| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR Can a Skinwalker Druid use Wild Shape and Change Shape at the same time in Pathfinder Society?
----
Despite its name, the Skinwalker's Change Shape ability is not the same thing as the standard monster ability. Instead of being a full-body polymorph, it merely adds some animalistic features. Actually, let me just quote:
A skinwalker can change shape to and from a bestial form as a standard action. In bestial form, a skinwalker gains a +2 racial bonus to either Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. While in this form, a skinwalker also takes on an animalistic feature that provides a special effect.
<snip out standard Skinwalker versions of this, because there are a bunch of other options>
These benefits last until the skinwalker returns to her humanoid form as a swift action. A skinwalker must first return to her humanoid form before changing to bestial form again to change benefits. Different skinwalker heritages allow skinwalker characters to select from different sets of bestial features.
----
The Druid's Wild Shape works like Beast Shape, Elemental Body, and Plant Shape, all of which have the polymorph subtype. The definition of this subtype states "You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell." Which means that if the Skinwalker's Change Shape is a polymorph effect (which it doesn't say one way or the other), both would not stack.
So, any ideas? The PFS FAQ does not appear to say anything about skinwalkers or polymorphing. Additional resources does have references to both, but nothing about this particular items.
|
Sure if you reference the entirely wrong ability it says it is a polymorph effect.
This isn't even close to:
This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature’s description.
change shape (wolf, beast shape I)
It also doesn't contain the polymorph descriptor like Lycanthropes:
SQ change shape (human, hybrid, and dire rat; polymorph)
SQ change shape
The skinwalker change shape is entirely its own ability and isn't a reference to the change shape universal monster ability.
It says under shape change ability it is a polymorph effect. With that in mind, would say no.
Yes, it does. But, as I said in the initial post, despite the fact that it is the same name, it's NOT the same ability.
The change shape monster ability is defined as: A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities.
In short, it's a full-body change.
The change shape *skinwalker* ability is defined above. It is NOT listed as a polymorph ability. This is the primary source of my confusion. About the only niggle I can really see is the part that reads "A skinwalker must first return to her humanoid form before changing to bestial form again to change benefits." Of course, that's easy to get around -- just take 'bestial' form before wild shaping.
As near as I can tell, you CAN stack the skinwalker's change shape and the druid's wild shape. But I'm looking for some kind of "official" word on the matter so I can decide on whether I want to go this way with my next character. And, for official word, well, this is the best way for me to get it, as far as I know.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jeff, with respect, "expect table variation" can mean either (a) the rules are unclear, and the table GM needs to make a call; different folks may justly decide different ways; or else it means (b) the rules are clear, once unpacked, but obscure; some GMs just aren't up on that; expect some table GMs to make wrong rulings from ignorance.
It seems to me that, in this case, we have an example of the second situation. The rules seem clear that the two abilities can be combined. the confusion comes from misunderstanding which identically-named ability we're referencing.
|
|
What is clear to me is a race has shape change. You look at the rules for that. It gives you the basics of the rule. It also tells us to look at each race for any additional information. The confusion arises when you want to take out the main rule. Skinwalkers have a special abilty called shape change. And like all races that do, or most cause on phone so not looking them all up, they have further limiting factors. This is how I read the rules for this. I maybe wrong, but is how will rule it till see it differant.
here's the ability straight from the book, doesn't mention anything about polymorph effects, usually it would.
Change Shape (Su, 5 RP): A skinwalker can change shape to and from a bestial form as a standard action. In bestial form, a skinwalker gains a +2 racial bonus to either Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. While in this form, a skinwalker also takes on an animalistic feature that provides a special effect. Each time a skinwalker assumes bestial form, she can choose to gain one of the following features:
2 claw attacks that each deal 1d4 points of damage
Darkvision to a range of 60 feet.
+1 racial bonus to natural armor.
These benefits last until the skinwalker returns to her humanoid form as a swift action. A skinwalker must first return to her humanoid form before changing to bestial form again to change benefits. Different skinwalker heritages allow skinwalker characters to select from different sets of bestial features.
So the real question here is:
Is the Skinwalker's Change Shape ability a polymorph affect like other Change Shape abilities in the game?
I don't think we have an official answer. Personally, I'm inclined to say yes because it seems silly to me that it wouldn't be. Yes, the way it's currently written doesn't mention it, but that seems like an omission to me, not an intentional change.
The only proper way to resolve this will be to get it FAQ'd.
|
|
Jeff, with respect, "expect table variation" can mean either (a) the rules are unclear, and the table GM needs to make a call; different folks may justly decide different ways; or else it means (b) the rules are clear, once unpacked, but obscure; some GMs just aren't up on that; expect some table GMs to make wrong rulings from ignorance.
It seems to me that, in this case, we have an example of the second situation. The rules seem clear that the two abilities can be combined. the confusion comes from misunderstanding which identically-named ability we're referencing.
"expect table variation" and also be translated to, "choose the worse option and be always right" because if you choose that you can't change shape while your shape is changed then no GM is going to complain or stop you. And then if they allow it you can be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
Yeah I get a little tired of the table variation cop-out. GMs aren't empowered to contradict Pathfinder RPG rules. You can't just 'feel' it should be a polymorph when it isn't.
Sure you are. Many here, and I, understand the rules to say that this doesn't work. A GM in PFS IS empowered to make rulings for their table according to their understanding of the rules. And unless you have PFS leadership or a FAQ that explicitly allows it, the GM is okay to say that's not how it works IF they feel that's not how it works.
The rules are pretty much internally consistent. When mauler was made they didn't realize the confusion it caused by not clearly saying "this is polymorph" when it was meant and WAS a polymorph. Same here, just because someone "forgot" (or didn't have the word count) to specifically say it's a polymorph doesn't magically make it be the only thing that works differently in the entire game that doesn't call out it's an exception and was intended to be an exception.
So sure, dislike the "cop-out". But in PFS they are allowed to do it. People often only give that answer when it is unclear enough that you should be able to "force" someone to accept your view and there are 2 or more views with people supporting them.
|
|
No it really isn't reasonable to assume it does something it doesn't say it does. That would be rediculous making up rules text out of thin air. Almost as rediculous as listing every effect type it isn't. I already know it isn't a calling, creation, healing, summoning, teleportation, compulsion because it didn't say it was.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it is called "change shape".
We have rules for things called "change shape".
Ergo, it is not unreasonable to assume that the two function similarly, if not the same.
You can certainly rule differently. GMs in PFS have that ability.
I won't even point out the "cop out" hypocrisy.
|
|
If you build your character with a more conservative mindset, you'll be fine. Then when a GM rules with a more liberal viewpoint, it'll be a bonus.
But if you start with a more liberal mindset, you're going to feel like you've had something taken away. This contributes to the outrage at some FAQs, as well.
|
|
The thing is, effects don’t necessarily call out all of their keywords, iirc. For example, a red dragon’s fire breath is a fire effect. It doesn’t say that it is, they don’t code the abilities nicely with keywords after the name like they (more often) do with Ex, Su, Sp... and it certainly would help if they did mechanics-wise. But that consistency of format just isn’t there. As such, cases that don’t explicitly say one way or another can be ambiguous. This is, unfortunately, one of them I believe. In a home game, you can ask your GM how they will run things. In PFS, if it doesn’t come from leadership or FAQ, we don’t get that option and instead get table variation. I’ve lost far too many concepts to avoiding such things, unfortunately.
It is not a fire effect. It doesn't have the fire descriptor because it isn't a spell or spell-like ability.
It DOES deal fire energy damage. While Fire descriptor spells often deal fire damage they are seperate game mechanics.
Special Attacks breath weapon (50-ft. cone, DC 22, 10d10 fire)