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

[Salthorae]

For instance, just about everybody knows or has seen magic missile, fireball, cure wounds, etc. Stuff that’s recognizable on sight

I think this speaks to baseline assumptions about each game world you're playing in at the time or you're confusing "everybody" in game with all the players. Sure we've all seen magic missile and fireball, etc. But have your 1st level barbarians with the outlander background? Your 1st level urchin rogue? Maybe if they adventure with an arcane caster they've seen some of that stuff or some "divine miracles" of cure wounds. At least at my table, there is no baselin assumption that anyone is familiar with spells or magical effects. Even wizards if they don't have a spell in their books have to make a check to know about spells and effects they're seeing. Otherwise (to us) it removes mystery from the game, and it gets boring.

If they do, great, play on. If they don't, then welcome to the club - I have some cool stuff to show you!

This is the type of language that [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION] was talking about. If people agree with you it's "in the club" and "cool", implications there are that the other side is wrong and uncool.

Can a toad die without knowledge of how polymorph spells work?

If so, then we don't need to establish what the character knows about this spell.

Sure, but it's still going to have to take action from another player to do so. Even if the toad runs into the path of another player, most people IRL aren't going to step on a frog in their path, they're going to go around or over it, so why would you step on your friend who was just changed into a frog?

It seems like you keep wanting to ignore the turn based action economy mechanics of the game for this hypothetical frog-fighter to suicide. At which point you're not playing 5e anymore and that is fine. But in 5e, it still takes deliberate action of other players to achieve this frog suicide. Otherwise the DM is just then forcing one of the other character's actions to achieve this frog's suicide by saying that the frog-fighter is squished under the charging barbarian's boots, or is impaled on a blade of someone as they jump up.

I think it is time to accept toad suicide is a perfectly legitimate strategy for some D&D players, but not all.

Other than that, twenty pages in it's time to recognize when you're being trolled, I'd say.

Luckily on my browser we're only at 11 pages.

 

[Hussar]

/snip



Luckily on my browser we're only at 11 pages.

Holy crap. How many people do you have blocked?

 

[Salthorae]

Holy crap. How many people do you have blocked?

Hah! None that I know of... checked my blocked list and yup, it's empty.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is the worst kind of obvious, blatant, in-your-face metagaming. We know it, you know it, and you have even proudly proclaimed it repeatedly.

Then you try to get a pass from everyone by using the oldest, cheesiest excuse in the book: "Sure, I'm metagaming.....but my ​character isn't."


That's it in a nutshell. You have successfully distracted people with your "deep thinking" and seeming sincerity that they have been very politely discussing all sorts of things under the sun. We are all very happy that you have found and game with like minded individuals. But you are an outlier. And in your efforts to normalize your metagaming, you have condescended to tell everyone else that if only we thought deeply enough or long enough like you have, that we will have an epiphany and perhaps be so lucky to game at a higher level.

You should back off with the attacks, because you clearly don't even understand what point he was making with that comment.

Otherwise (to us) it removes mystery from the game, and it gets boring.

I'm glad you added that "to us", because to us it's not mystery in the game if...well, if it's not a mystery. There are so many actual mysteries in the game that we don't need to pretend there are more.

This is the type of language that @Seramus was talking about. If people agree with you it's "in the club" and "cool", implications there are that the other side is wrong and uncool.

That's a nonsense interpretation of what he wrote. It's not an exclusive club, and that's a huge stretch to take "some cool things to show you" and draw an implication that "it's the cool kids club."

I can be an in-your-face @$$, especially to posters I think are being disrespectful. Guilty as charged. But @iserith (somehow???) remains polite and courteous, despite being attacked and attacked and attacked.

Who was that who wrote to him "physician, heal thyself". /cough

Sure, but it's still going to have to take action from another player to do so. Even if the toad runs into the path of another player, most people IRL aren't going to step on a frog in their path, they're going to go around or over it, so why would you step on your friend who was just changed into a frog? a

It seems like you keep wanting to ignore the turn based action economy mechanics of the game for this hypothetical frog-fighter to suicide. At which point you're not playing 5e anymore and that is fine. But in 5e, it still takes deliberate action of other players to achieve this frog suicide. Otherwise the DM is just then forcing one of the other character's actions to achieve this frog's suicide by saying that the frog-fighter is squished under the charging barbarian's boots, or is impaled on a blade of someone as they jump up.

I think the actual, specific example originally used of the frog jumping onto the sword is problematic, for this and other reasons. I am guessing (but will let him speak for himself) that @iserith would agree. But this whole conversation doesn't require that detail. It can just be about "the frog takes an action that gets itself killed" and nothing else needs to change.

 

[iserith]

Sigh. Yes, I get it.

Now, do you get the fact that there is a complete, explicit, disconnect between the player's stated actions and what's going on in the fiction that is possibly problematic to some people at the table?

What's going on in the fiction is the only relevant thing. The fact that other people at the table want to make it about the player's motivations, secret or otherwise, is a problem they have created for themselves.

 

[iserith]

This is the worst kind of obvious, blatant, in-your-face metagaming. We know it, you know it, and you have even proudly proclaimed it repeatedly.

Then you try to get a pass from everyone by using the oldest, cheesiest excuse in the book: "Sure, I'm metagaming.....but my ​character isn't."

The metagame is needed to play the game at all. You just appear not to like the thoughts the player in the example is having, despite the reasonableness of the action in the fictional context.

That's it in a nutshell. You have successfully distracted people with your "deep thinking" and seeming sincerity that they have been very politely discussing all sorts of things under the sun. We are all very happy that you have found and game with like minded individuals. But you are an outlier. And in your efforts to normalize your metagaming, you have condescended to tell everyone else that if only we thought deeply enough or long enough like you have, that we will have an epiphany and perhaps be so lucky to game at a higher level.

I don't believe there are any studies that show who is an outlier in this situation.

 

[iserith]

This is the type of language that [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION] was talking about. If people agree with you it's "in the club" and "cool", implications there are that the other side is wrong and uncool.

If you're uncertain of what I'm implying, you're welcome to just ask me. I am not implying anything by this statement. Further, I would say debating how someone argues isn't very productive and we should focus on the arguments themselves.

Sure, but it's still going to have to take action from another player to do so. Even if the toad runs into the path of another player, most people IRL aren't going to step on a frog in their path, they're going to go around or over it, so why would you step on your friend who was just changed into a frog?

That's up to the player of the person into whose path the frog leaps and no one else.

It seems like you keep wanting to ignore the turn based action economy mechanics of the game for this hypothetical frog-fighter to suicide. At which point you're not playing 5e anymore and that is fine. But in 5e, it still takes deliberate action of other players to achieve this frog suicide. Otherwise the DM is just then forcing one of the other character's actions to achieve this frog's suicide by saying that the frog-fighter is squished under the charging barbarian's boots, or is impaled on a blade of someone as they jump up.

As I stated upthread, my position is less about how the action is ultimately adjudicated by the DM (provided it's reasonably fair and consistent) and more about other people at the table saying or implying the action declaration is invalid because the player is only taking such action to end the spell. It's nobody's business why the player took that action except that player in my view.

 

[Bawylie]

I think this speaks to baseline assumptions about each game world you're playing in at the time or you're confusing "everybody" in game with all the players. Sure we've all seen magic missile and fireball, etc. But have your 1st level barbarians with the outlander background? Your 1st level urchin rogue? Maybe if they adventure with an arcane caster they've seen some of that stuff or some "divine miracles" of cure wounds. At least at my table, there is no baselin assumption that anyone is familiar with spells or magical effects. Even wizards if they don't have a spell in their books have to make a check to know about spells and effects they're seeing. Otherwise (to us) it removes mystery from the game, and it gets boring.

I prefer mysteries that are actually mysterious. I don’t think pretending to be surprised the first time a wizard casts magic missile is particularly fun or interesting.
—————-

There’s some real weirdness going on in this thread about who is in the In-Group and who isn’t. And a fair bit of attempted mind-reading. So I just want to clear some of the air here - *I* am the in-group. And please do not read my mind between 10pm and 6am PST. That’s Wylie time.

 

[Salthorae]

I prefer mysteries that are actually mysterious. I don’t think pretending to be surprised the first time a wizard casts magic missile is particularly fun or interesting

While I consider that roleplaying a PC.

That's up to the player of the person into whose path the frog leaps and no one else.

I agree, but they still have to take the actions required to do that frogicide.

As I stated upthread, my position is less about how the action is ultimately adjudicated by the DM (provided it's reasonably fair and consistent) and more about other people at the table saying or implying the action declaration is invalid because the player is only taking such action to end the spell. It's nobody's business why the player took that action except that player in my view.

My position is the player can't do anything to end the spell outside of throwing themselves into a natural hazard like a fire pit or something. The other players have to take action to help the player "end it all"

 

[iserith]

My position is the player can't do anything to end the spell outside of throwing themselves into a natural hazard like a fire pit or something. The other players have to take action to help the player "end it all"

Sure, change the example however you want and adjudicate it in the way you find fair and consistent. The issue under discussion are not necessarily the specifics of the example, but rather how some people judge the validity of an otherwise reasonable action declaration by what the player may be thinking (and how some people like me don't).