| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, its an exploitive pile of flaming cheese excrement.
It's certainly a diverting hypothetical!
Entertainingly, on account of boosting a stat every four hitdice, an oracle of nature can get an arbitrarily high ability scores . . . except for INT, which depending on how the ability damage interacts with the ability probably can't get any higher than 18.
I think it HAS to be ability drain for it to work. Ability damage doesn't ACTUALLY change your stat.
This is the second time I've seen this discussion and I've noticed something interesting about the spell.
Target animal or tree touched
It's not enough to just be a plant, you actually have to be a non-creature tree. This is enforced by the following found in the spell
An awakened tree has characteristics as if it were an animated object, except that it gains the plant type and its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are each 3d6.
the tree gains the creature subtype "plant" which wouldn't need to be specified if it already had the plant subtype.
So, an oracle is limited to the animal side of the spell. Which means you can't modify your wisdom at all using the spell. Instead, if we assume it's maximized, you get a base intelligence stat of 18, +3 Cha, and +2 HD. Since the base intelligence stat is simply changed to an 18, it becomes irrelevant if the character is wearing cursed items, is cursed, etc, since these effects would all be applied as adjustments after the base 18 stat. Also, since the spell doesn't heal ability damage it will simply persist and be applied after the 18. So, if you had an 18 int to start and took 16 ability damage prior to the spell. Then after the spell you would still only have an int of 2 until that damage was healed.
Something else to consider, casting the spell costs 2,000gp per casting and when the spell is cast the caster has to make a save vs will equal to (10 + Target's HD). This means that after repeated castings the spell caster will eventually only be able to make that check when they roll a 20. If we assume that happens once every 20 die rolls, the oracle is in a position where they are spending 40,000gp every 20 days in order to gain +3 cha and +2 HD.
Quit trying to break the game, Pun-Pun.
Or, just start with 6,000hp and 164 charisma at character creation because obviously that's what your character needs to have fun.
These shenanigans are SO LAME.
Say it works, now what?
What is the actual purpose of this crap?
What do you do when this process is complete?
What possible challenge exists in the game now?
No one intends to actually do it, it's just fun to think about.
There's no purpose of it at all, except that it's entertaining, which is a pretty good purpose, in my book.
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
...
While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage
Damage doesn't actually reduce your ability score, neither do penalties.
Not that it makes a material difference, but it is worth noting that Atavistic Splinter applies penalties - is does not damage the ability scores.Damage and penalties apply based on the amount of damage you take. It's an easily overlooked rule, but if you have, say, 16 strength and you take 1 ability damage - it has no effect. Your strength isn't 15 and the damage penalties only apply for every 2 points you take.
And you really don't need such a contrived and overpowered example to understand the interaction of damage and drain.
Couldn't you remedy this by using Polymorph Any Object to become a tree? (Obviously, you wouldn't be an object, but I couldn't find any reference to "tree" as a type - since "types" are a defined term describing creatures.) It's not obvious to me that the tree needs to be a non-creature, either: you could use Animate Object and it would be considered a Construct, no?
Awaken has a casting time of 24 hrs and polymorph any object is only permanent if the change is small. So it wouldnt work directly turning a person into a tree. While being a tree via polymorph you would have no stats. Awaken would turn those nonstats into stats. Dispelling the polymorph would remove the nonstats (altered or not) and return you to whatever stats you had before, effectively removing the awaken.
You can't find a "tree type" because trees are objects not creatures. The tree feather token creates a tree and is based on the spell major creation which can make objects from vegetable matter, but can not make creatures. Ergo, trees are objects.
If you animated a tree it would now be an animated object. In general animated objects are still considered to be the object they were before animating. So ypu could awaken a tree that's been animated but this would make it stop being a construct since its type would change to plant, as per awaken.
Just because a chair can be an animated object it doesnt mean chairs are normally creatures.
I have no problem finding loopholes in systems so they can be errata'd and/or house ruled as needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Polymorph Any Object says "If the target of the spell does not have physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution), this spell grants a base score of 10 to each missing ability score. If the target of the spell does not have mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), this spell grants a score of 5 to such scores."That suggests that even going from object to object, PAO will grant ability scores if any are missing. Also, going from humanoid to object will not remove ability scores.
I suppose it depends on how polymorph any object is interpreted to work when going from a form that normally has stats to a form that normally doesn't.
One of the examples it gives is turning a sheep into a wool coat. If the sheep gets to keep all of it's stats then it can now grapple people who attempt to wear said coat and even arm wrestle them. I suppose if it gets to be a problem you could always use a spell like phantasmal killer to kill it.
On a side note, if polymorph any object can be used with awaken in this way, you don't really need to be a 20th level oracle any more do you?
It couldn't grapple or arm wrestle because you are limited to what the new form can do; it has no modes of movement and no natural attacks at all; it has no means by which to grapple anyone.
I don't recall seeing anything in the grapple rules that state that you are required to have a natural weapon in order to grapple someone. In the same way that polymorph any object does not specify that it removes stats it also does not specify that it removes modes of movement of the original form. It simply adds modes of movement that the new form has. So, the wool coat could by the RAW still run around and attack people same as the original sheep.
Polymorph (which Polymorph Any Object is) specifies that it removes natural attacks and modes of movement, and, basically, everything dependant upon the original form.
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form.As for grappling; it is an ability that depends on your form; objects cannot grapple (it must be two creatures); since your new form is an object, you cannot grapple.
ah ok, I was only looking at the spells themselves and didn't check the magic section. What's interesting is the last portion of the paragraph you quoted.
While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
Its obvious to me that if a creature is polymorphed into an object they lose all of their stats because objects don't have stats. Whether it's a person turning into a tree or a sheep turning into a wool coat. As soon as you start claiming that some or all of those stats are retained then it implies that actions related to those stats are still possible.
A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
This tells me that if you have a dex that is not 0, you are capable of moving in some way. Having a movement rate of zero is not the same as not being able to move. A Witherweed for example has a speed of 0 and no modes of movement and yet it has stats and can still take actions like attacking someone who is in range.
Just because a 0 Dex means you can't move doesn't mean not having a 0 Dex means you can move. There's a term in logic for it; contrapositive, and contrapositives are not axiomatic truths.
it's not a contrapositive it's an exception to the rule. Dexterity states that it measures agility, reflexes, and balance. All of these require "movement". It's letting you know that if you have a 0 its more severe then simply suffering a high penalty you can't actually move at all.
after doing some additional research I've realized I was wrong and that objects do not have null stats. They have a zero in everything as described in determining the armor class of an object.
An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC.
It makes sense,
A Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious.
a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
a Constitution score of 0 is dead.
an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose.
a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
This seems to describe most things we would typically think of as objects. You could certainly argue that a tree has a non-zero constitution since it's not dead and it's neither a construct nor an undead (the only 2 types listed as having a null constitution). Since having a zero in a stat is far worse than having a null stat that seems balanced.
Sure seems like this whole trick relies on fairly liberal interpretation of definitions.
But, assuming it's in any way actually allowable by the rules, what is the end goal?
Even in a purely hypothetical build, just to see if it's possible, what does the character look like, stat and ability wise, before they start this process?
I presume you start with a fairly optimized Oracle. And again, I would imagine you have to be relatively high level to accomplish this, so what does the character sheet look like at the beginning and the end of all of this foolishness?
There has to be a point where the results diminish. What is the "cap" that accomplishes whatever this is supposed to accomplish.
What is this supposed to accomplish, by the way?
As for Polymorph Any Object giving you the stats of an object; by the polymorph rules it does not; you keep your own attributes with bonus and/or penalties as specified by the spell; there are no bonuses nor penalties for that use of polymorph any object.
Then the wool coat can grapple you if you walk over and pick it up. It has a strength stat that is non-zero, it has a CMB, it has physical contact with you.
You seem to want to have polymorphed objects be treated as not having stats or having stats equal to zero, while simultaneously arguing that they do still have stats.
if you walk up and grab a muzzled sheep it can make grapple checks to try and break free, even though it has no natural weapons available. You keep arguing that changing it into a coat doesn't alter it's stats. Since it's stats are unaltered it can still oppose the grapple. There is nothing in the grapple rules that states it can't.
A normal wool coat would have stats = 0 and so it would not be allowed to move due to this reason. You're telling me that a transmuted wool coat/sheep gets to keep its stats, since the stats aren't zero then it's allowed to make the opposed check.
I get that this is purely hypothetical.
But, why would someone go through this effort?
Why have I seen this build brought up multiple times if it does nothing?
I imagine that the goal is to be near godlike. Health and HD to spare, and a casting stat that guarantees you succeed on everything but a natural 1, and they fail on everything but a natural 20.
Now what? That's it?
All this just to beat game that A million other builds can beat without going through this?
Does having infinite health and infallible casting make the game more fun?
For how many times I have seen this mentioned, I still have no clue as to what the purpose of this is.
It's a fantasy game. If you can't get by within the confines of the game as it exists, then just start with whatever you want.
On your character sheet, level one, pencil in a charisma of 666, which is a +328 modifier. Write down 10,000hp and make your dump stat a 20. Your starting wealth is 1,000,000gp spend it wisely.
Is it a tree, is it an object, does it have stats, does it have your stats, can it be used to make most boring character ever... if this works, mission accomplished... What occurred?
What does the character do upon completion?
What happens when this ritual is over?
It's fun to come up with or hear about things like Oracles of Nature or Pun Pun for the same reason it's fun to talk about how Pokemon don't seem to follow the laws of thermodynamics and talk about what you'd do in the pokeverse to exploit that for beaucoup le pokebucks and talk about whether it's more efficient to use electric pokemon or water pokemon to generate electricity.
It's fun for the same reason it's fun to pretend that Rowling's wizarding world is real and kept secret from muggles, and give more thought to charms and transmutations than likely went into them. It's fun for the same reason it's fun to come up with plans for conquering the Star Wars universe, preferably within a week of landing in it.
It's fun because it's a thought exercise. Ultimately, it is pointless, like all other leisure activities. If you don't find this sort of thing entertaining, I can't convince you that it is - just like some people just don't like chess and I don't like sportsball.
It's fun to come up with or hear about things like Oracles of Nature or Pun Pun for the same reason it's fun to talk about how Pokemon don't seem to follow the laws of thermodynamics and talk about what you'd do in the pokeverse to exploit that for beaucoup le pokebucks and talk about whether it's more efficient to use electric pokemon or water pokemon to generate electricity.
It's fun for the same reason it's fun to pretend that Rowling's wizarding world is real and kept secret from muggles, and give more thought to charms and transmutations than likely went into them. It's fun for the same reason it's fun to come up with plans for conquering the Star Wars universe, preferably within a week of landing in it.
It's fun because it's a thought exercise. Ultimately, it is pointless, like all other leisure activities. If you don't find this sort of thing entertaining, I can't convince you that it is - just like some people just don't like chess and I don't like sportsball.
The difference with a lot of these hypotheticals compared to this one is that debating how quickly the Enterprise can beam a photon torpedo on to the Death Star is it doesn't require interaction between me and those universes to talk about the Holy Trilogy vs. StarTrek.
This is a game of role playing. And I don't see this awakened plant person as a playable character. It's the most charismatic tree ever, cool.
I bet that would be super exciting to play as. :/
Meanwhile, I would be super entertained if presented with a movie involving the Enterprise and the Death Star.
The hypothetical nature Oracle build is more comparable to a word problem on a math test.
Just because something has stats does not mean that it can move or perform any sort of action. THAT was the entire point of me bringing up the invalidity of contra-postive arguments; if something has stats of all 0, yes, they can do nothing, BUT just because they do not have all 0 stats doesn't mean they can do anything.
Please find me the rule that states this. I've looked and can not find anything to support this argument.
Thus, (polymorphed) in (to) the form of an object you are limited to the things an object (form) can do (unless you have some means of adding to that via a non-polymorph effect). So, an object cannot grapple; thus you cannot grapple. Your type doesn't change, and your attributes do not change, but that doesn't mean that you can utilize that type or those attributes; you have taken the form of an object and an object has no physical mode of self-motivation, nor any means of attacking (by itself).
Interesting, I think you just destroyed your own argument for using polymorph any object with awaken. Since your type doesn't change then you don't actually turn into a tree, you merely take on the form of a tree. For example, if I get polymorphed into an orc I can't take feats that require me to be an orc because I never actually gained the orc type.
Look at it this way; hypothetically, if you polymorph into a creature that is naturally incapable of grappling, for whatever reason (maybe something like a Piercer, which, though a creature, is treated as an environmental hazard, because all it can do is fall on you, hoping to impale you), then you also would be incapable of grappling while you were in the form of that creature.
Again, please find me an example of this. Piercers are a 2nd edition monster that wasn't ever officially brought over to pathfinder. There is the 3rd party version of it like you mention but since it's not from paizo there's no guarantee that it properly follows the rules. Please find me an example of a creature that can not grapple that was produced by Paizo. I looked and even Shrieker's which have no limbs, no reach, no physical attacks, still have CMB and CMD stats meaning that they can be grappled and can resist being grappled and they're just giant mushrooms that make noise.
You're telling me a mushroom that has stats can grapple but a creature that looks like a tree and has stats can't?
Edit - this is wrong: The paralyzed condition is an example of where a creature can have non-zero stats and still not be able to do anything.
Petrified or unconcious are better examples.
but polymorph any object does not make you paralyzed, petrified or unconscious. There are spells that do this, polymorph is not one of them.
Tree isn't a type, neither is object.
Object is a type of spell target. Your creature type helps define what subset of creature you are. Since your type doesn't change, then you don't cease to be a creature. You can take on the form of a non-creature but you continue to be a creature. Trees on the other hand are objects.
Plant is a type that the Nature oracle can obtain, but awaken only works on trees; tree is just a form of object. Thus you may be able to use polymorph any object to make you into the form of a tree; you would still have whatever type you already had; in this case, plant.
You can look like a tree, but you still won't count as one since you merely have the form of a tree. In the same way that if you polymorphed someone into a wolf you would not be able to cast animal growth on them since they wouldn't be an animal since their type never changed to animal.
Piercers ARE in pathfinder. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/traps-hazards-and-special-terrains/h azards/3rd-party-hazards/piercer-tohc/
But that is 3rd party. So, like I said there's no guarantee that they have followed the rules properly.
In fact, a number of the "hazards" that it lists have actually been published as creatures in offical paizo sources.
In the link you provided rot grubs are listed as a CR 4 hazard, the bestiary 3 version of it is a CR 7 swarm.
In the 3rd party link you have the russet mold as a CR 6 hazard which deals 2d6 con damage. The paizo version of a russet mold is also a CR 6 hazard but it does a flat 2 con damage. Both produce vegepygmys but while the 3rd party one has DR 5/bludgeoning. the Paizo one has DR 5/bludgeoning or slashing.
So, while 3rd party books sometimes get things close. They don't represent anything official and they can be wildly different.
I indicated I was speaking of a hypothetical creature that was, for some reason, naturally unable to grapple. It doesn't matter if Paizo has published such a creature; such a creature could exist within the rules; specific creatures often have limitations that do not apply to creatures in general.
I can come up with a hypothetical creature that is unable to move while performing acrobatics checks. That doesn't mean that now nobody can move while making acrobatics checks. Since I can not find an example of a creature with stats that can not oppose a grapple check I have to work under the assumption that if you are a creature and you have stats then you can oppose grapple checks unless there is an effect in place that prevents it. Polymorph does not specify that you can't move.
And, yes, if something is polymorphed into a form that cannot grapple, then it cannot grapple. I mean, there's not much more straightforward than that.
except it doesn't turn you into a form that cannot grapple. Even creatures that are generally object like are allowed to oppose grapple checks and so there's no reason a polymorphed creature wouldn't be able to. It's not much more straightforward than that.
The word "type" has a specific meaning in Pathfinder parlance; it is a creature type. A "type" of spell target is not a type in the sense that Pathfinder uses the term. When I said that "Plant is a type", I thought it was obvious (but perhaps it was not); I was speaking of "type" in the technical parlance that Pathfinder uses; a creature type. "Tree" is not a creature type or subtype. It is simply a kind of (living) object.
Correct, type is a specific keyword that relates to creatures only.
Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes. A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature’s type drastically.
Objects on the other hand, do not have "types" in the sense that the term is used.
So, first; do you agree that polymorph any object can turn creatures into the form of objects?
It does, what you quoted even supports this.
You can use this spell to transform all manner of objects and creatures into new forms—you aren't limited to transforming a living creature into another living form.
However, when it comes to spells and effects your form has little to do with determining if you are a valid target of a spell. A spell target can be a creature or an object. Each of these categories can then be broken down into more specific designations like tree and orc.
Once we're on the same page on that point (if possible). Then it comes time to consider the next point: do we agree that objects (ignoring polymorph for now), that are not made into creatures, cannot grapple?
Non-magical unattended objects, as in the spell targeting designation, as previously defined I assume have a null stat for int, wis and cha and a stat of 0 for dex and str. Non living objects (like a rock) I assume have a null stat for con and living objects (like a tree) I assume have a 10 stat for con (medium size, modified as per size adjustment rules for non-medium sized objects). This is based on how objects are described when it comes to combat rules that relate directly to objects and magic item creation rules that relate directly to creating intelligent magic items.
Given a non-magical item like what I have described above, a non-magical object can not move thanks to it having a dex and str of zero. For this reason they can not oppose being grappled. Just as a character who has had their str or dex drained to zero would not be able to resist a grapple attempt.
Now, recall that in this hypothetical discussion the form that is being taken is that of an object, categorically NOT a "creature that [is] generally object-like." There is an important distinction here; a creature is still a creature, regardless of how object-like it is. An object can be turned into a creature by magic (Animate Objects, for example, does this). A creature can be turned into an object (not just the form of) by magic as well; flesh to stone (being a non-polymorph transmutation) does this.
I agree. There is a difference between being turned into an object and merely adopting the form of one.
If we can get on the same page on that point, then consider this; if an object is incapable of initiating a grapple
Yes, because as per the RAW a non-magical object has a 0 dex.
, and, while polymorphed, you are limited to the actions that the form you have taken can take, then if you take the form of an object, wouldn't you, too (barring some other special ability otherwise) be incapable of grappling?
As you pointed out, while you have the form of an object you do not have the stats of said object. Because an object can't grapple due to a stat limitation then a creature polymorphed into the same form as the object would still be able to oppose a grapple check because it has stats and does not otherwise have a condition that would prevent it from doing so.
Related to the original query; Tree Shape may be an easier way to accomplish this whole Awakening a tree-character thing. It actually makes the character a Tree (for a limited duration); if we assume that Awaken's Instantaneous duration makes it so that the effects continue even if the character is no longer a valid target, then Tree Shape works. It also bypasses all of the questions about polymorph any object, since it is pure transmutation, not a polymorph spell, and, thus, is capable of changing type, etc; not bound by the restrictions of the polymorph subschool.
Tree Shape is a really good disguise, but even by the spell's description you are still a creature.
Even the closest inspection cannot reveal that the tree in question is actually a magically concealed creature.
So, no even with tree shape you wouldn't count as a valid target for the spell. This is a good example however, of the other discussion. Tree Shape does affect your stats.
You gain a +10 natural armor bonus to AC but have an effective Dexterity score of 0 and a speed of 0 feet.
While under the effects of Tree Shape, you can not resist a grapple because you have a dexterity of 0 and can not move. Independent of the spell also causing you to have a speed of 0.
It is true that they have a Dex of 0. But that is not, by necessity, the only reason they are incapable of grappling. They are also not creatures. Only creatures can grapple.
No where in RAW does it state that objects cannot grapple ONLY because they have a Dex of 0.
You are correct it does not explictly state that objects can or can not grapple. It does however state that they have a dex of 0 and we know that when you have a dex of 0 you can not move and therefore can not resist being grappled.
Please quote the RAW where it states that objects cannot grapple by virtue of being objects.
If I'm wrong, please quote the RAW that indicates that this is the ONLY reason they cannot grapple. Until you do, given that grappling requires that you be a creature, I'm pretty sure that objects cannot grapple both because they have a Dex of 0 (which a polymorphed creature would not) AND because objects cannot grapple (which a polymorphed creature would have to abide by).
If you look at traps like the spiked snare and the ettercap noose you will find that these non-creatures can in fact grapple.
Effects CMB +10 (vs. target’s CMD; target gains grappled condition and is yanked 10 feet into the air);
Clearly, grappling is not strictly a creature only mechanic.
Sure, it is a magically concealed creature, but it is also a tree.
To all normal tests you are, in fact, a tree or shrubAwaken merely requires that you be a tree, not that you not also be a creature. Please quote the RAW that says that if you are soemthing only because of a (non-polymorph) spell, then you aren't that thing for the purposes of being targetted. I'm pretty sure if you are something, then you are that. Note that this isn't a type or subtype. It is just being something that isn't governed by creature rules.
I'm not stating whether transmutation spells can or can not change a creature type. Spells, abilities, feats, etc. that do change your type explicitly state that they do. The spell states that to all "normal" tests you appear to be thing X but in reality you are a disguised thing Y. It doesn't state that you are treated as a tree for purposes of spells and effects only "normal" tests. It would be quite different if it stated that spells that can affect trees are able to affect you. However, it makes no such statement. So, I can infer that this is not the case. Fireball doesn't state that it heals me 2d8 hp when I cast it so I have no reason to think that it does.
Let me ask you this. If I cast Tree Shape on myself and someone comes along and casts blight on me would I instantly die with no save? If I count as a non-creature plant (such as a tree) then yes, yes I do.
A plant that isn’t a creature doesn’t receive a save and immediately withers and dies.
Tree Shape certainly doesn't turn me into a plant creature. So the only other option is for the spell to fizzle and have no effect. Since instead of being a tree I am secretly a concealed creature of whatever type I was before.
Hmm good point about traps; are you asserting that traps have a Dex that is not 0? If so, what is their Dex? When you find one and want to break it with your axe, what is its Dex bonus/penalty to AC?
I don't know what dex the trap has since that is not given in the description. I can't find a rule stating objects can or can not grapple, but I can find examples of objects that can grapple. In the absense of a rule to compare these examples against I can't say if this is normal or an exception. All I can say is that grappling must not be exclusive to creatures, since I'm able to find examples of non-creature grapplers.
I suspect that, instead, traps are considered to have an exception to the normal rules for 0 Dex in that they can still make attacks/grapple as appropriate for the particular trap, but are otherwise limited, as normal objects, to taking no actions. Given that, while certain traps can grapple (as specific exceptions), objects, without such a specific exception, cannot, since, per the RAW I quoted in a previous post, a grapple is between 2 creatures.
You could interpret it that way. Seems un-necessarily complicated. As for what you quoted, it was talking about specifically when one creature grapples another. The grappled condition specifies that it can come from more than just a creature. I can quote what happens when a ratfolk swarms with another ratfolk, but that doesn't mean that swarming is a ratfolk only thing.
As for changing types; I don't think Tree Shape changes your type. But it does make you a tree (which is not a type or even subtype, it's just a description of your state of being);
This seems to be the crux of the disagreement. I think we have different understandings about objects, types and creatures. When I look at spells I see that some can target objects, some can target creatures and some can target both. These seem to be separate categories and it's rare for something to be considered both. The only times this seems to happen is when an object becomes a creature, while also retaining it's original form and function (either through animate objects or intelligent magic items). Outside of those rare instances magically animated things tend to be treated as creatures only, with constructs and undead being considered as creatures only even though strictly speaking they started off as objects before gaining their creature status.
For this reason I tend to envision a branching tree of definition. At the top you have object and creature as two separate paths. Underneath objects you have living and nonliving. Underneath creature you have type. Below Object-Living you have trees, bushes, moss, etc. Below Object-Nonliving you have rock, crystals, minerals, etc. Below Creature-Type you have subtypes.
As soon as you start talking about "well your type doesn't change" in my mind that means that you are stuck under the part that says Creature-Type. As a result it makes no sense to me to say "my type doesn't change but I'm also a tree". In the same way that it makes no sense to say "My type doesn't change but my moss is now also an orc". I could take the moss and mold it into a sculpture of an orc and say it "looks" like an orc but to claim it now is an orc seems weird unless I've changed it's type to go from Object-Living-Moss to Creature-Type-Subtype-Orc.
You clearly see things differently. Please explain to me how you see these things.
We both Agree that Object-Living-Tree is the correct way to view a normal nonmagical tree. We also agree that said tree would not normally be able to resist being grappled. But our approaches to getting there seem to be so different that we end up seeing edge cases of things quite differently.
I think you get to cast Awaken once and then you had the character sheet to the GM, because that character is done.
First you get your int down to 2. This means you officially lose the ability to use languages. Languages are beyond your comprehension. Now you Awaken yourself. Now you modify your int/wis/cha as discussed above. You also teach yourself one or more languages you know...oh wait. You don't understand languages. Ergo therefore, after Awakening you permanently lose the ability to understand languages.
Can you continue to cast spells? Possibly. As long as the spell isn't language dependent. However, you can't communicate in any meaningful way with the rest of your party. Effectively, you've removed yourself as a Player. I suppose someone could use a lesser wish to restore languages you use to know but honestly you've just hit the reset button on yourself.
By definition you can't cast if you can't speak and the spell requires a somatic component. If you can't speak because you no longer understand languages...does that mean you lose the prerequisite to use metamagic feats that would allow you to overcome this as well? I believe you are extremely screwed at this point even if you have an 18 int/wis and cha 21.
Anyone want to argue that you set your int/wis/cha but somehow you don't set you're languages when you cast Awaken?
The assumption I've been working under was that you had a druid friend (possibly a cohort) that casts awaken on you. This is why it eventually gets limited to working once every 20 days. Awaken is weird in that the caster not the target has to make a saving throw and if they fail the save the spell fizzles. The save is based on the target's HD and since the animal version of the spell increases the target's HD the caster (no matter how good their will save is) will reach a point where they only make the save on a roll of 20.
As for languages, the spell explicitly states that the spell's caster (not the target) gets to pick what languages the target knows based on the target's new intelligence. While not stated, it's implied that if the caster only knows 1 language then the target also only knows 1 language now.
I see the branching tree as you describe when describing "normal" (unaltered by magic) things. However, when magic comes into play, suddenly things can be abnormal. You could be a totally normal creature (with a type and maybe subtype) but also be a tree (but not the object part, and, if you weren't living before, maybe not the living part). You can make an object (say a sword) have intelligence, maybe even make it able to move itself (an intelligent sword, perhaps with one of the movement methods). What it comes down to is that when something like those cases happens, the new thing, be it creature or object, gets exactly what is stated, regardless of how much sense that makes.
So, what about when it goes the other way? Can green moss also have the orc subtype without being a creature?
My inclination is that the answer is no. You can't gain a subtype without also becoming a creature, which means you are now no longer an object. If the answer is yes, then it allows for an Creature-nonliving -bush-diamond-human-orc-undead-plant.
So, if a vampire used Tree Shape it would still be an undead (augmented) but it would also be treated as a tree. It would not, however, be treated as living or an object. If you were to Awaken said tree (since Awaken does not specifcy that it must be an object, or even living, the latter of which seems like a major oversight), then it would become plant (augmented) (though it does say "gains" the plant type, so perhaps an undead plant (augmented)). I fully accept that it makes no sense, whatsoever, but it seems to be exatly what the rules say (RAW). Note that there are other barriers a Vampire would have to overcome, namely immunity to ability drain; how else woudl you get their int to 2?
by the normal rules you can't have more than one type.
Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes. A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature’s type drastically.
So, my assumption has been that when a spell or effect says you "gain" a certain creature type, you also "lose" whatever you had before. Subtypes on the other hand you can have multiple of.
As for type:
Yeah, so it would be a plant (augmented), and lose all of the traits that come from being undead, though not the vampire stuff; a very odd creature, indeed. That is, if it is even possible to get the the appropriate state in the first place.
I assume that the rules work the same (with regard to gaining/losing classifications and types) if you are a creature being turned into an object or an object into a creature.
each subtype has an associated type. So if you gain a subtype then your type changes to match the appropriate type. I assume that if you lose the parent type then any associated subtypes also go away. So, if you were a clockwork construct and got turned into a plant you would just be a plant now, instead of being a clockwork plant (since clockwork is exclusive to constructs).
Types are exclusive to creatures (objects do not have types) and so gaining a subtype necessarily turns you into a creature as well. As a result, these things must go away when you get turned into an object (since objects do not have types or subtypes). So, getting turned into a tree necessarily makes you lose your creature status, as well as any types or subtypes you had. You would also gain whatever traits are "upstream" of the one you gained. So, as a tree you would gain the object and living traits.
I can make a rock look like an orc. But if I haven't changed it's type it merely takes on the form of an orc, essentially making it a statue. If a ranger attacks a statue of an orc they are not going to get their favored enemy bonus against orcs. Even if I turn that stone orc into a construct it still won't count for the bonus.
This is what I see tree shape doing. It makes you take on the form of the tree, but since your type didn't change (either by gaining it or losing it) you still aren't a tree. You just look like one.
I could take that orc statue and make it really convincing. I could add a chemical mixture that looks and feels just like flesh. I could add blood sacks under the flesh so that it will bleed if you cut it. I can make it seem to be an orc according to all "normal" tests. But in the end it's still just a statue of an orc, no matter how well made it is.
Definitely a change in subtype does not automatically change your type; there are some templates that change your type, but you retain any subtypes you have; that wouldn't be possible if subtypes drove types. There's also subtypes that can go with various types (extraplanar, the elemental ones like Fire and Cold, etc).
Certainly a template can break the rules, hence why a template like skeleton states that you get to keep some of your subtypes, but not even all of them. It's making an exception to the normal rule. Conversely amber creatures clearly do not retain subtypes (they were never the original creature to begin with) and so there's no need to specify type, beyond that they become constructs.
As for object and type acting the same; I doubt they do, but I don't think it is material for this discussion, since netiher polymorph any object, nor Tree Shape change you into an object. Tree Shape changes you into a tree, but you're still definitely a creature. You're a (non-plant, usually) creature tree. You don't have to be an object to be described as something that's usually an object. For example, ordinarily a crystal is an object; some mineral in a crystaline structure. But you have crystal creatures as well (ex. Crystal Dragons). They are crystal creatures. You don't have to be an object to have an object-like description. Tree is just a description, since objects don't have types or subtypes.
Tree is more than just a description. By that logic you could rename your character "Tree" and now you are a valid target for the spell. While its true that a creature could have an object descriptor in it's name that doesn't mean that it counts as said object. A rope dragon for example could not be used to cast rope trick, nor could a roper. Granted it'd be pretty amazing if it did work on those creatures since rope trick doesn't allow a saving throw or SR, effectively anchoring the creature in midair for hours.
If I look at spells like "Rags to Riches" or "Ropeweave" they specify targets like rope, armor, tool and don't include the object descriptor. Even though the spell description clearly references that the thing you're casting the spell on is an object.