D&D 5E Polymorph is a bad de-buff spell

[Seramus]

These are all great things to discuss in another context. Here they serve to obfuscate a point that has already been made, that being some people are choosing to have their fun spoiled by having an otherwise reasonable action rendered questionable by their concern over what they think someone else is thinking.

You can't escape context: the preference of the individual table. Debating personal preference in a white room scenario goes nowhere.

 

[iserith]

If the player knows how to break polymorph, and he says he is going to have the frog suicide to break the polymorph without any IC knowledge or rolls to know about how polymorph works... I would rate that around the "cheating on dice rolls" level of disruption at my table.

What if the character's knowledge of the spell is not a prerequisite for the toad taking the proposed action?

 

[Seramus]

Hypothetically, in a situation where Polymorph is sufficiently well known, would you still have a problem with a polymorphed frog leaping to its death?

I would not. More importantly, nobody at my table would have a problem with it.

 

[iserith]

You can't escape context: the preference of the individual table. Debating personal preference in a white room scenario goes nowhere.

I've conceded that people have their preferences as anyone must do. What I'm shining a light on is what underpins that preference so people reading can judge if that's the kind of thing they want to do or person they want to be. If they do, great, play on. If they don't, then welcome to the club - I have some cool stuff to show you!

 

[WaterRabbit]

The simplest solution to me is just to apply the Instant Death due to massive damage rule. If the suicidal frog gets hit for more than 1 point of damage, the character is killed. The spell is also broken so you now have a dead humanoid instead of a dead frog. This is in the context of "The target assumes the hit points of its new form".

Instead, another player could try to just knock the frog unconscious by "Knocking a Creature Out". Then the spell is broken (again) by the target is now unconscious.

This is a reasonable interpretation and gets around the problem of metagaming. Can the players use this to their advantage to cheaply kill opponents? Sure. Polymorph opponent into a frog and then splat it -- as long as the target isn't a shapechanger or has legendary saves etc.

I often give "boss monsters" 1 or more legendary actions because it is too easy for PCs to gang up on solo creatures as it is. This would just be an extension of that.

 

[Seramus]

What if the character's knowledge of the spell is not a prerequisite for the toad taking the proposed action?

The toad can take the action for any number of reasons. The character's knowledge of the spell is a prerequisite for the player, if he declares the action is being done to break the polymorph.

I've conceded that people have their preferences as anyone must do. What I'm shining a light on is what underpins that preference so people reading can judge if that's the kind of thing they want to do or person they want to be.

And I wouldn't even have a problem with that, if you had not been framing your opposition with extremely derogatory terms.

 

[iserith]

The toad can take the action for any number of reasons. The character's knowledge of the spell is a prerequisite for the player, if he declares the action is being done to break the polymorph.

So, under that rule, the smart play is to just shut up about why you chose that action. Easy peasy. Nobody needs to know that anyway.

 

[Seramus]

So, under that rule, the smart play is to just shut up about why you chose that action. Easy peasy. Nobody needs to know that anyway.

In an ideal world, I would hope all the players have respect for the social contract at their table. I can always dream!

 

[iserith]

In an ideal world, I would hope all the players have respect for the social contract at their table. I can always dream!

Yeah, people should stick to their agreements. But ultimately, if that player keeps his or her yap shut about it, you will never know. And if that is so, it makes a strong case in my view for just doing away with the agreement altogether and finding a different way to address the problem (such as it is).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

As for the words I've chosen being offensive, let's try to defend an approach that says, essentially, "MY fun is based in large part on the thoughts in YOUR head, regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, and it's YOUR responsibility to make sure *I* am not suspicious of YOUR motives." I don't think that can be defended outside of "We just like it." Which is all well and good - like I said, people should play how they want to play - but let's not pretend it's not about thought crimes and abdication of personal responsibility. Use different words, if you like, but I think we'll arrive at the same place.

You keep repeating this but it's not true.

There's no guessing about the player's motivation going on here. The player has specifically SAID OUT LOUD why he's taking this action. There is nothing going on here that isn't absolutely, 100% clear to the table. There's no suspicion. To suspect would mean that I didn't just hear the player declare that he's committing suicide by spear to break the spell. There's no "thought crimes" and whatnot.

How can it be policing what the player thinks when the player EXPLICITLY STATES WHY the player is taking an action?

Which brings us to the "reasonable" argument. You claim that it's reasonable for the frog to leap up and impale itself on a spear or jump under someone's foot just in time to get killed. To me, that's not believable. It's just not. At least, it's completely unbelievable to me. It's not a plausible course of action for a frog. Run away? Sure, I'll buy that. But jump onto a sword? That's just ludicrous.

I don't like Looney Toons in my gaming. Not that it's Serious Business gaming either, but, at least a nod towards believability would be nice. And this course of action, which is what I'm actually criticizing just isn't plausible.

Tell you what. Go down to the river with a spear, and try getting a frog to kill itself on your spear. You can't stab the frog. You just have to scare it onto the spear. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're stealing the spotlight because your feelings are more important than mine, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're defending Jane's character because you want to get into her pants, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you cheated on your dice roll, we're going to have an issue.

Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you say you're only doing it because you really hate another player and want him to suffer, we're going to have an issue.

So, here's the thing...

If you say, "Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you are doing it because you are trying to gain an advantage, based on knowledge that your character wouldn't have" then you are asking...no, begging...players to lie.

The frog example in this thread is a little bit silly, but let's use it anyway: if you know that some people at your table will blow a gasket if you "metagame", that means that in order to use this strategy you have to think of something that has a strong possibility of getting you killed, without it being obvious that's what you are doing.

And maybe nobody at your table (with "your" being applicable to anybody reading this, not specifically [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION]) would ever be such a villain, but think about what would happen at any AL or convention table.

Is that really what we want to encourage? Keeping our thoughts either locked away, or intentionally deceiving others at the table, so that we won't be prohibited from taking actions we want to take?

A similar thing came up in a thread about social skills being used on players, whether by other players or NPCs. Here's an imaginary conversation I posted:

GM: "Do you want to do anything...?"

Barbarian: "Nope."

GM: "If you want to see if he's telling the truth I'll have you roll Insight..."

Barbarian: "No, thanks."

GM: "Huh. Do you think he's telling the truth?"

Barbarian: "I hadn't really thought about it."

GM: "Well...what are you going to do?"

Barbarian: "Nothing just yet."

GM: "Ok, well the Being turns to go and..."

Barbarian: "I attack him as soon as his back is turned."

GM: "What...why!?!?"

Barbarian: "Reasons."

GM: "You think he's lying! But your character isn't smart or wise enough to know that!"

Barbarian: "Huh? I didn't say anything about lying. I just want to attack him."

GM: "You can't. You wouldn't do that if you thought he was telling the truth..."

etc.

Surely that's not what we want to encourage, but that's what happens when you start worrying about what's going on inside the head of either a player or his/her character.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Hypothetically, in a situation where Polymorph is sufficiently well known, would you still have a problem with a polymorphed frog leaping to its death?

Nope. Not a problem. If the wizard was polymorphed? No worries. The Druid? Not an issue. So, yes, it's going to depend a lot on context.

But, then, being the RBDM that I am, I'd annotate the Hag's Polymorph to work differently. And I'd make it clear that monsters in my game are NOT made using the PHB. OTOH, I wouldn't really have to worry about this because I can implicitly trust my players and know that none of them would enjoy the kind of meta-gaming that would result in the fighter player who's character has never seen a polymorph spell cast, and never seen one broken, immediately deciding that suicide was the best solution to the issue.

 

[Hussar]

So, here's the thing...

If you say, "Regardless of the reasonableness of your actions in the context of the fiction, if you are doing it because you are trying to gain an advantage, based on knowledge that your character wouldn't have" then you are asking...no, begging...players to lie.

The frog example in this thread is a little bit silly, but let's use it anyway: if you know that some people at your table will blow a gasket if you "metagame", that means that in order to use this strategy you have to think of something that has a strong possibility of getting you killed, without it being obvious that's what you are doing.

And maybe nobody at your table (with "your" being applicable to anybody reading this, not specifically [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION]) would ever be such a villain, but think about what would happen at any AL or convention table.

Is that really what we want to encourage? Keeping our thoughts either locked away, or intentionally deceiving others at the table, so that we won't be prohibited from taking actions we want to take?

A similar thing came up in a thread about social skills being used on players, whether by other players or NPCs. Here's an imaginary conversation I posted:


Surely that's not what we want to encourage, but that's what happens when you start worrying about what's going on inside the head of either a player or his/her character.

I take away a somewhat different lesson. When playing a character, play it in such a way that the question of "Why did you just do that" never comes up. If you are playing your character in a consistent, interesting, and plausible way, then these issues don't come up.

Which means, at the end of the day, doing the most optimal thing isn't always the right thing. Sometimes it means doing something less optimal because it's more plausible and thus increases the enjoyment of everyone at the table, rather than insisting that my enjoyment is more important. It's not like killing yourself as a frog is the only possible action you could take. There's a whole bunch of things you could do, including attacking the Hag as a frog. After all, you do retain your own personality.

I'm not a big fan of "Well, it's my character so, no matter what, no matter how illogical, unbelievable and outright stupid whatever it is I'm declaring that I do, you MUST let me do it because it's my character and my enjoyment of the game is more important than anyone else's at the table."

 

[Seramus]

Is that really what we want to encourage? Keeping our thoughts either locked away, or intentionally deceiving others at the table, so that we won't be prohibited from taking actions we want to take?

I certainly hope none of my players are doing things just to win brownie points and get into Jane's pants. I have faith that they have no such intentions. I don't even think about what their intentions are, most of the time, and just take them at face value.

But if they outright tell me they are doing it for that reason? Heads will turn so fast you'll hear the vertebrae popping from the next room (comedic hyperbole).

I hope that nobody will have to lie. I accept that people can get pretty dark sometimes, and hopefully they will keep it to themselves and maintain the illusion. Society is built on masks of civility. I wish we could all be honest with each other, but I also wish we lived in a post-scarcity society where I could play roleplaying games all day long.

 

[iserith]

You keep repeating this but it's not true.

There's no guessing about the player's motivation going on here. The player has specifically SAID OUT LOUD why he's taking this action. There is nothing going on here that isn't absolutely, 100% clear to the table. There's no suspicion. To suspect would mean that I didn't just hear the player declare that he's committing suicide by spear to break the spell. There's no "thought crimes" and whatnot.

How can it be policing what the player thinks when the player EXPLICITLY STATES WHY the player is taking an action?

So it's okay as long as the player doesn't say aloud why he or she is taking the action? I can live with that. You're cool with it, right?

Which brings us to the "reasonable" argument. You claim that it's reasonable for the frog to leap up and impale itself on a spear or jump under someone's foot just in time to get killed. To me, that's not believable. It's just not. At least, it's completely unbelievable to me. It's not a plausible course of action for a frog. Run away? Sure, I'll buy that. But jump onto a sword? That's just ludicrous.

What would be a reasonable way to you that a toad in the middle of a chaotic battle between multiple combatants swinging weapons, loosing arrows, and slinging spells at each other could inadvertently (from the toad's perspective) get itself killed? The player could just choose to have the toad do whatever it is you find reasonable.

 

[iserith]

Nope. Not a problem. If the wizard was polymorphed? No worries. The Druid? Not an issue. So, yes, it's going to depend a lot on context.

But, then, being the RBDM that I am, I'd annotate the Hag's Polymorph to work differently. And I'd make it clear that monsters in my game are NOT made using the PHB. OTOH, I wouldn't really have to worry about this because I can implicitly trust my players and know that none of them would enjoy the kind of meta-gaming that would result in the fighter player who's character has never seen a polymorph spell cast, and never seen one broken, immediately deciding that suicide was the best solution to the issue.

C'mon, man - at least get the example right. The character in toad-form isn't making a conscious choice to commit suicide. The player is and, stand-up guy or gal that he or she is, provides a reasonable action declaration for a toad in a chaotic situation.

 

[MaximusArael020]

Is this still about "can a character 'kill' their polymorphed self to return to their natural form?"

I'd say yes for characters that know about the spell polymorph, it's fine. For characters that it's less likely they know, say a level 2 fighter, have them roll an Arcana check. If they pass they can have heard about it from a story or whatever, if not then they wouldn't know.

There must be trust between players and the DM. If the player is going to continue to "metagame" against the wishes of the DM, and talking to them about it outside of the session doesn't help, decide if their actions are hitting the overall enjoyment of the game. If it is, I guess deal with the player how you would deal with any player that is disruptive. If not, then ask yourself why it's a big deal.

 

[iserith]

Is this still about "can a character 'kill' their polymorphed self to return to their natural form?"

I'd say yes for characters that know about the spell polymorph, it's fine. For characters that it's less likely they know, say a level 2 fighter, have them roll an Arcana check. If they pass they can have heard about it from a story or whatever, if not then they wouldn't know.

Can a toad die without knowledge of how polymorph spells work?

If so, then we don't need to establish what the character knows about this spell.

 

[Iry]

You're cool with it, right?

I'm cool with it.

Nobody really likes the idea of being lied to, but the world runs on a balance between truth and lies. I can't even imagine what a world without lies would look like. Certainly nothing like ours. They recently tried to teach an AI how to haggle with people over the price of online goods (like E-Bay). The AI quickly learned to lie because it consistently saved more money than the alternative.

Lies are a tool, neither good nor bad. Flavor. Condiments. They can be used to hurt people, or they can be used to tell amazing stories and bring joy to millions. I try to do the latter more than the former.

 

[iserith]

I'm cool with it.

Nobody really likes the idea of being lied to, but the world runs on a balance between truth and lies. I can't even imagine what a world without lies would look like. Certainly nothing like ours. They recently tried to teach an AI how to haggle with people over the price of online goods (like E-Bay). The AI quickly learned to lie because it consistently saved more money than the alternative.

Lies are a tool, neither good nor bad. Flavor. Condiments. They can be used to hurt people, or they can be used to tell amazing stories and bring joy to millions. I try to do the latter more than the former.

A good way to make sure the players don't lie in this situation is to not create an environment that incentivizes it. What I've found through personal experience is that groups that focus on squashing "metagaming" are often incentivizing the heck out of it.