D&D 5E Polymorph is a bad de-buff spell

[Seramus]

These are all great things to discuss in another context. Here they serve to obfuscate a point that has already been made, that being some people are choosing to have their fun spoiled by having an otherwise reasonable action rendered questionable by their concern over what they think someone else is thinking.

You can't escape context: the preference of the individual table. Debating personal preference in a white room scenario goes nowhere.

 

[iserith]

If the player knows how to break polymorph, and he says he is going to have the frog suicide to break the polymorph without any IC knowledge or rolls to know about how polymorph works... I would rate that around the "cheating on dice rolls" level of disruption at my table.

What if the character's knowledge of the spell is not a prerequisite for the toad taking the proposed action?

 

[Seramus]

Hypothetically, in a situation where Polymorph is sufficiently well known, would you still have a problem with a polymorphed frog leaping to its death?

I would not. More importantly, nobody at my table would have a problem with it.

 

[iserith]

You can't escape context: the preference of the individual table. Debating personal preference in a white room scenario goes nowhere.

I've conceded that people have their preferences as anyone must do. What I'm shining a light on is what underpins that preference so people reading can judge if that's the kind of thing they want to do or person they want to be. If they do, great, play on. If they don't, then welcome to the club - I have some cool stuff to show you!

 

[WaterRabbit]

The simplest solution to me is just to apply the Instant Death due to massive damage rule. If the suicidal frog gets hit for more than 1 point of damage, the character is killed. The spell is also broken so you now have a dead humanoid instead of a dead frog. This is in the context of "The target assumes the hit points of its new form".

Instead, another player could try to just knock the frog unconscious by "Knocking a Creature Out". Then the spell is broken (again) by the target is now unconscious.

This is a reasonable interpretation and gets around the problem of metagaming. Can the players use this to their advantage to cheaply kill opponents? Sure. Polymorph opponent into a frog and then splat it -- as long as the target isn't a shapechanger or has legendary saves etc.

I often give "boss monsters" 1 or more legendary actions because it is too easy for PCs to gang up on solo creatures as it is. This would just be an extension of that.

 

[Seramus]

What if the character's knowledge of the spell is not a prerequisite for the toad taking the proposed action?

The toad can take the action for any number of reasons. The character's knowledge of the spell is a prerequisite for the player, if he declares the action is being done to break the polymorph.

I've conceded that people have their preferences as anyone must do. What I'm shining a light on is what underpins that preference so people reading can judge if that's the kind of thing they want to do or person they want to be.

And I wouldn't even have a problem with that, if you had not been framing your opposition with extremely derogatory terms.

 

[iserith]

The toad can take the action for any number of reasons. The character's knowledge of the spell is a prerequisite for the player, if he declares the action is being done to break the polymorph.

So, under that rule, the smart play is to just shut up about why you chose that action. Easy peasy. Nobody needs to know that anyway.

 

[Seramus]

So, under that rule, the smart play is to just shut up about why you chose that action. Easy peasy. Nobody needs to know that anyway.

In an ideal world, I would hope all the players have respect for the social contract at their table. I can always dream!

 

[iserith]

In an ideal world, I would hope all the players have respect for the social contract at their table. I can always dream!

Yeah, people should stick to their agreements. But ultimately, if that player keeps his or her yap shut about it, you will never know. And if that is so, it makes a strong case in my view for just doing away with the agreement altogether and finding a different way to address the problem (such as it is).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

As for the words I've chosen being offensive, let's try to defend an approach that says, essentially, "MY fun is based in large part on the thoughts in YOUR head, regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, and it's YOUR responsibility to make sure *I* am not suspicious of YOUR motives." I don't think that can be defended outside of "We just like it." Which is all well and good - like I said, people should play how they want to play - but let's not pretend it's not about thought crimes and abdication of personal responsibility. Use different words, if you like, but I think we'll arrive at the same place.

You keep repeating this but it's not true.

There's no guessing about the player's motivation going on here. The player has specifically SAID OUT LOUD why he's taking this action. There is nothing going on here that isn't absolutely, 100% clear to the table. There's no suspicion. To suspect would mean that I didn't just hear the player declare that he's committing suicide by spear to break the spell. There's no "thought crimes" and whatnot.

How can it be policing what the player thinks when the player EXPLICITLY STATES WHY the player is taking an action?

Which brings us to the "reasonable" argument. You claim that it's reasonable for the frog to leap up and impale itself on a spear or jump under someone's foot just in time to get killed. To me, that's not believable. It's just not. At least, it's completely unbelievable to me. It's not a plausible course of action for a frog. Run away? Sure, I'll buy that. But jump onto a sword? That's just ludicrous.

I don't like Looney Toons in my gaming. Not that it's Serious Business gaming either, but, at least a nod towards believability would be nice. And this course of action, which is what I'm actually criticizing just isn't plausible.

Tell you what. Go down to the river with a spear, and try getting a frog to kill itself on your spear. You can't stab the frog. You just have to scare it onto the spear. Go ahead. I'll wait.