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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Interesting, so like a were-creature almost, in effect? That seems plausible I guess.

There might be a tenuous bit of precedent in rules for that since, for example, feats temporarily stop applying if your base prereqs stop being true. Likewise, awakening might be suppressed while your prereqs stop being true (except for INT of course)

I'm not sure about the memory wipe part, since "squirrel" as a creature type/stat block doesn't really imply anything about specific individuals' memories. Though "hazy memory" is certainly reasonable at the very least as like "whatever you could recall with 2 INT" -- perhaps a scroll of pre-written instructions strapped on would be in order for post-awakening.


Christ...

Crimeo wrote:
Great, then give me a citation for this claim you just made, and we are good to go.
Gauss wrote:

Crimeo, what you may not be aware of was that in 3.5 Polymorph explicitly changed type and subtype and this was removed from Pathfinder.

The change was because of the problems (abuse) with 3.5 Polymorph. That is why the Devs rewrote the polymorph rules and why they wrote them to not include granting type and subtype.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Stardust is correct. Polymorph spells do not change your type.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Link to above quote


Cuup, I asked that first quote, and then later on he answered the second quote, and then after that I was like "Oh okay, agreed then on RAI."

Why are you reposting that resolved conversation from 2 pages ago with just "Christ..." added, exactly?


Sorry, must have misinterpreted good to go.


Crimeo wrote:

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.

So said this is for an npc correct ? Also is this npc going to be in combat at any given time ?


Crimeo figuring out the rules is not an exact science, but it is a science. There means there is some deduction involved. It seems as if you are asking how to know when to apply _____, and when not to, and for it to work in every case. It is not that simple.

All that really matters is that you know the intent. If you have players that want to argue because they dont get the intent you will have to find a way to deal with that by accepting it, finding players who do get the intent, or improving their ability to find the correct solution.

Yeah, sometimes you have to know when the words exactly mean what they say and when they don't. You don't always do it by taking one rule alone, but looking at how other rules interact with the game as a whole. There are other factors also, but I would likely miss a few things.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil, and FAQ it and move on.


Quote:
So said this is for an npc correct ? Also is this npc going to be in combat at any given time ?

Yes, and probably no combat. If he ends up in combat, he's almost certainly dead meat no matter what. It's more of an infiltration mission, and he will be surrounded by enemies who need to not recognize he's a threat. Why?

Quote:
All that really matters is that you know the intent. If you have players that want to argue because they dont get the intent you will have to find a way to deal with that by accepting it, finding players who do get the intent, or improving their ability to find the correct solution.

The main problem with this is that by the time almost anything like this comes up, we are already locked in a battle of wits in game. Throwing down house rules, official intentions, etc. that aren't self-evident in the text is something I'm happy to do at that point anyway if it's totally unbalanced and stupid without them. But prefer not to, because it's less fun to battle wits if the rules change half way through your schemes. Then we have to go retcon stuff (or people feel bitter about wasting money and time on preparation assuming it works a way it no longer does if not) and it is a headache and crashes you right out of immersion. As well as just ruining the payoff of seeing the other guy's face when brilliant scheme triggers, or fails spectacularly.

I totally understand if doing it that way is not anything a lot of other posters are interested in, if not just move on to other threads. Sorry for not making my apparently weird playstyle crystal clear from the start, but that's what it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure why this has gone for over 100 posts. It's really very simple.

If you are awakened, you are no longer sleeping. Unless you have the ability to sleep standing up, you awaken prone. ;)


If the "entire" board or even "most" of the board come in and tell you you're wrong, you're probably wrong. Doesn't matter what "one interpretation of RAW" says. you're free to accept the answer or ignore it.

If the "entire" board or even "most" of the board is coming in and telling someone he's wrong and he continues to stand his ground and say he's right. It's probably not worth your time responding to him if you're hopeful he'll change. But if you're board and just want to talk to someone being stubborn in their ideas then have fun!


Did this really just happen:

OP: What happens if x occurs?
Board: Can't happen. Rules say Y.
OP: No they don't.
Board: Well, they do by omission, and here's a quote from the guy who wrote the rules that says "Rules say Y".
OP: Nope, need a hard quote from the book.
Board: Well, maybe if (wildly speculative scenario not covered by a hard quote from the book either)
OP: Ok cool.

-10 points from Hufflepuff.


I am considering the wildly speculative idea because, unlike the other issue, this one seems clearly not covered by any rules (do you revert or not when the assumptions of the spell are no longer true).

So it's much more "off the deep end" and into fiat territory, and the bar is lowered down to "what sounds plausible"

Unless you know of some/any applicable rules for part 2 (what happens if you are awakened then later a spell effect would revert you to human?). If so, any actual rules at all would utterly trump the speculative answer.


@Crimeo: My guess is that there may or may not be a clearly written wording that explains you do not ever gain the creature type. Pathfinder is written with a lot of ambiguous text that never had the advantage of being reviewed by a technical writer. The polymorph spells are one example of a mess of inconsitencies. Even worse are the Crushing Hand, Stunning Hand, etc series of spells. The text in the book has all sorts of references to previous spells in the series, but there is a whole mess of exceptions and extra addons that are not consistently passed on or continued that makes it almost impossible to figure out all of what each spell is supposed to do.

There has been little to no effort to standardize mechanics wording or to take care to avoid previously defined mechanics keywords (don't ever look at the flavour text for Feats unless you want to open up another whole can of worms). The spell system and much of the game systems exist in a space between extremely detailed, mechanically defined aspects and "it's magic make-believe, who cares about consistency" approach. If you want a more rigorously defined system to allow players to extrapolate what is posssible and make plans from there, then you are going to need to do a lot of house-ruling and planning ahead. The major mechanics in this game do not hold to strict or consistent limits on how they interact or work. It is not a Brandon Sanderson magic system for sure!

Also, these boards are extremely hostile to new players or players without an extensive background in the game or an expansive knowledge of all the unwritten rules. The moderation tends to selectively allow for dogpiling and even name calling in these situations. Expect to be attacked and your questions ignored if you call into question or ask for reasoning/textural support behind common wisdom.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
So said this is for an npc correct ? Also is this npc going to be in combat at any given time ?

Yes, and probably no combat. If he ends up in combat, he's almost certainly dead meat no matter what. It's more of an infiltration mission, and he will be surrounded by enemies who need to not recognize he's a threat. Why?

Because you don't need rules to change an npc into an animal, shoot you can change an npc into a god if you wanted to for dramatic effect. To me the rules come into play whenever your in combat, every thing else is role play. Rules in there entirety are guideline at best. That's how other D20 systems came about. Sorry, I'm ranting now. My point is have fun, play off the cuff and let the rule lawyers eat cake !
:)


Sorry I didn't quote that right, I'm posting from my phone.


It is logic that has surfaced in many other debates on this subforum, and it is logic equal in worthiness to, "It says here in Ultimate Staircases that when I use these stairs, I go up a level!"

On a more related note, I'm pretty sure that:
A. No, polymorph does not give you the actual type. See the difference between 3.5 polymorph rules and Pathfinder polymorph rules.
B. If you try to do this in a game, expect the GM to come up with a completely reasonable solution that no, you can't polymorph then awaken a sentient being.

Edit: Whoops, sorry with the quote, Gauss. I was looking at the wrong person when copying- the entire quote was too long for the auto copy to work.


My Self,

I am not sure what your purpose for creating a fake quote and attributing it to me is, but please do not do it.

Nowhere have I written what you have quoted.


This thread makes me want to go back to the most recent "does the paladin fall" thread, just to read something less painful


Quote:
My point is have fun, play off the cuff and let the rule lawyers eat cake !

That is a valid way to play, and combat is a reasonable line to draw in the sand if you want for rules. But both me and my players prefer and get more enjoyment out of all PCs and NPCs following the same set of strict rules whenever possible, in and out of combat, because it makes the game more of a well defined chess match for us, and we like that.

They have the advantage of more minds working on these problems at once, I have the advantage of NPCs having far more resources. But we both know each others' limitations as much as possible. And RAW whenever possible is the best, most well-defined set of common limitations and is most available for reference when needed, hence I like to use that whenever I can, even if other intentions are known from forum comments, 3.5 legacy, etc.

Quote:
A. No, polymorph does not give you the actual type. See the difference between 3.5 polymorph rules and Pathfinder polymorph rules.

3.5 anything is not relevant to pathfinder RAW. At most, it is relevant to indicating intentionality of the authors, which I already agreed about on page 1.

Quote:
B. If you try to do this in a game, expect the GM to come up with a completely reasonable solution that no, you can't polymorph then awaken a sentient being.

I am the GM, and an NPC is the one that would be doing this. So the GM probably isn't going to do that ;)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Crimeo wrote:
It says I change into that creature (multiple times/places).

It actually doesn't, but there isn't any point since you won't likely agree.


James Risner wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
It says I change into that creature (multiple times/places).
It actually doesn't, but there isn't any point since you won't likely agree.

Yes it does, I've posted some quotes 2-3 times, but again, here's 3 totally different places it says that:

Quote:
[baleful:] As beast shape III, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD.
Quote:
[polymorph any:] This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another.
Quote:
[polymorph:] This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing.

And the fact that the underlying spells don't all say that (like beast shape) and/or the school general rules don't say that doesn't matter, because these spells DO. They just added that to what happens, whether or not it was already a thing for the lower spells or the for the school in general. Specific > General.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This reminds me of the threads about Sleep and how it doesn't make you prone.


Things like the mechanics of your legs holding you up if sleeping are mundane things that exist and have real answers in real life and thus make FAR more sense in my opinion to start talking about physics or plausibility for. (I personally argue for using physics all the time on other threads, in fact, in those situations)

Magic, however, doesn't exist in real life, so there's no such thing as "this spell changing your biological taxonomy is too unrealistic!" or "yeah that seems most in line with how polymorphing works in my personal day to day experience." etc. Nobody has any a priori idea what spells "should" do other than exactly what the game tells you they do. Technical wording is thus more important for spells than it is for anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo unless I misunderstood you, your group engages in a battle of wits concerning the rules. That is part of the problem. The rules are often not written in the most clear manner. Rather than compete with each other try to work together to find out what the rule is.

If you are at the table make a ruling for the time being, and then check for the real answer once the game is over. If it means someone might die or otherwise be permantently removed from the game, then you(or the group) can choose whichever answer poses less harm. That player might get a free pass, but next time everyone will be informed.

If you are trying to use the RAW which will still have various interpretations according to the reader then you will still have problems because it can still be A to one person, and B to someone else.

That is really the best advice I can give you concerning the rules.


Crimeo wrote:

Things like the mechanics of your legs holding you up if sleeping are mundane things that exist and have real answers in real life and thus make FAR more sense in my opinion to start talking about physics or plausibility for. (I personally argue for using physics all the time on other threads, in fact, in those situations)

Magic, however, doesn't exist in real life, so there's no such thing as "this spell changing your biological taxonomy is too unrealistic!" or "yeah that seems most in line with how polymorphing works in my personal day to day experience." etc. Nobody has any a priori idea what spells "should" do other than exactly what the game tells you they do. Technical wording is thus more important for spells than it is for anything else.

So why not just house rule it as polymorphing changes your type ?


All changes given by shifting 'type' can be defined as a 'power or ability' - well within the linguistic scope of the word. The ability to have spells effect you by your new type is an 'ability'. The ability to be immune to the outsider portion smite as a polymorphed succubus is an 'ability'. So, given that you gain no abilities or powers unless stated, you gain the new 'type' but absolutely no benefit from doing so. A twisted wording, yes, but no more bendy than your already bendy logic. Now even by your torturous interpretation, type isn't doing anything for you.

Crimeo wrote:
Written logic is not a popularity contest.

It certainly isn't. However, it isn't an appeal to the masses fallacy to point out that a strong consensus against a position often implies a need for rigorous analysis of that position. I often see people get stuck on this idea that, because their argument cannot be disproven by consensus or the popular view, it must therefore be of equal logical worth and consideration to the consensus view. This argument is used to justify scenarios like teaching creationism in biology class.

In this particular case, it's pretty clear this argument has been re-hashed many times and 'type changes' has never been the final outcome of the debate. Yes, this doesn't mean type doesn't change, but at some point you have to start considering whether your position really is that solid.


Beast Shape I:
: When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the animal type. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: climb 30 feet, fly 30 feet (average maneuverability), swim 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, and scent.

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.


What does this say:
1) Assume form
2) Gain listed ability
3) Stat adjustment
This spell is clearly worded to say what you get, not what you don't get.

Animal:
An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Animals usually have additional information on how they can serve as companions.

An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).
* d8 Hit Die.
* Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
* Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
* Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.

Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
* Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
* Low-light vision.
* Alignment: Always neutral.
* Treasure: None.
* Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
* Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. (See FAQs and Handle Animal Skill.)
* Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.


What can animals have:
1) Form
2) listed ability, but at a greater strength/power
3) Stats, feats, unlisted abilities
So, if this spell granted you the creature type "Animal", you would also gain all the other things the animals have. However, the spell lists what you get, with limits on that. If an animal has Fly 40' (good), you only get Fly 30' (average). The same applies to the other abilities. You don't get everything implied by the creature type.

This is better seen in Elemental Body I.

Elemental Body I:
When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of a Small air elemental, Small earth elemental, Small fire elemental, or Small water elemental. The abilities you gain depend upon the type of elemental into which you change. Elemental abilities based on size, such as burn, vortex, and whirlwind, use the size of the elemental you transform into to determine their effect.
* Air elemental: If the form you take is that of a Small air elemental, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity and a +2 natural armor bonus. You also gain fly 60 feet (perfect), darkvision 60 feet, and the ability to create a whirlwind.
* Earth elemental: If the form you take is that of a Small earth elemental, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength and a +4 natural armor bonus. You also gain darkvision 60 feet and the ability to earth glide.
* Fire elemental: If the form you take is that of a Small fire elemental, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity and a +2 natural armor bonus. You gain darkvision 60 feet, resist fire 20, vulnerability to cold, and the burn ability.
* Water elemental: If the form you take is that of a Small water elemental, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Constitution and a +4 natural armor bonus. You also gain swim 60 feet, darkvision 60 feet, the ability to create a vortex, and the ability to breathe water.

What does this say:
1) Assume form
2) Gain listed ability
3) Stat adjustment
This spell is clearly worded to say what you get, not what you don't get.

Elemental Subtype:
An elemental is a being composed entirely from one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.

An elemental has the following features.
* Immunity to bleed, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
* Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack.
* Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Elementals not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Elementals are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Elementals do not breathe, eat, or sleep.


Air Subtype:
This subtype is usually used for outsiders with a connection to the Elemental Planes of Air. Air creatures always have fly speeds and usually have perfect maneuverability. Air creatures treat Fly as a class skill.

Earth Subtype:
This subtype is usually used for outsiders with a connection to the Elemental Planes of Earth. Earth creatures usually have burrow speeds, and most earth creatures can burrow through solid rock. Earth creatures with a burrow speed possess tremorsense.

Fire Subtype:
A creature with the fire subtype has immunity to fire and vulnerability to cold.

Water Subtype:
This subtype is usually used for Outsiders with a connection to the Elemental Planes of Water. Creatures with the water subtype always have swim speeds and can move in water without making Swim checks. A water creature can breathe underwater and can usually breathe air as well. Water creatures treat the Swim skill as a class skill.

Outsider:
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.

An outsider has the following features.
* d10 Hit Dice.
* Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression).
* Two good saving throws, usually Reflex and Will.
* Skill points equal to 6 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for outsiders: Bluff, Craft, Knowledge (planes), Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth. Due to their varied nature, outsiders also receive 4 additional class skills determined by the creature's theme.

Traits: An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
* Darkvision 60 feet.
* Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don't work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
* Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
* Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.

Creatures of the "Elemental" type get stuff the spell does not list. If you gained the creature type, you would get all those things, making the list of stuff you get pointless, or worse, restrictive while using permissive wording. Essentially making the spell even more complicated to figure out.

The later Beast Shape and Elemental Body spells all say form, and work the same.

Polymorph:
This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; the spell has no effect on unwilling creatures, nor can the creature being targeted by this spell influence the new form assumed (apart from conveying its wishes, if any, to you verbally).

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.


This spell has two lines of note:
"This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing"
"If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal, the spell functions as beast shape II"
The spell refers to other spells for its functioning.
If the spell changed your creature type, then it is not just taking on the form of the animal. So what else does it do? Anything? And if they want to resume their form, the spell is ended. Why does it not say resume their type instead? Clearly this spell is about the form and not the type of the creature.

Greater Polymorph indicates it works as Polymorph, except adds plant and dragon forms. It possible adds Magical Beast. It only refers to form, not type.

Polymorph Any Object:
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.

Polymorph Any Object refers to the Polymorph spell, then one creature into another. Then talks about transforming into new forms. Then again form. Then it has a table with mechanics of the transformation. Again, the assumption of creature type you read in the first line is not in the rest of the description.

Not even Baleful Polymorph changes your type when you fail both saves. You think you are an animal, you look like one, but you are not one.

Basically, allowing the spell to change your creature type introduces many complications into how things work, and require a reading of the rules that most everyone disagrees with. Whenever there are two [reasonably] valid readings of a rule, people nearly always use the lease complicated one that works. Changing the creature's type is way more complicated than not doing it. It also agrees with the majority of people.

I know your desire for strict RAW. I have some arguments in the "flanking" threads about what RAW actually states, that are not popular, nor how I play, but are what I think the RAW actually sais. I am [mostly] respected there because I quote rules text, rules of English, dictionary definitions and the like to support my claims. My opponents are generally just as stubborn. However, I do try to take things in context. The fact that a spell mentions the target changes several times, once "into a creature", and the rest "into the form of a creature", would lead me to think there was an editing error and that they meant them to all be "into the form of a creature".

============

As to your desire to do some unusual stuff, the pre-errata version of Animal Soul did allow you to be affected by spells like Awaken. The errata was made because of the exploit people used to stack charisma and gain hit die.

/cevah


Quote:
So why not just house rule it as polymorphing changes your type ?

As of right now, that is what I'm going to do, but am always open to there being any other more solid flaws in this.

Quote:
All changes given by shifting 'type' can be defined as a 'power or ability'

I thought that sounded very silly after reading it, but to be perfectly fair and open-minded, I went ahead and PMed three of the players at my table by facebook, totally out of context so they didn't know the rules consequences of their answers or who it would benefit or what it's about, and I asked them "Is being a dwarf a 'power', 'ability' or neither?" I gave no other details, and refused to say anything else except just "please pick the best answer" etc. until they finally did. Their responses were:

"Huh? I don't understand the question." (then eventually "neither" when I unemotionally pressed for one of the three choices. This player then expressed continued confusion as to why anybody would ask that afterward.)

"That doesn't make any sense. Dwarf is a race." (then eventually "neither" when pressed.)

and finally "saying that your race is a power or ability sounds... almost racist" (and then eventually "neither")

So yeah. I'm gonna roll with "No, type is not a power or ability" based on wat I would describe as the "emphatic" opinions of my players.

Quote:
So, if this spell granted you the creature type "Animal", you would also gain all the other things the animals have. However, the spell lists what you get, with limits on that.

The polymorph subschool rules took away all "powers and abilities" from the list of stuff that transfers by default. So if they want you to have powers or abilities, they have to now individually go back and re-give them to you. At least for the lower level spells that don't tell you you "change into and animal", such as beast shape.

Quote:
[Polymorph] refers to other spells for its functioning.
Quote:
Polymorph Any Object refers to the Polymorph spell, then one creature into another.

They only partially refer for function. They refers to other spells for function "EXCEPT" that they transform a willing creature into another creature. So it does everything like the referred spells, except now also this function too. Which happens to be the function I care about.

Quote:
Basically, allowing the spell to change your creature type introduces many complications into how things work

Agreed, but "It would be complicated" is not an argument supporting "it's not what happens." Complicated things can logically happen.

Quote:
Whenever there are two [reasonably] valid readings of a rule

I disagree that it is "reasonably valid" to claim that "changing into X does not make you a thing of type X." This seems self-evident to the point of pretty much being two ways of saying the same thing. "You were a human, you are now a cat" / "you changed into a cat" petty much synonymous.

Quote:
Then talks about transforming into new forms. Then again form.

So? Them choosing to focus in on and talk about just one aspect of it in the next sentence or two doesn't change anything. Unless you're taking it as evidence of an editing error, in which case see the next quote:

Quote:
would lead me to think there was an editing error

I would be much more sympathetic to "maybe it was an editing error" if it wasn't repeated in at least three totally separate places, possibly more. They made the same editing error... three times? AND it just coincidentally happened that they made this error that makes polymorph spells more powerful all within the higher 5th+ level polymorph spells only?

We already know that lead design didn't want it that way, but the author who wrote these spells, whoever they were, definitely seemed to want it that way to me. From the RAW perspective only, if you require a clause to be redundantly written four or more times before you believe that it's not a typo, then you're probably not going to be left with ANY rules in pathfinder that pass your test.


Hi, I'm Crimeo. I want PAO to give me the Type [game term] of the creature I change into. Therefore, I have decided that:

"This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another"

actually means "This spell, of the [Polymorph] subschool, doesn't use the polymorph rules at all, but a different set of rules I just extrapolated from nothing out of the words change into". Even the phrase "polymorphed into", later in the spell text, hasn't convinced me that the spell uses the actual [polymorph] rules.

Also, Giraffes can't run.


Baleful Polymorph acts as Beastshape.

Beastshape says you take the form of a creature of the animal type - not that you become that creature and gain its type.

Beastshape also lists abilities you would gain if the creature whose form you took had those abilities. If you actually turned into that creature then this would not be necessary.

Baleful Polymorph gives you a will save to maintain spelllike abilities, ability to cast spells, etc. If you actually turned into the creature then you would automatically lose these unless the creature type were capable of doing them.


Quote:
a different set of rules I just extrapolated from nothing out of the words change into"

That would not be "from nothing," then. That would be from rules text.

Quote:
Baleful Polymorph acts as Beastshape.

You forgot the "EXCEPT that..." part of the same sentence, i.e. the part where it says it doesn't actually entirely act like beast shape. And where it does say that you change into the other creature. Beast shape doesn't say that. Baleful does. Baleful is also a higher level spell and it is not particularly odd that it might be more powerful.

Quote:
If you actually turned into the creature then you would automatically lose these unless the creature type were capable of doing them.

And if you think it works by totally bog standard polymorph rules, well in that case, why did they need to tell you that you retain your class level, for instance? You normally do, that was already known as well.

Either way, either interpretation, some of the info is redundant. One must conclude regardless that they're telling you some things simply for clarity, due to the added complexity of the different saving throw tiers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd probably rule that Awaken cast on a victim of Baleful Polymorph restores the original mental statistics/personality... as if they had made the Will saving throw.

No, the rules don't say that, but it's a simple/reasonable resolution IMO.


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?

He's still arguing because some people find being wrong a painful state.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Crimeo wrote:
Yes it does, I've posted some quotes 2-3 times, but again, here's 3 totally different places it says that

None of those change the type. It doesn't say what you say it does, period.


Forget about whether or not polymorph changes type or not. That is going to go no where.

Go ahead and polymorph any object into a large tree, then cast empowered awaken on the tree, this way you get 3d6x1.5 Int wis and char. You gain the plant type and all of the charicteristics of an animated object of large size. Call yourself Treebeard, put some halflings on your shoulders and kick the crap of them evil wizards and their orc army. Call it a day. Why? Because your the DM and it's an NPC.


Ultimately, that's all that can be done, since RAW and RAI have been rejected.


Mind you this could matter to someone with the nature Oracle capstone.

The capstone allows the oracle to explicitly change their type to among other choices, animal. Say they did this, for whatever reason.

If they then get hit by a baleful and miss the saves. Unlikely but '1's happen.

Their druid buddy then goes to the trouble of casting Awaken. What happens?

Mint you to call this an edge case is a bit of an understatement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look to the spell Flesh to ooze. It might just flesh out some of the wrinkles in this argument. (See what I did there?) It's a level 6 spell that says it works like baleful polymorph except your an ooze. It goes on to say that if the ooze that is of the splitting variety and is split, one half retains the memories and etc... while the other half becomes a normal ooze gaining the ooze type.

There you go. RAW baleful polymorph doesn't grant you a change in "type". You can also extrapolate that to mean that polymorph any object doesn't grant a change in type.


Poor Wandering One wrote:

Mind you this could matter to someone with the nature Oracle capstone.

The capstone allows the oracle to explicitly change their type to among other choices, animal. Say they did this, for whatever reason.

If they then get hit by a baleful and miss the saves. Unlikely but '1's happen.

Their druid buddy then goes to the trouble of casting Awaken. What happens?

Mint you to call this an edge case is a bit of an understatement.

Or you can cast Magic Jar on the baleful polymorphed animal, then cast alter self you choose which polymorph effect you want to use, alter self of course, BP ends and then end magic jar.

I am on a roll.


Quote:
You gain the plant type and all of the charicteristics of an animated object of large size. Call yourself Treebeard, put some halflings on your shoulders and kick the crap of them evil wizards and their orc army. Call it a day. Why? Because your the DM and it's an NPC.

He needs to specifically be an animal to get past the magical wards that filter only animals.

Quote:

Mind you this could matter to someone with the nature Oracle capstone.

The capstone allows the oracle to explicitly change their type to among other choices, animal. Say they did this, for whatever reason.

Not relevant to the current situation, as this is for an existing NPC who is not a nature oracle. But if somebody else cares about that yes, it would create the same sort of technical problem.

Though not for very long, since whatever type you ended up as a result, you can just change your type again the next day with nature oracle. So probably not that interesting, it's only a puzzle rarely that matters for a few hours. Similar for the magic jar, since the alter self also ends.

Quote:
one half retains the memories and etc... while the other half becomes a normal ooze gaining the ooze type.

So? These are just additional rules for that spell, how does that tell you anything?

"You become an ooze" [blatantly obvious you are an ooze type now, that's what becoming something means.] then later "If you split, you become your original type, and you split off an ooze of the ooze type"

So the timeline is:

1) Human
2) Cast spell, become Ooze now.
3) Split? Back to human. Plus there's an ooze next to me.

Essentially I've split myself out of the spell. Thus stopping the chain of splitting. A necessary modification of how it would otherwise work with the rest of the spell text, because otherwise, you could keep splitting a huge army, of course, and that would be unbalancing.

But prior to doing any splitting, you are in fact still an ooze. Because you became an ooze. Not complicated stuff:

Quote:

be·come

bəˈkəm/
verb
1.
begin to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
[blatantly obvious you are an ooze type now, that's what becoming something means.]

^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so. In fact, we are calling it obvious that you do NOT gain the type because nowhere does it state that you do.

You are going beyond the rules to apply what you think is obvious when nobody else is. This is the source of your problem.

Additionally, you keep trying to use standard english to define game concepts and rules. You really should stop doing this. It is a significant part of the problem you are having. The Devs simply don't write the rules to conform to standard english definitions.


Quote:
^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so.

And it is.

I can do a poll if necessary of normal people without any context. Pretty sure that nearly 100% of people nort already pre-invested in a cultural tradition of playing D&D a certain way, or interested in playing by RAI (despite that specifically not being of interest here anymore) would agree.

Try it out with me. Throw up on your facebook: "If you are a human, and a magical spell changes you into a rabbit, are you a human after, or are you a rabbit?" with no additional information, comments, likes for certain answers, etc. See what happens....

Quote:
Additionally, you keep trying to use standard English to define game concepts and rules.

As I've said ALL ALONG, if you have any glossary definition of "changes into" or anywhere else it is defined in a special way in the book, I will give priority to that.

Otherwise, plain english is literally all there is to use...


Actually, reading the rules is literally what you need to use.

Polling people who have no familiarity with game concepts and rules is exactly the people who's opinion is meaningless. They, like you seem to, do not understand how the rules are written.

Now, should the rules be written in "plain" english? Yes
Are the rules written in "plain" english? No

Try this:
What does "changes into" mean? It is not defined.
Are there rules that help define it? Yes, they tell you what you get.
Ok, so "changes into" means you have the shape of, appearance of, and get X Y and Z stats. Got it.

This is the part you are failing to do. You are applying your own definition instead of using the rules to define it.

In any case, keep misreading the rules. I am sure this won't be your last "I don't know how to read the rules and I am too stubborn actually listen to people." thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so.

And it is.

I can do a poll if necessary of normal people without any context. Pretty sure that nearly 100% of people nort already pre-invested in a cultural tradition of playing D&D a certain way, or interested in playing by RAI (despite that specifically not being of interest here anymore) would agree.

Try it out with me. Throw up on your facebook: "If you are a human, and a magical spell changes you into a rabbit, are you a human after, or are you a rabbit?" with no additional information, comments, likes for certain answers, etc. See what happens....
...

This is the equivalent of asking a group of people "If I am playing a professional sport and another player punches me in the face repeatedly while in the middle of a competition match then they should be penalized heavily for it if not thrown out of the sport, right?" and then proclaiming "See, the opponent in my Mixed Martial Arts bout shouldn't have won, because people think that what my opponent did wasn't OK". It's a tad disingenuous, to say the least.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a couple posts, feedback about our moderation/moderation policies can be brought to the Website Feedback forum or community@paizo.com. Thanks!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Crimeo the problem here is that you want the rules written in such a manner that they match your logic. However others logically deduced the intent by the way they are currently written. No matter how a rule is written there is a good chance someone somewhere won't find it acceptable, even if 90% or more of the rest of us have no problem with the current wording..

In this case you are that someone. I think you have made you up your mind that the rule is not written clearly enough for you. That is fair, since not everyone has the same thought process. However, you also think that because the rule is not perfectly clear to you, that it is not perfectly clear at all. That however, is a terrible way of thinking because it assumes that your way is the right way despite nobody(not literally) else having a problem with it.

As an example if everyone around me "gets a joke" except for me, then I can't really claim the joke was not told well. I can say it didn't resonate with my way of understanding things.

As for your FB example, it is bad because the rules have a context in which they have to be read. A better example is "would someone who is reasonably familiar with the game" be able to figure it out.

Since most of us know the rule that answer is yes.

As an example if I start speaking of levels, and I don't specifically say "spell level", "character level", or "class level", someone not familiar with the game might be confused, but someone who knows the game would have a very high chance of not getting lost.

If you are trying to follow the rules and not thinking within the context of the game you are going to have more trouble with the rules.


Snowblind wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
^This is the problem right here. You call it "blatantly obvious" while nobody else here is doing so.

And it is.

I can do a poll if necessary of normal people without any context. Pretty sure that nearly 100% of people nort already pre-invested in a cultural tradition of playing D&D a certain way, or interested in playing by RAI (despite that specifically not being of interest here anymore) would agree.

Try it out with me. Throw up on your facebook: "If you are a human, and a magical spell changes you into a rabbit, are you a human after, or are you a rabbit?" with no additional information, comments, likes for certain answers, etc. See what happens....
...

This is the equivalent of asking a group of people "If I am playing a professional sport and another player punches me in the face repeatedly while in the middle of a competition match then they should be penalized heavily for it if not thrown out of the sport, right?" and then proclaiming "See, the opponent in my Mixed Martial Arts bout shouldn't have won, because people think that what my opponent did wasn't OK". It's a tad disingenuous, to say the least.

Another example of context that is great. :)

101 to 150 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.