A Wild Shape question


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Selgard wrote:

I doubt the Dev's will. (not that I object either way).

Some things are just going to be somewhat vague. Some folks think the rules emphatically say X, some folks think it says Y. There's really no reason for the dev's to come in and tell either group they are wrong.

Work it out for and with your group and play accordingly.

-S

See my problem is, I want to play PFS format and if this stays as a house rule, its going to get ridiculously annoying when one DM says no, and another says yes. Assuming DMs can make house rules in PFS format. I just don't like the idea of being limited in one group, and not in another, hence why a flat ruling across the board would fix that.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Seraphimpunk wrote:
like i said, most people reference the bestiary, because its a necessary leap to keep playing the game. to make a huge wolf, i'd size a dire wolf up to huge, keep the speed, attacks, etc. everything else is covered by the spell.

To quote you from earlier: "Show me in the rules where it says that."

If you're not the GM making a houserule on the spot (because if you make a ruling on something the rules don't cover, that's a houserule, as any other GM could easily make a different ruling on the same issue), then what's going on here?

Seraphimpunk wrote:
if you want something huge with trample, there's plenty of other base animals to use.

That's fine, but I want to be a canine with trample, because I'm a Wolf Shaman. Can I do that? I mean, it's a Huge Wolf--why can't it trample?

Seraphimpunk wrote:
if its a home game, a GM can decide if his game has Nightforest wolves - a wolf breed with higher dex, lower strenght, that use poison to bring down their prey. but if you cast Beast Shape, you'd never get the poison until Beast Shape III anyway.

Ok, so if it's not a homegame, if it's PFS, the GM can decide that you can be a Huge Wolf (that is not in the Bestiary) with the same movement rates and special abilities as a Large Wolf, but he can't decide said Huge Wolf (that is not in the Bestiary) is also poisonous?

Why can he decide, without a houserule, that a Huge wolf moves 50', but can't decide that it's also Poisonous or has Trample?

Seraphimpunk wrote:
see, the level of the spell and ability regulate its power. where as in 3.5 forms were min-maxed for their stats and abilities.

The level of the spell is not the only thing that regulates power. The forms themselves do, as well.

Are there any forms with every ability in Beast Form III? If the spell, and not the form, regulates power, then there should be no harm in shifting into an animal with all of them, right?

Seraphimpunk wrote:
so is it really ridiculous that an 8th level druid can turn into a huge eagle or a roc?

Yes, because those animals don't exist unless the GM houserules them in.

Canthin wrote:

Turning into a Vulture is possible at level 4 as a Druid since it is a small sized animal. But it has a fly speed of 50'. You can't get that with Beast Shape I. So if you Wildshape into a Vulture at level 4, you have a fly speed of 30'.

This does not break the universe.

Correct. Why would it? It follows the exact wording of the ability. You turn into a real animal (i.e. one in the bestiary or one the GM houserules in) except it's abilities are limited by the spell.

Canthin wrote:

A "Giant Vulture" (Bestiary 3) is a Large animal. It also has a fly speed of 50'.

Reality doesn't bend because a Small animal and a Large animal of the same type have the same speed.

I didn't say it would automatically be different. I simply asked, "how do you decide if it does or not?"

Canthin wrote:
So why couldn't a "Huge" sized Roc have a fly speed of 80'?

It could. It could also have 90', 30' or 158964817' speeds--we don't know because there are no published stats. So every answer to "how fast is a Huge Roc?" is a houserule.

Canthin wrote:
Why couldn't a "Small" sized Wolf trip? What makes a "Huge" Wolf above such a tactic?

They could. They also might not. Why couldn't a Huge wolf be poisonous with a poison that deals 10d6 Con damage and a +50 racial bonus to its poison save DC? Who decides and on what basis? How can someone claim it's RAW if the answer changes from GM to GM?

Canthin wrote:
Picking an animal, then picking a size shouldn't shatter the world. All the rules for stat increases, movement speeds, and special abilities are in the spell.

It does, though, because some animals that come in a variety of sizes have different moves. Some cats gain rakes as they get bigger. Pteradons gain and then lose poison as they get bigger.

The point is, you can't know what special abilities an animal of a particular size has unless it has bestiary stats or the GM makes a house rule.

Canthin wrote:
I don't think saying "I turn into a Large sized T-Rex (or other creature I am familiar with and has stats available)" is the same as saying "I turn into a Large sized Thingamabob that can shoot lasers out of its eyes and flies through space".

And I'm using the fact that they are the same as the basis of my argument. Neither a Large Sized T-Rex nor a Large sized Thingamabob have stats in the Bestiary. Therefore, any abilities/attacks/movement rates/etc. that they have are purely in the realm of GM fiat, which makes it a houserule.

Just because you find it more reasonable to allow a Large Size T-Rex with the same abilities/attacks/movement rates/etc. as a Gargantuan T-Rex than to allow a Large Canine with a fly speed, poison, pounce, rake, and 5 tentacle attacks does not mean it's suddenly less of a houserule.

Celestial_Chameleon wrote:
I wish one of the devs would just swoop in and just make it an across the board ruling for all of pfs and the like that beast shape can make different sized animals from the ones in the bestiary etc. That way we can just put this topic to rest. It is obviously not game breaking, provides more RP and customization, fills in gaps for quality of life, and again doesn't break the system. Most people already run with the assumption that you can make bigger/smaller animals. Devs just need to make it an official thing so people will stop arguing semantics.

Often, when they don't come and swoop in to make a ruling like you describe, it is because they disagree with you. Have you considered that maybe the devs do consider it potentially game breaking and don't want to open those floodgates? Maybe they don't want people to stop arguing semantics because they actually meant the semantics they used?


@ mplindustries

If the devs don't agree with something they should tell you instead of let something like this go on indefinitely, wasting people's time arguing about it. I don't believe that the devs would purposely let something hang around like that. All it takes is a quick post detailing if it is allowed or dis-allowed. The whole garbage of " Maybe they don't want people to stop arguing semantics because they actually meant the semantics they used?" is ridiculous. If they meant what they said already then they would clarify it by saying its working as intended etc. That is what this forum is for. clarifying unclear rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
Are there any forms with every ability in Beast Form III? If the spell, and not the form, regulates power, then there should be no harm in shifting into an animal with all of them, right?

I am pretty certain you are missing the point completely.

No one (other than mplindustries) is saying that animals gain super powers for changing their size. Specific over rules general right? So if you can find a specific example of a Wolf getting Trample, go for it. Otherwise, Wolves get Scent, Low-light vision, and Trip. A Small, or Huge version should make no difference at all based on the spell.

No one is trying to make a new kind of creature, just applying modifiers to an already existing creature (that may be of a different size). I'm not trying to say that if a Large Bear already exists, you should use the abilities of a Medium Bear, but the stat increases of the Large size on the spell. I'm saying that if you want to be a Large Bear, and there are only Medium versions, then use the closest applicable size for abilities, and the size modifiers for the spell. There is a Medium Wolf, and a Large Wolf. To turn into a Small Wolf, use the Medium Wolf's abilities with the modifiers for Small Animals from the spell. Huge Wolf would use Large Wolf's abilities with the Huge Animal modifiers from the spell.

I have to admit, I never thought this was an issue before reading some of these posts about it. It made logical sense to apply the correct modifiers (based on size) to the creature you were changing into. We've been playing Pathfinder for years, and never once has any of my players (I GM) tried to turn into a Poisonous, Flying Boar.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I see it like this: the druid has to be familiar with the form they are assuming, so they can only turn into animals that exist. If the GM decides that huge wolves, tiny rocs and large penguins exist on their world than the druid is free to become those things. If the GM says "there are no huge wolves" then the druid can't become one. Any animal not in a bestiary is technically a custom animal, so the GM would have to determine its stats themselves.

I'm fairly certain PFS limits wildshape to bestiary forms only - it's explicitly listed under the bestiary entries in additional resources.


ryric wrote:

I see it like this: the druid has to be familiar with the form they are assuming, so they can only turn into animals that exist. If the GM decides that huge wolves, tiny rocs and large penguins exist on their world than the druid is free to become those things. If the GM says "there are no huge wolves" then the druid can't become one. Any animal not in a bestiary is technically a custom animal, so the GM would have to determine its stats themselves.

I'm fairly certain PFS limits wildshape to bestiary forms only - it's explicitly listed under the bestiary entries in additional resources.

Fair enough. I guess Druids in PFS cannot have Roc Animal Companions (even though they are in a Paizo printed publication) because Medium and Large Rocs "don't exist".

GM: "Large Rocs don't exist"
Player: "Um, I have one right here next to me"
GM: "Nope, doesn't exist, you are mistaken"
Player: "I've had him since 1st level when he was Medium sized"
GM: "Nope, Medium ones don't exist either"

....


It has been stated in the past by Paizo staff and players/GMs that an animal companion is mechanically different from a monster from the Bestiary with the animal type. A discussion as staged in your post thus shouldn't occur between knowledgable players and GMs alike.

The rules about polymorph has it all:

PRD-Magic-Spell Descriptions wrote:
Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.

The only way following the rules for a monster to change size is by advancing it as detailed in the Bestiary:

PRD-Bestiary-Monster Advancement wrote:
When advancing a monster by adding racial HD, you should start by deciding what you want the monster to become. In most cases, this means merely a tougher, stronger version of an existing monster. Note the desired CR of the new monster. This is also the point at which you should decide whether the creature is going to increase in size. As a general rule, creatures whose Hit Dice increase by 50% or more should also increase in size[...]

This, again, is explicitely barred by the polymorph rules from the Magic section making it clear the creature referred to has to exist as is in on of the Bestiaries.

Ruyan.


Canthin wrote:

No one (other than mplindustries) is saying that animals gain super powers for changing their size. Specific over rules general right? So if you can find a specific example of a Wolf getting Trample, go for it. Otherwise, Wolves get Scent, Low-light vision, and Trip. A Small, or Huge version should make no difference at all based on the spell.

...

I have to admit, I never thought this was an issue before reading some of these posts about it. It made logical sense to apply the correct modifiers (based on size) to the creature you were changing into. We've been playing Pathfinder for years, and never once has any of my players (I GM) tried to turn into a Poisonous, Flying Boar.

Perhaps you'd like a more realistic example then. An Aurumvorax has a Bite, 4 Claws, the Grab ability on all of them, and Rake, and its Grab is specialized to allow for grappling enemies of a size larger than itself.

It's a small size Magical Beast, so Druids can't do this with Wildshape, but let's just talk Beast Shape in general. Suppose you want to size it up to Large with Beast Shape IV. The difference between the two would be...?

Small: (Modifiers and Damage assume being put on top of your other stats.)
-Bite +0 (1d6+0 plus Grab), 4 Claws +0 (1d4+0 plus Grab)
-Rake (4 Claws, 1d4+0)
-Grab +8 and able to grapple Medium Creatures
-Dex +4, NA +2 for a total of +4 AC

Large:
-Bite +3 (?+3 plus Grab), 4 Claws +3 (?+3 plus Grab) :: (The Small Aurumvorax deals damage with its Bite and Claws as a Medium creature. So, does it do 1d8 and 1d6 as if it were large, or do you just scale up twice, making them 2d6 and 1d8?)
-Rake with the appropriate upgraded damage
-Grab +11 and able to grapple Huge creatures.
-Dex -2, NA +6 for a total of +5 AC
-Also a Con bonus of +2

All of these before size bonuses (such as attack, CMB/CMD, and AC).

The Large one looks better than the small, in my opinion, and its damage is open for interpretation even if nothing else is. One GM might rule one way, and another a second. Should its Grab be able to function on Huge creatures? It's obviously made with Medium creatures as the intended target, but if you size it up, then this assumption is out and someone can suddenly make 5 grapple checks against Huge opponents with a pretty high bonus on the attempts (since they're getting the racial grab bonus and a strength bonus now).

All in all, changing the size relies a lot on how the GM interprets it. Personally, I would probably houserule being able to turn into different sized animals as a suitable thing, but any way to handle it is most certainly open to GM interpretation, and you may run into very spotty corner cases like the one above. So, as far as RAW goes, taking them directly from the Bestiary seems like the only way to run it the same way in every situation.

Just my thoughts on the situation. YMMV, of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwolf117 wrote:
-Also a Con bonus of +2

We are talking apples and oranges apparently. The spell has no increase or decrease in CON. The spell doesn't use modifiers needed for increasing a statblock from one size to another following the advancement rules, or the template rules. A GM making a Huge Wolf for an encounter has different rules using different stats than the spell offers (I covered that the spell and the templates/advancement rules use different stat). The Aurumvorax even states in its statblock "(Medium size for most aurumvoraxes)" meaning that there ARE ones of different sizes that aren't explicitly stated in the Bestiary.

I don't know of any argument I can use against "knowledgeable players and GMs" that use rules to say that one thing doesn't exist for one purpose, but is perfectly acceptable to use for another. Especially since the "mechanically different from Bestiary entries" argument doesn't mean squat to the Beast Shape spells since we have already seen that Bestiary creatures of one size (Medium Wolf) are MECHANICALLY different from creatures of the same type but different sizes (Large Wolf). Meaning that the Medium and Large versions conflict mechanically with each other. But again, that doesn't matter to the spell. The Medium Wolf gets +2 STR, +2 NA, Scent, Low-light Vision. "Large Wolf" gets +4 STR, -2 DEX, and +4 NA, Scent, Low-light Vision, Trip (because even though a Medium Wolf gets Trip, it isn't available to the spell until Beast Shape 2)

Paizo isn't going to list every animal ever. I find it frustrating that there are TINY Turtles and GARGANTUAN Turtles, but NOTHING in between (except for Animal Companions). Really? No Small Turtles?

I understand that I'm in the minority for thinking that the Bestiary is a guideline that should be followed and not a codex of "only this".

I guess at the end of the day, I'll agree to disagree.

I apologize if I offended anyone or if anyone feels like I attacked them (especially mplindustries who is one of my top 5 favorite rules lawyers)


Its about whether they exist or not.

Its about the stats for them existing or not. And without an official source or DM Fiat (aka houserule) they don't exist.

And until they exist their stats aren't known for you to know what abilities they do or don't get.
Some creatures gain or lose powers by getting larger or smaller. Until a creature is written you don't know it'll end up being and therefore its not a valid inspiration for the spell to go by.

If you want a medium turtle ask your DM to make one in the campaign so you can then use that as a go by. But until the stats for it exist there are no stats to go by and therefore you can't use it as a basis for the spell/ability.

-S

Silver Crusade

Azten wrote:
Is there anything that says a druid has to Wild Shape into the same size as the typical animal she wants to turn into? Could one, for example, choose to turn into a Huge Wolf or a Small Lion?

Despite many people reading into the rules, and their obsessions with templates, nothing says you can't. As always, anything on your character sheet should have GM approval. This is RAW, but not necessarily PFS legal.

And since there are a ton of people that have no ideas how monsters work, here is how to do it.

Step 1: Choose an animal from the bestiary that you want to use

Step 2: Apply stats of the beast shape spell you want to use

Step 3: Adjust size modifier for the size your using (B1 296 Table 2-3)

Step 4: Find the natural attack dice for size (B1 302 Table 3-1)

Step 5: Adjust the DC's of any ability (like poison) DC= Spell DC

The whole process takes a minute or two if you have the bestiary handy. It's a similar process to applying a giant or young template to a summon animal that shamans get.


Canthin wrote:
Darkwolf117 wrote:
-Also a Con bonus of +2
We are talking apples and oranges apparently. The spell has no increase or decrease in CON.

Huh?

Beast Shape IV wrote:
Large magical beast: ... a +2 size bonus to your Constitution...

I admit, it's mostly irrelevant. I just threw it in the list, because it is indeed part of what they get, which a Small Aurumvorax, as the default, would not have.

And yes, the Aurumvorax states Medium Size for most, meaning that there are others... such as with the Giant creature template. And as you say, the rules for a GM doing this are very different from what is offered through the spell. Polymorph spells do not allow such templates, as a few people have noted.

As I said, I would personally agree that you should be able to go through some different sizes (your turtle example is apt), but by RAW, I don't believe that it works that way. It involves extrapolating a good deal of information from one form to another, and doesn't have a baseline in the rules.

I hope I didn't come across as being aggressive about this either, so I'm sorry if I did. I'm simply offering my thoughts/interpretation of it.


Canthin wrote:
No one (other than mplindustries) is saying that animals gain super powers for changing their size.

I'm not really suggesting that animals should get super powers for changing their size, but I'm using hyperbole as a rhetorical device here. You don't actually know what being larger gives, that's the point.

You can suggest it's the same thing smaller animals have, but there's no way to be sure, just as you can't be sure that getting bigger makes them poisonous.

All I'm saying, in an extended and hopefully entertaining fashion, is that animals outside the bestiary are up to the GM, and that means they're houserules. That's all.

Canthin wrote:
Specific over rules general right? So if you can find a specific example of a Wolf getting Trample, go for it. Otherwise, Wolves get Scent, Low-light vision, and Trip.

Cunning twist! If you can find a specific example of a Huge wolf, go for it. Otherwise, Wolves are medium or Large. ;)

Canthin wrote:
No one is trying to make a new kind of creature, just applying modifiers to an already existing creature (that may be of a different size).

Right, and doing that is explicitly not permitted by the rules of the polymorph subschool, since modifiers like that are done via templates and advancement.

Canthin wrote:
I'm saying that if you want to be a Large Bear, and there are only Medium versions, then use the closest applicable size for abilities, and the size modifiers for the spell.

I understand what you're saying, and if I was running the game, I'd say, "Sure." Actually, not, I'd probably say, "Hey, why not be one of these hundreds of better animals? Oh, you're a Shaman? Crap, why? They're terrible! Ok, we need to remake this character..."

Anyway, the point is, what you're suggesting is fine, in my judgment. It is probably fine in most people's judgment. What it is not fine by, however, is the RAW. You need a houserule to do what you're saying. It's that simple.

Canthin wrote:
We've been playing Pathfinder for years, and never once has any of my players (I GM) tried to turn into a Poisonous, Flying Boar.

Sounds like you don't have very creative players, then :P

Canthin wrote:
The Aurumvorax even states in its statblock "(Medium size for most aurumvoraxes)" meaning that there ARE ones of different sizes that aren't explicitly stated in the Bestiary.

And yet, we don't know what their stats are, so turning into one requires a GM ruling, and is thus a houserule.

Canthin wrote:
Paizo isn't going to list every animal ever. I find it frustrating that there are TINY Turtles and GARGANTUAN Turtles, but NOTHING in between (except for Animal Companions). Really? No Small Turtles?

There are officially no small turtles. You can't turn into one in PFS, but a GM could let you very easily with a quick houserule.

Canthin wrote:
I understand that I'm in the minority for thinking that the Bestiary is a guideline that should be followed and not a codex of "only this".

I think you're arguing a different point. The issue is that some are saying it is fully within RAW to turn into a Small Turtle or a Huge wolf. I am simply saying it is a (very common and very reasonable) houserule to do so.

The implications of this mostly apply to PFS, but it's also just kind of fun for me at this point.

Canthin wrote:
I apologize if I offended anyone or if anyone feels like I attacked them (especially mplindustries who is one of my top 5 favorite rules lawyers)

No, no, I never get offended on the internet. It's nice to have fans, though :D

Just for the record, I don't really play like a rules lawyer--I know the rules so I can close the stupid loopholes in my own games and shame the writers/editors of these games into being more careful or hiring me to do it for them ;)


And here I was coming back to raise my thread from the dead only to find it hadn't died when I thought it did...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Celestial_Chameleon wrote:

@ mplindustries

If the devs don't agree with something they should tell you instead of let something like this go on indefinitely, wasting people's time arguing about it. I don't believe that the devs would purposely let something hang around like that. All it takes is a quick post detailing if it is allowed or dis-allowed. The whole garbage of " Maybe they don't want people to stop arguing semantics because they actually meant the semantics they used?" is ridiculous. If they meant what they said already then they would clarify it by saying its working as intended etc. That is what this forum is for. clarifying unclear rules.

The devs aren't wasting anyone's time... You all are wasting your own. You effectively want the nonsense of 3.5 wildshaping when the ruleset is clearly designed to put 3.5 Druidzilla to extinction.

Wolves are not Bison. They don't kill their prey by trampling them like an elephant. They bite, they harry, and above all...they run in packs.


There's an Ask James Jacobs on the subject:

"Voyd211 wrote:
"And another question, can the size variations with the Druid's Wild Shape be used to turn into, say, a Tiny roc or Gargantuan dire rat?"

Only if your GM is okay with having to build stats for Tiny rocs or Gargantuan dire rats. I wouldn't be. It's far more interesting for me for druids to wild shape into existing animals rather than ones the player makes up on the spot. That's granting too much world design power to the player for my taste, and starts to drift the druid into parts of the summoner class I don't care for as a result."
LINK


LazarX wrote:

The devs aren't wasting anyone's time... You all are wasting your own. You effectively want the nonsense of 3.5 wildshaping when the ruleset is clearly designed to put 3.5 Druidzilla to extinction.

Wolves are not Bison. They don't kill their prey by trampling them like an elephant. They bite, they harry, and above all...they run in packs.

This...

Matthew Downie wrote:

There's an Ask James Jacobs on the subject:

"Voyd211 wrote:
"And another question, can the size variations with the Druid's Wild Shape be used to turn into, say, a Tiny roc or Gargantuan dire rat?"

Only if your GM is okay with having to build stats for Tiny rocs or Gargantuan dire rats. I wouldn't be. It's far more interesting for me for druids to wild shape into existing animals rather than ones the player makes up on the spot. That's granting too much world design power to the player for my taste, and starts to drift the druid into parts of the summoner class I don't care for as a result."
LINK

... And this, pretty much.

The limitations to Wild Shape are 100% intentional. Circumventing them, whether for creativity and options, or for pure power gaming, is still circumventing the very intentional limitations and therefore, not allowed.

This is the rules forum. As such, the answer here is "no." If you want advice on how to convince your home game GM to house rule wild shape for purposes beyond what the rules allow, then I would suggest to create a thread in the house rules section.


Canthin wrote:
ryric wrote:

I see it like this: the druid has to be familiar with the form they are assuming, so they can only turn into animals that exist. If the GM decides that huge wolves, tiny rocs and large penguins exist on their world than the druid is free to become those things. If the GM says "there are no huge wolves" then the druid can't become one. Any animal not in a bestiary is technically a custom animal, so the GM would have to determine its stats themselves.

I'm fairly certain PFS limits wildshape to bestiary forms only - it's explicitly listed under the bestiary entries in additional resources.

Fair enough. I guess Druids in PFS cannot have Roc Animal Companions (even though they are in a Paizo printed publication) because Medium and Large Rocs "don't exist".

GM: "Large Rocs don't exist"
Player: "Um, I have one right here next to me"
GM: "Nope, doesn't exist, you are mistaken"
Player: "I've had him since 1st level when he was Medium sized"
GM: "Nope, Medium ones don't exist either"

....

Now this is funny. LOL

I would like to add, just how did that ROC become Gargantuan. Did he come out of his mother's womb that size or was he small, medium and huge somewhere along the line?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Canthin wrote:
ryric wrote:

I see it like this: the druid has to be familiar with the form they are assuming, so they can only turn into animals that exist. If the GM decides that huge wolves, tiny rocs and large penguins exist on their world than the druid is free to become those things. If the GM says "there are no huge wolves" then the druid can't become one. Any animal not in a bestiary is technically a custom animal, so the GM would have to determine its stats themselves.

I'm fairly certain PFS limits wildshape to bestiary forms only - it's explicitly listed under the bestiary entries in additional resources.

Fair enough. I guess Druids in PFS cannot have Roc Animal Companions (even though they are in a Paizo printed publication) because Medium and Large Rocs "don't exist".

GM: "Large Rocs don't exist"
Player: "Um, I have one right here next to me"
GM: "Nope, doesn't exist, you are mistaken"
Player: "I've had him since 1st level when he was Medium sized"
GM: "Nope, Medium ones don't exist either"

....

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that PFS has plenty of rules that don't make much sense. Paladins don't make wands, unless they are wands of paladin only spells, in which case they do. Wild shape oddities will just have to get in line with the rest of PFS' oddball rulings.

In a home game, if the GM decides that dire platypi are a thing, then druids should be able to become them. Conversely, the GM could rule that the world has no bears or large cats and then those forms (and ACs) would be banned as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They may have rules that don't make sense, but this is not once of them. The rules actually make sense and are complete.

So I ask myself, "What kind of animals can a druid turn into?" I look at the description for druid and it says:

Quote:
Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type.

I don't see any language limiting the creature to the creatures in the bestiary or limiting the creature to the type that the druid is familiar with (though the latter make sense from a common sense perspective). I would add that a druid should be able to imagine a large size wolf after seeing a medium one.

Next, I ask myself, "What size creature can I be?" I look at the description for druid wildshape and it says,

Quote:
At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day... At 6th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Large or Tiny animal or a Small elemental... At 8th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Huge or Diminutive animal, a Medium elemental, or a Small or Medium plant creature."

So, at least with the Roc example, if a Huge Roc exist (it does) and the druid is familiar with or can imagine a huge Roc (a small hurdle) and the druid is 8th level, then the druid can transform into a Huge Roc.

I agree that this has nothing to do with templates because Wildshape can function without the need for considering templates. You simply add the stat bonuses and abilities gained as outlined by Beast Shape.

I really don't see the problem.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

There are, like many other situations in the rules forum two ways to view this:

RAW - No. You cannot turn into anything that does not have a stat block. They don't exist in Pathfinder except in certain specific cases and those do not apply. Does this make sense, not really but that is the way it works. You can argue semantics all you want but unless you can show a stat block of a creature from a source (animal companions do not count) of the size and without a template you can't use it.

In addition in PFS the rules for wild shape in the additional resources page list only the forms listed in the Bestiaries, nothing else.

HOUSE RULE - In a home game feel free to make the modifications. As far as I am concerned the stat difference between a huge wolf and a dinosaur of the same size are so small that you should be able to make those changes reasonably quickly and apply them to wild shape with little problems. I think one of the mistakes they made with the Animal Shaman was not allowing them to apply templates for wild shape into their specific forms when a form of that size is not already present, similar to the summoning change.

If I was playing a Eagle shaman for example I would allow the presence of huge birds by either scaling up a large bird or scaling down a gargantuan one and decide which fit best with the character/campaign/balance. Do i think an eagle shaman in huge form should have grab? Sure give them a "young" roc.


Look, I am not going to go back and forth on this forever, but I just could not let you get away with the argument that my position is not RAW. My position is RAW.

To make my point as clearly as possible once and for all, here it is. You do not need a bestiary, a template or a stat block to perform wildshape. If there were not bestiary or templates or stat blocks, you could still perform wildshape by the Druid rules.

I want to become a large dog. Okay, you get the bonuses to stats and the size spelled out by wildshape.

I want to become a huge Roc. Okay, you get the stats and size spelled out by wildshape.

Oh, but a huge Roc is a Roc with the young template. No, some huge Rocs are Rocs with the young template. I don't want to be a Roc with the Young template. I just want to be a Huge Roc - not a immature Roc with the young template.

Okay, then you are okay because you are not a Roc with the young template. You are just a Huge Roc without the young template.

Furthermore, when it comes to the Eagle Shaman, even if I took your position on this topic, there is no reason why a person could not view the language in Eagle Shaman as overriding what you feel is the default position on wildshaping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taenia, give it up, Driver has already stated in this thread that he won't even listen to the author (Jason Nelson) regarding the rules on Wild Shape. His position isn't RAW.

The James Jacobs states this, Jason Nelson states this, many posters state this, the rules state this. But, he won't admit it. Every now and then you just have one of these kinds of posters. :)

- Gauss


Driver 325 yards wrote:
You do not need a bestiary, a template or a stat block to perform wildshape. If there were not bestiary or templates or stat blocks, you could still perform wildshape by the Druid rules.

So... you don't give wildshaping druids the natural attacks from the stat blocks in the Bestiary?


Driver 325 yards wrote:
Look, I am not going to go back and forth on this forever, but I just could not let you get away with the argument that my position is not RAW. My position is RAW.

The RAW is "Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type." That's not being disputed. What's being disputed is what counts as "all creatures with the animal type" You argue:

Quote:
Okay, then you are okay because you are not a Roc with the young template. You are just a Huge Roc without the young template.

You argue that you, the player, can (arbitrarily) decide that a statted monster is a different size than what their stats say. That is not RAW; you may not do so. A Roc is a Gargantuan monster. It is not a Huge monster. You, the player, cannot decide to change its size any more than you can decide to change its natural attacks. RAW provides no way to alter this save through templates.

Would you try to apply this to other monster types or situations? Can you, the player, declare that their Gnome character is Medium sized, with no feat, ability, or otherwise? RAW? No. Can you, the player, declare that their Familiar is a Huge viper? No.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Quote:
Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type.
I don't see any language limiting the creature to the creatures in the bestiary

Which is willfully choosing to redefine the meaning of that line, as that line explicitly limits you to creatures in stat blocks of allowed books. In PFS, only B1, B2, and B3 are allowed books for Wild Shape.

Driver 325 yards wrote:
My position is RAW.

Not even a tinie tiny tinsie bit.

Bizbag wrote:
Can you, the player, declare that their Gnome character is Medium sized, with no feat, ability, or otherwise? RAW? No.

He is using what you could "permissive RAW interpretation" which basically means he can do anything the rules don't say he can't do.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh Guys. There is one point I think yer all missing is that animals come in all sizes. Its just that the listed animal in the bestiary is the base animal. Its size can be changed by either adding templates or by progression of HD. In PFS games it is a ruling of the society guidelines that your druid has to work within the lines of what is printed for the size/abilities of any animal. That is a restriction for PFS not pathfinder the RPG game. Just look at the different types of animals in the game. Wolf/Dire wolf. The dire wolf isn't a wolf with the giant template. Its a wolf that has been altered with extra hit dice (enough to cause a size shift) and some changes in it's temperament. If a wolf just had the giant template added to the wolf would be a big wolf with 2d8 hit dice.

In a non-PFS setting you just need to know the basics of the animal (attack types movement and any special qualities that it has) then apply that to the beast shape spell(I, II, or III) guidelines based on what size you want to obtain. In the spell, (at least the book I am reading) doesn't say it has to be exactly as that animal (in the contrary it say it cant be an exact one) hence the +10 to your disguise check to be seen as that animal and not just a halfling turned into a huge tiger.

Hope this tidbit helps y'all settle this discussion.

I alot of druids in both PFS and our group here. And were all ways discussing the application of the rules. Like right now our newest discussio about wildshaping is where you can put your figure after going from large to small size. 3.5 had a ruling but PF as far as we can tell does not have one.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

joesk wrote:
That is a restriction for PFS not pathfinder the RPG game.

Actually, no. The PF rule is that you can't be templates. The only thing that PFS adds is you can only be forms in B1, B2, or B3. Things like Inner Sea World guide are not PFS legal Wild Shape forms.

Your point isn't true, as without a House Rule or GM doing Rule 0 you can't be a Giant Wolf. You can't be a Wolf in Wild Shape without using a Wolf printed in a Bestiary, statblock, or some other non-template changed Wolf.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
joesk wrote:
That is a restriction for PFS not pathfinder the RPG game.

Actually, no. The PF rule is that you can't be templates. The only thing that PFS adds is you can only be forms in B1, B2, or B3. Things like Inner Sea World guide are not PFS legal Wild Shape forms.

Your point isn't true, as without a House Rule or GM doing Rule 0 you can't be a Giant Wolf. You can't be a Wolf in Wild Shape without using a Wolf printed in a Bestiary, statblock, or some other non-template changed Wolf.

Umm do you guys even bother reading the rules that govern how spells are abjucated? Here’s a few quotes strait from the book.

Pg 211 – 212;
“Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature,[meaning you are not exact copy of creature] granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type[form meaning that you take on attributes of its shape and capabilities, like 4 legs, or wings and what not.], granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume. If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing. The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form.

In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.

If a polymorph spell [ this sentence defines that the spell sets the size of your form and how to adjust your stats] causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class, attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell. 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 [again defining the spell to mean you assume a form based on the basic form of the creature] member of that creature’s type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.”

So if you go by these guidelines stated here. When you wild shape into a small wolf or a large wolf you are not assuming the form of a young templated wolf or a Giant template wolf, you are assuming the form of a wolf that is of that size with the appropriate changes to your stats and abilities. There is NO TEMPLATES involved in the process! This is no home rule or GM hand wave, it is how the rules are written.


joesk wrote:
So if you go by these guidelines stated here. When you wild shape into a small wolf or a large wolf you are not assuming the form of a young templated wolf or a Giant template wolf, you are assuming the form of a wolf that is of that size with the appropriate changes to your stats and abilities.

This is the problem line.

your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature’s type.

Generic wolves are medium, not large or small.

Dark Archive

I am sorry your all wrong. 1+1=3.

Nothing you can tell me will convince me otherwise.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

joesk wrote:
small wolf or a large wolf you are not assuming the form of a young templated wolf or a Giant template wolf ... it is how the rules are written.

Your interpretation is absolutely not RAW in any way. I guess you honestly didn't think we had read the Polymorph school rules? Because the rules you quote explicitly say you must be a generic form, which is how it is written in the Bestiary writeup. You can't make it small without a template and you can't use templates.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

How do you attain the stats if not from the books?

Do you make it up?

Do you take the closest and make it fit?

No you use the bestiary because there is no other way that is legal or RAW. Everything else is well I figure it out by using the advancement rules or changing the size, well where is the rule that says thats what you do.

The only rule is to use the generic creature. Where is the generic creature, in the bestiary. So what do you do, you use the form in the bestiary.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

How about an FAQ?

Can you use Wildshape or the Beast Shape spells to turn into larger or smaller versions of an animal, such as a small lion?


Azten wrote:

How about an FAQ?

Can you use Wildshape or the Beast Shape spells to turn into larger or smaller versions of an animal, such as a small lion?

There is already a thread for this.

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

Question: How is an Eagle Shaman Druid supposed to wild shape into a Roc?

The Eagle Shaman archetype for the Druid class references wild shaping into a Roc at 6th level as though they were 8th level. The Druid wild shape ability only allows for Huge size. The Roc is Gargantuan. Wild Shape does not allow for the addition of templates to animals they wild shape into. The only way to get a Huge-sized Roc is for it to have the Young template.

If you want to hit FAQ on anything, please do so there, since it already has 37 such requests.

Liberty's Edge

So you guys are going to just totally ignore the fact that the rules state in plane English that the spell itself determines the size and abilities of the form you take? I can't believe that a vast majority of you can not understand a simple concept as that.

By not applying the rules correctly you are severely restricting an already limited power of a class. Next your going to say you can't be a diminutive mouse cause one doesn't exist in the Bestiary. (A clue is you choose the rat form then size it to diminutive.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

joesk wrote:
I can't believe that a vast majority of you can not understand a simple concept as that.

Do you ever thing you are reading the rules wrong if the vast majority disagree with you?

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
joesk wrote:
I can't believe that a vast majority of you can not understand a simple concept as that.
Do you ever thing you are reading the rules wrong if the vast majority disagree with you?

No!

The vast majority I refer to is that there are 31 respondents on this thread and 18 of them are not understanding the rules as written. So that makes a majority. Just cause those posters have it wrong I am sure most of the PF Gm's and players do correctly understand the rules. So I should have wrote that sentence eluding to the fact that it is the majority of the posters on this thread.


joesk, I'm sorry to inform you that you are misreading the rules for the Pathfinder game. This is known by most who are aware of the history of the Druid class, going back to 3.5e.

In 3.5e, the Druid was very different, mechanically. It did not use it's own physical stats when wild shaped, but instead replaced it's own Str, Dex, and Con with those of the base animal form. In addition to this, the other part of the Druid that was very powerful was it's ability to apply templates (including the young and giant) to their wild shapes. This specifically did allow the Druid to take the form of a huge roc, a huge wolf, a small lion, etc.

One of the goals of Pathfinder was to bring the Druidzilla down to the level of the rest of the classes. (It was called Druidzilla in 3.5e due to it's ability to out perfom all melee except for the Clericzilla, which also received many adjustments to the spells that made the Cleric too powerful in melee.)

Paizo made two primary (and intentional) design changes to the Druid:

1) Eliminate the replacement of stats with animal stats, forcing Druids to distribute their stats differently causing them to choose between being highly effective in melee, highly effective at casting, or some less optimized combination of the two.

2) Do not allow polymorph effects to apply templates (including the wild shape ability) in order to limit the massive quantity of options. The result of that second intentional design change is that druids cannot take the shape of nearly as many forms, including a huge roc, a huge wolf, a small lion, etc.

Even with these changes, most people still consider the Druid to be a solid tier 1 or tier 1.5 class (one of the most effective in the game, maybe behind the wizard and cleric, depending on who you ask). With that in mind, most conversation regarding increasing the allowances if wild shape is pretty much immediately written off due to the history of where the game came from, at least by those who know the history.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

joesk wrote:
are not understanding the rules as written.

According to you, but you are trying to re-write 13 years of "templates are not allowed" tradition.

MechE_ wrote:
In 3.5e, the Druid ... it's ability to apply templates (
3.5 Wild Shape rules wrote:

Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.

Alternate Form wrote:
A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.

So in 3.5 you also couldn't take Templates.


James Risner wrote:
joesk wrote:
are not understanding the rules as written.

According to you, but you are trying to re-write 13 years of "templates are not allowed" tradition.

MechE_ wrote:
In 3.5e, the Druid ... it's ability to apply templates (
3.5 Wild Shape rules wrote:

Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.

Alternate Form wrote:
A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.
So in 3.5 you also couldn't take Templates.

Been wrong once or twice before. Won't be the last time. =) In all honesty though, doesn't the fact that I am wrong actually solidify the "you shouldn't be able to wild shape into a form with a template" argument though?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

MechE_ wrote:
In all honesty though, doesn't the fact that I am wrong actually solidify the "you shouldn't be able to wild shape into a form with a template" argument though?

Yes, but in my mind it was solidified from the start. I've never seen someone assert this "you can take any form" line of thinking in real life. So until these threads, I've never seen a player take this stance.


James Risner wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
In all honesty though, doesn't the fact that I am wrong actually solidify the "you shouldn't be able to wild shape into a form with a template" argument though?
Yes, but in my mind it was solidified from the start. I've never seen someone assert this "you can take any form" line of thinking in real life. So until these threads, I've never seen a player take this stance.

Deja-who? =)

I have to agree, I've always wanted to play a Druid that actually got wild shape (just hit 2nd level with my first PF Druid), so I've read lots of threads and read the polymorph rules at least 5 times now. Also, the issue with the Eagle Shaman and the Roc is an editing issue as stated by the original author who had intended to allow the shaman archetypes to apple the young or giant template to their wild shapes much the same as they can with their summons. Clearly that line would not have been necessary if templates were allowed by wild shape. Hence, they are (very) implicitly not allowed.

Side comments: Yeah, I suppose my DM in 3.5e must have misunderstood the polymorph rules - would explain why he was so paranoid about it. Maybe if he'd known I couldn't take the form of a medium sized cat with 4 natural attacks he'd have actually let me get 5th level, lol. =)

Liberty's Edge

Mache; I don't know what made you believe that I thought you still take the creatures stats as in 3.5. The spell is what determines your stat changes by the size you select for the form you are taking. as such;

From page #247
"Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive
animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –4 penalty to
your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Tiny animal: If the form you take is that of a Tiny animal, you gain
a +4 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –2 penalty to your Strength, and
a +1 natural armor bonus.

Small animal: If the form you take is that of a Small animal, you
gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Medium animal: If the form you take is that of a Medium animal, you
gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength and a +2 natural armor bonus.

Large animal: If the form you take is that of a Large animal, you
gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, a –2 penalty to your Dexterity,
and a +4 natural armor bonus.

Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you
gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a –4 penalty to your Dexterity,
and a +6 natural armor bonus."

As you see the spell determines your size adjustments. NOT a TEMPLATE as most of you seem to be fixated on.

Ask your self this one question. How would a Druid assume the form of a common household mouse? They exist in the pathfinder setting, but they don't have a separate Bestiary listing because they don't need to. Because it is already plainly stated in the polymorph spell rules as to how you do it.

Why give the druid the capability to assume the form of a diminutive animal when there are only like 3 listed in all of the 3 books? Geesh its like talking to a brick wall.

I really don't even know why I am even posting in this thread other then that when I was looking for advice on where to find where it defines, if anywhere, in the rules where you place your figure after you go from a huge or large size to a medium or smaller size. In 3.5 it was defined as that you can place it anywhere you previous size covered. I had a player ask where it says in the rules that you can.
But while seaching for that answer I stumbled onto this thread and was surprised by how many were confused on how the druids wildshape ability works.
So if you could kindly show me where to find the answer to my original search I would gladly move on.


joesk wrote:
Ask your self this one question. How would a Druid assume the form of a common household mouse? They exist in the pathfinder setting, but they don't have a separate Bestiary listing because they don't need to. Because it is already plainly stated in the polymorph spell rules as to how you do it.

This is one of the problems with wild shape - without a stat block, or a permissive GM, you actually CANNOT assume the form of a common houshold mouse. What you aren't understanding is that it is long established that in order to use a polymorph effect to assume any form, the creature must be fully stated out. These full stat blocks can be in the bestiary, or if your GM is nice, you can agree to the full stat blocks (attacks, movements, special qualities that you take) of some extra "common" creatures that you could take. While this is a probably an example of "good" GM fiat, it is still that as the rules do not allow it otherwise.

joesk wrote:
Why give the druid the capability to assume the form of a diminutive animal when there are only like 3 listed in all of the 3 books? Geesh its like talking to a brick wall.

Because there are 3, not 0.

joesk wrote:

I really don't even know why I am even posting in this thread other then that when I was looking for advice on where to find where it defines, if anywhere, in the rules where you place your figure after you go from a huge or large size to a medium or smaller size. In 3.5 it was defined as that you can place it anywhere you previous size covered. I had a player ask where it says in the rules that you can.

But while seaching for that answer I stumbled onto this thread and was surprised by how many were confused on how the druids wildshape ability works.

I think that you let the player pick which squares they expand into or contract from when they change size. That is the way I've always played it.


Noble Knight WBC wrote:
O.K., There is some confusion here...

Boy I'll say.

It starts right about...here:

Noble Knight WBC wrote:
1. The spell Beast shape does NOT explicitly state that you have to use an animal from the bestiary... it just says choose an animal that is X to X in size. By the reading of the spell, you could pick an animal at the zoo and use a tape measure.

It says nothing of the sort. This is what it says:

"When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type"

You can turn into a creature with the animal type.

Hey, guess what, that already proves you (and by extension everyone else) wrong for saying you can turn into stuff that isn't in the Bestiary. Because guess what? If it ain't in the Bestiary, it doesn't have a Type.

And if it doesn't have a Type (specifically, the Animal Type), you can't turn into it.

Case closed. Discussion over. I don't know why it took people so long to state this obvious fact.

While we're at it, let's settle the "Can I turn int a bigger/smaller version of X?" issue as well.

No.

Because you must turn into an extant creature of the Animal Type.

A Wolf is a creature with the Animal Type. A Wolf is a Medium creature.

A Dire Wolf is a creature with the Animal Type. A Dire Wolf is a large creature.

A Huge Wolf is a...well golly gee would you look at that. It's not a creature, and it doesn't have a type. Find me one, if you'd like to prove me wrong.

So if it's not a creature (and therefore doesn't have a type, and definitely doesn't have the Animal Type), you can't turn into it.

There. We're done here too. You can all go home now.


joesk wrote:

Mache; I don't know what made you believe that I thought you still take the creatures stats as in 3.5. The spell is what determines your stat changes by the size you select for the form you are taking. as such;

From page #247
"Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive
animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –4 penalty to
your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Tiny animal: If the form you take is that of a Tiny animal, you gain
a +4 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –2 penalty to your Strength, and
a +1 natural armor bonus.

Small animal: If the form you take is that of a Small animal, you
gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity and a +1 natural armor bonus.

Medium animal: If the form you take is that of a Medium animal, you
gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength and a +2 natural armor bonus.

Large animal: If the form you take is that of a Large animal, you
gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, a –2 penalty to your Dexterity,
and a +4 natural armor bonus.

Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you
gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a –4 penalty to your Dexterity,
and a +6 natural armor bonus."

As you see the spell determines your size adjustments. NOT a TEMPLATE as most of you seem to be fixated on.

Ask your self this one question. How would a Druid assume the form of a common household mouse? They exist in the pathfinder setting, but they don't have a separate Bestiary listing because they don't need to. Because it is already plainly stated in the polymorph spell rules as to how you do it.

Why give the druid the capability to assume the form of a diminutive animal when there are only like 3 listed in all of the 3 books? Geesh its like talking to a brick wall.

Yes the spell determines your size adjustments. According to the animal you chose. If you chose to polymorph into a horse you gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, a –2 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +4 natural armor bonus. Because horses are large.

If you chose to polymorph into a bat, you get a +4 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –2 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus. Because bats are diminutive.

It says nowhere that you can choose the size of the animal. You can only choose an animal of the size.

I will tell you if i find the passage that details positioning after a size change. I'm pretty sure there was something.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

joesk wrote:

How would a Druid assume the form of a common household mouse?

surprised by how many were confused on how the druids wildshape ability works.

They can't as there is no combat effective mouse stat block. Use one of the familiar forms.

I think more people are surprised about your stance.

Rynjin wrote:
Case closed. Discussion over. I don't know why it took people so long to state this obvious fact.

Unless I'm confused it has been stated, they just completely ignore it.

Threeshades wrote:
You can only choose an animal of the size.

I believe you are looking for "generic member of the species" or something similar to that.


James Risner wrote:


Threeshades wrote:
You can only choose an animal of the size.
I believe you are looking for "generic member of the species" or something similar to that.

I wasn't quoting, but yes that would be one piece of evidence for that.


James Risner wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Case closed. Discussion over. I don't know why it took people so long to state this obvious fact.
Unless I'm confused it has been stated, they just completely ignore it.

Oh, I'm sure they have, but all of those posts have been too polite about telling the reader what's up. =p

51 to 100 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A Wild Shape question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.