in the description of the spell Polymorth it says “The spell has no effect on a shapechanger...” would this include a pc player who’s playing as a changeling?
I’m playing a changeling bard and about to get polymorth but I’ve noticed this detail in the description. What does it mean by shapechanger, is it referring to things like mimics or are changelings included?
I'm of a mind that Changling are shapechangers in relation to any spell/effect/ability. They are capable of changing their appearance with little more than a thought, much the same as a Doppleganger.
Minotaurs as a race don't have the (monstrosity) tag as a PC. Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc. don't have the (humanoid) tag as a PC. I don't feel that this is a proper parallel.
Minotaurs as a race don't have the (monstrosity) tag as a PC. Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc. don't have the (humanoid) tag as a PC. I don't feel that this is a proper parallel.
Yeah, but that's the tag the spell looks for. Arguably, you're supposed to be using polymorph on monsters where the tag matters. When it comes to players, I'm sure it's a DM call.
Yes, but statistically, the only parts of the race description that matter are those listed under the "Changeling Traits" heading. In that section it does not say that changeling count as Shapeshifters (much like it does not say under Elf that they count as Fey). That being said, I totally would let a Changeling be immune to Polymorph effects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Minotaurs as a race don't have the (monstrosity) tag as a PC.
That's because they're not monstrosities, and strictly speaking "tags" are a concept that only exist in monster stat blocks.
Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc. don't have the (humanoid) tag as a PC.
Humanoid isn't a tag, it's a type. The rules tell you player races are humanoids in chapter 1:
1. Choose a Race
Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world. The most common player character races are dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans.
So they don't have to point this out again unless they're changing a race's type, which would be unusual.
The Monster Manual reminds you of this too:
Humanoids are the main peoples of a fantasy gaming world, both civilized and savage, including humans and a tremendous variety of other species. They have language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form. The most common humanoid races are the ones most suitable as player characters: humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings. Almost as numerous but far more savage and brutal, and almost uniformly evil, are the races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds.
Anyways, there's nothing in the Changeling's traits that designates them as a Shapechanger. Arguably they should be based on precedent, but unless they're errata'd, right now they're not. Unfortunately certain spells like Polymorph flat out don't work on shapechangers, so the omission might be deliberate. If you house rule that Changelings are shapechangers you'll probably want to house rule that polymorph and similar spells still work on willing shapechangers. In previous editions shapechangers could just revert to their true form rather than having immunity.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things. But to me, this should be settled by the question, "Can a changeling change its shape?" If it looks like a shapechanger and acts like a shapechanger and there's nothing that explicitly says the changeling is not a shapechanger, then is there a requirement within the rules that changelings do not meet in order to be considered a shapechanger? We talk a lot about plain English definitions and how a rule does what it says it does and nothing more. Or maybe we already have the answer and changelings fall into a grey area where the DM has to make the call.
I'm trying to figure out if we're picking arbitrary requirements for defining something or if the rules specifically set out what criteria something has to meet in order to be considered a member of a category. And I'm afraid that sounds snarky, but I'm being sincere in my asking.
I'd rule them as shapechangers, whether they are or not should be listed in their traits, but since Eberron is still in playtest it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't actually considered. This also affects Moonbeam and truesight.
these answers while often contradictory are all really helpful in me making up my mind as to whether my character should be able to Polymorph, i'm inclined to agree with:
Anyways, there's nothing in the Changeling's traits that designates them as a Shapechanger. Arguably they should be based on precedent, but unless they're errata'd, right now they're not. Unfortunately certain spells like Polymorph flat out don't work on shapechangers, so the omission might be deliberate. If you house rule that Changelings are shapechangers you'll probably want to house rule that polymorph and similar spells still work on willing shapechangers. In previous editions shapechangers could just revert to their true form rather than having immunity.
As essentially the reason they're immune is that the can just change back using their own innate ability, this to me means if they choose not to do this the spell would stick. Maybe i'm being biased because it's what i want to work but meh. Lets see if who my DM agrees with.
Edit: the general answer covers the question asked here. I would say that TexasDevin is wrong to oversimplify to the point of overlooking deliberate language choices of the designers in order to take a colloquial definition of things. The rules set out criteria by using specific phrasing (such as “The spell has no effect onshapechangers”). DnD is an explicitly codified game, there is no concept of a thing that "looks like it fits into a category" automatically belonging there.
Edit: the general answer covers the question asked here. I would say that TexasDevin is wrong to oversimplify to the point of overlooking deliberate language choices of the designers in order to take a colloquial definition of things. The rules set out criteria by using specific phrasing (such as “The spell has no effect onshapechangers”). DnD is an explicitly codified game, there is no concept of a thing that "looks like it fits into a category" automatically belonging there.
Yes, the question has been answered, but not in the way you think.
A creature must be designated—with a tag or other text—as a shapechanger to count as one. #DnD
Creatures that are listed in the Monster Manual have tags, player characters do not have tags.
A changeling can shift its face and form with a thought.
A changeling can alter its physical appearance with a thought.
A changeling shifts shapes the way others might change clothes.
The true name of a changeling tends to be simple and monosyllabic; however, there are often accents to a changeling’s name that are expressed through shapeshifting, something single-skins will likely miss.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Jeremy says, "A creature must be designated—with a tag or other text—as a shapechanger to count as one." (emphasis mine) The term "shapeshifter" is used throughout the text of the changeling's description. Are you saying that a shapeshifter is different than a shapechanger? That seems like a trivial distinction to me, but maybe not.
EDIT: The bigger issue seems to be that all the normal rules or what gets what tags applies to NPC creatures. As InquisitiveCoder pointed out, all playable races are humanoids even when their NPC counterparts may not be. That right there might be enough to exclude playable changelings. I asked Jeremy on twitter. We will see if he responds.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things. But to me, this should be settled by the question, "Can a changeling change its shape?" If it looks like a shapechanger and acts like a shapechanger and there's nothing that explicitly says the changeling is not a shapechanger, then is there a requirement within the rules that changelings do not meet in order to be considered a shapechanger? We talk a lot about plain English definitions and how a rule does what it says it does and nothing more.
The problem is that shapechanger is an explicit rules category, not just a way of describing something. This is similar to the term humanoid, which has a very specific meaning in the context of D&D, and there are things which you could call humanoid in plain English that aren't considered as humanoids in the rules. Likewise, there are creatures that can change shape at will but aren't shapechangers. For example, adult metallic dragons.
The shapechanger tag is meant to apply to creatures with an innate, non-magical ability to change shape. It's an inherent part of the creature. Changelings absolutely fit that bill, but for whatever reason, the book never applies the tag to them. Much like how a vampire is very humanoid-like but isn't a humanoid by the rules, being shapechanger-like isn't enough to treat Changelings as shapechangers.
Personally I think they're intended to be shapechangers and that they're intended to be able to benefit from effects like polymorph if they're willing. They're basically playable humanoid doppelgangers.
Yes, the question has been answered, but not in the way you think.
A creature must be designated—with a tag or other text—as a shapechanger to count as one. #DnD
Creatures that are listed in the Monster Manual have tags, player characters do not have tags.
A changeling can shift its face and form with a thought.
A changeling can alter its physical appearance with a thought.
A changeling shifts shapes the way others might change clothes.
The true name of a changeling tends to be simple and monosyllabic; however, there are often accents to a changeling’s name that are expressed through shapeshifting, something single-skins will likely miss.
You have quoted me, quoted the relevant rule clarification, and quoted some descriptions of the character that do not state that the changeling is a shapechanger. My point is that DnD is a strongly codified game. Something is not made a part of a category by fitting a trend (changelings can shapeshift), it is made part of a category by an explicit statement somewhere that it is part of that category. Nowhere in the description is the word shapechanger used (edit: I would expect it to be in the features section, like the Centaur's Fey trait is). Therefore, changeling is not a shapechanger.
in the description of the spell Polymorth it says “The spell has no effect on a shapechanger...” would this include a pc player who’s playing as a changeling?
I’m playing a changeling bard and about to get polymorth but I’ve noticed this detail in the description. What does it mean by shapechanger, is it referring to things like mimics or are changelings included?
I'm of a mind that Changling are shapechangers in relation to any spell/effect/ability. They are capable of changing their appearance with little more than a thought, much the same as a Doppleganger.
It includes any monster that has (shapechanger) in its type-line.
Minotaurs as a race don't have the (monstrosity) tag as a PC. Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc. don't have the (humanoid) tag as a PC. I don't feel that this is a proper parallel.
Yeah, but that's the tag the spell looks for. Arguably, you're supposed to be using polymorph on monsters where the tag matters. When it comes to players, I'm sure it's a DM call.
From the racial description of the changeling:
A changeling is a shapechanger.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes, but statistically, the only parts of the race description that matter are those listed under the "Changeling Traits" heading. In that section it does not say that changeling count as Shapeshifters (much like it does not say under Elf that they count as Fey). That being said, I totally would let a Changeling be immune to Polymorph effects.
That's because they're not monstrosities, and strictly speaking "tags" are a concept that only exist in monster stat blocks.
Humanoid isn't a tag, it's a type. The rules tell you player races are humanoids in chapter 1:
So they don't have to point this out again unless they're changing a race's type, which would be unusual.
The Monster Manual reminds you of this too:
Anyways, there's nothing in the Changeling's traits that designates them as a Shapechanger. Arguably they should be based on precedent, but unless they're errata'd, right now they're not. Unfortunately certain spells like Polymorph flat out don't work on shapechangers, so the omission might be deliberate. If you house rule that Changelings are shapechangers you'll probably want to house rule that polymorph and similar spells still work on willing shapechangers. In previous editions shapechangers could just revert to their true form rather than having immunity.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things. But to me, this should be settled by the question, "Can a changeling change its shape?" If it looks like a shapechanger and acts like a shapechanger and there's nothing that explicitly says the changeling is not a shapechanger, then is there a requirement within the rules that changelings do not meet in order to be considered a shapechanger? We talk a lot about plain English definitions and how a rule does what it says it does and nothing more. Or maybe we already have the answer and changelings fall into a grey area where the DM has to make the call.
I'm trying to figure out if we're picking arbitrary requirements for defining something or if the rules specifically set out what criteria something has to meet in order to be considered a member of a category. And I'm afraid that sounds snarky, but I'm being sincere in my asking.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd rule them as shapechangers, whether they are or not should be listed in their traits, but since Eberron is still in playtest it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't actually considered. This also affects Moonbeam and truesight.
these answers while often contradictory are all really helpful in me making up my mind as to whether my character should be able to Polymorph, i'm inclined to agree with:
As essentially the reason they're immune is that the can just change back using their own innate ability, this to me means if they choose not to do this the spell would stick. Maybe i'm being biased because it's what i want to work but meh. Lets see if who my DM agrees with.
I mean another version of this same question has already been answered:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/25/do-wild-shaped-druids-or-polymorphed-creatures-count-as-shapechangers-for-moonbeam/amp/
Edit: the general answer covers the question asked here. I would say that TexasDevin is wrong to oversimplify to the point of overlooking deliberate language choices of the designers in order to take a colloquial definition of things. The rules set out criteria by using specific phrasing (such as “The spell has no effect onshapechangers”). DnD is an explicitly codified game, there is no concept of a thing that "looks like it fits into a category" automatically belonging there.
Yes, the question has been answered, but not in the way you think.
Creatures that are listed in the Monster Manual have tags, player characters do not have tags.
All from the Changeling racial description... I'd say that more than satisfies the "other text" requirement.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Jeremy says, "A creature must be designated—with a tag or other text—as a shapechanger to count as one." (emphasis mine) The term "shapeshifter" is used throughout the text of the changeling's description. Are you saying that a shapeshifter is different than a shapechanger? That seems like a trivial distinction to me, but maybe not.
EDIT: The bigger issue seems to be that all the normal rules or what gets what tags applies to NPC creatures. As InquisitiveCoder pointed out, all playable races are humanoids even when their NPC counterparts may not be. That right there might be enough to exclude playable changelings. I asked Jeremy on twitter. We will see if he responds.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes. It may be trivial colloquially, but is is a clear distinction when abilities key off of being one and not the other.
The problem is that shapechanger is an explicit rules category, not just a way of describing something. This is similar to the term humanoid, which has a very specific meaning in the context of D&D, and there are things which you could call humanoid in plain English that aren't considered as humanoids in the rules. Likewise, there are creatures that can change shape at will but aren't shapechangers. For example, adult metallic dragons.
The shapechanger tag is meant to apply to creatures with an innate, non-magical ability to change shape. It's an inherent part of the creature. Changelings absolutely fit that bill, but for whatever reason, the book never applies the tag to them. Much like how a vampire is very humanoid-like but isn't a humanoid by the rules, being shapechanger-like isn't enough to treat Changelings as shapechangers.
Personally I think they're intended to be shapechangers and that they're intended to be able to benefit from effects like polymorph if they're willing. They're basically playable humanoid doppelgangers.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Fair enough
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You have quoted me, quoted the relevant rule clarification, and quoted some descriptions of the character that do not state that the changeling is a shapechanger. My point is that DnD is a strongly codified game. Something is not made a part of a category by fitting a trend (changelings can shapeshift), it is made part of a category by an explicit statement somewhere that it is part of that category. Nowhere in the description is the word shapechanger used (edit: I would expect it to be in the features section, like the Centaur's Fey trait is). Therefore, changeling is not a shapechanger.
Counterpoint.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Countercounterpoint: there are plenty of keyword features that require those keywords whether or not they fit idiomatic English.