D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Micah Sweet]

If one is ever tempted to say "RAW be damned," that's...pretty clearly an indication that there's something wrong with the rules, no? Even if I disagree with you about this specific choice, we seem to be of the same mind that some kind of problem is found here.


It's perfectly balanced in 13th Age though! I genuinely love the design of the 13A Druid. They actually managed to solve the problem of the class trying to be 7 things all at once, half of them stupidly overpowered!

13A takes too much from 4th ed to really work for me, but I read it and its a great game if you buy into the design philosophy (just like 4e).

 

[Hussar]

What does the 13th Age druid do?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What does the 13th Age druid do?

Long story short, you have six things you can invest into: Shifter, Terrain Caster, Elemental Caster, Wild Healer, Animal Companion, Warrior Druid. You get 3, and only 3, talents that can be spent on these six options. If you spend one talent, you are an "initiate" thereof; spend two and you're an "adept." The basic rules are the same for both, but you get to do it more often or more proficiently if you spend two talents.

So you can have a dabble of three of the above things, or specialize in one and dabble in another. "Druid" as a whole has all the things people want of it--but each individual druid cannot be all things. IMO, a brilliant solution to a major problem.

 

[Garthanos]

But it would make a fantastic drawback for Polymorph. And a pretty reasonable one too.

drawback , not so much when used against adversaries... unless it was the caster who was fatigued

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not. Following RAW is not adversarial,

Following this one is. Rules are made to encourage certain playstyles and this one encourages adversarial DMing. Like Wish Classic.

 

[Maxperson]

Following this one is. Rules are made to encourage certain playstyles and this one encourages adversarial DMing. Like Wish Classic.

No. It doesn't. There's absolutely nothing adversarial about it. The player gets to choose within the limits of the spell what he turns into or turns someone else into, knowing all of the risks. It's not at all player vs. DM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sometimes it's the Player vs the book AND the DM. Like this time.

 

[Maxperson]

Sometimes it's the Player vs the book AND the DM. Like this time.

Show me how it's adversarial, because I'm not seeing it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Following this one is. Rules are made to encourage certain playstyles and this one encourages adversarial DMing. Like Wish Classic.

Absolutely. RAW can be blatantly adversarial even--consider the ear seeker, the various forms of cloaker, cursed items that look identical to beneficial magic items.... Epitome of adversarial DMing

 

[Hussar]

drawback , not so much when used against adversaries... unless it was the caster who was fatigued

Well, that's true. But, by the same token, by the time you've polymorphed a baddie, it's most likely dead anyway. Everyone stands around that fish, drop spell and everyone's readied attack goes off. Having a level of exhaustion isn't really a big deal.

Or, you could gain 1 level of exhaustion for every size increase. So, sure, you can be a Giant Ape, but, you gain 2 levels of Exhaustion afterward. A Bear would give you 1 level of exhaustion and a wolf or smaller, no exhaustion at all. Simple enough to add to the spell. Although with the new OneD&d rules, that might not be so much of a penalty, but, you could always grant 2 levels/size increase.

Would kinda suck for small PC's though. Maybe just exhaustion for large and then huge - 1 for large, 2 for huge, regardless of the starting size. The strain of becoming so big is exhausting.

 

[Lanefan]

Absolutely. RAW can be blatantly adversarial even--consider the ear seeker, the various forms of cloaker, cursed items that look identical to beneficial magic items.... Epitome of adversarial DMing

"Gotcha" - which all of these are - is not adversarial unless one is playing as sport rather than war. Instead, these things are simply part of the game; and cautious play can mitigate or eliminate the threat/annoyance of all but the ear seeker.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That is, you seem to be saying this in the sense of "maybe TT is weak?" And all I'm seeing is "TT is actually even more restricted than we thought," making an even stronger case for polymorph being over the top. A sixth-level Wizard-only spell (so, only cast able a couple times a day maximum, because no way are you casting this with higher spell slots, and not usable by most classes), which gives comparatively mediocre benefits (basically makes you a weaker Paladin with no spells but always-on advantage on attacks), only lasts 10 minutes, and when the spell ends you (very likely) take a level of exhaustion. And you can only use it on yourself.

It does less than that. The paladin is at least already wearing armor and wielding a martial weapon. It takes more than 10 minutes to don most types of armor, so unless you have that magical armor that you can don with a word, your AC isn’t changing.

 

[Xamnam]

Following RAW is not adversarial, nor does it make the DM a bad one.

I'd add inherently before adversarial, but true. However, I don't know that saying Polymorph causes you to lose your agency is RAW. The only text in the spell that covers that territory is:

It retains its alignment and personality.

For me, that's enough to leave the player in control. In addition, why would it call out that the creature can't cast spells due specifically to the lack of hands or speech? If the idea is animal intelligence takes over, casting Fireball is not a relevant concern.

Now, if you want to argue the spell being dangerous is RAI, I have no slam dunk argument against that. The best I can offer is that Feeblemind, which sets Intelligence to 1, clarifies that:

The creature can, however, identify its friends, follow them, and even protect them.

If that's what giving you the mental statistics of a Lizard or a Crab allows for, I personally wouldn't read Polymorph as more dangerous, especially given that most creatures folks are turning into have a higher stat than that.

In my reading, I see that the first thing that polymorph mentions in regard to this aspect is the term 'game statistics', and read the intention that the changed mental statistics are to be applied as relevant to game situations: saving throws, ability checks, etc. Not personality, not memory, not choice of action. The downside of losing control is represented well enough by the new weakness to things like Command/Fear/Dominate Monster that target wisdom saves.

But, like I said, I can see your argument, and your table is your table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Gotcha" - which all of these are - is not adversarial unless one is playing as sport rather than war. Instead, these things are simply part of the game; and cautious play can mitigate or eliminate the threat/annoyance of all but the ear seeker.

Unfortunately, I think the rules assume combat as sport now. More's the pity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Gotcha" - which all of these are - is not adversarial unless one is playing as sport rather than war. Instead, these things are simply part of the game; and cautious play can mitigate or eliminate the threat/annoyance of all but the ear seeker.

If playing as war, the DM is literally playing an adversarial world.

 

[Umbran]

If playing as war, the DM is literally playing an adversarial world.

I am not sure the world being adversarial is the same as the GM being adversarial.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd add inherently before adversarial, but true. However, I don't know that saying Polymorph causes you to lose your agency is RAW. The only text in the spell that covers that territory is:

Well, yeah. The DM can make just about anything adversarial.

For me, that's enough to leave the player in control. In addition, why would it call out that the creature can't cast spells due specifically to the lack of hands or speech? If the idea is animal intelligence takes over, casting Fireball is not a relevant concern.

Personality is not intelligence. Personality is the barbarian being an irritable jerk, the cleric being a jolly, peace loving person, etc. That remains, so the barbarian as a T-rex is going to be dangerous as hell to everyone, where the cleric as a T-rex isn't going to be hurting anyone unless very hungry or attacked.

The reason it calls out lack of hands and speech for spellcasting is that there are some very smart animals out there. The giant ape is at 7 and the ape is at 6. That's easily in PC range for intelligence and the rules don't set minimum stats for spellcasting any longer. If a PC rolls a 4 for intelligence, he can choose to be a wizard and cast spells.

The player is not going to have the same level of control that he had before. Even if you allow the player to act however he wishes, the simple inability to cast any spells is reduced agency if he's a spellcaster, and the lack of hands keeps the fighter from using weapons, so his agency is reduced as well. He can no longer do all the things he used to be able to do. Additionally, the spell also says in the same sentence as the lack of hands and speech affecting spellcasting, "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of the new form..." That portion of the sentence imposes other restrictions to agency that go above and beyond the spellcasting limitations.

There is no adversarial DMing going on by telling the player he's going to have to roleplay the intelligence of the beast he is being turned into. That isn't DM vs. Player mentality. It's just an impartial ruling that you happen to disagree with.

Now, if you want to argue the spell being dangerous is RAI, I have no slam dunk argument against that. The best I can offer is that Feeblemind, which sets Intelligence to 1, clarifies that:

If that's what giving you the mental statistics of a Lizard or a Crab allows for, I personally wouldn't read Polymorph as more dangerous, especially given that most creatures folks are turning into have a higher stat than that.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, WotC isn't very good at judging animal stats. It gives the common house spider a strength of 2, which would allow that little sucker to drag 30 pounds across the floor. Spiders are strong for their size, but there's no daddy long legs that dragging 1 pound anywhere, let alone 30.

In my reading, I see that the first thing that polymorph mentions in regard to this aspect is the term 'game statistics', and read the intention that the changed mental statistics are to be applied as relevant to game situations: saving throws, ability checks, etc. Not personality, not memory, not choice of action.

Actually, the only thing that is unchanged in the polymorph spell is personality. It explicitly limits actions based on the nature(not form) of the new creature, and spellcasting based on lack of hands(unnecessary distinction if nature=form) and speech.

But, like I said, I can see your argument, and your table is your table.

Absolutely. I wouldn't be upset at a table that let players run free with their choices while polymorphed or a table where it's limited like I read the spell.

 

[Xamnam]

There is no adversarial DMing going on by telling the player he's going to have to roleplay the intelligence of the beast he is being turned into. That isn't DM vs. Player mentality. It's just an impartial ruling that you happen to disagree with.

For the record, I never posted that I saw it as adversarial, and I don't think it is. I just don't think it's explicitly RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

If playing as war, the DM is literally playing an adversarial world.

It doesn't seem like you completely understand what adversarial DMing is. Adversarial DMing isn't world vs. PC. Adversarial DMing isn't the DM adjudicating rules that place limits on players/PCs. Adversarial DMing is the DM vs. Player. As an example, it's when he sees a PC take great weapon master and changes all encounters to weapon resistant creatures to counter what the player did.

 

[Maxperson]

For the record, I never posted that I saw it as adversarial, and I don't think it is. I just don't think it's explicitly RAW.

I know. I was just explaining my rationale in more detail and where I thought that the polymorph spell showed differences from your interpretation.