Anyone else miss Dispel Magic?

[Campbell]

Really? As a DM, I am no under no obligation to allow such a character in the first place. Heck, I might not even have Necropolitans, and if I do, they may not be 5000 years old. Second, even if I do, it's up to me to say whether they've actually seen everything. Third, it's up to me to decide what there is to see. If there are no War Trolls in my campaign, you can't have seen one to polymorph into them. One of my players asked me what they can use; I said, "Anything in the MM, and anything else you can justify to me."

Let's say I do allow anything, anywhere, uncritically. So what? Fundamentally, we're talking about a natural AC boost, some reach, some natural attacks, and some movement modes. There are other spells with vastly more significant effects.

The problem with open ended polymorph when restricted in this manner is that it places an additional burden on GMs. I don't really want to have to vet the monsters I use in my game due to polymorph concerns. I'd rather focus on preparing adventures.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Really? As a DM, I am no under no obligation to allow such a character in the first place. Heck, I might not even have Necropolitans, and if I do, they may not be 5000 years old. Second, even if I do, it's up to me to say whether they've actually seen everything.

Let me put it this way. You have a Wizard and a Sorcorer in your party.

The Wizard is an elf who's on a quest because she lost her memories and fell in love with her brother who was then being cursed by her childhood friend because she really liked the guy and thought the whole thing was creepy but didn't realize they didn't know what was going on and turn him into asome sort of wacky creature. Now the Wizard's on quest to find him and the only hint she has as to what he's turned into is a riddle which I don't feel like trying to make up. She has been doing this for the entirity of her very long life and has a legitimate reason to have personally seen and studied 99% of creatures which exist in your campaign world. She also has the Knowledge skills to back this up.

The Sorcorer is a young Lord of incredible innate power who's never been out of his castle before in his life, and but on the day of his coronation, it turns out he's not actually the heir, he's a changeling swapped in by the fae, so now he's decided to find the real heir to take his place before the neighboring nobles mustle in while there's no real leader. He has no idea where he's going and is wandering around getting hoodwinked out of his large amounts of money before latching onto these "adventurers" (who seem like some sort of travelling sideshow).

Both have interesting backstories. Both are fine characters. If both have Polymorph, the Wizard can turn into anything, the Sorcorer can turn into a horse or a dog, maybe a cow. They're getting combat bonuses/penalties based on their backstory, which (unless it's volantary) is Bad Game Design TM.

It's merely "not very good" as a house rule because the GM can be aware of it and balance it out with appropriate bonuses, but a game designer can't, so it's seriously bad from that perspective.

Third, it's up to me to decide what there is to see. If there are no War Trolls in my campaign, you can't have seen one to polymorph into them. One of my players asked me what they can use; I said, "Anything in the MM, and anything else you can justify to me."

And that's fine, in fact that's what I was doing before another GM in our group just went and hit it with the ban stick.

Let's say I do allow anything, anywhere, uncritically. So what? Fundamentally, we're talking about a natural AC boost, some reach, some natural attacks, and some movement modes. There are other spells with vastly more significant effects.

Thing is, I'm pretty sure there are no other spells which give you access to all of those things, which let you choose between all of those things at casting time, which let you choose between turning into creatures tougher than the Fighter (or even just arc the Fighter that much more), or gain any movement type, or gain acces to specific attack types (like grapple or bull rush as appropriate). It's the open ended-ness which is the problem, both in power, and in slowdown.

Of course, even with this, many groups won't have a problem it's just that it tends to slow down play, overly encourages silly types of system mastery, and puts restrictions on monster design that don't need to be there. All of which means it's just better off working like PHB2 shapechange or summon astral construct.

 

[pawsplay]

If both have Polymorph, the Wizard can turn into anything, the Sorcorer can turn into a horse or a dog, maybe a cow.

Polymorph is a 4th level spell. How do you get to 7th level without seeing anything more dangerous than what you find in a petting zoo? Also, as a noble, he's at least seen falcons, warhorses, and probably pigs. Further, we can reasonably expect he has access to or has seen at least one Summon Monster spell, so you can add everything on that list that isn't templated.

As for the amnesiac wizard... simply because she has lots of knowledge skills does not mean she knows absolutely everything. Traveling a century is NOT a valid reason for knowing 99% of the creatures in my game world. People have spent years in the rain forest and barely scratched the surface of even a small region. Further, some monsters are simply harder to find. About the only advantages she has over changeling boy is she might have more familiarity with umber hulks, hippogriffs, purple worms, and a few varieties of giant. It's very doubtful her knowledge is truly continent-wide if it is to have any depth.

Vetting new monsters is very easy. I just say "No!" unless I feel a good reason to say yes.

 

[kennew142]

Vetting new monsters is very easy. I just say "No!" unless I feel a good reason to say yes.

QFT! More GMs need to learn this.

I have to say that Polymorph has never broken a game I've run. It's never even been a problem. Of course, none of my regular players are the type to abuse the rules (i.e. no douches allowed).

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I'm so disappointed. Dispel magic is one of those things, it's not whether you can make it work, it's how you make it work. This ranks up there with gutting polymorph as one of the all-time cowardly design decisions.

Polymorph quite simply needed to be gutted because not every spell should be applicable to nearly 90% of any given situation.

If you consider Polymorph Self, the spell replaces Fly, Disguise / Alter Self, Bulls Strength, Bears Endurance, Cats Grace, Water Breathing, Enlarge Self, and to a lesser extent Mage Armour (if you took a form with a high natural AC).

Polymorph Other was essentially a save or die spell. All you needed to do was polymorph your opponent into a gold fish and let him suffocate.

As a fantasy trope, the Polymorph spell works great. From a gameplay standpoint, it was too useful and caused more problems than it should have.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

A valid point definitely but I would think the rebuttal would be, then D&D is no longer the game that allows us to imitate a particular troupe it once did (i might be using troupe incorrectly).

I agree with you! To a point. Like I said in my last post, we can still create very similar characters, but we should not necessarily expect the mechanics to reflect the archetype's abilities exactly. This is no different from any other addition of DnD that I've played, which has never exactly imitated Aragorn or Ged or Sir Gawain or whom have you.

For me this traditional fantasy fiction while not actually all that traditional is what I (an others) are looking for from a fantasy system so it is a bit of a loss.

That's fair. It's certainly something that I strive to imitate in my games. I like epic stories with sweeping scope. I like diverse, strong, round characters. What I stopped worrying about was the mechanics of the game matching up with the things that happen int he stories that I love. You know, "what level is gandalf?" and all that jazz. It doesn't matter to me. Fictions and games are different animals. Certainly the former inspires the latter, but one is not a mirror of the other.

Conversely the new game might generate new 'troupes' (probably still using the word incorrectly, frankly i am worried i just made it up as the spelling looks wrong) but I generally don't think this will be the case.

Not because of any issue with 4e itself but because our imagined traditional fantasy was created when there were so few games around that the games that did exist had a strong effect in sculpting our views. Now when there are so many RPGs out there, when a new game is launched i would think its effect on this 'Jungian' idea of fantasy is probably much less (i could be wrong in this hypothesis and possibly WoW and anime would be a good argument against this as they have probably had a huge impact in reimagining fantasy )

Hmm... I think I see what you're saying. That you stick to DnD because it's what you grew up with? It's an interesting point, and certainly true. DnD will probably always be my favorite, and that's certainly in part related to nostalgia. But my understanding of the game is shaped by my knowledge as I've gotten older, so while I'm still looking for the same things (fun with friends, escapism, great adventure, great characters, etc.) those ideas are tempered (and in some ways even liberated) by a better understanding of the mechanics and how they interact.

But I guess ultimately if DnD is not giving you what you want or need from a tabletop RPG, there are so many options out there now that there's bound to be something that suits your tastes.

 

[apoptosis]

Hmm... I think I see what you're saying. That you stick to DnD because it's what you grew up with? It's an interesting point, and certainly true. DnD will probably always be my favorite, and that's certainly in part related to nostalgia. But my understanding of the game is shaped by my knowledge as I've gotten older, so while I'm still looking for the same things (fun with friends, escapism, great adventure, great characters, etc.) those ideas are tempered (and in some ways even liberated) by a better understanding of the mechanics and how they interact.

But I guess ultimately if DnD is not giving you what you want or need from a tabletop RPG, there are so many options out there now that there's bound to be something that suits your tastes.

I probably didnt make my point very clear. It was more that I have come to expect certain 'themes' when I play a traditional fantasy RPG. Some of these themes were developed from my readings at the time (Howard, Lieber, Moorcock) but early D&D also had an impact on creating this view of what elements a fantasy RPG should contain. At the time D&D really was one of the few games on the market and it really dominated the view. This view had a heavy impact from minature battles so Wizards had abilities that integrated into these pretty well (say artillery powers).

So my view of traditional fantasy is a hodgepodge of these different sources. D&D has done a good job of catering to this (though honestly i play other games much more). 4E is not going to carry the same type of themes (wizards powers for instance are just abilities more or less like everyone elses). Shapechanging was one of these themes. Altering and/or removing it also impacts my view of the game (not a lot but some).

D&D up till present has done a good job of capturing certain ideas. I feel that 4E will not continue the trend.

I do play D&D for a nostalgic effect to be honest. I like the system but at best it is an ok system. If i play new systems it is usually an Indy game that have systems that I feel are much more innovative (by that I mean really change how a game runs and how the game is approached) than 4E (which is a plus and a minus) like TSOY or sorcerer; presently looking into Reign.

I dont care about mechanics except how they allow me to capture certain feels from the type genre I am trying to recreate.

I believe 4E is creating a new subgenre or theme that is much different than the previous editions. I think this is a GOOD thing. I don't think they needed to make subtle changes but that they need large changes and did the right thing.

For me it wont allow me to reacreate the type of trad fantasy i would want (of course this is all given limited knowledge of the system). It will allow me to create a neofantasy, which i have less interest in doing.

 

[pawsplay]

If you consider Polymorph Self, the spell replaces Fly, Disguise / Alter Self, Bulls Strength, Bears Endurance, Cats Grace, Water Breathing, Enlarge Self, and to a lesser extent Mage Armour (if you took a form with a high natural AC).

Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, and Disguise Self are low level effects. Fly I'll give you, that's only a single spell level difference. It's unlikely to get all of Bull, Cat, abd Bear in a single casting unless you're pretty high level. None of these problems are unsurmountable design problems. In every case, you have the drawback of looking like a kind of creature.

I think it's unfortunate they took away some of the drawbacks of the old polymorph spell. Potentially turning into a mindless brute made the spell much less a solution to every problem. Unfortunately, the Baleful Poly/Polymorph split took away a lot of what distinguished polymorph from more conventional buffs.

There are many ways to tackle the problems here. Getting rid of polymorph is a cop-out.

 

[Jhaelen]

There are many ways to tackle the problems here. Getting rid of polymorph is a cop-out.

No it isn't. It's the reasonable thing to do.

Just because there has been a free-form version of polymorph in D&D doesn't mean it's been a good idea.

Requiring a different spell/power for every form is both easier to balance AND better represents the ability of spellcasters/magical beings in fiction to change shape.

If a player wants to focus on shapeshifting she should be required to, well, make it her focus! It's already been mentioned that the prime shapeshifting class in 4E will be the druid.

Why should a single power be able to replace an entire class concept?

 

[Vaeron]

Most fictional wizards have signature forms. We don't see them turning into any and every creature - they usually have "favorites."

There are even more contemporary examples than Willow, King Arthur, and the Odyssey. Even in the Harry Potter-verse, wizards can't just turn into whatever they want. Only a select few wizards can change shape, and the potential for abuse is so great that these individuals must be licensed. And these individuals, without exception, can turn themselves into only one specific type of animal. Turning mice into teacups is a specific spell, and I'm sure there are other examples that someone more versed in HP could touch on than I can.

I guess the point being - wizards being able to shift endlessly through forms is something seen mostly in videogame boss encounters, and not something seen much in actual fiction. There are always monsters that can do it, of course, but it appears as an aberrant power and not something wizards of any level are much able to accomplish.

As a complete aside, I'm very happy 4e is moving wizards into a more traditional spellcasting role... That memorization system limited power somewhat, leaving magic mighty and mysterious, but crippled pre-5th level play for many wizards.