Right. In English, when we use different words like "magically polymorph" and "shapechange" to describe similar effects where specificity matters, there's probably a linguistic reason for that, such as distinction within rules.
That reason can be a simple as not wanting to bore using the same adjectives for everything. Synonyms are synonyms.
Again, you are also assuming every possible combination was proofread and considered to that degree. And please don't cite play balance. Most dragon species do not have that ability and worrying that dragons might be too powerful against pure luck long shot cheesy instant wins..... seems a difficult case to make.
If only we had some indication as to what the reason might be.
So you're saying that the easy answer (the one a person would come to naturally) isn't how the rules should work? So then there should be a systematic way to deal with it? Like looking for particular wording?
Yeah, I guess if we had a ruling on if a melee weapon attack was identical to an attack with a melee weapon, we'd know if similar sounding terms are distinct in the game.
So on the one hand there is absolutely no rules support for traits or actions being used in the context you're trying to use them, making them equivalent. On the other hand, traits are characteristics but there is no rule making actions into characteristics, so it's possible to construct a coherent and consistent argument (just one without any rules support) that traits can be used but actions can't by claiming (again, without any rules support) that a "shapechanger" is anything that has "shapechanger" as a "characteristic" specifically, as opposed to arguing (without any rules support) that a "shapechanger" is anything that can change shape.
That would cause this rules paradox:
If a pixie can polymorph itself then because it can change shape using polymorph it is therefore a shapechanger and can't change shape using polymorph.
If a pixie can't polymorph itself then because it can't change shape using polymorph it is therefore not a shapechanger and can change shape using polymorph.
No, I did not look up any dragons while you were describing them because I had assumed we were having a reasonable conversation about the traits or tags of a creature (which, by the way are both defined for us and are probably worth a read, since their rules are pretty explicit on what they do). It did not dawn on me that we would be having a conversation about something that isn’t provided as one of the only two ways to give monsters characteristics being a characteristic of a creature. Actions are just things that a monster can do.
And it is correct to point out that there is no rule saying that actions provide characteristics or categorizations of creatures. That makes anything you say about actions defining a creature in that way clearly nothing but speculation since it is not RAW.
No, you're right, it does take some combination of understanding of logic and reading to come to the conclusion that characteristics or categorizations are the things describe what a creature is and that tags and traits each are one of those things according to the rules, and actions are neither.
Please move the goal posts further. I said that traits and tags are each defined as characteristics or categorizations per the rules (which they are), and actions are not (which they're not).
You want me to cite that something isn't written? See the printed material. Read it all, then get back to me.
Actions are stated as neither, so they are neither. Any assertion otherwise is not written in the rules, therefore is wild speculation. Speculate away.
"Actions are neither" is quintessentially negative. If it's considered a positive statement then it's impossible to come up with a statement that isn't positive.
It says this: it doesn't work on "a shapechanger."
And this: "if a thing does not say that it is a shapechanger, then it is not a shapechanger" does not equal "if it does not use the specific term 'shapechanger', then it is not a shapechanger"
We are indeed beyond the initial question, though.
... and this is indeed exactly what the entire argument comes down to ... different interpretations of the meaning and intent of the word shapechanger.
So far we have:
1) shapechanger is a D&D term that specifically refers to NPCs/monsters with a specific tag called shapechanger. PCs lack this tag and traits do not define what a species IS but only what it can do - so PCs can never be a "shapechanger". (I disagree strongly with this one but it is one approach that has been suggested).
2) shapechanger is a D&D term that refers to any PC/NPC/monster that is specifically identified as a shapechanger through a tag or trait based on the creature having an ability that is specifically named shapechanger. If the specific word shapechanger does not appear in the creature description/tag/traits then that creature is not a "shapechanger" even if they have the ability to change shape.
3) shapechanger is a generic term - anything with the capability to change shape could be considered a shapechanger. This could extend to any creature with an ability to change shape (?) - moon druid, a shifter, a wizard with the polymorph spell (?). However, if you employ such a broad definition of shapechanger you end up with situations where a spell caster with the polymorph or alter self spells prepared could be considered a shapechanger since they can change shape.
Personally, I lean toward (2) where shapechanger is a specific named D&D ability defined either through NPC/monster tags or specific abilities labeled as "shapechanger". If a changelings ability to change shape was named something else then they would not be a "shapechanger" from the perspective of the polymorph spell.
P.S. Although, WotC has made it clear that there is no equivalence between PCs and NPCs - I find that concept discordant and an anathema when trying to create a consistent and logical adventuring world. Gnomes are gnomes, changelings are changelings, humans are humans whether the race is a character being played by a player or a character being played by the DM as an NPC. Every NPC is a character. Some of the stat blocks for NPCs/monsters contain abilities that could be learned or be due to training but, in my opinion, for consistency in game worlds I run, fundamental racial abilities should be the same for PCs and NPCs.
As a result, I lean towards PC changelings being shapechangers both because they have a trait that gives them the ability with that specific name and because NPC changelings are considered shapechangers. But that is my choice for my game.
TL;DR: The word "shapechanger" could be considered to be not clearly defined and as long as folks can't agree on what that word means then there is no agreement on how it is applied when the polymorph spell uses it.
1) shapechanger is a D&D term that specifically refers to NPCs/monsters with a specific tag called shapechanger. PCs lack this tag and traits do not define what a species IS but only what it can do - so PCs can never be a "shapechanger". (I disagree strongly with this one but it is one approach that has been suggested).
I 100% agree with your core point that WOTC hasn't well-defined its rules enough for us to RAW out of this and every DM will, in practice, need to come up with their own answer. I just want to point out that a PC Changeling could be made a Shapechanger the same way it's made a Fey: by having a trait whose text says that it is a Shapechanger.
1) shapechanger is a D&D term that specifically refers to NPCs/monsters with a specific tag called shapechanger. PCs lack this tag and traits do not define what a species IS but only what it can do - so PCs can never be a "shapechanger". (I disagree strongly with this one but it is one approach that has been suggested).
I 100% agree with your core point that WOTC hasn't well-defined its rules enough for us to RAW out of this and every DM will, in practice, need to come up with their own answer. I just want to point out that a PC Changeling could be made a Shapechanger the same way it's made a Fey: by having a trait whose text says that it is a Shapechanger.
Changelings have the shapechanger trait, making them shapechangers. As confirmed by Jeremy Crawford. Being a humanoid doesn't matter at all because shapechanger is not a creature type in dnd 5e. As far as the shifters are not descendants of lycanthropes, no one knows if they are or aren't.
And did that happen before or after June 18, 2020 when this poll was created? Perhaps the answer is revealed somewhere in the six pages of the thread itself.
Based on rules and classification of the races, Changelings have the Shapechanger racial trait and Shifters have Shifter racial trait.
Polymorph states "The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or creature with 0 hit points." As the racial trait for Changelings specifically calls out Shapechanger, they are immune to Polymorph. True Polymorph also states the same conditions for shapechangers and creatures with 0 hit points.
As Shifter only has the Shifter racial trait and not Shapechanger, they are not immune.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All who wander are not lost. Drive fast, take risks. Safety third.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If only we had some indication as to what the reason might be.
So you're saying that the easy answer (the one a person would come to naturally) isn't how the rules should work? So then there should be a systematic way to deal with it? Like looking for particular wording?
Yeah, I guess if we had a ruling on if a melee weapon attack was identical to an attack with a melee weapon, we'd know if similar sounding terms are distinct in the game.
Wait. This whole time you've been talking about an action a dragon has, not a trait or a tag?
This is a fascinating thread in that literally everyone seems to be in disagreement with everyone else.
Special traits are characteristics that appear after a monster’s challenge rating but before any actions.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
So on the one hand there is absolutely no rules support for traits or actions being used in the context you're trying to use them, making them equivalent. On the other hand, traits are characteristics but there is no rule making actions into characteristics, so it's possible to construct a coherent and consistent argument (just one without any rules support) that traits can be used but actions can't by claiming (again, without any rules support) that a "shapechanger" is anything that has "shapechanger" as a "characteristic" specifically, as opposed to arguing (without any rules support) that a "shapechanger" is anything that can change shape.
That would cause this rules paradox:
No, I did not look up any dragons while you were describing them because I had assumed we were having a reasonable conversation about the traits or tags of a creature (which, by the way are both defined for us and are probably worth a read, since their rules are pretty explicit on what they do). It did not dawn on me that we would be having a conversation about something that isn’t provided as one of the only two ways to give monsters characteristics being a characteristic of a creature. Actions are just things that a monster can do.
And it is correct to point out that there is no rule saying that actions provide characteristics or categorizations of creatures. That makes anything you say about actions defining a creature in that way clearly nothing but speculation since it is not RAW.
No, you're right, it does take some combination of understanding of logic and reading to come to the conclusion that characteristics or categorizations are the things describe what a creature is and that tags and traits each are one of those things according to the rules, and actions are neither.
Please move the goal posts further. I said that traits and tags are each defined as characteristics or categorizations per the rules (which they are), and actions are not (which they're not).
You want me to cite that something isn't written? See the printed material. Read it all, then get back to me.
Actions are stated as neither, so they are neither. Any assertion otherwise is not written in the rules, therefore is wild speculation. Speculate away.
You read all those rules very quickly.
"Actions are neither" is quintessentially negative. If it's considered a positive statement then it's impossible to come up with a statement that isn't positive.
... and this is indeed exactly what the entire argument comes down to ... different interpretations of the meaning and intent of the word shapechanger.
So far we have:
1) shapechanger is a D&D term that specifically refers to NPCs/monsters with a specific tag called shapechanger. PCs lack this tag and traits do not define what a species IS but only what it can do - so PCs can never be a "shapechanger". (I disagree strongly with this one but it is one approach that has been suggested).
2) shapechanger is a D&D term that refers to any PC/NPC/monster that is specifically identified as a shapechanger through a tag or trait based on the creature having an ability that is specifically named shapechanger. If the specific word shapechanger does not appear in the creature description/tag/traits then that creature is not a "shapechanger" even if they have the ability to change shape.
3) shapechanger is a generic term - anything with the capability to change shape could be considered a shapechanger. This could extend to any creature with an ability to change shape (?) - moon druid, a shifter, a wizard with the polymorph spell (?). However, if you employ such a broad definition of shapechanger you end up with situations where a spell caster with the polymorph or alter self spells prepared could be considered a shapechanger since they can change shape.
Personally, I lean toward (2) where shapechanger is a specific named D&D ability defined either through NPC/monster tags or specific abilities labeled as "shapechanger". If a changelings ability to change shape was named something else then they would not be a "shapechanger" from the perspective of the polymorph spell.
P.S. Although, WotC has made it clear that there is no equivalence between PCs and NPCs - I find that concept discordant and an anathema when trying to create a consistent and logical adventuring world. Gnomes are gnomes, changelings are changelings, humans are humans whether the race is a character being played by a player or a character being played by the DM as an NPC. Every NPC is a character. Some of the stat blocks for NPCs/monsters contain abilities that could be learned or be due to training but, in my opinion, for consistency in game worlds I run, fundamental racial abilities should be the same for PCs and NPCs.
As a result, I lean towards PC changelings being shapechangers both because they have a trait that gives them the ability with that specific name and because NPC changelings are considered shapechangers. But that is my choice for my game.
TL;DR: The word "shapechanger" could be considered to be not clearly defined and as long as folks can't agree on what that word means then there is no agreement on how it is applied when the polymorph spell uses it.
I 100% agree with your core point that WOTC hasn't well-defined its rules enough for us to RAW out of this and every DM will, in practice, need to come up with their own answer. I just want to point out that a PC Changeling could be made a Shapechanger the same way it's made a Fey: by having a trait whose text says that it is a Shapechanger.
Good thing it does, then.
Changelings have the shapechanger trait, making them shapechangers. As confirmed by Jeremy Crawford. Being a humanoid doesn't matter at all because shapechanger is not a creature type in dnd 5e. As far as the shifters are not descendants of lycanthropes, no one knows if they are or aren't.
Jeremy Crawford also confirmed that Changelings are infact shapechangers due to them having the shapechanger trait.
And did that happen before or after June 18, 2020 when this poll was created? Perhaps the answer is revealed somewhere in the six pages of the thread itself.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
jeremy crawford tweeted that in 2019
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1203370480557842433
Based on rules and classification of the races, Changelings have the Shapechanger racial trait and Shifters have Shifter racial trait.
Polymorph states "The spell has no effect on a shapechanger or creature with 0 hit points." As the racial trait for Changelings specifically calls out Shapechanger, they are immune to Polymorph. True Polymorph also states the same conditions for shapechangers and creatures with 0 hit points.
As Shifter only has the Shifter racial trait and not Shapechanger, they are not immune.
All who wander are not lost.
Drive fast, take risks.
Safety third.