isn't a guide that should be followed to the letter, the PHB is a guide that should be followed to the letter, the DMG and MM are books that has a bunch of stuff that you can add or ignore or change as you see fit.

A red dragon can breathe ice instead of fire or a troglodyte might actually be pleasant smelling or kobolds might be cute and lovable creatures instead of nasty lizards. You can't just assume that the MM is law from the players side.

The pixie polymorph problem was never a problem, there was no problem because the problem was 100% within the DM to fix without house rules (unless you count actually making the world and those who inhabit it a house rule), if the pixies have polymorph it is because the DM allowed it. Of course a shrewd player might take advantage of an inexperienced DM and start overpowering with the use of Polymorph but I consider those edge cases, I assume a good deal of DMs know what's up and a good number of players are good sports and not interested in being overpowering or "winning" the game.

Mara

2015-10-11, 07:29 AM

I actually have no problem with the DM changing pixies or even removing them from the game.

I maintain that polymorph is just not the issue people make it out to be. It's a high impact spell, but that is what I like about 5e. Fewer high impact abilities instead of ivory tower game design.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-11, 08:39 AM

Both of those are still number 3.

Following the rules is 3?

Mara

2015-10-11, 08:46 AM

Following the rules is 3?
Go ahead and cite the rule in the book that supports that.

I'll wait.

Kryx

2015-10-11, 09:05 AM

It would be great to have a discussion without so much vitriol... Please tone it down.

JoeJ

2015-10-11, 09:54 AM

The spell only mentions the player doing anysort of picking.

It says nothing about the DM picking anything.

Actually the rules say, "The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creature appear that fit the chosen option." (SA p. 7)

Dev words do not magically change what is in the book. The sage advice on this is them asking you to implement a houserule.

That's incorrect. Official rulings made in Sage Advice or the errata supercede the book. The rule is that the DM picks the creature.

Mara

2015-10-11, 10:05 AM

Actually the rules say, "The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creature appear that fit the chosen option." (SA p. 7)

That's incorrect. Official rulings made in Sage Advice or the errata supercede the book. The rule is that the DM picks the creature.
That is where we disagree. I don't see sage advice as rules (I also specifically asked for a citation of a rule in the book). Too much time spent playing Pathfinder to give FAQs the time of day.

I stand by DM > book > errata/FAQ/SA/ect.

If the errata continues to be of poor quality then I'll just be thankful that I got the good version of 5e. Otherwise errata is something they actually print and not subject to change without consequence (next printing changes) thus holds a bit more esteem than the enthusiast's trap that is sage advice.

JoeJ

2015-10-11, 10:13 AM

That is where we disagree. I don't see sage advice as rules (I also specifically asked for a citation of a rule in the book). Too much time spent playing Pathfinder to give FAQs the time of day.

I stand by DM > book > errata/FAQ/SA/ect.

If the errata continues to be of poor quality then I'll just be thankful that I got the good version of 5e. Otherwise errata is something they actually print and not subject to change without consequence (next printing changes) thus holds a bit more esteem than the enthusiast's trap that is sage advice.

However you may choose to see it, SA is explicitly stated by WotC to be official. The DM can decide not to follow it, but that's true of the PHB, MM, and DMG as well.

NNescio

2015-10-11, 10:34 AM

However you may choose to see it, SA is explicitly stated by WotC to be official. The DM can decide not to follow it, but that's true of the PHB, MM, and DMG as well.

3.x Sage Advice and FAQ were also explicitly stated by WotC to be official, but those were considered terrible (and often contradicts itself) to the point that any attempt to use those rulings in a RAW (and even RAI) rules debate were dismissed offhandedly on most forums (including the 3.x section of GITP). IIRC the PHB (and other books) were considered primary sources and the Sage Advice rulings secondary, so primary overruled secondary.

Not that the 5e version was horrible or anything (well, I wouldn't exactly say Crawford > Williams, but 5e is relatively rules-light and they were fewer developers involved, so they are more in-touch with the material they come up with), but I can see why Mara is so antagonistic against it, and I admit, that was my first knee-jerk reaction some time ago when someone first pointed out the 5e Sage Advice column to me.

Shojiteru

2015-10-11, 11:47 AM

If SA is so important, why are they only using the internet? If i bought the books, nowhere in them does it tell me to look at SA for further rules. No where in the dmg does SA come up to help you decide on rulings. Players and dms merely ask for opinions and the drvelopers give them. Only opinions on how they would rule in their games. Unless you are playi g thwkr games, their advice holds no more than the advice of some guy on a forum when you bring it to your dm to get him to change his mind.

Please tell SA to release a book of all their notes if it is so official because i believe official means it was printed. They spent the money to release thousands of copies for the players because they were confident enough that everyone would enjoy to play with those rules.

No new person to dnd will ever know of SA and in all their games it will never come up. Btw it says Advice not Sage Rules. In other words they are the collective opinions until a new book is released. RAW cant be changed unless you WRITE IT. Otherwise its not Rules As Written, its Rules As Read On The Internet.

Unless there is a written copy, by RAW it is not RAW.

Im tired of peoe mixong RAI with RAW. They even say themselves as that is how the rules were meant to be but thats not how they are.

PS. 1 dev/designer from a team could want the rules ro be meant one way then they get changed for something else later on and he still prferes the other so he says its intended to be another way because he intended it. The point of a team is to get the entire group to intend it to be official.

NNescio

2015-10-11, 11:58 AM

Not so much. DM may make a random table or choose as appropriate for the environment, but the bottom line is there's no bad choice for most conjuring spells. If you Conjure Animals and get eight draft horses, that's still great.

I forgot to address this earlier (and maybe because I failed to realize then the significance of the soon-to-be quoted clause), but all Conjure spells get hosed by this ruling because of the "or lower" clause.

When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured? A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.

Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.

Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:

One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower

The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

So, yeah, according to Sage Ruling, you can pick, say, "One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower", and the DM can hose you by plopping one CR 0 beast on the battlefield. Because, well, it fits the chosen option, riiight?

Seriously, by this so-called RAI, you don't even have control over the CR!

Yeah, as Mara said, this gives the dickish DM a great excuse to be a jerk.

Sure, it won't be a problem on most tables, and a DM can invoke Rule 0 in any case, but if RAI says the Conjure line are all "DM may I" spells (yes, blah blah, technically everything is "DM may I", but not to this extent), then RAI is silly and counterproductive in this case. A spell should not give carte blanche to the DM to screw over the player, even if it's an option not taken by most (or nearly all) DMs.

A more sensible solution is to just have a gentleman agreement not to abuse Pixies. The other Conjure spells are fine.

Mellack

2015-10-11, 12:43 PM

Shaofoo

2015-10-11, 01:25 PM

Sure, it won't be a problem on most tables, and a DM can invoke Rule 0 in any case, but if RAI says the Conjure line are all "DM may I" spells (yes, blah blah, technically everything is "DM may I", but not to this extent), then RAI is silly and counterproductive in this case. A spell should not give carte blanche to the DM to screw over the player, even if it's an option not taken by most (or nearly all) DMs.

A more sensible solution is to just have a gentleman agreement not to abuse Pixies. The other Conjure spells are fine.

It isn't fault of the spell if a DM can use it to be a male member to the player.

The DM has an entire world to screw the players over, he doesn't need a single spell to do that, putting the DM in that position gives him carte blanche to screw over the players in a myraid of ways. He could just suddenly spring you with a trap right underfoot after you've exhaustively searched every five foot square and suddenly you are without a leg. Or sends you party level + 10 CR monsters to fight and murder you. Or suddenly the king hates you because you didn't fetch the proper stones correctly. If you can think it, he can do it and will do it and you have no say.

The only way to deal with bad DMs is not to play with them, plain and simple. D&D can't be held responsible for DMs using it as an excuse to torture players because that the only thing that makes them happy is the misery of others. I have a lot of other things that I could do and I would actually love to do than stand around and be a punching bag for some repressed malcontent. I respect myself too much.

NNescio

2015-10-11, 01:59 PM

It isn't fault of the spell if a DM can use it to be a male member to the player.

The DM has an entire world to screw the players over, he doesn't need a single spell to do that, putting the DM in that position gives him carte blanche to screw over the players in a myraid of ways. He could just suddenly spring you with a trap right underfoot after you've exhaustively searched every five foot square and suddenly you are without a leg. Or sends you party level + 10 CR monsters to fight and murder you. Or suddenly the king hates you because you didn't fetch the proper stones correctly. If you can think it, he can do it and will do it and you have no say.

The only way to deal with bad DMs is not to play with them, plain and simple. D&D can't be held responsible for DMs using it as an excuse to torture players because that the only thing that makes them happy is the misery of others. I have a lot of other things that I could do and I would actually love to do than stand around and be a punching bag for some repressed malcontent. I respect myself too much.

Imagine, for a moment, that Fireball says "A target takes up to 8d6 fire damage on a failed save..." instead of the usual text.

Now, does it matter? A good DM might allow the Fireball to deal full damage all the time. If he thinks it's too powerful, he might give a notice to the player, and the spell might be less effective the next time. And he'll prolly let the player retrain out of the spell.

A jerk DM will just have the Fireball deal 1 damage all the time, or more insidiously, 1 damage when it's least convenient for the player. It's in the rules, right?

Now, that kind of jerk DM, we all can live without, and he'll probably lose all his players. But what about DMs in between, especially the more inexperienced ones?

Well, that might infer from the wording that fireball is not meant to deal full damage all the time, and it becomes tempting to apply that 'ruling' when it might be more convenient for them (like say, there's a BBEG he has labored much time over and don't want him to die just yet). This can lead to a dangerous precedent, where the DM sees such rules as legitimizing on-the-spot nerfs (instead of say, through mutual discussion and gentleman agreements with players, which a houserule would entail.).

Similarly, the RAI suggested by Crawford also legitimizes such behavior. Instead of saying, well, "I think those Pixies are under-Cr'ed, so there are probably going to be some changes, but you can retrain the spell if you do," you just apply an on the spot nerf.

It takes away player agency. When a player uses an ability, action, or skill, or specially when he casts a spell (since he's consuming limited resources), he expects to dictate the course of action. He's exercising his agency. He's shaping the narrative. He expects his character to do something. Now, they are cases where a player might overdo this, and a DM should reign him in especially if it impinges on the other players' fun, but such things are generally better done out-of-table, through mutual discussion.

It's not something that should be built in the spell itself. It doesn't matter if the option doesn't come up often. The fact that the blank check option to arbitrarily make the spell useless exists in of itself means that the spell is poorly designed. It legitimizes bad DMing.

It's like, say, a company has rule that legitimizes bad behavior (say, verbal violence, sexual harassment, etc.) of employees by their superiors. Or maybe there's some weird town with a municipal ruling saying it's fine to throw trash into your neighbor's backyard. Now, good people won't do that. But the fact that such behavior is made legitimate will lead to an increase to such behavior, because the rules say it's fine. This effect is more pronounced on people who are more easily-impressionable, such as children, new employees, or even new DMs. Rules are prescriptive and have a powerful effect on human behavior.

Now, going back:

The DM has an entire world to screw the players over, he doesn't need a single spell to do that, putting the DM in that position gives him carte blanche to screw over the players in a myraid of ways. He could just suddenly spring you with a trap right underfoot after you've exhaustively searched every five foot square and suddenly you are without a leg. Or sends you party level + 10 CR monsters to fight and murder you. Or suddenly the king hates you because you didn't fetch the proper stones correctly. If you can think it, he can do it and will do it and you have no say.

See, this kind of behavior is discouraged within the DMG (and MM) itself, under the encounter suggestions or tips on how to build an adventure. Now, to an absolutely jerkass dickish DM, it doesn't matter, because he's going to ignore the whole part anyway. Of course, the whole point would be moot anyway since there wouldn't be any players willing to play in his game.

But for an inexperienced DM? The fact that such suggestions and encounter-building rules like CR-determination are present prescribes certain behaviors that are expected from DnD DMs. The encounters have to be well balanced, to be sutiable challenges for the players and their characters. These kind of rules and suggestions encourage good DMing.

Sending +10 CR monsters? That's not legitimized by the rules.

That makes all the difference.

Mrglee

2015-10-11, 02:02 PM

I believe many of those changes have been included in newer printings. Just because it is not written in your book, does not mean it is not written.

I believe the only updates would be from the official errata (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf), which does not mention conjure spell changes. SA is just rulings based off one guy at WotC's opinions.

Shaofoo

2015-10-11, 03:23 PM

Imagine, for a moment, that Fireball says "A target takes up to 8d6 fire damage on a failed save..." instead of the usual text.

Well then the spell would have to say why does the random modifier is random again. Saying that makes no logical sense. I know what you are saying but the way you presented it the spell is broken since the spell's random component is random and the randomness cannot be resolved because the randomization of the randomness isn't fully defined. If you want to say the spell can deal up to 48 damage then that makes logical sense.

Now, does it matter? A good DM might allow the Fireball to deal full damage all the time. If he thinks it's too powerful, he might give a notice to the player, and the spell might be less effective the next time. And he'll prolly let the player retrain out of the spell.

A jerk DM will just have the Fireball deal 1 damage all the time, or more insidiously, 1 damage when it's least convenient for the player. It's in the rules, right?

Well in your hypothetical the rules can't say because you can't resolve the randomization of randomization. But even with the logical line that I have presented you still can't resolve because it doesn't say to who it is up to decide. All other spells are resolved by dice so at best people might just go for 1d48. Also the DM can already rule that your Fireball deals 1 damage without your changes, he can make up some magic babble and that the BBEG has the magic trinket of Fireballshielding that makes Fireball deal 1 damage to him... also it is keyed to his lifeforce so if you kill the BBEG then the trinket is destroyed so you can't have it.

Well, that might infer from the wording that fireball is not meant to deal full damage all the time, and it becomes tempting to apply that 'ruling' when it might be more convenient for them (like say, there's a BBEG he has labored much time over and don't want him to die just yet). This can lead to a dangerous precedent, where the DM sees such rules as legitimizing on-the-spot nerfs (instead of say, through mutual discussion and gentleman agreements with players, which a houserule would entail.).

I would assume that in a normal game of D&D players and DMs are capable of civil discussion at all times. Also if the DM is placing his BBEG over his players then he is a bad DM for letting his pet take precedence over the other human beings in a battle where the loss of his pet was a possibility, this is common decency, you don't need to be a master DM to know that probably letting your friends have fun takes precedence to letting your pet win (of course if the pet wins in a legitimate way then good for him but we are talking about on the spot nerfs). Besides such actions are a dime a dozen in worst DM stories and they didn't need some rule to give them permission to screw over the players.

Also you only said Fireball was the afflicted spell not every single other spell that could be affected.

Similarly, the RAI suggested by Crawford also legitimizes such behavior. Instead of saying, well, "I think those Pixies are under-Cr'ed, so there are probably going to be some changes, but you can retrain the spell if you do," you just apply an on the spot nerf.

Sorry, the player should never know if the Pixies have polymorph because the MM is not a player book. This isn't a nerf because the players have no right to dictate what a monster has or doesn't have. The spell makes no reference to the MM so that book is off limits to players. You can't call a nerf something that was never player agency in the first place.

It takes away player agency. When a player uses an ability, action, or skill, or specially when he casts a spell (since he's consuming limited resources), he expects to dictate the course of action. He's exercising his agency. He's shaping the narrative. He expects his character to do something. Now, they are cases where a player might overdo this, and a DM should reign him in especially if it impinges on the other players' fun, but such things are generally better done out-of-table, through mutual discussion.

You seem to want to give Player agency at the expense of DM agency, like taking what is the DM's job and giving it to the players. Also if he sees that the game might be out of control he might try to rein it in than rather let everything crash and have a talk later.

The Player can do an action that is specified in the rules, but he doesn't dictate what is the end result. His character will always do something, but failure is a possible outcome.

It's not something that should be built in the spell itself. It doesn't matter if the option doesn't come up often. The fact that the blank check option to arbitrarily make the spell useless exists in of itself means that the spell is poorly designed. It legitimizes bad DMing.

Pebble of material of Antimagic that is as common as gravel.

There I made all spells in the world potentially useless.

A DM doesn't need permission from the spell to make it useless, he can figure it out how to do it on his own if he wants to. Being a DM gives him carte blanche already, the problem is bad DMs not the spell. The spell only puts to light what was already there in the first place since Day 1 of Chainmail in the 70s with Gygax, it doesn't open up anything new.

It's like, say, a company has rule that legitimizes bad behavior (say, verbal violence, sexual harassment, etc.) of employees by their superiors. Or maybe there's some weird town with a municipal ruling saying it's fine to throw trash into your neighbor's backyard. Now, good people won't do that. But the fact that such behavior is made legitimate will lead to an increase to such behavior, because the rules say it's fine. This effect is more pronounced on people who are more easily-impressionable, such as children, new employees, or even new DMs. Rules are prescriptive and have a powerful effect on human behavior.

Sorry, nowhere does it say in the rules or in the SA or anywhere that if a player were to cast the spell that you are to give them the worst outcome.

Also your examples are erroneous because they don't take into account the consequences.

The company allows verbal abuse and sexual harrasment. Hope they like having lawsuits, investigations and the media getting a video of the employees calling a female worker a b-word and to go make them a sandwich after getting a good handle on her breasts. Just cause the company is fine with such actions doesn't make society fine all of a sudden.

The town doesn't like to pick up trash, well that is another lawsuit and investigation waiting to happen since it impacts both the value of the property plus the people moving away to not have to deal with trash.

The rules might say it is fine but the consequences of the rules are still applicable regardless if it is right or not.

The rules might say it is okay to screw over your players, well the players will just go play something else and you can then have your all important BBEG keep you company in that lone table. Just cause the rules say so doesn't mean the players have to put up with it, a bad game ends up stopped.

See, this kind of behavior is discouraged within the DMG (and MM) itself, under the encounter suggestions or tips on how to build an adventure. Now, to an absolutely jerkass dickish DM, it doesn't matter, because he's going to ignore the whole part anyway. Of course, the whole point would be moot anyway since there wouldn't be any players willing to play in his game.

Such a DM wouldn't care then if the rules give him right to be bad or not

But for an inexperienced DM? The fact that such suggestions and encounter-building rules like CR-determination are present prescribes certain behaviors that are expected from DnD DMs. The encounters have to be well balanced, to be sutiable challenges for the players and their characters. These kind of rules and suggestions encourage good DMing.

Yep so you don't have to worry that if they are given the chance to be vague that they will probably err on the side of good. By your own admission there is no problem because bad DMs are bad no matter what and those inexperienced in the middle DMs will become good by the good rules. I don't see why you were worrying.

Sending +10 CR monsters? That's not legitimized by the rules.

You can totally have an encounter and send monsters way above their paygrade.

You can try to pay tribute to an ancient dragon

You can try to negotiate with a lich.

You can even run away from a storm giant.

Just because the CR is off limits doesn't make them off limits for encounters. An encounter is more than just a battle to the death, but sure for an actual battle then CR + 10 is too much.

JackPhoenix

2015-10-11, 03:24 PM

The Sage Advice did not changed anything about the spell, it only repeats and explains what's already written in the spell's description.

Choose one of the following options for what appears:

One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower
Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

DM has the creatures' statistics because MM is not a book for players. Player's don't (or rather, shouldn't) know what CR (or any other stat) does any creature have, or even what possible fey creatures exists in the setting! They get SOME creatures statted up in the PHB Appendix D, but the only fey listed there is Sprite.

3.5e (and PF) had Summon Monster with a page listing about 10 options for every version of the spell, from SM I's Celestial Dog to SM IX's Hezrou. You knew EXACTLY what are you summoning. In 5e, nowhere in the spell's description does it mentions you can choose certain creature, you pick how many creatures you want, the less you get, the stronger they are. That's it. That's RAW. You can't blame the DM for following the rules. Anything more is a houserule. DM doesn't have to accomodate your whims, and he's not a bad DM when he doesn't. You may whine, you may call him names, but if you do, it only shows what sort of player you are.

SharkForce

2015-10-11, 03:39 PM

The Sage Advice did not changed anything about the spell, it only repeats and explains what's already written in the spell's description.

DM has the creatures' statistics because MM is not a book for players. Player's don't (or rather, shouldn't) know what CR (or any other stat) does any creature have, or even what possible fey creatures exists in the setting! They get SOME creatures statted up in the PHB Appendix D, but the only fey listed there is Sprite.

3.5e (and PF) had Summon Monster with a page listing about 10 options for every version of the spell, from SM I's Celestial Dog to SM IX's Hezrou. You knew EXACTLY what are you summoning. In 5e, nowhere in the spell's description does it mentions you can choose certain creature, you pick how many creatures you want, the less you get, the stronger they are. That's it. That's RAW. You can't blame the DM for following the rules. Anything more is a houserule. DM doesn't have to accomodate your whims, and he's not a bad DM when he doesn't. You may whine, you may call him names, but if you do, it only shows what sort of player you are.

case in point, this guy seems to think it is acceptable for the DM to screw the players just because. players should be punished for knowing what CR certain creatures are, because there isn't a specific list of allowed monsters in the book. and this is why I dislike a blank "DM's choice" ruling.

can't argue it isn't official (in that WotC gets to decide what is or isn't official), but I can definitely say I'm not a fan of that rule.

Shaofoo

2015-10-11, 03:43 PM

case in point, this guy seems to think it is acceptable for the DM to screw the players just because. players should be punished for knowing what CR certain creatures are, because there isn't a specific list of allowed monsters in the book. and this is why I dislike a blank "DM's choice" ruling.

can't argue it isn't official (in that WotC gets to decide what is or isn't official), but I can definitely say I'm not a fan of that rule.

Honestly, it is always the DM's choice since day 1 on a lot of things beyond this spell. I wonder why you even like D&D if you don't like one guy having all the power? It doesn't take you not getting the spell your way for the DM to have it in for you.

I just don't get this mentality that it is bad to have the DM's decide yet play in the DM's world where the DM is overgod of it all; it just seems that you either are fine with the DM or you are not and would never play in his games in the first place.

NNescio

2015-10-11, 03:51 PM

The Sage Advice did not changed anything about the spell, it only repeats and explains what's already written in the spell's description.

The PHB doesn't say the DM gets to choose. "The DM has the creatures' statistics" clause is also present in the True Polymorph spell.

Unless, well, you want to argue that "the player doesn't get to choose for True Polymorph either!" It just says "any kind", right? Doesn't say you get to choose which kind. Any kind would satisfy the spell parameters. Oh joy.

Strict RAW, DM has the statistics means the DM holds the statistics, and performs bookkeeping on HP. RAI, you can say that the DM gets to makes up the statistics, or well, as some other people noted, it means "refer to the MM".

DM has the creatures' statistics because MM is not a book for players. Player's don't (or rather, shouldn't) know what CR (or any other stat) does any creature have, or even what possible fey creatures exists in the setting! They get SOME creatures statted up in the PHB Appendix D, but the only fey listed there is Sprite.

That argument falls apart once you take a look at the Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape class feature. What elemental is he going to wildshape into, huh, when he doesn't get to look at the MM? DM, may I?

3.5e (and PF) had Summon Monster with a page listing about 10 options for every version of the spell, from SM I's Celestial Dog to SM IX's Hezrou. You knew EXACTLY what are you summoning. In 5e, nowhere in the spell's description does it mentions you can choose certain creature, you pick how many creatures you want, the less you get, the stronger they are. That's it. That's RAW. You can't blame the DM for following the rules. Anything more is a houserule. DM doesn't have to accomodate your whims, and he's not a bad DM when he doesn't.

See, the thing is, even if you pick one creature, you can still get a single weak CR 0 creature, per Crawford's RAI. Like I said, you don't even get to pick the CR. Any control the player has over this spell is pure illusory, aside from the number of creatures. That's what really got my goat. Before that I was willing to tolerate the "can't get the exact creature you want" RAI ruling from Sage.

You may whine, you may call him names, but if you do, it only shows what sort of player you are.

Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

Notice that I attacked a method of DMing, and not a person in particular?

--

I'm fine with nuking Pixies entirely, really.

Edit: DMG -> MM

Shaofoo

2015-10-11, 04:00 PM

The PHB doesn't say the DM gets to choose. "The DM has the creatures' statistics" clause is also present in the True Polymorph spell.

Unless, well, you want to argue that "the player doesn't get to choose for True Polymorph either!" It just says "any kind", right? Doesn't say you get to choose which kind. Any kind would satisfy the spell parameters. Oh joy.

By logic the DM has the statistics and the DM chooses what are the statictics so the DM gets to choose the monster because he chooses the statistics.

Strict RAW, DM has the statistics means the DM holds the statistics, and performs bookkeeping on HP. RAI, you can say that the DM gets to makes up the statistics, or well, as some other people noted, it means "refer to the DMG".

You mean the MM because the DMG has no mention of statistics unless you are saying that the DM should always follow the Make a monster guidelines in the DMG?

That argument falls apart once you see the Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape class feature. What elemental is he going to wildshape into, huh, when he doesn't get to look at the DMG?

The DM gives the moon druid pages of elemental stats that he has given permission to transform into. Maybe it could just entail photocopying the MM pages or he can make some on the spot. Remember that the PHB was the only book around and the DMG didn't come around till a couple more months down the line.

See, the thing is, even if you pick one creature, you can still get a single weak CR 0 creature, per Crawford's RAI. Like I said, you don't even get to pick the CR. Any control the player has over this spell is pure illusory, aside from the number of creatures. That's what really get my goat. Before that I was willing to tolerate the "can't get the exact creature you want" RAI ruling from Sage.

The intent of the spell is there that you either get a powerful creature or several weaker ones, anyone reading the spell can infer to that. If the DM wants to give you a single weak creature then that is the DM going against the intention of the spell and having it out on you. Like I said, bad Dming cannot be fixed with rule changes. Even if you were to force a CR 2 creature the DM can always give you a CR 2 creature that is useless, you can't prove that a creature is of a certain CR because the CR is DM knowledge only.

JackPhoenix

2015-10-11, 04:37 PM

The PHB doesn't say the DM gets to choose. "The DM has the creatures' statistics" clause is also present in the True Polymorph spell.

Unless, well, you want to argue that "the player doesn't get to choose for True Polymorph either!" It just says "any kind", right? Doesn't say you get to choose which kind. Any kind would satisfy the spell parameters. Oh joy.

Strict RAW, DM has the statistics means the DM holds the statistics, and performs bookkeeping on HP. RAI, you can say that the DM gets to makes up the statistics, or well, as some other people noted, it means "refer to the DMG".

See, there's a difference, TP says you can change the target to "(a creature of) any kind you choose whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's". While the players still shouldn't know the creature's statistics beforehands, they get to choose what kind of creature they want to turn the target into, with an (IC) unknown limiting factor.

If they try to turn level 20 character into the Tarrasque, the spell would fail, if they tried (certainly by a random chance and not because they've read MM or an online CR list) an Ancient Brass Dragon, it would work. If they have no idea at all about some creature's CR (impropable, but possible), it may take them few (in character) days and wasted spell slots until they determine what is and what isn't possible.

I know my players and I wouldn't throw a fit or try to somehow punish them just because they were metagaming a little. However, I would still expect them to keep IC and OOC separate (and I know they can do that), which may mean some in character experimentation with their new abilities instead of just testing them in a life-or-death situation.

That argument falls apart once you take a look at the Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape class feature. What elemental is he going to wildshape into, huh, when he doesn't get to look at the DMG?

Air elemental, earth elemental, fire elemental or water elemental, as the ability descrpition says. When he does, I'll hand him the relevant statistics.

See, the thing is, even if you pick one creature, you can still get a single weak CR 0 creature, per Crawford's RAI. Like I said, you don't even get to pick the CR. Any control the player has over this spell is pure illusory, aside from the number of creatures. That's what really got my goat. Before that I was willing to tolerate the "can't get the exact creature you want" RAI ruling from Sage.

Yes. That's unfortunate wording that can be taken that way. I see it as a way to summon less weaker creatures, if for some reason you want to summon (for example)only one CR 1/4 fey (and you'll get either pixie or sprite) to serve as a scout instead of a whole bunch of them who would giggle, make noise and generally be an annoyance. But I can see why would you worry about that and I agree it opens a way for a bad DM to screw his players over.

Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

Notice that I attacked a method of DMing, and not a person in particular?

That wasn't aimed at you, but at Mara who said that the DM who doesn't allow to choose exact creatures is an antagonistic moron. My apologies for misunderstanding.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-11, 04:51 PM

I believe many of those changes have been included in newer printings. Just because it is not written in your book, does not mean it is not written.

If I recall correctly it was stated that all those clarifications (these are never changes, the original text is already saying the same thing) are made for any future printings of the books.

Secondly, there is no earthly reason a player would choose one creature of cr 2 and summon anything less than that number (because the next lowest option would provide at least double the same creature) so by your own reasoning there is no plausible reason to include that text if the player really were allowed to choose the exact creatures summoned. Only because it is the DM that determines what shows up within the bounds of the selection does that phrasing make sense.

Mara

2015-10-11, 08:33 PM

Secondly, there is no earthly reason a player would choose one creature of cr 2 and summon anything less than that number (because the next lowest option would provide at least double the same creature) so by your own reasoning there is no plausible reason to include that text if the player really were allowed to choose the exact creatures summoned. Only because it is the DM that determines what shows up within the bounds of the selection does that phrasing make sense.

1. If you have space limitations but still want a specific low cr monster.

2. A city law states that you can have one summon at a time but you want to study a creature of a lower cr.

3. You want to have mastery over your own magic. Thus if you want to summon only one creature you should be able too.

Sage advice will have the same legitimacy as homebrew at my tables. If I have a problem and like their solution then I'll use it. Other pieces of advice add needless complication or promote antagonistic styles of DMing and lower player fun.

Mr.Moron

2015-10-11, 08:36 PM

Whitelist spells, don't blacklist them.Anything else is handled on a per-case basis. As specific dealing with polymorph, the best solution would be single-forms polymorphs as individual spells

Polymorph: Boar
or
Polymorph: Toad

with each consuming a spells known/spell book slot, and each creature choice being vetted before they can be taken.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-11, 11:15 PM

1. If you have space limitations but still want a specific low cr monster.

2. A city law states that you can have one summon at a time but you want to study a creature of a lower cr.

3. You want to have mastery over your own magic. Thus if you want to summon only one creature you should be able too.

Sage advice will have the same legitimacy as homebrew at my tables. If I have a problem and like their solution then I'll use it. Other pieces of advice add needless complication or promote antagonistic styles of DMing and lower player fun.

Nobody is saying you can't play any kind of homebrew you want at your table, but that is totally irrelevant as Sage advice is the one official source:

"Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game's rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice."

It is as official as it gets, the spell allows a caster to choose from broad options unlike, for example, find familiar.

Mara

2015-10-11, 11:38 PM

johnswiftwood

2015-10-12, 12:27 AM

One time my party turned a triceritops into a turtle and then fed it until it liked us.

Forum Explorer

2015-10-12, 12:44 AM

Sage advice is homebrew. It's just Dev homebrew.

You are free to employ such homebrew in your games. 5e is built on that kind of augmentation being easy.

I would ask that you not assume everyone uses that homebrew by default.

Also most or at least plenty of people don't follow or are not aware of Sage Advice. If you are a player don't assume that your DM knows about those rulings. Or vice versa if you are a DM.

For Polymorph, I don't really see a problem with the spell as written. It's good, yes, but barring a birdman in the group, you aren't really going to be able to fly the monster up and drop it 200 feet to the ground. So usually it's just a delay. If there is a nearby cliff to punt them off, then good timing I guess. Most of the fights don't involve one of those though. Most fights likely won't be against one opponent either. Even BBEGs tend to have some back up minions. If you pull it off on a rare single opponent? Then congrats! I don't have a problem with the occasional lucky spell winning an encounter.

As for transforming an ally, well sometimes that's useful. Sometimes it's useless, sometimes it's an excuse to bash the mage. Honestly, bashing the mage is never a bad decision (from an enemies perspective). You are still dealing damage to the enemy, and making it hard to concentrate on spells. And then tend to be squisher so they die faster.

The spell makes it pretty clear on how it works with spells like power word kill because it does say when you drop to 0 hp or die (or the duration runs out) you revert to your previous hit points.

Doof

2015-10-12, 01:00 AM

One time my party turned a triceritops into a turtle and then fed it until it liked us.

ARK: Survival Evolved D&D style.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-12, 01:20 AM

Sage advice is homebrew. It's just Dev homebrew.

You are free to employ such homebrew in your games. 5e is built on that kind of augmentation being easy.

I would ask that you not assume everyone uses that homebrew by default.

Correction, it is official. What you or I append to the official game is the beginning and end of how homebrew is defined. What WotC publishes as official is the game.

Perhaps you're thinking of Unearthed Arcana or playtest material, either of which would be equivalent to homebrew.

Mara

2015-10-12, 03:04 AM

Correction, it is official. What you or I append to the official game is the beginning and end of how homebrew is defined. What WotC publishes as official is the game.

Perhaps you're thinking of Unearthed Arcana or playtest material, either of which would be equivalent to homebrew.Regardless of how you wish sage advice to be classified, it is improper to assume that it is used or respected at the majority of tables.

I can not even access sage advice in the country I am currently in without a VPN. I do have access to PH, DMG, and MM.

We shouldn't assume that most players use online supplements from a company that will not even sell the main product as a PDF let alone let their full rules be available online.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 03:09 AM

Regardless of how you wish sage advice to be classified, it is improper to assume that it is used or respected at the majority of tables.
WotC recommends using their tweets as has been mentioned above. They also say you are free to ignore them.

That baseline is the standard by which features should be discussed, not your or my opinion on which parts should be ignored or houseruled.

Shojiteru

2015-10-12, 09:21 AM

WotC recommends using their tweets as has been mentioned above. They also say you are free to ignore them.

That baseline is the standard by which features should be discussed, not your or my opinion on which parts should be ignored or houseruled.

Why would twitter be an official source? Are they becoming so broke they can no longer afford to publish books? Are they that bad at marketing they can not get the word out when they change a rule?

If they change a rule it should not be said over twitter. It should be put into the next book. Until then the previous rule is still superior. No tweet will ever trump the wrtings in the book.

What if you dont have the internet? You buy the three books and read them and llay with your friends. All of a sudden you are doing it wrong and not raw officially because you dont know about some random website giving random rules.

I dont think you understand the process rules have to go through to become official. They cant just tweet them. They need to be presented to everyone on the team to make a team decision then make sure it would be viable in the game through tests or whatever and put it through the works to get it published.

Write a book and tell ne how long it takes to selll. Sure you can just put it on the internet but to actually get something published is no easy feat. Same for rules. Twitter and SA is just a place for them to put up their own homebrew rules. I can tell you i never looked at those rules so am i playing dnd wrong and not by the book? I play by the book not by th internet. Their rules hold just as yours do at my table. Now at others tables might accept yours and theirs but in no way does it need to happen.

The books arent needed but unless you want to play something different you should use the rules except in different worlds.

If crawler was at my table and i was dm i would overrule his words because i can and i say what goes. Just an example since i dont like to dm.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 09:25 AM

@Shojiteru: A pure RAW approach is a common approach, but that is not the approach WotC is taking.

You're free to ignore their approach, but that's not the baseline.

Shojiteru

2015-10-12, 09:34 AM

Shojiteru

2015-10-12, 09:38 AM

@Shojiteru: A pure RAW approach is a common approach, but that is not the approach WotC is taking.

You're free to ignore their approach, but that's not the baseline.

I know they want other things. Im just saying if someone wants to play by the book, they should follow whats in the book. If someone wants to be creative and use homebrew to have fun too then they should look at other places for reference not just SA or twitter unless its a specifc question on what they are making. I see that as the same value as asking someone on the forums.

Im not saying dont take the advice just dont value it over everyone elses. You are making the item so get ideas from as many places as possible before deciding. SA isnt final so get as many opinions as possible.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 09:49 AM

Im not saying dont take the advice just dont value it over everyone elses.
Again, this is not the system WotC is using. You're free to consider their words homebrew, but they don't unless specified otherwise..

Fwiffo86

2015-10-12, 10:01 AM

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-12, 11:11 AM

Why would twitter be an official source? Are they becoming so broke they can no longer afford to publish books? Are they that bad at marketing they can not get the word out when they change a rule?

If they change a rule it should not be said over twitter. It should be put into the next book. Until then the previous rule is still superior. No tweet will ever trump the wrtings in the book.

What if you dont have the internet? You buy the three books and read them and llay with your friends. All of a sudden you are doing it wrong and not raw officially because you dont know about some random website giving random rules.

I dont think you understand the process rules have to go through to become official. They cant just tweet them. They need to be presented to everyone on the team to make a team decision then make sure it would be viable in the game through tests or whatever and put it through the works to get it published.

Write a book and tell ne how long it takes to selll. Sure you can just put it on the internet but to actually get something published is no easy feat. Same for rules. Twitter and SA is just a place for them to put up their own homebrew rules. I can tell you i never looked at those rules so am i playing dnd wrong and not by the book? I play by the book not by th internet. Their rules hold just as yours do at my table. Now at others tables might accept yours and theirs but in no way does it need to happen.

The books arent needed but unless you want to play something different you should use the rules except in different worlds.

If crawler was at my table and i was dm i would overrule his words because i can and i say what goes. Just an example since i dont like to dm.

Actual changes, errata go into the next publication already, just because you didn't buy the book doesn't mean you aren't playing using out of date rules.

Sage advice is just explanations of how the rules work, they changed nothing.

Unearthed arcana is the nearest thing to homebrew because they are incomplete additions to the rules being thrown out there as ideas.

Crawford and Sage advice on the other hand are applied to adventure league.

Going against Crawford, just because, is simply cutting your own nose off to spite your face. It's petty. It's also irrelevant.

JackPhoenix

2015-10-12, 12:18 PM

For those who say players shouldnt read the mm or dmg, players should read everything and know the game they are playing. I read all 3 and have all 3 but im not a dm. Does that mean i should not be allowed to be a player because i know the levels of creatures? My character should know if a troll is stronger than a giant because he has lived in this world since he was born and read books and studied monsters and went adventuring to meet these things. He knows about them. It is my job to portray that. If he doesnt then it is my job to have him not. Metagaming can be done by player AND dm. DMs can metagame but they read the books.

You don't have to read the MM and metagame for your character to know if troll is stronger then giant...if the character met (and likely fought) both of them, he may now, if he's read the books, he can roll Intelligence (nature) skill check to see if that particular piece of information was in the books he's read, he may be BM fighter and use Know Your Enemy...but he knows the giant is stronger, NOT what a particular number in MM is.

If my wizard learned a spell to summon then he knows what he can summon. He spent 50gp or spent time practicing the spell to see what is possible. My character knows how to summon ice and fire and knows the different ways to summon them at different levels. He should pick what he summons because he researched his spells so i should research his spells to know what he knows to rp properly.

Sure, he knows he can either summon 1 pretty strong creature, 8 very weak creatures, or something in between. He may even test what creatures he can get with each option, so he'll know that with the strongest option, he'll get either one Azer or one Gargoyle, but he's got no control over which. He may learn that Azer is pretty tough and immune to fire and that Gargoyle can fly, but he can't know their MM statistics, because MM statistics aren't something that exists in the game world.

Unless my wizard is stupid and does spells without knowing what they do would bring random creatures.... Im not a wild mage afterall... If my wizard was like that they may try to cast cure wounds and do meteor swarm instead. It is my job to portray stupidity in that case not the dms to do it.

Of course your wizard knows that the spell does, it conjures a creature based on some parameters you can control (number of creatures and their strength), but without any say in what creature(s) fulfilling those parameters will show up. He doesn't know statistics of those creatures, because those are a metagame construct that doesn't exists in his world. In fact, even the spell description says the DM has the creature's statistics, not the player, nor does it lists where the player could find them.

If i say i cast conjure elemental then the dm should say that this is a desert and i would most likely get one made of sand. I know this and my character knows this. It shouldnt be mentioned unless i ask but still. I can therefore attempt to summon a water elemental because my wizard is stupid or my wizard pees in the sand to summon one from that... He pees a lot.

Conjure Elemental is a bad example, the spell says you'll have to choose an area of air, earth, fire or water, and you'll get appropriate elemental. In a desert, you could target sand to get an earth elemental or an air to get an air elemental. Your wizard would know that, because that's what the spell does.

It is the players job to portray their character and what they can do. The dm cant tell me my character would do something and not the other. I say what my character does. The dm says the effects.

Player: I cast a spell to summon an air elemental.
Dm: due to the lack of air in space, your spell fails.
OR
Dm: side note; are you sure you want your wizard to do that?

Sure, unless your wizard is stupid, he would know he can't summon an air elemental underwater (or in space) where there's no air. If the character still tries, the spell would fail. But I don't see what does that have to do with creature's stats.

Shaofoo

2015-10-12, 12:29 PM

For those who say players shouldnt read the mm or dmg, players should read everything and know the game they are playing. I read all 3 and have all 3 but im not a dm. Does that mean i should not be allowed to be a player because i know the levels of creatures? My character should know if a troll is stronger than a giant because he has lived in this world since he was born and read books and studied monsters and went adventuring to meet these things. He knows about them. It is my job to portray that. If he doesnt then it is my job to have him not. Metagaming can be done by player AND dm. DMs can metagame but they read the books.

Players should not read the DMG and the MM because the DMG and MM are not rules that you follow but suggestions for the DM to follow. You are free to read all the books in your own free time but you are never allowed to bring what you know from the DMG and the MM into a game because that knowledge does not apply to the DM's game because he can easily change things as he sees fit.

You can try to learn that trolls are stronger than a giant but you can never know that a Troll's HP, attacks, AC, and any other stats are higher than the Giants unless the DM actually tells you so or maybe in the game Giants are stronger than trolls because that is how the DM rolls, you can't assume that the MM is some sort of guide that you can follow to decipher the DM's world. If your character is supposed to be studying monsters then there might be some statistics but that doesn't give you carte blanche to throw the MM in the DM's face. Will you murder an orc on the spot because the MM says they are chaotic evil even though the DM wants to potray that not all orcs are evil and some are decent beings? I mean because the MM says they are chaotic evil then that gives you just cause to end the life of someone so reprehensible even though the DM doesn't play the orc like that at all.

Also the DM doesn't metagame, he is the game, it is his world and anything that happens in his world is because of him. He can change things at his discretion and the player has no right to say what he can and he cannot do in his world. Sure the players might affect the world but that was only after the DM made up the world.

If my wizard learned a spell to summon then he knows what he can summon. He spent 50gp or spent time practicing the spell to see what is possible. My character knows how to summon ice and fire and knows the different ways to summon them at different levels. He should pick what he summons because he researched his spells so i should research his spells to know what he knows to rp properly.

You contradicted there yourself.

Sure you can know what you can summon, I am totally fine with you having a potential list of summons and things that you might be able to pull off but that doesn't make you have right to dictate what comes out of a summon. A DM might let you summon what you want but he still gets to make the stats of the enemy so in the end your big revolution is moot.

Unless my wizard is stupid and does spells without knowing what they do would bring random creatures.... Im not a wild mage afterall... If my wizard was like that they may try to cast cure wounds and do meteor swarm instead. It is my job to portray stupidity in that case not the dms to do it.

First of all you can't do cure wounds as a wizard

Second only Sorcerers can be wild mages

Third there is no way you can ever cast meteor storm in a wild mage table

Fourth if you RPed that at "random" you meant to cast Cure Wounds but you ended up casting Meteor Swarm then I would elect that you get thrown from the game because I have very little tolerance for lolrandom and Chaotic Stupid. There is being unpredictable and there is being disruptive and you are firmly in the latter camp if you pulled that off.

Even if you were to summon random creatures the creatures are still friendly to you and your team, if you wanted to play as them being random and doing random acts of chaos then that is you being disruptive and I want no part of that.

If i say i cast conjure elemental then the dm should say that this is a desert and i would most likely get one made of sand. I know this and my character knows this. It shouldnt be mentioned unless i ask but still. I can therefore attempt to summon a water elemental because my wizard is stupid or my wizard pees in the sand to summon one from that... He pees a lot.

You need a 10 foot cube of air, earth, fire or water to get the elemental that you want, so you can't just urinate yourself and get a water elemental.

And if you mean minor elemental, well that is the DM's choice fully, he might just take your urine mephit and then suddenly have rumor goes that you are Shojiteru the Leakmancer and wielder of bodily fluids, enemies beware lest he conjure an elemental inside your bladder. Would you be okay with that?

It is the players job to portray their character and what they can do. The dm cant tell me my character would do something and not the other. I say what my character does. The dm says the effects.

Player: I cast a spell to summon an air elemental.
Dm: due to the lack of air in space, your spell fails.
OR
Dm: side note; are you sure you want your wizard to do that?

I really wish people would just stop portraying DMs as adversarial and wanting the players to fail. It gets annoying that the only way one could portray a DM is one that you'd have to restrain yourself from breaking your hands on his face.

bardo

2015-10-12, 02:57 PM

Sages and Pixies aside for a moment, let's talk actual Polymorph problems.

I don't see offensive Polymorph as a problem. There is a save. The range is reasonable. Requires concentration. It might "ruin" some encounters like fighting the lone giant on the top of the mountain, but that's what spells do. Same way Fireball "ruins" fighting a swarm of goblins in a cave. Part of the DM's job is to create encounters that will be challenging to the players, Polymorph is just another consideration on a very long list.

Friendly Polymorph as a panic button is great. A PC is about to drop to zero HP, so another PC spends an action (and concentration) to Polymorph the endangered PC into a T-Rex. Everybody should be happy about that. It's a lot more fun than a dead PC.

Friendly Polymorph as a utility (e.g. turn someone into a bird to fly through a narrow vent) depends heavily on interpretation. RAW says you get the mental stats of the new creature and retain your alignment and personality, but that seems conflicting to me. Your personality is at least to some degree expressed in your CHA score, and without some minimum INT score there can be no notion of alignment. Would the PC be able to fly through the vent, perch, and await transformation back to humanoid form? Where does the bird get its sense of purpose? How does the bird know which vent?

So there is a problem with Polymorph in the sense that RAW limitations on what a polymorphed creature can do aren't clear (well, not to me anyway). The table should talk about it before Polymorph comes into play, and make sure to keep it consistent for PCs and NPCs alike. Maybe the NPCs want to pull some Polymorph shenanigans too?

Friendly Polymorph as a combat strategy is the only one that worries me. If a player would rather play a T-Rex than play their own character then we have a problem. A monster affected by Polymorph turns into a beast of the same CR or less, keeping its power in check. But not so for a PC/NPC. A PC/NPC can turn into a beast of the same CR as their level which is actually an increase in power. IMO this increase in power should not exist. I'd house-rule Polymorph to say maximum CR = Level - 2 to keep the power in check (CR 1/4 at level 1, CR 1/2 at level 2). Same applies to True Polymorph.

So, very long post to basically say, nerf Polymorph and True Polymorph to Max. CR = Level - 2.

Bardo.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 03:28 PM

So, very long post to basically say, nerf Polymorph and True Polymorph to Max. CR = Level - 2.
I don't think that's sufficient. Compare an Adult Blue Dracolich to a Moon druid who can only do 1/3 level.

Concentration is a huge factor, but can easily be built for with resilient and War Caster (or Sorcerer + War Caster).

I think CR = spell level is a better limit based on Moon Druid. Allowing a higher CR would require buffing moon druid.

bardo

2015-10-12, 04:07 PM

I don't think that's sufficient. Compare an Adult Blue Dracolich to a Moon druid who can only do 1/3 level.

Concentration is a huge factor, but can easily be built for with resilient and War Caster (or Sorcerer + War Caster).

I think CR = spell level is a better limit based on Moon Druid. Allowing a higher CR would require buffing moon druid.

Interesting. I suggested Level - 2 because it's the smallest nerf that would solve my beef with Polymorph and True Polymorph (the potential to increase the target's power). I didn't think of it in terms of upstaging the Moon Druid's class feature. There are other spells that are meant to replace class features like Find Traps, but Polymorph vs. Moon Druid is more extreme. I'm going to have to think it over for a while.

Bardo.

Shaofoo

2015-10-12, 05:24 PM

Personally I think the best way to fix this is remembering that the Challenge Rating is a stat that the DM could easily change around without player consideration. The Challenge Rating is only useful for planning encounters, you could fiddle with the challenge rating and nothing happens. Turn the Tarrasque's challenge Rating to 1 or the Skeleton to 20 and nothing will have changed except for that number.

If having a T-Rex is too problematic at level 8 then you can always just raise the CR till it is somewhere where you want it to be and not affect the other Rex's stats. You can also have the encounter Rex and the polymorph Rex where they are both the same except for the change in CR.

Before I get any accusations (too late) of me wanting to screw over the players I suggest that if a player were to take Polymorph to sit down and explain what does he expect out of the spell and in what way would he use it, preferably after the session. I feel that communication is imperative in this situation and would probably diffuse any situation. If the player just wants to summon the big beastie always without consideration then just prepare a list of beasts that he could summon currently, CR is not within his purview so you can easily modify that as you wish.

HarrisonF

2015-10-12, 05:53 PM

Mara

2015-10-12, 06:27 PM

I'm always hesitant to change the rules in the book. CR-2 seems to address most concerns other people have.

Something has to go serious wrong in my games before I start nerfing player options. Things like infinite chained simulacrums for infinite wishes catch my attention not true polymorphing the fighter into an ancient brass dragon.

Also, I feel that everyone should read the PH, DMG, and MM. I DM but I also like to play. That won't happen if my players never fully learn the game. Also there is a lot of player information in both the MM and DMG.

Kryx

2015-10-12, 06:31 PM

Mara

2015-10-12, 06:41 PM

FYI

Druids can cast both shapechange and polymorph.

Shaofoo

2015-10-12, 06:49 PM

So if CR=level-2 is sufficient then what do you tell the moon druid who has trained his whole life to get CR 6 creatures while he looks at the Wizard who is turning his whole party to Dragons?

"Should have rolled a Wizard, man"?

First of all I didn't know Polymorph came in multitarget form that let you literally turn everyone into dragons at once.

Second if you mean permatransforming with True Polymorph that is a problem with True Polymorph being permanent, not that the choices makes them broken.

And maybe you'd have transformation envy but I am sure the Druid would be very happy with his virtual infinite HP and unlimited transformations.

Honestly at this point it would be best if the DM chose the form ala Conjure spells. You can choose a wording of what you want and the DM will give you the stats necesary. So you want to be a dragon, well the DM should then transform you into a dragon form, could be an ancient or could be just a young dragon, it is up to the DM now. Personally I think letting the DM handle any and all matters relating to CR is the best way to handle it.

Sure and then people would go why should we give the DM power and I would go yet again that if the first thought of letting the DM decide for me is that he is going to choose the worst possible outcome then I question why would I be in a game of someone who only wants the worst for me. The DM might not give me the most ideal form but at least it would be somewhat relevant to my wishes. if I were to choose a form that can breathe underwater because I was drowning I would hope that he would at least turn me into a fish and not an elephant so I sink faster into the water.

Or just give the players fixed forms they can transform others into.

SharkForce

2015-10-12, 07:47 PM

So if CR=level-2 is sufficient then what do you tell the moon druid who has trained his whole life to get CR 6 creatures while he looks at the Wizard who is turning his whole party to Dragons?

"Should have rolled a Wizard, man"?

i tell him he's a moon druid... who still hasn't used a level 9 spell slot yet. use the damn level 9 spell slot, and *then* come back to me and complain if there's a problem.

personally, i find that shapechange is at least as powerful until you consider the potential for TP to become permanent. less likely to break the world, but it is actually *more* powerful in a fight than true polymorph because you keep your class and race benefits, and your attributes (minus purely physical ones), all your proficiencies, and any gear that is still usable in your new form. and you can keep swapping forms as you require.

Pex

2015-10-13, 12:22 AM

Also the DM doesn't metagame, he is the game, it is his world and anything that happens in his world is because of him. He can change things at his discretion and the player has no right to say what he can and he cannot do in his world. Sure the players might affect the world but that was only after the DM made up the world.

I really wish people would just stop portraying DMs as adversarial and wanting the players to fail. It gets annoying that the only way one could portray a DM is one that you'd have to restrain yourself from breaking your hands on his face.

Then don't speak like one.

Mara

2015-10-13, 12:30 AM

An adversarial DM runs the rules in an adversarial way.

For some odd reason that means following sage advice and Twitter.

I question the quality of the devs on the rules maintenance team.

Mrglee

2015-10-13, 01:02 AM

An adversarial DM runs the rules in an adversarial way.

For some odd reason that means following sage advice and Twitter.

I question the quality of the devs on the rules maintenance team.

...The guy behind Save Advice is the main guy behind the PHB. Like, I agree in the case of the Conjure spells the player should decide what to summon, but it isn't that farfatched to listen to the advice.
Also, he agree that the rules should be up to the table and he is offering advice/design clarifications. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/647471266606125056)
It isn't like he is the old Customer Service people.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 02:51 AM

i tell him he's a moon druid... who still hasn't used a level 9 spell slot yet. use the damn level 9 spell slot, and *then* come back to me and complain if there's a problem.
So basically:
DM: "You know those class features you got related to Wild Shaping? You should just cast a spell and ignore those entirely."
Player: "So.. I should've just gone Land Druid or Wizard then and had other class features that were useful"

Though maybe I'm looking at this in the wrong way. Maybe Moon Druid is just too weak (beyond 4 and before 20) and needs to be allowed to burn Spell Slots to improve the CR of his Wild Shaping. For example a level 6 druid could burn a 3rd level spell slot to add 3 to his CR (CR 5). A 7th level druid could burn a 4th (CR 6). A 9th can burn a 5th (CR 8). A 15th can burn a 8th level slot for 5+8 = CR 13. A 18th level can burn a 9th level slot for 6+9 = CR 15.
This would of course require porting more beasts from other editions, but that's not a concern.

I'd have to do some math on the DPR and tankiness of those higher CRs though.

it is actually *more* powerful in a fight than true polymorph because you keep your class and race benefits, and your attributes (minus purely physical ones), all your proficiencies, and any gear that is still usable in your new form.
Can you explain how this would trump a significantly higher CR? An example would be great. I'm not seeing how a CR 6 could compete with a CR 18 Dragon no matter what other features the CR 6 gets.

and you can keep swapping forms as you require.
There is something to be said about versatility, but I'd rather have 1 good form than 10 bad ones. Or if it's only for utility then just stick with Land Druid.

JoeJ

2015-10-13, 03:09 AM

So basically:
DM: "You know those class features you got related to Wild Shaping? You should just cast a spell and ignore those entirely."

Assuming you don't want to forever be a different species, True Polymorph gives you 1 hour per long rest. Your class ability gives you a number of hours equal to your level per short rest. And your attacks in wild form count as magical. And you have at-will Alter Self. And if you wait one more level, you'll be able to cast spells in wild form. But the really big difference is that you get wild shape 16 levels earlier than the wizard gets TP.

edit: Also, you don't have to concentrate on your wild shape.

Xetheral

2015-10-13, 03:46 AM

Crawford and Sage advice on the other hand are applied to adventure league.

This isn't true. The only binding documents for AL GMs are the books, official errata, and the AL documentation. AL DMs are free to use or ignore Crawford's rulings at their own discretion, although based on conversation on the (soon to be shut down) AL forum on the WotC website, I am under the impression that most AL DMs choose to follow Crawford's rulings unless they have a good reason not to.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 03:50 AM

Assuming you don't want to forever be a different species, True Polymorph gives you 1 hour per long rest.
1 hour is plenty for combat.

you have at-will Alter Self.
Underwater breathing and 1d6+1 claws? Nothing to be concerned about at level 14.

But the really big difference is that you get wild shape 16 levels earlier than the wizard gets TP.
Polymorph at 7th level = CR 7 creature.
Wild Shape at 7th level = CR 2 creature.

Also, you don't have to concentrate on your wild shape.
This is the biggest factor, but a Sorcer can focus on Polymorph and get war caster to be unlikely to fail concentration. A Wizard requires another feat (resilient).
Even then that doesn't remove the issue. A druid in that case is better off polymorphing himself and then falling back on Wild Shape if/when that fails.

Mara

2015-10-13, 05:53 AM

Please explain yourself better, because it seems like you literally don't know what you are talking about.
I believe the word that best describes this post is "ironic".

Logosloki

2015-10-13, 06:33 AM

Actual changes, errata go into the next publication already, just because you didn't buy the book doesn't mean you aren't playing using out of date rules.

Sage advice is just explanations of how the rules work, they changed nothing.

Unearthed arcana is the nearest thing to homebrew because they are incomplete additions to the rules being thrown out there as ideas.

Crawford and Sage advice on the other hand are applied to adventure league.

Going against Crawford, just because, is simply cutting your own nose off to spite your face. It's petty. It's also irrelevant.

Whilst wizard does pimp it out, the adventure league is actually it's own thing. The official ruling on Sage Advice for adventure league is here:

http://dndadventurersleague.org/faq-update-722015/#more-3230

The statement is as follows: "No. While DMs are under no obligation to use any of the rulings from Sage Advice, they may do so if desired providing the ruling does not contradict another ruling from any official rules source – such as the Player’s Guide or official Adventurer’s League FAQ."

Under AL rules the PHB is official (with the exception that you use the AL array for stats, the AL method for hp and you may not play the Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil Alignments), the basic rules are (but not the Basic DMG), all beasts under appendix A of the monster manual, and whatever they state from the latest book (such as appendix A of Out of the Abyss currently). There is a table in the AL FAQ which states which beasts and such may be used for various wildshapes, animal companions and cojured animals (Sprites are AL legal even).

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-13, 07:58 AM

I would have thought that a Developer's word does magically change the book. They are the alpha-RAW. Actually, errata might fill that role if RAW is what is under consideration.

Mara

2015-10-13, 08:01 AM

Actually, errata might fill that role if RAW is what is under consideration.
It would be odd if "by the book" required reading rules and suggestions that neither are in the book nor will be in future printings of the book.

Fwiffo86

2015-10-13, 08:36 AM

An adversarial DM runs the rules in an adversarial way.

For some odd reason that means following sage advice and Twitter.

I question the quality of the devs on the rules maintenance team.

Being adverse the rulings of the devs is not the devs responsibility. That onus is on the one reading the rules and making considerations for their game.

JoeJ

2015-10-13, 10:55 AM

1 hour is plenty for combat.

For one combat. It's awful hard to fit 6-8 encounters and two short rests into one hour, though.

Underwater breathing and 1d6+1 claws? Nothing to be concerned about at level 14.

Free water breathing and swim speed, and infinite disguises? I'll happily take that.

Polymorph at 7th level = CR 7 creature.
Wild Shape at 7th level = CR 2 creature.

So we're talking about the 4th level spell and not the 9th? That's easy then. As a druid you get to cast Polymorph as many times as a wizard can, in addition to your wild shape.

This is the biggest factor, but a Sorcer can focus on Polymorph and get war caster to be unlikely to fail concentration. A Wizard requires another feat (resilient).
Even then that doesn't remove the issue. A druid in that case is better off polymorphing himself and then falling back on Wild Shape if/when that fails.

So you're complaint is that the most powerful ability of a full spellcaster is their spells?

bardo

2015-10-13, 11:07 AM

So if CR=level-2 is sufficient then what do you tell the moon druid who has trained his whole life to get CR 6 creatures while he looks at the Wizard who is turning his whole party to Dragons?

"Should have rolled a Wizard, man"?

In a previous post I asked what tactics would be available to a PC under the effect of a Polymorph spell. After repeatedly reading through the Druid's Wild Shape ability and the 9th level Shapechange spell, I think I understand now what Polymorph RAW means by "retains alignment and personality", and that might also be the solution to your concern.

Polymorph makes you a beast. Not yourself trapped in a beast's body, an actual beast. A beast of the same general disposition you had in humanoid form, friendly to your team mates (at least initially), but other than that just a plain regular beast.

Suppose the party wants to Polymorph the Rogue into a bird to fly through a tiny high vent. The Ranger is going to have to make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to get tweety-rogue to fly through, just as if tweety-rogue were the Ranger's companion, because tweety-rogue has the brain of a bird. It has some vague recollection of its existence as a Rogue in much the same way that I have some recollection of lectures on particle physics. But it can not process such memories in any meaningful way on its bird brain power.

Polymorph someone into a T-Rex, the T-Rex is going to do little more than attack the nearest enemy, as any T-Rex would. Polymorph someone into a wolf and the wolf might flank to gain an advantage, as most wolves would. Conjure 8 pixies and ask them to cast Polymorph and Fly turning the entire party into Flying Giant Apes, will they fly into the highest tower of the castle and fight the evil warlord? No, of course not. They would do exactly what you'd expect a group of giant flying apes to do, they would go ape $!#*.

Strict application of RAW Polymorph, the target becomes an actual beast, solves all my problems with Polymorph. Which is the same as saying I have zero problems with Polymorph, my official position on the matter starting now. There's no need to reduce the max. CR. It doesn't upstage the Druid's Wild Shape ability (the Druid does get to be a Druid in a beast's body, and therefore is qualitatively different from Polymorph, even if lower CR, it's very useful). And icing on the cake, go ahead, conjure those Pixies, I am not afraid.

Bardo.

pwykersotz

2015-10-13, 11:21 AM

It would be odd if "by the book" required reading rules and suggestions that neither are in the book nor will be in future printings of the book.

The definition you hate IS by the book. You're just biased against it. It happens all the time, we all fill in things we expect to see when presented with a lack of guidelines on something, but this has been gone over extensively in other threads. The spell doesn't mention choosing the specific creature. Depending on your bias, it insinuates both sides. But it's not a big deal either way.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-13, 11:28 AM

So you're complaint is that the most powerful ability of a full spellcaster is their spells? It's kind of to be expected with our hard working number cruncher. DPR is a nice linear relationship between numbers, damage, while the effect of any other spell can be non linear in character. Messes with that whole orderly spreadsheet model. :smallyuk: @Kryx, I am not having go at you, personally, since I like what you do, but I am having a go at the attitude of trying to digitize this game. That is what computer games are for.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 11:29 AM

So we're talking about the 4th level spell and not the 9th? That's easy then. As a druid you get to cast Polymorph as many times as a wizard can, in addition to your wild shape.

So you're complaint is that the most powerful ability of a full spellcaster is their spells?
My complaint is that a whole archetype is worse than 1 spell that fulfils the same function.

Polymorph makes you a beast. Not yourself trapped in a beast's body, an actual beast. A beast of the same general disposition you had in humanoid form, friendly to your team mates (at least initially), but other than that just a plain regular beast.

It doesn't upstage the Druid's Wild Shape ability (the Druid does get to be a Druid in a beast's body, and therefore is qualitatively different from Polymorph, even if lower CR, it's very useful)
There is no actual difference in play. Wild Shaping is great for utility. It is horrible in comparison to Polymorph for combat.
You speak of intelligence: compare a dragon to ANY beast up to CR 6 and you will see that your argument is moot. Even if those creatures weren't super intelligence I don't see how having slightly "more control" is worth CR 6 vs CR 20.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-13, 11:31 AM

My complaint is that a whole archetype is worse than 1 spell that fulfils the same function..
Magic. Embrace it. It isn't physics.

SharkForce

2015-10-13, 11:32 AM

So basically:
DM: "You know those class features you got related to Wild Shaping? You should just cast a spell and ignore those entirely."
Player: "So.. I should've just gone Land Druid or Wizard then and had other class features that were useful"

Though maybe I'm looking at this in the wrong way. Maybe Moon Druid is just too weak (beyond 4 and before 20) and needs to be allowed to burn Spell Slots to improve the CR of his Wild Shaping. For example a level 6 druid could burn a 3rd level spell slot to add 3 to his CR (CR 5). A 7th level druid could burn a 4th (CR 6). A 9th can burn a 5th (CR 8). A 15th can burn a 8th level slot for 5+8 = CR 13. A 18th level can burn a 9th level slot for 6+9 = CR 15.
This would of course require porting more beasts from other editions, but that's not a concern.

I'd have to do some math on the DPR and tankiness of those higher CRs though.

Can you explain how this would trump a significantly higher CR? An example would be great. I'm not seeing how a CR 6 could compete with a CR 18 Dragon no matter what other features the CR 6 gets.

There is something to be said about versatility, but I'd rather have 1 good form than 10 bad ones. Or if it's only for utility then just stick with Land Druid.

- moon druid is a SUB-class. it isn't supposed to govern every single thing you do. it is supposed to add on to what you get from your class. for example, it is supposed to add to your options to cast level 9 spells, not be a full replacement for every class feature you could possibly have. every other subclass is "core class that also does X", why should the moon druid be any different? spells are just as much a class feature of the moon druid as wild shape. if you want a class where shapechanging replaces all class features, then you need to create a new one and stop complaining that the moon druid is in fact a druid. moon druids are fine at all levels because they are still druids. they happen to have the ability to turn into animals of a certain CR, but they are not actually animals of that CR. they are druids. they have spells, and proficiencies, and class features that make them perfectly capable adventurers even without using wild shape at all. you have two useful wild shapes per short rest that don't eat into your other resources. it is a very nice ability. it provides a ton of utility and mediocre combat ability... in other words, it is all the damage cantrips you will ever need, *plus* it lets you do a crudload of other awesome stuff.

- not wild shape + class features. shapechange + class features. shapechange doesn't take them away either. true polymorph does. a druid shapechanged into a rakshasa or whatever keeps all spellcasting abilities (and other class abilities provided physical requirements are met; no hands means no scimitars for you, etc). a wizard true polymorphed into a dragon (or a fighter true polymorphed into a dragon by a wizard) does not. they have the dragon abilities and only the dragon abilities. while impressive, they are not remotely as useful as being a dragon *and* having full spellcasting, an assortment of proficiencies and feats, and potentially keeping the use of various magical items. the druid gets to be a CR 17+ creature *and* keep all of his own abilities. the wizard gets to be only a CR 17+ creature. true polymorph is more powerful in how it can shape a world because of the potential permanent duration, but in the fights where you have them available, shapechange is much stronger.

- shapechange means the moon druid has as many good forms as he needs for an hour, plus wild shape. the ability to cast level 9 spells does not remove wild shape from the druid's abilities in any way. furthermore, the druid's *own* shape is a good shape as well. they're a full spellcaster with an excellent spell list. the only problem is that you're fixating on one aspect of a SUB-class, instead of remembering that they're a druid first, circle of the moon second. you may as well argue that if a hunter ranger chooses volley, they become incapable of ever dealing good single-target DPR, or that an evoker wizard can never cast more than one damaging spell per day without taking absurd amounts of damage in the process once they get overchannel. wild shape is an OPTION. you do not NEED to be an animal or elemental 24/7. your class is druid, not "CR X Beast".

Kryx

2015-10-13, 11:34 AM

Magic. Embrace it. It isn't physics.
D&D as a whole loves the concept of "spells break encounters". It has existed since the beginning, but has been trimmed heavily in the latest editions. I have no problem with balanced powerful spells. I have a problem with spells like Forcecage, Wall of Force, Polymorph/True Polymorph. A spell can be balanced and still be incredibly powerful.

@Kryx, I am not having go at you, personally, since I like what you do, but I am having a go at the attitude of trying to digitize this game. That is what computer games are for.
"Digitize" isn't applicable in the context of DPR or in this debate. DPR isn't "Digitizing", it is balancing. Nor is being against spells because they are unbalanced.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-13, 11:42 AM

D&D as a whole loves the concept of "spells break encounters". It has existed since the beginning, but has been trimmed heavily in the latest editions. I have no problem with balanced powerful spells. I have a problem with spells like Forcecage, Wall of Force, Polymorph/True Polymorph. A spell can be balanced and still be incredibly powerful. You seem to have just contradicted yourself. I also think that you are good enough at math to understand what a non linear effect is. I tired long ago, on these forums, of any charge of "broken" or "this breaks the game." The boys who cried Wolf have done so for far too long, and they usually do it by looking through a special case telescope.

"Digitize" isn't applicable in the context of DPR or in this debate. DPR isn't "Digitizing", it is balancing. Nor is being against spells because they are unbalanced. By "digitize" I mean break down into numbers. The numbers are only part of it (which I think we do agree upon).

Fwiffo86

2015-10-13, 01:03 PM

There is no actual difference in play. Wild Shaping is great for utility. It is horrible in comparison to Polymorph for combat.
You speak of intelligence: compare a dragon to ANY beast up to CR 6 and you will see that your argument is moot. Even if those creatures weren't super intelligence I don't see how having slightly "more control" is worth CR 6 vs CR 20.

I would posit that Polymorphing a party member into a beast removes them from player control for the duration of the spell. They become a standard representative of their type. Wolf, bird, etc. The player (having his mental stats changed to those of a beast, does not have the brain to actually process complex actions/plans/follow orders/understand speech/etc), is essentially nothing more than a MM statblock at this point.

As far as dragons, I would carry that logic forward. Just because a Dragon "can" think, does not mean it thinks in the same mechanisms of a player character. Thus, polymorphing your fighter into an ancient brass dragon, would likewise result in the temporary loss of player control, possibly permanently should someone attempt to push it further.

That is also not to say that while the spell is "permanent" it does not indicate one way or the other if it can be undone. I would also put forth that a dispel of sufficient strength would revert the character to their original form, even AFTER the effect has become permanent. (I think I'm going to start with a uber dispel attack against all dragons from now on, just in case)

Kryx

2015-10-13, 01:22 PM

As far as dragons, I would carry that logic forward.
That's a houserule. True Polymorph has none of that wording.

Nor do I agree that "acting like a beast" is a limiter much at all. The beast stat blocks aren't limited by that at all. A Wolf will still flank, a Mammoth will still charge, etc, etc.

Fwiffo86

2015-10-13, 01:26 PM

That's a houserule. True Polymorph has none of that wording.

Nor do I agree that "acting like a beast" is a limiter much at all. The beast stat blocks aren't limited by that at all. A Wolf will still flank, a Mammoth will still charge, etc, etc.

Fair. But lack of ruling text does not equal House ruling. At best it is interpretation. Polymorph does indeed contain text that reads the character's mental stats are replaced, keeping only their personality (a thing not defined by attributes in my interpretation) (see Sassy, rude, dour, excitable, etc).

Kryx

2015-10-13, 01:38 PM

keeping only their personality.
So their personality doesn't change. A Dragon isn't going to be limited by stats even if you use some RP options limited by stats in your games.

A Dragon will play like a Dragon - which is insanely stronger than a CR 6 beast.

Fwiffo86

2015-10-13, 01:40 PM

So their personality doesn't change. A Dragon isn't going to be limited by stats even if you use some RP options limited by stats in your games.

A Dragon will play like a Dragon - which is insanely stronger than a CR 6 beast.

Agreed. But if it isn't it player control, it isn't an issue of what is stronger anymore. CR 6 beast under the decision making process of the player, or a CR 20 beast under the decision making process of the DM. I don't think you can compare them adequately here and make any sort of judgement call one way or the other.

JoeJ

2015-10-13, 01:40 PM

My complaint is that a whole archetype is worse than 1 spell that fulfils the same function.

The spell does not remotely fulfill the same function, nor is it superior except in specific, limited circumstances. By the time you first gain the ability to cast Polymorph, your wild shape attacks count as magic weapons. Activating wild shape is a bonus action, and you can use a bonus action on later rounds to heal yourself. You can use it more frequently than Polymorph, and maintain it for a much longer period of time. And you keep your mental stats, skills and saving throw proficiencies while also gaining those of the creature. Wild shape can't be dispelled, nor does it require (or interrupt) concentration so you can continue to concentrate on another spell you've cast previously.

A moon druid would have to be crazy to prefer Polymorph to wild shape for scouting, stealth, or rapid movement. OTOH, Polymorph is often a better choice in combat, although not if you expect to need self-healing, wisdom, intelligence or charisma saves, a magic weapon, or a concentration spell going. And, of course, Polymorph can be used on an enemy or an ally as well as on yourself.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 01:59 PM

CR 6 beast under the decision making process of the player, or a CR 20 beast under the decision making process of the DM. I don't think you can compare them adequately here and make any sort of judgement call one way or the other.
The player never loses control. It doesn't say that or even hint at that imo. I doubt many groups would play it like that (unless it goes permanent).

Even then if I took control as a GM (which I wouldn't) then it wouldn't change much at all as I wouldn't play it suboptimally. It'd actually roll better than my players too. :P

Fwiffo86

2015-10-13, 02:29 PM

I doubt many groups would play it like that (unless it goes permanent).

This is precisely what I do in this instance.

Even then if I took control as a GM (which I wouldn't) then it wouldn't change much at all as I wouldn't play it suboptimally. It'd actually roll better than my players too. :P

I think we all would. ;P

bardo

2015-10-13, 02:36 PM

@Kryx I stand by my earlier statement that Polymorph and Wild Shape do not compete, as the former is combat oriented and the latter is utility. Looks like the Circle Forms feature that Moon Druids get is supposed to make Wild Shape viable in combat, but it only does so for a few levels, before Polymorph is even in the game.

Circle Forms peaks early at level 2. At level 2 a Moon Druid can Wild Shape into a CR1 beast and that's possibly the strongest level 2 class in the game. At level 5 many melee classes are getting Extra Attack, but the Moon Druid is still stuck on CR1 beasts and is way behind the power curve.

At level 6 the Moon Druid gets a bump to CR2 beasts. This bearly (haha) puts the Moon Druid back on the power curve. Level 6 is last time a Moon Druid's Wild Shape is competitive with other classes.

The next bump at level 9 gives the Moon Druid access to CR3 beasts. By this point, any 9th level character of any class using any build can solo any CR3 beast without breaking a sweat. Level 9 is the swan song of Wild Shape's viability in combat, it's all down hill from here, as illustrated by how insane it would be to Wild Shape into a CR6 beast and go face a dragon.

Circle Forms should be comparable to the Circle Spells feature that the Land Druids get, since they are both major features of their respective sub-classes, but they are not comparable. A Land Druid gets a nice chunk of power from Circle Spells in combat at level 20. A Moon Druid gets nothing from Circle Forms in combat at level 20. It sucks that a major sub-class feature gives you nothing at 20, but it's not Polymorph that needs fixin', it's the Moon Druid.

Bardo.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 02:48 PM

Polymorph and Wild Shape do not compete, as the former is combat oriented and the latter is utility. Looks like the Circle Forms feature that Moon Druids get is supposed to make Wild Shape viable in combat, but it only does so for a few levels, before Polymorph is even in the game.
These 2 bolded statements are not consistent. If you're saying Circle Forms is only supposed to be competetive between level 2-6 then it is an incredibly bad trap option afterwards. Might as well go Land and get a decent benefit while using Wild Shape for utility and Polymorph for combat.

That said these are the houserules that I'm going to run with:
Polymorph/True Polymorph - CR limited to Proficiency Bonus + Spell Level. Permanent True Polymorph will likely result in loss of player control.
Moon Druid Wild Shape - Druid can spend a spell slot when transforming, allowing a higher CR limit equal to 1/3 his level plus half the spell level.

Level 7
WS: 2+2 = 4
Poly: 3+4 = 7

Level 9
WS: 3+2 = CR 5
Poly: 4+5 = CR 9

Level 12
WS: 4+3 = CR 7
Poly: 4+6 = CR 10

Level 15
WS: 5+4 = CR 9
Poly: 5+8 = CR 13

Level 18
WS: 6+6 = CR 12
Poly: 6+9 = CR 15

Though I'll probably have to do something about the massive HP turnover.

Pex

2015-10-13, 03:18 PM

Agreed. But if it isn't it player control, it isn't an issue of what is stronger anymore. CR 6 beast under the decision making process of the player, or a CR 20 beast under the decision making process of the DM. I don't think you can compare them adequately here and make any sort of judgement call one way or the other.

Take away more player agency. That will surely quiet the DM being a tyrant crowd.

bardo

2015-10-13, 03:54 PM

These 2 bolded statements are not consistent. If you're saying Circle Forms is only supposed to be competetive between level 2-6 then it is an incredibly bad trap option afterwards. Might as well go Land and get a decent benefit while using Wild Shape for utility and Polymorph for combat.

I didn't mean to sound like I think I know what goes on in the devs' heads. I certainly do not. I'm saying Circle Forms is outstanding at level 2, very good at level 3, okay at 4, okay at 6, poor at all other levels, and pathetic at very high levels.

You're right, there is a potential for competition which I didn't see. If the campaign wraps up somewhere between levels 7 and 10, then playing a Mood Druid is still a reasonable choice, sort of, and its main sub-class feature would be sadly upstaged by Polymorph.

In campaigns that don't reach level 7 it's not an issue (and Moon Druid is actually a nice class choice, getting the most out of Circle Forms without suffering too much of its decline). In campaigns that go past level 10 picking Moon Druid is simply a mistake, as you noted, it's flat-out better to go Land Druid.

AFAIK there are no beasts past CR8 (T-Rex) in the MM. That's also a limiting factor in trying to make Wild Shape viable in combat, and I wonder how you factor that into your house rules.

Bardo.

Shaofoo

2015-10-13, 03:56 PM

Take away more player agency. That will surely quiet the DM being a tyrant crowd.

I didn't know that a DM is legion?

Actually that would explain a lot that people treat DMs as if they came from the place that shall never be named.

Kryx

2015-10-13, 04:03 PM

In campaigns that don't reach level 7
Polymorph is at 7, so for this discussion those don't matter.

AFAIK there are no beasts past CR8 (T-Rex) in the MM. That's also a limiting factor in trying to make Wild Shape viable in combat, and I wonder how you factor that into your house rules.
Port them from Pathfinder using my PF to 5e converter (http://marklenser.com/5econverter/).

Though as I said I haven't tested the houserules out. I have a moon druid in my game right now at level 7 and need to do some more math. I think allowing a spell to be burned and giving half that level to the CR is balanced in terms of AC, damage, and abilities, but the amount of onion HP could be a problem. I'd have to look around for other ideas. Maybe simply cut Wild Shape HP in half, or have some kind of carry over to the next form. Or maybe limit it to 1 combat wild shape use per short rest and a few utility wild shapes somehow.
I'll have to think about it a bit.

Shaofoo

2015-10-13, 04:06 PM

Also could you Dispel Magic a permanent duration True Polymorph? I would think that would be a good counter if you could end a dragon form with a single spell.

bardo

2015-10-13, 04:43 PM

Port them from Pathfinder using my PF to 5e converter (http://marklenser.com/5econverter/).

Nice.

In my evaluation of Circle Forms I completely neglected to consider Elemental Wild Shape: at 10th, a Moon Druid can Wild Shape into a CR5 elemental of any type. Moon Druids are not as bad as I made them look, though most people consider Land to be the better circle.

It also says that a Moon Druid's natural weapon under Wild Shape are considered magical for bypassing DR. Which makes me wonder... do the natural weapons you get from Polymorph bypass DR?

Bardo

Kryx

2015-10-13, 05:00 PM

In my evaluation of Circle Forms I completely neglected to consider Elemental Wild Shape: at 10th, a Moon Druid can Wild Shape into a CR5 elemental of any type. Moon Druids are not as bad as I made them look, though most people consider Land to be the better circle.
Worse. CR 5 vs CR 20. More utility from abilities, but at the heavy heavy cost of 2 uses. This changes nothing imo.

It also says that a Moon Druid's natural weapon under Wild Shape are considered magical for bypassing DR. Which makes me wonder... do the natural weapons you get from Polymorph bypass DR?
Polymorph makes no mention of such. Quick count of monsters it matters for: 38 out of the 300+

Fwiffo86

2015-10-13, 05:40 PM

Also could you Dispel Magic a permanent duration True Polymorph? I would think that would be a good counter if you could end a dragon form with a single spell.

I believe so, though there is no actual ruling on this situation.

SharkForce

2015-10-13, 05:54 PM

Worse. CR 5 vs CR 20. More utility from abilities, but at the heavy heavy cost of 2 uses. This changes nothing imo.

Polymorph makes no mention of such. Quick count of monsters it matters for: 38 out of the 300+

if we're talking about CR 20 from true polymorph, then the druid has unlimited uses. 2 out of infinite uses is not a heavy cost.

(that said, if you talk about, say, 1 level earlier, than it is a moderately heavy cost, although at that point it isn't a CR 5, because it still has all of the spells and class abilities and proficiencies of a level 18 character in addition to having the full HP of said character underneath those of the CR 5, which can be fairly decent by themselves. it's only when comparing at level 17 that there is particularly a major difference, as the druid will not have spells in wild shape yet).

bardo

2015-10-13, 05:55 PM

All things considered (unless we find more things to consider):

Polymorph:

Expends spell slots (4th level or higher) to use. Lasts up to 1 hour per use. Requires action to activate. Requires the caster's concentration for the duration. Can be dispelled. Does not bypass damage resistance or damage immunity. Target is limited to basic beast tactics. Max. CR = Target level (using MM it's limited to CR8 T-Rex).

Moon Druid's Wild Shape:

Two uses per long/short rest. Lasts up to druid level/2 hours. Bonus action to activate. Bonus action to self-heal (expanding spell slot). No concentration required. Can not be dispelled. Bypasses damage resistance and damage immunity same as a magical weapon. Full control of the character. Max. CR = 1/3 druid level (tops at CR6 elephant at level 18) or a CR5 elemental starting at level 10 (and expending both uses).

Looks to me like Wild Shape is in good shape :smallcool: It can use a boost to the CR, maybe make Wild Shape Max. CR = 1/2.5 druid levels?

Bardo.

Doof

2015-10-13, 06:05 PM

It's just not fair comparing an ability that gets recharged after every short rest (wild shape) and something that expends a spell slot (polymorph). Especially when a druid can just as easily cast polymorph herself.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-13, 08:04 PM

Also could you Dispel Magic a permanent duration True Polymorph? I would think that would be a good counter if you could end a dragon form with a single spell.

Yes of course you can, it's just a permanent magical effect (meaning it won't end on its own)

Mara

2015-10-13, 08:22 PM

Moon druids get to polymorph into elementals while concentrating on summon spells and when the wizard is turning into a dragon, the druid can cast spells while in an amazing elemental form.

You could be a CR 6 beast with 32 wolves at your side while. Or an earth elemental destroying a castle with your buddy earth elemental.

NOTE: For some odd reason I need to clarify that I am assuming player agency. *wonders where are hobby is going *

Shaofoo

2015-10-13, 08:25 PM

NOTE: For some odd reason I need to clarify that I am assuming player agency. *wonders where are hobby is going *

D&D is going to Disneyland! That is where the hobby is heading!

Fwiffo86

2015-10-15, 02:57 PM

Mara

2015-10-15, 08:38 PM

Player agency is good, no doubt. But I have reservations about it being what the campaign is defined by. My view is that it's the DMs story/world. Always has been. The players can certainly take action to effect major changes, but having the players essentially running the show rubs me the wrong way, and was one of my major issues with some previous editions.

Idk how players having full control of both their character (while polymorph) or their spells (selecting specific summons) is players essentially running the show.

druid91

2015-10-15, 08:47 PM

Yes of course you can, it's just a permanent magical effect (meaning it won't end on its own)

No, the spell ends. And the transformation becomes permanent.

Sigreid

2015-10-15, 09:15 PM

Player agency is good, no doubt. But I have reservations about it being what the campaign is defined by. My view is that it's the DMs story/world. Always has been. The players can certainly take action to effect major changes, but having the players essentially running the show rubs me the wrong way, and was one of my major issues with some previous editions.

This is interesting to me. I'm the opposite. I depend on the players heavily to take action and we build the story together. So, most of the time I don't have any idea where it is going to go when we start,but as the players become interested in things I develop from there.

Xetheral

2015-10-16, 01:50 AM

Player agency is good, no doubt. But I have reservations about it being what the campaign is defined by. My view is that it's the DMs story/world. Always has been. The players can certainly take action to effect major changes, but having the players essentially running the show rubs me the wrong way, and was one of my major issues with some previous editions.

The game at any given table exists so that everyone can have fun. The DM might be in charge, but that simply gives him or her more responsibility to make sure that everyone is enjoying themselves. In a very real way, the story and the world at that table exist for the players to have fun.

Mara

2015-10-16, 01:57 AM

Shaofoo

2015-10-16, 07:20 AM

The game at any given table exists so that everyone can have fun. The DM might be in charge, but that simply gives him or her more responsibility to make sure that everyone is enjoying themselves. In a very real way, the story and the world at that table exist for the players to have fun.

The knife cut both ways, the DM does have a responsibility to make it fun for the players but the players likewise have a responsibility to make it fun for the DM as well. The story and the world exist for all in the table to have fun, players, DM and even bystanders if such a thing applies to you (like say in a stream).

I would prefer the word "compelling" to "fun".

I kinda question you a bit if having fun isn't on the table, I find that if no one is having fun then the game dies plain and simple.

Mara

2015-10-16, 07:25 AM

I find that you can have a compelling game without it being fun.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-16, 07:26 AM

For some odd reason I need to clarify that I am assuming player agency. *wonders where are hobby is going * Our hobby is going in random directions. Roll d12 to see which way your group goes. :smallbiggrin:

As to compelling versus fun ...

I would prefer the word "compelling" to "fun".
... changes the post you replied to into ...

In a very real way, the story and the world at that table exist for the players to have compelling. ... which doesn't make sense. :smallcool:

Shaofoo

2015-10-16, 07:34 AM

I find that you can have a compelling game without it being fun.

I can't imagine such a game without the players also being resentful that they have to be in the game. I have seen games where people go but they don't have fun and they are usually miserable affairs. For someone who was so adamant on player agency I am surprised that you would say such a thing.

Mara

2015-10-16, 08:01 AM

I can't imagine such a game without the players also being resentful that they have to be in the game. I have seen games where people go but they don't have fun and they are usually miserable affairs. For someone who was so adamant on player agency I am surprised that you would say such a thing.
The easiest example I can think of is very serious situations, like this War of Mine, parts of the walking dead and other such things where no one is having fun but they are compelled to continue watching/playing.

It's harder to do in D&D but I'd like to keep the option open.

Fwiffo86

2015-10-16, 08:22 AM

Idk how players having full control of both their character (while polymorph) or their spells (selecting specific summons) is players essentially running the show.

Its not about the specificity of polymorph, but the ideology of player agency being the supreme paradigm. When players have all the power (situations covered by a never ending list of DCs, target numbers, and game system rules as an example) the DM is hard pressed to engage their imagination to present a world that is different and entertaining.

Severe rule restrictions (and this is only my opinion mind you) impede the DM more than help them, and enable the player to run willy nilly because "the rules say so" and as long as the rules say so, you can't argue. Thus, the players have all the power (especially those with high system mastery) and the DM is relegated to nothing more than an encounter creator and die roller. The DM does not really participate in anything other than a mechanical way. There is no room for imagination without it being shoehorned into some esoteric and complicated rule set, which (again, IMO) stifles the DMs creativity.

I don't find that fun. Not as a DM, and not as a player.

Mara

2015-10-16, 08:33 AM

Without player agency the game is pointless. That is why maximising it is valued. Whenever the DM has to take it away to make the game work, that is a negative to the experience.

Shaofoo

2015-10-16, 09:21 AM

The easiest example I can think of is very serious situations, like this War of Mine, parts of the walking dead and other such things where no one is having fun but they are compelled to continue watching/playing.

It's harder to do in D&D but I'd like to keep the option open.
There is a difference between the characters not having fun and the players not having fun. I am talking about the latter.

Also in all those options you selected you know what you are getting yourself into. War of Mine tells you up front that this is a war civilian simulator so if you play that game then you know what you are getting yourself into. People still play this War of Mine because it is a good game so they find it fun. I think a better example is Ride to Hell: Retrebution 1% where it is a horrible game all around yet people might want to play to see the horribleness.

My character might not be having fun (because being shot with bolts, blown up by fireballs and slammed on the head with hammers isn't fun) but I as a player am having fun. If the scenario isn't fun as a player that is when things are bad (example, you were shot with a crossbow bolt in the arms and legs, oops they got gangrene so now you must amputate the arms and legs, you wanna play as a quadriplegic?).

A character can be miserable and the player could still have fun, if the player is miserable then that is when things are bad.

Without player agency the game is pointless. That is why maximising it is valued. Whenever the DM has to take it away to make the game work, that is a negative to the experience.

Well it might be negative experience for you but if the game is able to continue on stable then I'll consider that acceptable losses (even though I consider the losses themselves to be inconsequential).

Fwiffo86

2015-10-16, 09:49 AM

Without player agency the game is pointless. That is why maximising it is valued. Whenever the DM has to take it away to make the game work, that is a negative to the experience.

Again, I am not demonizing player agency. I am simply suggesting it not be the defining characteristic of the game. Agency is good. Players need the ability to affect change in the game world - elsewise they have no real reason to play. But enabling that should not be the priority. Ideally it should be on equal tier with the DMs ability to alter the rules to account for better story and/or challenge the players in unsuspected ways.

No player should have the capability to use any ability that is obviously being abused for the sake of power. Agency as the defining attribute leads to this sort of activity in some cases (a lesson I learned from 3.x), and should be discouraged whenever possible. This is easily accomplished by not handing the keys to the kingdom to your players.

georgie_leech

2015-10-16, 12:34 PM

There is a difference between the characters not having fun and the players not having fun. I am talking about the latter.

Also in all those options you selected you know what you are getting yourself into. War of Mine tells you up front that this is a war civilian simulator so if you play that game then you know what you are getting yourself into. People still play this War of Mine because it is a good game so they find it fun. I think a better example is Ride to Hell: Retrebution 1% where it is a horrible game all around yet people might want to play to see the horribleness.

My character might not be having fun (because being shot with bolts, blown up by fireballs and slammed on the head with hammers isn't fun) but I as a player am having fun. If the scenario isn't fun as a player that is when things are bad (example, you were shot with a crossbow bolt in the arms and legs, oops they got gangrene so now you must amputate the arms and legs, you wanna play as a quadriplegic?).

A character can be miserable and the player could still have fun, if the player is miserable then that is when things are bad.

Well it might be negative experience for you but if the game is able to continue on stable then I'll consider that acceptable losses (even though I consider the losses themselves to be inconsequential).

This is from the perspective of video games, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzpgOJ2ubI) but there's a section about the difference between something being "fun" vs. "engaging."

Shaofoo

2015-10-16, 09:08 PM

This is from the perspective of video games, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzpgOJ2ubI) but there's a section about the difference between something being "fun" vs. "engaging."

That video seems a little pretentious, it seems to speak that video games didn't tackle more complex themes until now, which is a big load if I ever saw it. It almost kinda reads as "Stop having fun guys, you're ruining everything, let video games grow up!".

Maybe I just expect a certain theme in D&D games (which is what the video seemed to tackle). This seems to be more about theme than what you take it out. Sure reading a sad story might not be fun in the definition provided but you could still take something from it, a good story should do that regardless of the theme. You are still glad that you read the story even if it wasn't a happy one. Even in fun movies and games there can be moments where it isn't fun yet bring about legitimate moments of story telling or other such emotions.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-16, 10:02 PM

No, the spell ends. And the transformation becomes permanent.

Until Dispelled and Permanent are the same thing in the game. They both indicate a magical effect that doesn't end (and thus doesn't require concentration).

It can still be removed via dispel magic.

Without player agency the game is pointless. That is why maximising it is valued. Whenever the DM has to take it away to make the game work, that is a negative to the experience.

Having limitations of choice doesn't remove agency. Just because players aren't godlings doesn't make them incapable of making decisions within the context of the game. Conjure Woodland Beings still allows choices, they are just different choices than you want.

There's little difference between the choice offered in Conjure Woodland Beings (pick a specific number of creatures to summon that can be up to a limited challenge rating) and Giant Insect (pick a specific number of a specific type of creature to transform), or Imprisonment (choose a predefined form of imprisonment). In each cases you are selecting a loadout to be applied, but you don't get to interchange specifics.

pwykersotz

2015-10-16, 10:05 PM

That video seems a little pretentious, it seems to speak that video games didn't tackle more complex themes until now, which is a big load if I ever saw it. It almost kinda reads as "Stop having fun guys, you're ruining everything, let video games grow up!".

Maybe I just expect a certain theme in D&D games (which is what the video seemed to tackle). This seems to be more about theme than what you take it out. Sure reading a sad story might not be fun in the definition provided but you could still take something from it, a good story should do that regardless of the theme. You are still glad that you read the story even if it wasn't a happy one. Even in fun movies and games there can be moments where it isn't fun yet bring about legitimate moments of story telling or other such emotions.

Extra Credits IS a little pretentious, but with good reason. They've got some good stuff to say.

Mara

2015-10-16, 10:07 PM

@Vogonjeltz

Picking what you summon doesn't make PCs "godlings". I think we're done. You're just being snarky at this point.

Shaofoo

2015-10-16, 10:19 PM

Extra Credits IS a little pretentious, but with good reason. They've got some good stuff to say.

Maybe they might have good stuff to say but the video presented is just bad. Maybe other videos they are better but that one just struck out, I have no interest in hearing more from them if they can't even keep the record straight.

JoeJ

2015-10-16, 10:21 PM

Mara

2015-10-16, 11:38 PM

Using the explanation in SA that listed categories of summons means the caster chooses by category not creature, we get the following division:

Conjuration spells that don't allow the caster to choose the specific creature appearing:
1) Conjure Animals (3rd level)
2) Conjure Minor Elementals (4th level)
3) Conjure Woodland Beings (4th level)

Conjuration spells that do allow the caster to choose the specific creature appearing:
1) Conjure Celestial (7th level)
2) Conjure Fey (6th level)

Conjuration spells that allow the caster to choose the specific creature appearing by altering the circumstances of casting:
1) Conjure Elemental (5th level)

Granted that six spells is not a huge sample, it does appear that there is a correlation here between caster choice and spell level. This might not be accidental.
Conjure Elemental is cr 5 or lower. Conjure fey has the same wording. The difference is these spells only have one category instead of several. By SA interpretation, the DM could always give you cr 1/4 or cr 0.

It seems wrong to me to take a clear concise spell and interject table variation and DM rulings where none are needing. I love 5e's dependency on DM rulings over tons of rules. But if you already have rules and them add DM rulings to it, then you're making the game more complicated and burdensome rather than less. To me, the whole point of DM rulings is to keep the game streamlined not add extra time to someone's turn because the DM needs to search through the MM or create a monster appropriate for scene because some people on the internet think Pixies are OP.

Vogonjeltz

2015-10-17, 01:31 AM

@Vogonjeltz

Picking what you summon doesn't make PCs "godlings". I think we're done. You're just being snarky at this point.

You stated that any limitation on player agency was unacceptable; no limits would make them godlings.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 04:12 PM

Conjure Elemental is cr 5 or lower. Conjure fey has the same wording.

That's not correct. Conjure Elemental specifies that you choose an elemental by casting the spell on a preexisting cube of the appropriate element somewhere within range.

So there's a progression: At levels 4 and below, you choose the power and number, but not the specific creatures that appear. Al level 5 you choose the creature, if and only if you arrange the circumstances of casting in the right way. At levels 6 and above you simply choose the creature.

It seems wrong to me to take a clear concise spell and interject table variation and DM rulings where none are needing. I love 5e's dependency on DM rulings over tons of rules. But if you already have rules and them add DM rulings to it, then you're making the game more complicated and burdensome rather than less. To me, the whole point of DM rulings is to keep the game streamlined not add extra time to someone's turn because the DM needs to search through the MM or create a monster appropriate for scene because some people on the internet think Pixies are OP.

Or you could consider that the developers balanced power and flexibility based on the results of thousands of hours of playtest. Since I haven't found that to be a problem in my own games, why would I throw it away just because some person on the internet thinks casters should be able to get whatever they want?

Mara

2015-10-17, 07:19 PM

A cr 5 or lower appropriate to where you summon it is no different than "one CR 2 or lower". Enjoy your cr 0 air elemental.

At least run the spells consistently or just be so selective with your focus that it only effects pixies.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 07:54 PM

A cr 5 or lower appropriate to where you summon it is no different than "one CR 2 or lower". Enjoy your cr 0 air elemental.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. 5 is no different than 2?

Mara

2015-10-17, 07:59 PM

I don't understand what you're getting at here. 5 is no different than 2?

Both have the same floor. If the DM picks one they pick the other. Enjoy your CR 0 summons.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 08:29 PM

Both have the same floor. If the DM picks one they pick the other. Enjoy your CR 0 summons.

Why CR 0 and not CR 5? I thought you were against screwing over your players. Are you saying that you're for it now?

Mara

2015-10-17, 08:51 PM

Why CR 0 and not CR 5? I thought you were against screwing over your players. Are you saying that you're for it now?

If it's the rules then it's not screwing the players.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 08:55 PM

If it's the rules then it's not screwing the players.

You and I obviously have very different DMing styles then.

Mara

2015-10-17, 09:06 PM

You and I obviously have very different DMing styles then.Yes, my players just pick what they summon and it saves me a lot of time and work. That's how the PH reads regardless of what Sage advice wants to tell you (which is not even an official source according to 5e organized play).

I don't interject DM rulings where they are uneeded.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 09:20 PM

Yes, my players just pick what they summon and it saves me a lot of time and work. That's how the PH reads regardless of what Sage advice wants to tell you (which is not even an official source according to 5e organized play).

I don't interject DM rulings where they are uneeded.

They pick it as long as it's CR 0, regardless of the level of the spell? But why give them the choice at all if you're not going to let them have anything remotely powerful?

Mara

2015-10-17, 09:24 PM

They pick it as long as it's CR 0, regardless of the level of the spell? But why give them the choice at all if you're not going to let them have anything remotely powerful?

They pick the exact creature of CR5 or lower as appropriate to the location.

If I was running the Sage advice interpretation, giving them a random CR 0 creature is supposedly fair. I disagree.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 09:32 PM

They pick the exact creature of CR5 or lower as appropriate to the location.

If I was running the Sage advice interpretation, giving them a random CR 0 creature is supposedly fair. I disagree.

You have a rather odd interpretation of the Sage Advice interpretation. Why do you consider that either complete caster choice or making the caster waste the spell are the only possible ways to DM this?

Mara

2015-10-17, 09:39 PM

You have a rather odd interpretation of the Sage Advice interpretation. Why do you consider that either complete caster choice or making the caster waste the spell are the only possible ways to DM this?
If Sage advice is correct then the DM giving you a CR0 creature is balanced and what the developers intended for a 5th level spell. Or is there no point in the spell saying "or lower"?

georgie_leech

2015-10-17, 09:48 PM

If Sage advice is correct then the DM giving you a CR0 creature is balanced and what the developers intended for a 5th level spell. Or is there no point in the spell saying "or lower"?

And (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214988-quot-Wait-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) WotC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267923-quot-Wait-again-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection) never (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?283778-Dysfunctional-Rules-III-100-Rules-Legal-110-Silly) words (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?304817-Dysfunctional-Rules-IV-It-s-like-a-sandwich-made-of-RAW-failure!) things (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down) poorly? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372964-Dysfunctional-Rules-VI-Magic-Circle-Against-Errata) Sure. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413407-Dysfunctional-Rules-VII-Mordenkainen-s-Dysfunction)

I'm aware those are for a different edition. The point is that including unnecessary, unhelpful wording isn't exactly an unusual problem.

pwykersotz

2015-10-17, 10:32 PM

If Sage advice is correct then the DM giving you a CR0 creature is balanced and what the developers intended for a 5th level spell. Or is there no point in the spell saying "or lower"?

No guys, this argument has teeth. Mara is right.

But consider for a moment that some people play this game with things other than numbers in mind. Consider that things are worded in an open ended fashion to allow for a wonderous and fantastic adventure full of the unexpected and unique. For example, consider that a Wizard casts Conjure Elemental on a slab of stone. He has no idea that the BBEG sapped the elemental energy out of this stone, leaving it a shadow of its former self, an element in name only. That the sickness of this earth is an enormous clue to his real plan. Sure you could fight your way across Dragon Bridge and into the Nightmare Castle to figure it out, but when a fight with the Hobgoblin Elite arises unexpectedly and the Wizard casts his spell, he gets a sickly Mephit scaled down to CR 0 instead of his expected help. Panic ensues, and the party manages victory anyway, but the Wizard investigates the depleted earth. He hears the mephit's tale and comes up with an idea. Maybe all the elements are being depleted. Maybe some way to replenish them would help them in their victory throughout the castle. Maybe a quick journey to the Elemental Planes to harvest some pure elemental energy would allow the infiltration of the Nightmare Castle to proceed more smoothly.

And all within the rules, because they are open. Not to laugh at players and say "Haha, you're screwed! I'm the DM and I'm better than you!" but to have a consistent world governed by the rules that also flows smoothly. Far from perfect, obviously. But these caveats assist the game and the story. You can play it otherwise, I suppose, but I'll bet most DM's who like this clause do it for the reasons I listed above, not the reasons you're arguing against.

Just my 2cp.

JoeJ

2015-10-17, 11:01 PM

If Sage advice is correct then the DM giving you a CR0 creature is balanced and what the developers intended for a 5th level spell. Or is there no point in the spell saying "or lower"?

It is balanced. And it's intended that there be the possibility of something lower than maximum CR being summoned. There's certainly nothing that implies they intended that to be what usually happens, much less that it should automatically drop to the lowest possible CR.

Mara

2015-10-17, 11:54 PM

No guys, this argument has teeth. Mara is right.

But consider for a moment that some people play this game with things other than numbers in mind. Consider that things are worded in an open ended fashion to allow for a wonderous and fantastic adventure full of the unexpected and unique. For example, consider that a Wizard casts Conjure Elemental on a slab of stone. He has no idea that the BBEG sapped the elemental energy out of this stone, leaving it a shadow of its former self, an element in name only. That the sickness of this earth is an enormous clue to his real plan. Sure you could fight your way across Dragon Bridge and into the Nightmare Castle to figure it out, but when a fight with the Hobgoblin Elite arises unexpectedly and the Wizard casts his spell, he gets a sickly Mephit scaled down to CR 0 instead of his expected help. Panic ensues, and the party manages victory anyway, but the Wizard investigates the depleted earth. He hears the mephit's tale and comes up with an idea. Maybe all the elements are being depleted. Maybe some way to replenish them would help them in their victory throughout the castle. Maybe a quick journey to the Elemental Planes to harvest some pure elemental energy would allow the infiltration of the Nightmare Castle to proceed more smoothly.

And all within the rules, because they are open. Not to laugh at players and say "Haha, you're screwed! I'm the DM and I'm better than you!" but to have a consistent world governed by the rules that also flows smoothly. Far from perfect, obviously. But these caveats assist the game and the story. You can play it otherwise, I suppose, but I'll bet most DM's who like this clause do it for the reasons I listed above, not the reasons you're arguing against.

Just my 2cp.
The issue is, to do all of that I could just have it be a special circumstance. Sapping elemental energy is already outside of the rules. I don't need to take a clear player controlled spell and make it always random to achieve what you stated.

Actually what you describe is unlikely to happen. If the player can't control what she summons, then I see little reason for her to use such a spell. Why waste the slot when better more reliable options are available?

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 12:51 AM

Actually what you describe is unlikely to happen. If the player can't control what she summons, then I see little reason for her to use such a spell. Why waste the slot when better more reliable options are available?

How is it any different than casting Fireball and taking the chance of doing only 4 points of damage? Or Hold Monster, which sometimes has no effect whatsoever? Uncertainty is a factor in a great many spells. And weapons attacks too, for that matter.

Shaofoo

2015-10-18, 01:06 AM

If Sage advice is correct then the DM giving you a CR0 creature is balanced and what the developers intended for a 5th level spell. Or is there no point in the spell saying "or lower"?

By strict RAW and no DM meddling you should never get a CR 0 Elemental because CR 0 elementals do not exist in the MM.

Sure the DM could easily make a CR 0 elemental just for you but then that would mean he had some effort placed so as to screw with you.

If you feel a DM is going to go out of your way to screw with you then you should definitely never pick spells with ambiguous results. So no divination spells of any kind and Wish is off limits.

If you feel that the DM has it out for you then you should leave, D&D cannot be held responsible for adversarial DMs with an axe to grind since he can have a whole world to do you in. He doesn't need a spell's bad wording to make sure you suffer.

Mara

2015-10-18, 01:17 AM

By strict RAW and no DM meddling you should never get a CR 0 Elemental because CR 0 elementals do not exist in the MM.

Sure the DM could easily make a CR 0 elemental just for you but then that would mean he had some effort placed so as to screw with you.

If you feel a DM is going to go out of your way to screw with you then you should definitely never pick spells with ambiguous results. So no divination spells of any kind and Wish is off limits.

If you feel that the DM has it out for you then you should leave, D&D cannot be held responsible for adversarial DMs with an axe to grind since he can have a whole world to do you in. He doesn't need a spell's bad wording to make sure you suffer.

If you can't select what you summon then you might as well just use a more reliable spell. If I'm playing a wizard, it is to cast spells, not have the DM basically cast the spell for me.

The SA ruling is unbalanced and poor game design.

Shaofoo

2015-10-18, 01:25 AM

If you can't select what you summon then you might as well just use a more reliable spell. If I'm playing a wizard, it is to cast spells, not have the DM basically cast the spell for me.

The SA ruling is unbalanced and poor game design.

If you feel that even a trivial chance of not getting what you want is too high then that is your prerogative and you should always cast spells that have non ambiguous effects. But the thing is that DMs can even override spells that can have a direct and non ambiguous effect because he is the DM.

Like I said, it comes from the DM being able to tell intention from the player and the spell itself, if he goes out of the way to violate that even if it is technically legal (and he is the law so he doesn't even need book permission) then that is the DM's problem.

Forum Explorer

2015-10-18, 01:33 AM

If you can't select what you summon then you might as well just use a more reliable spell. If I'm playing a wizard, it is to cast spells, not have the DM basically cast the spell for me.

The SA ruling is unbalanced and poor game design.

It's hardly unbalanced, and arguably the wizard picking what the spell summons is unbalanced because some options are so much more powerful then others (Pixies vs Sprites for example). Particularly since they'll likely add future monsters, and monsters are not designed with these sort of spells in mind.

It is bad game design though. If the option of what to summon is left up to the DM anyways, then why not make that clearer, and clear on what to get?

I think I'd houserule that spell that will will summon that same things for each category. Like choose 8 1/4 creatures will always get you sprites, but 2 CR 1 creatures will always give you a different thing. But it's always the same different thing then the sprites. That way the caster knows what's going to happen and can choose a different spell if they don't like the options.

Mara

2015-10-18, 01:37 AM

It's hardly unbalanced, and arguably the wizard picking what the spell summons is unbalanced because some options are so much more powerful then others (Pixies vs Sprites for example). Particularly since they'll likely add future monsters, and monsters are not designed with these sort of spells in mind.

It is bad game design though. If the option of what to summon is left up to the DM anyways, then why not make that clearer, and clear on what to get?

I think I'd houserule that spell that will will summon that same things for each category. Like choose 8 1/4 creatures will always get you sprites, but 2 CR 1 creatures will always give you a different thing. But it's always the same different thing then the sprites. That way the caster knows what's going to happen and can choose a different spell if they don't like the options.

If I find particular summon spam to be disruptive then that is an issue with the monster so I would just houserule that. If the summon is OP then it's CR is probably wrong too.

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 02:45 AM

If you can't select what you summon then you might as well just use a more reliable spell. If I'm playing a wizard, it is to cast spells, not have the DM basically cast the spell for me.

You can't select what to summon if you don't know what exists to be summoned, and there's no way I'm going to hand the player a list of all the various beasts, elementals, and fey creatures in the multiverse, sorted by CR, just so they can metagame. I'm not even going to bother creating a list like that for myself, because if I did I'd be constantly updating it every time I get a new idea.

Forum Explorer

2015-10-18, 03:49 AM

If I find particular summon spam to be disruptive then that is an issue with the monster so I would just houserule that. If the summon is OP then it's CR is probably wrong too.

That works I guess,

You can't select what to summon if you don't know what exists to be summoned, and there's no way I'm going to hand the player a list of all the various beasts, elementals, and fey creatures in the multiverse, sorted by CR, just so they can metagame. I'm not even going to bother creating a list like that for myself, because if I did I'd be constantly updating it every time I get a new idea.

But that's a good point. I don't like book flipping, and I don't want to waste my time getting a collection of stats if someone doesn't have the MM.

Mara

2015-10-18, 03:57 AM

But that's a good point. I don't like book flipping, and I don't want to waste my time getting a collection of stats if someone doesn't have the MM.If the player is picking the exact monster, it is their job to know what they want to summon.

As the DM, I have an MM. But I'll just give the player a pdf version to save me time. I don't worry about PC's cheating because anyone who needs to cheat at a PnP RPG to win is probably already losing badly elsewhere in their life.

If the player refuses to do any work, then yeah, I'll just give them the first thing I find in the MM.

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 04:44 AM

If the player is picking the exact monster, it is their job to know what they want to summon.

As the DM, I have an MM. But I'll just give the player a pdf version to save me time. I don't worry about PC's cheating because anyone who needs to cheat at a PnP RPG to win is probably already losing badly elsewhere in their life.

If the player refuses to do any work, then yeah, I'll just give them the first thing I find in the MM.

Even if I were to make a definitive list of which MM monsters I'm using, which ones I've added from other sources, and which ones I've modified, I certainly would not give the players a copy. There's no way their characters could have that information.

I wouldn't make a list like that in the first place though, both because I would be changing it too often to be useful and because I don't want to make that many decisions before the campaign gets started.

SharkForce

2015-10-18, 01:44 PM

Even if I were to make a definitive list of which MM monsters I'm using, which ones I've added from other sources, and which ones I've modified, I certainly would not give the players a copy. There's no way their characters could have that information.

I wouldn't make a list like that in the first place though, both because I would be changing it too often to be useful and because I don't want to make that many decisions before the campaign gets started.

honestly, i'd say there's a pretty good chance they know at least the majority of the list.

a wizard casting a summoning spell studied that spell, experimented with it, and learned what it can do. a druid is basically gaining magic from an affinity with and knowledge of nature (or the D&D version of it). a bard learned the spell essentially from studying the lore of how to use it, a priest is generally calling up the servants of their deity.

why wouldn't they have a pretty good idea of what they could get? do you find yourself sitting at your computer and clicking on icons randomly, hoping that you'll accidentally start the program you want, or do you find that because you're pretty accustomed to using computers you know that when you click on the blue "e" you get internet explorer, etc?

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 02:27 PM

honestly, i'd say there's a pretty good chance they know at least the majority of the list.

The can't, because there's no list to know. Most of the creatures in the world are left undetermined until I need to decide what's in a particular place. PCs can know what they've encountered so far, and what common knowledge is, but that's it.

a wizard casting a summoning spell studied that spell, experimented with it, and learned what it can do. a druid is basically gaining magic from an affinity with and knowledge of nature (or the D&D version of it). a bard learned the spell essentially from studying the lore of how to use it, a priest is generally calling up the servants of their deity.

why wouldn't they have a pretty good idea of what they could get? do you find yourself sitting at your computer and clicking on icons randomly, hoping that you'll accidentally start the program you want, or do you find that because you're pretty accustomed to using computers you know that when you click on the blue "e" you get internet explorer, etc?

Those spells don't work like using a computer. They're more like calling the police; you can expect to get help, but you don't know which officers are going to show up. If you're away from your house, you might not even know which department it will be.

SharkForce

2015-10-18, 02:36 PM

The can't, because there's no list to know. Most of the creatures in the world are left undetermined until I need to decide what's in a particular place. PCs can know what they've encountered so far, and what common knowledge is, but that's it.

they're professional adventurers, specializing in the use of magic including the use of magic to summon creatures. common knowledge for them is not the same thing as common knowledge for the average peasant, in much the same way that common knowledge for particle physicists will include a lot of things that are not common knowledge for most people on the street.

Those spells don't work like using a computer. They're more like calling the police; you can expect to get help, but you don't know which officers are going to show up. If you're away from your house, you might not even know which department it will be.

perhaps not with that level of exactness, but you've got a pretty good idea of what you're going to get.

for example, you probably are not going to expect elephants with howdahs to show up on your front lawn carrying a dozen ninjas, nor are you expecting a guy with a rocket launcher on a unicycle. you're expecting 1-2 officers, most likely in a patrol car, most likely in uniform, most likely with a pistol of some form and possibly some form of blunt object which could be used as a club. you won't know every detail about the individual police officers, but you probably have quite a good idea of what police officers have in common.

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 02:58 PM

they're professional adventurers, specializing in the use of magic including the use of magic to summon creatures. common knowledge for them is not the same thing as common knowledge for the average peasant, in much the same way that common knowledge for particle physicists will include a lot of things that are not common knowledge for most people on the street.

That falls under things they've encountered. Any more than that is theoretically possible, but not helpful. Whatever the character might know, they can't act on that knowledge unless the player also knows. And how can the player know what the DM hasn't decided yet?

perhaps not with that level of exactness, but you've got a pretty good idea of what you're going to get.

for example, you probably are not going to expect elephants with howdahs to show up on your front lawn carrying a dozen ninjas, nor are you expecting a guy with a rocket launcher on a unicycle. you're expecting 1-2 officers, most likely in a patrol car, most likely in uniform, most likely with a pistol of some form and possibly some form of blunt object which could be used as a club. you won't know every detail about the individual police officers, but you probably have quite a good idea of what police officers have in common.

Right. And with a 3rd or 4th level spell, the caster knows how many creatures are coming and about how powerful they are. Any more than that requires a higher level spell.

SharkForce

2015-10-18, 04:46 PM

That falls under things they've encountered. Any more than that is theoretically possible, but not helpful. Whatever the character might know, they can't act on that knowledge unless the player also knows. And how can the player know what the DM hasn't decided yet?

Right. And with a 3rd or 4th level spell, the caster knows how many creatures are coming and about how powerful they are. Any more than that requires a higher level spell.

- so unless they've personally encountered an invisible stalker they have no idea that those exist? seems kinda silly at best.

- the "you don't know" version is more like calling the police and not being certain whether you're going to get the humane society, the coast guard, the secret service, the CIA, a park ranger, a kung fu teacher, an angry badger, a WW I era fighter plane piloted by the ghost of the red baron, or the actual police to come help.

when i call the police, i can be fairly confident i'm not going to get help from a green beret or a catholic priest. there will be some measure of variation in specific police officers, but i'm expecting a police officer. i know what to look for, i know more or less a list of skills that all police officers can be expected to have some degree of competency in, and i'm not at all expecting something that is not a police officer. i'm not going to get something that is about as capable in a fight as a police officer, or that is about as challenging to deal with as a police officer, i'm going to get a police officer.

summon monster being "whatever the DM says and the player gets no meaningful input beyond the maximum power of the creature" is not at all like calling the police. when i call the police, i have a very good idea of what i'm expecting to see, and have a very high chance (barring some unusual circumstance) of getting what i expect. your analogy really does not fit.

pwykersotz

2015-10-18, 04:50 PM

The issue is, to do all of that I could just have it be a special circumstance. Sapping elemental energy is already outside of the rules. I don't need to take a clear player controlled spell and make it always random to achieve what you stated.

Actually what you describe is unlikely to happen. If the player can't control what she summons, then I see little reason for her to use such a spell. Why waste the slot when better more reliable options are available?

That DM interactions with player abilities are NOT outside the rules is valuable. It provides avenues for fun without subverting expectations. Reliability ceases being fun when people get frustrated, which happens a lot more when you change the rules the players operate by, which is necessary for your special exception.

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 04:59 PM

- so unless they've personally encountered an invisible stalker they have no idea that those exist? seems kinda silly at best.

Unless they're common knowledge, pretty much. How could it possibly be otherwise when the DM hasn't decided yet whether or not invisible stalkers even exist?

- the "you don't know" version is more like calling the police and not being certain whether you're going to get the humane society, the coast guard, the secret service, the CIA, a park ranger, a kung fu teacher, an angry badger, a WW I era fighter plane piloted by the ghost of the red baron, or the actual police to come help.

when i call the police, i can be fairly confident i'm not going to get help from a green beret or a catholic priest. there will be some measure of variation in specific police officers, but i'm expecting a police officer. i know what to look for, i know more or less a list of skills that all police officers can be expected to have some degree of competency in, and i'm not at all expecting something that is not a police officer. i'm not going to get something that is about as capable in a fight as a police officer, or that is about as challenging to deal with as a police officer, i'm going to get a police officer.

summon monster being "whatever the DM says and the player gets no meaningful input beyond the maximum power of the creature" is not at all like calling the police. when i call the police, i have a very good idea of what i'm expecting to see, and have a very high chance (barring some unusual circumstance) of getting what i expect. your analogy really does not fit.

The analogy works fine to illustrate my original point. You're trying to stretch it too far and, like all analogies, it breaks down when you do that.

SharkForce

2015-10-18, 05:25 PM

Unless they're common knowledge, pretty much. How could it possibly be otherwise when the DM hasn't decided yet whether or not invisible stalkers even exist?

The analogy works fine to illustrate my original point. You're trying to stretch it too far and, like all analogies, it breaks down when you do that.

so because you're too lazy to answer a simple yes or no question, nobody can ever know anything about anything unless it has already happened while the PCs were watching? i think you need to work on your DMing. i'm pretty sure every DM i have ever played with was able to manage better than that. they might not have an answer right away for some obscure monster they've never heard of, but if it's a monster where they know basically what it does, they're going to know if they're ok with it existing in their world or not.

and unless your initial point was that summoning works nothing at all like calling the police, then no i'm not stretching it very far. when i call the police, the police show up, and i know what to expect. they will not be exactly identical, but neither is there reason to assume the animals/elementals/fey/celestials/whatever that you summoned are exactly identical. for the purposes of simplicity they are given the same stats just like you would mostly use the same stats for an entire tribe of goblins; not because they all have the same HP and are all equally strong, agile, tough, smart, wise, and likable.

summoning a monster where you don't have any control or knowledge of what is going to show up is not like calling the police for help.

stretching it too far would be something like "i don't need to cast a spell to call the police". your analogy does not work on the most basic level. when i call the police, i call who i want to call, and it's going to be the police that show up, not something else which may or may not be the police.

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 05:56 PM

so because you're too lazy to answer a simple yes or no question, nobody can ever know anything about anything unless it has already happened while the PCs were watching? i think you need to work on your DMing. i'm pretty sure every DM i have ever played with was able to manage better than that. they might not have an answer right away for some obscure monster they've never heard of, but if it's a monster where they know basically what it does, they're going to know if they're ok with it existing in their world or not.

Rudeness is uncalled for. I don't place monsters on a whim; I think about what what should go in a particular place. I'm not going to change that to answer some random player question that has nothing to do with the adventure. If nothing like that has ever been mentioned in the campaign, they should just assume that their character has never heard of it.

and unless your initial point was that summoning works nothing at all like calling the police, then no i'm not stretching it very far. when i call the police, the police show up, and i know what to expect. they will not be exactly identical, but neither is there reason to assume the animals/elementals/fey/celestials/whatever that you summoned are exactly identical. for the purposes of simplicity they are given the same stats just like you would mostly use the same stats for an entire tribe of goblins; not because they all have the same HP and are all equally strong, agile, tough, smart, wise, and likable.

summoning a monster where you don't have any control or knowledge of what is going to show up is not like calling the police for help.

stretching it too far would be something like "i don't need to cast a spell to call the police". your analogy does not work on the most basic level. when i call the police, i call who i want to call, and it's going to be the police that show up, not something else which may or may not be the police.

And when you cast Conjure Animals you'll get an animal. You'll even know in advance how many and roughly how powerful they'll be. If you don't like the analogy, then pick a different one because it's not worth arguing about.

Pex

2015-10-18, 08:29 PM

How is it any different than casting Fireball and taking the chance of doing only 4 points of damage? Or Hold Monster, which sometimes has no effect whatsoever? Uncertainty is a factor in a great many spells. And weapons attacks too, for that matter.

Because dice rolling is a neutral, non-arbitrary outcome of results. A DM not giving the player what he wants is the DM choosing, an arbitrary decision that on purpose takes away player agency no matter how justified the DM feels in his decision.

JoeJ

2015-10-18, 08:37 PM

Because dice rolling is a neutral, non-arbitrary outcome of results. A DM not giving the player what he wants is the DM choosing, an arbitrary decision that on purpose takes away player agency no matter how justified the DM feels in his decision.

So rolling dice to see what responds to the spell is okay, but the DM choosing the most appropriate creature (based on story, terrain, or a combination of both) is not? Doesn't the player have exactly the same agency either way?

SharkForce

2015-10-18, 08:58 PM

Rudeness is uncalled for. I don't place monsters on a whim; I think about what what should go in a particular place. I'm not going to change that to answer some random player question that has nothing to do with the adventure. If nothing like that has ever been mentioned in the campaign, they should just assume that their character has never heard of it.

And when you cast Conjure Animals you'll get an animal. You'll even know in advance how many and roughly how powerful they'll be. If you don't like the analogy, then pick a different one because it's not worth arguing about.

doing things on the fly is what DMs are for. if you're not doing that, then you can be replaced by a computer.

and "animal" doesn't tell me *nearly* as much about capabilities as "police officer", and no, i don't get to know approximately how powerful because the wording says it can be "up to" a certain CR.

for example, some animals can fly. some can dig. some can climb. some can swim. some can see in the dark. some can see without eyes. some have poison. some are extremely tough, some do lots of damage, some even have ranged attacks. some have hands or things that are very close to hands. some are large. some are small. some can be ridden. some are very fast. many of these traits are held by only a few or even one example of the entire subset of creatures we would call "animals", and yet many of these abilities i have absolutely no way of knowing specific details if all you tell me is that i will get "an animal".

in contrast, if you tell me a police officer is coming, i can make a pretty good guess what sorts of skills they have. they're probably reasonably physically fit, can use a gun, have some training to tell when people are lying, have training to keep them aware of their surroundings, have training to help defuse situations (hopefully), etc.

there will be differences, certainly (some will be male, some will be female, some will be shorter or taller - though certainly nothing even close to the difference between the larger and smaller animals - some will be slightly better at one skill or another, some will be worse at one skill or another, some will be stronger than usual, etc), but largely for the purposes of representing them in a game, you would likely represent the vast majority of police officers as having the same skill set and capabilities (the skill set and capabilities being what they have in common that qualifies them to be police officers).

"an animal" doesn't give me remotely as much information to work from. it could be a cheetah or a canary or a dinosaur. that doesn't narrow it down nearly enough.

Mara

2015-10-18, 09:10 PM

That DM interactions with player abilities are NOT outside the rules is valuable. It provides avenues for fun without subverting expectations. Reliability ceases being fun when people get frustrated, which happens a lot more when you change the rules the players operate by, which is necessary for your special exception.
Changing the rules the players operate by... You mean like using the SA ruling at all?

When people by internet speed. It says up to 50 mbs but in practice they never been 25 mbs. That is always frustrating no matter how much it is expected.

pwykersotz

2015-10-18, 09:57 PM

Changing the rules the players operate by... You mean like using the SA ruling at all?

When people by internet speed. It says up to 50 mbs but in practice they never been 25 mbs. That is always frustrating no matter how much it is expected.

Gotta get FiOS or Google Fiber. :smalltongue:

And no, I don't mean that. It's frustrating for you. I get that. But there are more people playing this game, more tables that enjoy different types of gameplay. A system like 5e has its weaknesses, but a strength is that the rules are strict enough to play by but open enough to give different types of experiences depending on how tables want to run things. I'm not against your interpretation (I currently use it myself when I DM), I'm against your insinuation that it's the only way and that every other way is bad. That any slight marginalization of "player agency" is to be tossed out, no matter how it is implemented, and that we should ignore any implications that might encroach on it, even if some people find them fun because that's the "right" way to play.

For me a huge amount of fun comes from figuring out the more fantastical rules of the universe. I don't particularly want a "reliable" combat simulator, and if I did I think there are better games for it. If the GM's world has it so that I try to summon a monster to my aid and a friendly nymph appears who points to a hidden tunnel where my party can escape rather than a beatstick, I'm happy to explore that. If I get a supreme beatstick that I can't control, I'm happy to explore that. If I get a random assortment of mephits because I have not met with the Elemental Lords to request their power, I'm happy to explore that as well. I suppose the reason I replied is I'm not understanding why you're so against those things stemming from who you are as a player and what magic you wield, and by keeping it by the book at the same time. Personal connections make experiences far more interesting in my opinion.