But that's the thing isn't it? Traits, races, types, and tags are all different things, some of which PCs get and some of which are treated differently for monsters. And a couple of people here are conflating them a bit.
There's no such thing as a tag PCs can get. They also can't have types - damage has types, for example, but PCs do not. So neither of those is a thing. EDIT: This is incorrect. I just checked the MM; 5E official terminology for subtype is tag, not subtype. I apologize. An orc isn't subtype (or type) orc, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding; it's type humanoid, tag orc.
A trait a creature possesses is not something that creature is. For one example of many, a kobold is neither a "Pack Tactics" nor a "Sunlight Sensitivity". Likewise, a creature with the Shapechanger trait isn't a Shapechanger.
That only leaves types and subtypes tags, which absolutely is what a thing is: a human is a human. An elf is an elf. And so on and so forth.
A PC Changeling is neither a "Changeling Instincts" nor a "Shapechanger". It is a Humanoid or Fey (depending on source) and a Changeling. An NPC changeling is a Humanoid (due to its type) and a Changeling and a Shapeshifter (due to its tags).
I can see that you’re not too concerned about whether a thing is a trait or a tag. Or even whether a thing is a ‘shapechanger’ or a ‘shapeshifter.’ And that’s really what I’m pointing out. PCs don’t have tags so it is important to understand that tags aren’t the only way something can be given a property.
I am not even sure what you are trying to say here. You seem to be insisting that there is an important difference between trait and tag (citation needed), but then adding a third thing, a 'property.'
The spells do not state whether they are referring to trait, tag, or property. You seem to be picking whichever you feel is the most restrictive (likely 'tag'). Again, citation needed.
The problem is the inexactitude. See post #28 below for another example.
It's all too easy to totally discount someone when they can't keep simple stuff like traits vs. tags correct.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said tags and traits are different. If you need a citation that different words are in fact different, I can't really do anything but point you to a dictionary.
If you can't tell that a tag isn't a race or races are different than types, or that types exist for monster groups as well as damages, I guess there isn't much to say. Point being that if you argument is that a PC needs a tag then you're wrong, but saying that a monster trait is the same as a monster tag is also wrong. Equating them is incorrect, even if both make you a shapechanger.
And really, the big problem that so many people are having here is conflating rules. PCs don't get tags. But spells like moonbeam don't ask about tags. they ask about what you are. That could be a trait or a tag, or even a race or a type. Nonetheless those are all different.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think specificity is important in this type of question, where different creatures have different ways of obtaining the same property.
Again, citation, please. Fair game to cite that as an opinion but where in the rules is that distinction actually made? Why, exactly, does the PC Changeling trait 'Shapechanger' not count as them being, just that, a shapechanger, especially when it describes their ability to change shape?
I am not aware of a citation explaining that an Elf is not a Trance, just as you can't give me a citation that an Elf is a Trance, as you appear to be asserting. Here's what I have for you:
As I mentioned above, you can use a simple "proof" (air quotes because as I said above, we don't have hard RAW on this) by contradiction: in order to claim a Changeling is a Shapechanger you must also claim it is a Changeling Instincts, as both are traits. Can you provide a citation that a Changeling is a Changeling Instincts? If you can't, can you at least provide a coherent argument why anyone anywhere would agree that a Changeling is a Changeling Instincts?
As I mentioned above, you can use a simple "proof" (air quotes because as I said above, we don't have hard RAW on this) by contradiction: in order to claim a Changeling is a Shapechanger you must also claim it is a Changeling Instincts, as both are traits. Can you provide a citation that a Changeling is a Changeling Instincts? If you can't, can you at least provide a coherent argument why anyone anywhere would agree that a Changeling is a Changeling Instincts?
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Changeling instincts are something a creature has. Shapechanger is something a creature is. This is obvious to anyone with a functional command of English. Just because they're both features doesn't mean they interact grammatically with the creature in the same way, and to claim such is dramatically unfounded.
As I mentioned above, you can use a simple "proof" (air quotes because as I said above, we don't have hard RAW on this) by contradiction: in order to claim a Changeling is a Shapechanger you must also claim it is a Changeling Instincts, as both are traits. Can you provide a citation that a Changeling is a Changeling Instincts? If you can't, can you at least provide a coherent argument why anyone anywhere would agree that a Changeling is a Changeling Instincts?
You've tried to claim in other threads that a feature/trait/whatever name is only ever a proper noun, and therefore should be ignored, but this is an argument that doesn't track as the rules never state that we should ignore them, and the polymorph spell certainly doesn't seem to care.
The spell uses the word "shapechanger", so does the Changeling's Shapechanger trait, therefore the condition is met. You might claim this is accidental, but Wizards of the Coast has now updated the Changeling, given it an explicit type of Fey, yet kept the trait name as it is, even though they could have renamed it "Change Shape" in line with monsters that do so without being shapechangers (such as dragons).
While there are certainly things in the game that are misnamed (chill touch being a classic example) there are also plenty of examples of names providing us with some information we don't otherwise have. And for the record, if there were an effect that said "This spell does not work on a creature with changeling instincts" then yeah, I'd absolutely say it wouldn't apply to a race with the Changeling Instincts trait because that's literally what it's telling us.
There also seems to be this really weird argument going on about keywords vs. traits vs. whatever; but again the rules don't establish these as somehow being separate or distinct things in their own right, it only mentions what they are. While it's helpful to know that a trait is specific to a race, a feature to a class and so-on, all these are just terms for consistency, but we're not talking about something that excludes any of them. The spell doesn't state "if the target creature has the shapechanger monster tag" or whatever, it doesn't state that at all.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Tags are one way that the properties of creatures are defined in 5e. It is not the only way. Traits and features also define properties of creatures.
The polymorph spell is general in its application. It says: "The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or a creature with 0 hit points."
The sentence does not say "a creature with the shapechanger tag", it does not say "a creature that can change shape", it does not say "a creature with a shapechanger trait" - it just refers to "a shapechanger".
Interpretation of that is left up to the determination of the DM. However, in the monster manual, some creatures do have a shapechanger tag - these are likely choices for "a shapechanger". There are also races with an ability or property called "shapechanger" that allows them to change shape. Polymorph does not, in any way, limit which type of definition of "shapechanger" can be applied in the spell. So a creature with the a property called "Shapechanger" can also be considered "a shapechanger" from the perspective of the spell text. A DM could obviously choose to exclude them if they like but there is no real support in RAW to do so.
In addition, tags are exclusively used for monsters. The PC race equivalents do not use tags. The Orc from MotM is listed as a medium humanoid while the Orc in the MM is a medium humanoid (orc). Are PC Orcs then NOT orcs because they don't have a tag? Does a spell that says "orcs take extra damage" then not apply to a PC because they don't have the "orc" tag?
Since that interpretation makes no sense to me (a PC orc is also an orc whether it has a tag or not) ... then I would interpret a PC changeling to be a shapechanger whether or not there is a shapechanger tag associated with the PC race because they DO have a specifically named shapechanger trait/feature.
Other folks are welcome to DM it differently of course.
P.S. The NPC Changeling from RftLW is listed as humanoid with the changeling and shapechanger tags. The trait in this case is called "change appearance". Fundamentally, it comes down to the terminology for monsters and characters being different when describing their characteristics and the polymorph spell just uses general terminology that can apply to PCs or NPCs and does not require a specific creature tag which would ONLY apply to NPC monsters since PC races generally don't have tags.
No, it is not cross referenced with polymorph spells in that the race description does not specifically say that the race is immune to them. However NO race does. The Magic Missile spell does not say that a Shield spell will block its damage, either. Does that mean the shield spell will not block its damage, simply because it is only mentioned in the description of the latter but not the former?
Now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. Races that have immunity to something will specifically state it in their stat block. Elves specifically being immune to the sleep spell and spells with a sleep effect like Dream. The legacy Yuan-Ti specifically says in the stat block that they are immune to poison.
Whilst magic missile does not say it is blocked by a shield spell, the shield spell explicitly states it blocks magic missile. Not only that, it is completely unrelated to what is being discussed.
Nowhere at all does it say in the stat block of Changelings or Shifters that they are immune to the polymorph spell.
This entire argument is based purely on trying to wrangle as much of an advantage as possible from poorly written phrases. It’s munchkinism of the worst kind.
A barbarian path of the beast can change shape, are they all immune? A druid can wildshape, are all druids immune? A Fighter Rune Knight can change shape (well size but same thing), are they all immune? An Astral monk can change shape, are they immune? Anyone with the alter self spell is able to change their shape, are they all immune? Certain Aasimar can grow wings, so technically they are shape changers. Draconic sorcerers, Undead patron warlocks, the list of races and classes that give the player the ability to change shape is huge. At this point the only thing the polymorph spell can do is change a dog into a cat.
A barbarian path of the beast can change shape, are they all immune? A druid can wildshape, are all druids immune? A Fighter Rune Knight can change shape (well size but same thing), are they all immune? An Astral monk can change shape, are they immune? Anyone with the alter self spell is able to change their shape, are they all immune? Certain Aasimar can grow wings, so technically they are shape changers. Draconic sorcerers, Undead patron warlocks, the list of races and classes that give the player the ability to change shape is huge. At this point the only thing the polymorph spell can do is change a dog into a cat.
Being able to change shape and being a shapechanger are not the same thing.
A changeling is a shapechanger because it says so in brackets, the changeling player race is a shapechanger because it has a feature called shapechanger. But an adult gold dragon is not a shapechanger because it doesn't say that it is; it's a dragon with the Change Shape ability.
If polymorph wanted to apply to all cases it would say "has no effect on a creature that is capable of changing its physical form via change shape, wildshape or similar", but that's not what it says.
Now what the rationale might be, we don't know; maybe changing shape is so fundamental to true "shapechangers" that it's impossible to permanently alter them, whereas other creatures that can change shape do so using some other mechanism that can be blocked by changing them?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A barbarian path of the beast can change shape, are they all immune? A druid can wildshape, are all druids immune? A Fighter Rune Knight can change shape (well size but same thing), are they all immune? An Astral monk can change shape, are they immune? Anyone with the alter self spell is able to change their shape, are they all immune? Certain Aasimar can grow wings, so technically they are shape changers. Draconic sorcerers, Undead patron warlocks, the list of races and classes that give the player the ability to change shape is huge. At this point the only thing the polymorph spell can do is change a dog into a cat.
No they aren't. None of them have a trait called "Shapechanger" which is the ability specifically referenced in the polymorph spell.
The NPC changeling race for example is specifically tagged as a Shapechanger. The polymorph spell clearly can't be applied to them. PC race definitions do not use tags - they have traits. The PC changeling race has the Shapechanger trait. I'm not sure why a DM would want to rule that any PC changelings can be polymorphed while identical members of the same race that just happen to be NPCs are immune to polymorph.
Finally, this is far from munchkinism. In most of the games I have played, being immune to polymorph is a detriment to a player character. The most reliable use of polymorph I have seen in play is changing a damaged PC into an undamaged T-Rex (or similar creature depending on level and CR). This tactic does not work on a changeling (PC or NPC) because they are specifically called out as a Shapechanger and are immune to polymorph.
A barbarian path of the beast can change shape, are they all immune? A druid can wildshape, are all druids immune? A Fighter Rune Knight can change shape (well size but same thing), are they all immune? An Astral monk can change shape, are they immune? Anyone with the alter self spell is able to change their shape, are they all immune? Certain Aasimar can grow wings, so technically they are shape changers. Draconic sorcerers, Undead patron warlocks, the list of races and classes that give the player the ability to change shape is huge. At this point the only thing the polymorph spell can do is change a dog into a cat.
No they aren't. None of them have a trait called "Shapechanger" which is the ability specifically referenced in the polymorph spell.
There is absolutely no evidence polymorph is referencing an ability named shapechanger, which is good, because the game only has 6 abilities in it, and none of them are named shapechanger.
There is circumstantial evidence polymorph isn't referencing a racial trait in that the overwhelming majority of racial traits are something absolutely everyone would agree a member of that race is not and the spell says a shapechanger. For example, a PC Changeling is a Shapechanger by trait if and only if it is also a Changeling's Instincts and also if and only if (I'm only going to do the PHB races):
A Dragonborn is a Breath Weapon.
A Dwarf is a Stonecunning.
An Elf is a Trance.
A Gnome is a Gnome Cunning.
A Half-Elf is a Skill Versatility.
A Half-Orc is a Relentless Endurance.
A Halfling is a Brave.
A Variant Human is a Feat.
A Tiefling is a Hellish Resistance.
As no fluent English speaker would agree with any of the above claims, it's a strong indication a PC Changeling is not a Shapeshifter by trait.
The NPC changeling race for example
Bear in mind the dangers here; PCs and NPCs need not be the same type (see e.g. centaur, which is a monstrosity, while a PC centaur is a Fey). If the type can be different, so can anything else, so it's specious to draw conclusions from one to the other.
is specifically tagged as a Shapechanger. The polymorph spell clearly can't be applied to them. PC race definitions do not use tags - they have traits.
Your claim about PCs using traits instead of tags is false. Let's take an example: the deep gnome from the Monster Manual, as opposed to a PC Deep Gnome (there are 3 different sources for it):
The NPC is listed as type Humanoid, tag Gnome. It has the traits Gnome Cunning, Innate Spellcasting, and Stone Camouflage.
The SCAG Deep Gnome is listed as a subrace of the PHB Gnome with some additional traits: Superior Darkvision and Stone Camouflage. Note that it gains no trait to replace the type Humanoid or tag Gnome that the NPC had. We'll get to PHB Gnomes below.
The MTF entry is substantially the same as the SCAG entry.
The MPMM entry has the trait "Creature Type". Hopefully we have put to bed the notion that the Deep Gnome we're talking about is a Creature Type. This trait's description tells you that the Deep Gnome has the type Humanoid, and then it tells you a Deep Gnome is considered a Gnome for any prerequisite or effect that requires it to be a Gnome. This speaks directly to your claim, so I'm going to recap for emphasis:
An MPMM Deep Gnome does not have a trait named Humanoid or a trait named Gnome, despite the NPC Deep Gnome having Type Humanoid and Tag Gnome. This is one example (of all of them) of traits simply not replacing tags.
Now, back up to the SCAG and MTF Deep Gnomes: they inherit from the PHB Gnome. What, if anything, does a PC Deep Gnome have to replace the type of Humanoid and the tag of Gnome that its MM entry has that it might inherit from the PHB Gnome, since its subrace entry didn't discuss it? Well, PHB races are a special duck: with the exception of Drow, all PHB races are explicitly described in the Monster Manual as humanoids whose NPC statblocks you can find in Appendix B. In other words, we know the SCAG and MTF Deep Gnomes are Humanoids because they inherit from a PHB race that is described as Humanoid in the Monster Manual, where it's applied as a type, not a trait. How do we know they are Gnomes? You can pick your poison:
The PHB simply has an entry named Gnome wherein it discusses Gnomes, and then it goes on to list subraces (including the Deep Gnome). It would be perfectly reasonable to conclude from this that Deep Gnomes are Gnomes.
If you don't like that logic, go back to appendix B, which contains e.g. the acolyte, which includes the creature's race as its tag. This would mean your PC Deep Gnome from these two sources would have the Gnome tag, as that is its race (its subrace is Deep Gnome).
That's why I picked Deep Gnome, so we could go over both how it works for PHB races and non-PHB races. I'm going to sum up what we just went over with maximum emphasis, to drive home the point:
PCs do not replace an NPC's Type or an NPC's Tag with a Trait for any PC race or subrace in the entire game. I can go through the above exercise for literally any PC race; it will not have a Trait named Humanoid or a Trait replacing its tag (e.g. an Elf has no Trait named Elf, a Triton has no Trait named Triton).
The PC changeling race has the Shapechanger trait. I'm not sure why a DM would want to rule that any PC changelings can be polymorphed while identical members of the same race that just happen to be NPCs are immune to polymorph.
PCs and NPCs aren't identical and haven't been for the entirety of 5E. WOTC has been explicitly clear many times in many places that it is specious to apply the same physics to PCs and NPCs. This has been true from the get-go; for example, a Monster Manual drow can cast dancing lights without an M component but a PC drow can't, and furthermore, they don't even have the same traits: an NPC Drow has the trait "Innate Spellcasting" while a PC Drow has the trait "Drow Magic". It is simply consistently the case that PCs and NPCs where the NPC has the same name as the PC's race have different rules they follow.
Finally, this is far from munchkinism. In most of the games I have played, being immune to polymorph is a detriment to a player character. The most reliable use of polymorph I have seen in play is changing a damaged PC into an undamaged T-Rex (or similar creature depending on level and CR). This tactic does not work on a changeling (PC or NPC) because they are specifically called out as a Shapechanger and are immune to polymorph.
They are no more specifically called out as a Shapechanger than they are called out as a Changeling's Instincts.
Let's recap:
An NPC changeling is Type: Humanoid, Tag: Changeling, Tag: Shapeshifter.
An ERLW Changeling has no trait named Humanoid and no trait named Changeling. Instead:
We know it is a Humanoid because it is contained in a chapter section named "Races" and that chapter section refers to it as a Humanoid.
We know it is a Changeling because it is named Changeling.
An MPMM Changeling has no trait named Fey and no trait named Changeling. Instead:
We know it is a Fey because it has the trait "Creature Type" and the definition of that trait specifies that the creature is a Fey.
We know it is a Changeling because it is named Changeling.
So just to be clear….. A shapeshifter is a creature that has the ability to change its shape. But a creature that can change its shape is not a shapeshifter…..
Do you not realise how utterly nonsensical your argument is? Seriously. Read that sentence again, that is what some of you are arguing.
An NPC changeling is Type: Humanoid, Tag: Changeling, Tag: Shapeshifter.
An ERLW Changeling has no trait named Humanoid and no trait named Changeling. Instead:
We know it is a Humanoid because it is contained in a chapter section named "Races" and that chapter section refers to it as a Humanoid.
We know it is a Changeling because it is named Changeling.
An MPMM Changeling has no trait named Fey and no trait named Changeling. Instead:
We know it is a Fey because it has the trait "Creature Type" and the definition of that trait specifies that the creature is a Fey.
We know it is a Changeling because it is named Changeling.
Forgot one:
We know that an MPMM changeling is a shapechanger because it has the shapechanger trait.
Traits are the only facility for conveying these properties to PC races, which makes your argument boil down to “there is no way to make a PC shapechanger, because traits cannot convey that.” Not only do I believe that you are wrong, we can even look at the UA changeling race (similar to the version relevant when the thread started) to see that there was an intentional change to account for the intent that traits convey properties. “Change appearance” was rewritten to “shapechanger’.
There is circumstantial evidence polymorph isn't referencing a racial trait in that the overwhelming majority of racial traits are something absolutely everyone would agree a member of that race is not and the spell says a shapechanger.
There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support this claim whatsoever.
Polymorph says one thing; that the effect doesn't work on a shapechanger. It does not restrict this statement in any way.
We know Changelings are shapechangers, because they have a trait named exactly that, telling us about how their shapechanging works.
For example, a PC Changeling is a Shapechanger by trait if and only if it is also a Changeling's Instincts and also if and only if (I'm only going to do the PHB races):
A Dragonborn is a Breath Weapon.
A Dwarf is a Stonecunning.
An Elf is a Trance.
A Gnome is a Gnome Cunning.
A Half-Elf is a Skill Versatility.
A Half-Orc is a Relentless Endurance.
A Halfling is a Brave.
A Variant Human is a Feat.
A Tiefling is a Hellish Resistance.
Feel free to point to any spells where these things are referenced and therefore it matters; because if a spell said it didn't apply to a creature that can trance, or which has a breath weapon, and so-on then it absolutely 100% wouldn't apply to player races that fit those criteria.
You are trying to invent a weird semantic step with zero basis in the rules in order to make one of the strangest arguments I've seen in this sub-forum. Racial traits represent a wide range of things including types, sizes, capabilities etc.; a Halfling is Brave, a Dragonborn has a Breath Weapon… a Changeling is a Shapechanger.
All polymorph requires of us is to know whether a changeling is a shapechanger, we have a trait that indicates that it is, therefore it absolutely, unambiguously is one unless you can prove a rule tells us otherwise, but trying to hinge on the word "a" is not the way to do it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
“Polymorph says one thing; that the effect doesn't work on a shapechanger. It does not restrict this statement in any way.”
Which brings us around to my original point, if it isn’t being limited in any way then druids are immune because they are shapechangers. Draconic sorcerers are immune because when they grow their wings they change shape, and by definition that makes them shapechangers. And so on.
“Polymorph says one thing; that the effect doesn't work on a shapechanger. It does not restrict this statement in any way.”
Which brings us around to my original point, if it isn’t being limited in any way then druids are immune because they are shapechangers. Draconic sorcerers are immune because when they grow their wings they change shape, and by definition that makes them shapechangers. And so on.
I don't see any reference to "shapechanger" in Wild Shape or the Draconic Bloodline subclass. Could you point to where you're seeing that?
Which brings us around to my original point, if it isn’t being limited in any way then druids are immune because they are shapechangers. Draconic sorcerers are immune because when they grow their wings they change shape, and by definition that makes them shapechangers. And so on.
"Shapechanger" is not a defined word in the english language, it's a term in D&D that refers only to things that share that term, i.e- a "shapechanger" is anything that says "shapechanger" on its rules. Again, being able to change shape does not make a creature a shapechanger.
And again, the distinction being made is most likely that a true shapechanger is a creature for whom changing shape is a fundamental part of its nature; while some dragons can change shape, this is not fundamental to what they are (wyrmlings can't do it), it's something they must learn to do as they age. Likewise a druid must learn how to magically wildshape into another creature and so-on.
These are creatures with the ability to change shape, but they are not shapechangers, nor is a wizard who learns alter self. There are a handful of rules that explicitly make this distinction, for example a creature with truesight can see the true form of a shapechanger or creature transformed by magic; if the two were the same thing, there would be no need to state them both.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no such thing as a tag PCs can get. They also can't have types - damage has types, for example, but PCs do not. So neither of those is a thing.EDIT: This is incorrect. I just checked the MM; 5E official terminology for subtype is tag, not subtype. I apologize. An orc isn't subtype (or type) orc, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding; it's type humanoid, tag orc.A trait a creature possesses is not something that creature is. For one example of many, a kobold is neither a "Pack Tactics" nor a "Sunlight Sensitivity". Likewise, a creature with the Shapechanger trait isn't a Shapechanger.
That only leaves types and
subtypestags, which absolutely is what a thing is: a human is a human. An elf is an elf. And so on and so forth.A PC Changeling is neither a "Changeling Instincts" nor a "Shapechanger". It is a Humanoid or Fey (depending on source) and a Changeling. An NPC changeling is a Humanoid (due to its type) and a Changeling and a Shapeshifter (due to its tags).
The problem is the inexactitude. See post #28 below for another example.
It's all too easy to totally discount someone when they can't keep simple stuff like traits vs. tags correct.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said tags and traits are different. If you need a citation that different words are in fact different, I can't really do anything but point you to a dictionary.
If you can't tell that a tag isn't a race or races are different than types, or that types exist for monster groups as well as damages, I guess there isn't much to say. Point being that if you argument is that a PC needs a tag then you're wrong, but saying that a monster trait is the same as a monster tag is also wrong. Equating them is incorrect, even if both make you a shapechanger.
And really, the big problem that so many people are having here is conflating rules. PCs don't get tags. But spells like moonbeam don't ask about tags. they ask about what you are. That could be a trait or a tag, or even a race or a type. Nonetheless those are all different.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think specificity is important in this type of question, where different creatures have different ways of obtaining the same property.
I am not aware of a citation explaining that an Elf is not a Trance, just as you can't give me a citation that an Elf is a Trance, as you appear to be asserting. Here's what I have for you:
Everything else I give you will be along the lines of the above (for example, you are claiming an NPC wizard is a Spellcasting).
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Changeling instincts are something a creature has. Shapechanger is something a creature is. This is obvious to anyone with a functional command of English. Just because they're both features doesn't mean they interact grammatically with the creature in the same way, and to claim such is dramatically unfounded.
You've tried to claim in other threads that a feature/trait/whatever name is only ever a proper noun, and therefore should be ignored, but this is an argument that doesn't track as the rules never state that we should ignore them, and the polymorph spell certainly doesn't seem to care.
The spell uses the word "shapechanger", so does the Changeling's Shapechanger trait, therefore the condition is met. You might claim this is accidental, but Wizards of the Coast has now updated the Changeling, given it an explicit type of Fey, yet kept the trait name as it is, even though they could have renamed it "Change Shape" in line with monsters that do so without being shapechangers (such as dragons).
While there are certainly things in the game that are misnamed (chill touch being a classic example) there are also plenty of examples of names providing us with some information we don't otherwise have. And for the record, if there were an effect that said "This spell does not work on a creature with changeling instincts" then yeah, I'd absolutely say it wouldn't apply to a race with the Changeling Instincts trait because that's literally what it's telling us.
There also seems to be this really weird argument going on about keywords vs. traits vs. whatever; but again the rules don't establish these as somehow being separate or distinct things in their own right, it only mentions what they are. While it's helpful to know that a trait is specific to a race, a feature to a class and so-on, all these are just terms for consistency, but we're not talking about something that excludes any of them. The spell doesn't state "if the target creature has the shapechanger monster tag" or whatever, it doesn't state that at all.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Tags are one way that the properties of creatures are defined in 5e. It is not the only way. Traits and features also define properties of creatures.
The polymorph spell is general in its application. It says: "The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or a creature with 0 hit points."
The sentence does not say "a creature with the shapechanger tag", it does not say "a creature that can change shape", it does not say "a creature with a shapechanger trait" - it just refers to "a shapechanger".
Interpretation of that is left up to the determination of the DM. However, in the monster manual, some creatures do have a shapechanger tag - these are likely choices for "a shapechanger". There are also races with an ability or property called "shapechanger" that allows them to change shape. Polymorph does not, in any way, limit which type of definition of "shapechanger" can be applied in the spell. So a creature with the a property called "Shapechanger" can also be considered "a shapechanger" from the perspective of the spell text. A DM could obviously choose to exclude them if they like but there is no real support in RAW to do so.
In addition, tags are exclusively used for monsters. The PC race equivalents do not use tags. The Orc from MotM is listed as a medium humanoid while the Orc in the MM is a medium humanoid (orc). Are PC Orcs then NOT orcs because they don't have a tag? Does a spell that says "orcs take extra damage" then not apply to a PC because they don't have the "orc" tag?
Since that interpretation makes no sense to me (a PC orc is also an orc whether it has a tag or not) ... then I would interpret a PC changeling to be a shapechanger whether or not there is a shapechanger tag associated with the PC race because they DO have a specifically named shapechanger trait/feature.
Other folks are welcome to DM it differently of course.
P.S. The NPC Changeling from RftLW is listed as humanoid with the changeling and shapechanger tags. The trait in this case is called "change appearance". Fundamentally, it comes down to the terminology for monsters and characters being different when describing their characteristics and the polymorph spell just uses general terminology that can apply to PCs or NPCs and does not require a specific creature tag which would ONLY apply to NPC monsters since PC races generally don't have tags.
Now you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. Races that have immunity to something will specifically state it in their stat block. Elves specifically being immune to the sleep spell and spells with a sleep effect like Dream. The legacy Yuan-Ti specifically says in the stat block that they are immune to poison.
Whilst magic missile does not say it is blocked by a shield spell, the shield spell explicitly states it blocks magic missile. Not only that, it is completely unrelated to what is being discussed.
Nowhere at all does it say in the stat block of Changelings or Shifters that they are immune to the polymorph spell.
This entire argument is based purely on trying to wrangle as much of an advantage as possible from poorly written phrases. It’s munchkinism of the worst kind.
polymorph:"The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or a creature with 0 hit points."
A barbarian path of the beast can change shape, are they all immune? A druid can wildshape, are all druids immune? A Fighter Rune Knight can change shape (well size but same thing), are they all immune? An Astral monk can change shape, are they immune? Anyone with the alter self spell is able to change their shape, are they all immune? Certain Aasimar can grow wings, so technically they are shape changers. Draconic sorcerers, Undead patron warlocks, the list of races and classes that give the player the ability to change shape is huge. At this point the only thing the polymorph spell can do is change a dog into a cat.
Do any of those have features, traits, or tags that are called shapechanger?
Being able to change shape and being a shapechanger are not the same thing.
A changeling is a shapechanger because it says so in brackets, the changeling player race is a shapechanger because it has a feature called shapechanger. But an adult gold dragon is not a shapechanger because it doesn't say that it is; it's a dragon with the Change Shape ability.
If polymorph wanted to apply to all cases it would say "has no effect on a creature that is capable of changing its physical form via change shape, wildshape or similar", but that's not what it says.
Now what the rationale might be, we don't know; maybe changing shape is so fundamental to true "shapechangers" that it's impossible to permanently alter them, whereas other creatures that can change shape do so using some other mechanism that can be blocked by changing them?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No they aren't. None of them have a trait called "Shapechanger" which is the ability specifically referenced in the polymorph spell.
The NPC changeling race for example is specifically tagged as a Shapechanger. The polymorph spell clearly can't be applied to them. PC race definitions do not use tags - they have traits. The PC changeling race has the Shapechanger trait. I'm not sure why a DM would want to rule that any PC changelings can be polymorphed while identical members of the same race that just happen to be NPCs are immune to polymorph.
Finally, this is far from munchkinism. In most of the games I have played, being immune to polymorph is a detriment to a player character. The most reliable use of polymorph I have seen in play is changing a damaged PC into an undamaged T-Rex (or similar creature depending on level and CR). This tactic does not work on a changeling (PC or NPC) because they are specifically called out as a Shapechanger and are immune to polymorph.
There is absolutely no evidence polymorph is referencing an ability named shapechanger, which is good, because the game only has 6 abilities in it, and none of them are named shapechanger.
There is circumstantial evidence polymorph isn't referencing a racial trait in that the overwhelming majority of racial traits are something absolutely everyone would agree a member of that race is not and the spell says a shapechanger. For example, a PC Changeling is a Shapechanger by trait if and only if it is also a Changeling's Instincts and also if and only if (I'm only going to do the PHB races):
As no fluent English speaker would agree with any of the above claims, it's a strong indication a PC Changeling is not a Shapeshifter by trait.
Bear in mind the dangers here; PCs and NPCs need not be the same type (see e.g. centaur, which is a monstrosity, while a PC centaur is a Fey). If the type can be different, so can anything else, so it's specious to draw conclusions from one to the other.
Your claim about PCs using traits instead of tags is false. Let's take an example: the deep gnome from the Monster Manual, as opposed to a PC Deep Gnome (there are 3 different sources for it):
That's why I picked Deep Gnome, so we could go over both how it works for PHB races and non-PHB races. I'm going to sum up what we just went over with maximum emphasis, to drive home the point:
PCs do not replace an NPC's Type or an NPC's Tag with a Trait for any PC race or subrace in the entire game. I can go through the above exercise for literally any PC race; it will not have a Trait named Humanoid or a Trait replacing its tag (e.g. an Elf has no Trait named Elf, a Triton has no Trait named Triton).
PCs and NPCs aren't identical and haven't been for the entirety of 5E. WOTC has been explicitly clear many times in many places that it is specious to apply the same physics to PCs and NPCs. This has been true from the get-go; for example, a Monster Manual drow can cast dancing lights without an M component but a PC drow can't, and furthermore, they don't even have the same traits: an NPC Drow has the trait "Innate Spellcasting" while a PC Drow has the trait "Drow Magic". It is simply consistently the case that PCs and NPCs where the NPC has the same name as the PC's race have different rules they follow.
They are no more specifically called out as a Shapechanger than they are called out as a Changeling's Instincts.
Let's recap:
So just to be clear…..
A shapeshifter is a creature that has the ability to change its shape. But a creature that can change its shape is not a shapeshifter…..
Do you not realise how utterly nonsensical your argument is?
Seriously. Read that sentence again, that is what some of you are arguing.
Forgot one:
Traits are the only facility for conveying these properties to PC races, which makes your argument boil down to “there is no way to make a PC shapechanger, because traits cannot convey that.” Not only do I believe that you are wrong, we can even look at the UA changeling race (similar to the version relevant when the thread started) to see that there was an intentional change to account for the intent that traits convey properties. “Change appearance” was rewritten to “shapechanger’.
There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support this claim whatsoever.
Polymorph says one thing; that the effect doesn't work on a shapechanger. It does not restrict this statement in any way.
We know Changelings are shapechangers, because they have a trait named exactly that, telling us about how their shapechanging works.
Feel free to point to any spells where these things are referenced and therefore it matters; because if a spell said it didn't apply to a creature that can trance, or which has a breath weapon, and so-on then it absolutely 100% wouldn't apply to player races that fit those criteria.
You are trying to invent a weird semantic step with zero basis in the rules in order to make one of the strangest arguments I've seen in this sub-forum. Racial traits represent a wide range of things including types, sizes, capabilities etc.; a Halfling is Brave, a Dragonborn has a Breath Weapon… a Changeling is a Shapechanger.
All polymorph requires of us is to know whether a changeling is a shapechanger, we have a trait that indicates that it is, therefore it absolutely, unambiguously is one unless you can prove a rule tells us otherwise, but trying to hinge on the word "a" is not the way to do it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
“Polymorph says one thing; that the effect doesn't work on a shapechanger. It does not restrict this statement in any way.”
Which brings us around to my original point, if it isn’t being limited in any way then druids are immune because they are shapechangers. Draconic sorcerers are immune because when they grow their wings they change shape, and by definition that makes them shapechangers. And so on.
I don't see any reference to "shapechanger" in Wild Shape or the Draconic Bloodline subclass. Could you point to where you're seeing that?
"Shapechanger" is not a defined word in the english language, it's a term in D&D that refers only to things that share that term, i.e- a "shapechanger" is anything that says "shapechanger" on its rules. Again, being able to change shape does not make a creature a shapechanger.
And again, the distinction being made is most likely that a true shapechanger is a creature for whom changing shape is a fundamental part of its nature; while some dragons can change shape, this is not fundamental to what they are (wyrmlings can't do it), it's something they must learn to do as they age. Likewise a druid must learn how to magically wildshape into another creature and so-on.
These are creatures with the ability to change shape, but they are not shapechangers, nor is a wizard who learns alter self. There are a handful of rules that explicitly make this distinction, for example a creature with truesight can see the true form of a shapechanger or creature transformed by magic; if the two were the same thing, there would be no need to state them both.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.