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

[iserith]

Yes. That's fairly standard behavior in every facet of society, which includes the social contracts common in cooperative roleplaying games. The degree to which it happens can vary from one group to another, from nonexistent to extremely severe. Arguing that there is something wrong with that standard is entirely your right, but it really is perfectly normal social behavior. Even the premise of this conversation revolves around multiple sides determining which thoughts are undesirable to their respective groups.

I guess the important takeaway is... you don't have secret wisdom (on this issue). You just have a preference.

My wisdom is certainly not secret, but having been of this mindset before I do have some insights for the source of this behavior. And I have to say that judging someone's proposed actions not by their reasonableness in context, but by what I might suspect about the player's motivations, is a kind of self-defeating authoritarian creepiness that got me to stop doing this years ago (after having played that way most of my gaming life).

Further, being focused on the motivations of others instead of on their action declaration is in and of itself metagame thinking, which means that for all the protestations about not wanting or desiring to reduce "metagaming," the people engaged in this approach are doing it all the time. This can be mitigated by inviting like-minded people to the group, but it's still happening, especially as the mini-game of "Does my character know enough about X to do Y?" plays out. And, of course, right on cue, because of the dissonance going on here, people decry "metagaming," deny they are doing it, while actively engaging in it.

I think people need to know what this approach is really about so they can make an informed decision whether they want to keep doing it or join a group that has already adopted it as their approach. And I'm glad that in this discussion those who play this way have been so upfront with their motivations. That has heretofore not been the case as I recall.

 

[iserith]

Hilarious aside. I asked one of my players about this scenario, and did my absolute best to phrase it in a neutral way. Since this is my player there is already considerable bias, but his answer cracked me up:

"That's not even subtle. That's like the metagame equivalent of whippin' out your business and giving everyone a helicopter show."

If he said something to the contrary, he should be branded a suspected dissident and everyone should suspect his motivations even more.

Did you explain the other side of the argument that I carefully laid out about how this dislike of "metagaming" comes in part from a desire to police the thoughts of other people? Because I find when that's revealed to people and they reflect on their past behaviors, it turns them off this approach pretty quickly.

 

[iserith]

But, again, there are limits. For the same reason that my Forge Cleric isn't using Creation spells to create several pounds of nitroglycerine, despite the fact that I, personally, know how that's done. Or, heck, white phosphorous. That's a mineral. A 5 foot cube of white phosphorous would be a really big badaboom. But, we don't do that, because, well, it's cheese weaseling and I don't do that sort of thing anymore.

So, for me, this is one of those limits. It's the player deliberately sidestepping things because the rules say he or she can.

I don't think this is the same thing. This is more about agreed-upon genre expectations. If you're playing a steampunk game or D&D with gunpowder and whatnot, nitroglycerine or the like would be perfectly fine, right? I know I've run both the opening chapter of Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Death House (from Curse of Strahd) with guns.

The example we've been discussing doesn't violate agreed-upon genre expectations - a toad leaps into danger and gets killed is something that can happen in a world of sword and sorcery.

At the end of the day, I'd have to agree with the OP. 5e Polymorph is a terrible de-buff.

I wouldn't say so. It depends on the form you choose. Don't choose a 1-hp toad if you want the fighter to be polymorphed for more than a round. Or as Mistwell suggested, turn a hag low on hit points into a beast with lots of hit points. Problem solved.

 

[mortwatcher]

The only reason you think it's "bad faith" though is exactly what I said: You have decided it's the intent matters at least as much as the action when someone like me doesn't care about your intent at all. I'm not on guard for wrong-think. I'm only judging the reasonableness of the action in context.

Even if the player clearly states his or her intent behind taking the action, again, that only matters to the extent you're judging the action by the intent rather than what is happening in the fiction. Stop worrying about it and all these concerns about "metagaming" go away.

this seems like a pretty clear cut case of rules loop-hopping to me
with your example, I would allow you to move/run away scared into the fray, but then the impaling would really need to be accidental - a percentile dice would have to be rolled that you happen to jump into the swords way

unless you also want to stipulate that the frog can in the 6 seconds a round takes precisely calculate the trajectory/trajectories of a sword and how hard it would need to jump to be exactly in the right place at the right time...

 

[iserith]

this seems like a pretty clear cut case of rules loop-hopping to me
with your example, I would allow you to move/run away scared into the fray, but then the impaling would really need to be accidental - a percentile dice would have to be rolled that you happen to jump into the swords way

unless you also want to stipulate that the frog can in the 6 seconds a round takes precisely calculate the trajectory/trajectories of a sword and how hard it would need to jump to be exactly in the right place at the right time...

My position is less about how the action is ultimately adjudicated by the DM (provided it's reasonably fair and consistent) and more about other people at the table saying or implying the action declaration is invalid because the player is only taking such action to end the spell. It's nobody's business why the player took that action except that player in my view and nobody has shown why that player's thoughts must be on trial.

 

[Bawylie]

My position is less about how the action is ultimately adjudicated by the DM (provided it's reasonably fair and consistent) and more about other people at the table saying or implying the action declaration is invalid because the player is only taking such action to end the spell. It's nobody's business why the player took that action except that player in my view and nobody has shown why that player's thoughts must be on trial.

The player has to be on trial because they’ve cheated the DM out of a spell. That’s unfair. The player should have to enjoy being a frog and want to stay a frog as long as possible, even though their contribution to the game at that point is to “ribbit” when their initiative comes up.

The player shouldn’t be able to take any actions that mitigate their unfortunate situation. As Hussar says, you would never take a suicidal leap if you hadn’t been turned into a frog. And you would never try to pour water on yourself if you didn’t want to cheese weasel yourself out of being on fire. It’s the same thing. You’re just trying to avoid making a saving throw by doing something that makes sense. You hardly ever pour water on yourself when you’re not on fire. But when you are on fire and you say the reason you’re pouring water on yourself is to be rid of the fire, that’s plainly, obviously cheating and anyone can see it.

(Devil’s avocado).

 

[iserith]

The player has to be on trial because they’ve cheated the DM out of a spell. That’s unfair. The player should have to enjoy being a frog and want to stay a frog as long as possible, even though their contribution to the game at that point is to “ribbit” when their initiative comes up.

The player shouldn’t be able to take any actions that mitigate their unfortunate situation. As Hussar says, you would never take a suicidal leap if you hadn’t been turned into a frog. And you would never try to pour water on yourself if you didn’t want to cheese weasel yourself out of being on fire. It’s the same thing. You’re just trying to avoid making a saving throw by doing something that makes sense. You hardly ever pour water on yourself when you’re not on fire. But when you are on fire and you say the reason you’re pouring water on yourself is to be rid of the fire, that’s plainly, obviously cheating and anyone can see it.

(Devil’s avocado).

"DM, would my character know anything about how water can put out certain fires?"

"Can I make a check to see if I know how to stop, drop, and roll?"

 

[Bawylie]

"DM, would my character know anything about how water can put out certain fires?"

"Can I make a check to see if I know how to stop, drop, and roll?"

That seems like the type of thing only a spellcaster would know. Why are YOU asking? (Suspicious eyes)

 

[Seramus]

My wisdom is certainly not secret, but having been of this mindset before I do have some insights for the source of this behavior. And I have to say that judging someone's proposed actions not by their reasonableness in context, but by what I might suspect about the player's motivations, is a kind of self-defeating authoritarian creepiness that got me to stop doing this years ago (after having played that way most of my gaming life).

You're crouching it in scare words, but this is literally a normal process in every aspect of your social life, and at the gaming table. There's nothing wrong with it at a basic level because that's how social contracts operate, and every table is going to have a different tolerance to it.

Further, being focused on the motivations of others instead of on their action declaration is in and of itself metagame thinking, which means that for all the protestations about not wanting or desiring to reduce "metagaming," the people engaged in this approach are doing it all the time. This can be mitigated by inviting like-minded people to the group, but it's still happening, especially as the mini-game of "Does my character know enough about X to do Y?" plays out. And, of course, right on cue, because of the dissonance going on here, people decry "metagaming," deny they are doing it, while actively engaging in it.

You're creating a strawman here. There may have been one or two posters in this specific thread that haven taken the position of "No Metagaming Ever!" but your major interactions over the past 10 pages or so have been people who seem to have no problem with a moderate amount of metagaming.

I think people need to know what this approach is really about so they can make an informed decision whether they want to keep doing it or join a group that has already adopted it as their approach. And I'm glad that in this discussion those who play this way have been so upfront with their motivations. That has heretofore not been the case as I recall.

Informed decisions are always good, but insisting your perspective is what things are "Really About" is where you are hitting resistance.

 

[Seramus]

and nobody has shown why that player's thoughts must be on trial.

You've been repeatedly shown. Disagreeing with what you've been shown is different than not being shown.

Did you explain the other side of the argument that I carefully laid out about how this dislike of "metagaming" comes in part from a desire to police the thoughts of other people? Because I find when that's revealed to people and they reflect on their past behaviors, it turns them off this approach pretty quickly.

I'll invite him to the thread. That would probably be the most nonpartisan approach, so he can make his own decisions. Besides the whole "already one of my players, so probably shares a similar mindset" thing.