Like, can there be a catfolk that turns into a human hybrid when it Changes Shape?
Humans don't have the animal trait, but it's unclear whether the animal trait is required for the beastkin's beast form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per game mechanics humans are not animals in PF2, so no.
One question I like to ask when determining if something is clear or not is "what else could it mean?" In this case, if an "animal" isn't referring to the animal trait, then what, from a gameplay perspective, might it be referring to? Could it be referring to a creature? If it was, then it could say that. Perhaps it's simply using the technical definition of the word animal in the English language? That... sounds like a bad idea. I don't want to have to get a degree in biology to know what a feat in a game does.
Not to mention the odd flavor of getting a jaw attack based on your human teeth when normal humans don't. You can always ask your GM, but RAW it's pretty clear: Animal = Animal
RAW it's pretty clear
Which rule(s), exactly?
if an "animal" isn't referring to the animal trait, then what, from a gameplay perspective, might it be referring to? ... I don't want to have to get a degree in biology to know what a feat in a game does.
While I agree that would be ideal, we can't rely on the Animal tag right now. Hellknight Cavalry Brigades are tagged with the Animal trait - can I build a beastkin with a Hellknight Cavalry Brigade animal form, on the basis of "it has the animal tag"? Fen Mosquito Swarm (also tagged Animal) beastkin? I argue no to both.
Using judgement is required one way or the other, just blindly relying on the tags leads to some terrible things. On a systemwide level, things haven't been tagged precisely enough to do stuff like this.
I can buy the argument that animals are supposed to have low intelligence, and humans are too intelligent to qualify. But that's not RAW, either. And I get that animals are supposed to represent a baser, fiercer side - but for some of the more cerebral ancestries, humans may be considered unintelligent and savage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hellknight Cavalry Brigades is a troop, which is specifically a combination of creatures. A swarm to is specifically a group of creatures. The beastkin ability specifically references "your inherent animal" which is singular: as such, use the Animal tag for any SUNGULAR animal: so if you wanted, you could pick a Fen Mosquito [singular] or a horse [singular] but Fen Mosquito Swarm [group] and Hellknight Cavalry Brigades [group] are out. It's pretty simple. I can't see a way to finagle human as an animal no matter how you look at it: I can't see anything without the animal trait being an animal.
RAW it's pretty clearWhich rule(s), exactly?
The beastkin rules... where they say animal.
if an "animal" isn't referring to the animal trait, then what, from a gameplay perspective, might it be referring to? ... I don't want to have to get a degree in biology to know what a feat in a game does.While I agree that would be ideal, we can't rely on the Animal tag right now. Hellknight Cavalry Brigades are tagged with the Animal trait - can I build a beastkin with a Hellknight Cavalry Brigade animal form, on the basis of "it has the animal tag"? Fen Mosquito Swarm (also tagged Animal) beastkin? I argue no to both.
Using judgement is required one way or the other, just blindly relying on the tags leads to some terrible things. On a systemwide level, things haven't been tagged precisely enough to do stuff like this.
I can buy the argument that animals are supposed to have low intelligence, and humans are too intelligent to qualify. But that's not RAW, either. And I get that animals are supposed to represent a baser, fiercer side - but for some of the more cerebral ancestries, humans may be considered unintelligent and savage.
Graystone already covered the brigade and swarm issue, which also covers the second paragraph, unless you can come up with an actual example of a singular creature with the animal tag that unequivocally shouldn't be allowed to be picked for your beast form.
As for the last paragraph regarding low intelligence, baser / fiercer instincts, and other animal-like behavior, we totally agree that's not RAW... and I didn't make that argument. You're the one that's trying to define the word animal based on your understanding of the word, not me.
I'm going by the definition of what is and isn't an animal in the game, which is defined via the animal trait.
If your GM wants to allow it, then go for it, but I legit don't see how the rules can be read to include humans. If you can come up with a single animal that shouldn't be allowed, or if you can give me another definition of what the game might be referring to when they say "animal" from a gameplay perspective, then I will concede that you have a point. How strong of a point that is remains to be seen, but as it stands I don't even see your point.
I can't see anything without the animal trait being an animal.
Giant Eagle is unquestionably an animal, without the animal trait.
If you can come up with a single animal that shouldn't be allowed ...
There's a lot, so I'll just choose the first one alphabetically:
Amphisbaena, a two-headed snake.
The next two alphabetically probably also qualify (I don't recognize the second one, but #3 is anhkrav). I didn't go any further than the first three things tagged animal because hopefully that's enough to prove the tags are unreliable.
as it stands I don't even see your point
There's no point I'm trying to make, it's a question. Do humans count as animals for non-human PC races?
Maybe, maybe not. If I knew for sure, I wouldn't be asking the question. But the answer definitely isn't "well look at the things tagged 'animal'" because the tag system is inadequate, both in terms of what's included as well as what's excluded.
Giant Eagle is unquestionably an animal, without the animal trait.
It's unquestionably a beast with the Beast trait. Of course, NOTHING prevents you from taking a NORMAL eagle instead of a giant one.
Now the first 4 animals listed are Amphisbaena, Anancus, Ankhrav and Ankylosaurus and are ALL perfectly fine to take. I'm really not sure what the issue is nor am I seeing ANYTHING that's unreliable. Animal trait REALLY, REALLY means animal: the only thing that takes the slightest bit of common sense to to exclude creatures that involve multiple individual animals in it like swarms and troops. So NO picking Beasts and saying 'but it doesn't make sense': Beasts aren't Animals. No picking Humanoids: Humanoids aren't Animals. For the record, Undead, Outsiders, Elementals or other creatures are not Animals unless they ALSO have the Animal trait. It's no where as difficult as you are trying to make it.
Giant Eagle is unquestionably an animal, without the animal trait.It's unquestionably a beast with the Beast trait.
You're confusing (or conflating) being an animal (lowercase a) with having the Animal Trait (capital A).
The danger of this is apparent in a number of threads, but most recently the ones about wild shape forms not being able to attempt to escape a grab, because Escape has the Manipulate trait.
For the record, Undead, Outsiders, Elementals or other creatures are not Animals unless they ALSO have the Animal trait.
So, to be clear, you think it is the developers' intent that people be allowed to play Lion Visitant beastkin, because Lion Visitant has the Animal trait; and not a Giant Eagle beastkin, because Giant Eagle does not?
Ah, you are looking for the legend of the were-Greg. They are truly accursed beasts, compelled by a great need to wear flannel and try to help with home improvement projects even though they don't have any actual handyman skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're confusing (or conflating) being an animal (lowercase a) with having the Animal Trait (capital A).
You are confusing (or conflating) real life animals with fantasy creatures that are clearly defined as not-animals. Beasts are not animals. Humanoids aren't animals. Animals are animals. It's hard to claim I'm conflating words that are identical and defined in the game.
The danger of this is apparent in a number of threads, but most recently the ones about wild shape forms not being able to attempt to escape a grab, because Escape has the Manipulate trait.
They can't because of how they have defined as an Attack action. It no different than if a monk wildshaped and tried to use a stance specific attack: they wouldn't be able to do it either.
So, to be clear, you think it is the developers' intent that people be allowed to play Lion Visitant beastkin, because Lion Visitant has the Animal trait; and not a Giant Eagle beastkin, because Giant Eagle does not?
I think they are allowed to be an Eagle beastkin. You can't play a Giant Eagle one any more than you can play a Sphinx, Tarrasque, Phoenix or a Manticore.
PS: question? What are you trying to gain from a Giant Eagle that you wouldn't gain from an Eagle? I'm not seeing the obsession with this particular interaction: what is gained by trying to force a Beast into an Animal?
I'm conflating words that are identical and defined in the game.
The words are defined within certain contexts, not all contexts. Ideally, they'd be differentiated from common (English) usage of the words by capitalization to indicate a proper noun - so "Animal" would mean "anything with the Animal trait" and "animal" would mean "how English speakers usually use the word animal".
Look at the phrasing for Summon Animal for a good example of this duality.
"You conjure an animal to fight for you. You summon a common creature that has the animal trait ..." (bolding mine)
The first usage is colloquial. The second is the in-game definition. If they were used in the same context, the sentences would be redundant.
They can't because of how they have defined as an Attack action.
But do you think that was intended, or a quirk introduced by ambiguous wording / imprecise tagging?
So, to be clear, you think it is the developers' intent that people be allowed to play Lion Visitant beastkin, because Lion Visitant has the Animal trait; and not a Giant Eagle beastkin, because Giant Eagle does not?I think they are allowed to be an Eagle beastkin. You can't play a Giant Eagle one any more than you can play a Sphinx, Tarrasque, Phoenix or a Manticore.
You're avoiding the question. Do you think it is intended that you're allowed to play a Lion Visitant beastkin, or is it wording / tagging that allows it as a loophole in the rules?
What are you trying to gain from a Giant Eagle that you wouldn't gain from an Eagle? I'm not seeing the obsession with this particular interaction: what is gained by trying to force a Beast into an Animal?
Clarification of the rules.
The specific examples were per your request - you asked for an animal that was not an Animal, and I provided one. Someone else asked for an Animal that was not an animal, and I provided one.
In case it is not clear: I have no personal interest in playing a giant eagle beastkin ... nor an eagle beastkin, nor a lion visitant beastkin, nor a lion beastkin. Truth be told, I'm the GM of the person who asked (so lol to whoever told me to ask my GM). I've already answered whether that specific example is okay for my specific campaign (it's not, but for reasons unrelated to the Animal tag); I want to know the rules for when I don't have complete dictatorial power over the campaign, e.g., PFS.
I have a similar concern about Summon Animal and the usage of the Animal tag, but it's been avoidable so far because (a) nobody's tried to summon a lion visitant / giant eagle / mosquito swarm / warg in my games, (b) Summon Animal is a one-time thing vs Beastkin being a character creation issue, so if I muck up the rules on Summon Animal, it's not as big of a deal; and (c) Summon Animal clearly differentiates between "animal" and "Animal" so the intent is much clearer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Graystone on this. You have to choose something with the Animal trait as a Beastkin. The rules say "Choose and Animal" and gives examples of such animals.
One of the Beastkin Feats allows you to take the form of your animal, Animal Shape. They explicitly call out aerial form, animal form, or dinosaur form as the forms you can take. None of these have Beasts as an option in them.
Wait, you're legit talking about stuff like PFS? Okay, then you definitely have your answer: No, don't try to do that as a player, and if you're a GM, you don't have to allow it. Even if you happen to be right (I doubt it) at the very least it must have become clear to you at this point that not everyone agrees with that, so trying to put it on a character that you expect some random GM to allow at their table is a bad idea.
As for the actual specific examples you gave and the supposed problems, let's take a look at them one at a time:
Lion visitant:
Go for it. Though, to be clear, that would be purely for flavor. The feat does exactly what it says it does and nothing more, so you still wouldn't get the undead tag or anything else from that hybrid form besides a mixed appearance and the jaw attack. Even the animal form doesn't list it as one of the options. Oh, and btw, it's actually explicitly listed as an option for summon animal, so yes, you can summon them.
Giant Eagle:
Not an animal. It's a beast. Nothing stopping you from picking an eagle, though. As for the reason for this, I'm not sure. Perhaps it goes back to how you were trying to define it based on intelligence. After all, it has a +0 to intelligence compared to a regular eagle's -4. That's pretty smart for an "animal". That being said, there really shouldn't need to be a reason. The point is that the game says it's not an animal, so it's not an animal.
Mosquito Swarm or other groups:
There's an argument to be made for or against this being allowed for summon animal, since it does say you're summoning "an animal", but it also then adds the specifics of how that works and just mentions it being a common creature with the animal trait. I don't know if I can give an official answer on that one. That being said, for beastkin it's pretty clear both in words and from logic that you would have to pick a single entity.
Warg:
See Giant Eagle
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The specific examples were per your request - you asked for an animal that was not an Animal, and I provided one. Someone else asked for an Animal that was not an animal, and I provided one.
I honestly don't see why you're creating this extra layer of confusion for yourself in the first place. There's nothing that really supports these assertions and it just feels... unnecessarily convoluted to me as opposed to just looking and seeing if the game calls something an animal and running on the assumption the game isn't lying to us.
If they were used in the same context, the sentences would be redundant.
It's hardly the only instance of redundancies nor do I expect it to be the last.
You're avoiding the question. Do you think it is intended that you're allowed to play a Lion Visitant
It's pretty much the same as with the swarm or troops: you could try to do it as a technicality but I'd expect most Dm would say that the "type of animal tied to your heritage", also "known as your inherent animal" would be Lion. the same a you'd take an individual of the swarm as youe type and a horse for the troop.
But do you think that was intended, or a quirk introduced by ambiguous wording / imprecise tagging?
Does it matter? It is what it is. It's clearly what the rules are after their change. It should have been a known issue when they made the ruling.
Clarification of the rules.
It seems like a pretty easy answer and pretty clear. You are focusing too much on the specific creature when it clearly is looking for "type of animal tied to your heritage": so it's eagle: a specific eagle isn't needed. Same with a lion, or any other animal. After all, the form spells only have a limited list of animals so it doesn't matter. So it's pretty much a moot point you're debating about.
This thread was way less entertaining than I was hoping it would be. Are humans animals? Absolutely, no question about it. When a human transforms into an animal in mythology, fantasy, or folklore, is their primal side typically a different human? I would say considerably less common, and those people with the ability to turn into other people normally fit a completely different thematic framework.
Like, if any designers are poking about the area, let me say I would love an ancestry similar to the Eberron changeling that let you alter your own appearance on a whim, possibly even become other humanoids within a limit, but I am reasonably certain that Beastkin are not for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread was way less entertaining than I was hoping it would be. Are humans animals? Absolutely, no question about it. When a human transforms into an animal in mythology, fantasy, or folklore, is their primal side typically a different human? I would say considerably less common, and those people with the ability to turn into other people normally fit a completely different thematic framework.
Like, if any designers are poking about the area, let me say I would love an ancestry similar to the Eberron changeling that let you alter your own appearance on a whim, possibly even become other humanoids within a limit, but I am reasonably certain that Beastkin are not for that.
Again, this is a rules question, not a biology and or English question. A human is not an animal in PF2 in the same way that a creature isn't an object despite the second most common definition of object being: "a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed." e.g. "they are the object of my affection."
So, no, humans aren't "absolutely" animals in the context of the question. Not even close. You're overcomplicating a very simple ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When interpreting rules, you kind of have to leave out all preconceptions and definitions that exist in the real world and just focus on the concepts and definitions that exist in the rules.
The only place where "animal" is defined in PF2s rules is as the animal creature type. For the purpose of interpreting rules, there is no such thing as an animal that doesn't have the animal trait - the word animal only means "has the animal trait" and nothing else - if I stat up a creature that is a literally just a sentient rock (not even ambulatory like an elemental) - it's just a normal rock that is somehow self aware, and I choose to give it the animal trait, it is an animal for rules purposes, even though it definitely doesn't fit any real world definition for what an animal is.
If you can't put aside real world biases about what things are and what they mean, you will have a lot of trouble interpreting rules.
This thread was way less entertaining than I was hoping it would be. Are humans animals? Absolutely, no question about it. When a human transforms into an animal in mythology, fantasy, or folklore, is their primal side typically a different human? I would say considerably less common, and those people with the ability to turn into other people normally fit a completely different thematic framework.
Like, if any designers are poking about the area, let me say I would love an ancestry similar to the Eberron changeling that let you alter your own appearance on a whim, possibly even become other humanoids within a limit, but I am reasonably certain that Beastkin are not for that.
Again, this is a rules question, not a biology and or English question. A human is not an animal in PF2 in the same way that a creature isn't an object despite the second most common definition of object being: "a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed." e.g. "they are the object of my affection."
So, no, humans aren't "absolutely" animals in the context of the question. Not even close. You're overcomplicating a very simple ability.
You may have misunderstood my intent. It doesn't matter whether this is about rules or biology because I gave the same conclusion you did; no, beast kin should not turn into human-humanoid hybrids because that wouldn't make sense. That I acknowledge biology is only the introduction of my, "despite this, no" argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may have misunderstood my intent. It doesn't matter whether this is about rules or biology because I gave the same conclusion you did; no, beast kin should not turn into human-humanoid hybrids because that wouldn't make sense. That I acknowledge biology is only the introduction of my, "despite this, no" argument.
I'm aware you came to the same conclusion. If someone says to me that "3 + 10 = 13, because sandwiches are delicious", then there's nothing wrong with pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument, even if the conclusion is correct. This is obviously an extreme example, but it's the same concept as what I was saying.
Was it necessary for me to respond? No, of course not, but there's nothing wrong with it either.
I think it's also a fair point that, as far as I can tell, there's not a lot of ability to game the system so if a player has a cool idea they want to float by the GM that isn't standard I think that's reasonable.
NGL I kind of expected this thread to be more along those lines and sillier given that there doesn't seem to be any obvious exploit here and that the RAW seems reasonably clear.
|
Giant Eagle:
Not an animal. It's a beast. Nothing stopping you from picking an eagle, though. As for the reason for this, I'm not sure.
It's Tolkien's fault. Anything above a certain intelligence threshold is a beast, not an animal, and Tolkien established giant eagles as beings of human-level intelligence, a characteristic and distinction that was also present in PF1 (where giant eagles are magical beasts and still not animals). If you want an enormous bird that's still an animal, you actually want a roc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, what would happen if they take Animal Form? The GM would likely have to come up with an entirely new feat in place of it, or bar access to it entirely. A lot of feats from Beastkin rely on what your innate animal can do, so that would be quite a lot of new stuff just to fit with "Human"
I think most likely the DM would instead pick an existing animal that was close and use it instead of making a new feat: it's no different that picking an actual animal that isn't stated in the spells like a wombat or a red panda.