Sounds like the problem you are fixing isn't the thing that is actually a problem.
I.e. if polymorph is fine when used in any scenario except for someone using conjure woodland creatures to summon pixies and have those pixies use polymorph, it makes more logical sense to adjust just that one scenario - like having conjure woodland creatures not summon pixies - whether by just not having that be an option, or by the DM choosing which creatures show up after the player selects what challenge rating of creatures to summon (which the text of the spell supports as being the way the spell works).
Or just focus on that options like dispel magic or smashing the fragile pixies to break the spell exist.
...or by the DM choosing which creatures show up after the player selects what challenge rating of creatures to summon (which the text of the spell supports as being the way the spell works).
That is, indeed, how the spell works. There's an official ruling on it in Sage Advice Compendium. All the DM has to do is not give the player 8 pixies.
I've seen that answer... which strikes me a bit as passing the buck. I like my players to know, mostly, what they can do. So, I could just say, no Pixies, and go from there, players can choose to use the spell or not. Or this option which allows the conjuration of Pixies, and indeed makes them useful, but not overly so.
It's not passing the buck; some mechanics simply aren't designed for players to have control over (e.g. Wild Magic Surge, Divine Intervention.) Note that the Player's Handbook has stat blocks for the things players are expected to be able to choose or use as minions (e.g. familiars, zombies/skeletons, common animals for Wild Shape.) Their characters might not have encyclopedic knowledge of every possible fey (especially if you have homebrew monsters) and most game mechanics are designed to not require out-of-game knowledge (i.e. reading the Monster Manual) to use.
If you want full transparency, then make a table and let players roll for what they summon. Still won't get 8 pixies, but they still might get one, and they know exactly how the results are determined. You can even give the table weighted odds if you like by making it the sum of two dice (e.g. 2d4 has a range of 2-8 but results close to 5 are more common). A nice side effect of that is that you're more likely to get a duplicates and don't have to worry about 8 different monsters bogging down combat.
I've seen that answer... which strikes me a bit as passing the buck. I like my players to know, mostly, what they can do. So, I could just say, no Pixies, and go from there, players can choose to use the spell or not. Or this option which allows the conjuration of Pixies, and indeed makes them useful, but not overly so.
But this option also has potential to mess with how other creatures (or even characters) work because it changes polymorph rather than changing only how useful it is to summon pixies.
Leaving aside the issue of changing the spell versus changing the way I DM. That is a reasonable concern (generally I like to respect the play tested rules over non-tested house rules), but I am not always convinced they playtested all scenarios...
What downsides are there to the spell change for all creatures/casters?
Typically the max CR polymorph (versus offensely turning something into a low CR mouse or frog) is going to be on a friendly PC or NPC. So typically the friendly target will be equal or lower Level than caster. So it isn’t likely to impact players much (given there are not many beasts with higher CRS than 7). I think the restriction is more in line with typical spell limits based on caster level not target level.
What downsides are there to the spell change for all creatures/casters?
Typically the max CR polymorph (versus offensely turning something into a low CR mouse or frog) is going to be on a friendly PC or NPC. So typically the friendly target will be equal or lower Level than caster. So it isn’t likely to impact players much (given there are not many beasts with higher CRS than 7). I think the restriction is more in line with typical spell limits based on caster level not target level.
When the party uses polymorph against monsters, you're right. When monsters use polymorph against the party, the caster won't necessarily be the highest CR.
There's also just the cost of house rules in general. Players have to keep track of all the changes you make to the rules so you want as little house rules as possible and use rules that give you the best bang for your buck.
I see no reason to change a spell due to a few exploits that have been found over the years at various tables. Yes, such exploits can be problematic but there are numerous ways around it, the most obvious of which is a DM simply not letting the exploits at their tables. However, if a DM doesn't want to be a "Debbie Downer" and allows his players to summon what they like rather than choosing for them (as per the Sage Advice Compendium) then there are other options they can take:
The players don't know what a pixie is. Which is perfectly fair if their characters have never encountered them in-game.
The players know what pixies are but don't know what a giant ape or T-Rex is. Which like with pixies, is perfectly fair if their characters have yet to encounter them in-game.
The players know what pixies are but the pixies don't know what a giant ape or T-Rex is. Which is perfectly fair, considering where pixies come from. And in addition, a DM's world may not even have dinosaurs, giant apes or pixies in them making this problem moot.
The players and the pixies happen to know what a giant ape and T-Rex is but now the players have the intelligence of those creatures. Making any tactical planning practically useless, as the party is now a bunch of beasts operating on pure instinct. And since the DM could determine how such a creature may act, the DM can now have full control of their beast forms by all accounts. Rendering any combat issues moot.
The players somehow manage to still attack in their beast forms and then the enemy simply chooses to attack the pixies and/or dispell the magic of polymorph. Presuming any enemies haven't already attempted to counterspell the pixies shenanigans. Either way, the fun will be over shortly.
The players have lucked out and somehow remain in their beast forms but the DM decides to fight fire with fire and now, the enemies use the party's own trick against them.
Alternatively, a DM could also use spells like animal friendship to neutralize combats by potentially turning the party into the pets of their enemies. Which should make for great fun once the polymorph wears off and they're all in cages with a bowl to eat out of.
And lastly, the environments the players have their combats in are simply too small to make use of the huge size of their beast forms making the strategy no longer viable.
So with all of that, it seems to me that this is only a problem if the DM makes it one. Therefore if DM's are having issues with this, I'd ask them why they have allowed such a problem to exist in their games. Because ultimately even a nice DM will have such a wide spectrum of control over this that it should never become a real problem for their games.
I’ll try to read that as trying to be helpful, and assume you just missed my part about leaving aside the changing the way I DM. :)
So, I’ve got a few years of DMing under my belt, and I can certainly manage the scenarios in which a 7th level character opts to do this. Indeed my players and I discussed this very idea with some amusement. My players are not power gamers, so as a DM I’m not really concerned.
But from the perspective of a player there are some concerns. What should one do with the spell? Is this a new game within a game to determine limits? Is your answer that the player should have very little idea what will happen if they cast this spell? If they can figure solutions to your points, would that be okay.. would it be smart or power gaming? When would you as DM, with your wide spectrum of control decide to squash it? Is turning half the players into giant apes alright, or only doing it when they reach single digit hps? Giant apes are great hit point parachutes. It just seems like a tough thing for a DM to need to be ready for in any scenario.
I could easily just say pixies won’t be conjured with that spell.
But I still don’t see the downside to nerfing polymorph in the way I described. It is true that 7th level characters would lose the ability to polymorph someone into a TRex. Likewise CR1/4 Pixies would also lose that ability. Honestly, I think that is probably a good thing, turning pcs into mice and frogs is bad enough..
This nerf doesn’t solve all the problems with conjure woodland creatures (flocks of invisible pixies dispeling magic, or polymorphing enemies into frogs, or dryads generating 60 goodberries).
Game balance is a myth. Each individual table is going to have their own internal balance - what's problematic for one, is not problematic for another. Whenever these questions come up, I always start off with this
"Is this a white room theory problem, or is it something that's an active problem at your table?"
If its the former, I always suggest leaving it alone unless it becomes an issue. If its the latter, then take steps. Because, honestly, I can't tell you the number of times someone has tried to come up with some kind of white room problem, and made an issue out of it, but when the situation came up in game? It was completely not an issue at all.
Honestly, as a player, I wouldn't want to do this "exploit" in the first place. I made a PC in order to play as that PC, not to turn into a dinosaur. If I wanted to do that, I'd play a Moon Druid, instead of being a Glamour Bard, or a wind-based Elemental Monk, or my luck mage, or whatever. I know a lot of players that feel the same. Do your players want to engage in this? While technically strong, its a very boring thing to do.
I could easily just say pixies won’t be conjured with that spell ... This nerf doesn’t solve all the problems with conjure woodland creatures (flocks of invisible pixies dispeling magic, or polymorphing enemies into frogs, or dryads generating 60 goodberries).
You could just as easily run the spell as written. You still haven't explained why that's not an option.
I wouldn't go that far. "Game balance" is just the average of all tables. Compared to 5e, 3.5e was seriously broken for the majority of tables.
"Is this a white room theory problem, or is it something that's an active problem at your table?" If its the former, I always suggest leaving it alone unless it becomes an issue.
Agree 100%
While technically strong, its a very boring thing to do.
It might not be something everyone wants to do every fight, but (if allowed) the temptation will be there every time they're up against a wall. Hard to ignore the option that gives everyone an extra 136 HP and potentially 53 damage per round. And because it's such a potent option, the druid might feel it'd be stupid not to have it available just in case.
I was really only interested whether my nerfing polymorph would have any unintended consequences, but this whole discussion got side-tracked. That is fine, people bring up some interesting points. And these are public forums that people can use to discuss what they are interesting in.
The player in my game who just turned Druid level 7 expressed some concerns about the spell. I can see his position. If the party dies because either (a) I assert my wide spectrum of control to render the spell ineffectual despite its seeming utility,* or (b) he chooses never to prepare it because he deems over powered, then he might feel responsible. Were I to regulate it, he could happily choose to use it, or not, based on an informed idea of what it can and cannot do. We'd both like it not to be able to do the horde of Giant Apes thing, my nerfing polymorph would do that. The question is, would that nerf cause any other problems.
*We had an issue in a previous group that died in a TPK in part perhaps because of a disagreement about how the Forbiddance spell (could it be cast in one point in the dungeon then affect creatures in other parts within the range but behind stone walls.)
The question is, would that nerf cause any other problems.
You may, or may not, consider any of the following to be problems which arise because of your proposed rule adjustment:
Your players may view you changing <not the problem> as an attempt to fix <the problem> as a reason not to believe in your ability to identify problems and enact fixes to them.
You will have spent effort towards making use of conjure woodland beings to summon a bunch of pixies not a problem, and will not have actually addressed most of the problematic potential (i.e. the problem of wasted effort)
Mixed-level parties, or mixed-CR encounters, have use of the polymorph spell artificially restricted - so it's no longer a worthwhile spell that has concentration keeping it from being overly-potent, but is not of potent enough effect to be worth using in its non-offensive uses.
You'll have a rule that needs to be remembered even outside of the circumstances that it was made up for (i.e. the problem of an easily forgettable rule).
The question is, would that nerf cause any other problems.
You may, or may not, consider any of the following to be problems which arise because of your proposed rule adjustment:
Your players may view you changing <not the problem> as an attempt to fix <the problem> as a reason not to believe in your ability to identify problems and enact fixes to them.
You will have spent effort towards making use of conjure woodland beings to summon a bunch of pixies not a problem, and will not have actually addressed most of the problematic potential (i.e. the problem of wasted effort)
Mixed-level parties, or mixed-CR encounters, have use of the polymorph spell artificially restricted - so it's no longer a worthwhile spell that has concentration keeping it from being overly-potent, but is not of potent enough effect to be worth using in its non-offensive uses.
You'll have a rule that needs to be remembered even outside of the circumstances that it was made up for (i.e. the problem of an easily forgettable rule).
We don't have a mixed level party. So that isn't a concern. Not too worried about the 1st or 2nd, that ship has sailed. And the fourth doesn't seem a problem, they manage house rules pretty well. Great thanks!
The player in my game who just turned Druid level 7 expressed some concerns about the spell. I can see his position. If the party dies because either (a) I assert my wide spectrum of control to render the spell ineffectual despite its seeming utility,* or (b) he chooses never to prepare it because he deems over powered, then he might feel responsible. Were I to regulate it, he could happily choose to use it, or not, based on an informed idea of what it can and cannot do. We'd both like it not to be able to do the horde of Giant Apes thing, my nerfing polymorph would do that. The question is, would that nerf cause any other problems.
When I'm not DM'ing: I play a Druid with a lot of unbalancing conjuration options - so I self-moderate (since I would definitely moderate any players that overly relied on unbalancing conjuration options).
This isn't just in regard to pixies though: I could just as easily destroy an encounter by say, conjuring eight giant bats - which then grapple all the enemies and fly directly upwards. The DM having the option to approve what gets summoned is part of the spell, and for good reason.
I personally try to use each of the most powerful conjurations only *once*. I might never use the pixie option itself, but it's there if the campaign truly needs it (say for a dire emergency or massive climatic battle).
It might not be something everyone wants to do every fight, but (if allowed) the temptation will be there every time they're up against a wall. Hard to ignore the option that gives everyone an extra 136 HP and potentially 53 damage per round. And because it's such a potent option, the druid might feel it'd be stupid not to have it available just in case.
I think you misunderstand. Its something that I would NEVER do, under any circumstances. From an OOC perspective, I want to play as my character that I built up. Even if we lose. Its not an option if it would ruin the fun for us. Back against the wall or not.
Minor Nerf to deal with the Conjure Woodland Creature problem (summon pixies, each polymorphs the party into Giant Apes or T-Rexs)
Polymorph You can turn a person into a Beast of a CR no greater than the character's CR (or Level) OR the Polymorpher's CR (or Level).
So a Pixie (CR 1/4) can polymorph someone in a CR1/4 creature.
Sounds like the problem you are fixing isn't the thing that is actually a problem.
I.e. if polymorph is fine when used in any scenario except for someone using conjure woodland creatures to summon pixies and have those pixies use polymorph, it makes more logical sense to adjust just that one scenario - like having conjure woodland creatures not summon pixies - whether by just not having that be an option, or by the DM choosing which creatures show up after the player selects what challenge rating of creatures to summon (which the text of the spell supports as being the way the spell works).
Or just focus on that options like dispel magic or smashing the fragile pixies to break the spell exist.
I've seen that answer... which strikes me a bit as passing the buck. I like my players to know, mostly, what they can do. So, I could just say, no Pixies, and go from there, players can choose to use the spell or not. Or this option which allows the conjuration of Pixies, and indeed makes them useful, but not overly so.
It's not passing the buck; some mechanics simply aren't designed for players to have control over (e.g. Wild Magic Surge, Divine Intervention.) Note that the Player's Handbook has stat blocks for the things players are expected to be able to choose or use as minions (e.g. familiars, zombies/skeletons, common animals for Wild Shape.) Their characters might not have encyclopedic knowledge of every possible fey (especially if you have homebrew monsters) and most game mechanics are designed to not require out-of-game knowledge (i.e. reading the Monster Manual) to use.
If you want full transparency, then make a table and let players roll for what they summon. Still won't get 8 pixies, but they still might get one, and they know exactly how the results are determined. You can even give the table weighted odds if you like by making it the sum of two dice (e.g. 2d4 has a range of 2-8 but results close to 5 are more common). A nice side effect of that is that you're more likely to get a duplicates and don't have to worry about 8 different monsters bogging down combat.
Leaving aside the issue of changing the spell versus changing the way I DM. That is a reasonable concern (generally I like to respect the play tested rules over non-tested house rules), but I am not always convinced they playtested all scenarios...
What downsides are there to the spell change for all creatures/casters?
Typically the max CR polymorph (versus offensely turning something into a low CR mouse or frog) is going to be on a friendly PC or NPC. So typically the friendly target will be equal or lower Level than caster. So it isn’t likely to impact players much (given there are not many beasts with higher CRS than 7). I think the restriction is more in line with typical spell limits based on caster level not target level.
This answer seems a greater change than what I’m suggesting.
I see no reason to change a spell due to a few exploits that have been found over the years at various tables. Yes, such exploits can be problematic but there are numerous ways around it, the most obvious of which is a DM simply not letting the exploits at their tables. However, if a DM doesn't want to be a "Debbie Downer" and allows his players to summon what they like rather than choosing for them (as per the Sage Advice Compendium) then there are other options they can take:
So with all of that, it seems to me that this is only a problem if the DM makes it one. Therefore if DM's are having issues with this, I'd ask them why they have allowed such a problem to exist in their games. Because ultimately even a nice DM will have such a wide spectrum of control over this that it should never become a real problem for their games.
I’ll try to read that as trying to be helpful, and assume you just missed my part about leaving aside the changing the way I DM. :)
So, I’ve got a few years of DMing under my belt, and I can certainly manage the scenarios in which a 7th level character opts to do this. Indeed my players and I discussed this very idea with some amusement. My players are not power gamers, so as a DM I’m not really concerned.
But from the perspective of a player there are some concerns. What should one do with the spell? Is this a new game within a game to determine limits? Is your answer that the player should have very little idea what will happen if they cast this spell? If they can figure solutions to your points, would that be okay.. would it be smart or power gaming? When would you as DM, with your wide spectrum of control decide to squash it? Is turning half the players into giant apes alright, or only doing it when they reach single digit hps? Giant apes are great hit point parachutes. It just seems like a tough thing for a DM to need to be ready for in any scenario.
I could easily just say pixies won’t be conjured with that spell.
But I still don’t see the downside to nerfing polymorph in the way I described. It is true that 7th level characters would lose the ability to polymorph someone into a TRex. Likewise CR1/4 Pixies would also lose that ability. Honestly, I think that is probably a good thing, turning pcs into mice and frogs is bad enough..
This nerf doesn’t solve all the problems with conjure woodland creatures (flocks of invisible pixies dispeling magic, or polymorphing enemies into frogs, or dryads generating 60 goodberries).
But it makes a certain sense balance wise.
Game balance is a myth. Each individual table is going to have their own internal balance - what's problematic for one, is not problematic for another. Whenever these questions come up, I always start off with this
"Is this a white room theory problem, or is it something that's an active problem at your table?"
If its the former, I always suggest leaving it alone unless it becomes an issue. If its the latter, then take steps. Because, honestly, I can't tell you the number of times someone has tried to come up with some kind of white room problem, and made an issue out of it, but when the situation came up in game? It was completely not an issue at all.
Honestly, as a player, I wouldn't want to do this "exploit" in the first place. I made a PC in order to play as that PC, not to turn into a dinosaur. If I wanted to do that, I'd play a Moon Druid, instead of being a Glamour Bard, or a wind-based Elemental Monk, or my luck mage, or whatever. I know a lot of players that feel the same. Do your players want to engage in this? While technically strong, its a very boring thing to do.
I wouldn't go that far. "Game balance" is just the average of all tables. Compared to 5e, 3.5e was seriously broken for the majority of tables.
Agree 100%
I was really only interested whether my nerfing polymorph would have any unintended consequences, but this whole discussion got side-tracked. That is fine, people bring up some interesting points. And these are public forums that people can use to discuss what they are interesting in.
The player in my game who just turned Druid level 7 expressed some concerns about the spell. I can see his position. If the party dies because either (a) I assert my wide spectrum of control to render the spell ineffectual despite its seeming utility,* or (b) he chooses never to prepare it because he deems over powered, then he might feel responsible. Were I to regulate it, he could happily choose to use it, or not, based on an informed idea of what it can and cannot do. We'd both like it not to be able to do the horde of Giant Apes thing, my nerfing polymorph would do that. The question is, would that nerf cause any other problems.
*We had an issue in a previous group that died in a TPK in part perhaps because of a disagreement about how the Forbiddance spell (could it be cast in one point in the dungeon then affect creatures in other parts within the range but behind stone walls.)
You may, or may not, consider any of the following to be problems which arise because of your proposed rule adjustment: