I think that Beast Shape (and other Polymorph spells) should include the size categories of the lesser forms of the spell.
As written, Beast Shape II only allows for the sizes of Tiny or Large animals, not Tiny through Large.
This would be a minor wording change that would mean a lot while not imbalancing the spells. The problem is that the secondary effects of the spell (the abilities granted) increase with the higher level spells, but there is no way to become a medium creature with the better abilities.
The wording could easily be change to include the word "also" in the first sentence. "This spell functions as Beast Shape I, execpt that it also allows you..."
-Scott
Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Beast Shape (and other Polymorph spells) should include the size categories of the lesser forms of the spell.
As written, Beast Shape II only allows for the sizes of Tiny or Large animals, not Tiny through Large.
This would be a minor wording change that would mean a lot while not imbalancing the spells. The problem is that the secondary effects of the spell (the abilities granted) increase with the higher level spells, but there is no way to become a medium creature with the better abilities.
The wording could easily be change to include the word "also" in the first sentence. "This spell functions as Beast Shape I, execpt that it also allows you..."
-Scott
Hmm, I did not see this as confusing, but I could see how it could be read that way. The higher level spells do allow you to turn into the forms of their lower-level counterparts.
I will look into it.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Many thanks!
I thought it was intended as such, but after many years of being a rules lawyer for a major living campaign, I noticed it might be misread by some.
-Scott
Many thanks!
I thought it was intended as such, but after many years of being a rules lawyer for a major living campaign, I noticed it might be misread by some.
-Scott
I too read it as being able to only transform into the sizes specified, and not the lesser forms. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now, if we could just clarify that a Huge spellcasting monster doesn't get Strength and Constitution bonuses when polymorphing into a Large monster (and the such), we'll be good to go.
ouch. I never even considered that one. I should probably work the other way arround too (with dex bonusses) This is getting complicated very fast :(
Now, if we could just clarify that a Huge spellcasting monster doesn't get Strength and Constitution bonuses when polymorphing into a Large monster (and the such), we'll be good to go.
I totally agree. In fact, I would like to see a fixed strength and dexterity score based on average creature size (see the chart in the monster section), rather than a bonus or penalty to the character's strength and dexterity.
The current definition doesn't make sense for size shifts that go down, like the huge dragon turning into a wolf; or that go up for more than one size, like a gnome turning into a stone giant.
With a fixed score, whatever the original size was, the new size determines the strength and dexterity.
The other features of the definition, like movements and senses, work fine.
-Jack
See, the whole thing is, each spell needs to specify a system of ups and downs. For example, with Beast Shape I, you can either become an animal of youro size or one smaller. Beat Shape II, your size, one smaller, two smaller or one larger. Each spell set specifies the ability score modifier s for each step larger or smaller.
This way lies madness. Because then a Druid just dumps all her physical attributes and when wildshape comes online it doesn't even matter. 3.x basically did that, and it was an epic failure. Stat replacement is bad for the game.
I must disagree. Wildshape and polymorph spells do not replace stats, just change them for the duration of the spell/effect. The enhancement bonuses as currently written do exactly the same thing.
Unless you create a complicated mechanic for adjusting each polymorph spell for the caster's original size, it makes no sense at all.
A small caster with a strength of 8 changes into an ogre, two sizes up, and gains a +6 to strength making it an ogre with a strength of 14 (two thirds of what it should be).
Or a stone giant wizard with a strength of 27 turns into a human, one size DOWN, and gains a +2 to strength making him a human with a strength of 29 (almost three times what it should be). THIS way lies madness.
The creation of a complicated mechanic to adjust for this situation defies the purpose of making the polymorph spells LESS complicated.
There's a chart right there in Pathfinder RPG on page 125 that has these stats for strength and dexterity based on size (table12-8).
Fixed ability scores is simple, self-adjusting for original size, requires no formulae to calculate the new abilities, requires no reference to monster manuals or other books and has complete backwards compatibility. This way lies sanity.
-Jack
A small caster with a strength of 8 changes into an ogre, two sizes up, and gains a +6 to strength making it an ogre with a strength of 14 (two thirds of what it should be).
Or a stone giant wizard with a strength of 27 turns into a human, one size DOWN, and gains a +2 to strength making him a human with a strength of 29 (almost three times what it should be). THIS way lies madness.
There's a new rule for this in Alpha 3: "If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes before applying the bonuses
granted by the polymorph spell."So problem solved. (?)
A small caster with a strength of 8 changes into an ogre, two sizes up, and gains a +6 to strength making it an ogre with a strength of 14 (two thirds of what it should be).
Or a stone giant wizard with a strength of 27 turns into a human, one size DOWN, and gains a +2 to strength making him a human with a strength of 29 (almost three times what it should be). THIS way lies madness.
There's a new rule for this in Alpha 3: "If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes before applying the bonuses
granted by the polymorph spell."So problem solved. (?)
Not so.
This rule does nothing for the example of a small creature turning into a large creature. Also, for tiny and large creatures, this rule makes you look up a reference for the base creature's ability scores (fixed numbers) and then add the mods for the spell (also fixed numbers). So why not have a fixed number in the spell? So medium sized creatures use a different mechanic than others? So small creatures get cheated? So the spell is little different than Enlarge or Reduce Person?
The whole point of having the spell description contain all the necessary information so nothing needs to be looked up is lost. By this rule a tiny creature comes out stronger than a small creature when turning into a large creature. A human turning into a different kind of human gets stronger, even if he's above average strength, although the spell description says it is a generic version of the creature.
I really like the idea of all the different kinds of polymorph, and that there are different levels to each; but right now, as written, the mechanic needs more work. Pre-set ability scores fixes this issue, but I'm open to any other idea that also fixes it.
To say it simplifies polymorph because you don't need to look things up, but you have to look things up to use it is oxymoronic. Using different mechanics for different original sizes complicates, not simplifies.
With the removal of combat feats, this is the last, I think, issue that I have with the Pathfinder RPG. I'm not real keen on the item creation changes, but that's modular enough to just toss it and use the old rules. For me, everything else rocks. I would very much like to see a better mechanic for the polymorph spells before the Beta.
Maybe I'm in the minority. I would like to see some examples of how this current rules set works in a sensible way for any size creature turning into any size creature.
-Jack
Actually a character build that puts all 7s in the physical stats is what’s “broken”. This is not a very survivable build. Unless you’re starting at some high level, this character would get killed very early on. Also, there are times when a druid might want to use his hands, say like getting out a potion or using a weapon other than the natural weapons of his shape, or perhaps speaking with someone.
So being wildshaped “all day long” is not really feasible. Besides, even under the rules as written now, it is still a stat replacement as you put it. So this particular issue is not resolved by either ability enhancement or fixed ability.
A druid that stays in wildshape all day long, every day, is a player issue not a rules issue. And if that’s how the player wants to run the character, so be it.
As written: a gnome druid with a strength of 8, wildshaped into a brown bear, has a strength of 14 as a large animal.
My suggestion: a gnome druid with a strength of 8, wildshaped into a brown bear, has a strength of 18, which is still shy of the brown bear’s 27 strength.
A tiny, large or huge original size would have a (fixed) strength of 24. A difference of 10! over the gnome in the example. If this is sensible to you, all I can say is whatever
-Jack
... And further, who's to say they couldn't wildshape into something vaguely humanoid and don equipment that way? Monkeys, for example, are quite competent at using their hands.
To double quote you "This way lies madness".
The Large-scimetar wielding/armor wearing dire ape option is realy abusive (and I feel that's where the monkey doning equipement leads). If a parrot shape can't speak I don't think a "vaguely humanoid" animal shouldn't do more than pick-up and manipulate simple things (levers, door knobs, bags, etc.), not weapons. It's not specified in the rules but I think it should be, either in the Animal Type info or the Beast Shape Spell descriptions.
To double quote you "This way lies madness".
The Large-scimetar wielding/armor wearing dire ape option is realy abusive (and I feel that's where the monkey doning equipement leads).
But that's just it -- I don't think it's really abusive any more; becoming a dire ape is no better than a combination of Bull's Strength + Barkskin + Enlarge Person now. Potentially powerful, maybe (if you were a half-orc with the right feats, for example) but not abusive.
As written: a gnome druid with a strength of 8, wildshaped into a brown bear, has a strength of 14 as a large animal.My suggestion: a gnome druid with a strength of 8, wildshaped into a brown bear, has a strength of 18, which is still shy of the brown bear’s 27 strength.
A tiny, large or huge original size would have a (fixed) strength of 24. A difference of 10! over the gnome in the example. If this is sensible to you, all I can say is whatever.
I don't understand the last paragraph. It doesn't match my interpretation of the rules, at any rate.
In Pathfinder, a gnome with 8 Str polymorphed into a brown bear would have a Str of 12 (+4 Str for polymorphing into a Large animal).
In Pathfinder, a grig (a Tiny creature with 5 Str) polymorphed into a brown bear would have a Str of 13 (+4 Str for going from Tiny to Small according to Table 12-8, +4 Str for polymorphing into a Large animal).
In Pathfinder, an ogre (a Large creature with 21 Str) polymorphed into a brown bear would have a Str of 17 (-8 Str for going from Large to Medium according to Table 12-8, +4 Str for polymorphing into a Large animal).
There's a discrepancy, but not the huge discrepancy you mention above. I don't have a real problem with an ogre-bear being stronger than a gnome-bear, but YMMV.
But that's just it -- I don't think it's really abusive any more; becoming a dire ape is no better than a combination of Bull's Strength + Barkskin + Enlarge Person now. Potentially powerful, maybe (if you were a half-orc with the right feats, for example) but not abusive.To double quote you "This way lies madness".
The Large-scimetar wielding/armor wearing dire ape option is realy abusive (and I feel that's where the monkey doning equipement leads).
You might be right, as long as the system sticks with bonuses.
I'm still un-sure if the Size advantages gained threw the Beast Shape II (4th level) and up spells would be balanced. The weapon damage enhancement and reach gain (with the added possiblity use of reach weapons) are more in the province of Giant form (7th level) or Elemental Body III (6th level) at this point. But Enlarge Person is just a 1st level spell so I guess where in playtesting contry now.
As written: a gnome druid with a strength of 8, wildshaped into a brown bear, has a strength of 14 as a large animal.My suggestion: a gnome druid with a strength of 8, wildshaped into a brown bear, has a strength of 18, which is still shy of the brown bear’s 27 strength.
A tiny, large or huge original size would have a (fixed) strength of 24. A difference of 10! over the gnome in the example. If this is sensible to you, all I can say is whatever.
I don't understand the last paragraph. It doesn't match my interpretation of the rules, at any rate.
In Pathfinder, a gnome with 8 Str polymorphed into a brown bear would have a Str of 12 (+4 Str for polymorphing into a Large animal).
In Pathfinder, a grig (a Tiny creature with 5 Str) polymorphed into a brown bear would have a Str of 13 (+4 Str for going from Tiny to Small according to Table 12-8, +4 Str for polymorphing into a Large animal).
In Pathfinder, an ogre (a Large creature with 21 Str) polymorphed into a brown bear would have a Str of 17 (-8 Str for going from Large to Medium according to Table 12-8, +4 Str for polymorphing into a Large animal).
There's a discrepancy, but not the huge discrepancy you mention above. I don't have a real problem with an ogre-bear being stronger than a gnome-bear, but YMMV.
So if you have a real problem with it, why do you defend it?
What's more, if a large creature turns into a small creature, two sizes down, it has a loss of -8 to strength. So a 27 strength stone giant turned into a small animal would have a strength of 19. Pretty good for a badger which is usually an 8 strength. If the giant turned into a human he would have a strength of 21, double the average human strength. Again I ask, does this make sense?
The assumption that the only users of these spells would be small or medium is a bad assumption. Again, having to look up the stats for the size change for non-small or medium creatures defeats the purpose of not having to look things up. And why not the size change for small creatures too? It cheats them of a strength boost where it doesn't for a tiny creature. Yet again I ask, does this make sense?
You admit that you have a problem with it, and one example to counter my suggestion is that it would prevent a terrible character build that is only survivable if it is created as a high level in order to off-set its inherent weaknesses. Your other examples only show the discrepency themselves. So I have to remain unconvinced by your arguments, and by your last statement, I think you are not totally convinced yourself.
-Jack
There's a discrepancy, but not the huge discrepancy you mention above. I don't have a real problem with an ogre-bear being stronger than a gnome-bear, but YMMV.
So if you have a real problem with it, why do you defend it?
I highlighted a certain word in the above quotation. I hope that helps explain things.
:)
I’m not even sure your interpretation of the size change modifier then the spell modifier is correct. According to the SRD size change chart, the following are the strength modifiers for changing size by means of the PFRPG polymorph spells.
Tiny to tiny: +2
Tiny to small: +4
Tiny to medium: +6
Tiny to large: +8
Tiny to huge: +10
Small to tiny: -2
Small to small: +0
Small to medium: +2
Small to large: +4
Small to huge: +6
Medium to tiny: -2
Medium to small: +0
Medium to medium: +2
Medium to large: +4
Medium to huge: +6
Large to tiny: -10
Large to small: -8
Large to medium: -6
Large to large: -4
Large to huge: -2
Huge to tiny: -18
Huge to small: -16
Huge to medium: -14
Huge to large: -12
Huge to huge: -10
a)tiny creature don’t get very much stronger for getting a lot larger
b)small and medium change exactly the same
c)large takes a hit to strength even if it get bigger
d)huge takes a serious hit to strength even if it stays the same size
Is this sensible, fair, workable, feasible, accurate? Is this what Jason had intended. Or does it need more work?
I don’t even want to look at what happens to dexterity.
-Jack
I’m not even sure your interpretation of the size change modifier then the spell modifier is correct. According to the SRD size change chart, the following are the strength modifiers for changing size by means of the PFRPG polymorph spells.
[size stuff snipped]
Is this sensible, fair, workable, feasible, accurate? Is this what Jason had intended. Or does it need more work?
I don’t even want to look at what happens to dexterity.-Jack
Note that Pathfinder has its own size chart (Table 12-8 on page 126).
I agree: it's quite possible that it needs more work. But on the surface I haven't seen anything that is too crazy.
The chart on page 125 comes out exactly the same as my calculations above.
The issue, as I see it, is that these spells assume (ass of u and me) that the target of the spell is small or medium. When the target of the spell is not small or medium, references must be made to tables in the book. One of the purposes of changing polymorph spells the way they've been changed is to remove the need to reference other sources.
There's one purpose that defeats itself.
By using a modification of the stats a character currently has, you get polymorphed abilities that do not resemble the generic typical version of the creature that has been polymorphed into. (What a grammatically horrible sentence.)
I see the idea of modifiying the existing stats to simplify looking up the stats of the object creature, but stats still need to be looked up anyway for original sizes other than small or medium. Because small isn't adjusted any different than medium, small targets of the spells are cheated of strength boost for increased size and take a bigger hit when size is decreased.
To keep from making bad assumptions, nerfing small and big targets, and having to refer to charts and books, a different mechanic is needed. One that doesn't penalize other than medium spell targets and doesn't need to reference anything other than the definition of the spell. Fixed stats does this.
I've already given my counter argument to the crazy unsurvivable druid build. I still haven't read any sensible arguments against fixed stats.
-Jack
I'm not going to say the current numbers are right. I honestly can't be bothered to read through all the text to figure out how wildshape works in detail right now. But the methodology is the right one - its just a matter of putting the right numbers to it.
And ogres are large *and* strong for their size. Hence, when they turn into something else they should be strong relative to other creatures who turn into that thing.
I'm not trying to be facetious, just trying to understand your view.
Do you feel that in addition to the size change modifiers, a racial modifier for the specific creature should also apply?A brown bear is large with a strength of 27. An ogre is large with a strength of 21. Beast Shape makes the ogre into a brown bear with a strength of 17. Not very strong for its size is it?
A storm giant is huge with a strength of 29. Beastshaped into a large brown bear gives him a new strength of 17. Still ten less than the average brown bear.
A pixie is a small creature with a strength of 7. Beastshaped into a large brown bear gives hima strength of 11. He could go elephant and be huge for a strength of 13.
A wizard could beastshape his tiny cat familiar into a large dire lion with a strength of 11. Not even a +1 modifier.
The problem isn't the numbers, its the methodology.
-Jack
Edit 2: I figured out what they're basing their table 12-8 off of, but they present it in a way such that said information is *wrong*. Its not that average strength changes, its that strength scales with size in a predictable way (which is expected), and the SRD table linked above says how that works in D+D.
I wouldn't use the word *wrong*, but I agree they're presenting the data in a pretty cryptic way. I.e. an "average" Str of 10 for a medium creature would equate to an "average" Str of 18 for a large creature.
Okay, did some thinkin’. While I still think fixed bonuses are the way to go, I came up with a simple formula to account for size increase and decrease without too much craziness.
Since referencing tables in some book is undesirable, we need a formula that works for all shifts in size. The size change chart in the SRD doesn’t do this either. It has a strength shift of +/- 4 per size up to medium and a shift of +/- 8 per size bigger than medium. Dexterity goes down 2 per shift up or down until you’re huge. There’s no way to formulize this without heavy algebra; gotta toss it.
How about this?
+8 strength and -2 dexterity per shift up
-4 strength and +2 dexterity per shift down
No ability can go below 1. (No sense crippling yourself or your friends)
This formula charts out as follows:
Tiny to tiny: same
Tiny to small: +8 str, -2 dex
Tiny to medium: +16 str, -4 dex
Tiny to large: +24 str, -6 dex
Tiny to huge: +32 str, -8 dex
Small to tiny: -4 str, +2 dex
Small to small: same
Small to medium: +8 str, -2 dex
Small to large: +16 str, -4 dex
Small to huge: +24 str, -6 dex
Medium to tiny: -8 str, +4 dex
Medium to small: -4 str, +2 dex
Medium to medium: same
Medium to large: +8 str, -2 dex
Medium to huge: +16 str, -4 dex
Large to tiny: -12 str, +6 dex
Large to small: -8 str, +4 dex
Large to medium: -4 str, +2 dex
Large to large: same
Large to huge: +8 str, -2 dex
Huge to tiny: -16 str, +8 dex
Huge to small: -12 str, +6 dex
Huge to medium: -8 str, +4 dex
Huge to large: -4 str, +2 dex
Huge to huge: same
Using previous examples makes the ogre to brown bear a strength of 21 instead of 27 (not too bad). The pixie to brown bear would be 23 strength. A grig to a brown bear would be strength 29. A storm giant to brown bear would be 25.
The wizards cat to a dire lion would be 27 instead of 25 (again not too bad). A storm giant into a cat would be 13 instead of 3 (that’s a burly cat!, but would be a hilarious role-play situation). A raven turning into an eagle would be strength 9 instead of 10.
The cat turning into a storm giant would have a strength of 35 instead of 29. There is a built-in advantage for changes upwards, but I don’t know how to fix it without really complex formulae. The idea here is to keep it simple so it can be done on the fly without looking up stuff.
A human changing into a wolf or an elf would stay the same rather than get +2 to strength. This could make for a statistically odd creature with unusual strengths and dexterities, but if you want modifiers instead of fixed scores, it’ll be this way a lot.
My other suggestion is to leave Constitution out of it. Keep it the same as with Int, Wis and Cha. I know, I’ll get blasted over that one.
What I’ve checked so far is feasible, I believe. Run some more examples and see how it works. I know there’s always a way to abuse, but with this formula, is it an obvious way?
-Jack
The idea is to have a formula and not need to look up any charts or creature stat blocks. That table doesn't follow a set formula. Comparing my formula to that table:
Tiny creatures would get less strength going up.
Small creatures would also get less strength but not as much as tiny.
Medium would be the same.
Large creatures would take a bigger hit to strength going down, the same going up.
Huge creature would take an even bigger strength hit going smaller.
Overall, it would give some advantage to little creatures getting bigger and some disadvantage to big creatures getting smaller, as compared to my formula, but it would work.
You would need to memorize the chart, or refer to it everytime you used a polymorph to change size. If you're going to look things up, why not just look up what you're polymorphing into and use that?
-Jack
Why is this chart being referenced all over the place for the size mods of a PC's size mod?
Here's the wording for the Polymorph subschool:
"If a polymorph spell is cast by a creature that is smallerthan Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability
scores to one of these two sizes before applying the bonuses
granted by the polymorph spell."
That's pretty vague, but the only way of adjusting ability scores for size that I can think of is table 12-8. I'm open to other interpretations, though.
Squirrelloid wrote:
Well ultimately I want size changes to be reversible - that is, if you polymorph twice (Ogre -> rabbit -> Ogre), you end up back where you started before factoring in any 'bonus' stat pumps. (ie, changes from size are perfectly reversible by more changes in size). Otherwise you end up with a difference engine where you either gain power by polymorphing into something else and then back into yourself, or you lose power by doing so - neither of which should occur.
It so happens the SRD/MM defines this as a non-linear function, and this is what the game uses elsewhere. Unless we're going to change that everywhere, we should use it. Basically, all size changing should use the same table because that defines how scaling works in D+D. We can change the table, but then we need to change it for all scaling.
Frankly, the table should probably be included with the spell description for ease of reference. And players should record stats for common forms they assume anyway so they don't have to do math on the fly too often.
It is reversible. When the polymorph effect ends, you do not calculate back to tour original form, you just drop the temporary scores (poof!) and use your original ones. If you want to polymorph from one new form to a third form, you don't shift to the third based on the second one, only the original.
I'll try to clarify. All polymorphed forms are based off of your original form, never each other. "That way really would lie madness."
A medium that turns into a large figures for one size up, +8 str. Then turning into a tiny, he figures for two sizes down, -8 str (based off of medium), NOT three -12 str (based off of large).
It doesn't slide up and down, it resets from the original.
-Jack
Mayren,
Are you talking about the same value for both up and down?
i.e. +8 str for up and -8 str for down
This would put down shifts way weaker than the typical for that size.
or i.e. +4 for up and -4 for down
This would make up shifts way weaker than the typical for that size.
i.e. +6 for up and -6 for down
As a compromise number this isn't too bad, much closer to the typical for the size; but still doesn't have the accuracy that +8/-4 has.
Or are you talking about just referencing the size chart?
Again, the point is not to look up anything. If you need to look up a chart, you might as well just look up the creature.
-Jack