Can someone use "Alter Self" to give themselves a temporary "Regenerate" of a lost limb?


Rules Questions

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as I can see there are 2 real camps here:

1) You regrow the limb because you're changing into a normal member of that race, and missing the limb doesn't effect that.

2) Missing a limb is an on-going condition and polymorph can not effect that.

Currently, however, there is no "missing limb" condition in the rules and so I would hold that effect 1 is current RAW.

Scarab Sages

I'd be inclined to let Alter Self cast by an amputee or branded caster turn him into a typical member of his new form, including having two arms and no brand. Largely because without such a ruling, I'm pretty sure I'd run into players who would use scars and brands to mark their enemies and allies to ensure they couldn't hide by using alter self, which to me is the main point of the spell.

I'd accept an official ruling that said otherwise to me, but as I read it the question is "what does a typical elf look like." If that answer includes 2 arms and 2 legs than that's what you turn into, whether you are missing your own arms and legs or not.

Shadow Lodge

But my way IS better. For me at least. And you should all want to be as much like me as possible. Because I'm pretty frelling awesome.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.
I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.

Bending the rules and calling it clever and thinking outside the box is not a good excuse to do it.

Exploiting things is clever, but this isn't one of those situations where you trick the dragon into moving under the massive stalactite while you cause it to come crashing down on top of his head. That's being clever and thinking outside the box. Exploiting rules isn't.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
But my way IS better. For me at least. And you should all want to be as much like me as possible. Because I'm pretty frelling awesome.

I want rules consistency with the default game. I want everyone to start from the same page and then be able to apply what ever houserule you want. I don't want a lot of rules that are left open to 500 different interpretations because that really makes playing in multiple groups difficult.

Silver Crusade

I can come up with lots of ways to exploit and bend the system to give myself an advantage. Now I could sit there and call that clever and thinking outside the box but in reality it's just plain cheating.

Dark Archive

I (and many others) dont see it as an exploit, but more seeing how the game works, working within that, and knowing which options work well.

Like creative use of passwall(We make a hole in the ceiling, and use our grappling hooks to go up a floor, back into that supply closet), or rock to mud, or open/close (I set off the trap as the orcs come around the corner), or (this one varies by what setting youre in and what happens when you die) - planar binding to summon the dead cleric and make him heal the rest of the party and resurrect himself mid dungeon, instead of having to go back to town.

Shadow Lodge

How is it a rules exploit? It lasts 1 minute per level. That's not exactly gamebreaking.


shallowsoul wrote:

Someone in another thread is claim that someone can just use "Alter Self" or a "Hat of Disguise" to regrow that lost limb for the duration of the spell or as long as they wear the hat and I think this is bogus. I see nothing in the spell that says a lost limb is replaced, even temporarily.

Hopefully a designer could shed some light on this.

If you altered self into a race with a tail, you'd grow the tail.

If you were a race with a tail and altered self into a race without one, you'd lose the tail.

So I think you'd pick up the limb. And disguise self would certainly let you impersonate someone with the extra limb.. it would just be illusionary.

-James


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
...this isn't one of those situations where you trick the dragon into moving under the massive stalactite while you cause it to come crashing down on top of his head. That's being clever and thinking outside the box.

That's all well and good except for the fact that in my experience four out of five GMs won't allow something like that to kill the dragon (or worse, they won't even let the damn thing fall).


ShadowcatX wrote:

As far as I can see there are 2 real camps here:

1) You regrow the limb because you're changing into a normal member of that race, and missing the limb doesn't effect that.

2) Missing a limb is an on-going condition and polymorph can not effect that.

Currently, however, there is no "missing limb" condition in the rules and so I would hold that effect 1 is current RAW.

Actually, as there's no "missing limb" condition in the rules, the RAW answer is "3) this scenario is impossible by RAW".

Once you, in your game, create a situation by which a character can loose a limb and then impose penalties on the character for having that lost limb, you've created a "missing limb" condition, which by RAW should not be countered by casting a polymorph spell.

Somebody upthread mentioned mutilating or branding enemies to recognize them. This is actually one reason I would play it that way -- I LIKE the dramatic potential of recognizing that the wolf is actually the witch because the left ear is missing, or the old man is your nemesis because of that distinctive scar.

In past editions of the game, we played to where when you chose a type of creature to shift into, your appearance in that form was set (sort of the Disney's Sword in the Stone approach to polymorph). Strange coloration, particularly eye color, was a potential tip-off that you were dealing with a shape-shifted humanoid rather than a real animal.

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Someone in another thread is claim that someone can just use "Alter Self" or a "Hat of Disguise" to regrow that lost limb for the duration of the spell or as long as they wear the hat and I think this is bogus. I see nothing in the spell that says a lost limb is replaced, even temporarily.

Hopefully a designer could shed some light on this.

If you altered self into a race with a tail, you'd grow the tail.

If you were a race with a tail and altered self into a race without one, you'd lose the tail.

So I think you'd pick up the limb. And disguise self would certainly let you impersonate someone with the extra limb.. it would just be illusionary.

-James

Not sure where you are trying to go with your two examples.

You need to look at your base form and then go from there. If you are missing an arm, there is nothing in the RAW that says you get one back when you use Alter Self.

Silver Crusade

Kthulhu wrote:
How is it a rules exploit? It lasts 1 minute per level. That's not exactly gamebreaking.

Hmmm let's see, maybe a Wand of Alter Self.

It's exploiting because it's finding a cheaper way, in money and in level, to regrow a severed limb.


shallowsoul wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
How is it a rules exploit? It lasts 1 minute per level. That's not exactly gamebreaking.

Hmmm let's see, maybe a Wand of Alter Self.

It's exploiting because it's finding a cheaper way, in money and in level, to regrow a severed limb.

Temporarily, rather than permanently.

Dark Archive

Wow shallowsoul, you're totally right.

It is so much cheaper to buy a second level wand for 4,500 gp that will last for three minutes per cast than to purchase a regenerate from a cleric.

I mean, surely 910 gp for regenerate is more expensive than that 4,500 gp wand.

Shadow Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
How is it a rules exploit? It lasts 1 minute per level. That's not exactly gamebreaking.

Hmmm let's see, maybe a Wand of Alter Self.

It's exploiting because it's finding a cheaper way, in money and in level, to regrow a severed limb.

If some dude is willing to drop a feat and waste 3000 gold pieces for 3 hours and 20 minutes of having an arm, I say let him. Hell, it's almost certainly more expensive over a few days than just magically having your arm restored permanently.

And that's assuming that the sorcerer crafts it himself...and I made it a sorcerer so each charge would last four minutes instead of three.

EDIT: Double checked....two wands he makes himself is MORE gp than buying a scroll of Wish to simply wish his arm back.


bugleyman wrote:
No, just no. Clearly not intended, not matter what the RAW contortions might yield.

I'd just like to add: I missed the "temporary" part, so please disregard my earlier comment.


shallowsoul wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.
I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.

Bending the rules and calling it clever and thinking outside the box is not a good excuse to do it.

Exploiting things is clever, but this isn't one of those situations where you trick the dragon into moving under the massive stalactite while you cause it to come crashing down on top of his head. That's being clever and thinking outside the box. Exploiting rules isn't.

That's not thinking outside the box. The rules for that are in the box:

Massive stalactite. Is colossal big enough? Let's call it colossal. A falling colossal object does a maximum of 10d6 damage (x2 if falling over 150ft). I wonder if that's enough to kill the dragon.

Of course, first they have to chip away 5,760 of its 11,520 hit points to break it--after overcoming the 8 hardness (15 HP/in for stone x 12 in/ft x 64 ft for a colossal object)

Or maybe they used Soften Earth and Stone. Of course, with its range of 25ft + 5ft/2 levels, we'd have to be talking about a much smaller cave and stalactite.

So, clever, sure. But not very practical.

My point? Your view of RAW seems to be suffering from a bit of tunnel vision.

There's no rule for lost limbs. Expecting spell descriptions to cover rules that don't exist is unrealistic. If you've taken a player's arm, you're already venturing outside RAW territory. May as well take the plunge and say the spell doesn't do it by GM fiat.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
How is it a rules exploit? It lasts 1 minute per level. That's not exactly gamebreaking.

Hmmm let's see, maybe a Wand of Alter Self.

It's exploiting because it's finding a cheaper way, in money and in level, to regrow a severed limb.

If some dude is willing to drop a feat and waste 3000 gold pieces for 3 hours and 20 minutes of having an arm, I say let him. Hell, it's almost certainly more expensive over a few days than just magically having your arm restored permanently.

And that's assuming that the sorcerer crafts it himself...and I made it a sorcerer so each charge would last four minutes instead of three.

EDIT: Double checked....two wands he makes himself is MORE gp than buying a scroll of Wish to simply wish his arm back.

If you're going to get a scroll of wish, don't get your old arm back. Get one made out of adamantine that can fire lasers at your enemies.

Silver Crusade

redward wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a major issue, but I do think there is a definite divide on the board between the people who are seeking balance and verisimilitude and those who prefer to be "clever" and read the rules in any way that favors the players, regardless of common sense or intent.
I look at it as more of a divide between people who look for clever, inventive, outside-the-box ways to use their resources vs people who are way too confined by the concept that everything you attempt MUST be codified.

Bending the rules and calling it clever and thinking outside the box is not a good excuse to do it.

Exploiting things is clever, but this isn't one of those situations where you trick the dragon into moving under the massive stalactite while you cause it to come crashing down on top of his head. That's being clever and thinking outside the box. Exploiting rules isn't.

That's not thinking outside the box. The rules for that are in the box:

Massive stalactite. Is colossal big enough? Let's call it colossal. A falling colossal object does a maximum of 10d6 damage (x2 if falling over 150ft). I wonder if that's enough to kill the dragon.

Of course, first they have to chip away 5,760 of its 11,520 hit points to break it--after overcoming the 8 hardness (15 HP/in for stone x 12 in/ft x 64 ft for a colossal object)

Or maybe they used Soften Earth and Stone. Of course, with its range of 25ft + 5ft/2 levels, we'd have to be talking about a much smaller cave and stalactite.

So, clever, sure. But not very practical.

My point? Your view of RAW seems to be suffering from a bit of tunnel vision.

There's no rule for lost limbs. Expecting spell descriptions to cover rules that don't exist is unrealistic. If you've taken a player's arm, you're already venturing outside RAW territory. May as well take the plunge and say the spell doesn't do it by GM fiat.

That was actually just an example of the principle of the argument.


shallowsoul wrote:

That was actually just an example of the principle of the argument.

And the principle of the argument is that you want a rule clarifying that a specific spell does not remove a condition that you made up.

Silver Crusade

redward wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

That was actually just an example of the principle of the argument.

And the principle of the argument is that you want a rule clarifying that a specific spell does not remove a condition that you made up.

Find me something in the spell that that says anything to back you up then.


shallowsoul wrote:

Find me something in the spell that that says anything to back you up then.

Quote:
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type.

Generic members of most humanoid types are not missing limbs. Appearance is always that of a generic member of a creature's type.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
redward wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

That was actually just an example of the principle of the argument.

And the principle of the argument is that you want a rule clarifying that a specific spell does not remove a condition that you made up.
Find me something in the spell that that says anything to back you up then.

Shadowsoul,

The point here is that the condition your player is under, i.e. missing a limb is not in the game RAW. Expecting somone to find something for you in the RAW that addresses a condition that does not exist in the core rules is like expecting the Center for Disease Control or surgeon general to address the growing issue of people contracting STD's from extra-terrestrials. There will be no ruling either way, because the situation does not exist in the games the developers created. If you get an opinion from a Paizo staff member, cherish it, cause it's the best you're going to get and more than you could reasonably expect from them in regards to a ruling on a house rule. If you as the GM allow or have introduced the missing limb condition in your game, it falls to you as the GM to adjudicate how spells and other factors of the game interact with that condition.


shallowsoul wrote:
redward wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

That was actually just an example of the principle of the argument.

And the principle of the argument is that you want a rule clarifying that a specific spell does not remove a condition that you made up.
Find me something in the spell that that says anything to back you up then.

The burden is on you here. Show me the rule on missing limbs and then I'll get to work on finding out how the spell applies.


Bear with me here; a wizard that somehow gets Alter Self at high level as a spell like ability is then transformed into a slime, therefore losing ALL limbs and extremeties. He then uses his Alter Self to try and "regain his composure." What happens?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and the replies to it. And another post. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, don't. Also, flag it and move on.

Also, I think we're done here. Thread locked.

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can someone use "Alter Self" to give themselves a temporary "Regenerate" of a lost limb? All Messageboards