Mutagens, Beastmorphs and Polymorphs (Oh my!)

[Baalthazaq]

So I've been looking around and can't find anything definitive on if there's an official ruling on this for PFS in particular (or PF generally).

So, just to skip through every other response online so far:

I know polymorph effects can't stack. The rules are clear here.
Where the rules are not clear, are if Beastmorph Mutagens are a polymorph effect.

The Beastmorph Mutagens do *not* mimic the effects of the referenced spell. RAW it only uses the same list of peripheral attributes you can gain from the spell added to the regular effects of the Mutagen.

At level 3 for example: It does not "change you into a half-orc", it just gives you low light vision, or swim, or a couple of others. It does not change your size. It does not give the +2 to Str or +2 to Dex.

It just says that in addition to the +4 Str and +2AC which you get anyway, pick one of the things from the spell and you get that too.

So: Mutagen.
It's not a polymorph spell.
It's not a polymorph effect.
It should stack with whatever isn't an alchemical bonus.

I don't see why non-attribute changing changes would change this.

Is there anywhere that officially says this, or the opposite?

[Pirate Rob]

There are no special PFS rules regarding this type of effect.

[SteelDraco]

As it doesn't say it's a polymorph effect, it's not. Whether or not this makes sense is kind of immaterial, sadly. I do note that it seems like Paizo often doesn't put descriptors like this into non-spell effects like supernatural abilities, I imagine for reasons of word count.

[Andrew Christian]

If it looks like a duck, and it smells like a duck...

[Dylos]

Andrew Christian wrote:

If it looks like a duck, and it smells like a duck...

Then she must be a witch, burn her!

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

If it looks like a duck, and it smells like a duck...

...then a foreigner might have just spotted a goose, so we should have him point to the picture in the handbook and see what it's labeled as, because that's why we have the handbook in the first place.

[Andrew Christian]

I haven't researched this specifically, so take what I write with that in context...

First: I fully understand the concept of interpreting things exactly as they are written. If we start reading too much into every rule to try and find the hidden meaning, without looking at things at face value, then we end up with nothing but chaos and wasted trees.

Second: However, with the lack of key words and/or phrases being used consistently within the Pathfinder Ruleset, especially when considering newer rules sets and splat books, at some point we have to step back and look at the bigger picture.

What does this ability do?

Why do we have stacking rules?

And if in the end, you determine that for game balance, the unsaid should have been said, and its more than just an addition of something you think should be there, but rather an interpretation of the ruleset as a whole, then determining that an ability doesn't stack with another ability is completely legitimate.

This gets a bit more dicey with PFS, but in the end run, at some point, common sense has to win out over RAW that appears to be trying to exploit RAW, rather than use RAW.

[Nefreet]

The problem with that, however, is that common sense is rarely common.

Two people can read an ambiguous statement and each come to a different "common sense" conclusion.

[James Risner]

Baalthazaq wrote:

The Beastmorph Mutagens do *not* mimic the effects of the referenced spell.

Is there anywhere that officially says this, or the opposite?

Nothing official.

Expect table variance on whether or not it is a Polymorph effect.

Don't expect anything official anytime soon.

Try JJ's thread, but expect to have him say it is a Polymorph effect and most PFS GM's will go with his view despite there not being an official command to do so.

[Cyrad]

I'd make the case that beastmorph mutagen stacks with polymorph. Polymorph effects typically concern magic that completely transforms you. The CRB even defines a polymorph spell as a spell that "transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature." Pretty much all of the rules involving polymorph effects are only relevant to spells that completely replace your form with a different one. It makes sense why the game would have rules regarding what happens when subject to two spells that completely overwrite your normal form.

Note there exists many transmutation spells, like enlarge person and touch of the sea, that transform a part of a target, but are not polymorph effects. Polymorph spells that only transform part of a target usually grant natural attacks or don't have a very good reason to be polymorph effects at all, like animal aspect.

Beastmorph does not completely transform the alchemist. He gains no natural attacks or nearly any other benefit normally associated with a polymorph effect. The beastmorph mutagen merely gives the alchemist a few physical characteristics in addition to his current form and a few abilities. That's it.

Thus, my stance on the issue is that:
1) RAW, beastmorph mutagen is not a polymorph effect because it does not mimic a spell, and it's not labeled as a polymorph effect.

2) RAI, beastmorph mutagen is not a polymorph effect because polymorph effects typically concern complete transformations.

3) Fluff-wise, beastmorph mutagen is not a polymorph effect because the alchemist is making mostly cosmetic changes to his existing form rather than a drastic change to his body. It's reasonable to say the mutagen would slightly alter the appearance of a polymorph effect.

4) Balance-wise, beastmorph mutagen stacking with polymorph isn't an issue, because the mutagen grants him a few extra abilities he could have gotten anyway had he choosen a polymorph form that had them.

Overall, I see little reason to disallow it. Beside, it could make some pretty interesting transformation concept.