Polymorph familiar

[Ramandil]

Hello people! I have a question about this spell. At first, you can polymorph your familiar as per the spell beast shape I, except it can assume the form of a small animal. Then, if your caster level is higher, you can emulate beast shape II, III, and so on, but in my opinion it is unclear if I can make it become larger animals or even magical beasts.

[Mathmuse]

This question will receive more answers when it is moved out of the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest subforum.

I had thought that Polymorph Familiar was a great spell for my bloodrager NPC who had taken an archetype that gave her a familiar. Unfortunately, in reviewing the spell with me, the players decided that the small animal restriction applied to the higher versions of Beast Shape, too. This let the familiar gain a few more abilities, but being stuck at small animals, not even a tiny animal, was no fun.

A 3rd-level spell that could fully mimic 6th-level Beast Shape IV, even when limited to just the familiar, would be too powerful. Bloodragers don't even get 6th-level spells.

[Sam Phelan]

Moved to Pathfinder RPG Rules Questions

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Whichever way the spell is meant to be, it's worded poorly. But all in all I find myself agreeing with Mathmuse's players; the "Small animal" restriction always holds.

[Pizza Lord]

I agree with the others regarding the size restriction. Without it, it would be out of line and overpowered in relation to how the spell lines were designed.

Additional thoughts:

At least with a bloodrager, it seems you can get beast shape and assuming you have share spells, that lets you cast it on your familiar. So other than range, it's better in all ways.

Even considering that you wouldn't get beast shape III, how many small animals are you gonna be able to choose with polymorph familiar that let you take advantage of grab, pounce, rake, trample, constrict, etc. with any real effectiveness consistently? An octopus, if you were in water, maybe?

This just seems like it was made for shamans and witches, who don't appear to typically get beast shape and as a shady end-run around the requirements of having to learn those spells (though granted, only on your familiar and at size restrictions, so it isn't grievous, but I think it still needs mentioning). I thought the whole point of depowering and breaking polymorph's power into all the beast shape, giant form, elemental body, form of ..., etc. spells was to move away from that stuff. Just my opinion on the subject. Just seems like giving witches and shamans reasonable access to beast shape would almost completely negate the reason or need for this (except in some very specific situation, like when you couldn't touch your familiar).

[Perfect Tommy]

Disagree.
The restriction of small animal is applied only to the beast shape I portion of the spell.

"At caster level 7, this spell functions as beast shape II." Period. No restrictions.

The spell is not overpowered. Whereas beastshape can normally be applied to familiars or casters, this spell is limited strictly to the familiars.

Shamans do not get access to beast shape; and witches involve their familiars in combat strictly at their peril; to lose their familiar is to lose spell casting.

[Melkiador]

There’s no official answer here. Just people’s opinions. So it works whichever way your GM thinks it works.

[Ramandil]

Thank you for your interesting opinions! Personally, I'm afraid that the oroginally intended spell was not able to overcome the limitation of small animal. I think I will leave apart this controversal spell in the end...