Scaling up or down in size would change many of the ability scores and attributes of the creature.
The creatures ability scores don't matter because you don't get them, no matter the size. You get the ability score modifiers that the spell says you get.
You'd take the powers/stats of the "real" creature.
Nope, you get some powers of the creature, depending on the spell, but you do not get the stats. By stats I mean ability scores, AC, attack bonuses etc.
Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature’s type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.
So you take the form of an average lamia or green hag. Not huge or diminutive one.
When casting spells such as Beast SHape III and Monstrous Physique III, do I have to take the shape of an existing version of a creature in the Bestiaries that is already Huge or Dimunitive sized, or may I become a larger (or smaller) version of any creature of the specified type?
You have to take an actual creature from the books, and that is the form the character takes, including size. You can only choose the creature, you can't choose any aspect of the form.
In case it's not clear, you can use the spells to also take the form of a creature of a size allowed by previous versions, so anything between diminuitive and huge is fine, and you get the abilities allowed by the actual spell, regardless of the size of the used form. For example, you can use MP3 to take the form of the medium sized Green Hag, and still get the mimicry ability. Of course, you'd also use the ability score and natural armor modifiers for medium size (+2 strength, +2 natural armor).
However, you could look for a similar creature with abilities in common. You'd take the powers/stats of the "real" creature, but flavor-wise re-skin it to be a larger or smaller version of something else. For instance , I once used the stats for a pig, but re-skinned it to be a baby mammoth.
One could always ask the GM, of course, but the rules don't allow this.
Wait are you saying the the rules don't allow me to use a rapier and call it a longsword in every way save mechanically?
You can call it a longsword, and even your character can call it a longsword, but ingame, it will be a rapier. if you challenge an actual longsword wielder to a duel, "my longsword against yours", the opponent will laugh at your 'tooth pick'. Just the same, you can call your pig beast shape whatever you want, but NPCs won't say "aww, how cute, a baby mammoth", they'll say "get that pig away from me".
Yeah there's something in the CRB I think that talks about spell flavouring.
You can change the colour of your fireball, you can change it to have the flames be either curvy or spiky or something (though you can't mechanically change the AoE), but you can't make your fireball look like a dragon breathing flames as this would have a mechanical effect.
Likewise you could slightly change your longsword (there is no historical "Longsword" so if you want it to be Scottish or Saxon or Aztec or whatever that doesn't matter, but changing it to look like something that has different stats is a mechanical effect so wouldn't be allowed.
Obviously it depends on your games. We tend to allow small thematic changes as they're fun (eg. I'm thinking of using Monstrous Physique 2 to look like a large monstrous Kasatha when I transform into a 4-armed-gargoyle), but technically it's not allowed. If I tried to use this to get a diplomacy buff with Kasatha, or use my DNA as a way to open a door or something then it would suddenly be more than a thematic change.
If you want to do something like this ask the GM, but it's not allowed by the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait are you saying the the rules don't allow me to use a rapier and call it a longsword in every way save mechanically?You can call it a longsword, and even your character can call it a longsword, but ingame, it will be a rapier. if you challenge an actual longsword wielder to a duel, "my longsword against yours", the opponent will laugh at your 'tooth pick'. Just the same, you can call your pig beast shape whatever you want, but NPCs won't say "aww, how cute, a baby mammoth", they'll say "get that pig away from me".
if you can point me to where in the rules it says that I can't call a scimitar or a rapier or even a greatsword a longsword, and have it look like similar to a longsword in the world. As long as I follow the actual rules of the actual weapon I'm using properly I'd be much appreciated.
Even then, I would disagree to an extent.
The point is you can't get a mechanical advantage from your fluff.
If you're holding a rapier (1d6P, 18-20/×2) but calling it a longsword, and you challenge someone with an identical longsword that actually functions as a longsword (1d8S, 19-20/×2) then even though they look identical everyone in the world knows they're different (or at least anyone with a vague knowledge of weaponry). Any soldier passing by would know that the weapons function differently (I'd say people would recognise weapons they're proficient with at the very least).
A good example of this is the spell DISGUISE SELF. Among other things, this spell says: "You can seem 1 foot shorter". Normally this does nothing, but a Hlafling who casts Reduce Person then Disguise self can technically make themself 0 inches tall (or -1 even). If you get to 0 inches tall you'd be functionally invisible (which someone - or possibly a few someones - tried asking about in the rules forum). While technically you can make yourself 0 inches tall, this wouldn't give you concealment, or even a stralth bonus, so enemies could still see and recognise you as well as usual (well you do get a disguise bonus), and could target you with attacks without a miss-chance. You'd be a voice emanating from the floor with no discernable features who is nevertheless greeted by every passerby and street guard as if you were just another (short) person walking in the street. The reason for this is that no matter what fluff you give, the rules don't allow for the extra advantage of a re-skin.
So I guess yes you can make your Rapier look like a Longsword, but the guy you're challenging knows it's not the same as his longsword. If you want the mechanical advantage then learn spme illusion spells, that's what they're for.
|
|
I've never said you should get any extra advantage from the reskin. I actually stated one must follow the rules what they actually have. All I asked is where the rules say you can't reskin. If a player wants to finesse a longsword, let them finesse a "longsword". Just keep it a d6 longsword with 18-20 threat. Perhaps the longsword functions different due to fighting style.
I can agree that there are limits. Obviously making a dagger look like a greatsword seems implausible. However, we are in a world where people can alter their appearance almost at whim with magic. Teleport 100s of miles. restore life to the dead etc. It just seems like a contrived and limiting view. I understand the disguise self+reduce person halfling doesn't get anything RAW from the combination. (However, is creative enough that as a GM I'd allow extra stealth bonuses) That doesn't mean that people don't see this 1 Inch man the size of a mouse walking down the street.
I allow and encourage re-skin, I want my players to feel like they own the world we play in as much as I do.
What I do not allow are overlapping names. The names used in the rules are reserved thus cannot get used for a re-skinning. If said name is of importance in the re-skinning, then I work with the player and maybe the whole table to find another possible name for the old item.
Here, an example would that what the rules call a longsword would have its name changed, to arming sword as someone proposed, to make room for naming longsword the weapon of the player's choice.
- I've watched Krull for the first time yesterday. What they name glaive.... The case we are debating, exactly^^ -
There are indeed historical longswords. Longsword refers to various 2 handed weapons. Pathfinder calls them bastard swords and great swords. What pathfinder calls a longsword was historically called an arming sword.
Not to be That Guy, but just as an aside, the terminology for swords is far from clear. A"long sword" can be a wide variety of different weapons, depending on the historical period or culture you're talking about, or even particular historian you're using as a reference. Viking- and Bronze Age-blades, medieval bastard swords, Scottish claymores and rapiers have all been called long swords.
If I recall, the term "longsword" or "long-sword" as a category is entirely a modern convention. Before that, it was just a descriptor.At any rate, reskinning is totally fine in my book. Just so long as everyone understands what rules you're using and you don't gain an accidental advantage. Calling a rapier a longsword in Pathfinder seems a little confusing to me, since the numerical values of both are pretty much standard knowledge to everyone at the table.
But a green hag or a lamia? I don't know all their stats offhand. Find a similar form, use those rules, but reskin it as what you like--I'd be fine with that.
|
There are indeed historical longswords. Longsword refers to various 2 handed weapons. Pathfinder calls them bastard swords and great swords. What pathfinder calls a longsword was historically called an arming sword.Not to be That Guy, but just as an aside, the terminology for swords is far from clear. A"long sword" can be a wide variety of different weapons, depending on the historical period or culture you're talking about, or even particular historian you're using as a reference. Viking- and Bronze Age-blades, medieval bastard swords, Scottish claymores and rapiers have all been called long swords.
If I recall, the term "longsword" or "long-sword" as a category is entirely a modern convention. Before that, it was just a descriptor.
True, I was assuming ~14th century Europe as that is what D&D/Pathfinder is mainly based off of.
Of course, depending on the style your going off of, your "daggers" might be 2 feet long and your "greatsword" 8 feet. A lot of fantasy gets pretty ridiculous in their exaggeration. Personally I have no problem with someone wanting to describe things in over the top cartoon proportions.
Back to polymorphing: for me (when GMing my home game) it depends on the creature. Something like, say, a frog comes in all manner of sizes from tiny to colossal. The pathfinder bestiaries don't have stats for a colossal frog, but they are cannon for my home setting (I've used one before). On the other hand something like a hobgoblin is a hobgoblin, they don't come in any other sizes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never said you should get any extra advantage from the reskin.
Cool, I think we're actually on the same page then.
This is a game of make-believe, so the flavour can be pretty much anything you want as long as it doesn't alter the mechanics (and as long as the other players and the GM buy into your flavour I guess).
I'm pretty sure you have to become a "standard" version of the allowed creature type. Scaling up or down in size would change many of the ability scores and attributes of the creature.
According to the Magic chapter of the CRB, polymorph spells change you into a generic member of the creature whose form you assume, and you can't polymorph into a creature with a template. So you'll always be the standard size, and can never be a young (smaller) or giant (larger) version.
Just to be clear, while some of my terminology may have been off, I also was not trying to allow for any mechanical advantage, purely suggesting re-skin for role play.
If you had said "you could ask your GM if you can take a similar creature with abilities in common and reflavor it", I wouldn't have said anything. But I had to disagree with your statement "you could look for a similar creature with abilities in common [and reflavor it]", because that statement made it look like something allowed by the rules, which it isn't.
The rules don't allow reflavoring polymorph effects. The rules do allow asking the GM to allow reflavoring polymorph effects, however.
There are numerous differences in the capabilities of a cheetah and a leopard, but they both get stated as small cat.
You're thinking (or talking) about animal companions. Polymorphing works different, and indeed, Leopard an Cheetah have notably different statistics. I presume your pig/baby mammoth was also an animal companion, not polymorphing.
Animal companions, familiars, and polymorphing are not treated the same. Animal companions explicitly group multiple similar animals together, and familiars have a whole section in Animal Archive about "approximating familiars". There is nothing like that for polymorphing.
All I asked is where the rules say you can't reskin.
You might as well ask where the rules say you don't deal 100 bonus damage per hit for the next hour after spitting on your sword.
Seriously, Pathfinder is a permissive rule system. Something isn't allowed by the absense of rules to the contrary, but by rules that allow it.
I've never said you should get any extra advantage from the reskin. I actually stated one must follow the rules what they actually have. (...) If a player wants to finesse a longsword, let them finesse a "longsword". Just keep it a d6 longsword with 18-20 threat.
The problem is that it's possible to get advantage from the weapon being a longsword. For example.