D&D 5E Wildshape Good! Polymorph Bad!

[zoroaster100]

I was struck by the playtest rules for polymorph, especially compared to the druid's wildshape. I like the way wildshape was handled, as general forms such as hound, behemoth, etc. I was very concerned with Polymorph. One of the problems with 3rd edition and prior editions, and which caused so many errata revisions in 3rd editions, was polymorph which allowed players to introduce every crazy and unbalanced monster ability from any creature in any monster tome, adventure or supplement by polymorphing into such a shape. I thought we had left those nightmares behind, with the endless polymorph threads almost as frequent, long and ultimately fruitless as the threads about paladin alignment.

It was especially stark compared with the better designed (in my opinion) wildshape forms system for the druid. I with they would go in that design direction for polymorph - using set form types like in wildshape that are well tested as balanced for a character of that level.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the current Polymorph description is actually quite simple, but I agree that wildshape is great and should be used as an example.

There is one bit of Polymorph that got me thinking however... check the text...

It says the target assumes the form of any chosen beast. Is this just an overlook, or does it really mean any creature of the beast type? Because that is very different compared to old Polymorph and very limited. it might solve a lot of problems since beasts hardly have any magical abilities, but it does also defy the whole point of polymorhing an ally, except for disguise or sometimes travel purposes.

If it's really restricted to beasts onlyl, then at least we need a higher-level version. I don't mind if it will be shapechange i.e. 9th level, it's ok for me that it is pushed to very high level, but I really want something like that in the game!

Rather, I have always been in favor for restricting the number of forms available to each Wizard. One of the best DMs I've ever had in 3e, house ruled that you only "knew" one form per caster level (you had to choose the additional form when you levelled up), but it wouldn't even be bad to restrict to just one, and then you have to learn another "copy" of the spell for each additional form (however this might result in some forms becoming obsolete at later levels).

 

[GX.Sigma]

It says the target assumes the form of any chosen beast. Is this just an overlook, or does it really mean any creature of the beast type? Because that is very different compared to old Polymorph and very limited. it might solve a lot of problems since beasts hardly have any magical abilities, but it does also defy the whole point of polymorhing an ally, except for disguise or sometimes travel purposes.

The other thing is that the creature types are inconsistent. At first you think, okay, I can only polymorph into normal animals. Owls, bears, but not owlbears. Fine. But then it turns out griffons, pegasus, and rust monsters are "beasts..." which makes the owlbear restriction seem a bit strange.

 

[1of3]

Relearning the spell for every new form isn't bad. It also solves the problem of overpowered forms, as new forms effectively become treasure. You need Polymorph (Wartroll) to become a Wartroll, and there might not be a wizard in the world who has made such a formula.

 

[zoroaster100]

Wow, I had missed the possible restriction to "beast" forms. If what can be considered a beast is carefully spelled out and specifically excludes magical and similar abilities that might help, but there still could be creatures with swallow hole and other extreme corner case abilities that may have unintended consequences on game balance. If I remember correctly, in late third edition D&D they had moved to something similar to what Li is suggesting, with different polymorph spells for different forms (there was one for troll form, one for dragon form) and depending on the form the level of the spell was different (dragon form was a 9th level spell). I think that is a better way to do it. That makes it easier to make sure the spell is balanced.

 

[Rune]

The simplest way to do it (while still paying some attention to balance), would be to tie a scaling HD maximum to the spell level used to cast it. So, if cast as, say, 1st level, you could only change into things with 1 HD. If cast at 9th level, perhaps that would be 17 HD.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It says the target assumes the form of any chosen beast. Is this just an overlook, or does it really mean any creature of the beast type? Because that is very different compared to old Polymorph and very limited.

This is a really good catch, and if it is what's intended then a lot of the balance concerns are avoided. If so, however, the word "beast" should appear in the first paragraph of the description of the spell's effect, and not be postponed.

Polymorph is a spell that has been broken in so many ways through the editions, and with the publication of splatbooks only becomes potentially worse.

In that sense, the OP is right, that the Wildshape model (clearly outlining the mechanical advantages, but leaving the appearance up to the whim of the player) is better.

There are problems with Wildshape, as written:
In Circle of the Moon, Behemoth comes pretty early (level 10), especially since every Behemoth is also Dire (at no additional cost).

 

[Falling Icicle]

Polymorph has the same problem that Wild Shape used to have - you have to look up forms in the monster manual, and people will spend a lot of time looking for the most powerful form. IMO, polymorph should only be able to turn the subject into harmless critters (the type of animals that can be familiars), useful only for their movement modes, underwater breathing, flight, senses, etc. Anything more powerful should be a different, specific spell.

 

[MarkB]

The simplest way to do it (while still paying some attention to balance), would be to tie a scaling HD maximum to the spell level used to cast it. So, if cast as, say, 1st level, you could only change into things with 1 HD. If cast at 9th level, perhaps that would be 17 HD.

It might help, but in 3.xe the problem with this approach was that monsters with the same number of HD were frequently nowhere near equal in capability. That's likely to still be true in 5e.

 

[Rune]

It might help, but in 3.xe the problem with this approach was that monsters with the same number of HD were frequently nowhere near equal in capability. That's likely to still be true in 5e.

In Next, that problem would be solved by using monster level instead of hit dice.