Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 498
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    I actually have no problem with the DM changing pixies or even removing them from the game.

    I maintain that polymorph is just not the issue people make it out to be. It's a high impact spell, but that is what I like about 5e. Fewer high impact abilities instead of ivory tower game design.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    Both of those are still number 3.
    Following the rules is 3?

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
    Following the rules is 3?
    Go ahead and cite the rule in the book that supports that.

    I'll wait.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    It would be great to have a discussion without so much vitriol... Please tone it down.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    The spell only mentions the player doing anysort of picking.

    It says nothing about the DM picking anything.
    Actually the rules say, "The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creature appear that fit the chosen option." (SA p. 7)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    Dev words do not magically change what is in the book. The sage advice on this is them asking you to implement a houserule.
    That's incorrect. Official rulings made in Sage Advice or the errata supercede the book. The rule is that the DM picks the creature.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Actually the rules say, "The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creature appear that fit the chosen option." (SA p. 7)



    That's incorrect. Official rulings made in Sage Advice or the errata supercede the book. The rule is that the DM picks the creature.
    That is where we disagree. I don't see sage advice as rules (I also specifically asked for a citation of a rule in the book). Too much time spent playing Pathfinder to give FAQs the time of day.

    I stand by DM > book > errata/FAQ/SA/ect.

    If the errata continues to be of poor quality then I'll just be thankful that I got the good version of 5e. Otherwise errata is something they actually print and not subject to change without consequence (next printing changes) thus holds a bit more esteem than the enthusiast's trap that is sage advice.
    Last edited by Mara; 2015-10-11 at 10:06 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    That is where we disagree. I don't see sage advice as rules (I also specifically asked for a citation of a rule in the book). Too much time spent playing Pathfinder to give FAQs the time of day.

    I stand by DM > book > errata/FAQ/SA/ect.

    If the errata continues to be of poor quality then I'll just be thankful that I got the good version of 5e. Otherwise errata is something they actually print and not subject to change without consequence (next printing changes) thus holds a bit more esteem than the enthusiast's trap that is sage advice.
    However you may choose to see it, SA is explicitly stated by WotC to be official. The DM can decide not to follow it, but that's true of the PHB, MM, and DMG as well.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    However you may choose to see it, SA is explicitly stated by WotC to be official. The DM can decide not to follow it, but that's true of the PHB, MM, and DMG as well.
    3.x Sage Advice and FAQ were also explicitly stated by WotC to be official, but those were considered terrible (and often contradicts itself) to the point that any attempt to use those rulings in a RAW (and even RAI) rules debate were dismissed offhandedly on most forums (including the 3.x section of GITP). IIRC the PHB (and other books) were considered primary sources and the Sage Advice rulings secondary, so primary overruled secondary.

    Not that the 5e version was horrible or anything (well, I wouldn't exactly say Crawford > Williams, but 5e is relatively rules-light and they were fewer developers involved, so they are more in-touch with the material they come up with), but I can see why Mara is so antagonistic against it, and I admit, that was my first knee-jerk reaction some time ago when someone first pointed out the 5e Sage Advice column to me.
    Last edited by NNescio; 2015-10-11 at 10:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    If SA is so important, why are they only using the internet? If i bought the books, nowhere in them does it tell me to look at SA for further rules. No where in the dmg does SA come up to help you decide on rulings. Players and dms merely ask for opinions and the drvelopers give them. Only opinions on how they would rule in their games. Unless you are playi g thwkr games, their advice holds no more than the advice of some guy on a forum when you bring it to your dm to get him to change his mind.

    Please tell SA to release a book of all their notes if it is so official because i believe official means it was printed. They spent the money to release thousands of copies for the players because they were confident enough that everyone would enjoy to play with those rules.

    No new person to dnd will ever know of SA and in all their games it will never come up. Btw it says Advice not Sage Rules. In other words they are the collective opinions until a new book is released. RAW cant be changed unless you WRITE IT. Otherwise its not Rules As Written, its Rules As Read On The Internet.

    Unless there is a written copy, by RAW it is not RAW.

    Im tired of peoe mixong RAI with RAW. They even say themselves as that is how the rules were meant to be but thats not how they are.

    PS. 1 dev/designer from a team could want the rules ro be meant one way then they get changed for something else later on and he still prferes the other so he says its intended to be another way because he intended it. The point of a team is to get the entire group to intend it to be official.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Not so much. DM may make a random table or choose as appropriate for the environment, but the bottom line is there's no bad choice for most conjuring spells. If you Conjure Animals and get eight draft horses, that's still great.
    I forgot to address this earlier (and maybe because I failed to realize then the significance of the soon-to-be quoted clause), but all Conjure spells get hosed by this ruling because of the "or lower" clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Crawford
    When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
    A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.

    Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.

    Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:

    One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
    Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower

    The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

    A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but itís up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.
    So, yeah, according to Sage Ruling, you can pick, say, "One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower", and the DM can hose you by plopping one CR 0 beast on the battlefield. Because, well, it fits the chosen option, riiight?

    Seriously, by this so-called RAI, you don't even have control over the CR!

    Yeah, as Mara said, this gives the dickish DM a great excuse to be a jerk.

    Sure, it won't be a problem on most tables, and a DM can invoke Rule 0 in any case, but if RAI says the Conjure line are all "DM may I" spells (yes, blah blah, technically everything is "DM may I", but not to this extent), then RAI is silly and counterproductive in this case. A spell should not give carte blanche to the DM to screw over the player, even if it's an option not taken by most (or nearly all) DMs.

    A more sensible solution is to just have a gentleman agreement not to abuse Pixies. The other Conjure spells are fine.
    Last edited by NNescio; 2015-10-11 at 12:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shojiteru View Post
    If SA is so important, why are they only using the internet? If i bought the books, nowhere in them does it tell me to look at SA for further rules. No where in the dmg does SA come up to help you decide on rulings. Players and dms merely ask for opinions and the drvelopers give them. Only opinions on how they would rule in their games. Unless you are playi g thwkr games, their advice holds no more than the advice of some guy on a forum when you bring it to your dm to get him to change his mind.

    Please tell SA to release a book of all their notes if it is so official because i believe official means it was printed. They spent the money to release thousands of copies for the players because they were confident enough that everyone would enjoy to play with those rules.

    No new person to dnd will ever know of SA and in all their games it will never come up. Btw it says Advice not Sage Rules. In other words they are the collective opinions until a new book is released. RAW cant be changed unless you WRITE IT. Otherwise its not Rules As Written, its Rules As Read On The Internet.

    Unless there is a written copy, by RAW it is not RAW.

    Im tired of peoe mixong RAI with RAW. They even say themselves as that is how the rules were meant to be but thats not how they are.

    PS. 1 dev/designer from a team could want the rules ro be meant one way then they get changed for something else later on and he still prferes the other so he says its intended to be another way because he intended it. The point of a team is to get the entire group to intend it to be official.

    I believe many of those changes have been included in newer printings. Just because it is not written in your book, does not mean it is not written.
    Last edited by Mellack; 2015-10-11 at 12:44 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Shaofoo's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post

    Sure, it won't be a problem on most tables, and a DM can invoke Rule 0 in any case, but if RAI says the Conjure line are all "DM may I" spells (yes, blah blah, technically everything is "DM may I", but not to this extent), then RAI is silly and counterproductive in this case. A spell should not give carte blanche to the DM to screw over the player, even if it's an option not taken by most (or nearly all) DMs.

    A more sensible solution is to just have a gentleman agreement not to abuse Pixies. The other Conjure spells are fine.
    It isn't fault of the spell if a DM can use it to be a male member to the player.

    The DM has an entire world to screw the players over, he doesn't need a single spell to do that, putting the DM in that position gives him carte blanche to screw over the players in a myraid of ways. He could just suddenly spring you with a trap right underfoot after you've exhaustively searched every five foot square and suddenly you are without a leg. Or sends you party level + 10 CR monsters to fight and murder you. Or suddenly the king hates you because you didn't fetch the proper stones correctly. If you can think it, he can do it and will do it and you have no say.

    The only way to deal with bad DMs is not to play with them, plain and simple. D&D can't be held responsible for DMs using it as an excuse to torture players because that the only thing that makes them happy is the misery of others. I have a lot of other things that I could do and I would actually love to do than stand around and be a punching bag for some repressed malcontent. I respect myself too much.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaofoo View Post
    It isn't fault of the spell if a DM can use it to be a male member to the player.

    The DM has an entire world to screw the players over, he doesn't need a single spell to do that, putting the DM in that position gives him carte blanche to screw over the players in a myraid of ways. He could just suddenly spring you with a trap right underfoot after you've exhaustively searched every five foot square and suddenly you are without a leg. Or sends you party level + 10 CR monsters to fight and murder you. Or suddenly the king hates you because you didn't fetch the proper stones correctly. If you can think it, he can do it and will do it and you have no say.

    The only way to deal with bad DMs is not to play with them, plain and simple. D&D can't be held responsible for DMs using it as an excuse to torture players because that the only thing that makes them happy is the misery of others. I have a lot of other things that I could do and I would actually love to do than stand around and be a punching bag for some repressed malcontent. I respect myself too much.
    Imagine, for a moment, that Fireball says "A target takes up to 8d6 fire damage on a failed save..." instead of the usual text.

    Now, does it matter? A good DM might allow the Fireball to deal full damage all the time. If he thinks it's too powerful, he might give a notice to the player, and the spell might be less effective the next time. And he'll prolly let the player retrain out of the spell.

    A jerk DM will just have the Fireball deal 1 damage all the time, or more insidiously, 1 damage when it's least convenient for the player. It's in the rules, right?

    Now, that kind of jerk DM, we all can live without, and he'll probably lose all his players. But what about DMs in between, especially the more inexperienced ones?

    Well, that might infer from the wording that fireball is not meant to deal full damage all the time, and it becomes tempting to apply that 'ruling' when it might be more convenient for them (like say, there's a BBEG he has labored much time over and don't want him to die just yet). This can lead to a dangerous precedent, where the DM sees such rules as legitimizing on-the-spot nerfs (instead of say, through mutual discussion and gentleman agreements with players, which a houserule would entail.).

    Similarly, the RAI suggested by Crawford also legitimizes such behavior. Instead of saying, well, "I think those Pixies are under-Cr'ed, so there are probably going to be some changes, but you can retrain the spell if you do," you just apply an on the spot nerf.

    It takes away player agency. When a player uses an ability, action, or skill, or specially when he casts a spell (since he's consuming limited resources), he expects to dictate the course of action. He's exercising his agency. He's shaping the narrative. He expects his character to do something. Now, they are cases where a player might overdo this, and a DM should reign him in especially if it impinges on the other players' fun, but such things are generally better done out-of-table, through mutual discussion.

    It's not something that should be built in the spell itself. It doesn't matter if the option doesn't come up often. The fact that the blank check option to arbitrarily make the spell useless exists in of itself means that the spell is poorly designed. It legitimizes bad DMing.

    It's like, say, a company has rule that legitimizes bad behavior (say, verbal violence, sexual harassment, etc.) of employees by their superiors. Or maybe there's some weird town with a municipal ruling saying it's fine to throw trash into your neighbor's backyard. Now, good people won't do that. But the fact that such behavior is made legitimate will lead to an increase to such behavior, because the rules say it's fine. This effect is more pronounced on people who are more easily-impressionable, such as children, new employees, or even new DMs. Rules are prescriptive and have a powerful effect on human behavior.

    Now, going back:

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaofoo View Post
    The DM has an entire world to screw the players over, he doesn't need a single spell to do that, putting the DM in that position gives him carte blanche to screw over the players in a myraid of ways. He could just suddenly spring you with a trap right underfoot after you've exhaustively searched every five foot square and suddenly you are without a leg. Or sends you party level + 10 CR monsters to fight and murder you. Or suddenly the king hates you because you didn't fetch the proper stones correctly. If you can think it, he can do it and will do it and you have no say.
    See, this kind of behavior is discouraged within the DMG (and MM) itself, under the encounter suggestions or tips on how to build an adventure. Now, to an absolutely jerkass dickish DM, it doesn't matter, because he's going to ignore the whole part anyway. Of course, the whole point would be moot anyway since there wouldn't be any players willing to play in his game.

    But for an inexperienced DM? The fact that such suggestions and encounter-building rules like CR-determination are present prescribes certain behaviors that are expected from DnD DMs. The encounters have to be well balanced, to be sutiable challenges for the players and their characters. These kind of rules and suggestions encourage good DMing.

    Sending +10 CR monsters? That's not legitimized by the rules.

    That makes all the difference.
    Last edited by NNescio; 2015-10-11 at 02:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mellack View Post
    I believe many of those changes have been included in newer printings. Just because it is not written in your book, does not mean it is not written.
    I believe the only updates would be from the official errata, which does not mention conjure spell changes. SA is just rulings based off one guy at WotC's opinions.
    Last edited by Mrglee; 2015-10-11 at 02:02 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Shaofoo's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Imagine, for a moment, that Fireball says "A target takes up to 8d6 fire damage on a failed save..." instead of the usual text.
    Well then the spell would have to say why does the random modifier is random again. Saying that makes no logical sense. I know what you are saying but the way you presented it the spell is broken since the spell's random component is random and the randomness cannot be resolved because the randomization of the randomness isn't fully defined. If you want to say the spell can deal up to 48 damage then that makes logical sense.

    Now, does it matter? A good DM might allow the Fireball to deal full damage all the time. If he thinks it's too powerful, he might give a notice to the player, and the spell might be less effective the next time. And he'll prolly let the player retrain out of the spell.

    A jerk DM will just have the Fireball deal 1 damage all the time, or more insidiously, 1 damage when it's least convenient for the player. It's in the rules, right?
    Well in your hypothetical the rules can't say because you can't resolve the randomization of randomization. But even with the logical line that I have presented you still can't resolve because it doesn't say to who it is up to decide. All other spells are resolved by dice so at best people might just go for 1d48. Also the DM can already rule that your Fireball deals 1 damage without your changes, he can make up some magic babble and that the BBEG has the magic trinket of Fireballshielding that makes Fireball deal 1 damage to him... also it is keyed to his lifeforce so if you kill the BBEG then the trinket is destroyed so you can't have it.



    Well, that might infer from the wording that fireball is not meant to deal full damage all the time, and it becomes tempting to apply that 'ruling' when it might be more convenient for them (like say, there's a BBEG he has labored much time over and don't want him to die just yet). This can lead to a dangerous precedent, where the DM sees such rules as legitimizing on-the-spot nerfs (instead of say, through mutual discussion and gentleman agreements with players, which a houserule would entail.).
    I would assume that in a normal game of D&D players and DMs are capable of civil discussion at all times. Also if the DM is placing his BBEG over his players then he is a bad DM for letting his pet take precedence over the other human beings in a battle where the loss of his pet was a possibility, this is common decency, you don't need to be a master DM to know that probably letting your friends have fun takes precedence to letting your pet win (of course if the pet wins in a legitimate way then good for him but we are talking about on the spot nerfs). Besides such actions are a dime a dozen in worst DM stories and they didn't need some rule to give them permission to screw over the players.

    Also you only said Fireball was the afflicted spell not every single other spell that could be affected.

    Similarly, the RAI suggested by Crawford also legitimizes such behavior. Instead of saying, well, "I think those Pixies are under-Cr'ed, so there are probably going to be some changes, but you can retrain the spell if you do," you just apply an on the spot nerf.
    Sorry, the player should never know if the Pixies have polymorph because the MM is not a player book. This isn't a nerf because the players have no right to dictate what a monster has or doesn't have. The spell makes no reference to the MM so that book is off limits to players. You can't call a nerf something that was never player agency in the first place.

    It takes away player agency. When a player uses an ability, action, or skill, or specially when he casts a spell (since he's consuming limited resources), he expects to dictate the course of action. He's exercising his agency. He's shaping the narrative. He expects his character to do something. Now, they are cases where a player might overdo this, and a DM should reign him in especially if it impinges on the other players' fun, but such things are generally better done out-of-table, through mutual discussion.
    You seem to want to give Player agency at the expense of DM agency, like taking what is the DM's job and giving it to the players. Also if he sees that the game might be out of control he might try to rein it in than rather let everything crash and have a talk later.

    The Player can do an action that is specified in the rules, but he doesn't dictate what is the end result. His character will always do something, but failure is a possible outcome.

    It's not something that should be built in the spell itself. It doesn't matter if the option doesn't come up often. The fact that the blank check option to arbitrarily make the spell useless exists in of itself means that the spell is poorly designed. It legitimizes bad DMing.
    Pebble of material of Antimagic that is as common as gravel.

    There I made all spells in the world potentially useless.

    A DM doesn't need permission from the spell to make it useless, he can figure it out how to do it on his own if he wants to. Being a DM gives him carte blanche already, the problem is bad DMs not the spell. The spell only puts to light what was already there in the first place since Day 1 of Chainmail in the 70s with Gygax, it doesn't open up anything new.



    It's like, say, a company has rule that legitimizes bad behavior (say, verbal violence, sexual harassment, etc.) of employees by their superiors. Or maybe there's some weird town with a municipal ruling saying it's fine to throw trash into your neighbor's backyard. Now, good people won't do that. But the fact that such behavior is made legitimate will lead to an increase to such behavior, because the rules say it's fine. This effect is more pronounced on people who are more easily-impressionable, such as children, new employees, or even new DMs. Rules are prescriptive and have a powerful effect on human behavior.
    Sorry, nowhere does it say in the rules or in the SA or anywhere that if a player were to cast the spell that you are to give them the worst outcome.

    Also your examples are erroneous because they don't take into account the consequences.

    The company allows verbal abuse and sexual harrasment. Hope they like having lawsuits, investigations and the media getting a video of the employees calling a female worker a b-word and to go make them a sandwich after getting a good handle on her breasts. Just cause the company is fine with such actions doesn't make society fine all of a sudden.

    The town doesn't like to pick up trash, well that is another lawsuit and investigation waiting to happen since it impacts both the value of the property plus the people moving away to not have to deal with trash.

    The rules might say it is fine but the consequences of the rules are still applicable regardless if it is right or not.

    The rules might say it is okay to screw over your players, well the players will just go play something else and you can then have your all important BBEG keep you company in that lone table. Just cause the rules say so doesn't mean the players have to put up with it, a bad game ends up stopped.


    See, this kind of behavior is discouraged within the DMG (and MM) itself, under the encounter suggestions or tips on how to build an adventure. Now, to an absolutely jerkass dickish DM, it doesn't matter, because he's going to ignore the whole part anyway. Of course, the whole point would be moot anyway since there wouldn't be any players willing to play in his game.
    Such a DM wouldn't care then if the rules give him right to be bad or not

    But for an inexperienced DM? The fact that such suggestions and encounter-building rules like CR-determination are present prescribes certain behaviors that are expected from DnD DMs. The encounters have to be well balanced, to be sutiable challenges for the players and their characters. These kind of rules and suggestions encourage good DMing.
    Yep so you don't have to worry that if they are given the chance to be vague that they will probably err on the side of good. By your own admission there is no problem because bad DMs are bad no matter what and those inexperienced in the middle DMs will become good by the good rules. I don't see why you were worrying.

    Sending +10 CR monsters? That's not legitimized by the rules.
    You can totally have an encounter and send monsters way above their paygrade.

    You can try to pay tribute to an ancient dragon

    You can try to negotiate with a lich.

    You can even run away from a storm giant.

    Just because the CR is off limits doesn't make them off limits for encounters. An encounter is more than just a battle to the death, but sure for an actual battle then CR + 10 is too much.
    Last edited by Shaofoo; 2015-10-11 at 03:23 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Troll in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    The Sage Advice did not changed anything about the spell, it only repeats and explains what's already written in the spell's description.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conjue Woodland Beings, PHB p.226
    Choose one of the following options for what appears:
    • One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower
    • Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower
    • Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
    • Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower
    DM has the creatures' statistics because MM is not a book for players. Player's don't (or rather, shouldn't) know what CR (or any other stat) does any creature have, or even what possible fey creatures exists in the setting! They get SOME creatures statted up in the PHB Appendix D, but the only fey listed there is Sprite.

    3.5e (and PF) had Summon Monster with a page listing about 10 options for every version of the spell, from SM I's Celestial Dog to SM IX's Hezrou. You knew EXACTLY what are you summoning. In 5e, nowhere in the spell's description does it mentions you can choose certain creature, you pick how many creatures you want, the less you get, the stronger they are. That's it. That's RAW. You can't blame the DM for following the rules. Anything more is a houserule. DM doesn't have to accomodate your whims, and he's not a bad DM when he doesn't. You may whine, you may call him names, but if you do, it only shows what sort of player you are.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    The Sage Advice did not changed anything about the spell, it only repeats and explains what's already written in the spell's description.



    DM has the creatures' statistics because MM is not a book for players. Player's don't (or rather, shouldn't) know what CR (or any other stat) does any creature have, or even what possible fey creatures exists in the setting! They get SOME creatures statted up in the PHB Appendix D, but the only fey listed there is Sprite.

    3.5e (and PF) had Summon Monster with a page listing about 10 options for every version of the spell, from SM I's Celestial Dog to SM IX's Hezrou. You knew EXACTLY what are you summoning. In 5e, nowhere in the spell's description does it mentions you can choose certain creature, you pick how many creatures you want, the less you get, the stronger they are. That's it. That's RAW. You can't blame the DM for following the rules. Anything more is a houserule. DM doesn't have to accomodate your whims, and he's not a bad DM when he doesn't. You may whine, you may call him names, but if you do, it only shows what sort of player you are.
    case in point, this guy seems to think it is acceptable for the DM to screw the players just because. players should be punished for knowing what CR certain creatures are, because there isn't a specific list of allowed monsters in the book. and this is why I dislike a blank "DM's choice" ruling.

    can't argue it isn't official (in that WotC gets to decide what is or isn't official), but I can definitely say I'm not a fan of that rule.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Shaofoo's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharkForce View Post
    case in point, this guy seems to think it is acceptable for the DM to screw the players just because. players should be punished for knowing what CR certain creatures are, because there isn't a specific list of allowed monsters in the book. and this is why I dislike a blank "DM's choice" ruling.

    can't argue it isn't official (in that WotC gets to decide what is or isn't official), but I can definitely say I'm not a fan of that rule.
    Honestly, it is always the DM's choice since day 1 on a lot of things beyond this spell. I wonder why you even like D&D if you don't like one guy having all the power? It doesn't take you not getting the spell your way for the DM to have it in for you.

    I just don't get this mentality that it is bad to have the DM's decide yet play in the DM's world where the DM is overgod of it all; it just seems that you either are fine with the DM or you are not and would never play in his games in the first place.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    The Sage Advice did not changed anything about the spell, it only repeats and explains what's already written in the spell's description.
    The PHB doesn't say the DM gets to choose. "The DM has the creatures' statistics" clause is also present in the True Polymorph spell.

    Unless, well, you want to argue that "the player doesn't get to choose for True Polymorph either!" It just says "any kind", right? Doesn't say you get to choose which kind. Any kind would satisfy the spell parameters. Oh joy.

    Strict RAW, DM has the statistics means the DM holds the statistics, and performs bookkeeping on HP. RAI, you can say that the DM gets to makes up the statistics, or well, as some other people noted, it means "refer to the MM".


    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    DM has the creatures' statistics because MM is not a book for players. Player's don't (or rather, shouldn't) know what CR (or any other stat) does any creature have, or even what possible fey creatures exists in the setting! They get SOME creatures statted up in the PHB Appendix D, but the only fey listed there is Sprite.
    That argument falls apart once you take a look at the Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape class feature. What elemental is he going to wildshape into, huh, when he doesn't get to look at the MM? DM, may I?

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    3.5e (and PF) had Summon Monster with a page listing about 10 options for every version of the spell, from SM I's Celestial Dog to SM IX's Hezrou. You knew EXACTLY what are you summoning. In 5e, nowhere in the spell's description does it mentions you can choose certain creature, you pick how many creatures you want, the less you get, the stronger they are. That's it. That's RAW. You can't blame the DM for following the rules. Anything more is a houserule. DM doesn't have to accomodate your whims, and he's not a bad DM when he doesn't.
    See, the thing is, even if you pick one creature, you can still get a single weak CR 0 creature, per Crawford's RAI. Like I said, you don't even get to pick the CR. Any control the player has over this spell is pure illusory, aside from the number of creatures. That's what really got my goat. Before that I was willing to tolerate the "can't get the exact creature you want" RAI ruling from Sage.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    You may whine, you may call him names, but if you do, it only shows what sort of player you are.
    Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

    Notice that I attacked a method of DMing, and not a person in particular?


    --

    I'm fine with nuking Pixies entirely, really.

    Edit: DMG -> MM
    Last edited by NNescio; 2015-10-11 at 04:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    GitP: The only place where D&D and Cantorian Set Theory combine. Also a place of madness, and small fairy cakes.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Shaofoo's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    The PHB doesn't say the DM gets to choose. "The DM has the creatures' statistics" clause is also present in the True Polymorph spell.

    Unless, well, you want to argue that "the player doesn't get to choose for True Polymorph either!" It just says "any kind", right? Doesn't say you get to choose which kind. Any kind would satisfy the spell parameters. Oh joy.
    By logic the DM has the statistics and the DM chooses what are the statictics so the DM gets to choose the monster because he chooses the statistics.

    Strict RAW, DM has the statistics means the DM holds the statistics, and performs bookkeeping on HP. RAI, you can say that the DM gets to makes up the statistics, or well, as some other people noted, it means "refer to the DMG".
    You mean the MM because the DMG has no mention of statistics unless you are saying that the DM should always follow the Make a monster guidelines in the DMG?


    That argument falls apart once you see the Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape class feature. What elemental is he going to wildshape into, huh, when he doesn't get to look at the DMG?
    The DM gives the moon druid pages of elemental stats that he has given permission to transform into. Maybe it could just entail photocopying the MM pages or he can make some on the spot. Remember that the PHB was the only book around and the DMG didn't come around till a couple more months down the line.


    See, the thing is, even if you pick one creature, you can still get a single weak CR 0 creature, per Crawford's RAI. Like I said, you don't even get to pick the CR. Any control the player has over this spell is pure illusory, aside from the number of creatures. That's what really get my goat. Before that I was willing to tolerate the "can't get the exact creature you want" RAI ruling from Sage.
    The intent of the spell is there that you either get a powerful creature or several weaker ones, anyone reading the spell can infer to that. If the DM wants to give you a single weak creature then that is the DM going against the intention of the spell and having it out on you. Like I said, bad Dming cannot be fixed with rule changes. Even if you were to force a CR 2 creature the DM can always give you a CR 2 creature that is useless, you can't prove that a creature is of a certain CR because the CR is DM knowledge only.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Troll in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    The PHB doesn't say the DM gets to choose. "The DM has the creatures' statistics" clause is also present in the True Polymorph spell.

    Unless, well, you want to argue that "the player doesn't get to choose for True Polymorph either!" It just says "any kind", right? Doesn't say you get to choose which kind. Any kind would satisfy the spell parameters. Oh joy.

    Strict RAW, DM has the statistics means the DM holds the statistics, and performs bookkeeping on HP. RAI, you can say that the DM gets to makes up the statistics, or well, as some other people noted, it means "refer to the DMG".
    See, there's a difference, TP says you can change the target to "(a creature of) any kind you choose whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's". While the players still shouldn't know the creature's statistics beforehands, they get to choose what kind of creature they want to turn the target into, with an (IC) unknown limiting factor.

    If they try to turn level 20 character into the Tarrasque, the spell would fail, if they tried (certainly by a random chance and not because they've read MM or an online CR list) an Ancient Brass Dragon, it would work. If they have no idea at all about some creature's CR (impropable, but possible), it may take them few (in character) days and wasted spell slots until they determine what is and what isn't possible.

    I know my players and I wouldn't throw a fit or try to somehow punish them just because they were metagaming a little. However, I would still expect them to keep IC and OOC separate (and I know they can do that), which may mean some in character experimentation with their new abilities instead of just testing them in a life-or-death situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    That argument falls apart once you take a look at the Moon Druid's Elemental Wild Shape class feature. What elemental is he going to wildshape into, huh, when he doesn't get to look at the DMG?
    Air elemental, earth elemental, fire elemental or water elemental, as the ability descrpition says. When he does, I'll hand him the relevant statistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    See, the thing is, even if you pick one creature, you can still get a single weak CR 0 creature, per Crawford's RAI. Like I said, you don't even get to pick the CR. Any control the player has over this spell is pure illusory, aside from the number of creatures. That's what really got my goat. Before that I was willing to tolerate the "can't get the exact creature you want" RAI ruling from Sage.
    Yes. That's unfortunate wording that can be taken that way. I see it as a way to summon less weaker creatures, if for some reason you want to summon (for example)only one CR 1/4 fey (and you'll get either pixie or sprite) to serve as a scout instead of a whole bunch of them who would giggle, make noise and generally be an annoyance. But I can see why would you worry about that and I agree it opens a way for a bad DM to screw his players over.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

    Notice that I attacked a method of DMing, and not a person in particular?
    That wasn't aimed at you, but at Mara who said that the DM who doesn't allow to choose exact creatures is an antagonistic moron. My apologies for misunderstanding.
    Last edited by JackPhoenix; 2015-10-11 at 04:43 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mellack View Post
    I believe many of those changes have been included in newer printings. Just because it is not written in your book, does not mean it is not written.
    If I recall correctly it was stated that all those clarifications (these are never changes, the original text is already saying the same thing) are made for any future printings of the books.

    Secondly, there is no earthly reason a player would choose one creature of cr 2 and summon anything less than that number (because the next lowest option would provide at least double the same creature) so by your own reasoning there is no plausible reason to include that text if the player really were allowed to choose the exact creatures summoned. Only because it is the DM that determines what shows up within the bounds of the selection does that phrasing make sense.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
    Secondly, there is no earthly reason a player would choose one creature of cr 2 and summon anything less than that number (because the next lowest option would provide at least double the same creature) so by your own reasoning there is no plausible reason to include that text if the player really were allowed to choose the exact creatures summoned. Only because it is the DM that determines what shows up within the bounds of the selection does that phrasing make sense.
    1. If you have space limitations but still want a specific low cr monster.

    2. A city law states that you can have one summon at a time but you want to study a creature of a lower cr.

    3. You want to have mastery over your own magic. Thus if you want to summon only one creature you should be able too.


    Sage advice will have the same legitimacy as homebrew at my tables. If I have a problem and like their solution then I'll use it. Other pieces of advice add needless complication or promote antagonistic styles of DMing and lower player fun.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Mr.Moron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Whitelist spells, don't blacklist them.Anything else is handled on a per-case basis. As specific dealing with polymorph, the best solution would be single-forms polymorphs as individual spells

    Polymorph: Boar
    or
    Polymorph: Toad

    with each consuming a spells known/spell book slot, and each creature choice being vetted before they can be taken.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    1. If you have space limitations but still want a specific low cr monster.

    2. A city law states that you can have one summon at a time but you want to study a creature of a lower cr.

    3. You want to have mastery over your own magic. Thus if you want to summon only one creature you should be able too.


    Sage advice will have the same legitimacy as homebrew at my tables. If I have a problem and like their solution then I'll use it. Other pieces of advice add needless complication or promote antagonistic styles of DMing and lower player fun.
    Nobody is saying you can't play any kind of homebrew you want at your table, but that is totally irrelevant as Sage advice is the one official source:

    "Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game's rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice."

    It is as official as it gets, the spell allows a caster to choose from broad options unlike, for example, find familiar.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Sage advice is homebrew. It's just Dev homebrew.

    You are free to employ such homebrew in your games. 5e is built on that kind of augmentation being easy.

    I would ask that you not assume everyone uses that homebrew by default.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    HalfOrcPirate

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    One time my party turned a triceritops into a turtle and then fed it until it liked us.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Forum Explorer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    Sage advice is homebrew. It's just Dev homebrew.

    You are free to employ such homebrew in your games. 5e is built on that kind of augmentation being easy.

    I would ask that you not assume everyone uses that homebrew by default.
    Also most or at least plenty of people don't follow or are not aware of Sage Advice. If you are a player don't assume that your DM knows about those rulings. Or vice versa if you are a DM.

    For Polymorph, I don't really see a problem with the spell as written. It's good, yes, but barring a birdman in the group, you aren't really going to be able to fly the monster up and drop it 200 feet to the ground. So usually it's just a delay. If there is a nearby cliff to punt them off, then good timing I guess. Most of the fights don't involve one of those though. Most fights likely won't be against one opponent either. Even BBEGs tend to have some back up minions. If you pull it off on a rare single opponent? Then congrats! I don't have a problem with the occasional lucky spell winning an encounter.


    As for transforming an ally, well sometimes that's useful. Sometimes it's useless, sometimes it's an excuse to bash the mage. Honestly, bashing the mage is never a bad decision (from an enemies perspective). You are still dealing damage to the enemy, and making it hard to concentrate on spells. And then tend to be squisher so they die faster.

    The spell makes it pretty clear on how it works with spells like power word kill because it does say when you drop to 0 hp or die (or the duration runs out) you revert to your previous hit points.
    Spoiler: I'm a writer!
    Show
    Spoiler: Check out my fanfiction[URL="https://www.fanfiction.net/u/7493788/Forum-Explorer"
    Show
    here[/URL]
    ]Fate Stay Nano: Fate Stay Night x Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha

    I Fell in Love with a Storm: MLP

    Procrastination: MLP



    Spoiler: Original Fiction
    Show
    The Lost Dragon: A story about a priest who finds a baby dragon in his church and decides to protect them.



  29. - Top - End - #119
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnswiftwood View Post
    One time my party turned a triceritops into a turtle and then fed it until it liked us.
    ARK: Survival Evolved D&D style.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: We all know about polymorph issues. . . but solutions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    Sage advice is homebrew. It's just Dev homebrew.

    You are free to employ such homebrew in your games. 5e is built on that kind of augmentation being easy.

    I would ask that you not assume everyone uses that homebrew by default.
    Correction, it is official. What you or I append to the official game is the beginning and end of how homebrew is defined. What WotC publishes as official is the game.

    Perhaps you're thinking of Unearthed Arcana or playtest material, either of which would be equivalent to homebrew.
    Last edited by Vogonjeltz; 2015-10-12 at 01:39 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •