That's not a wizzard, that's Jiggle Billy! Commence the jiggling!
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
725 points (99.5% liked)
Greentext
4028 readers
1245 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Why ain't ya jigglin'?
Roll with disadvantage, the NPC is fucking pissed at your genie logic and desperately wants to kick your ass
Umm actually, if there are will saves then there isn't advantage
Raw, that's a hell no because the NPC didn't agree to be turned into a sword (and iirc, that's outside the scope of the spell anyway, no inanimate objects).
It's really not something that would work in a stable game setting.
That being said, it could still be allowed without being game breaking as long as the DM is willing to make the exception to the rules have a reason for happening. Say, the NPC had gained the attention of some entity that took the opportunity to intervene. Or maybe the NPC felt it coming, and decided to go along with it for nefarious purposes. There's all kinds of single event exceptions possible.
True Polymorph can turn people into objects.
I thought they would have specified tbh
Eh, back in 2e Polymorph worked a lot like True Polymorph does in 5e, in 3e it was called Polymorph Any Object. I think a lot of players just call it Polymorph, even though there's a level four spell with the same name, especially if the context of the situation makes it clear which spell is being used. At least that's how it goes at my table, but every group is different.
Haven't played since 2e... Polymorph should have been a way higher level spell with how it was written. Mice fail saving throws constantly... Super useful to derail a campaign.
Yeah, It's been a few years since I ran a d&d game, and it was 3.5. All the editions are starting to blur a little in my head tbh. If I was running d&d now, and a player wanted to cast, I'd have to verify which spell lol.
Who said the sword is inanimate?
Good point!
Yeah. At the very least the wizard should have to roll a deception check.
"shouldn't have a will save because they agreed to it"
And this is probably how fey/genies/demons/vampires/Disney are a thing.
What was that last one?
When you sign up for Disney+, they think they're allowed to kill you with allergens without ending up in a real court room.
Naw I was asking about Disney, not the Demons
/S
A magically sentient sword that can act and fly on its own.
Now the wizard has an unbreakable enemy that will hunt them down for eternity.
I'd also like to see archfeys from both courts fighting over who gets to claim the new feywild lawyer.
Someone needs to tech Mr. Wizard about consent.
In 5e it would have to be a beast. A very magical sword if you ask me.
When the official latest D&D movie doesn't care about the rules (druid wildshapes into an Owlbear) why should the players?
If you follow the rulebook over the rule of cool, you're doing it wrong.
rule of cool to me means you bend the rules to make the players feel badass, it usually doesn't mean you disregard the rules completely and do whatever you want. At that point just run a systemless narrative storytelling game.
As for polymorph turning someone into an object, there is a spell that does exactly that: true polymorph.
I am by no means a rules absolutist, some of the best moments I've had in games were certainly not RAW, but from experience it feels really shitty to allow individual players to do things that their abilities specifically don't allow, because often that overshadows other players that either specialized into some abilities that are now obsolete, or might've had creative alternative approaches to the problem
Exactly, it's right there in the name. It's both role-playing and a game, both parts are important. Rules create a common understanding of how the world functions and how your actions are going to affect it. Everyone at the table knows, to some extent, what you'd be rolling to try something, how good you'd be at that roll, how difficult it appears to be, and the likely consequence of success or failure, allowing the same kind of informed decisions sitting at a table in front of a character sheet and a pile of dice that you'd be able to make if you were your character living in the game's world. None of this inhibits role-playing, it enhances it.
Yeah when a player wants to do something stronger than the ability they have when that does exist in the rules, the DM needs to be wary of it. It's like saying "I cast Fire Bolt, but instead of hitting one target, it explodes in a 20-foot radius. Like, no you have to use Fireball to do that.
narrative storytelling game
Isn't that what dnd is?
edit: I mean it is a game with a system, which itself allows parts of the system to be bypassed to pave way for the storytelling, which is the point of the game ,no?
Well...how about the whole quote?
Systemless narrative storytelling game
Emphasis by me...
load more comments
(1 replies)
it is, at least for me and the people I play with, but it's still a game system, not just free-form improv storytelling. The rules give some guardrails to help with the process (and, mostly, to provide a way to do combat on even grounds).
The guardrails can and should be broken at times, but if you disregard them entirely, I think it's a better idea to start with free-form storytelling from the get-go. Which can be a great experience, but only if you're playing with a group you really trust to not descend into personal power fantasies
Why even have high level spells if you can just "rule of cool" lower level spells into duplicating their effects? At that point just houserule that Wish is a cantrip. As soon as you start to powergame the rule of cool, you no longer deserve it.
Which I always find kind of hilarious since it’s basically expressed on the first page of the DMG.
I'm not saying that you should follow the sparse rules of 5e to the tee. But, who actually reads the DMG? It's absolutely non-essential for running the game, even though it has some really nifty Infos for the aspiring DM.
It’s like the PHB. You don’t need to read it cover to cover but there’s a couple of chapters you’ll want to read entirely up front and then it’s just a resource with suggestions on how to adjudicate various scenarios.
druid wildshapes into an Owlbear
ehhh that's well within the bounds of what a DM could homebrew, I'm thinking a custom subclass that grants wild shape into a limited list of non-beast creatures.
Only if it's the 4th level version, which is impermanent anyway. 9th level polymorph has rules for objects: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/True%20Polymorph#content
The post does say polymorph and not true polymorph though. The way you say it makes it sound like upcasting polymorph to 9th level.
Phrasing is important, right?
This is why it takes forever to finish a single campaign. A couple of joke interactions here, the odd polymorph for luls there, but if it becomes excessive, the DM needs to just describe the events with the most monotone and unfunny delivery. Make it utterly unrewarding for players to do things the game was obviously not designed around.
Classic DM move, stopping your players from having fun. That'll surely make the game better.
Seriously though if everyone in the group isn't on the same page tone-wise then the DM should talk to the player causing the issue outside of the game like an adult, and if everyone is on a different page from the DM then the DM should either adjust their expectations or move on.
If the reaction wasn't an immediate "I'll allow it" then you aren't a fun dm
There's definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.
For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn't need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.
A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn't work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn't be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.
If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it'll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.
So no, you aren't necessarily "not fun" if you don't allow this as a DM. You're just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The NPC did not agree to be polymorphed into a sword, so there would absolutely be a will save.
Yeah they did, they said "yes" to them asking "can I make you a magical sword"
Yes, and their understanding was that they were going to be given a magical sword. It doesn't matter if the words used were misleading, what matters is what the person thinks they agreed to.
Or maybe the mage is crazy about deals with the devils / geanies, knew exactly what would happen and actually wanted to be polymorphed into a sword. Saying "no" to curb a creative player will simply make them not want to be creative anymore. It's standup rules - "no saying no, instead say yes, and" to add something interesting happening.
What matters is how will saves with polymorphs work - if you're taking a person by surprise the mechanics should be consistent. If a genie did the same thing there would still be a will save if they're doing something that was not the intent of the wisher. Being creative is great, but you have to adhere to the internal rules of the world while doing so.
If you want to go that route then polymorphing can only be done by changing them into a creature. Not a sword. So womp womp. One of the first sentences in the DM guide is "all rules can be changed if it means more fun for the players".
I won't belabor that point, because true polymorph exists, and if this character has that ability it can be assumed that's the spell he means to use. If he doesn't then it wouldn't work if he tried.
All rules CAN be changed, but they need a good reason. This guy is trying to cheat the system (skipping a will check). "I said some words but didn't actually get consent to cast the spell I'm going to cast" isn't a good enough reason.
I liked to play where if my players tricked me, well they got me, we'll adjust and keep going. They always realized that I may ask a similar question to them though, and it could always go the same way.
In this specific case, I'd let it happen and they'd probably going on an adventure for a wish in the next session (depending on how important the NPC is to the story, they might need to have him as a humanoid). Just like if you have an asshole paladin, they might find themself trying to atone to get back their favor with the gods.
Perfectly valid - the GM gets to decide the rules of reality. I personally feel like this guy didn't think it through well enough for his "no will check" desire to work.
view more: next ›