A legitimate request to ban the Ring of Seven Lovely Colors


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 517 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

CBDunkerson wrote:

I think "abilities that depend on your original form" should be read as, 'abilities which are possible in your original form but not the new form'.

Thus, a polymorph effect like 'Fey Wings' likely wouldn't remove any abilities

Ring of the Seven Lovely Colors ... removing the unarmed strike ability from a monk polymorphed into a bird.

Suffice it to say that your view is something that will result in significant table variance. To be frank, I've never seen your view at a table I've played or GM-ed.

I'm ok with your view, I'll just make sure to only play a sunder build, trip build, or magus, or wizard/sorcerer/cleric at your table. This is also something you need to either be telling people up front or be fine with someone swapping characters mid session.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

That seems like a rather... extreme reaction.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Kalindlara wrote:
That seems like a rather... extreme reaction.

Generally happens when a rather extreme nerf to all of the PC's abilities happens? No?

I should also point out, that in the over 300 games I've played and GMed combined, I can't hardly remember more than a couple incidents that are extreme. So while my reaction might be extreme, people don't behave in a way that deserves extreme reactions in practice.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Risner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Ring of the Seven Lovely Colors ... removing the unarmed strike ability from a monk polymorphed into a bird.
Suffice it to say that your view is something that will result in significant table variance. To be frank, I've never seen your view at a table I've played or GM-ed.

The view that tiny birds cannot perform martial arts?

That's... rather surprising. I'd have thought it was obvious.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:

Polymorph.

PRD wrote:

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form

So, wouldn't the above reduce the songbird to a single attack a round for a regular or an unchained monk, that of the bite, with no increase in damage dice?

No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form. If it did, it would be a species ability. Class skills are a restult or practice and training, not your shape.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

CBDunkerson wrote:
That's... rather surprising. I'd have thought it was obvious.

If by obvious, you mean that someone who has played two polymorph characters to 11th and 12th level (60+ games) and never one time even remotely had anyone player or GM blink an eye to my using all class abilities and feats including unarmed strikes while polymorhed?

Then no, your view has never been expressed to me in person by a minimum of 360 people.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:

Polymorph.

PRD wrote:
depend on your original form

No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form.

A good example of the purpose of that line is darkvision, a race ability.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

To be fair, I've heard the "everyone else lets me do it" argument from someone whose LG aasimar monk had the Serpentine Squeeze religion trait, among other things.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form. If it did, it would be a species ability. Class skills are a restult or practice and training, not your shape.

So... a monk polymorphed into a large immobile rock would retain the ability to perform a flurry of unarmed attacks? And fast movement? A wizard in large rock form could cast spells requiring verbal and somatic components?

Sure, these are learned abilities and the polymorphed person still knows how to do them... but if the current form is physically incapable of doing so, how exactly are they able to act on that knowledge/training?

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

Kalindlara wrote:
To be fair, I've heard the "everyone else lets me do it" argument from someone whose LG aasimar monk had the Serpentine Squeeze religion trait, among other things.

This whole thread is about "some times people's rules interpretations are incorrect".

Ydersius is Chaotic Evil and Lawful Good is pretty far from that.

Considering that d20pfsrd doesn't list Ydersius as a requirement, you could chalk that up to "he didn't know". Especially if you ask him if he used the book or d20pfsrd to build.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

CBDunkerson wrote:
So... a monk polymorphed into a large immobile rock would retain the ability to perform a flurry of unarmed attacks? And fast movement? A wizard in large rock form could cast spells requiring verbal and somatic components?

immobile rock? What rock? Earth Elemental?

If so, yes he can flurry, yes he can fast move, yes he can cast (because they have a language line), and yes he likely can perform somatic components (ask the GM to be sure) since he has arms in the picture.

Also, note. I didn't say I'd argue the rule with you at the table. I said I was fine with your ruling. I'd just change characters.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not everyone gets the rules right all the time. I've played a Bonekeep I session with a GM who refused to allow "take 10" when not in combat to search an area. So I had to roll d20's for each square. We stop watched the rolling, and it took up a little over 45 minutes of our 5 hour slot rolling 20 sided dice out of combat.

That is an example of the GM not following the rules as we read the RAW, but the entire table coped with the issue and worked within the GM's RAW.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
immobile rock? What rock?

One made with Polymorph Any Object, I imagine.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:

Polymorph.

PRD wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form

So, wouldn't the above reduce the songbird to a single attack a round for a regular or an unchained monk, that of the bite, with no increase in damage dice?

No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form. If it did, it would be a species ability. Class skills are a restult or practice and training, not your shape.

Do you have a reference for that? I am not seeing that from the bolded part of the entry.

Even if I take your statement at face value, isn't the practice of unarmed combat all done in your normal form, not the 70 minutes a day in another form?

Also, by that interpretation, a half-orc of any class would lose their darkvision due to the polymorph (I agree).
But a character with 2 levels in Shadowdancer, who get's darkvision (EX) as a class ability, would not lose it (I disagree).

The Exchange

I suspect you will be dealing with being an object and not alive more than worrying about if objects have class features.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ragoz wrote:
I suspect you will be dealing with being an object and not alive more than worrying about if objects have class features.

Just one example. Earthworm Wizard. Snake Monk. Tree Acrobat.

I don't care how well trained you are. If the physical form you are in is incapable of performing the actions then you can't do those things.

5/5 5/55/55/5

CBDunkerson wrote:


So... a monk polymorphed into a large immobile rock would retain the ability to perform a flurry of unarmed attacks? And fast movement? A wizard in large rock form could cast spells requiring verbal and somatic components?

Your argument is too far from anything i said to be in the same discussion. You will have to try again.

Class abilities are not lost due to that line in the polymorph rules" is completely different from "All class abilities can be used in whatever polymorph form you take" Obviously the latter is false, as they call out the problems with spellcasting.

Quote:
Sure, these are learned abilities and the polymorphed person still knows how to do them... but if the current form is physically incapable of doing so, how exactly are they able to act on that knowledge/training?

That is an entirely separate and far more subjective point than the polymorph rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
So... a monk polymorphed into a large immobile rock would retain the ability to perform a flurry of unarmed attacks? And fast movement? A wizard in large rock form could cast spells requiring verbal and somatic components?
Your argument is too far from anything i said to be in the same discussion. You will have to try again.

What you said: "No. A class ability by definition does not depend on your original form. If it did, it would be a species ability. Class skills are a restult or practice and training, not your shape"

If a class ability "does not depend on your original form" and results from practice "not your shape" then, per your argument, it would be retained when you polymorph in to another shape... even a rock or other shape incapable of using that ability. I'm asking you to validate that position.

Heck, there are class abilities that grant you flight via wings. Would the character retain the ability to fly when polymorphed into a form without wings?

If not... then the use of class abilities CAN indeed be lost due to polymorphing.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Sure, these are learned abilities and the polymorphed person still knows how to do them... but if the current form is physically incapable of doing so, how exactly are they able to act on that knowledge/training?
Quote:
That is an entirely separate and far more subjective point than the polymorph rules.

I don't believe it is. The polymorph rules state that you lose abilities that are dependent on form. I take that to mean that if your new form can't perform the ability then you lose it. Which, again, I always thought was obvious even without the rule stating it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

CBDunkerson wrote:

If a class ability "does not depend on your original form" and results from practice "not your shape" then, per your argument, it would be retained when you polymorph in to another shape... even a rock or other shape incapable of using that ability. I'm asking you to validate that position.

Nope. Not lost because of that clause is not the same as retained no matter what.

A snake monk HAS flurry of blows as a class feature: polymorph effects don't take it away. Whether a snake monk can USE flurry of blows is a different question.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now I just want for there to be a spell named Baleful Steve, that uses this strange interpretation of polymorph rules to render the target incapable of using any abilities not performable by a completely average human named Steve. This includes feats like Improved Unarmed Strike (this polymorphed form is too out of shape), class abilities like Evasion (Steve is kinda clumsy), Weapon Proficiencies (once again, Steve is clumsy) and spellcasting (Steve has a stutter, and his fingers aren't flexible enough for somatic components).

A bird can unarmed strike. Why? Because a bird is unarmed (barring its beak).

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Not everyone gets the rules right all the time. I've played a Bonekeep I session with a GM who refused to allow "take 10" when not in combat to search an area. So I had to roll d20's for each square. We stop watched the rolling, and it took up a little over 45 minutes of our 5 hour slot rolling 20 sided dice out of combat.

That is an example of the GM not following the rules as we read the RAW, but the entire table coped with the issue and worked within the GM's RAW.

I ran Eyes of the Ten for a Witch that didn't know you can't Slumber Hex someone twice in the same day and that Evil Eye is mind-affecting. This guy's main shtick was Evil Eye & Slumber Hex and after 12 levels of play, no one had clued him in on this.

I have seen quite a few cases of people complaining that someone's character was too powerful only to discover it was only that powerful because they were not following the rules properly.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

CBDunkerson wrote:
Earthworm Wizard. Snake Monk. Tree Acrobat.

I doubt you are using that interpretation at tables, or if you are you really need to tell everyone who sits down as a player at your table how you rule your polymorphs so they don't bother playing anyone with poly abilities at your table. Including things like Totem Transformation shutting down all their Unarmed Strike abilities.

Liberty's Edge

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

Nope. Not lost because of that clause is not the same as retained no matter what.

A snake monk HAS flurry of blows as a class feature: polymorph effects don't take it away. Whether a snake monk can USE flurry of blows is a different question.

So...

a monk polymorphed into a snake 'may' be unable to use flurry of blows...
not because it is polymorphed...
but rather because it is a snake...
because it is polymorphed.

I'll take it. A creature without limbs 'may' be unable to perform actions requiring limbs. Progress.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Risner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Earthworm Wizard. Snake Monk. Tree Acrobat.
I doubt you are using that interpretation at tables, or if you are you really need to tell everyone who sits down as a player at your table how you rule your polymorphs so they don't bother playing anyone with poly abilities at your table.

Sorry, like you I've never seen it done any other way. Every game I've run/played in since the early 80s has not allowed people polymorphed into creatures to do things that those creatures can't do.

Trees cannot perform acrobatics. Snakes cannot strike with the limbs they do not have. Earthworms can neither speak nor make hand gestures.

Seems the clear intent of the current rules and inescapable logic even without the rules.

Quote:
Including things like Totem Transformation shutting down all their Unarmed Strike abilities.

No. Totem Transformation specifically gives you an "aspect" of the animal type while 'retaining normal form'. You do not actually change into the animal. You remain humanoid in form and thus continue to be able to do everything requiring a humanoid form.

5/5 5/55/55/5

CBDunkerson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Nope. Not lost because of that clause is not the same as retained no matter what.

A snake monk HAS flurry of blows as a class feature: polymorph effects don't take it away. Whether a snake monk can USE flurry of blows is a different question.

So...

a monk polymorphed into a snake 'may' be unable to use flurry of blows...
not because it is polymorphed...
but rather because it is a snake...
because it is polymorphed.

I'll take it. A creature without limbs 'may' be unable to perform actions requiring limbs. Progress.

Right, the difference is VERY important. Otherwise The saurian shaman can't punch, and neither can amonk turned in to steve which having been hit in the head by a swan i find far sillier than a bird punching.

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Nope. Not lost because of that clause is not the same as retained no matter what.

A snake monk HAS flurry of blows as a class feature: polymorph effects don't take it away. Whether a snake monk can USE flurry of blows is a different question.

So...

a monk polymorphed into a snake 'may' be unable to use flurry of blows...
not because it is polymorphed...
but rather because it is a snake...
because it is polymorphed.

I'll take it. A creature without limbs 'may' be unable to perform actions requiring limbs. Progress.

An Unarmed Strike does not require a limb. The combat chapter of the CRB defines an unarmed strike as including head butts. A snake has a head.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Right, the difference is VERY important. Otherwise The saurian shaman can't punch,

?

There is clearly something that you and James are not understanding. Like the other totem transformations, "a saurian shaman may adopt an aspect of the saurian while retaining her normal form".

A human saurian shaman using their totem transformation is... human shaped. They don't lose any abilities because they don't change form. Maybe a few cosmetic changes for flavor, but for all practical purposes they are still in the same form and thus still have all the abilities of that form.

Quote:
which having been hit in the head by a swan i find far sillier than a bird punching.

That would be a wing buffet. Completely different action than a punch... and not an issue given that the form from the ring in question is nowhere near swan sized. A wing buffet from a tiny bird feels like being tickled.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

CBDunkerson wrote:
Trees cannot perform acrobatics. Snakes cannot strike with the limbs they do not have. Earthworms can neither speak nor make hand gestures.

While every thing you say "in general" I disagree. When I get specifics from you I agree with everything except unarmed strikes.

Trees are not mobile, so can't move (check)
Snakes can unarmed strike as they can use any part of their body such as tongue, tail rattler, body, head (disagree)
Earthwords can't speak which would be in the Bestiary as a language line so they can't speak (check)
Earthworms can't make somatic movements because they are Animal and not a listed type that has somatic movements (check)

So it seems the only thing we disagree on is unarmed strikes?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Risner wrote:
Snakes can unarmed strike as they can use any part of their body (tongue, tail rattler, body, head)

PRD

"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."

Quote:
So it seems the only thing we disagree on is unarmed strikes?

Possibly. It seems you are extending the monk unarmed strike ability to include all of the unarmed strike types. My understanding has been that monks can make those types of unarmed strike attacks, they just don't get the special monk damage and other bonuses with them... those apply only to "fist, elbows, knees, and feet". Which tiny birds can't strike with and snakes do not even have.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

technarken wrote:
Now I just want for there to be a spell named Baleful Steve, that uses this strange interpretation of polymorph rules to render the target incapable of using any abilities not performable by a completely average human named Steve. This includes feats like Improved Unarmed Strike (this polymorphed form is too out of shape), class abilities like Evasion (Steve is kinda clumsy), Weapon Proficiencies (once again, Steve is clumsy) and spellcasting (Steve has a stutter, and his fingers aren't flexible enough for somatic components).

So... Mental Block?

Scarab Sages

CBDunkerson wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Snakes can unarmed strike as they can use any part of their body (tongue, tail rattler, body, head)

PRD

"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."

PRD

"Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following"


Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
My understanding has been that monks can make those types of unarmed strike attacks, they just don't get the special monk damage and other bonuses with them...

That is way too literal of a reading from only one small part of the rules that are referenced otherwise elsewhere.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

CBDunkerson wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Snakes can unarmed strike as they can use any part of their body (tongue, tail rattler, body, head)

PRD

"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."

Quote:
So it seems the only thing we disagree on is unarmed strikes?
Possibly. It seems you are extending the monk unarmed strike ability to include all of the unarmed strike types. My understanding has been that monks can make those types of unarmed strike attacks, they just don't get the special monk damage and other bonuses with them... those apply only to "fist, elbows, knees, and feet". Which tiny birds can't strike with and snakes do not even have.

So Unchained monks, that require a headbutt for one of their style strikes, don't get to use their better damage with it?

Also the bonus damage part doesn't specify "these attacks, when using this ability" or anything like that. It says that a monk's unarmed strike does damage based off table, so that's any unarmed strike.

unchained monk wrote:

The damage dealt by a monk's unarmed strike is determined by the unarmed damage column on Table: Monk Unchained.

Whenever he makes a flurry of blows, he can designate one of his unarmed strikes as a style strike. This attack is resolved as normal, but it has an additional effect depending on the type of strike chosen.

Head-Butt: The monk slams his head into his enemy's head, leaving his foe reeling. ... The monk must attack with a head-butt to use this style strike.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

CBDunkerson wrote:
those apply only to "fist, elbows, knees, and feet"

I see. Well, yes. Because that line isn't intended to be a limiting line, but rather an expanding line to address the "I have my hands full" argument.

3/5 5/5

CBDunkerson wrote:

PRD

"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."

Honestly, I would sooner consider that a minor iversight on Paizo's part than some hard rule or future proofing against trope-subversive monk builds.

I would love to see one of these heat butting, dive bombing megabirds at my tables. It would definitely add some variety to the PFS experience.

Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

A tiny bird cannot feasibly kick someone with its little legs. But this is not just a tiny bird: Its a tiny bird that has been magically formed from a different creature and, as such, can do a lot of silly things a tiny bird should be physically incapable of. Like having more strength and lifting power/carrying capacity than the average human (assuming you had 15 or higher strength before you activated the ring).

Coconut jokes aside, I don't plan on addressing this argument too much further lest it devolve into me whining about martials vs. casters.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Online aka bakamono

I`d agree with banning the ring. It`s underpriced for scouting in general and is WAY too underpriced if a character really takes advantage of it.

I don't actually think the ring is the biggest issue here but rather some compounding issues with dexterity builds AND transmutation effects with unarmed/natural attack builds.

The reason banning the ring might still be good is to discourage people from doing that weird stuff by taking one of the signature items for those builds away and making them weaker that way (at least until they have the gold to get alternatives).


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber

My poor character is on hold waiting to see this argument end, so I can decide what item to get. If the ring is banned, or if I'm going to be completely defenseless in bird form, I have to find something else...

3/5 5/5

KitsuneWarlock wrote:
A tiny bird cannot feasibly kick someone with its little legs. But this is not just a tiny bird: Its a tiny bird that has been magically formed from a different creature and, as such, can do a lot of silly things a tiny bird should be physically incapable of. Like having more strength and lifting power/carrying capacity than the average human (assuming you had 15 or higher strength before you activated the ring).

Eh. PCs that can shapeshift already bypass the usual expectations of whatever they turn into. A Strength Druid can shapeshift into a tiny bird and it's still swole as heck. I even have a druid build kicking around that can get up to 40 strength at level 9 or 10. A surprising amount of that would carry over to a tiny wild shape form.

KitsuneWarlock wrote:
Coconut jokes aside, I don't plan on addressing this argument too much further lest it devolve into me whining about martials vs. casters.

Actually, that would be pretty rad. I could go for a rousing game of bingo.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Y'know, I wasn't thinking of this ring, but it's for followers of Shelyn, right?

I think my bard could go for it.

Songbird of Inspirational DOOM is go?

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/55/5

I know. Lyric is a clumsy, strength-based follower of Shelyn that wears full plate. But she loves birds and loves the idea of occasionally turning into one.

This ring would only provide a little AC and a tiny bit of transportation for her. She keeps hoping that it'll still be around when she finally can get it!

5/5 5/55/55/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Y'know, I wasn't thinking of this ring, but it's for followers of Shelyn, right?

I think my bard could go for it.

Songbird of Inspirational DOOM is go?

Just get the ring of eloquence and....

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jean-Marc Comeau wrote:


Do you have a reference for that?

Do you?

Quote:
I am not seeing that from the bolded part of the entry.

its there black and white, clear as crystal. this is not a matter of table variation or interpretation. The ability to make a fist is not form dependant. It is not a claw, a bite, a tentacle, a wing, or any other gross feature of anatomy relying on your physical structure. There are dwarf monks. There are elf monks. If the ability was form dependent this would not be possible.

You can certainly make good arguments against animals using unarmed strikes but that line does not remotely imply what you think it does.

Quote:
Even if I take your statement at face value, isn't the practice of unarmed combat all done in your normal form, not the 70 minutes a day in another form?

The rules really don't cover the sort of penalties you'd reasonably expect from the body dysphoria you'd have from shifting forms like that. An hour a day isn't an unreasonable amount of time to learn something though.

Quote:

Also, by that interpretation, a half-orc of any class would lose their darkvision due to the polymorph (I agree).

But a character with 2 levels in Shadowdancer, who get's darkvision (EX) as a class ability, would not lose it (I disagree).

A human shadow dander gets dark vision.

A dwarf shadow dancer gets dark vision
A halfling shadow dancer gets darkvision.

How on earth is that form dependent when the form doesn't matter at all?

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Human shadow dander with darkvision? I didn't realize that dander had perception bonuses!

Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Savannah aka KitsuneWarlock

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
Human shadow dander with darkvision? I didn't realize that dander had perception bonuses!

Dander is like Faerie Fire if you wear a black suit, even in the dark.

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Allow me to say for everyone in the home audience...

EWWWWWWWW

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ability to make a fist is not form dependant.

Of course it is. There are millions of species that cannot make a fist.

Quote:
There are dwarf monks. There are elf monks. If the ability was form dependent this would not be possible.

This would imply that you are reading 'form dependent' as 'possible for that form ONLY'... fist making isn't limited to humans so it is not 'form dependent'. I don't think that's a plausible reading of the intent... very few abilities are available only to a single type of creature. Rather, things are 'form dependent' if some forms can do them and others cannot. Anything that the new form after a polymorph cannot do is lost.

Quote:
You can certainly make good arguments against animals using unarmed strikes but that line does not remotely imply what you think it does.

It does if interpreted the way I am doing. Which has the advantage that it doesn't lead to 'earthworms can make fists' and other clearly false results.

3/5 5/5

CBDunkerson wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ability to make a fist is not form dependant.
Of course it is. There are millions of species that cannot make a fist.

No, but many of them can barrel into someone head first. The tiny ones just look adorable while doing it.

251 to 300 of 517 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / A legitimate request to ban the Ring of Seven Lovely Colors All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.