| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is an absence of clarifying rules, I would rule that transmutation does not provide clothes, but that illusion provides the appearance of clothes.
Sorry, I'm sure that's not quite what you're looking for. I'll look into it and let you know if I find anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm aware, you don't get free clothes or a free change of clothes. I don't think you even get the illusion of clothing.
After all, nobody suggests a Gnome casting Enlarge on herself suddenly bursts out of her clothing and armor. Right?
Enlarge has specific wording: "Its equipment grows with it but returns to natural size if removed."
Look at Humanoid Form: "You can still wear and use your gear, which changes size (if necessary) to match your new form. If items leave your person, they return to their usual size."
Spells that change your shape/size that are intended to allow gear mention gear. Those that don't can be inferred as not being intended to allow gear to change with it.
As to PF1, yes, you could ignore size but type matters as a large amount of types melded the equipment into the body.
PS: I honestly don't see anything breaking if shapechangers have to take a moment to make a costume change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why have magic that works in seconds if you still have to spend minutes on mundane clothing issues?
Because the magic allows you to transform into other creatures which isn't possible otherwise.
You can use fabricate to create new clothes, you don't have to use mundane ones.
I wouldn't see it as an oversight. If you want to go on an infiltration mission, you take time to prepare. You don't decide that in the middle of a fight.
And even then it could be done in 3 rounds: Transform - Fabricate a dress - Legendary Quick Disguise to put it on.
If you can't change your outfit along with your body, that's a heavy mark against the usefulness of these spells.
No it doesn't: spells you can use to take or alter humanoid form allow gear already so there is NO make against.
Why have magic that works in seconds if you still have to spend minutes on mundane clothing issues?
What spell? Which specific spell? I've gone over the spells and I don't see one that's an issue.
What rationale could Paizo possibly have for omitting such basic functionality of this sort of spell?
Which spells again?
IMO, the only thing that really needs changed is Infiltrator's Elixir: It should most likely should be worded like humanoid form. Things like a Doppelganger have no time limit and work with memory so it's not an issue there. As to a naked Succubus... Don't see anything odd there either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why have magic that works in seconds if you still have to spend minutes on mundane clothing issues?
Because the magic allows you to transform into other creatures which isn't possible otherwise.
You can use fabricate to create new clothes, you don't have to use mundane ones.
I wouldn't see it as an oversight. If you want to go on an infiltration mission, you take time to prepare. You don't decide that in the middle of a fight.
And even then it could be done in 3 rounds: Transform - Fabricate a dress - Legendary Quick Disguise to put it on.
These effects transform the target into a new form. A target can’t be under the effect of more than one polymorph effect at a time. If it comes under the effect of a second polymorph effect, the second polymorph effect attempts to counteract the first. If it succeeds, it takes effect, and if it fails, the spell has no effect on that target. Any Strikes specifically granted by a polymorph effect are magical. Unless otherwise stated, polymorph spells don’t allow the target to take on the appearance of a specific individual creature, but rather just a generic creature of a general type or ancestry. If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties. Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.
Nobody's clothes are being destroyed by changing shape.
Whether or not you choose to play an ecchi game where shape changing leaves you nude is up to you. I can't imagine PFS would play it that way, if they are trying to encourage a family friendly environment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't imagine PFS would play it that way, if they are trying to encourage a family friendly environment.
If your game has lust demons in it, you've already lost that fight...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't imagine PFS would play it that way, if they are trying to encourage a family friendly environment.If your game has lust demons in it, you've already lost that fight...
They made adjustments for that. There is no need to play up the sexy aspects. Even the artwork for them is remarkably covered up.
When disguised as a mortal humanoid on the Material Plane, a succubus whispers into the ears of mortals, urging them to pursue their darkest and most destructive desires and pushing them into depravity, using magic only if persuasion fails. While mortals often fixate on succubi’s application of sexual lust, these demons are can easily exploit lust for power, knowledge, fame, or any other desire as easily as more carnal appetites. Their ability to infiltrate societies makes them excellent spies, assassins, and political saboteurs as well. Ultimately, the succubus enjoys all means of upending mortal culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't imagine PFS would play it that way, if they are trying to encourage a family friendly environment.If your game has lust demons in it, you've already lost that fight...They made adjustments for that. There is no need to play up the sexy aspects. Even the artwork for them is remarkably covered up.
When disguised as a mortal humanoid on the Material Plane, a succubus whispers into the ears of mortals, urging them to pursue their darkest and most destructive desires and pushing them into depravity, using magic only if persuasion fails. While mortals often fixate on succubi’s application of sexual lust, these demons are can easily exploit lust for power, knowledge, fame, or any other desire as easily as more carnal appetites. Their ability to infiltrate societies makes them excellent spies, assassins, and political saboteurs as well. Ultimately, the succubus enjoys all means of upending mortal culture.
If a LUST demon is in the game solely to do mundane subterfuge, it seems like misplaced resources. It's like using a pit fiend that's job it to light campfires... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
d) The dress is absorbed.
I don't see a problem there because 1) a succubus will probably have no issue with walking around naked and 2) it can just Suggest the nearest farmer to give it his clothes.
Imagine the iconic scene from Terminator 1 with naked Arnold. ...just with a farmer and no bikes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we can return to the topic at hand:
How would you rule a Succubi changing form into a male human farmer, or a street urchin?
Specifically, what, if any, clothing, would he appear to be wearing after using the Change Shape action?
a) the red dress from the Bestiary picture?
b) grubby cheap clothing appropriate to a farmer?
c) the small-sized rags a street urchin would wear?
d) nothing, since her dress is "absorbed"?If b (or c) - can her ability procure any other mundane "accessories"? A straw for the farmer to suck on? A dirty hat? A pitchfork?
D, she's naked. Nothing in the ability suggests it's a combat ability that MUST be usable at a moments notice: a selection of clothes to wear should be kept on hand if this is what you want. take a bag/backpack of clothes and drop as a free action before the change then take out and wear new clothes.
Note, this is a physical change. Would you expect the change to make armor, weapons and other equipment? Make spell component pouches? At best a polymorph spell allows you to keep the items you wear not create new ones: so in this case, if instead it was a female wizard casting a humanoid form spell, you'd have what looks like a male human farmer in drag wearing whatever red dress she was already wearing. In no case would it produce other clothing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be worth noting that Clothes, in general, are non-combat equipment/items and literally NO creatures in the Bestiary have clothes included in their statblock so technically... either the clothes they're showcased as wearing are actually supposed to considered part of their Character itself or it's meant to handwaved. You don't need to shapechange your NPCs clothes when they're already naked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Aratorin:
I can't imagine PFS would play it that way, if they are trying to encourage a family friendly environment.I'm having trouble believing that anyone could argue option d is RAI.
Sorry to shake your beliefs but that's exactly what I think. Let me ask you: how many PFS adventures have a shapechanger changing IN FRONT OF THE PC's so that this would matter IN THE LEAST. If its happening off scene and no one sees, who cares even if it required a full on naked orgy as the PC's will never know that fact...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well two can play a RAW game. And as it is nowhere written that Impersonate checks actually depend on clothing it does entirely not matter that the red dress Succubi that went next room comes back as an half-orc in a red dress as long as it succeeds at her Deception check.
Most shape changing spells say they absorb the gear, or adapts the size, neither of which imply the gear changes appearance as well. Personally, It's not really outlandish to assume the succubus has a wardrobe of clothes they use, ornifnthey need to impersonate a specific person, they are probably absolutely fine leaving behind a sultry dress or what have you; that kind of thing leads to speculations of adultry or secret double lives, which causes chaos, which is kinda the succubus' MO.
For players... well, quick disguise glamored armor, and illusory disguise are still things. If you need an instant outfit swap, you have plenty of choices and aren't even that hard to get
I'm really not seeing the problem that the original post is implying in it's assumption that RAI must not require a shape-changer to carry clothes. Does a human with no dark vision also not need to carry around torches / a lantern / have a light spell? It's really not that hard to just say that your backpack has a few sets of clothes in it and call it a day.
The real difference between the two systems is the amount of time needed to be effective. If you don't change clothes, or if you're naked after transforming, then the activity of changing your appearance and being convincing is going to take longer. I understand someone liking the ability and not wanting that to be the case, and if you're planning on using it a lot maybe that's something you can bring up with the GM. I mean, I can certainly see an interpretation in which the ability to "take on the appearance of any Small or Medium humanoid." includes what said humanoid would wear. Assuming that this is not only RAI, but also what your GM will rule, however, is probably a step too far, as that's in no way clear, nor is it game breaking if it doesn't happen. It just takes longer to do effectively.
My thread necro sense is tingling!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But suggesting that Paizo wrote its game in such a way that shapechanging HAS to take place in a phone booth or you WILL gain a MA rating is preposterous.
They made a spell that violently explodes your familiar... That's not exactly g rated. We have gods of cannibalism, sadistic murders and other less than Disney themes... I'm not seeing why it's a "family friendly game" for transformation spells but not for other aspects: when your deity has Edicts like Plot and commit murders, torture creatures and/or curse or mutate unborn children is it REALLY an issue that you're naked after casting a spell? Not IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But suggesting that Paizo wrote its game in such a way that shapechanging HAS to take place in a phone booth or you WILL gain a MA rating is preposterous.They made a spell that violently explodes your familiar... That's not exactly g rated. We have gods of cannibalism, sadistic murders and other less than Disney themes... I
m not seeing why it's a "family friendly game" for transformation spells but not for other aspects: when your deity has Edicts like Plot and commit murders, torture creatures and/or curse or mutate unborn children is it REALLY an issue that you're naked after casting a spell? Not IMO.
I don't know about that, Zapp.
Paizo has a history of making nonsensical decisions on occasion, such as one infamous ruling that broke numerous monsters and characters. It resulted in doppelgangers no longer being able to read minds out in the open, succubi could no longer charm people unawares, and illusionists could no longer cast illusion spells discreetly in First Edition.
Whether shapechanging grants clothing only matters if the creature changes shape into a humanoid form during an encounter -- and that is unlikely, as a shapechanger is most likely to assume the form of a humanoid in order to fool those it encounters, which wouldn't work if it is seen changing form. It is far more likely to be encountered in (clothed) humanoid form from the start.
You are far more likely to see such a creature terrifyingly change from humanoid form to its true form during an encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure but that doesn't make the fundamental question go away :-)
Whether shapechanging grants clothing only matters if the creature changes shape into a humanoid form during an encounter -- and that is unlikely, as a shapechanger is most likely to assume the form of a humanoid in order to fool those it encounters, which wouldn't work if it is seen changing form. It is far more likely to be encountered in (clothed) humanoid form from the start.You are far more likely to see such a creature terrifyingly change from humanoid form to its true form during an encounter.
No, but it counters your point that it must be the case because otherwise the game wouldn't be "family friendly" (which it's not btw). After all, if it's not supposed to come up, then does it matter how it works? Just let the GM decide what fits for their game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's "there's basically never going to be a time that this genuinely matters to game-play... so don't waste word count on it." So groups that think having clothes is how it "should be" and groups that would rather have nudity for some reason are both equally free to do their thing and neither side gets some author wasting words telling them "no, you're wrong."Sure, but now you're taking for granted that flexibility on the issue is available.
It's almost as if with your attitude half of the rules discussions could just be ended with "it's up to the GM" :)
You say that as if some level of flexibility isn't fundamentally built into the game and even outright stated as a general rule. The rules are meant to give a solid, and as complete as possible framework to play the game. Things that the Dev's think aren't as important, won't come up enough, or, perhaps, simply should be different from one table to the next are often left out. I think this is a perfect example of a case in which it doesn't fundamentally change the game one way or another, and it's easy enough for a GM to decide based on what they want / what fits the theme of the game.
I mean, let's put it this way. If your GM makes you track the number of rations and torches, as well as how many feet of rope you had to leave behind in that cave that one time, then you probably also don't conveniently change with clothes pre-prepared, nor do the monsters. If that's all hand-waved, however, then so is the clothing issue, most likely.
I agree that it's like collateral damage: not having the rules specify what happens allows the GM to set the tone of the game and the level of detail to what is appropriate for their table.
Variation is good, in some cases.