Looking into the changes in MPMM, I noticed that changelings are considered fey now, and was wondering how that would affect various spells and affects. One of the Ancients Paladin's channel divinities lets them turn all fey and fiends in a 30ft area if they fail a save. So if you made a changeling Ancients Paladin and used this Channel Divinity, what would happen?
Would it be up to DM ruling, or is there any sage advice about turn affects on yourself?
Any ideas on how you would rule it, or a link to where an official ruling is would be helpful.
The changling would have to make a save or be turned, by RAW. There’s no language for something like “creatures of your choosing” so any fey, even allies would need to save. I thought it was weird since it would make sense for an ancients to have a fey mount, but they really shouldn’t.
Edit: And now I realize you meant the pally, not an ally. I’d personally let the paladin doing the turning not save, because it would just be silly if they had to.
It's funny they decided against the Undead type for Dhampir and Reborn because of these kinds of problems but then completely blanked on the Fey type. RAW it sucks to be a Fey in this case, even for the paladin themselves. Any reasonable DM though would exclude player characters in this case though since the ability was written before Fey type PCs were a thing. Just talk to them and explain the situation and how stupid it is for a paladin to turn themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
It's funny they decided against the Undead type for Dhampir and Reborn because of these kinds of problems but then completely blanked on the Fey type. RAW it sucks to be a Fey in this case, even for the paladin themselves. Any reasonable DM though would exclude player characters in this case though since the ability was written before Fey type PCs were a thing. Just talk to them and explain the situation and how stupid it is for a paladin to turn themselves.
It's kind of a weird trade off I guess for being immune to effects that only target humanoids (which includes quite a few monster charm abilities in particular).
I just love the idea of a well meaning human or whatever paladin in a party of Changelings disguised as various other creatures; raises his holy symbol aloft and turns the faithless, only to watch as his entire party runs off. 😂
But yeah, back to the OP, this is a classic example of when "within X feet of you" isn't a good way to describe the area; in RAW nothing prevents this from affecting the paladin themselves, but it's a case that's clearly not intended, same as arms of hadar which presumably isn't meant to harm the caster. Technically it's a DM ruling, but they should take into account that a Cleric/Paladin turning themselves would be an insane ruling.
RAW, you would turn yourself. Which would, admittedly, be hilarious, but would also get kind of old after a while.
I've never dealt with a fey PC or an Ancients paladin, but in that case, I wouldn't force the paladin to make a save.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I am trying to pick out a oath for the changeling paladin I am building and I am so tempted to choose Oath of the Ancients. His dump stat is INT and the image of this idiot failing a saving throw against his own ability, being forced into his true form, and not being able to do a thing about it as his idiot mind tells him to run away from himself is sending me.
No sane and just DM would rule that is what has to happen, but that absolutely how it is written RAW, and I think it's hilarious.
thematically, oath of ancients should also be the paladin most likely to summon a fey steed, as opposed to celestial or fiend, except turn the faithless would turn them too.
Turn the faithless should always have been party friendly, and an DMs looking for solutions to this awkwardness should start there. oath of ancients is not so good that even its situationaly decent channel divinity deserves extra hassles layered on tip. The oath has like one good oath spell that other better oaths share, one worthless cd, one cd that's only good when fighting fey - rare enough that it doesn't deserve additional nerfs of having to worry about fey party members. Yeah the aura is decent, but even that's also only situationaly good (resistance to spell damage when only a minority of enemies cast spells and the nastiest ones are bad for reasons entirely apart from damage. And even when you do fight enemy spellcasters, they often throw out aoe stuff like fireballs, where the party bunching up under the aura can result in taking more total damage even after counting resistance than if they had spread out instead.
Oath of Ancients is a sub-par paladin oath overall. They're still decent because the parent paladin class is strong, I don't think they need piles of homebrew buffs or anything, but there's no justification for DMs to undermine one of their few even potentially useful subclass features by hardballing RAW on a feature written before fae party members were even a possibility.
I've thought about this, and it's completely okay to add the words "of your choice" to the description of Turn the Faithless, and to all the class features in the cleric and paladin classes that turn enemies. It wouldn't cause any major game imbalance, and would remove all of these problems with the rules. I think that, RAI, choosing which creatures to affect was already part of the deal, and unless your DM is an absolute rules lawyer, I'm sure they'll let you use Turn the Faithless without making a saving throw for your summoned fey... or yourself, if you're a changeling.
Oath of Ancients is a sub-par paladin oath overall.
I respectfully disagree with that point. The oath spells are good if you know how to use them right (paladins don't usually get area of effect options, making Moonbeam and Ice Storm very powerful, and don't underestimate a well-placed Misty Step). And in the case of the aura, situationally powerful features aren't necessarily bad. Unless your DM never uses any sort of spellcasters, it is bound to be useful at some point, even if it's only useful because the sorcerer doesn't care how many friends he hits when he casts Fireball.
I will admit that it makes thematically more sense to replace one of the paladin's 4th-level oath spells with Guardian of Nature, which is also a very powerful spell that balances out the weak ones. However, the Oath of the Ancients definitely still has something to be said for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Looking into the changes in MPMM, I noticed that changelings are considered fey now, and was wondering how that would affect various spells and affects. One of the Ancients Paladin's channel divinities lets them turn all fey and fiends in a 30ft area if they fail a save. So if you made a changeling Ancients Paladin and used this Channel Divinity, what would happen?
Would it be up to DM ruling, or is there any sage advice about turn affects on yourself?
Any ideas on how you would rule it, or a link to where an official ruling is would be helpful.
The changling would have to make a save or be turned, by RAW. There’s no language for something like “creatures of your choosing” so any fey, even allies would need to save.
I thought it was weird since it would make sense for an ancients to have a fey mount, but they really shouldn’t.
Edit: And now I realize you meant the pally, not an ally. I’d personally let the paladin doing the turning not save, because it would just be silly if they had to.
Even any Fey familiars in the party would have to save or be turned too.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
It's funny they decided against the Undead type for Dhampir and Reborn because of these kinds of problems but then completely blanked on the Fey type. RAW it sucks to be a Fey in this case, even for the paladin themselves. Any reasonable DM though would exclude player characters in this case though since the ability was written before Fey type PCs were a thing. Just talk to them and explain the situation and how stupid it is for a paladin to turn themselves.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
It's kind of a weird trade off I guess for being immune to effects that only target humanoids (which includes quite a few monster charm abilities in particular).
I just love the idea of a well meaning human or whatever paladin in a party of Changelings disguised as various other creatures; raises his holy symbol aloft and turns the faithless, only to watch as his entire party runs off. 😂
But yeah, back to the OP, this is a classic example of when "within X feet of you" isn't a good way to describe the area; in RAW nothing prevents this from affecting the paladin themselves, but it's a case that's clearly not intended, same as arms of hadar which presumably isn't meant to harm the caster. Technically it's a DM ruling, but they should take into account that a Cleric/Paladin turning themselves would be an insane ruling.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
RAW, you would turn yourself. Which would, admittedly, be hilarious, but would also get kind of old after a while.
I've never dealt with a fey PC or an Ancients paladin, but in that case, I wouldn't force the paladin to make a save.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I am trying to pick out a oath for the changeling paladin I am building and I am so tempted to choose Oath of the Ancients. His dump stat is INT and the image of this idiot failing a saving throw against his own ability, being forced into his true form, and not being able to do a thing about it as his idiot mind tells him to run away from himself is sending me.
No sane and just DM would rule that is what has to happen, but that absolutely how it is written RAW, and I think it's hilarious.
thematically, oath of ancients should also be the paladin most likely to summon a fey steed, as opposed to celestial or fiend, except turn the faithless would turn them too.
Turn the faithless should always have been party friendly, and an DMs looking for solutions to this awkwardness should start there. oath of ancients is not so good that even its situationaly decent channel divinity deserves extra hassles layered on tip. The oath has like one good oath spell that other better oaths share, one worthless cd, one cd that's only good when fighting fey - rare enough that it doesn't deserve additional nerfs of having to worry about fey party members. Yeah the aura is decent, but even that's also only situationaly good (resistance to spell damage when only a minority of enemies cast spells and the nastiest ones are bad for reasons entirely apart from damage. And even when you do fight enemy spellcasters, they often throw out aoe stuff like fireballs, where the party bunching up under the aura can result in taking more total damage even after counting resistance than if they had spread out instead.
Oath of Ancients is a sub-par paladin oath overall. They're still decent because the parent paladin class is strong, I don't think they need piles of homebrew buffs or anything, but there's no justification for DMs to undermine one of their few even potentially useful subclass features by hardballing RAW on a feature written before fae party members were even a possibility.
I've thought about this, and it's completely okay to add the words "of your choice" to the description of Turn the Faithless, and to all the class features in the cleric and paladin classes that turn enemies. It wouldn't cause any major game imbalance, and would remove all of these problems with the rules. I think that, RAI, choosing which creatures to affect was already part of the deal, and unless your DM is an absolute rules lawyer, I'm sure they'll let you use Turn the Faithless without making a saving throw for your summoned fey... or yourself, if you're a changeling.
I respectfully disagree with that point. The oath spells are good if you know how to use them right (paladins don't usually get area of effect options, making Moonbeam and Ice Storm very powerful, and don't underestimate a well-placed Misty Step). And in the case of the aura, situationally powerful features aren't necessarily bad. Unless your DM never uses any sort of spellcasters, it is bound to be useful at some point, even if it's only useful because the sorcerer doesn't care how many friends he hits when he casts Fireball.
I will admit that it makes thematically more sense to replace one of the paladin's 4th-level oath spells with Guardian of Nature, which is also a very powerful spell that balances out the weak ones. However, the Oath of the Ancients definitely still has something to be said for it.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair