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

[Yunru]

The character doesn't have to know a single thing about the polymorph spell to take the proposed action as a toad.

For reasons known only to science fiction, some people want to make the toad's dimwitted jump into danger and death dependent upon the character knowing something about the polymorph spell. Those two things are not necessarily connected in the fiction.

Personally what I find confusing is that some people want to argue against characters knowing how spells work.

 

[iserith]

Personally what I find confusing is that some people want to argue against characters knowing how spells work.

We don't even have to go that far with it. We don't have to establish ANYTHING about the character's knowledge for most actions to be perfectly reasonable.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The character doesn't have to know a single thing about the polymorph spell to take the proposed action as a toad.

For reasons known only to science fiction, some people want to make the toad's dimwitted jump into danger and death dependent upon the character knowing something about the polymorph spell. Those two things are not necessarily connected in the fiction.

This post is probably the reason why people might think that the character is trying to end the spell on them deliberately:

The character retains his or her alignment and personality and, since mental ability scores have no meaningful effect on what the player chooses to do unless the player decides they do, the player ultimately decides what the toad will do which could reasonably include impaling itself on the nearest ally's sword so as to end the spell.

 

[iserith]

This post is probably the reason why people might think that the character is trying to end the spell on them deliberately:

The player may well be. The character might not be.

 

[Dausuul]

Personally what I find confusing is that some people want to argue against characters knowing how spells work.

Agreed. Anyone with even passing knowledge of shapechanging would know that fatal injury to the transformed person causes them to change back instead of dying. That's the kind of information (here is a danger, here is how you deal with that danger) that people eagerly spread and share. It isn't some hyper-technical rules point, it's a fundamental principle of how transformations work in the world.

3E had the right idea here: There's polymorph, which is a spell to be cast on a willing ally for buff or utility purposes, and there's baleful polymorph, which is a spell to trap an enemy in animal form. I don't know that I would split polymorph into two spells, but I would give it two modes:

The regular mode requires a willing target and is otherwise the same as now.

The baleful mode is limited to CR 0 forms. You keep your own hit point total and don't revert when reduced to zero. You get an initial saving throw to resist, and another save at the end of each of your turns. On a successful save, the effect ends. If you fail three saving throws, the transformation becomes permanent until dispelled.

 

[Retreater]

Agreed. Anyone with even passing knowledge of shapechanging would know that fatal injury to the transformed person causes them to change back instead of dying. That's the kind of information (here is a danger, here is how you deal with that danger) that people eagerly spread and share. It isn't some hyper-technical rules point, it's a fundamental principle of how transformations work in the world.

3E had the right idea here: There's polymorph, which is a spell to be cast on a willing ally for buff or utility purposes, and there's baleful polymorph, which is a spell to trap an enemy in animal form. I don't know that I would split polymorph into two spells, but I would give it two modes:

The regular mode requires a willing target and is otherwise the same as now.

The baleful mode is limited to CR 0 forms. You keep your own hit point total and don't revert when reduced to zero. You get an initial saving throw to resist, and another save at the end of each of your turns. On a successful save, the effect ends. If you fail three saving throws, the transformation becomes permanent until dispelled.

I was just discussing this with another player and suggested 5e needs a version of baleful polymorph. A night hag coven definitely needs something better than regular old polymorph.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The player may well be. The character might not be.

Wait, this is like one of those Koans, right? /wink

I'm betting some of the anti-metagaming police don't even understand what you are saying here. They think they do, but they don't. (And maybe some of the pro-metagamers, as well.)

 

[Satyrn]

Wait, this is like one of those Koans, right? /wink

I'm betting some of the anti-metagaming police don't even understand what you are saying here. They think they do, but they don't. (And maybe some of the pro-metagamers, as well.)

Wait. I can get paid for that? Sweet.

 

[Iry]

The fighter doesn't have to know that he or she can "suicide" his or her way out of a polymorph spell. That knowledge is not required for the player to describe the character in toad form leaping at the extended blade of a nearby ally. And if the DM for some reason demands an explanation as to why the toad did that, I've already given you one upthread. One of many that could easily be imagined.

At my table, this would shatter suspension of disbelief like an extinction event comet.

This is functionally the same as reading a module beforehand and knowing where to go for the best treasure because (after a long sigh) you just got lucky. Or encountering a new troll freak for the first time and using its weakness immediately because (again, long sigh) you just felt like changing things up today.

 

[iserith]

At my table, this would shatter suspension of disbelief like an extinction event comet.

I find it helps if you just don't think about what the player and character know about a particular thing. It's not useful information anyway except as needed by the DM to lay out the basic scope of options in the context of describing the environment. If the player describes the character as trying to recall something useful, the DM can narrate the result of that action (possibly calling for an Intelligence check beforehand) with some useful or interesting information.

This is functionally the same as reading a module beforehand and knowing where to go for the best treasure because (after a long sigh) you just got lucky. Or encountering a new troll freak for the first time and using its weakness immediately because (again, long sigh) you just felt like changing things up today.

The thing is, if this is ever a real concern, this is easily dealt with on the DM's side of the equation. If some feature of the challenge is about not knowing a thing, then just change, for example, the location of the treasure or the weakness of the troll. Putting a situation in the game and then demanding the player forget everything he or she knows about it is setting up a very strange dynamic that is prone to error in my view. And if you get someone like me in the group, I can come up with a practically endless list of fictional justifications for the action. The DM is free to pick the one he or she meets whatever believability threshold he or she has.

I address this sort of thing in my game's table rules: "'Metagaming,' defined as using player skill or knowledge that a character might not necessarily have, is fine as long as it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story. Assumptions can be risky though so it's skillful play to verify your assumptions through in-game actions before making choices based on them."

In other words, as DM, I'm not concerned about what you know or what your character knows. If you want to establish that your character knows something, that's your business. You just might not always be right, and being wrong could be exceedingly bad (for the character), so plan accordingly.