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

iserith · Feb 26, 2019

FarBeyondC said:
Absolutely doesn't work as an addition to the above declaration; for me, it assumes more than is within the player's authority to assume.

That is a fair objection in my view and one that can be polished up in the example pretty easily.

Hussar · Feb 26, 2019

iserith said:
/snip
I would take that action as long as it was a good choice in the situation.

That pretty much says it all doesn't it?

iserith · Feb 26, 2019

Salthorae said:
Well for one... you maintain your personality. Would a 5th level fighter be panicked suddenly when it finds itself a toad?

That's up to the player of that fighter and no one else, right?

Salthorae said:
I think my biggest issue with this line of reasoning is that it actually requires collusion between PC's out of character. I can't find any 5e rules that say I can impale myself on someone else's weapon, or that I can run under someone's foot and get squished automatically.

The DM can adjudicate all of this using whatever rules he or she thinks are necessary and relevant. Or apply no rules at all.

Salthorae said:
How does said Frog communicate to his friends that he wants them to kill him? How do they know what to do? Why would bob the barbarian waste his attack on the frog at his feet when he's raging and there are hags to kill?

That seems like something players will figure it out, if they want. The DM just needs to adjudicate and narrate after they describe what they want to do. As for Bob the Barbarian, that's up to Bob the Barbarian's player and no one else.

Salthorae said:
I'm totally fine with a wizard/sorcerer, etc. either knowing or making a roll to know how to end a standard polymorph spell like that, then wasting their action doing something, or directing another PC to do so. The polymorphed fighter could certainly try to move towards his allies, no problem there. But it requires the allies to actually make a stabbing thrust etc. Heck, they still have to make an ATTACK roll to see if they even hit. Even if the fighter stands still, he still has an AC that someone has to hit (unless said sorcerer or wiz uses magic missile obviously).

5th/6th level PC's in a standard point buy game are going to be, what +7 to attack? So they miss on a 1,2, or 3 against the toad's AC. Then someone else has to try, etc. Either way I'm with the, the character needs to have knowledge of why he'd suddenly want to kill/attack his friend before I'd let that fly at my table.

Assuming there's no bad intent on the player's part toward other players, why does the DM get a say in what the player's character does? A player determines what the character does, how it thinks, and what it says.

Salthorae said:
At the end of the day... I'm with the others who've said it though. Turn them into a giant shark (CR 5) and block up the door way the PC's were just running through. Let your friends spend however many rounds slicing and dicing their fighter friend (who feels all this) and then see how he reacts after the battle! Plus now your coven gets another 2-3 rounds to prepare or plan or cast other spells. It's great.

That's a good solution in my view. It sure beats a situation where you have to wonder whether a player whose character is a 1-hp toad is running into danger because he or she is in the toad's headspace or because that player is secretly a filthy metagamer!

Hussar · Feb 26, 2019

LOL. There's no secret here. None whatsoever. The fact that you would never, ever do that if it didn't break the spell pretty much says it all doesn't it?

iserith · Feb 26, 2019

Hussar said:
That pretty much says it all doesn't it?

What does it say to you?

iserith · Feb 26, 2019

Hussar said:
LOL. There's no secret here. None whatsoever. The fact that you would never, ever do that if it didn't break the spell pretty much says it all doesn't it?

That's not actually what I said though.

Bawylie · Feb 26, 2019

iserith said:
What does it say to you?

The implications here are staggering. Just staggering. Wow, I mean wow. Just... wow.

Hussar · Feb 26, 2019

iserith said:
That's not actually what I said though.

No, you just said that you would only take the action that is a "good choice in the situation". IOW, if it didn't break the spell, you wouldn't do it since that obviously wouldn't be a "good choice".

So all these "I'm just playing my character" canards are just that. Excuses to bypass a failed saving throw by cheese weaseling out of the situation by taking advantage of the rules.

iserith · Feb 26, 2019

Hussar said:
No, you just said that you would only take the action that is a "good choice in the situation". IOW, if it didn't break the spell, you wouldn't do it since that obviously wouldn't be a "good choice".

What that sounds like to me is a failure on your part to imagine the possibility this could be a good choice in some other situation.

Hussar said:
So all these "I'm just playing my character" canards are just that. Excuses to bypass a failed saving throw by cheese weaseling out of the situation by taking advantage of the rules.

I don't agree with your assessment here, but regardless, if the action I have declared is otherwise reasonable in the context of the fictional situation, why do you care why I chose that action?

Hussar · Feb 26, 2019

iserith said:
What that sounds like to me is a failure on your part to imagine the possibility this could be a good choice in some other situation.

I don't agree with your assessment here, but regardless, if the action I have declared is otherwise reasonable in the context of the fictional situation, why do you care why I chose that action?

I totally agree that if the action the player has declared is reasonable, I wouldn't have any issue.

"I'm committing suicide" isn't a reasonable action. Particularly that it's blatantly obvious why you're doing it. Again, repeating my point, you would NEVER declare this action if it didn't break the spell.

Burning regenerating creatures? Meh, I can see that. You know that the sword doesn't work, so try burning it. Fair enough. "I deliberately kill myself" is not a reasonable action.