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

[Bawylie]

Consider what the frog might do versus what the frog must do.

If you believe that it is metagaming when a player takes any action that the frog might do in place of what you feel it must do, then you may be in too-small of a box.

I was playing a cleric back in college and we were fighting a giant (BBEG for the adventure) over a lava pit. In the first round we did a crazy amount of damage, so much so that our DM had the giant dive into the lava to escape us. We were flabbergasted but the DM told us the giant felt it had a better shot at survival swimming away from us in lava than in a direct fight.

And that brings us to the frog. Or toad. Once ploymorphed, your new toad-brain may well think “my best shot at survival is to flee my enemy and leap to my friends.” If you can even think that far. But you may well fear an enemy and you may well recognize a friend, even with animal intelligence. So you leap. And maybe you do get squashed underfoot or perhaps impaled.

Honestly, what the player decides the frog might do is totally justified. Just as the giant BBEG would rather take a lava bath than face its enemies, a frog might leap for its life and come to a bad end.

Does it matter that the DM wanted the BBEG to survive the fight? Does it matter that the player wants the spell to end? How much does the DM or player have to pretend they don’t want to be polymorphed? How many rounds should I “ribbit” before it’s plausible that I leap somewhere? When will the people monitoring how I think about the game allow me to take an action I want to take?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Still confused as to why experienced adventurers (high enough level to be facing enemies with polymorph) would be totally ignorant of a whole class of spells. It isn't just polymorph, after all. Every shapechanging effect in the game works much the same way: Destroying the shapechanged form is a ticket back to your original self.

This is the sort of survival knowledge I expect to be general among adventurers. A barbarian may not understand the precise technical differences between polymorph and Wild Shape, but knowing that the answer to certain types of evil wizardry is to throw yourself fearlessly into the jaws of death*? Sure. For most barbarians, that's the answer to everything anyway.

(And if you want to rule that polymorph's impact on mental stats makes you incapable of reason, the DM should just take over running the polymorphed character and be done with it. As a player, I would prefer that to having my every move policed for whether it is sufficiently stupid. Being micromanaged is bad enough when you're being paid to put up with it; as part of a supposedly fun leisure activity, screw that.)

All true, but we couldn't have yet another desperately needed argument about metagaming if we all took that route.

 

[iserith]

Still confused as to why experienced adventurers (high enough level to be facing enemies with polymorph) would be totally ignorant of a whole class of spells. It isn't just polymorph, after all. Every shapechanging effect in the game works much the same way: Destroying the shapechanged form is a ticket back to your original self.

This is the sort of survival knowledge I expect to be general among adventurers. A barbarian may not understand the precise technical differences between polymorph and Wild Shape, but knowing that the answer to certain types of evil wizardry is to throw yourself fearlessly into the jaws of death*? Sure. For most barbarians, that's the answer to everything anyway.

So my experience is that, in these types of games, this is the point where the player either (1) Declares his or her character doesn't know anything about polymorph, then signals to the rest of the group that he or she is not a filthy metagamer by doing something unproductive or counterproductive; or (2) Asks, "Do I know anything about the polymorph spell?" or "Can I make a check to see if I know anything about polymorph spells?" then the DM either says the character does or doesn't or asks for a roll. After what must be an immersion-shattering side conversation that breaks up the narrative is resolved, the player can then move forward accordingly.

If the player's character has received the seal of approval from the DM about knowing how polymorph spells work, suicide away! Nobody's immersion is at risk once the DM taps the player with the not-metagaming wand. If the DM decides otherwise, then don't you dare do anything that might cause other people at the table to suspect you're taking a beneficial action based on your player knowledge of polymorph spells, even if that action is a completely reasonable thing for the toad to do in context. Because what you think is more important than what you do.

But here's the thing: The knowledge of polymorph spells and the action I propose the player have the frog take are not necessarily connected at all. The frog is startled and accidentally leaps to its death. We don't need to establish anything about the fighter's knowledge of polymorph spells for that to happen. It's only in these groups where they review the action declaration through the lens of what the player's motivation is instead of the reasonableness of the action itself in the context of the game world.

 

[Hussar]

As I've already stated several times in this discussion, the player's decision may be intentional; the toad's fate is accidental in the context of the fiction as described by the player. The toad is not saying or thinking "Gadzooks! My superior knowledge of magic tells me, a common toad, that I am under the effects of the hag's fell polymorph spell and the way out of this predicament is to die under that running bard's boot! Excelsior!" *leap* *squish*

Instead, it is startled by the battle raging around it, leaps because it is scared, and accidentally gets squashed by the bard.

What is wrong with that in your view?

Because there is a complete disconnect between the player's stated actions and what's going on in the fiction? I thought that was a bad thing.

Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s the player determining how the character thinks, acts, and talks. If I decide my character, now a 1-Int toad, is startled by what's going on and leaps unfortunately to its death, then I am roleplaying by determining how it thinks and acts.

You are for some reason adding another requirement to roleplaying which is that I have to pretend like I don't know the rules of the game. What's more, you're judging my action based on what you THINK is going on in my head rather than just the action myself. You're effectively accusing the player of wrong-think, even if the action described is perfectly reasonable in context.
/snip

I don't have to "think" about what's going on in your head. You have actually directly told me what is going on in your head. You have stated an intention (I'm going to jump on my friend's sword to break the spell) and then acted on it. There's no mind reading going on here. It's blindingly obvious what's going on.

Again, would you take this action if it didn't break the spell?

 

[Hussar]

See, you keep arguing that the frog is "startled". Why? Do you normally have PC's be "startled" into committing suicide? Outside of magical fear effects, have your players ever played out jumping into the path of danger accidentally (while in full knowledge of the consequences)?

IOW, would your players EVER suicide the frog if it didn't break the spell?

Now, the knowledge argument I might buy. But, IIRC, the original description is from the Ravenloft module, so, the PC's are about 5th or 6th level. Not at a level where anyone in the group could cast the spell. And, it's not like Polymorph is that low of a level. That's a grey area where honestly, I could go either way.

But, to simply claim, "Oh, well, I'm a frog now. Ok, well I guess I'm startled by battle and accidentally jump under the bard's boot so he squishes me." as anything other than pure meta gaming is a bad joke. Look, again, I'm the last person usually to police player actions, but, holy crap, this is beyond the pale. This isn't role playing at all.

You can try to justify it all you like, but, everyone at the table knows exactly what you're doing. For me, it's a bridge too far. This is a player acting in bad faith.

Again, am I a bad DM for instantly killing the PC? Maybe my hag's polymorph isn't the spell but, rather an effect that is particular to hags? After all, mind flayers can use Plane Shift offensively, forcing a saving throw or be banished to another plane. Why can't my hag's polymorph be different?

Or would that be the DM acting in bad faith?

 

[Mistwell]

I'm studying in prep to run a night hag coven and thought I should polymorph the party's fighter (turning him into a toad seems thematically appropriate.)
But all that needs to happen, basically, is a party member swats the frog, does some minor damage to kill it, and the spell is broken.
It seems like Hold Person is a better spell for taking out a combatant, and it's lower level.
With easy ways around spells, saves at the end of every turn to get rid of bad conditions, it seems 5e enemy casters are very lousy.

When one of the hags allies is down to their last hit points, the hag should turn her ally into a Shambling Mound. Extra 135 hit points, a good attack, and engulf!

 

[iserith]

Because there is a complete disconnect between the player's stated actions and what's going on in the fiction? I thought that was a bad thing.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The player's stated action might be something like "Startled by the ongoing battle and lacking much in the way of brains, I start jumping across the battlefield to get away, only to accidentally leap into the path of a sword." The player is offering a reasonable action for an Int-1 toad, but it seems that some posters are trying to say that action isn't reasonable because the player is trying to break free of the polymorph spell. I would say I don't care why the player stated that action. It's none of my business.

I don't have to "think" about what's going on in your head. You have actually directly told me what is going on in your head. You have stated an intention (I'm going to jump on my friend's sword to break the spell) and then acted on it. There's no mind reading going on here. It's blindingly obvious what's going on.

What's going on is a toad was startled by the ongoing battle and, lacking much in the way of brains, has started jumping across the battlefield to get away, only to accidentally leap into the path of a sword.

Again, would you take this action if it didn't break the spell?

I would take that action as long as it was a good choice in the situation.

 

[iserith]

See, you keep arguing that the frog is "startled". Why?

Because that's a reasonable state for a toad that suddenly finds itself in an unfolding battle.

Do you normally have PC's be "startled" into committing suicide?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Outside of magical fear effects, have your players ever played out jumping into the path of danger accidentally (while in full knowledge of the consequences)?

Yeah, absolutely. They just describe the actions as being unintended by the character. I do this myself in other people's games.

IOW, would your players EVER suicide the frog if it didn't break the spell?

They might, if that's a good choice for that situation.

Now, the knowledge argument I might buy. But, IIRC, the original description is from the Ravenloft module, so, the PC's are about 5th or 6th level. Not at a level where anyone in the group could cast the spell. And, it's not like Polymorph is that low of a level. That's a grey area where honestly, I could go either way.

I don't even need to go that far with it. Knowledge of the spell is not required for a toad to be startled and leap in a particular (unfortunate) direction.

But, to simply claim, "Oh, well, I'm a frog now. Ok, well I guess I'm startled by battle and accidentally jump under the bard's boot so he squishes me." as anything other than pure meta gaming is a bad joke. Look, again, I'm the last person usually to police player actions, but, holy crap, this is beyond the pale. This isn't role playing at all.

Except it is roleplaying. You're playing the role of a frog, determining how it thinks and what it does. The frog doesn't intend to die right now, but that's just what happens.

You can try to justify it all you like, but, everyone at the table knows exactly what you're doing. For me, it's a bridge too far. This is a player acting in bad faith.

The player is taking a reasonable action in the context of the situation. You just don't like how the player is thinking. You could choose instead to focus on the action in the scene and not worry about what that player is thinking. It's irrelevant to the fiction.

Again, am I a bad DM for instantly killing the PC?

I would say only if you didn't warn them that was the consequence.

Maybe my hag's polymorph isn't the spell but, rather an effect that is particular to hags? After all, mind flayers can use Plane Shift offensively, forcing a saving throw or be banished to another plane. Why can't my hag's polymorph be different?

Or would that be the DM acting in bad faith?

That would be absolutely fine in my view. In fact, I tell my players straight up, in writing before every campaign or one-shot, that I don't care about "metagaming," but I warn them that assumptions are risky and that's it's smart play to take in-game actions to verify assumptions. What's more, I've been suggesting this whole thread that part of this is on the DM. If someone hates "metagaming," it is a good plan to change stuff up otherwise the DM is inviting the very behavior he or she abhors.

 

[FarBeyondC]

"Startled by the ongoing battle and lacking much in the way of brains, I start jumping across the battlefield to get away,"

Speaking personally, if someone said this at a table I'm running (or is merely simply at), I'd be perfectly fine with it as it's a perfectly good declaration. If the frog ends up dying through some hazard in the area or another creature's reaction, the frog dies and the spells ends earlier than the hag intended (Woo!). That being said, this:

"only to accidentally leap into the path of a sword."

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.

 

[Salthorae]

Please explain what isn't plausible about an Int-1 toad, panicked by the raging battle around it, leaping into the path of danger, accidentally killing itself in the process.

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

Because that's a reasonable state for a toad that suddenly finds itself in an unfolding battle.

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.

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?

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.

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.