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

[Micah Sweet]

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?

If I felt I needed the buff, yes.

I actually miss barbarians being sometimes unable to distinguish friend from foe. Felt more real.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Honestly, if you make polymorph turn you stupid and dangerous, why not just say it can't be cast on allies instead of this 'malevolent djinn' routine?

 

[DND_Reborn]

wizard duels?

Actually, this is how I always thought Wild Shape should work... only with just beasts...

 

[Voadam]

Actually, this is how I always thought Wild Shape should work... only with just beasts...

I always took it as the 9th level shape change exemplar from 1e on.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

So, all benefit, no drawback. Got it.

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?

IME if a buff* makes the PC greatly more powerful for a while at risk of said PC becoming a danger to the party, the vast majority of players will accept the buff and - using their own agency - roleplay whatever follows.

* - this also applies to summoning bigass monsters that may or may not follow instructions, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, if you make polymorph turn you stupid and dangerous, why not just say it can't be cast on allies instead of this 'malevolent djinn' routine?

Variant: it can be cast on allies but is still an offensive action; and no ally will willingly accept it.

Consequences may follow as they will.

 

[James Gasik]

So, all benefit, no drawback. Got it.

IME if a buff* makes the PC greatly more powerful for a while at risk of said PC becoming a danger to the party, the vast majority of players will accept the buff and - using their own agency - roleplay whatever follows.

* - this also applies to summoning bigass monsters that may or may not follow instructions, etc.

Why does there need to be a drawback? I mean, the spell can already be ended by taking hit point damage, it requires concentration, and you can only polymorph into a beast of CR = to HD, which we run out of possible choices by the time we get to the T Rex anyways. And you lose all your abilities and become an NPC animal, which means you can't even play the character you chose to play. No Rage, no Second Wind, no Sneak Attack, nothing.

What in the world about this is so powerful that is also requires "and also, you can't use any tactics, strategy, or common sense (even if the animal form is wiser than you are, lol), and must risk attacking your allies"?

Isn't it bad enough that, due to concentration as a mechanic, most casters have better things to do than maintain one buff spell, that most of them have to be terrible on top of it?

 

[James Gasik]

Honestly, if you make polymorph turn you stupid and dangerous, why not just say it can't be cast on allies instead of this 'malevolent djinn' routine?

It reminds me of the old days, when you didn't dare cast Wish, because not only did the spell age you 5 years, every DM I ever played under went full Monkey's Paw to find a way to screw you over for anything you wanted to use it for.

Matter of fact, they kept doing it even in 3e, when the spell had a list of "safe" uses. If people actually played high level 5e, I bet there'd be much grumbling about the latest version of the spell too, lol.

(Actually, on that note, we found a Luck Blade during Storm King's Thunder, and the Barbarian used it to make the entire party resistant to psychic damage (Bear totem, natch), and even when the DM was shown the Adventurer's League handout that said that was an allowed wish, he still complained that he should be allowed to make us vulnerable to some other damage type to "balance out the magic", whatever that meant. Not that I ever took any psychic damage anyways...)

 

[Lanefan]

Why does there need to be a drawback? I mean, the spell can already be ended by taking hit point damage, it requires concentration, and you can only polymorph into a beast of CR = to HD, which we run out of possible targets by the time we get to the T Rex anyways. And you lose all your abilities and become an NPC animal, which means you can't even play the character you chose to play. No Rage, no Second Wind, no Sneak Attack, nothing.

What in the world about this is so powerful that is also requires "and also, you can't use any tactics, strategy, or common sense (even if the animal form is wiser than you are, lol), and must risk attacking your allies"?

Isn't it bad enough that, due to concentration as a mechanic, most casters have better things to do than maintain one buff spell, do most of them have to be terrible on top of it?

Concentration is a big mitigator, indeed. I was thinking of prior-edition versions of the spell, where concentration wasn't a thing. (and I'm not a huge fan of it in the 5e implementation, other than a very few instances of which this isn't one)

 

[Bill Zebub]

If I felt I needed the buff, yes.

I actually miss barbarians being sometimes unable to distinguish friend from foe. Felt more real.

And destroying magic items! I actually miss that.