
![]() |

Just for clarification:
Are the various "GiantShape/ElementalShape/Beastshape" etc actually change the 'type' of the creature?
What about Wildshaping?
The reason for this curiosity....
If the type DOESN'T change, that means that Animal Growth would not be possible to be cast on a druid or wizard that used Wildshape or Beastshape respectively.
However, if the type DOESN'T change, then the caster is still humanoid, and thus can be affected by: Enlarge Person, Charm Person, Hold Person, Dominate Person, etc....
Any insight on any of this???
Robert

Doskious Steele |

Just for clarification:
Are the various "GiantShape/ElementalShape/Beastshape" etc actually change the 'type' of the creature?
What about Wildshaping?...
As written, you are correct in that nothing is said either way. From the intent expressed in the Designer Notes: Polymorph Problems sidebar on pg. 171, though, it seems like the spells in question will transmute your physical body, but will not alter *creature type* which is a more inherent trait. Certain templates can alter it, as can permanent magics, but the presented spells for changing shape are all duration-based, and as such would not to my way of thinking. If that is the case, rules-as-written the Enlarge Person would effect the subject whereas Animal Growth would not. Inasmuch as the Wildshape rules specifically refer to the spells in question, the same rules would apply, whatever those rules might be. If it is the intention of the Wildshape ability to make the Druid able to benefit from the animal-targeting spells, that would need to be specified in the Wildshape description or it would imply that everyone using those spells is in the same boat.
~Doskious Steele

atonal |

Robert Brambley wrote:
Just for clarification:Are the various "GiantShape/ElementalShape/Beastshape" etc actually change the 'type' of the creature?
What about Wildshaping?...
As written, you are correct in that nothing is said either way. From the intent expressed in the Designer Notes: Polymorph Problems sidebar on pg. 171, though, it seems like the spells in question will transmute your physical body, but will not alter *creature type* which is a more inherent trait. Certain templates can alter it, as can permanent magics, but the presented spells for changing shape are all duration-based, and as such would not to my way of thinking. If that is the case, rules-as-written the Enlarge Person would effect the subject whereas Animal Growth would not. Inasmuch as the Wildshape rules specifically refer to the spells in question, the same rules would apply, whatever those rules might be. If it is the intention of the Wildshape ability to make the Druid able to benefit from the animal-targeting spells, that would need to be specified in the Wildshape description or it would imply that everyone using those spells is in the same boat.
~Doskious Steele
It wouldn't hurt to add an explicit statement to the rules stating:
"X does not change the subject's creature type."
where X is Wild Shape, Foo Shape, and/or the Polymorph sub-school.
I think 3.x set a precedent for knowing the answer to questions involving shape-changing and creature type. From a rules look-up perspective, it's a little annoying to have to dig through rules on spell chains, class features, and a magic sub-school for a non-answer.

naetuir |

One thing that I just noticed is that.. While the Beast Shape spells list Flying and Burrowing and all the "other" movement types, it doesn't specifically state the LAND speed that might increase (say, for changing in to a Wolf!). Our group will use the fly-as-land as well, but it may be good to explicitly state max Speed as well!

Theodore Tibbitts |
One thing that has struck me about the changes is that natural weapons are still granted with no specific limitations. I don't know how it's worked in other games people have played it, but it games I've played in, one of the most widely used aspects of Polymorph was turning into Hydras, Rukanyrs, Skybleeders, etc, and other creatures with truly heinously large numbers of natural attacks. While such perhaps should be allowed, I think it needs specific limits - for instance, each spell could specify how many natuiral attacks that spell can grant. Like Beast Shape I could say "This grants you one primary natural attack of the creature.", Beast Shape II could say "This grants up to one natural and 2 secondary attacks of a creature", Beast Shape III "This grants up to 3 primary natural attacks of a creature" and so on and so forth, as was considered balanced.