Humanoid Shape Invocation RAW disagreement

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Q223 From the current Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXVI thread.

Basically does the Dragonfire Adept lose access to its breath weapon when using the Humanoid Shape invocation.

Since the matter has seen an answer, a dispute, a revisit, and now a continuation of the dispute I have brought it here per the original thread's procedures.

This invocation relies on the definition of the monstrous supernatural ability Change Shape for its mechanics. The WoTC glossary definition for Change Shape can be found here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_changeshape&alpha=C
The following is the crux of the dispute:
"The creature retains all other special attacks and qualities of its original form, except for breath weapons and gaze attacks."

My stance is that "form" is not class, and thus class abilities are not subject to this sentence. I believe "form" to be race, class, and individual physical characteristics.

My esteemed fellow playgrounder (please see the original thread for the extended details of their point) argues that because Breath Weapon is a SU and not EX ability it is still lost. Personally, I don't see any relevance to their statement. Further they quoted Skip Williams' Polymorphing Revisited (Part Two) to support their stance; however, this article is a discussion of Alternate Form and Polymorph--neither of which are referenced in the Change Shape ability. Finally it is argued that Change Shape can result in the loss of the necessary biomechanics to support a breath weapon and this is why it should be explicitly lost when using the invocation. This argument ignores the fact that their are no biomechanic prerequisites for the Dragonfire Adept class or its breath weapon class feature.

I can see reasons why a DM might houserule that breath weapon would be lost. I can even see that ruling as being equally likely RAI as not. I believe that for RAW, "form" does NOT include class features.

What say you?

[Zweisteine]

My stance is that "form" is not class, and thus class abilities are not subject to this sentence. I believe "form" to be race, class, and individual physical characteristics.
These statements directly contradict each other. You might want to remove "class" from the second statement. :smallwink:


You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.
This quote from the text of alter self seems to imply that class features are part of your "form." By specifying "abilities from your normal form that are not derived from class levels," alter self implies that there exist "abilities from your normal form that are derived from class levels," which means that class features are part of your normal form.

Additionally, this text from the psionic power metamorphosis supports the same.

You retain all supernatural and spell-like special attacks and special qualities of your normal form. [snip] You keep all extraordinary special attacks and special qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any benefits of the racial traits of your normal form. [snip] You retain any manifesting ability you had in your original form.
The first sentence says you keep your supernatural and spell-like abilities (usually things not derived from your physical features). The second sentence says you lose your racial extraordinary abilities (which usually are physical feature-based), but keep your extraordinary class features (Which are not). It makes little sense that this power would take away your supernatural class features, but not racial traits, and do the opposite with extraordinary features.*
Also, it is very rare that proper manifesting ability is derived from race and is not a spell-like (or psi-like) ability (and no creatures manifest Metamorphosis naturally at all), so the last sentence effectively confirms that your manifesting ability (which you gained from Psion levels) is part of your normal form.

Personally, I would imagine that "form" refers to your actual physical form. "Original form" refers to whatever you started as, and includes any abilities associated with that form, which would include your class. Otherwise, there would

*Unless this power means to let you keep your [Su] and [Sp] (but not [Ex]) racial traits, and lose your [Su] and [Sp] (but not [Ex]) class abilities, class must be part of your form.

[HunterOfJello]

The Rules Compendium has a slightly different, but very important distinction in definition.


The creature retains all other attacks and special qualities of its natural form, except for breath weapons and gaze attacks.

(emphasis added)


If you character had a breath weapon as part of their natural form (like a dragon or dragonborn), then they would lose it. Since your breath weapon is not a part of your natural form, but an ability gained through class levels it does not qualify for removal.

[Zweisteine]

If you character had a breath weapon as part of their natural form (like a dragon or dragonborn), then they would lose it. Since your breath weapon is not a part of your natural form, but an ability gained through class levels it does not qualify for removal.
See my above post.

The basis of my argument is that "the abilities of your normal form" are any abilities you had in your normal form.

[NoACWarrior]

Very nice on the reference pickup :D

In any case, we both agree at the the two very important statements regarding Humanoid Shape and Change Shape are the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th bulleted statements when regarding class based supernatural attacks which are breath weapons and gaze attacks.

For simplicity sake here they are:

The creature loses the natural weapons, movement modes, and extraordinary special attacks of its original form.
The creature retains all other special attacks and qualities of its original form, except for breath weapons and gaze attacks.
The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or supernatural attacks of its new form.

I agree that "form" is the word we are arguing about, and that we must first define "form" in the context of Change Shape. I do not accept Tarlek's first sentence of his stance as his second sentence is more in line for what form is supposed to be (form includes class physical characteristics):

I believe "form" to be race, class, and individual physical characteristics.

Specifically regarding breath weapons as defined by Skip Williams, a breath weapon requires "a specific configuration of lungs (or other internal organs) plus the throat, windpipe, mouth, and other breathing apparatus" and thus based on physical characteristics of the individual.

Since Tarlek's statement says he indeed agrees that a) form is race, class, and individual physical characteristics, and that b) Change Shape changes one's form (we can argue about this if necessary in further posts) I come to the conclusion that Breath Weapons are part of one's form and are subject to change with the change in form which Change Shape introduces.

Therefore, if Change Shape does change form, form encompass physical characteristics (or those dependent on physical characteristics), a breath weapon would be subject to bullet point 3 and 5.

[HunterOfJello]

See my above post.

The basis of my argument is that "the abilities of your normal form" are any abilities you had in your normal form.

Reread my post.

Original ≠ Normal ≠ Natural

The Rules Compendium rewrote a lot of the rules in the game and one of the biggest sections that it rewrote were all of the rules for changing forms. That's why it's the best place to go for rules on Wild Shape, Change Shape, Alter Form, Polymorph, and others.

The Rules Compendium replaced the words "Original" or "Normal" with the more appropriate "Natural". The breath weapon of a Dragonfire Adept is not a special quality of its "Natural" form.

Dragon Magic describes dragonfire adepts' power as a "draw upon a direct link with the nature of draconic existence, infusing their soul with the raw magic of dragons. The most obvious incarnation of this link is their breath weapon..."(p24).

If the character possessed a breath weapon from their natural form like a dragon does, then they would lose it when they use Change Shape to turn into another form. However, a dragonfire adept would not since it not a feature of their natural form, it is magic 'infusing their soul'.

[NoACWarrior]

This quote from the text of alter self seems to imply that class features are part of your "form." By specifying "abilities from your normal form that are not derived from class levels," alter self implies that there exist "abilities from your normal form that are derived from class levels," which means that class features are part of your normal form.
... Snip ...
Personally, I would imagine that "form" refers to your actual physical form. "Original form" refers to whatever you started as, and includes any abilities associated with that form, which would include your class.

If we were to agree on a RAI, I would definitely say Change Shape doesn't take away your class based supernatural Breath Weapons and Gaze Attacks (because its just not fair to lose a class ability with a low power Change Shape). Which is why I try my best, when DMing and PCing, do reasonable balances between RAI and RAW.

The Psionic power you listed makes a lot of sense, and in that specific instance is a case where RAW meets up with RAI.

Unfortunately we don't have a clear RAW here, just something from WoTC, and having to reapply the case of the Class based Supernatural Breath weapon to the raw.

According to Skip Williams, a breath weapon or gaze attack is reliant on the physical form and physical characteristics, regardless of their origin. Without Skip Williams, we would be arguing if a Breath Weapon is indeed part of a form or not.

Lets go in that direction, as it is more exciting than arguing if Skip is right or wrong - remember for an RAW argument its not about what makes sense, but what is there...

[NoACWarrior]

The Rules Compendium rewrote a lot of the rules in the game and one of the biggest sections that it rewrote were all of the rules for changing forms. That's why it's the best place to go for rules on Wild Shape, Change Shape, Alter Form, Polymorph, and others.

The Rules Compendium replaced the words "Original" or "Normal" with the more appropriate "Natural". The breath weapon of a Dragonfire Adept is not a special quality of its "Natural" form.

Ok - forgot about looking in rules compendium. If we still apply Skip's description for a breath weapon, such a supernatural class based attack is still dependent on the natural form - and any change would effect special attacks based on that change in form.

But back to arguing without Skip's description for a breath weapon. I have to prove to you that the changes in natural form affects the existence of said breath weapon derived from a class feature.

Note that this is a small tangent - would a natural form change resulting in a humanoid without a mouth be able to cast spells that have verbal components? Its explicitly stated that such a natural form change would prevent the user from casting spells with verbal components. Is the same true for a Breath weapon, regardless of how it is obtained? I'd say yes. Simply put a natural form change DOES effect natural form dependent class features. This doesn't mean directly by RAW that all class features are dependent on the form, just a few which have requirements.

With the small tangent said - a breath weapon requires use of a mouth right? Said mouth is a physical feature reliant on natural form. Any thing which is reliant on the natural form is subject to Change Shape rules because they are directly affected by the change in natural form.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

There seems to be some confusion about my original points.

I do not agree that "form" includes class characteristics. By individual physical characteristics I mean hair color, nose shape, etc. The physical traits that allow us to distinguish one member of a race from another by sight.

If we accept your premise that the Dragonfire Adept breath weapon class feature requires a mouth, then we exclude any natural race without one. While I cannot think of such a race (especially a humanoid one) at the moment; I don't think that the rules preclude any race from becoming a DFA.

Discussing extra abilities Alter Self, psionic powers, etc seems to fly in the face of a RAW discussion. Humanoid Shape relies on Change Shape for its definition, and Change Shape makes no reference to any other rule. Barring glossary references I would say that the RAW answer must be determined from reviewing the DFA class description, the invocation's description, and the monstrous supernatural ability's description only.

I really have to get a copy of the Rules Compendium....

EDIT: Found a direct source for the Rules Compendium, I lose RAW the DFA would indeed lose access to its breath weapon class feature.

"• The creature loses the natural weapons and movement modes of its natural form, as well as any extraordinary special attacks of its natural form not derived from class
levels."

This sentence makes it very clear to me.

[NoACWarrior]

I really have to get a copy of the Rules Compendium....

Maybe I'll order one from drivethru (I still don't know if drivethru is licensed to distribute).

I think things became too complicated for a true RAW reading when we diverged on original form / new form.

Using the Rules compendium we WOULD swap out Natural for original, and suddenly RAI and RAW might actually match. I would definitely agree with you if not for Skip's commentary on a breath weapon being wholly dependent on the change in form (class derived or not).

This is where I think we need to clarify a few things - what is a breath weapon reliant on, and what is the difference between a natural / racial derived breath weapon and that of a class based derived one.

I'll change my post in the Q&A later tonight, I'm late for a meeting and getting dinner.

Edit: that rules compendium blurb states that the natural derived extraordinary special attacks are lost, NOT class derived extraordinary special attacks. The Breath Weapon in question is a class derived supernatural special attack.

[Rijan_Sai]

Ok - forgot about looking in rules compendium. If we still apply Skip's description for a breath weapon, such a supernatural class based attack is still dependent on the natural form - and any change would effect special attacks based on that change in form.

But back to arguing without Skip's description for a breath weapon. I have to prove to you that the changes in natural form affects the existence of said breath weapon derived from a class feature.

Note that this is a small tangent - would a natural form change resulting in a humanoid without a mouth be able to cast spells that have verbal components? Its explicitly stated that such a natural form change would prevent the user from casting spells with verbal components. Is the same true for a Breath weapon, regardless of how it is obtained? I'd say yes. Simply put a natural form change DOES effect natural form dependent class features. This doesn't mean directly by RAW that all class features are dependent on the form, just a few which have requirements.

With the small tangent said - a breath weapon requires use of a mouth right? Said mouth is a physical feature reliant on natural form. Any thing which is reliant on the natural form is subject to Change Shape rules because they are directly affected by the change in natural form.

The problem that I see with this is that the class Dragonfire Adept grants a Breath Weapon to creatures that normally cannot have one. If we go by Skip's premise that a BW requires a "specific combination of <internals >" to work, (and the way I read your posts sounds like you think he's saying all BW require those,) then either the DFA class fundamentally alters the physiology of every creature that takes the class, or humanoids would be unable to use the BW at all. (I don't really think you believe that, just that your posts sound like it.)
Now, if that is not the case, then the class must grant the BW in some alternate manner. So if it is not purely physiologically bases, then I don't see a reason why it should be lost to Change Shape. (For that matter, if it does work the other way, and drastically change the creatures body, then it should alter the physiology of anything that creatures changes into, and thus still allow the BW to work in other forms.)

I alpologize if none of this makes sense...It's late and I really should be in bed...

[squiggit]

then I don't see a reason why it should be lost to Change Shape.
Well Change Shape does explicitly say it doesn't transfer breath weapons.

The workaround I see here is arguing that while you lose the breath weapon by RAW, you don't lose the class feature which would just mean you'd get the breath weapon back right away.

I feel like the whole "But Skip said!" is a bit of a nonsequiter though, because it goes into discussing fluff more than mechanics.

[NoACWarrior]

Well Change Shape does explicitly say it doesn't transfer breath weapons.

The workaround I see here is arguing that while you lose the breath weapon by RAW, you don't lose the class feature which would just mean you'd get the breath weapon back right away.

While Change Shape does say it doesn't transfer breath weapons, it only applies to "natural form" breath weapons, not those from a magical source or class provided. I originally argued that Form includes class based sources so long as they have form dependent delivery systems, but RAW doesn't care or define such a requirement for a class based supernatural derived breath or gaze attack.

That is how it stands now.

I will change my answer to be fully based on what RAW rules say.

[Zweisteine]

I'm having a hard time thinking of how to phrase this...

If your natural form is human, and you are a wizard while in your natural form, you wizard abilities are those of your natural form.

Also, the idea that "natural" and "original" form are not the same seems rather nitpicky to me... I'm 99% sure that those are just different writers' wordings for the same thing.

And yeah, there realy isn't a strictly RAW interpretation, as any interpretation relies on an undefined term, "form." They neglected to define that most likely because they assumed it would be intuitive. Apparently, it is not.

I interpret, based on my gut and on the references in my first post, that class is part of form. Others may disagree, and that's up to them.