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

[The Crimson Binome]

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...).

And when someone asks, later on, why the changeling allowed someone to die when he or she could have trivially mitigated the risk? Not many players will hold it as an ideal of storytelling for the supposedly-competent hero to demonstrate that level of idiocy.

Of course, that thing does occasionally happen, even in respectable fiction. As a bonus, you get to RP the guilt trip you have later on, knowing that you condemned another player's character to death because you thought it would be more interesting to take the hard route.

 

[iserith]

And when someone asks, later on, why the changeling allowed someone to die when he or she could have trivially mitigated the risk? Not many players will hold it as an ideal of storytelling for the supposedly-competent hero to demonstrate that level of idiocy.

It needn't be a case of idiocy that caused it to happen. Justify the choice in the fiction as you like in a way that makes for a good, plausible story.

Something kind of like this happened last night in my game.
[sblock]The PC lords were addressing the concerns of their commoners - gloom that had settled in after demonic troubles that beset the town. The paladin took point to try and inspire some of the townsfolk to stay rather than go, suggesting that they shouldn't turn their back on their roots. The rogue jumped into support the paladin's argument. I thought the argument had an uncertain outcome and an ability check was called for with the rogue was granting advantage for helping.

But the party's barbarian couldn't let the paladin's words slide because he has an established beef on account of the paladin having turned his back on his own elven heritage - the paladin was being something of a hypocrite here. When he called him out on it in front of the people, I took away the advantage granted by the rogue and gave the barbarian Inspiration. The paladin failed the check which led to the attitude of the people dropping from Friendly to Indifferent.

So it wasn't idiocy. It was a player deciding to play to established characterization. This leads to interesting complications for the PCs and further strain between the paladin and barbarian who have some personal issues to resolve.[/sblock]

Of course, that thing does occasionally happen, even in respectable fiction. As a bonus, you get to RP the guilt trip you have later on, knowing that you condemned another player's character to death because you thought it would be more interesting to take the hard route.

Yes, exactly. It certainly beats the changeling turning into a mermaid for the umpteenth time to save the day in my view. When it comes to achieving the goals of play though, if one isn't sure whether a given action will help do that, it's easy to just ask one's fellow players. "Hey, do you think I should just go mermaid again to get us out of this jam or would it be more fun and interesting if I come up with a reason I can't do it and we see how it plays out, good or bad?"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It needn't be a case of idiocy that caused it to happen. Justify the choice in the fiction as you like in a way that makes for a good, plausible story.
[...]
"Hey, do you think I should just go mermaid again to get us out of this jam or would it be more fun and interesting if I come up with a reason I can't do it and we see how it plays out, good or bad?"

You know how the game is played: The DM describes the scenario, the players describe their actions, and the DM narrates the resolution.

Players conspiring with each other about what actions a character should take is immaterial, because each player is in charge of describing the actions of their own character. The player of the changeling is the one who decides whether to play it safe, or to throw everyone into mortal danger. If you want, you can try to make the decision seem less stupid, by claiming that the character forgot about the ability, or had some other (perhaps philosophical) aversion to the obvious course of action, but the character still comes off as an idiot for taking unnecessary risks. In order to not seem stupid, there would need to be a real factual reason for acting as such - if there were sharks in the water, for example. (Of course, the existence of sharks falls under "describing the scenario" - that's entirely the job of the DM, and not up to the players in any way.)

You can always say that you're just playing the character honestly, and the character would honestly do the stupid thing in the given situation, but that's a degenerate solution. Most players don't want to play characters who act stupidly, and even when they do, it's not nice to force everyone else to play characters who are foolish enough to put up with this walking liability.

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.

This is exactly true. It is not on the players to try and make the game more exciting. There is some impetus on the DM to present an interesting scenario with the potential for an exciting story, but as long as you follow the 1-2-3 of How to Play, you don't need to worry about the story because it will take care of itself

 

[iserith]

You know how the game is played: The DM describes the scenario, the players describe their actions, and the DM narrates the resolution.

Players conspiring with each other about what actions a character should take is immaterial, because each player is in charge of describing the actions of their own character. The player of the changeling is the one who decides whether to play it safe, or to throw everyone into mortal danger. If you want, you can try to make the decision seem less stupid, by claiming that the character forgot about the ability, or had some other (perhaps philosophical) aversion to the obvious course of action, but the character still comes off as an idiot for taking unnecessary risks. In order to not seem stupid, there would need to be a real factual reason for acting as such - if there were sharks in the water, for example. (Of course, the existence of sharks falls under "describing the scenario" - that's entirely the job of the DM, and not up to the players in any way.)

You can always say that you're just playing the character honestly, and the character would honestly do the stupid thing in the given situation, but that's a degenerate solution. Most players don't want to play characters who act stupidly, and even when they do, it's not nice to force everyone else to play characters who are foolish enough to put up with this walking liability.

First, you're characterizing the decision as necessarily stupid rather than anything else which colors your view. Making the optimal choice every time isn't always going to help you achieve the goals of play. (See playing to a flaw and earning Inspiration as an example of the game working against optimal play.) As well, you seem to indicate in your posts that character death is also necessarily bad when the Basic Rules already tell us that's not the case.

Finally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player asking his fellow players what he or she should have his or her character do if said player is not sure whether it passes the litmus test of being fun for everyone at the table and whether it lends itself to the creation of exciting, memorable story. It's an example of good teamwork in my view, even common courtesy. I'd hate to make a decision that would negatively impact someone's game experience, so if I'm not sure, I'm going to ask. It's cold comfort to ruin someone's fun and fall back on a poor excuse like "It's what my character would do."

This is exactly true. It is not on the players to try and make the game more exciting. There is some impetus on the DM to present an interesting scenario with the potential for an exciting story, but as long as you follow the 1-2-3 of How to Play, you don't need to worry about the story because it will take care of itself

A story will definitely be produced as a result of play. Whether or not it's an exciting, memorable story is a factor of, in part, the kinds of decisions and adjudications that are made during play. Always doing "what my character would do" or invoking dice and mechanics for every action doesn't necessarily get you there. Those things must also be interesting, exciting, memorable, etc. to have a better shot at achieving the goals of play.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

First, you're characterizing the decision as necessarily stupid rather than anything else which colors your view. Making the optimal choice every time isn't always going to help you achieve the goals of play. (See playing to a flaw and earning Inspiration as an example of the game working against optimal play.) As well, you seem to indicate in your posts that character death is also necessarily bad when the Basic Rules already tell us that's not the case.

Unless you're playing the kind of person who wants to die, then any action which is likely to lead to your death is a stupid action. For example, all other factors being equal, choosing a weapon that deals less damage is a stupid action. If you are playing the kind of character who makes suicidally stupid decisions, then that's a degenerate case; most players don't want their characters to die, and if you're working from that assumption that they do, then you're so far off from the rest of the game assumptions as to make any other discussion from that point irrelevant.

The Basic Rules say that characters might die, and that an exciting story will happen. It does not set forth that characters should die, or that the players should make the story more exciting. It's descriptive, rather than proscriptive.

I'd hate to make a decision that would negatively impact someone's game experience, so if I'm not sure, I'm going to ask. It's cold comfort to ruin someone's fun and fall back on a poor excuse like "It's what my character would do."

Agreed, which is why you shouldn't intentionally play a character who is suicidally stupid, especially where there's every possibility that your idiocy will kill someone else's character instead of your own. It's also a good idea to check with your party before you decide to play a Kender, an evil character that is likely to turn on the party, or a reckless sorcerer who doesn't care about who is in the blast radius.

 

[iserith]

Unless you're playing the kind of person who wants to die, then any action which is likely to lead to your death is a stupid action. For example, all other factors being equal, choosing a weapon that deals less damage is a stupid action. If you are playing the kind of character who makes suicidally stupid decisions, then that's a degenerate case; most players don't want their characters to die, and if you're working from that assumption that they do, then you're so far off from the rest of the game assumptions as to make any other discussion from that point irrelevant.

I can't agree. No action is stupid so long as it serves the goals of play.

The Basic Rules say that characters might die, and that an exciting story will happen. It does not set forth that characters should die, or that the players should make the story more exciting. It's descriptive, rather than proscriptive.

The Basic Rules say that while an adventurer(s) might die or an adventure objective could be failed, "but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win." Emphasis mine.

I'd rather not go too far down the rabbit hole of parsing sentences from the Basic Rules as if it makes our opinions more legitimate, but what this tells me is something I already know (and most should already know) from experience with the game: Not all games end up being fun and not all games create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Achieving those things is a goal to be worked toward. Sometimes that means you make the optimal choice. Sometimes it means you make a suboptimal one. Sometimes it means a character death; other times it doesn't.

There are games where everyone does everything optimally, where the DM invokes every mechanic that seemingly applies, the player characters generally survive and the game is boring drek with a story that is best forgotten (and frequently is). Then there are games where the whole party is wiped out in some heroic or unlucky fashion that would make for an awesome movie, a campaign that the players remember for years.

What I'm definitely not suggesting - and I'm not sure where you're getting this - is that character should die. That is too circumstantial to be made into a blanket statement. I am, however, saying that it's part of the player's responsibility to consider their choices through the lens of what is fun for everyone and what will lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story. Those are the "win conditions" of D&D. If a player wants to "win," then those are the goals they need to strive to achieve.

Me, I like to win.

Agreed, which is why you shouldn't intentionally play a character who is suicidally stupid, especially where there's every possibility that your idiocy will kill someone else's character instead of your own. It's also a good idea to check with your party before you decide to play a Kender, an evil character that is likely to turn on the party, or a reckless sorcerer who doesn't care about who is in the blast radius.

Absolutely nobody is suggesting anyone should play a "suicidally stupid" character.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Unless you're playing the kind of person who wants to die, then any action which is likely to lead to your death is a stupid action. For example, all other factors being equal, choosing a weapon that deals less damage is a stupid action. If you are playing the kind of character who makes suicidally stupid decisions, then that's a degenerate case; most players don't want their characters to die, and if you're working from that assumption that they do, then you're so far off from the rest of the game assumptions as to make any other discussion from that point irrelevant.

the problem is that people are not good at making smart choices... if people optimized in real life everyone would (or atleast most people) eat right, exercise, go to college to get a degree, learn how to speak both publicly and privately, and always make friends with influecnal people who could help them...

However in the real world people eat junk food, ignore Drs, sit on there butts, drop out of school with no dregree, are afreaid to speak or have trouble communicating, and make friends to play with not for influencing.... so yea, a perfect person may have the best weapon, the best spell, and the best tactic... but I want to role play someone with there own short comings...

A fighter who uses short swords because his father gave him a short sword that was his grandfather...

A wizard that uses divinations almost only because he enjoys being a know it all that sees what will be...

A changling that is more concerned with hiding and seting up fake id's then turning into a merperson...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A fighter who uses short swords because his father gave him a short sword that was his grandfather...

The fighter who uses an heirloom short sword (because of tradition) is killed by the fighter who uses a mass-produced rapier (because it's effective). It's difficult to be the hero of a story when you're dead.

(In this case, there's nothing stupid about using two short swords. It is not strictly inferior to any other option. There are significant trade-offs involved, so it is merely an interesting choice.)

A changeling that is more concerned with hiding and seting up fake id's then turning into a merperson...

There is significant utility in maintaining a false identity. It is stupid to face a challenge instead of bypassing it, if all else is equal. In this case, facing the challenge may grant the additional benefit of allowing you to maintain your cover identity, which makes it an interesting decision point rather than an obvious one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The fighter who uses an heirloom short sword (because of tradition) is killed by the fighter who uses a mass-produced rapier (because it's effective). It's difficult to be the hero of a story when you're dead.

(In this case, there's nothing stupid about using two short swords. It is not strictly inferior to any other option. There are significant trade-offs involved, so it is merely an interesting choice.)

There is significant utility in maintaining a false identity. It is stupid to face a challenge instead of bypassing it, if all else is equal. In this case, facing the challenge may grant the additional benefit of allowing you to maintain your cover identity, which makes it an interesting decision point rather than an obvious one.

I don't understand you at all... are you saying you only RP characters with no quirks, ones that always make the best choice out of game?

the short sword example was from a 2e game... and no one killed him. He fought with a shortsword (at first just a basic one) for 18 levels until he retired. He also never wore metal armor. He had a better then average dex (not saying much in 2e) but he whore studded leather fought with a shortsword and nothing in his off hand...

he ended game with a +3 short sword +5 Vs dragons... but he went thought 3 or 4 different ones including a +2 defender at one point...

you don't have to fight with the best to win, sometimes even when you fight with lesser but more flavorful options you win...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are games where everyone does everything optimally, where the DM invokes every mechanic that seemingly applies, the player characters generally survive and the game is boring drek with a story that is best forgotten (and frequently is). Then there are games where the whole party is wiped out in some heroic or unlucky fashion that would make for an awesome movie, a campaign that the players remember for years.

And it's great, when those situations happen. You can't try to manufacture those moments, though. Or you can, but it really misses the point.

When you choose to have an intelligent character act stupidly in the name of drama, then you rob all meaning from any story you get out of it. You might try to look fondly back upon your cool encounter with the pirates, where you got to swing from the ropes and spout neat one-liners and everyone died in a dramatic fight against the ghost pirate captain, but the whole thing will be tainted by the sheer inauthenticity of it. You didn't have that rad encounter because the DM described the scenario and you described the actions you wanted to take; you had that rad encounter because you decided to subvert the story that should have unfolded, so you could fan-fic over it with bad characterization and dei ex machina.

That's not to say you can't enjoy spontaneously breaking from established character (I believe the relevant trope is the "Idiot Ball"), or obvious plot devices in the name of pandering ("Fan Service"), but again that puts you significantly far outside the expectations of the game. The game expects that you follow 1-2-3 of How to Play, and that an exciting and memorable story will naturally come from that.