More Alter Self Clarifications

[Ascalaphus]

Regarding the question of whether you keep any natural armor bonus of your natural form if you polymorph into something else:

Polymorph subschool wrote:

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. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. 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.

I read that as giving the GM plenty of room to rule that you lose a natural armor bonus that was based on a form you're not currently in. If you turn from a tough scaly monster into a fluffy bunny, you might lose some natural armor.

[Crimeo]

James Risner wrote:

Crimeo wrote:

look for mention in school. Ta da! there is one, so it applies.

But doesn't apply, as it isn't any specific rule to apply or how much to apply.

"Vague stuff doesn't count" is not an official basis for rulings in Pathfinder. Paizo reaffirms and applies vague stuff all the time in, for instance, their FAQs. I've never seen a FAQ say "Oh well that was kind of vague, so of course the correct ruling was to ignore it completely."

This does still apply as a rule. It's just not clear on the specifics. But giving the polymorpher SOME amount of natural armor bonus, whatever value you choose, is still technically a better fit to the rules that not doing so. Because even if forced to fill in the blanks on the specifics yourself, at least you're following the portion of rules it does say, versus not doing so.

(I'm not actually suggesting you give everyone +1 nat armor in a real game, I'm just speaking RAW-wise. Again, I think in reality, the RAI and what you should actually do seems to be giving people nat armor bonuses if the animal has one)

[Casual Viking]

Reasons Crimeo is wrong (Strikes Back):

(in reference to his claims about ac bonus from alter self. See also part 1 earlier this thread).

"Bonuses must be +1 or greater" is still (obviously) wrong: There are many, many abilities that allow you to add zero, or conceivably even negative numbers, as a bonus of one type or other. Look up a Paladin's Smite Evil for an example, and there are many, many like it.

Making a golden spell even better: In addition to its many, many other uses, Alter Self can give you a +6 (at least) stackable AC bonus.

Negative Scaling: Monstrous Physique I, the spell one level higher, has a set armor bonus (+1 for small, +2 for medium); as illustrated above, much less than what Crimeo really, really wants Alter Self to be able to do.

[Crimeo]

Casual Viking wrote:

"Bonuses must be +1 or greater" is still (obviously) wrong: There are many, many abilities that allow you to add zero, or conceivably even negative numbers, as a bonus of one type or other. Look up a Paladin's Smite Evil for an example, and there are many, many like it.

What exactly are you referring to in smite evil? "the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any)" ? It means that if you have a bonus (+1 or greater modifier for CHA), you add it ("if any"). If you don't have a bonus (your modifier is 0 or negative), you don't add anything.

Whenever they want you to add a -, 0, or +, whatever you have, they always say "Add your modifier." Whenever they want you to add only +'s they say "add your bonus if any". Whenever they want you to add only penalties, they say "add your penalty if any". I recognize that this is not strictly first order logic-ironclad clear in the rules, but its blatantly obvious RAI. If you're not playing this way, you will have some reallllly wonky balance...

It also follows from the normal dictionary definitions of "bonus" and "penalty", which you should always use in the absence of an official glossary etc. entry from Paizo for any term. Nobody in normal conversation would call something that weakens you (or that does nothing at all) a "bonus to your strength"

Quote:

Making a golden spell even better: In addition to its many, many other uses, Alter Self can give you a +6 (at least) stackable AC bonus.

That's not a reason why anything is wrong, except perhaps game design choices being questionable, which were not choices that Crimeo made.

If you think it's too powerful then that's a great reason to house rule nerf it, but not an argument for what RAW is.

Quote:

Negative Scaling

There is no rule against negative scaling of spells in pathfinder, so this is also not a reason why any interpretation is wrong.

As a classic example of a case where negative scaling is clearly very intentionally applied, look at invisibility and greater invisibility. The higher level spell has a much shorter duration than the lower level one. The spell may be better on average, but not every single variable is guaranteed to be equal or better in higher vs. lower level spells. In some situations (needing a long period of time invisible and no desire to attack anything), the lower level spell is in fact BETTER.

Another example is Ventriloquism, which can only do sounds your throat and mouth can naturally make, versus the lower level ghost sound which can do any sound that isn't distinct speech. If you're in a situation where you reallllllly need horse hoof sounds, ghost sound is BETTER in that moment, despite being lower level.

And both of those paired spells are from the same progressions as one another, too. Just like various polymorphs.

[CampinCarl9127]

Casual Viking is correct. Good wording and explanation.

[James Risner]

Crimeo wrote:

Whenever they want you to add a -, 0, or +, whatever you have, they always say "Add your modifier." Whenever they want you to add only +'s they say "add your bonus if any". Whenever they want you to add only penalties, they say "add your penalty if any". I recognize that this is not strictly first order logic-ironclad clear in the rules

While all that would be nice, they don't always follow through with that in all rules. For one reason, these are written by many different writers and are written in conversational style not strict rigid style.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

While all that would be nice, they don't always follow through with that in all rules.

Where do they not do that, and how would you know that they're not doing that?

[graystone]

Crimeo is correct. Good wording and explanation.

Alter self should have a clause to exclude the general rule that polymorph spells "grant you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor" or at the very least spell out that it grants a 0 natural armor 'bonus'.

Now James Risner may be right that it's sloppy writing. I have no problem going with that but that really doesn't change things. It just means that they didn't mean what they said and that's an argument RAI, not RAW. In the game, unlike things like wield, bonus actually is a defined term and using it has consequences, intended or not.

Of course I wouldn't expect to actually see anyone actually use this in a real game to get a +6 NA from an alter self. It clearly wasn't meant to do that and it never defines the size of the bonus under 'Polymorph' so there is no way to figure it out for alter self as there is no default amount.

What it boils down to is alter self should grant a natural armor bonus, as per 'Polymorph', or it should say it's an exception/grants a 0 'bonus'. As it stands, the spell doesn't follow the rules and is in error.

[CampinCarl9127]

graystone wrote:

Crimeo is correct. Good wording and explanation.

The sarcasm is well appreciated.

graystone wrote:

Alter self should have a clause to exclude the general rule that polymorph spells "grant you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor" or at the very least spell out that it grants a 0 natural armor 'bonus'.

What it boils down to is alter self should grant a natural armor bonus, as per 'Polymorph', or it should say it's an exception/grants a 0 'bonus'.

Should? There's a forum for that, it's called suggestions.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Of course I wouldn't expect to actually see anyone actually use this in a real game to get a +6 NA from an alter self. It clearly wasn't meant to do that

Is this even true that it's not meant to? It was meant to as of D&D 3.5. So the general assumption should probably be that the intentions haven't changed, unless there is some basis for thinking that they have. Are there comments to this effect somewhere, etc.?

[graystone]

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Should? There's a forum for that, it's called suggestions.

Not when you see various sections not matching up. That's called an error and/or oversight. One section says polymorph spells ALL grant natural armor bonuses and then one of the spells then doesn't tell you how much you gain. That's clearly a mechanical problem and not for "suggestions".

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Of course I wouldn't expect to actually see anyone actually use this in a real game to get a +6 NA from an alter self. It clearly wasn't meant to do that

Is this even true that it's not meant to? It was meant to as of D&D 3.5. So the general assumption should probably be that the intentions haven't changed, unless there is some basis for thinking that they have. Are there comments to this effect somewhere, etc.?

I've long since come to terms with pathfinder throwing away any semblance of backward compatibility a long time ago. If how 3.5 did things mattered, I'd be able to two weapon fight with a greatsword and armor spikes because that's how it worked then.

As to intentions, I think looking at the other polymorph spells and seeing the size of NA bonuses vs their level I can make an educated guess on what the ruling would be if the current team looked at this and that wouldn't be to allow a +6 NA. Compare to a spell that purely grants NA of the same level, barkskin. The increases duration doesn't compare to the other benefits of the spell [darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, swim 30 feet, natural attack, move speed, +2 stat].

[James Risner]

graystone wrote:

sloppy writing. I have no problem going with that but that really doesn't change things.

You can't make a RAW assertion that something happens without a rule to point to make it happen.

You can't find any rule at all that tells you how many points of Natural Armor some spell that doesn't provide a natural armor bonus amount grants.

You can't have RAW without a RULE.

[Casual Viking]

Crimeo wrote:

Quote:

Of course I wouldn't expect to actually see anyone actually use this in a real game to get a +6 NA from an alter self. It clearly wasn't meant to do that

Is this even true that it's not meant to? It was meant to as of D&D 3.5. So the general assumption should probably be that the intentions haven't changed, unless there is some basis for thinking that they have. Are there comments to this effect somewhere, etc.?

How about the fact that the entire *paradigm* of Polymorph has changed? How is that not basis enough for you? Seriously, take a step back and think about your argument for a minute.

Look at me, I'm Crimeo wrote:

Hmmm....the general rules for [Polymorph] spells say they provide a Natural Armor bonus. That bonus is defined in the individual spells. This particular spell, the lowest level polymorph spell, does NOT provide a natural armor bonus. Here are a few possible interpretations of that contradiction:

A: This spell provides a +0 bonus, a thing that already exists in the PF rules. The authors, sloppy english majors that they are, chose not to put it in because they didn't think it mattered.

B: The spell ought to provide a positive bonus, so I'll ass-pull a number and call it "the rules".
C: Obviously, this contradiction means that the way Polymorph works for every other polymorph spell doesn't apply here, and I'm going to copy a number off the chosen form without any instruction to do so.