D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Micah Sweet]

Isn't the opposite also true though? If D&D One 5.5 Update Non-Edition Edition removed limitations from polymorph, couldn't you always put them back? Or impose even greater limitations if the spell seems overpowered for your game?

When I had the spell, I could rarely get any ally to accept it, since it caused them to lose their own abilities, and in effect, prevent them from playing their character, but instead take control of an NPC. So I don't really understand why, with all it's limitations, including no high CR Beasts available for use, anyone has a real problem with the spell being overpowered.

That's all fine.. @Undrave is suggesting removing it altogether. That's what I object to.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or we get rid of Polymorph...

At the end of 3.5 they fell on what I feel is the correct answer.

instead of 1 spell called polymorph an entire series of them. Troll Form, White Dragon Form, Curse of Toad, Curse of Rabbit... ect.

no 1 spell that lets you turn into (or turn others into) any form.

 

[Undrave]

At the end of 3.5 they fell on what I feel is the correct answer.

instead of 1 spell called polymorph an entire series of them. Troll Form, White Dragon Form, Curse of Toad, Curse of Rabbit... ect.

no 1 spell that lets you turn into (or turn others into) any form.

That seems way more sensible. It’s a bit like how they do summon spells now, with an included stat block and everything.

Gotta have a ‘Curse of Sheep’ though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I suspect you'd not be impressed were the Polymorph stat block less advantageous to the PCs than the MM one.

Your suspicions are incorrect.

My Shapeshifting Adept generally doesn't even change your PC numbers except for defenses and just grants you the target's physical attack forms, locomotion and with more feats special stuff like breath weapons. Then again, at lower levels, you don't even have to turn into a thing, just grow horns or a huge crab claw. IT's about versatility rather than pumping numbers.

 

[Maxperson]

Gygax in 1 saying the magic user needs to hire an alchemist without ever saying the alchemist was a magic user, and then 2e saying the wizard needs an achemical lab in the same way they need robes.

Right, because you NEED an alchemist and NEED an alchemy lab just for style while you brew potions a different way.

And I'm not sure even what 'somehow lied to common sense' is supposed to mean. Those words in that order are not lied to common sense.

Lied obviously = typo of tied.

 

[Garthanos]

At the end of 3.5 they fell on what I feel is the correct answer.

instead of 1 spell called polymorph an entire series of them. Troll Form, White Dragon Form, Curse of Toad, Curse of Rabbit... ect.

no 1 spell that lets you turn into (or turn others into) any form.

This keeps utility under control...

 

[SkidAce]

SHRUG

We're just talking here. I don't see what's so essential about True Polymorph that it absolutely needs to stay in the game for it to be D&D.

wizard duels?

 

[SkidAce]

I know True Polymorph doesn't "quite" work that way.

But the ideas cool.

 

[Voadam]

Now, the spell says that you keep your personality, but, you have the intelligence of your new form. Can the PC's actually achieve their goal using polymorph or not? 100% DM interpretation.

If the PC polymorphs the fighter into a T-Rex (or a giant ape), will the PC attack allies? Why not? It now has the brain the size of a walnut. Basically, it's a shark on legs. Why would it distinguish friend from foe?

Again, 100% DM adjudication. Not impossible, of course, but, if I was 14 years old again, and a new DM, I can imagine that that sort of thing gets handled ... less than perfectly the first time around.

"The target's game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the chosen beast. It retains its alignment and personality."

This one seems easy, they have their own mind and self with different ability scores. They are them with different ability scores. They do not have the brain of a T-Rex, just its -4 modifier on int checks.

Investigation and knowledge checks they make will suffer.

As a DM you could rule that how a PC roleplays their character should also change with different mental stat scores, but I wouldn't.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes, this isn't about "making things easier for players", but making it clear that you can use this spell on yourself or allies, and it won't turn them into rampaging monsters just as dangerous to you as your enemies. It's why we don't have Barbarians freaking out like 3e Frenzied Berserkers and attacking the Cleric because they decided to Rage in combat.

Or, for that matter, we don't dictate to Barbarians how they must act in combat- if accepting a buff means losing your agency, who would really accept it?