|
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
It's talking about abilities, senses, movement dependent on form. ANY ability from a class is by its very nature not dependent on form, because any number of races could take levels in whatever class.
I bolded the text which directly contradicts your position.
|
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.It's talking about abilities, senses, movement dependent on form. ANY ability from a class is by its very nature not dependent on form, because any number of races could take levels in whatever class.I bolded the text which directly contradicts your position.
You did no such thing
If unarmed strike was form dependent an elf polymorphing into a dwarf would lose the ability to unarmed strike and that is patently absurd. They're talking about a 4 armed alchemist or something.
|
improved unarmed strike is a feat (in this case granted by a class) ...Not a Class Feature ...
so sure ... a Thrush does 1d2-5 Based on its strength
these Builds have feats and Permenant Magical Enchantments which allow them to use Dex for Damage - Neither of which Qualify as EX Relying on the original forms
again ... polymorphed Creatures do NOT Loose their feats
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
improved unarmed strike is a feat (in this case granted by a class) ...Not a Class Feature ...
so sure ... a Thrush does 1d2-5 Based on its strength
these Builds have feats and Permenant Magical Enchantments which allow them to use Dex for Damage - Neither of which Qualify as EX Relying on the original formsagain ... polymorphed Creatures do NOT Loose their feats
However, creatures polymorphed into snakes do loose their feets.
>.>
<.<
I'll see myself out.
Expect table variation.
At my table, I will rule that the single thrush natural attack is what happens, and not the iterative attacks.
So Polymorph just shuts monks down? Sorry your a Gorilla now no IUS for you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
again ... polymorphed Creatures do NOT Loose their feats
They don't lose their feats, but since feats are usually extraordinary abilities they may lose access to them when polymorphed. It is GM's discretion as per the rules in the core rule book about what forms can use what abilities.
It should not be used to debuff a character build that needs to be fixed by an errata team.
But a GM could say that Snake Style doesn't work as a hummingbird because snake style says that the users hold their hands together to mimic the heads of a snake and that hummingbirds don't have hands or snake heads, and that using wings in that way would preclude the hummingbird flying. But a GM doing that should allow crane style because that form tries to mimic wings.
Again though a gm shouldn't enforce these rules as a way to hurt the character using an item the gm deems overpowered, they should really believe it and apply the same rules to other people that change forms as well.
|
Expect table variation.
At my table, I will rule that the single thrush natural attack is what happens, and not the iterative attacks.
I'm curious. I have a Kitsune who fights in Fox form using Improved Unarmed Strike (and obviously has various shenanigans to be quite effective when doing so).
Would all the people who are shutting down the Songbird also shut down this character?
Rules wise the issues are essentially the same.
Flavour wise the character HAS, of course, learned to use martial arts in fox form. The fox form is pretty much as natural to him as his human and "native" form.
It's talking about abilities, senses, movement dependent on form. ANY ability from a class is by its very nature not dependent on form, because any number of races could take levels in whatever class.
Lots of abilities ARE dependent on form. You can't complete somatic gestures, or swing a weapon, if your form does not have arms or hands.
Most forms won't let you complete the vocal components for casting spells.
|
|
again ... polymorphed Creatures do NOT Loose their featsThey don't lose their feats, but since feats are usually extraordinary abilities
Most Feats do not list (EX) after them so your statement is incorrect (Im having a hard time picking any out that do but that doesnt mean they dont exist)
By RAW the only way you can Say that a polymorphed PC Looses access to feats is if they list (Ex) AND if they require an original formWhile under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function
Natural attacks and unarmed Strikes are Entirely different things because they can be combined into a single attack routine...
they have also said you can flurry with 1 weapon so your "1 attack" can be flurried with if you have the Feat (Feral combat training IIRC)
anything else is GM Arbitration based on not liking something ....
Yes this ring Should be banned .. but until it is - legal is legal ...
and yes I know the history of this build Very well ... I also know the level of people that have gone over it in an attempt to prove it that it was illegal, and the only thing that was questionable was an aparent diety specific prestige class (Or archtype) with a Deity specific Trait (Different Dietys / pantheons)
as has been suggested .. its not about the mechanics ... but about the Item which is Grossly under-priced.. Fox form does 80% of the build fine .... but the beast shape 4(Technically) 7x a day, and +1 deflection bonus for4k ... is absurd
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.... but the beast shape 4(Technically) 7x a day, and +1 deflection bonus for4k ... is absurd
Just because the ring uses beast shape doesn't mean it's giving you the benefits of beast shape. Half the power of beast shape is the versatility. Need to go underground? Burrow. Need to find the invisible person? turn into a bat. Need a swim speed? *dolphin noise*
Underpriced yes, but not insanely so. It's like getting a deal on an optimus prime toy but it only has robot mode.
|
|
I'm curious. I have a Kitsune who fights in Fox form using Improved Unarmed Strike (and obviously has various shenanigans to be quite effective when doing so).
Would all the people who are shutting down the Songbird also shut down this character?
Rules wise the issues are essentially the same.
Foxes have some of the same physical limitations as songbirds, but by no means all of them. Anything requiring speech or hands would obviously still be out. Foxes can effectively punch, kick, and head butt... though not really in the same ways that humans do. Thus, it is still a bit of a stretch, but I'd be more inclined to allow kitsune in fox form to use unarmed strikes / flurry of blows / some combat styles. It is more of a borderline case and thus I'd probably allow it.
By RAW the only way you can Say that a polymorphed PC Looses access to feats is if they list (Ex) AND if they require an original form
I think even most of the 'of course songbirds can be martial arts masters' crowd would agree that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) feat is completely useless to an earthworm.
Sure... you still have the feat. You just aren't gonna be doing anything with it if you don't have arms.
|
|
.... but the beast shape 4(Technically) 7x a day, and +1 deflection bonus for4k ... is absurdJust because the ring uses beast shape doesn't mean it's giving you the benefits of beast shape. Half the power of beast shape is the versatility. Need to go underground? Burrow. Need to find the invisible person? turn into a bat. Need a swim speed? *dolphin noise
why I said technically and TBH I would say it is horridly overpriced it has more power than the old bracers of falcons aim (permenant 1st level spell) which was banned until it was changed to 1 min / day of a level 1 spell... this is 70 min a day of a watered down 6th level spell
|
|
By RAW the only way you can Say that a polymorphed PC Looses access to feats is if they list (Ex) AND if they require an original formI think even most of the 'of course songbirds can be martial arts masters' crowd would agree that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) feat is completely useless to an earthworm.
Sure... you still have the feat. You just aren't gonna be doing anything with it if you don't have arms.
I digress because I used the wrong terminology... loosing access was incorrect (this is what I get for writing a post in the middle of a fleet battle on eve) I should have said "Loose the ability to use the feats"
and technically if you Polymorph into a tiny bird ... I could see the bird flying around with a tiny Bastard sword clutched in its claws (tho even SoS Pads wont scrub that image from my brain)
polymorphing doesn't cause you to loose the feat but Improved unarmed strike doesnt require specific body parts ... you have a head and feet (balled up claws)
|
|
you can make butt checks, chest bumps, headbutts as an IUS. Last I checked, birds have the physical features used in these attacks.
ALL creatures can make US per the rules. IUS makes you not provoke for doing so and can do lethal. IUS can't be dependent on form since ALL forms have the ability to take that feat and make IUS.
|
|
you can make butt checks, chest bumps, headbutts as an IUS.
There are no rules saying so (except for the head butts).
ALL creatures can make US per the rules.
Again, there are no rules which actually say that. I've seen the extrapolations on which it is generally based and found them unconvincing. In any case, there are many clear examples to the contrary (e.g. Living Mirage, Living Rune, Hungry Fog, Colour out of Space, et cetera).
|
|
It's talking about abilities, senses, movement dependent on form. ANY ability from a class is by its very nature not dependent on form, because any number of races could take levels in whatever class.
Lots of abilities ARE dependent on form. You can't complete somatic gestures, or swing a weapon, if your form does not have arms or hands.
Most forms won't let you complete the vocal components for casting spells.
yes I forgot to state an exception for things that add a permanent physical feature obviously
however, you are really on the wrong track here. Spell components or swinging a sword are not class abilities. Even if they were it would still be a bad example since the game already has many non-humanoid form spellcaster examples baked in
Spellcasting is a class feature that requires Speech - Druids get around this with Wild Spell so yes - I would say that Spell casting (Being a class feature requiring a verbal component) would be Nullified by The Ring
(there is a debate if wild spell would work with the ring since its not "Wild Shaping" but that's beyond the scope here)SLA's would not be invalidated because those are not dependant on form (no verbal / Somatic or Material)
|
|
Spellcasting is a class feature that requires Speech - Druids get around this with Wild Spell so yes - I would say that Spell casting (Being a class feature requiring a verbal component) would be Nullified by The Ring
No. You are perfectly capable of casting spells in any form: not all spells have verbal components, and psychic spells make it even easier. It isn't directly form dependant: much like bastard sword proficiency an opposable thumb might be handy but it's not form dependent. A dragon disciples scales on the other hand..
|
|
Spellcasting is a class feature that requires Speech - Druids get around this with Wild Spell so yes - I would say that Spell casting (Being a class feature requiring a verbal component) would be Nullified by The Ring
No. You are perfectly capable of casting spells in any form: not all spells have verbal components, and psychic spells make it even easier. It isn't directly form dependant: much like bastard sword proficiency an opposable thumb might be handy but it's not form dependent. A dragon disciples scales on the other hand..
you know what I meant BNW
since were talking about Speech lets relegate it to speech requirementsSure Silence metamagic would get past lots ... and while Psychics are considered Spell-casters ... I don't think of them as such ....
|
|
so Focus on headbutts
Ok.
Tiny birds are physically incapable of performing a head butt. Even setting aside the extremely limited range of forward motion afforded by their skeletal structure, it is simply impossible for them to strike something with their frontal bone... the beak inevitably gets in the way.
They CAN peck with the beak... but that is, of course, a natural attack. Not an unarmed strike.
|
so Focus on headbuttsOk.
Tiny birds are physically incapable of performing a head butt. Even setting aside the extremely limited range of forward motion afforded by their skeletal structure, it is simply impossible for them to strike something with their frontal bone... the beak inevitably gets in the way.
They CAN peck with the beak... but that is, of course, a natural attack. Not an unarmed strike.
Explain birds being unable to headbutt to many of my high school's windows. We also have no way to know what a tiny bird is capable of doing when it's somehow magically using it's agility to inflict powerful blows. Stop trying to apply real world philosophy to what is at least two magical interactions in a rules heavy game and point me to actual rules or reasons in universe that a bird couldn't do this. This isn't even a real bird. It's an adventurer meant to look like a bird, but you don't even take on all the aspects of the creature. You still have all the knowledge and magical power of an adventurer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so Focus on headbuttsOk.
Tiny birds are physically incapable of performing a head butt. Even setting aside the extremely limited range of forward motion afforded by their skeletal structure, it is simply impossible for them to strike something with their frontal bone... the beak inevitably gets in the way.
They CAN peck with the beak... but that is, of course, a natural attack. Not an unarmed strike.
Spoken as someone who has not met a sufficiently angry parakeet.
|
|
so Focus on headbuttsOk.
Tiny birds are physically incapable of performing a head butt. Even setting aside the extremely limited range of forward motion afforded by their skeletal structure, it is simply impossible for them to strike something with their frontal bone... the beak inevitably gets in the way.
They CAN peck with the beak... but that is, of course, a natural attack. Not an unarmed strike.
and dragons dont exist.... people cant Conjure Beings from other planes ... Create Balls of explody fire from their fingertips ... instantaneous heal others with a touch .... this is a fantasy game .. we play by the rules we are given, and as PFS we do not Deviate from those rules ... as soon as you begin saying "you cant do that because of X" when the rules directly support things like this happening ... you are no longer playing PFS .. you are playing Homebrew ..
|
|
as soon as you begin saying "you cant do that because of X" when the rules directly support things like this happening ... you are no longer playing PFS .. you are playing Homebrew ..
Except that the rules DON'T directly support anything of the kind. Rather, they state that the GM needs to decide what is reasonable. To me, following the standards of the real world seems reasonable.
so Focus on headbuttsOk.
Tiny birds are physically incapable of performing a head butt. Even setting aside the extremely limited range of forward motion afforded by their skeletal structure, it is simply impossible for them to strike something with their frontal bone... the beak inevitably gets in the way.
They CAN peck with the beak... but that is, of course, a natural attack. Not an unarmed strike.
Since we're talking about a Thrush, that's a gamebreaking 1d2-5 damage.
|
|
as soon as you begin saying "you cant do that because of X" when the rules directly support things like this happening ... you are no longer playing PFS .. you are playing Homebrew ..Except that the rules DON'T directly support anything of the kind. Rather, they state that the GM needs to decide what is reasonable. To me, following the standards of the real world seems reasonable.
And so if they polymorph into a dragon they can't fly since real world standard those wings couldn't let a dragon fly right?
So in the real world, when a thrush has taken the feat IUS what happens?
|
|
as soon as you begin saying "you cant do that because of X" when the rules directly support things like this happening ... you are no longer playing PFS .. you are playing Homebrew ..Except that the rules DON'T directly support anything of the kind. Rather, they state that the GM needs to decide what is reasonable. To me, following the standards of the real world seems reasonable.
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
your only reason against a "headbutt" is Real world Physics
we have quoted many reasons why it works - citing Rules and Items
your only argument is "the GM States what is reasonable" or "Physics make it impossible" Try quoting some Rules that support your theory
Natural attacks are not (Ex) ... Unarmed attacks are not (Ex)
When polymorphed all Items are merged into your form, you can no longer activate Items but Items that grant a permanent bonus continue to function
Agile amulet - which allows dex to damage is permanent which is where 98% of the damage comes from
|
|
as soon as you begin saying "you cant do that because of X" when the rules directly support things like this happening ... you are no longer playing PFS .. you are playing Homebrew ..Except that the rules DON'T directly support anything of the kind. Rather, they state that the GM needs to decide what is reasonable. To me, following the standards of the real world seems reasonable.And so if they polymorph into a dragon they can't fly since real world standard those wings couldn't let a dragon fly right?
So in the real world, when a thrush has taken the feat IUS what happens?
or what about Flying with magic ? since that is impossible and Physics say that we as humans dont have the ability to fly as a species (our bones arent hollow, no feathers etc.) I suppose if I find that unreasonable I can just disallow it from my table
*Sarcasam off* no ... we have the rules ... they are what they are .... we have Venture officers and agents to adjudicate these matters when GM's take hard line stances on things that are Clearly within the rules
we may not like it ... but we play by the rules and if we dont want to play by the rules of PFS then we dont have to play PFS
I personally HATE this Ring and the Fox form Mouser cheese build that nearly Solo'd bonekeep 2 -
but it is not my place to Target the Character when I KNOW it is within the rules ..
and there is Nothing in the Rules that say it is illegal
even the Torag trait with the Irori Archtype is not EXPRESSLY Illegal tho it pushes the boundaries very very hard and I feel safer disallowing that combination based on the Text of the 2 Items Rather than the "Real world Physics" of everything else
oh and your entire Argument breaks if they have a Feral Combat Training
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ACs and mounts have taken IUS once they get 3 int for years as a pre-req for dragon style so they can charge through allies
Been playing PFS since Season Zero. Have yet to see this even once.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was mentioned in passing a few pages ago and merits reconsideration.
What does an 'illegitimate request' look like?
May we PLEASE have this renamed to 'A request to ban the ring of Seven Lovely Colors'?
Edit: The disconnect is driving me a bit loopy and is enticing me to post strawmen and other bogus arguments, which is not helpful.
|
ACs and mounts have taken IUS once they get 3 int for years as a pre-req for dragon style so they can charge through allies
Just because it's been common for folks to do this, does not mean the rules actually support doing so. I have argued in those threads that animals are incapable of taking I US if not for physical reasons, because they are an animal and mentally shouldn't be learning Kung fu.
|
|
ACs and mounts have taken IUS once they get 3 int for years as a pre-req for dragon style so they can charge through alliesJust because it's been common for folks to do this, does not mean the rules actually support doing so. I have argued in those threads that animals are incapable of taking I US if not for physical reasons, because they are an animal and mentally shouldn't be learning Kung fu.
That's what the Int requirement of 3 is for. So they can learn silly things like kung fu.
|
|
That's what the Int requirement of 3 is for. So they can learn silly things like kung fu.ACs and mounts have taken IUS once they get 3 int for years as a pre-req for dragon style so they can charge through alliesJust because it's been common for folks to do this, does not mean the rules actually support doing so. I have argued in those threads that animals are incapable of taking I US if not for physical reasons, because they are an animal and mentally shouldn't be learning Kung fu.
The FAQ that says animals are still animals regardless the Int, implies a GM could rule otherwise.
|
|
That blog says once they can take the feat it can be anything they are physically capable of using. The mental arguement is baseless.
Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats. While you could interpret the rules in this way, the "capable of use" clause is very important. Most weapons require thumbs to use properly, and even then, few animals would choose to use an artificial weapon in place of the natural weapons that have served them all their life. It's what they were born with, after all, and virtually no amount of training will change that.
Funny. That kinda seems to be saying that the mental argument is NOT baseless.
|
|
even the Torag trait with the Irori Archtype is not EXPRESSLY Illegal
Worshiping two deities? Sounds illegal
sorry I went out to have some fun this evening
yes your position is exactly where my argument against it lies ... however if you read the archetype it does not state anywhere a requirement to worship Irori - other than the in the Name of the Archtype itself and the fluff text - it Just lacks the Words "Must Worship Irori"
That blog says once they can take the feat it can be anything they are physically capable of using. The mental arguement is baseless.Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats. While you could interpret the rules in this way, the "capable of use" clause is very important. Most weapons require thumbs to use properly, and even then, few animals would choose to use an artificial weapon in place of the natural weapons that have served them all their life. It's what they were born with, after all, and virtually no amount of training will change that.Funny. That kinda seems to be saying that the mental argument is NOT baseless.
Animal - yes .... but we aren't talking about an animal here are we ?
we are talking about someone intentionally wild shaping into an animal ...and again ... as has been stated - you don't need thumbs for unarmed strike
As per Monk the following forms are listed "fist, elbows, knees, and feet." granted Head is not mentioned but in truth it doesn't need to be because by Following your Logic we have to ask -
1) do Songbirds have ANY of the above mentioned Body parts
A) by Using Anatomy we know that they have 3 of the 4 ... Feet, Elbow, and Knees ... so whats the problem ? they have the bodyparts required by Monk to make unarmed strikes
the Feat Improved unarmed strike is even more vague
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Like I said ... Lots of people Hate this build and the Idea (myself included) but it is legal and when you say "you cant make unarmed strikes while in bird form" (even after weve proven that you can time and time again) you are then just targeting the PC
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played with a player that was running this build at Paizocon 2016. Yes, it was gamebreaking in a way that frustrated everyone GM and players alike. Is banning the item the solution? I think not. The game is full of broken/overly powerful options. Removing the ring as an option for everyone (including players that won't abuse its powers) hurts many in the interest of reigning in a few. The more sensible solution is too target those players in particular and vote with your feet. I will not play with that player again just like I won't play with the aasimar gunslinger/paladin that one-rounded every encounter or the wizard that did the same with an AoE save-or-lose that made the GM instantly call every encounter.
It's impossible to cull every feat/spell/item or combination of the above that breaks the game. A better solution is to improve our community so that broken content is just not a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's impossible to cull every feat/spell/item or combination of the above that breaks the game. A better solution is to improve our community so that broken content is just not a problem.
There would be some who would suggest that the broken content is the problem and fail to realize that a social contract and environment requires active participation in the community -- ie, the 'Don't Be A Jerk' philosophy.
Alas, this turns to individuals that are more concerned about their own personal entertainment versus the entertainment of a table as a whole.
It would require a social focus to adjust for this, and a larger convention may not be the best time to begin.
|
|
Like I said ... Lots of people Hate this build and the Idea (myself included)
Ironically enough... I have no problem with the build concept. I have used a similar design with an Atomie NPC (Sir Finiwin, the Dragon Knight) in home games. If the ring polymorphed characters into Atomies or some other such flying humanoid creature we'd be all good... though I suspect that it would then cost considerably more.
but it is legal and when you say "you cant make unarmed strikes while in bird form" (even after weve proven that you can time and time again)
Except that, you haven't.
you are then just targeting the PC
Nope. I'm saying that the rules specifically leave what kind of actions are and are not possible for a polymorphed creature to perform to the GM's discretion... and that my personal standard for most games would then be to limit it to things the creature could actually do. Tiny songbirds cannot actually perform humanoid martial arts.
Just as the blog says that most animals cannot wield weapons due to lack of an opposable thumb, so too do much greater variations in skeletal structure prevent songbirds from making unarmed strikes as a humanoid would. Songbird elbow strike? They'd be bending their wing the wrong way and trying to stab you with their feathers. It's just ridiculous.
|
|
It's actually +4/5 to attack/AC (2 size, 2 Dex, 1 natural armor).
And in the module we were playing, yes. There were no especially powerful melee or ranged combatants that could hit him and no spellcasters to try to seek out other weaknesses. Near the end of the module the player in question took the hint that everyone was fed up with him and started reigning it in. I later ran the same module and I confirmed the GM wasn't missing some crucial monster or ability.
That brings me to my point. In this instance a dozen other character builds could have broken the module just as easily.