|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm curious. I'm sure this has been answered somewhere, but I can't find it. How does the Polymorph Any Object spell work as far as Fey/Outsiders/etc. that are not mentioned in that spell, Greater Polymorph, or the description of the Polymorph subschool?
I'll take a link answer or if somebody can point me to where the errata is? I saw one thread in my search that said that it had been answered in errata, but I haven't been able to find an answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fey/Outsiders/etc. are mentioned. They are creatures. Determining whether they are animal, vegetable, or mineral requires knowledge on the player's and the DM's part... exactly like it does for any non-outsider, like a mushroom to a plant. It works like greater polymorph with the changes specified. You can use it to change a willing sapient creature into anything else you want with a duration specified by the description. I'd rule that non-sapient creatures always count as willing. Objects also always work.
Polymorph any object is pretty clear on how it works, honestly. Durations, what it can and cannot make, and what spells it can reproduce are all spelled out.
|
|
I would disagree that Fey/Outsiders/etc. are mentioned at all. To me, it looks like a reasonable interpretation to say it functions the same as Greater Polymorph with the exception that now objects can be made to change and can be the thing the target changes into. Greater Polymorph makes no provision for any of the creature types/subtypes not covered by Polymorph and Greater Polymorph, and Polymorph any Object doesn't exactly change that.
Just taking it a step farther, a deity is a "creature," so I could actually use this to become a deity if it means any creature.
A deity is indeed a creature, but it is not a creature type. That is like saying being able to become a human means you can become exactly like one specific human, such as, say, Nex, down to his spellcasting abilities. That is not how the spell works.
You could certainly look like a deity, though.
Let's look at the spell.
The spell.
"This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. You can use this spell to transform all manner of objects and creatures into new forms- you aren't limited to transforming a living creature into another living form. The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its transmuted state. The duration is determined by using the following guidelines."
We know the guidlines, and they're linked.
Behold, Creature.
The only thing I can find right now that comes close to defining objects is the various rules that govern them (such as damaging them), however I recall that somewhere (and my rules-fu has failed me, here, so I apologize) that anything without ability scores is an object. THAT SAID, I can't actually find that anywhere, right now, so, you know, I can't prove it, though Awaken, Animate Objects (and the Bestiary Entry) suggest that this interpretation is correct by indicating that awakened plants and animated "objects" are now creatures (see the listing of creature types and subtypes).
While you could - rather restrictively - take the words to mean that it can only mimic that spell, the following sentence indicates otherwise:
This spell can also be used to duplicate the effects of baleful polymorph, greater polymorph, flesh to stone, stone to flesh, transmute mud to rock, transmute metal to wood, or transmute rock to mud.
Interestingly, greater polymorph is mentioned here as well. If so it's either redundant information (one, accurate, if eccentrically-pedantic reading) or it's clarifying - as in, "in addition to the affects above, it can imitate these effects, too". The latter interpretation is the one most often intended with such extra statements.
Even with the latter interpretation, some would argue against the inclusion of the allowance of anything beyond those spells, but that just comes down to personal reading of the words, and, at that point, you've got no reason beyond preference to infer otherwise.
|
|
Okay. So a bit of a backward definition, but "Creature" then becomes defined as "anything that has a type and ability scores." I'll concede that point. I'll still break down how I'm reading the English in the first two sentences, though. Everything else is talking about effects and minutiae, not what the spell actually does.
"This spell functions like greater polymorph," - Okay, so we refer to Greater Polymorph to determine function,
"except that it changes one object or creature into another." - Okay, so the exception. Now we can turn objects into creatures and vice versa, but we treat this spell as if Greater Polymorph inluded objects as the list of spell targets and spell results.
"You can use this spell to transform all manner of objects and creatures into new forms" - Okay, so I can transform objects and creatures into new forms, as if they were affected by Greater Polymorph. Possibly indicates that all "creatures" are legit targets, but:
"- you aren't limited to transforming a living creature into another living form." - Clarification of how this spell differs from Greater Polymorph. No longer restricted to the "living to living" rule that applied to all lesser Polymorph spells. This essentially is what the prior statement actually means, to my reading.
That's where I'm coming from, at least. I'm not seeing a blatant call-out that any/all creature types are on the table for PAO.
One of the threads I saw when I went looking for an answer had an "Answered in Errata" tag on it, but I haven't been able to find the relevant errata. Has there been any sort of official ruling on PAO as far as transforming into non-listed creature types? Or are there other threads where it is decisively answered without resorting to 3.5 FAQ?
I've not seen any errata, either. I'd be interested in seeing it, if you find it.
To me, the utilization of the words "except that it changes one object or creature into another" is the notable part.
I can better see where you're coming from, at least, but given the clear definition of creature, I'm not coming to the same conclusion - rather, the words, "to transform all manner of objects and creatures into new forms" really doesn't leave that much room for interpretation to me - but, again, that's taking it from an interpretation, not from RAW or RAI, which is pretty much what you're taking from as well.
My point is only that there is enough room for interpretation within the RAW of the spell. You can certainly come to the conclusion you state, but until there is errata (and I've seen it), it doesn't hold a strong sway to me.
|
I've been hunting for errata on PAO as well, as my PFS wizard just gained it.
The best I can figure out is that it works like this:
1) Can duplicate the effects of greater polymorph, with special rules for duration.
2) Can turn objects into creatures using the same rules, assuming they have a starting stat block of 10/10/10/5/5/5
3) Can duplicate the effects of a half-dozen other spells.
So it seems as if I'll be able to use it to permanently turn my pseudodragon familiar into a medium dragon, but he only gets to breathe fire once, ever.
And my wizard could permanently become a halfling, for a +2 bonus to Dex.
If elementals are considered creatures (it's arguable that they're in the mineral kingdom instead of the animal kingdom), then you can permanently become large air elementals and the like, though it's unclear if you can cast in those forms.