Question about the feat "Bat Shape" in "Blood of the moon"

[Notabrick]

This feat allows the character to change into a bat as per Beast Shape II. Bats are normally diminutive and have echolocation (blindsense). Unfortunately, that does not allow anything smaller than tiny nor does it allow blindsense.

Was this intentional, or was it meant to be as per Beast Shape III (which does allow both diminutive creatures and blindsenese)?

[Davick]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM who wouldn't agree to that.

[James Risner]

Davick wrote:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM who wouldn't agree to that.

I think with the precedent set by the Eagle Shaman Wild Shape, the intended interpretation is for the PC/NPC to get Bat Shape using Beast Shape II into a Small or Medium Bat with Beast Shape II effects.

[Davick]

James Risner wrote:

Davick wrote:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM who wouldn't agree to that.

I think with the precedent set by the Eagle Shaman Wild Shape, the intended interpretation is for the PC/NPC to get Bat Shape using Beast Shape II into a Small or Medium Bat with Beast Shape II effects.

Which is exactly what the Design Team said they didn't want people to do with that ruling.

[James Risner]

Davick wrote:

Which is exactly what the Design Team said they didn't want people to do with that ruling.

They didn't want people to take the exception from Eagle Shaman and extend it to other cases. So in this thread, to extend the Eagle Shaman ruling to switch from Beast Shape II to Beast Shape III to make this make sense would be wrong.

[Davick]

James Risner wrote:

Davick wrote:

Which is exactly what the Design Team said they didn't want people to do with that ruling.

They didn't want people to take the exception from Eagle Shaman and extend it to other cases. So in this thread, to extend the Eagle Shaman ruling to switch from Beast Shape II to Beast Shape III to make this make sense would be wrong.

So neither application would be "correct". But I still think you'd have a hard time finding a GM who would be adamant against giving a bat echolocation.

(Even though a significant part of the bat family does not in fact use echolocation.)

[Notabrick]

I am aware that a variety of bats exist and that many don't have echolocation, however to my knowledge only "bat" and "bat,dire" exist in the pathfinder rules.

[jakebacon]

Sorry for the thread necro, but I'm curious if there's an answer to this. Does Bat Shape make you a tiny bat without echolocation?

[Ambrus]

Is there some consensus on this issue? I'd like to roll up a bat-kin character with the feat and would like to know whether I should stat him up Asa tiny or diminutive bat.

[Carcharoth]

Unfortunately there's been no ruling that I'm aware of. Several possible resolutions were discussed in another thread that I made as well, but ultimately it's something you'll have to work out with your DM.

[Ravingdork]

I'm curious about this as well. *FAQ'd*

[Jeff Morse]

would be nice to know as well. In PFS, they went with flying fox.
i wanted to take arcanist with this and use exploit to cast spells like wildshape. not sure it works though.

[Ravingdork]

Flying fox?

[Jeff Morse]

beasty 5. flying fox is a bat. cool pics i found

[Saethori]

Flying fox. Which, contrary to its name, is a type of bat, not a winged fox. I am disappointed.

But yes, for PFS, you are supposed to turn into a Small size Flying Fox.