My Druid Player found a polymorph cheat code?

[mephnick]

This isn't a modern edition thing - resource management tied to in game time has been at the heart of D&D since the very beginning. It's one of the major ways that D&D is actually an extremely specialized game, and not the generic fantasy game WotC likes to present itself as.

Yep. The greatest lie ever told in table top gaming is WotC demanding that D&D is a system that can run any kind of fantasy game. The system is entirely based around dungeon delving, wilderness exploration and fighting a bunch of monsters. Sure, you can play a political intrigue, mass warfare or horror mystery game, but the system will offer you no help or will actively fight you every step of the way. If you don't want to raid ancient ruins filled with monsters, pick a different game. Please. Your group will enjoy it more.

[Rhedyn]

Yep. The greatest lie ever told in table top gaming is WotC demanding that D&D is a system that can run any kind of fantasy game. The system is entirely based around dungeon delving, wilderness exploration and fighting a bunch of monsters. Sure, you can play a political intrigue, mass warfare or horror mystery game, but the system will offer you no help or will actively fight you every step of the way. If you don't want to raid ancient ruins filled with monsters, pick a different game. Please. Your group will enjoy it more.

That's my problem with 5e. PF handles all of these to a functional degree or has whole books devoted to that. While being the older system and offering more player options. 5e's only objective utility is that noob players can pick it up easier. (Which has a purpose)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yep. The greatest lie ever told in table top gaming is WotC demanding that D&D is a system that can run any kind of fantasy game. The system is entirely based around dungeon delving, wilderness exploration and fighting a bunch of monsters. Sure, you can play a political intrigue, mass warfare or horror mystery game, but the system will offer you no help or will actively fight you every step of the way. If you don't want to raid ancient ruins filled with monsters, pick a different game. Please. Your group will enjoy it more.

At least in this system, I have seen very little evidence in marketing or books that claims D&D to be well suited for intrigue or mystery games. The PHB is quite clear on what it is designed for:

Dungeons and dragons immerses you in a world of adventure. Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions.

The world needs heroes. Will you answer the call?

Intrigue is buried in a few, isolated paragraphs in the DMG. Earlier editions may have made grandiose claims, but this one is much more grounded.

I agree that D&D is Ill suited for anything but heroic adventures. Thankfully 5e does not claim otherwise.

[Unoriginal]

That's my problem with 5e. PF handles all of these to a functional degree or has whole books devoted to that. While being the older system and offering more player options. 5e's only objective utility is that noob players can pick it up easier. (Which has a purpose)

Oh please, Pathfinder is just as suited as 5e for political intrigues, mass warfare or mysteries. If not less.

[Rhedyn]

Oh please, Pathfinder is just as suited as 5e for political intrigues, mass warfare or mysteries. If not less.

Aside from having whole books devoted to each area and a robust system that can handle a variety of encounter pacing, sure I can see your point.

It's not like PF is both easier to DM and has more player options.

You either do 5e's marathon encounter slogs everyday or you're playing wrong.

[Unoriginal]

Aside from having whole books devoted to each area and a robust system that can handle a variety of encounter pacing, sure I can see your point.

Whole books that help with next to nothing in each area they're supposedly dedicated to and a system so "robust" it can effortlessly break itself at early level and that can handle a variety of encounter pacing because encounter pacing doesn't matter thanks to the powerfest the PCs have.

It's not like PF is both easier to DM

Indeed, I'm glad you agree Pathfinder is not easier to DM.

and has more player options.

Oh sure, there are a whole lot more player options. Too bad it's an inflated and unbalanced mess.

You either do 5e's marathon encounter slogs everyday or you're playing wrong.

And others have already told you why this claim is ridiculous, so I'm not going to.


Seriously, dude, why do you come here to do nothing but complain about 5e? If you liked Dark Heresy a lot, would you go to the 3.5 board to tell them why their game is ****?

[Rhedyn]

This is the only forum with the right amount of angst. The PF forums are just too happy now-a-days with their feature rich system.

Now 5e forums! We're just getting over the honeymoon period and people are beginning to see all the problems.

Threads like these are great! Watching people actually advise being a **** DM or propping up Sage Advice as more than ****ty houserules invented by morons.

[Unoriginal]

This is the only forum with the right amount of angst. The PF forums are just too happy now-a-days with their feature rich system.

Now 5e forums! We're just getting over the honeymoon period and people are beginning to see all the problems.

Threads like these are great! Watching people actually advise being a **** DM or propping up Sage Advice as more than ****ty houserules invented by morons.

Ahahahahahahaahaha.

Whoa.

Congratulation, Rhedyn, you just demonstrated why no one should ever listen to you ever again.

I mean, it's refreshing and novel to see someone who admit they're just a petty troll here to spread unhappiness, resentment and being obnoxious on purpose.

[Rhedyn]

here to spread unhappiness, resentment and being obnoxious on purpose.

I can only do that if there is a kernel of truth to what I am saying.

[Unoriginal]

I can only do that if there is a kernel of truth to what I am saying.

Not at all, one does not require any speck of truth to spread unhappiness or resentment, nor do they require it to be obnoxious on purpose.

But again, thanks for admitting that you're a troll.

[StoicLeaf]

Threads like these are great! Watching people actually advise being a **** DM or propping up Sage Advice as more than ****ty houserules invented by morons.

See, no one advised the OP to be a ****.
The majority of all comments were either to play within the constraints of the rules as they are, to implement the rules properly, to discuss it with them out of game or a mix of the afore mentioned strategies.
But what do I know, maybe PF and the atmosphere around it is different. Maybe you open the player's handbook and it's steaks and blowjobs galore!

[Unoriginal]

blowjobs galore!

A poetic way to say it sucks a lot.

[pwykersotz]

This is the only forum with the right amount of angst. The PF forums are just too happy now-a-days with their feature rich system.

Now 5e forums! We're just getting over the honeymoon period and people are beginning to see all the problems.

Threads like these are great! Watching people actually advise being a **** DM or propping up Sage Advice as more than ****ty houserules invented by morons.

Did you post the same thing about the honeymoon period several years back? I remember taking part in a thread that attempted to say the same thing a long time ago. I think it was in response to wish/simulacrum. Or maybe it was someone else. I can't remember. Either way, it's just as wrong now as it was then. I am well versed in both the problems of 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e. They are my big 3 systems I've played over the last 10 years. 5e is my number one choice after all things are considered.

But putting on my PF fanboy hat for a moment, you do a disservice to the game by ridiculing other systems. The goal is to get people to try it, not polarize people against it. You don't have to demean something that people love for them to love something new. It makes me sad to think that some folks here might not try PF ever because of comments like this.

[Unoriginal]

But putting on my PF fanboy hat for a moment, you do a disservice to the game by ridiculing other systems. The goal is to get people to try it, not polarize people against it. You don't have to demean something that people love for them to love something new. It makes me sad to think that some folks here might not try PF ever because of comments like this.

pwykersotz, he's doing it entirely on purpose. He's trying to piss people off.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On topic, I've run into issues (as a DM) with a druid using Polymorph. Not to change allies into dinosaurs, but the baleful version. This is only a problem because I roll saving throws like crap. Add in a monk who finally (level 14) learned she could use stunning fist, and I just had a two-monster encounter (beefed hydra + beefed arch druid) absolutely destroyed. Druid polymorphed hydra into a beaver, monk ran zoom! across the battlefield, stunned the druid (through foresight) and between her, the fighter, and the rogue they obliterated the druid. Then they went and repeated the trick (minus the polymorph) to the hydra. I think they got a total of one active round each.

But then, that's how that's supposed to work. And I'm not sore about it--other encounters that won't work as well. Let them shine.

[scalyfreak]

pwykersotz, he's doing it entirely on purpose. He's trying to piss people off.

And in the process succeeding in making Pathfinder less appealing to someone who genuinely likes D&D 5e. Meaning, recruiting players for that system isn't his goal, and never was.

Duh.

[pwykersotz]

pwykersotz, he's doing it entirely on purpose. He's trying to piss people off.

It sure seems that way. But the way I avoid becoming a cynic is to believe that there is at least a part of him that actually cares about the things he spends his effort talking about. I might be barking up the wrong tree, but I want to believe the best of people.

[Rhedyn]

And in the process succeeding in making Pathfinder less appealing to someone who genuinely likes D&D 5e. Meaning, recruiting players for that system isn't his goal, and never was.

Duh.

Are you insinuating that PF becomes less appealing to you because I like it? Cause nothing I've said paints PF in a bad light. If association makes you dislike things then that is on you.

I have no need to convince people. 5e will convince them for me. Those who will prefer PF will naturally run into problems in 5e.

Like this thread, where the worst ruling in the history of dev feedback in considered an "answer" to this problem. Yeah let's prevent a player from deciding the details of his or her spells AND makes the DM on the fly add more monsters to the encounter. Remove player agency, invalidate competent summoner as something you can play, and make the DM's job harder.

That's some quality rules making. Ignore the problem of the polymorph spell being badly designed and make some* summon spells worse designed (check that ruling again. Mono summon spells, the player picks not the DM. Even though they have the same wording as the multi summon ones). It's a complete mess.

Though once you accept that some parts of the game are just not put together correctly, you can't help but find more and more cracks. 5e can be a fun narrative experience even if it ****s the bed on the whole game part of RPG.

[thereaper]

On topic, the problem with designing encounters to counter the T-Rex tactic is that it sharply limits the types of encounters you can do. Never again can you throw a traditional encounter at the party, because they'll just walk right over it.

So, you're basically going out of your way to make the trick worthless. And if you're going to do that anyway, why not be more direct about it, so that you can design encounters the way you want?

[Unoriginal]

On topic, the problem with designing encounters to counter the T-Rex tactic is that it sharply limits the types of encounters you can do. Never again can you throw a traditional encounter at the party, because they'll just walk right over it.

So, you're basically going out of your way to make the trick worthless. And if you're going to do that anyway, why not be more direct about it, so that you can design encounters the way you want?

Not true.

When the PCs' tactic becomes known, the hostile encounters they run into would be people who think they have a good chance to take on a group of T-Rexes (or at least the magic-users responsible for the dinos), or in a terrain they picked to make the party's tactic not work. Because it's logical.

The only reason the PCs use this method that much is because it is working all the time. Once it stops doing so, they will stop using it all the time, and try other things.

They can still use this tactic later on in situations where they know it'd work , but they'll be aware it won't always be efficient in all situations.

[thereaper]

Except for all the unintelligent monsters out there.

Furthermore, the idea that every single intelligent creature is going to be prepared for the trick probably breaks suspension of disbelief. I mean, what, are we to believe that they've prepared for every single adventurer trick out there? Are we really supposed to believe this group is the first in the setting to figure it out? If they weren't prepared for it before, we can therefore assume that at least some of them won't bother preparing for it at all.

But no matter how you play it, you've effectively shut down the trick by building your encounters in a certain way, thereby limiting certain options. So, again, if you're going to do that anyway, why be indirect about it? If the end result is the same, why not just stop them from using it (using one of the methods described in this thread) so that you have more options for building encounters?

[SharkForce]

yeah, still not sure why everyone is all focused on just changing the entire world to fix the problem. if it's a world-altering strategy that isn't discussed or mentioned as being a key part of everything, doesn't it seem rather odd for it to be in the books?

there's clearly a problem here. and changing the world is a silly solution that limits things for no good reason.

just fix the problem in the first place. polymorph is overpowered for it's level, and needs to be less ridiculously strong. pixies are overpowered for their CR, and you get way too many of them when you summon them as a result.

and if you're not going to fix either of those problems individually, you should at *least* fix the combination of the two which gets even more out of hand by either making a gentleman's agreement not to use it, or outright banning it. don't be passive-aggressive about it, that's just ridiculous as well. trolling your players is unlikely to get positive results. you have power over the entire game world, but if you use it screw your players over to "make a point" you're just starting a fight between the people playing the game, which is not desirable. as DM, you are the player (and yes, you are playing the game too) who has been given extra powers to improve the game experience. if conjuring 8 pixies for polymorph spam is detracting from the game experience, then make the necessary changes so that it stops detracting from the game experience.

if it's warping the game so much that you feel like you must start including a hard-counter to that one trick in every single encounter, it is still detracting from the game experience. you need a better solution than that.

[Officer Joy]

What lvl do the players have to be so they are stronger than a T-rex?

[Coidzor]

There are a lot of similar advice.
But one suggestion I haven't seen is to just lvl the players some. Eventually The Plain fighter will do more damage. Than the T-rex.
They loose all their PC abilities when the become T-rexes.

For starters, obviously power leveling them is going to be obvious.

The spellcasters also get spells that can do even more the higher level they go, so it could end up obviating several sessions of planned content.

It's very, very rare that it would at all be a feasible or appropriate thing to do.

[Delicious Taffy]

Okay, first thing: It's T. rex. There's no hyphen, and anyone telling you otherwise is a dirty liar.

Next thing: Do the other players have a problem with becoming a platoon of T. rex death machines? If not, find a way to accommodate their newfound love of prehistory. If it's a problem for them, nerf the caster.

[SharkForce]

What lvl do the players have to be so they are stronger than a T-rex?

hard to say for sure, different builds will hit their stride at different times.

for single class builds, most get a major boost at level 11, so i'd say probably by then for them. for multiclass builds? they all have their different points where they start to feel really good. but probably also around 11 at a guess.

but even then, that mostly presumes you're talking full-resources characters. a battlemaster fighter that blew all superiority dice in a fight earlier, or a caster that's got few spell slots remaining (or mostly lower-level stuff) and might otherwise be relying on cantrips for some fights, can *still* get a lot of mileage out of being a t-rex (or a giant ape, for that matter).

for the last fight of the day, would i rather be a rageless level 11 barbarian with half-ish HP, or a t-rex... honestly, i think a lot of the time the answer will be "t-rex". not necessarily in every case, but definitely some of the time. especially if, say, only 2-3 people feel the trade-off is worthwhile at that point (other people maybe still have some resources), which means i'm not just a t-rex... i'm a t-rex with 2-3 extra health bars in reserve. (edit: and if the decision is "wizard with only level 1-2 spell slots left or t-rex/giant ape", it isn't even close most of the time. i find it hard to imagine a scenario where quadruple-health t-rex isn't sounding wonderful comparatively).

[Officer Joy]

Right, forgot that the players might be low on resources before they get T.Rexed.
Then I'll put my money behind; "Talking to your players as an adult, tell them you aren't enjoying DMing for a party of T.Rexes. And ask them not to do it anymore."

[BillyBobShorton]

Here's how I'd handle it, without completely meta-nerfing the player or ruining the possibility of the T-rex party EVER happening, but make it rare enough that it's seldom.

Make a d20 chart for possible woodland beings. The usual like 1-4=monster x, 5-8=monster y, etc. Then have him roll a d20 when he casts it. 20 being pixies. Maybe console w/the player on a final version and explain why you are doing it. This allows you to be prepared for whatever he summons, won't cause bitterness, and still gives the players and yourself an element of surprise and pseudo-control by rolling dice. Players like to roll dice, get that gambling rush, and to be rewarded woth awesomeness for 20's.

I guarantee everyone would enjoy it because when a 20 happens, it's totally epic and boss as sh*t w/o breaking your game.

[Socratov]

Not true.

When the PCs' tactic becomes known, the hostile encounters they run into would be people who think they have a good chance to take on a group of T-Rexes (or at least the magic-users responsible for the dinos), or in a terrain they picked to make the party's tactic not work. Because it's logical.

The only reason the PCs use this method that much is because it is working all the time. Once it stops doing so, they will stop using it all the time, and try other things.

They can still use this tactic later on in situations where they know it'd work , but they'll be aware it won't always be efficient in all situations.

This. so much this. With some caveats and things to think about, but yes this.

To Illustrate this point I am going to tell a story about Bob. You can skip it to go straight to my points after the story, but it might be entertaining...

Spoiler: The Tale of Bob and I

Show

Bob is a player of mine and he likes to make characters that use a certain kind of trick. He can delve into exploit territory very quickly, and he knows this.

So one day, as I start DMing and he can finally use his player's knowledge again, I get to see his character and we talk about it.

Bob: "So I got this trick I would like to use and it might be a tad strong. You see, I get [stack of bonuses/etc.] here and using my familliar I will get advantage all the time. Isn't my new character insanely cool?"

So I tell Bob about my tendency while DMing:

Me: "Well, Bob, that looks great. Have you thought about dealing with [countermeasures] and losing your familliar? I mean, let's be honest here, this trick might succeed the first few times, but eventually, your character, as dashing as he is dressed will become known. And with it, your tactics."

We play for a couple of sessions, and eventually segue into PotA. he is not present, but the rest of the party is. And they get invited by the air cultists. They get baited into telling great stories. And I got them Hook, Line and Sinker. (thrice confirming for the storytellers what they tell and how they tell it, they bought into it big time). As the session ends, I tell the whole group what happened and that among other things, all their tactics have become common knowledge. Several sessions later they encounter the air cultists and yes the party has forgotten all about their storytelling and gets surprised by an enemy that knows all of their weaknesses. They still win, but they needed to invest considerably more resources and it cost them more then they'd had to deal with before.

Bob, is pissed as his familliar is almost instantly vaporised by the enemy. As the encounter ends I tell the players to take 5 and a discussion starts: Bob says that killing his bird form the get go was unfair. I tell him that the enemy was in the know of his tactics through the stories of the party earlier. I told him about it when that had happened. He tells me that it indeed wasn't unfair.

After the break I saw one of the better bits of roleplaying I have seen to this date: Bob's character threw a fit talking about how the enemy could have known. They had never seen them before, right? Then other players start telling about how they killed a manticore with them and might have told a few boastful stories about their awesomness. This created a great scene in which the players, and their characters learn to share their information. It was also for Bob a moment to use his bird more sparingly and aim for other ways of doing his thing. The players as a whole got a more reserved attitude versus the open sharing of information in regards to strangers.

So, the lessons learned are:

1. Any trick the PC's use should at least work a few times. Let the players have their moment of feeling clever. it's a great feeling and very fun to do.
2. Any trick the PC's use often becomes increasingly more common knowledge
3. having to up your DM game constantly to overcome a player trick is not fun since it can lead to unbalanced encounters.
4. countering a trick that becomes overused, or too well known, forces the player to reach for new options. When used sparingly that is fine and promotes character growth, when doing that too often, you become That DM (DM flavour of That Guy)
5. Talking this out beforehand is a good idea: this allows you as the DM to tell the player you are not having fun if he uses the same trick every time, and allows you both to hash out what you feel is fair and what isn't when dealing with that.
6. regardless of wether something IS fair, it's much more important for something to SEEM fair.

In regards to OP, the polymorph spell is not as good as people think: when used offensively it's a decent spell as it eliminates an opponent's capacity to act strategically, as well as take away their preferred actions (like Guinsoo's Scythe of Vice/sheepstick was in Dota), but when used to buff, well, please note that everything is replaced. only the non-game stats (being personality) are kept. In some cases that means handing control over to the DM for playing. Then there is the question of concentration: it's a feature of spellcasting (or the action of having cast a spell) and if you don't have the spellcasting feature, can you still concentrate on a spell? This is also why wildshape is awesome while polymorph is less so. As for conjure woodland beings, that has been tackled to hell and back. Also, talk to your player about your feelings. If he is dismissive about you not liking his tactics you can always nerf him during play.

[Tanarii]

you have power over the entire game world, but if you use it screw your players over to "make a point" you're just starting a fight between the people playing the game, which is not desirable. as DM, you are the player (and yes, you are playing the game too) who has been given extra powers to improve the game experience. if conjuring 8 pixies for polymorph spam is detracting from the game experience, then make the necessary changes so that it stops detracting from the game experience.

if it's warping the game so much that you feel like you must start including a hard-counter to that one trick in every single encounter, it is still detracting from the game experience. you need a better solution than that.

Pretty much my feelings on the matter. I mean, in game actions should have in-game consequences yadda yadda.

But if the players are using two slightly broken aspects of rules to combine them into a mega-broken rule, why as a DM am I going to mess around with contriving encounters instead of fixing the broken. Especially when fixing the broken combination, in particular, isn't going against RAW and is apparently RAI?

I mean. The entire world 'just happens' to know that the party likes to turn into pre-historic dinosaurs to curb-stomp things? That makes a huge assumption that the party is very famous and well known, and fighting enemies that have spent the time to research their tactics. The former is sometimes true IMC, but I've played plenty of other games where it's not. The latter is almost never true IMX. Generally speaking, PCs take the fight to enemies they were unaware were enemies until the beginning of the adventure, and vice versa. So doing this regularly will rapidly become the DM contriving the entire world around the PCs.

You might as well go full-on "the point of the game is storytelling" at that point, you're already contriving so much.