What happens if I polymorph into an animal, then am awakened?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
There's your problem. In pathfinder everything actually has to be written out, its a permissive rule set.

It IS written. It's just not individually and redundantly bulletpointed with every detail that was already necessarily implied with the overall rule.

Quote:
There is a rule that says characters can run, so all characters by default can then run.

Sorry but this contradicts your statements above. You just right here took an umbrella rule that DOESN'T individually, redundantly bullet point every example, and yet you accepted each of those un-explicitly-stated examples as RAW.

Yet you refuse to do so in the case of "changing into a creature" being an umbrella rule that doesn't individually, redundantly bullet point every aspect of a creature.

Which is it? Make up your mind. Does RAW require individual listing of every possible example even when already logically necessitated by a broader rule? Or not?

Quote:
Let me help you out Crimeo.
Yes that is RAI, which I agreed to. Talking only about RAW now.

When people come here asking about the rules they tend to be asking "how is this supposed to be run in an actual game" aka "RAI".

If you only want "the most literal interpretation" aka "I don't care about intent" then you need to clarify that up front so that everyone is on the same page.

As for RAW, it is also open to interpretation, but at least by saying "I am not asking about intent", people will know where you stand.

PS: I am not saying it is wrong to ask for only the most literal(as if a computer were reading it) interpretation of a rule. I am just saying that is not the norm for as long as I have been here.


I'm asking as to whether there is any reason in the written (not intended) rules why you would not gain the type. I care about knowing both RAI and RAW, as usual. RAI, as suggested, I think is clear by this point and everyone agrees.

Primarily, RAI helps me know when to be on the lookout for other related rules and to know when to expect other problems that would be predicted to arise based on those intentions.

Whereas RAW is what I actually try to play with whenever feasible (sometimes it is sometimes it isn't), because my players have available RAW in easily referenced places for puzzle solving, it's what's at hand at the table, and none of them even probably know about forums, much less care enough to find it fun to search them.

Thus, RAW is the golden common language we have so I go with it whenever it wouldn't break things, while RAI is just a personal heads up for me to be a step ahead of players in seeing the web of connections ahead of time.

House rules also a last resort, but they can cheapen things by short-circuiting potential rewarding puzzle solving.


DinosaursOnIce wrote:

Crimeo...

I'm confused, what exactly you are arguing for at this point?

The RAI of the matter has already been established, no you don't gain the type, so what is it exactly that you are asking/arguing at this point?

Good question

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are not even willing to consider that it could be read differently?


More specifically, the situation that made me ask this is that in my campaign, there is a set of situations where it acutely matters whether you are an animal, a magical beast, or [anything else]. All sorts of contingencies and spells with rules and so forth are based on this in the setting.

One of the critical NPCs would really like to be able to turn another human into an animal temporarily, and then place a contingency on them to turn them into a magical beast, since they will be out of reach of his magic after the animal phase of the plan. Ideally long term but not forever.

A second polymorph any is too high level to contingency, but awaken would work (he's a spell sage, he has both)... however it then matters a lot whether he would revert back to human later on when the polymorph any object eventually wears off in a week.

The players know the written rules for polymorphing, and these various spells, and their reactions and countermeasures and so forth depend on this, and none of them would find it fun or satisfying to have the tactics all rendered moot by a surprise house rule or unknown obscure developer forum comment, so if there's a way to rule it purely by RAW, that is ideal. If not, oh well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The RAW is the matter is quite simple: You get exactly what the spell says you get.

Polymorph wrote:
If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal, the spell functions as beast shape II. If the form is that of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body I. If the form is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self. The subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends the spell for that subject.

Okay, let's check Beast Shape II.

Beast Shape II wrote:

This spell functions as beast shape I, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Tiny or Large creature of the animal type. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: climb 60 feet, fly 60 feet (good maneuverability), swim 60 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, grab, pounce, and trip.

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.

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.

(I could refer to BS I, but that says basically the exact same things.)

No types mentioned in there, save to specify the limitations of the spell (animals only!). You get exactly what it says.

So let's see what the Polymorph subschool does. It starts listing what you gain in addition to the ordinary spells here:

Polymorph wrote:

Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type, 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.

[It then goes into describing the limitations of these forms.]

Mmnope. The closest we get is "the form of a creature of a specific type"", which is clearly just saying you take the shape of a creature that must be within the types the spell allows. Type is only mentioned there as a clarification of standard limitations.

Nothing here says, for instance, "You gain the creature type of the monster chosen." That's a very important detail. I can't stress that enough—that is huge. If they wanted you to have that, they probably would have left in the 3.5 rule that explicitly said you got it.

Was that loud enough? I put it in bolds for emphasis. They deliberately removed the only explicit reference to typechanging. Don't you think they did that for a reason?

Nothing in here says you change types. Spells don't do more than they say they do—that's why Enlarge Person can't be used to burst your belly via bowling ball. :P

RAW is very clear here. You get exactly what the spell says.


But I'm using "Polymorph any object" as my spell. And it does say "This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that [i.e. overriding rules incoming:] it changes one object or creature into another." Straight up changes you INTO that creature, full on, period.

It doesn't matter if the general transmutation rules say that or not, because this 8th level spell DOES grant you that it changes you INTO another creature. If you didn't get it in general for just any polymorph spell, you do now for THIS one at least, since specific > general.

And "changing into another creature" directly implies that type (along with everything else) about the creature transfers, unless and until told otherwise. Nothing in "polymorph any object" tells me otherwise, and anything in any broader rule has already been overriden by the more specific spell text, so I should gain the type.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The exception being the "object or creature" part.


Er, we're working with implications now? That's literally what Rules As Intended is all about. Especially since you're quoting what basically amounts to flavor text (it's just underlining what the differences are—the differences are already shown in the spell stats list). You're getting an aaaawful lot from a single very vague line implication. What else does it do? Can I use Polymorph Any Object to gain the spell-like abilities of anything I turn into? By your "implications", I can—it grants me literally everything that creature has!

If this spell was really intended to give me spell-like abilities, new ability scores, a new type, new subtypes, every single (Su) or (Ex) ability the monster has and my very own goblin dogslicer, I think they'd have been much clearer about that than one very short ambiguous line at the start.

If you want to talk implications, fine, but that's RAI, and we already settled what the RAI is pretty soundly. :P


Quote:
The exception being the "object or creature" part.

If you are of the opinion that ALL polymorph spells change you entirely into other creatures, then yes, "now expanding it to objects too" would be the exception.

However, if you are arguing that, then you're basically saying it already told me more generally that I turn into a creature, so it already implied more generally that I gain the type.......

OR if you are of the opinion that polymorph spells as a rule DON'T change you entirely into other creatures, then in that case, the exception here is clearly that it now does so AND that objects are added to the menu.

Quote:
Er, we're working with implications now?

Again, if you refuse to include basic implications as "RAW", then you're arguing that "Giraffes can run" is not RAW, and "clerics are proficient with clubs" is not RAW, and "Dazing spell can be applied to magic missile" is not RAW, etc., since it never says any of those, only implies them.

If that's the semantics you want to use then fine, that's just not how I've ever heard anybody use "RAW" But sure, use a different phrase like "Rules as Deduced" if you want for all that stuff. Either way, that's what I need to know for my campaign: everything written or directly implied by what is written, whatever you wish to label that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo,

Not once have you shown a rule that states when you are polymorphed into a creature you gain that creature's type. Not once.

What you have shown, repeatedly, is text that can be interpreted to say that you turn into a creature. But that is NOT THE SAME as text that states you gain the creature type.

Show a rule, in black and white, that says anything remotely close to 'you gain the creature's type'.

You cannot call supposition, assumptions, and interpretations to be "RAW".


Quote:
What you have shown, repeatedly, is text that can be possibly interpreted

No, it MUST be, by unambiguous English, unless there is some special definition in the book of "changes into"

Things that MUST be inferred from writing but are not actually written, are the vast majority of the time referred to as RAW on this forum. Such as giraffes running and clerics being proficient with clubs. So I used that as the most directly likely to be understood word.

If you're going to insist on a weird special usage of the term or claim that all along, giraffes running has never in the community been "RAW" or... whatever, I don't care, sure, fine. I just want an answer to my question, and I would like it to include BOTH written words and obvious, direct implications of them, please, and nothing else. Call that set of stipulations whatever you want.


Again, if we assume that that one little sentence means I get Type, what else do we assume I get? This "obvious deduction" of yours seems really rather open-ended. Do I get spell-like abilities? New ability scores? Alignment? I apparently get everything the original creature had.

Seems a bit much for one tiny vague sentence, but I guess it's just...obvious?


Quote:
Do I get spell-like abilities? New ability scores? Alignment? I apparently get everything the original creature had.

Yes, I think that is the unavoidable plain English meaning of "You change into another creature." If no other caveats are listed.

An exception for "alignment" since there is internal inconsistency in alignment for creature types, in particular (such as player character rules for goblins say "no alignment restrictions" but the goblin bestiary entry says evil, for example)


Or...and I know this sounds crazy, but bear with me here...you're reading too much into flavor text that's just saying "It's just like these spells, except you can do objects too."

Polymorph Any Object wrote:
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.

It even says "forms" on the next sentence. Twice.


Quote:
Or...you're reading too much into flavor text that's just saying "It's just like these spells, except you can do objects too."

The original spells its referencing ALSO say that though...

It tells you to refer to greater polymorph, which in turn tells you to refer to polymorph, which in turn says

Quote:
This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing

Same thing, you turn into another creature, full on.

Quote:
It even says "forms" on the next sentence. Twice.

Yes, and the creature's form is certainly one of the things you would get when you turn into another creature. So those sentences are entirely true.

(Regardless of whatever exactly they MEAN by "form" which isn't clear, but must be true no matter what it is... could mean "everything about it" in a Platonic sense. Could mean "shape" or whatever, you get any all of the above, so regardless.)


This is not compicated. When a Kitsune changes into a fox, they don't stop being Kitsune. They're just Kitsune that look like a fox for a while.


Polymorph wrote:
This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing;

Interesting. What does this mean? Is this all we have to go on?

Polymorph's Rules wrote:
If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal, the spell functions as beast shape II. If the form is that of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body I. If the form is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self. The subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends the spell for that subject.

Oh, okay. So those are the actual rules, and that flavor text is just for...flavor?

If your point here is "Sometimes flavor text can be deliberately read to, via 'strong implication', contradict established rules", then sure. I don't think any of us will argue that. Because it's flavor text. It's not supposed to be rules at all. :)


Doomed Hero wrote:
This is not compicated. When a Kitsune changes into a fox, they don't stop being Kitsune. They're just Kitsune that look like a fox for a while.

That's a whole different line of spells. Kitsune's feat ability relies on beast shape. Beast shape, unlike the polymorph line of spells, does NOT unambiguously say "You change into X creature." it uses the vague term "form" exclusively without going further than that.

Which still may also just mean the same thing depending how you interpret "form" but doesn't have to, unlike the polymorph spells which make much clearer statements.


Crimeo, are you going to continue to ignore my request?

Here it is again in case you missed it:
Show a rule, in black and white, that says anything remotely close to 'you gain the creature's type'.

Until you do that you are making an assumption that turning into a creature grants the creature's type. That assumption is not RAW and you cannot call it RAW. You can call it your interpretation of course, but you cannot call it RAW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Actually, no. Beastshape is a Polymorph spell.

You can't quote the Polymorph subschool rules, then say it only applies to spells with Polymorph in the title, and not spells of the Polymorph subschool.


Quote:
Oh, okay. So those are the actual rules, and that flavor text is just for...flavor?

No, it already said you changed into that creature. That's rules text. Where are you getting this arbitrary distinction of "flavor vs. not flavor" from? Neither is in italics at the top or anything. They're all equally important.

The following clauses after that refer to various forms and then links you to beast shape, which does nothing but give you stuff, doesn't mention taking anything away, other than a restriction on options of animals. So that's really relevant to this other than WHICH animals you can choose.

The first sentence gave you a lot of things. The next sentences give you some stuff you already had (not that weird, because that text is originally there for beast shape, not polymorph, cant expect it to flow perfectly when being co-opted), and then limits your choices of which animals.


Quote:


Crimeo, are you going to continue to ignore my request?

Here it is again in case you missed it:
Show a rule, in black and white, that says anything remotely close to 'you gain the creature's type'.

I'll get on that right after you either show me in black wand white "Giraffes can take run actions", admit that direct implications even if not in black and white are still RAW, OR claim that giraffes running is not RAW.

Quote:
You can't quote the Polymorph subschool rules, then say it only applies to spells with Polymorph in the title, and not spells of the Polymorph subschool.

The school rules always apply to all of them, but are more general than any one spell's rules. If a spell says something that contradicts them the spell wins, because specific > general.

Polymorph says you actually change into the animal. If that conflicts with any school rules, then the relevant school rules lose.

Quote:
Evidently this is the Official Flavor Classification System

It is... For feats at least. That's the only place I've ever seen stuff that is obviously set aside as "flavor" in an objective sort of way. (edit: just checked my hardcopy, it's just in another formatted section, not italic literally like on the SRD, sorry if that was confusing as a result)


Crimeo wrote:
I'll get on that right after you either show me in black wand white "Giraffes can take run actions", admit that direct implications even if not in black and white are still RAW, OR claim that giraffes running is not RAW.

Please find us an actual instance of something like this in the rules. It's become a catchphrase for you and is in reality meaningless. If you're worried that Pathfinder giraffes can't run, make a thread for that. But as they explicitly count as creatures, and creatures can explicitly run, they can run. That's not implied, it's fact.

As-is, you are very determined to ignore the obvious in favor of your incredibly vague reading of a minor sentence. So let me ask you this:

Your logic works as follows—"If we don't assume that my reading of an implication is true, we must therefore not assume giraffes can run." This ignores, of course, the fact that giraffes have always been intended to run by simple linear logic and you have repeatedly admitted that your reading of an implication is an "accident".

Giraffes don't work as a comparison. Find a real comparison, in actual rules.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, a Paladin can't Smite a Succubus in Human Form?


Quote:
But as they explicitly count as creatures, and creatures can explicitly run, they can run. That's not implied, it's fact.

Oh I fully agree. Because I realize that things which derive from clear, unambiguous deductions from written rules are facts, and should be considered just as official as things that are directly printed "in black and white."

It's just that Gauss, for some reason I don't quite understand, disagrees, and seems to think that only things printed "in black and white" are official, and not anything that isn't even if it directly derives from things that are. That's only really aimed at him. (Or anybody else putting all their weight on an argument of "well if it doesn't literally spell that out worrrrrd for word, then not official!")

Quote:
This ignores, of course, the fact that giraffes have always been intended to run by simple linear logic and you have repeatedly admitted that your reading of an implication is an "accident".

Intentions don't change what's actually written for people with no interest in or access to any meta-information about intentions... Again, I agree about rules as intended, but my players don't give a damn about that and don't have any time or interest in looking up developer commentary in years old threads. So me citing developer commentary would be no different than any other deus ex machina house rule out of nowhere and would ruin the magical chess game of the situation.

I would like to therefore focus only on what is actually written, and the writing reveals nothing about "what the original intentions were" or which things are "accidents" or not.

Whats actually written simply shows a clear linear logical path for giraffes running, AND a clear, linear, logical path for polymorph granting a bunch of stuff including type.


Crimeo wrote:

I'm asking as to whether there is any reason in the written (not intended) rules why you would not gain the type. I care about knowing both RAI and RAW, as usual. RAI, as suggested, I think is clear by this point and everyone agrees.

Primarily, RAI helps me know when to be on the lookout for other related rules and to know when to expect other problems that would be predicted to arise based on those intentions.

Whereas RAW is what I actually try to play with whenever feasible (sometimes it is sometimes it isn't), because my players have available RAW in easily referenced places for puzzle solving, it's what's at hand at the table, and none of them even probably know about forums, much less care enough to find it fun to search them.

Thus, RAW is the golden common language we have so I go with it whenever it wouldn't break things, while RAI is just a personal heads up for me to be a step ahead of players in seeing the web of connections ahead of time.

House rules also a last resort, but they can cheapen things by short-circuiting potential rewarding puzzle solving.

There is "type" as in the same thing with regard to normal english language, and there is "type" with regard to "creature type" which is a game term.

The polymorph section is referring to type as in sameness, not "creature type" which grants specific qualities, and actually defines what you are.

Appearance and form come up a lot, but it never says "your creature type changes".


Crimeo, the general rules state that creatures can take run actions. It does not require any "implication" to make the statement that creatures can take run actions since it is stated in the rules that they can.

However, there is NOTHING that states in the rules that you can become another creature type. This is not a matter of implication, it is a matter of rules.

If you want to say that you believe it is implied that you can become another creature type then you can say that. What you CANNOT say is that it is RAW because nowhere, in any book, does it state that you can become another creature type by using a polymorph spell.

You are ignoring several lines of rules to come up with your "implication". Until you can admit that your "implication" is not in RAW there is really nothing to discuss.


Quote:
Crimeo, the general rules state that creatures can take run actions. It does not require any "implication" to make the statement that creatures can take run actions

This is correct. It doesn't require any inference or deduction to know that CREATURES can: it is just directly stated. It does require an inference to know that GIRAFFES can. It requires a syllogism, specifically, which is an instance of deductive leap. The conclusion you want is never written "in black and white" it is only implied by two or more other things that are.

So if you accept that deductively derived conclusions are still RAW, then you no longer have any valid argument against inheriting creature type based on the basis that "It isn't spelled out in black and white" No. it's not, but it DOES derive deductively from things that are (turning into a creature, which deductively and necessarily involves by default gaining all of that creature's features), and you seem to be agreeing that that's enough to be RAW.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
But as they explicitly count as creatures, and creatures can explicitly run, they can run. That's not implied, it's fact.

Oh I fully agree. Because I realize that things which derive from clear, unambiguous deductions from written rules are facts, and should be considered just as official as things that are directly printed "in black and white."

It's just that Gauss, for some reason I don't quite understand, disagrees, and seems to think that only things printed "in black and white" are official, and not anything that isn't even if it directly derives from things that are. That's only really aimed at him. (Or anybody else putting all their weight on an argument of "well if it doesn't literally spell that out worrrrrd for word, then not official!")

Quote:
This ignores, of course, the fact that giraffes have always been intended to run by simple linear logic and you have repeatedly admitted that your reading of an implication is an "accident".

Intentions don't change what's actually written for people with no interest in or access to any meta-information about intentions... Again, I agree about rules as intended, but my players don't give a damn about that and don't have any time or interest in looking up developer commentary in years old threads. So me citing developer commentary would be no different than any other deus ex machina house rule out of nowhere and would ruin the magical chess game of the situation.

I would like to therefore focus only on what is actually written, and the writing reveals nothing about "what the original intentions were" or which things are "accidents" or not.

Whats actually written simply shows a clear linear logical path for giraffes running, AND a clear, linear, logical path for polymorph granting a bunch of stuff including type.

Please do not misrepresent my stance. My stance is that you keep stating things NOT WRITTEN ARE WRITTEN (RAW).

You keep stating that since you can turn into a creature then you become the creature type and THEN you state that the creature type is RAW.
It is that last statement that I am asking you to prove. Please prove it. If you cannot, stop calling it RAW. Call it RAI, call it reasonable inference, but don't call it RAW because it isn't written anywhere.

It is you that is trying to put "official weight" on a statement which does not exist.

Edit: Deductively derived conclusions are not RAW, they are INTERPRETATION. Learn what things actually are.
RAW is a quote, interpretation is what that quote means to YOU.
Consensus is when a majority of people interpret things the same way. You are not in the majority.


Quote:
Please do not misrepresent my stance. My stance is that you keep stating things NOT WRITTEN ARE WRITTEN (RAW).

Okay, thank you. So giraffes running is NOT RAW then, by this very clear stance.

I apologize for any confusion. I was using the term the way that 95% of the other people on the forum use it to indeed include things that aren't literally written but are directly implied.

I fully acknowledge though that that is not directly in line with the term "as written", and so, as I've mentioned multiple times previously, if you'd prefer to use a different term for all of those things for clarity, such as "RAD: Rules ad deduced" then I'm perfectly cool with that. So long as it is applied consistently, and we all agree that being able to power attack with a handaxe is "not RAW, but is RAD" etc. etc. as well.

As for "official weight" though, there should be just as much on this RAD rule as there are on any of those other directly deduced rules, which almost everybody agrees are completely and clearly official, whether "RAW" or "RAD" labels apply.


Except people are not deducing the same things you are so clearly your deductions are in some way flawed.

When the majority arrives at a different conclusion (deduction, whatever) from you you may want to look at why. The error is almost certainly yours.

At this point you are clearly starting with a conclusion and trying to justify that conclusion. Why? I don't know, but you clearly did not come here looking for an answer. You already had your answer.

House rule it any way you like.

In any case, as others have pointed out, further discussion with you is pointless. Your basic question has been asked, answered, debated, and you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. The Devs intent is clearly stated. The rules showing you to be wrong have been clearly stated.


Quote:
Except people are not deducing the same things you are so clearly your deductions are in some way flawed.

Okay, this is getting somewhere.

What else do you deduce as the meaning of "That chair over there just changed into a squirrel?" Precisely speaking, what else does that mean that you are proposing? Is it implied that it can eat nuts now? Is it implied that it's made out of meat vs. metal? Is it implied that it has a circulatory system? Which things are vs. are not implied?

My answer is "everything about squirrels is implied, and everything not about squirrels is no longer implied." Nobody as far as I can see has actually given a serious alternative answer to that, though. Only "oh they must not have actually MEANT that sentence / you're supposed to ignore it for some reason" Perhaps if you spell out what the other mainstream interpretation is, it will clarify.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you're going to twist "RAW" as hard as you can for your games then do so. The other people here obviously don't agree with your point of view and show no signs of that changing anytime soon. Because of this, I'm not really sure what the purpose of arguing the point is apart from some sort of exercise to gain everyone's' approval of your intentions.


Jack of Dust wrote:
If you're going to twist "RAW" as hard as you can for your games then do so. The other people here obviously don't agree with your point of view and show no signs of that changing anytime soon. Because of this, I'm not really sure what the purpose of arguing the point is apart from some sort of exercise to gain everyone's' approval of your intentions.

Because the internet.... They can prove themselves right no matter how horribly wrong they are, and we can't do anything to change it. By having the last word they "win" so as long as anyone will challenge that, they will continue to argue.


Quote:
If you're going to twist "RAW" as hard as you can for your games then do so. The other people here obviously don't agree with your point of view and show no signs of that changing anytime soon.

Written logic is not a popularity contest. No offense at all intended, but I simply don't care if "a lot of people think X" if none of them explain WHY. The questions in my above post are attempting to obtain that information. If that's not what you're into, then don't read the thread. But it's a pretty straightforward rules question.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what the purpose of arguing the point apart from some sort of exercise to gain everyones' approval of your intentions.

The purpose, as already stated, is that my players use RAW(/"RAD", Gauss) as reference at the game table, have no no reasonable access to or interest in obscure developer intentions comments in a dusty corner of an internet forum in-game, and thus I would like to see if there are any loopholes in RAW(/"RAD") ONLY that make this plan not work. Because everyone at our table has more fun if we can run with rules as they stand, to allow the best "chess game" between NPCs and PCs. They serve as a known, common playing field.

So I need specific, logical reasons for a conclusion, not votes or "just ignore this text they didn't really mean it"

If nobody cares about that, then okay, I'll wing the rest of it myself. Discussion already has been helpful, pointing out several twists and turns I didn't think of. Thank you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
If you're going to twist "RAW" as hard as you can for your games then do so. The other people here obviously don't agree with your point of view and show no signs of that changing anytime soon.

Written logic is not a popularity contest. No offense at all intended, but I simply don't care if "a lot of people think X" if none of them explain WHY. The questions in my above post are attempting to obtain that information. If that's not what you're into, then don't read the thread. But it's a pretty straightforward rules question.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what the purpose of arguing the point apart from some sort of exercise to gain everyones' approval of your intentions.

The purpose, as already stated, is that my players use RAW(/"RAD", Gauss) as reference at the game table, have no no reasonable access to or interest in obscure developer intentions comments in a dusty corner of an internet forum in-game, and thus I would like to see if there are any loopholes in RAW(/"RAD") ONLY that make this plan not work. Because everyone at our table has more fun if we can run with rules as they stand, to allow the best "chess game" between NPCs and PCs. They serve as a known, common playing field.

So I need specific, logical reasons for a conclusion, not votes or "just ignore this text they didn't really mean it"

If nobody cares about that, then okay, I'll wing the rest of it myself. Discussion already has been helpful, pointing out several twists and turns I didn't think of. Thank you.

Then just ask "Assuming the rules made it so that polymorph spells changed your type, how would the awaken spell affect it?". You don't need to repeat the same points over and over or even make others agree with you. If you just ask and clarify the given scenario, then people will answer a lot quicker and less time will be wasted on both sides. To clarify, none of this is meant to come off as hostile.


Crimeo wrote:
What else do you deduce as the meaning of "That chair over there just changed into a squirrel?"

If I heard someone say that, I'd probably assume they were insane.

If not? I have no real frame of reference for that. Maybe it changed into the shape of a squirrel, but still lifeless and inert. Maybe it became an animate squirrel, but made of wood. Maybe it became a squirrel that never moves because it has the mind of a chair. Or a squirrel who remembers being a chair. Maybe it became a true squirrel, believing itself to have always been a squirrel.

The polymorph rules, I think we can all acknowledge, are fairly hard to follow. (For a Druid player to figure out how Wild Shape works, he has to look up Beast Shape, then the general Polymorph rules, not to mention browsing the Bestiary, and working out what it means by you being unable to change into a creature with a template.)

The details of the individual polymorph effects - that they give you specific immunities and attribute bonuses - suggests they don't do certain other things (like change your type or mental stats). Developer commentary has clarified that this is the case.

The Exchange

So you are looking to change someone into an animal with Polymorph any Object? It says it acts like the lower polymorphs which already outline that type isn't included and what the limitations are there even if it may say "from one thing to another".
If you want to read it wrong and look for more out of the spell then let's just say for a minute that it DOES change you from one thing to another, say from a human to a squirrel...spell is cast, PC is turned into an animal, animals have too low of an intelligence to be playable, great, you just turned your PC into an animal that is no longer playable.

You don't get to cherry pick which rules transfer from one spell to another, all the polymorphs revert to the original and none say they bestow type along with the change.
I WOULD allow you to use PaO to change your PC into an animal though....just to make your PC into an unplayable animal before I asked you to leave the game for arguing over something so ridiculous. It's always funny to mess with argumentative hard-heads.


Quote:
If I heard someone say that, I'd probably assume they were insane.

Fair enough, though realize that several of the following hypotheses are definitely ruled out here due to it confirming that you are indeed turned into that creature whereas an inert taxidermy of it would be an object, etc. Creatures in pathfinder do have very specific lists of things they have and what defines them, etc.

Quote:
It says it acts like the lower polymorphs which already outline that type isn't included

Where? That would be slam-dunk relevant, if you have a quote.

Quote:
animals have too low of an intelligence to be playable, great, you just turned your PC into an animal that is no longer playable.

He would only be an animal in the situation in my campaign for about 10 seconds, as he proceeds to fall through a system of magical wards that has been set up to only allow animals to pass, and fly down a chute, and then the contingency spell will kick in right after all that and awaken him. He doesn't need to know what's going on during, so the low INT is not a problem. (Also it's an NPC doing this, but of interest to the PCs)

Quote:
Then just ask "Assuming the rules made it so that polymorph spells changed your type, how would the awaken spell affect it?". You don't need to repeat the same points over and over or even make others agree with you. If you just ask and clarify the given scenario, then people will answer a lot quicker and less time will be wasted on both sides. To clarify, none of this is meant to come off as hostile.

But if, in fact, polymorph DOESN'T confer type, then the plan still doesn't work for that reason either. It's not what I originally expected to talk about, but it's just as relevant.

Though sure, if anybody has thoughts about "What would happen if we just pretend it can make you an animal, for step 2: awakening being then permanent for magical beast type or not?" I'd love to hear that too.


Actually, having written that out, it occurs to me: Can you actually cast a spell with contingency that you are not a valid target for during the casting of contingency (but will be when it triggers)?


Crimeo wrote:
Though sure, if anybody has thoughts about "What would happen if we just pretend it can make you an animal, for step 2: awakening being then permanent for magical beast type or not?" I'd love to hear that too.

So, we'll start by having a polymorph effect that makes you an Animal - I think this should give you the normal mental stats of this animal - perhaps replacing your entire character sheet with that animal.

Awakening would restore some intelligence to you in your animal form, but perhaps with a different personality and a hazy memory of your past self. Basically you'd get the effects of this special polymorph, plus the effects of the Awaken.

Since Awaken is permanent, this would stay with you. The effects would be lost if you changed form (such as returning to a human), and regained if you returned to the animal form in which you were Awakened.

51 to 100 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What happens if I polymorph into an animal, then am awakened? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.