I was reading it again and again, and it makes no sense in some points... The spell states that I can use some of the abilities of the magical beast whose form I assume and there's a list of those abilities. But there are several other abilities that in fact are the same (or almost the same) but named in different ways. For example, I can turn into a dragonne and use its roar, that is very powerful compared to the shriek of the hieracosphinx that I can turn into, but can't use the ability by RAW. Is there any kind of clarification somewhere? Seriously, it makes no sense to me!
|
The spell give you what are the "standard" powers of monsters, generally powers that several of them have.
There are several powers that are available to only one creature and use slightly or vastly different mechanism, so listing all of them (especially as some of them will be described in books produced after the Core rules) will be difficult.
Your GM can chose to expand the list. I, as a GM would like to get an explanation on how the character know of a specific power owned by a rare creature.
In Golarion practically anyone will have an idea of what is 2punce" and know some creature with it. Even city bred people has closer contacts with animals than a lot of XXI century people. On the other hand very few people will know what "whiffling" is, so even if the spell did allow the use of that kind of ability the spellcaster would need to know what the ability is and what creature has it.
Each named thing in the game is its own thing. Even if another creature has an affect that works similarly or has the same niche you don't get access to it.
The roars are also sonic based. There is even the Androsphinx which has the roar.
They normally have different names because they have a significant mechanical difference.
As an example if something is a sonic based affect something like the silence spell will block it. Shriek however since it works different mechanically, even though the fluff is similar, would not be blocked by RAW.
In short things are not just given different names, just for the sake of having different names. There is always a reason why a creature is given a roar as opposed to a shreik as an example.
More than likely the other similar abilities have differences to that allow one to not be the other.
edit:added a comman
I'd say it's reasonable to ask for a Knowledge test to see how deep the caster knows the creature in question, but I'm concearned with abilities that are basically the same in game mechanics, but with different names. The roar of a dragonne is ubber powerful in a way it fatigates and deafens every creature in a 30 feet radius, and fatigates the rest in 120 feet radius, in the other hand the shriek of a hieracosphinx just deafens the creatures, and both are sonic attacks. In essence they're almost the same thing, probably they named shriek because the creature has a beak instead of a mouth. All I wish to know is if there's any place stating that similar abilities like that can be treated in the same way, even for spell effects. Oh, and it's worth to notice that some abilities (like roar) aren't even described in the glossaries of the Bestiaries, so they're not a real category of ability like breath weapon or even pounce...
As an example if something is a sonic based affect something like the silence spell will block it. Shriek however since it works different mechanically, even though the fluff is similar would not be blocked by RAW.
Hmm, now you got something interesting. I've read the sphinxes and got the idea that shriek stated it was sonic based, but in fact it doesn't say it! You're right!
Yar.
RAW, you only get the abilities listed in the spell. You do not gain any abilities that are not listed, even if they are similar. That is the Rules As Written. Any variations are by GM discretion and would be a house rule (aka: always ask your GM).
~P
To be honest, this is seems like a problem that could have been easily addressed by adding a small section in each Bestiary listing which additional abilities are granted by the various polymorph spells. The list could almost certainly take less than a page and deal with these issues in the most logical place.
New monsters means new polymorph options; why not make those options explicit when they arise?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yar.
To be honest, this is seems like a problem that could have been easily addressed by adding a small section in each Bestiary listing which additional abilities are granted by the various polymorph spells. The list could almost certainly take less than a page and deal with these issues in the most logical place.
New monsters means new polymorph options; why not make those options explicit when they arise?
I'm going to make a guess, and that guess is because they (paizo) wanted to avoid one of the issues that came up with 3.x polymorph: being that as more monsters/bestiaries were published, the more powerful the polymorph spells became. By limiting the polymorph effects you could gain to only the single list presented in the spell description, they eliminate the power-bloat potential of this sub-school of spells (aka: keeping it balanced regardless of whether you had 1 bestiary or 5 bestiaries).
That's my guess at least... which if correct would mean that this is not a problem, but intentional/by design.
You cast the spell, and the spell tells you what you can get. If what you turn into has one of those things on that list, you get it. If it doesn't, you don't get it. No exceptions (without GM permission). Simple.
~P
Pirate, I think you probably hit the nail on the head.
I seem to recall a post by (James Jacobs??) regarding the various summon lists, and the answer being similar; that they didn't want the spells to creep up in power, with the release of additional bestiaries.
I understand that fear, but greater versatility doesn't necessarily imply power bloat. Because the polymorph spells are now explicit and any additional abilities would only be added on a case-by-case basis, they can preserve balance while still giving us the fun of more options.
It just seems like providing some backwards-compatibility to existing effects that rely on the bestiary when a new bestiary comes out is fun and worth the effort.
I agree with AvalonXQ, even though I understand all the previews insights on my question. The thing is, if they want to keep it balanced, they can just change some names here and there. You're saying that Paizo is balancing ahead of time, I'm saying that you're wrong in that point. Taking again the same example, the roar ability of a dragonne is much better than the shriek ability of the hiearacosphinx. Both creatures are very similar, they're in the same book, they have the same natural attacks, they have pounce, they have a "screaming ability", the difference is the flight of the sphinx being a little bit better, and scent for the dragonne. In the end turning to one or another should be mainly cosmetic or situational, but once the hieracosphinx doesn't get its "scream", it's pointless to consider it as an option. I know a GM can rule that, but I don't see how unbalancing it could be as RAW... And about the summons, come on! If you put, let's say, 2 new monsters per bestiary per spell level, how it would be to strong? I think it could be a reason for one to buy the books! But maybe that's just me...