Specifically, I'm interested in "Polymorph any object" or "Baleful polymorph" -- both can give you the new form's type of an animal, as well as it's INT score, making you now qualify for all of the requirements of Awaken.
Then you're awakened, which is instantaneous, not permanent like the polymorphs.
Then after that, somebody dispels your polymorph spell. Do you remain a magical beast squirrel or whatever? Or do you go back to being a human with all the same original stats etc. you had before?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Polymorph spells, even baleful polymorph and polymorph any object, do not change your creature type. Since you never gain the animal type, you never become a legal target for awaken.
Yeah.
Your type don't change. You still count as you original type for all feats, spells, and effects.
What is this answer based on? I read the polymorph rules carefully beforehand, and I only saw:
Quote: When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin TYPE, all of your gear melds into your body. Which seems to suggest that it does indeed change your type. Elsewhere in the text, it uses the ambiguous "form" and generally doesn't address the issue further or rule it out, which isn't helpful either way, but that sentence does actually say "change into a creature of X type"
Then the text of the two spells seems to pretty clearly state that you turn into that creature, straight up:
Quote: As beast shape III, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD. Quote: This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. and then Polymorph spell, on which polymorph any eventually refers back to for base rules:
Quote: This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing. Is there a relevant FAQ or something I'm missing?
We've had this thread before. Polymorph just doesn't change your type. The wording your quoted is ambiguous, but misleading.
Ooh, I found one of them! See that link.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't know who that stupid kobold is on that thread who's wrong about everything by the way. Some stupid wrong kobold. Pretends to be me. A lot of kobolds pretend to be me on this forum, 'cause I'm so popular.
Unless a spell says it changes your type, it doesn't change your type.
The list you quoted is just a list of available forms.
You only gain what the spell says you gain.
Crimeo, you are misreading the quote you provided. It is not stating you change into that type. It is stating that when you change into a creature of that type your equipment melds with your form.
Lets do an example: You use Elemental Body III to change into an elemental.
If your type changed into a creature of that type (Elemental) there would be no reason for Elemental Body III to state that you are immune to critical hits and Elemental Body II to not state it because creatures with the Elemental type are immune to critical hits.
Quote: Unless a spell says it changes your type, it doesn't change your type. It says I change into that creature (multiple times/places). That would establish getting everything about it entirely on its whole stat block, by default, at top level logic, subject to any more specific caveats.
Then, indeed several caveats are given: more specifically, polymorph rules mention that you should NOT include abilities or powers in that unless specified, so remove those from the default list (type is neither an ability nor a power, though). Then, some other rules add or remove in even more specific stuff, like this or that specific ability score for this or that spell, etc., or adding back in specific abilities (like "at this level spell, you do get darkvision" and so on). Creature type is never excluded by any of these more specific detailed rules, either.
End result should therefore be that type does inherit, since it would be included as part of the [everything] that would go along with turning INTO that creature, and then was never excluded by any more specific text.
(Plus the quote at the top of my previous post which confirms it in passing. See bolding, explicitly mentions spells exist that change your type as part of transformation.)
No Crimeo, it does not explicity state that your type changes. Again, you are misreading it.
Quote: It is stating that when you change into a creature of that type your equipment melds with your form. According to other posters on this thread, that NEVER HAPPENS. So this would be rules referring to impossible/nonexistent situations.
I'm not saying that sentence clearly grants you type. I'm saying it strongly implies that RAI was that spells do exist on the list that change your type, otherwise it was pointless to print that line.
But that's just eyebrow waggling/RAI. That's not the main point. The main rules that I think actually do grant you the type RAW are not that quote, but rather, where it says "You turn into X creature" (which would be everything about it) and then never any text that more specifically removes type from the list of the everything inherited.
This is pretty common knowledge, and you are just kind of misreading here.
They went out of their way to remove all the type changing aspects of polymorph spells.
It was even mentioned why they got rid of it in Alpha and Beta Playtest.
Trust me buddy, Plant Shape I, does not make you immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms), paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep, and stun.
Also, changing into an animal doesn't lower your intelligence.
Crimeo, the way that Pathfinder polymorph works is that you change into something resembling that creature, but you don't actually change into that creature. The Devs have stated this numerous times.
Every time the polymorph section references that you take a form that does not include the type of that form because it never states you do.
Every time the polymorph section references creature type it is referencing the type of the creature who's form you are taking. It never states that your type actually changes to match the creature's type.
If it did then you would be immune to critical hits when you use Elemental Body 1.
Now, you can take this at face value or you can do what you usually do and argue it until people get tired of it and walk away. It doesn't really matter. Everyone else knows how this works.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Trust me buddy, Plant Shape I, does not make you immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms), paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep, and stun. I agree. Immunity would be a power or ability, and powers and abilities are explicitly excluded from the list of things inherited.
So, broken down:
Step 1: "Change into that creature." Implies everything, by plain English you ARE that creature so far:
* Type
* Size
* Ability scores
* Powers
* Abilities
* Hit Dice
* Appearance
* blah blah.
Step 2: Oh it says powers and abilities don't inherit. It also specifically says ability scores don't by default. Okay, now we have:
* Type
* Size
* Hit Dice
* Appearance
* blah blah.
Step 3: A whole string of other even more specific rules listed about more specific things, for example you regain XYZ stuff under ABC conditions, you can't look like specific individuals by default, etc. Okay, now we have:
* Type
* Size
* [some Powers that were re-added]
* [some Abilities that were re-added]
* [Hit dice, sometimes]
* [Appearance restricted partially such as not able to be an individual]
* blah blah. [other stuff also mmodified]
Note "Type" still remains, as nothing modified it after it was added by "turn into that creature" added it originally.
Quote: Also, changing into an animal doesn't lower your intelligence. It doesn't by default polymorph rules, but it does by the two specific spells I mentioned in the OP, since they specifically say that mental scores transfer for those.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: It is stating that when you change into a creature of that type your equipment melds with your form. According to other posters on this thread, that NEVER HAPPENS. So this would be rules referring to impossible/nonexistent situations.
I'm not saying that sentence clearly grants you type. I'm saying it strongly implies that RAI was that spells do exist on the list that change your type, otherwise it was pointless to print that line.
But that's just eyebrow waggling/RAI. That's not the main point. The main rules that I think actually do grant you the type RAW are not that quote, but rather, where it says "You turn into X creature" (which would be everything about it) and then never any text that more specifically removes type from the list of the everything inherited. Spells typically limit what shapes you can change into, by type of creature. Just look at the names of the various Polymorph spell lists.
When you change into that creature you stay your type with a shape of that other creature. You don't change your type, unless it specifically says so. Type has various other benefits/drawbacks which are not granted by the spell. Just its shape and the listed benefits per spell.
I'm sure it is wasted breath to explain it (evidenced by other discussions you've been in) but that is the way it works. Spells give you the shape of a type of creature, you do not become that type of creature.
Quote: When you change into that creature you stay your type with a shape of that other creature. Saying this over and over doesn't really shed any light. Does anybody have actual rules text or FAQ?
It says I change into a creature. Creatures have types, so that implies type. Where does it take that away (like it specifically has to mention taking away EVERYTHING else meticulously)?
If it doesn't, it doesn't.
Crimeo, please show the line that states you get the creature type. Changing into a creature does not equate to gaining its attacks, type, or anything else unless the rules state it does.
Please show the rules that state you gain the type. So far you have failed to do so.
Your entire premise is flawed, you are operating under the assumption that by changing into a creature you become that creature except as the rules dictate.
The correct premise is that you change into that creature with the specific abilities the rules dictate and nothing that the rules did not dictate.
I already quoted numerous lines saying you turn into the creature.
"Turning into the creature" would obviously grant you everything about the creature since you ARE ONE, except anything excluded explicitly. (Which many things are. All of the text that excludes things being according to you, pointless, by the way, and a mysterious waste of text?)
In other words the rules ARE dictating I gain everything about it and lose everything not about it, by default, because that's the only reasonable thing that "change into" means in English.
Quote: Changing into a creature does not equate to gaining its attacks, type, or anything else unless the rules state it does. That is absurd. Go walk up to any person on the street and say "Imagine you turn into a cat. Can you scratch things? Are you a feline?" EVERYONE will say yes. Please.
No, turning into a creature does not obviously give you everything about the creature. Why? Because Pathfinder is not written that way.
You may think it is absurd, but that is exactly how the Devs have written it. That is the exact premise they used when they wrote this rule.
Gauss wrote: You may think it is absurd, but that is exactly how the Devs have written it. That is the exact premise they used when they wrote this rule. Great, then give me a citation for this claim you just made, and we are good to go.
Without one, you go by normal English meaning, in which "change into X" quite unambiguously means "gain everything about X and lose everything not about X", subject to any other following explicit disclaimers or rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crimeo wrote: I already quoted numerous lines saying you turn into the creature.
"Turning into the creature" would obviously grant you everything about the creature since you ARE ONE, except anything excluded explicitly. (Which many things are. All of the text that excludes things being according to you, pointless, by the way, and a mysterious waste of text?)
In other words the rules ARE dictating I gain everything about it and lose everything not about it, by default, because that's the only reasonable thing that "change into" means in English.
Quote: Changing into a creature does not equate to gaining its attacks, type, or anything else unless the rules state it does. That is absurd. Go walk up to any person on the street and say "Imagine you turn into a cat. Can you scratch things? Are you a feline?" EVERYONE will say yes. Please.
No you quoted things that say you get to to turn into the shape of a creature of that type. That is ALL it said. You are inferring the type despite the fact it is never mentioned to explicitly happen.
Skylancer4 wrote:
No you quoted things that say you get to to turn into the shape of a creature of that type. That is ALL it said. You are inferring the type despite the fact it is never mentioned to explicitly happen.
Er, I will repost them. That's not what it says:
Quote: [baleful:] As beast shape III, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD. Quote: [polymorph any:] This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. Quote: [polymorph:] This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing. Beast shape is the only one relevant here that never says "You change into X." standalone, period. And even though it doesn't, baleful still overrides it anyway by saying "like that, except that you do change into X now"
All three of these other spells say "You change into creatures" not their "forms" not "you only take on their appearance" etc. Just "You change into these creatures". Which unless there is a special definition somewhere of "change into" in the book, defaults to the normal meaning of "gain everything about that creature, lose everything not about it, then apply any other explicitly mentioned inclusions or exclusions"
Crimeo, I used to think the same thing you do. I came around when I realized it clearly wasn't intended and required a pretty awkward reading regardless.
And the explicit you "gain the type" of said creature is amazingly absent from any and all spells and rules that even tangentially refer to them.
It never says you it get the type. Ergo, you don't get the type.
Done with the brick wall tonight.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: Crimeo, I used to think the same thing you do. I came around when I realized it clearly wasn't intended and required a pretty awkward reading regardless. I am 99.9% sure they care nothing for intent.
There is no need to explicitly mention it...
If you said "Your longbow turns into a shortbow" and nothing else, then it turns into a frickin shortbow. That would be plenty sufficient to establish that YES it clearly changed from 1d8->1d6, that it's range increment decreased from 100ft->60ft, that it can now be wielded by vanilla rogues without proficiency penalty, while it couldn't before, that you can now use it while mounted, etc. etc.
Nobody would consider that ambiguous. So why suddenly play clueless when it comes to the exactly analogous same thing, same language, everything with creatures?
Quote: I am 99.9% sure they care nothing for intent. I care about both RAW and RAI separately. And I already posted a quote that speaks strongly to the intent being that the type changes. Because it says "Spells that change your type to XYZ" and thus makes clear the intent that indeed some such spells exist.
There was oblique mention of playtesting dev comments above, but nobody linked them so I don't know how serious or committed such comments were, or if they survived beyond playtesting.
Crimeo, again, you are making a huge assumption by stating that changing into the creature grants everything about that creature EXCEPT what is stated.
First, you have not stated anywhere in the rules where it states that you get all abilities the creature gets except where it states otherwise.
Second, it pretty clearly states what you do get, type is not amongst them.
Lets analyze the section.
CRB p211 wrote: Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. Hmmmm, it says you appear to be the creature, not that you are the creature. It goes on to state that you do not get all abilities and powers of the creature.
So what do you get?
CRB p211 wrote: Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type You get the form. Form is not an ability but it is reasonable to believe it is the general appearance (as covered in the previous quote).
CRB p211 wrote: , granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including
movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume.
Ok, so you get Ability score bonuses, Natural Armor bonuses, the creature's base speed, and benefits based on spell such as movement types, resistances, and senses.
Page 212 then goes on to state you get the form's natural attacks.
You are treating the Polymorph section as subtractive. Ie. You are treating it as you start as creature X and subtract abilities.
However, it is clearly additive. First you get appearance, then you get ability scores, natural armor, movement types, etc.
What it never states is that you gain type. You do not gain the type.
Frankly, you are flat out ignoring the section that states you take the shape of the creature and you APPEAR to be the creature.
It is not actually changing you into the creature.
Quote: Crimeo, again, you are making a huge assumption by stating that changing into the creature grants everything about that creature EXCEPT what is stated.
First, you have not stated anywhere in the rules where it states that you get all abilities the creature gets except where it states otherwise.
It doesn't say. And when it doesn't say (which it doesn't in this case) or give any special definitions in the book, you go by ENGLISH definitions.
Does it define the word "it"? No, so you go by English definition of "it" etc. etc.
The English meaning of "change into" is "gain all of its properties and lose any that aren't properties of it" so that's what it means, unless the books have some special definition.
Quote: While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. I already pointed out in my previous posts that they explicitly remove abilities and powers from the list (type is not an ability or a power). And yes, appearing like a creature is one of the things that would be inherited by changing into one.
Quote: You get the form. Yes you do, I agree.
Quote: Ok, so you get Ability score bonuses, Natural Armor bonuses, the creature's base speed, and benefits based on spell such as movement types, resistances, and senses. It has to mention all of these, only because it previously said "remove all abilities and powers" thus, any abilities and powers it wants have to even more specifically be added back in. In other words, you already had all these, plus all other abilities and powers, it then removed them all with your first line you quoted. Now it's adding back in only the ones it wants.
None of this is relevant to creature type, because unlike powers and abilities, that was never removed from the list of "everything" that comes with changing into something. Thus, unlike powers and abilities, it need not ever be listed as being added back in.
Crimeo, I already proved conclusively IN THE RULES why you are wrong.
The rules clearly state that you gain the shape and appearance of the creature. They do not state that you become the creature.
Quote: You do not become the creature. This is simply incorrect. From spell text, third time:
Quote: [baleful:] As beast shape III, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD. Quote: [polymorph any:] This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. Quote: [polymorph:] This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing. Yes, you DO become the creature, at least with those three spells they in fact state that you do. (Which INCLUDES the shape and appearance, of course. Those other quotes of yours are by no means contradicted. They just aren't exhaustively descriptive.)
I'm in agreement with Gauss here. The section isn't well written but it is clear enough you are only supposed to receive exactly what is specified in the polymorph subsection, which does not include creature type. Otherwise you get into weird situations where you have to adjudicate what 'abilities and powers' means: is HD an ability or power? Should I recalculate my HP based on type HD? Clearly not.
Crimeo, what you may not be aware of was that in 3.5 Polymorph explicitly changed type and subtype and this was removed from Pathfinder.
The change was because of the problems (abuse) with 3.5 Polymorph. That is why the Devs rewrote the polymorph rules and why they wrote them to not include granting type and subtype.
Jason Bulmahn wrote: Stardust is correct. Polymorph spells do not change your type.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Link to above quote
Quote: it is clear enough you are only supposed to receive exactly what is specified in the polymorph subsection Why/where is that clear that you should do what it explicitly says for everything except where it explicitly says you change into an animal?
Quote: Should I recalculate my HP based on type HD? Clearly not. Or why is that clear either?
Quote: Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stardust is correct. Polymorph spells do not change your type.
Okay, that makes RAI clearer, and is stronger than the implied type mentioning sentence.
Still interested to know if anything in RAW establishes this though.
Crimeo, nothing in RAW establishes your point. You are basing it all on 'changing into a creature and since creatures have type I get type too'.
The way the Devs have worded it is that you get NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH that is not spelled out in either the Polymorph rules or the polymorph spell.
You are going that extra yard to read something into it that is not stated. Until you accept that you will continue to have problems with it.
Quote: Crimeo, nothing in RAW establishes your point. You are basing it all on 'changing into a creature and since creatures have type I get type too'. Uh yeah, that's the part in RAW that establishes my point.
Quote: The way the Devs have worded it No, that's the way that the devs have unofficially discussed it in forum comments. It's not how they actually worded it in the book. Hence already having agreed with you on RAI, but not on RAW.
Again, you have yet to show the RULE that changing into a creature gives you that creature's type.
Please show the RULE that states that polymorphing into a creature gives you that creature's type.
"It doesn't say I don't" Is all you have given.
You have nothing explicit that states you change type.
You don't even have proof that spells can give you more than they say they do.
|
11 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Let's keep in mind there are two types of RAI going on here.
Say Bob the Game Developer has a sticky key and writes "Wizards get +100 BAB at 20th level" in the CRB.
This is clearly a typo. He didn't intend this, and so the Rules As Intended say they still only get +10. The RAW, however, is exact and literal. According to RAW, they get +100, until an errata declares otherwise. That's the most common problem.
Unfortunately, a new type of "RAI" has surfaced over the years. This is "Rules as Interpreted", a much muddier field that claims that if a sentence can be read one way, it is an example of Rules As Written. Occasionally Rules as Interpreted arguments do have validity—if neither reading makes that much more sense and we need to clarify which one the developer meant—but quite often they're just an excuse to argue.
Say Bob the Game Developer writes "Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type." Now, the clear intention here is that he's saying you assume the form of a creature of whatever type is indicated. Nothing about actual benefits is given here—that's left to the actual spell. Rules as Intended states it's clearly so, and the Rules as Written do, too—that is most certainly one interpretation of the sentence.
Unfortunately, then Rules as Interpreted gets involved. Someone comes along and realizes, wait a second. This sentence has two potential meanings. It could potentially mean that the entire creature type is bestowed as well.
Is that Intended? No, and they'll concede that. Is it RAW? Well,
No.
It is Rules as Interpreted. It requires a deviant reading of the sentence—what we here on the forums call some good old-fashioned Rules Lawyering. This process produces a second, much shakier shadow of RAW.
The logic here requires that because something can be read two ways, the second way is equally valid, even if it's clearly not the reading the developer intended and the other reading makes much more sense.
This logic is false. It is logic that has surfaced in many other debates on this subforum, and it is logic equal in worthiness to, "It says here in Ultimate Staircases that when I use these stairs, I go up a level! Time to update my character sheet!"
It's also a huge waste of everyone's time, since the Rules as Interpreted arguments don't actually reflect any real problems with the rules most of the time—just with the flexibility of posters.
In DnD 3.5 the polymorph spells changed your type.
In Pathfinder the polymorph spells do not change your type, they just give you bonuses(or penalties). It removed much of the power of the spells and made them simplistic to run and easy to adjudicate the effects.
This topic has been chatted about again and again as it's a common misconception.
Usually it's a good idea to;
read the FAQs
search the message boards and read a lot of the old posts on a topic. It may take some reading to find a good or clear answer. On some corner cases or specific situations there's no definitive answer and you have to decide for yourself.
If you are running a home game that's not a bad thing. Every home game is unique and has it's quirks and things the GM thinks are better done his way. It is a game of imagination and storytelling.
Quote: "It doesn't say I don't" Is all you have given. That is incorrect, I've given multiple quotes that clearly say you change into the creature, period. If you have no special definition for this, it follows plain English, which includes gaining EVERYTHING. Unambiguously.
That is a case of rules establishing it. Writing out every single thing that was already necessarily logically established by a broader rule is just a waste of ink and is not and never was required for something to be RAW.
If you did always consistently demand such, you would run into immediate problems attempting to play Pathfinder on like... literally probably every page of the rule book. Such as the rules say you can dual wield light weapons with such and such penalties. Do they explicitly say "Oh and explicitly, that includes wielding daggers, it includes wielding short spears, it includes..." ? No. Does that mean doing those isn't RAW? No. Or the rules say creatures can run. Does it say merfolk can run? No. Can they? Yes. Is this RAW still? Yes absolutely. And on and on and on.
You're only selectively taking issue with the concept of "necessary implication = RAW" here yet offering no complaint about this still being the case the other 99.9% of the time in the CRB...
Crimeo wrote: Quote: "It doesn't say I don't" Is all you have given. That is a case of rules establishing it. Writing out every single thing that was already necessarily logically established by a broader rule is just a waste of ink and is not and never was required for something to be RAW.
There's your problem. In pathfinder everything actually has to be written out, its a permissive rule set. In order for something to happen, there has to be a rule that says it can. There is no rule that says a polymorph spell changes your type, so it doesn't.
Your examples are completely irrelevant to the current discussion. There is a rule that says characters can run, so all characters by default can then run. There is no default that spells change type. In fact, the default is that the spells change nothing. Absolutely nothing. Each individual spell than has listed exceptions that you gain instead of gaining nothing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Let me help you out Crimeo.
Quote:
Stardust is correct. Polymorph spells do not change your type.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The link if you need it
Quote: There's your problem. In pathfinder everything actually has to be written out, its a permissive rule set. It IS written. It's just not individually and redundantly bulletpointed with every detail that was already necessarily implied with the overall rule.
Quote: There is a rule that says characters can run, so all characters by default can then run. Sorry but this contradicts your statements above. You just right here took an umbrella rule that DOESN'T individually, redundantly bullet point every example, and yet you accepted each of those un-explicitly-stated examples as RAW.
Yet you refuse to do so in the case of "changing into a creature" being an umbrella rule that doesn't individually, redundantly bullet point every aspect of a creature.
Which is it? Make up your mind. Does RAW require individual listing of every possible example even when already logically necessitated by a broader rule? Or not?
Quote: Let me help you out Crimeo. Yes that is RAI, which I agreed to. Talking only about RAW now.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: There's your problem. In pathfinder everything actually has to be written out, its a permissive rule set. It IS written. It's just not individually and redundantly bulletpointed with every detail that was already necessarily implied with the overall rule.
Quote: There is a rule that says characters can run, so all characters by default can then run. Sorry but this contradicts your statements above. You just right here took an umbrella rule that DOESN'T individually, redundantly bullet point every example, and you accepted it as RAW.
Yet you refuse to do so in the case of "changing into a creature" being an umbrella rule that doesn't individually, redundantly bullet point every aspect of a creature.
Which is it? Make up your mind. Does RAW require individual listing of every possible example even when already logically necessitated by a broader rule? Or not?
Quote: Let me help you out Crimeo. Yes that is RAI, which I agreed to. Talking only about RAW now. You are the one mixing up your argument. It is possible to establish a general permission, but that general permission has to made. So the run rule states that every character can rule, barring specific exception. And it establishes a set action with specific and explicit limits, upto 4x base speed". Therefore, you cant run at 6x your base speed, because the run rule doesn't say you can. It does exactly what it says it does, no more, no less.
The polymorph rules say nothing about gaining a creature type. The RAW explicitly disallows gaining anything from the creature, which the individual spells then except. Gaining the form of the creature does not mean gaining the type of a creature, because form is not type.
Quote: So the run rule states that every character can rule, barring specific exception. Yup, and the polymorph any object rules state that you turn INTO that animal, which means by plain common sense English that you gain every quality of that animal and lose any other qualities, barring specific exceptions.
It is no different. it does exactly what it implies (not says), no more no less. Just like running does. Giraffes can run, because of exactly what is also IMPLIED (not said), no more no less.
You have to use deduction to get to "Creature type is part of a creature, thus if I turn INTO that creature, despite not explicitly stating it, I would get that type", but you ALSO in just the same way have to use deduction to get to "Well creatures can run, and a giaffe is an example of a creature, therefore despite not explicitly stating it, giraffes can run."
I'm down with either allowing indirect but clear implication to count as RAW, or not, but you don't get to have BOTH methods, switched/chosen arbitrarily moment to moment, as suits your preconceptions. That's not a consistent rules system.
Quote: Crimeo, if you're going to come in here and ask rules questions, how about you f&+@ing listen to the answers? I will when they are given in full in a way that isn't contradictory or ignoring parts of the text. And did already when that was done earlier above for RAI.
Quote: Is it written that you get the creatures type? No. And is it written that giraffes can run? Nope. Are both of them necessarily logically implied by what is written? Yes.
If that's how you want to play it, though, that implications of any sort are not RAW, then go for it, I can't say that's "wrong" but I can say I know for a fact that's not how 99% of people use the rules. Since every table I've ever GMed, played at, or heard stories does things like allow giraffes to run, or clerics to be proficient in clubs. but to each their own. If you want to use a different term like RAD (Rules As Deduced) and then put "polymorph inherits creature type" and "giraffes can run" and "clerics are proficient in clubs" all as "RAD" and not RAW, then okay.
Crimeo...
I'm confused, what exactly you are arguing for at this point?
The RAI of the matter has already been established, no you don't gain the type, so what is it exactly that you are asking/arguing at this point?
|
