D&D 5E Changeling (from the UA article): crazy broken?

[Saeviomagy]

Arguments saying "the rules don't matter because everyone plays nice" are totally pointless - if they were true, we wouldn't be discussing the rules at all.

Arguments saying "it's limited by the creatures you have seen" in order to limit the effects of the power are pretty bad - because it requires DMs to alter their world in order to prevent the characters from seeing certain creatures, most specifically those creatures that are the most interesting, because those are the likely targets for players to turn into.

That said, I think the easiest solution is to open the MM and use the Doppleganger's shapechange ability, which lets you turn into any medium or small humanoid you have seen. The only stat change is your size.

 

[Sunseeker]

I only see a time I can see the changling ability being a problem with letting you go free willy on what races you can be is if you live/play in a high-fantasy non-xenophobic metropolitan setting. In a lower-fantasy, more exclusive, isolated societies, you're not going to be able to just change into whatever you want whenever you want.

Flying is only OP till the DM throws something mean with wings at you. Which usually happens just as soon as you start abusing your flying!

 

[Parmandur]

Arguments saying "the rules don't matter because everyone plays nice" are totally pointless - if they were true, we wouldn't be discussing the rules at all.



Arguments saying "it's limited by the creatures you have seen" in order to limit the effects of the power are pretty bad - because it requires DMs to alter their world in order to prevent the characters from seeing certain creatures, most specifically those creatures that are the most interesting, because those are the likely targets for players to turn into.



That said, I think the easiest solution is to open the MM and use the Doppleganger's shapechange ability, which lets you turn into any medium or small humanoid you have seen. The only stat change is your size.

...which is what the designers have said this meant. The language about, any humanoid you have seen means individuals: if I've seen Bob, I can mimic Bob, but I don't get his stats.

 

[Paraxis]

I only see a time I can see the changling ability being a problem with letting you go free willy on what races you can be is if you live/play in a high-fantasy non-xenophobic metropolitan setting.

That describes a few places in Eberron, the cities of Sharn and Xen'drik come to mind right away, both major non-xenophobic metropolitan areas, that are major ports and hubs of activity.

 

[LostSoul]

That is not necessarily so. To quote the Basic Rules (page 2), "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

So for a given group, character death might actually be preferable to seeing the changeling turn into a mermaid for the umpteenth time (or the druid turning into a brown bear or someone summoning pixies that turn the whole party into T-rexes or...).

When I read that section I take it to mean that, by following the rules/procedures in the rest of the books, you're going to get an exciting story. You don't need to try to make an exciting story; it's an emergent property of the game.

But I haven't read all the material very closely so I could be misinterpreting.

Anyway, to each their own.

 

[Hussar]

Given how challenging it can be for, say, a right handed person to effectively wield a weapon in their left hand, I'd feel fairly comfortable roleplaying a changeling disguised as a thri-keen who fumbles while fighting with his new 3rd and 4th arms. And expecting to taking flying lessons before trying to seriously fly like an aarakocra. As a guideline though, not as a rule.

There's an excellent idea for using the Downtime training rules. Sure, you saw an aarakocra and you can emulate it, but, you have to spend a fair bit of time learning to fly. And learning to fly would be for each form, although, you might cut the training time down for subsequent fliers of similar physiques.

 

[Hussar]

That describes a few places in Eberron, the cities of Sharn and Xen'drik come to mind right away, both major non-xenophobic metropolitan areas, that are major ports and hubs of activity.

This was the first thing I thought of. If you grew up in Sharn, or heck, in most of the Eberron places, saying, "I saw it in a zoo/circus" probably isn't a huge stretch. Although, I think it would be fair for the DM to veto this sort of thing until it's encountered at the table.

 

[Sunseeker]

That describes a few places in Eberron, the cities of Sharn and Xen'drik come to mind right away, both major non-xenophobic metropolitan areas, that are major ports and hubs of activity.

Ah just another reason for me to dislike the Eberron setting.

 

[Sunseeker]

This was the first thing I thought of. If you grew up in Sharn, or heck, in most of the Eberron places, saying, "I saw it in a zoo/circus" probably isn't a huge stretch. Although, I think it would be fair for the DM to veto this sort of thing until it's encountered at the table.

I think a DM could reasonably extend "a creature you have seen" to "a creature you have seen in enough detail to be able to replicate more than just a passing appearance". You could take it a little further and pull in a little Animorphs and alter it to "a creature you have made physical contact with for more than 10 seconds".

 

[iserith]

Arguments saying "the rules don't matter because everyone plays nice" are totally pointless - if they were true, we wouldn't be discussing the rules at all.

We really don't need to discuss rules except to have internet arguments, provided people have an expectation that players won't abuse things. I have that expectation because I work at making it so at my table. So I don't feel the need to make claims that a rule might be "crazy broken." That would only be so if a player chooses to abuse it. Why play with people who would do that?

That's how I see it, anyway.

When I read that section I take it to mean that, by following the rules/procedures in the rest of the books, you're going to get an exciting story. You don't need to try to make an exciting story; it's an emergent property of the game.

But I haven't read all the material very closely so I could be misinterpreting.

Anyway, to each their own.

The "rest of the books," such as the DMG talk about how the rules serve us and that we don't serve the rules. How the DM runs the game, not the rules. How the DM can set aside the rules at any time and should, when it serves the goals of play.

Following rules and procedures, even perfectly, won't necessarily get us to a good time and an exciting, memorable story that emerges as a result of play. We have to know when to use the rules and when not to and which way to adjudicate in a given moment. On the player's side, it's not enough to make the most optimal choices all the time or to do "what my character would do." If following the rules exactly, making optimal choices, or doing "what my character would do" isn't going to lead to a good time or help create an exciting, memorable story, then we should do something else instead. That is, of course, if you buy into the goals of play discussed on page 2 of the Basic Rules.

This is getting a little off-topic at this point, so if anyone wants to discuss it privately, you can PM me.