Living Spell Wild Shape

[bekeleven]

A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.

“Living spell” is an unusual template, in that it is applied to an arcane or divine spell effect (or in some cases, a group of spell effects) and not a creature.

Certain creatures are created by adding a template to an existing creature. A templated creature can represent a freak of nature, the individual creation of a single experimenter, or the first generation of offspring from parents of different species.

Hit me with your best shot: Is Living Spell a templated creature, or can I wild Shape into one as a Master of Many Forms?

For reference, the form wouldn't give you much, unless you used the Assume Supernatural Ability feat from Savage Species.

Eggynack thinks no - As long as it's a creature and it has a template, it's "a creature with a template" as far as Alternate Form's concerned. I think yes - It's not a creature with a template, it's a spell with a template that happens to have wisdom, charisma, and hit dice.

[Psyren]

Eggynack is correct. Even though you start by adding Living Spell to something that is not a creature, the end result is in fact "a creature with a template" - and therefore the alternate form/wildshape prohibition would apply.

If you'd like an analogy, Animate Dead is similar. You start by applying the spell to something that is not a creature (in fact, to an object - a corpse), but the end result is... a creature with a template.

[jiriku]

I concur. The process for creating a living spell stands distinct from the result of that process. It is the result of the process with which Alternate Form's restriction is concerned, and the result is a templated creature.

[bekeleven]

If you'd like an analogy, Animate Dead is similar. You start by applying the spell to something that is not a creature (in fact, to an object - a corpse), but the end result is... a creature with a template.


"Skeleton" is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature


"Zombie" is an acquired template that can be added to any corporeal creature


“Living spell” is an unusual template, in that it is applied to an arcane or divine spell effect (or in some cases, a group of spell effects) and not a creature.

Incorrect. Everything created by animated dead is a templated creature - a creature with a template added.

We can all agree a skeleton is a creature with a template - see the above quotes, I think it's pretty explicit. And we can all agree that living spell is a spell (technically a spell effect) with a template added (again, see the quote - template applied to spell effect seems straightforward).

Your claim is that living spell is both a spell with a template and a creature with a template? Despite the fact that it is, well, a template that's been applied to a spell?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A living spell is a creature, otherwise you could not even consider it a possibility to assume one's form with alternate form.

Living spell itself is a template, even though it's applied to a spell to create a creature, it is still a creature with a template.

"A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template." It's irrelevant whether the template is applied to creatures, or whether it's applied to spells to create creatures. Living spell is a template, and a living spell creature has the living spell template.

[XionUnborn01]

Incorrect. Everything created by animated dead is a templated creature - a creature with a template added.

We can all agree a skeleton is a creature with a template - see the above quotes, I think it's pretty explicit. And we can all agree that living spell is a spell (technically a spell effect) with a template added (again, see the quote - template applied to spell effect seems straightforward).

Your claim is that living spell is both a spell with a template and a creature with a template? Despite the fact that it is, well, a template that's been applied to a spell?

I believe his claim is that to get a Living Spell, you take a spell and add a template, but the result of doing that is that you have a creature with a template.

Along the same lines of how a chair isn't a creature, but animating it creates a creature. I guess animated isn't really a template but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

[eggynack]

Your claim is that living spell is both a spell with a template and a creature with a template? Despite the fact that it is, well, a template that's been applied to a spell?
The issue is that living spell is not a spell with a template, because once it's in that form it just doesn't fit the definition of a spell. It was a spell, and that spell had a template added to it, but after that point, it was only a creature with a template. No spell involved. Besides, it is pretty irrelevant whether the living spell is a spell or not. We know a few things for sure. It is a creature, and it does have a template. If it's a spell, then it doesn't suddenly stop being a creature with a template. It just starts being a creature that's also a spell with a template, which fits the disallowed category of alternate form.

[DrMotives]

Bekeleven, you completely missed the point on what Jiriku was saying. Sure, animate dead makes stats for a monster by applying a template to a monster, but how the process goes in-game is that a corpse, which counts as an object not a creature, is templated into being a monster. Jiriku is saying a living spell works the same way, from an in-game logic perspective.

[bekeleven]

Living spell itself is a template, even though it's applied to a spell to create a creature, it is still a creature with a template.

"A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template." It's irrelevant whether the template is applied to creatures, or whether it's applied to spells to create creatures. Living spell is a template, and a living spell creature has the living spell template.It's a creature made of a template. A templated creature is a creature with a template applied.


I believe his claim is that to get a Living Spell, you take a spell and add a template, but the result of doing that is that you have a creature with a template.

Along the same lines of how a chair isn't a creature, but animating it creates a creature. I guess animated isn't really a template but I hope you see what I'm getting at.Hey, someone who agrees with me!

An urban druid can wild shape into animated objects.


The issue is that living spell is not a spell with a template, because once it's in that form it just doesn't fit the definition of a spell. It was a spell, and that spell had a template added to it, but after that point, it was only a creature with a template. No spell involved. Besides, it is pretty irrelevant whether the living spell is a spell or not. We know a few things for sure. It is a creature, and it does have a template. If it's a spell, then it doesn't suddenly stop being a creature with a template. It just starts being a creature that's also a spell with a template, which fits the disallowed category of alternate form.So your claim is that a living spell is not a spell (effect) with a template, despite the fact that "[the template is] applied to an arcane or divine spell effect"?

If it's a creature with a template, what's the base creature?


Bekeleven, you completely missed the point on what Jiriku was saying. Sure, animate dead makes stats for a monster by applying a template to a monster, but how the process goes in-game is that a corpse, which counts as an object not a creature, is templated into being a monster. Jiriku is saying a living spell works the same way, from an in-game logic perspective.Jiriku can talk all he wants about in-game logic, I was over here looking at how templates are applied. But if you insist:

A skeleton is created by finding, say, a dead goblin and using a spell on it. The result is a goblin creature with the skeleton template.

An Allip is "An allip is the spectral remains of someone driven to suicide by a madness that afflicted it in life."

A living spell is a spell effect that "took on sentience and refused to dissipate."

A living spell is closer to an Allip than a skeleton in terms of in-game life; It spawned itself, and was not a modification on an existing creature. In fact, Allips require a creature to start, meaning that an allip is closer to a skeleton in real-world terms: Both started with a creature, then modified it. However, an allip is not a templated creature; it's a creature, but not one with a template. Similarly, a living spell is a template, but not one on a creature.

Another comparison: Owlbears were (probably) created by wizard experimentation. Again, in in-game logic, the owlbear is closer to a skeleton than a living spell is.

This is still a digression, since we're talking about flavor and not rules. But no, I disagree with both the RAW and the RAI thrust of that argument.
Edit: Found a better example. "Fihyrs are the collected fears of humanity made corporeal... As the remnants of hundreds of people’s nightmares swirl through the ether, they somehow combine with leftover magical power and coalesce into these physical monsters." In-game, this is practically identical to how a living spell forms. A Master of Many Forms can turn into one starting level 6.

[eggynack]

So your claim is that a living spell is not a spell (effect) with a template, despite the fact that "[the template is] applied to an arcane or divine spell effect"?
Yes. When you consider the living template in its end state, it is no longer a spell, but a creature. However, as I noted, even if it were still a spell, it is also indisputably a creature. And that creature has a template.


If it's a creature with a template, what's the base creature?
There is no base creature, or the base creature is a spell. Living spells are weird, and they effectively pick up an exception to the general rule of the necessity of a base creature. Still, whether the "base creature" is a creature or not, the end result is still a creature, and there is a template on it. The base creature isn't the issue at hand where alternate form is concerned, but the product.

[bekeleven]

So your argument is that it's a a creature with a template despite being an exception to the rule that describes what a creature with a template is?

Once again, I disagree - I think a living spell is a creature made with a template, and you could say it's a creature made of a template, but it's not a creature with a template.

[Psyren]

It doesn't sound like Xion - or anyone else for that matter, at least so far - agrees with your interpretation bekeleven, at least not that I can see. No matter how a living spell is created, the end result is a creature with a template.

[bekeleven]

It doesn't sound like Xion - or anyone else for that matter, at least so far - agrees with your interpretation bekeleven, at least not that I can see.

And yet, his support proved my point.

Well, technically, it didn't prove my point. It disproved his point.

[jiriku]

Frankly, bekeleven, you're boned either way. The consensus view is that a living spell is a creature with a template, and thus not eligible for Improved Wild Shape because it has a template. Your view is that a living spell is not a creature, in which case it is not eligible for Improved Wild Shape because Improved Wild Shape only grants you the ability to turn into things that are creatures.

[eggynack]

So your argument is that it's a a creature with a template despite being an exception to the rule that describes what a creature with a template is?
I suppose so, yeah. That's how exception based rules systems work, after all.


Once again, I disagree - I think a living spell is a creature made with a template, and you could say it's a creature made of a template, but it's not a creature with a template.
Your disagreement, I think, is rooted in your definition of what "creature with a template" means. You seem to think it implies that there was a creature, and then a template was applied to it. I don't think that's an interpretation supported by text. I think it means that the thing in question is a creature, and there is a template attached. Another counterclaim of yours could be that the existence of the template is subsumed by the transition to living spell, but there's no apparent mechanism that would remove that template from the underlying game statistics.

[Zanos]

Frankly, bekeleven, you're boned either way. The consensus view is that a living spell is a creature with a template, and thus not eligible for Improved Wild Shape because it has a template. Your view is that a living spell is not a creature, in which case it is not eligible for Improved Wild Shape because Improved Wild Shape only grants you the ability to turn into things that are creatures.
I think the argument that a living spell is a creature, but is not a creature with a template. It's a spell with a template.

[jiriku]

I think the argument that a living spell is a creature, but is not a creature with a template. It's a spell with a template.


It's not a creature with a template, it's a spell with a template that happens to have wisdom, charisma, and hit dice.

Bekeleven's argument is most definitely that the living spell is a spell with a template, instead of being a creature with a template.

[bekeleven]

Frankly, bekeleven, you're boned either way. The consensus view is that a living spell is a creature with a template, and thus not eligible for Improved Wild Shape because it has a template. Your view is that a living spell is not a creature, in which case it is not eligible for Improved Wild Shape because Improved Wild Shape only grants you the ability to turn into things that are creatures.I never said living spell was not a creature. In fact I think I said the opposite like two posts ago.

I think a living spell is a creatureYep, carry on.


Bekeleven's argument is most definitely that the living spell is a spell with a template, instead of being a creature with a template.

Anything with wisdom, charisma, and hit dice is a creature. (in very rare, and mostly stupid cases, you don't even need those three).


I think the argument that a living spell is a creature, but is not a creature with a template. It's a spell with a template.

A post that didn't explicitly disagree with me! Real, measurable progress!

[Zanos]

A post that didn't explicitly disagree with me! Real, measurable progress!
If you're posting on the internet in hopes of getting people to agree with you, I've got some bad news. :smalltongue:

In truth this seems a reasonable RAW argument to me, as far as being reasonable and RAW mix. I wouldn't allow it at my table for obvious reasons and I can easily see someone reading it in another fashion.

[bekeleven]

I suppose so, yeah. That's how exception based rules systems work, after all.The general case is that a templated creature is "created by adding a template to an existing creature."

The question is: Is this an exception to that rule?

In my opinion, nothing indicates so.

Ergo, although there's a creature at the end, and although a template is involved, this is not a creature with a template.


If you're posting on the internet in hopes of getting people to agree with you, I've got some bad news. :smalltongue:

The only arguments against me that I haven't responded to are the ones stating that I'm wrong because the consensus disagrees with me. Therefore, if I manage to sway people to my side, I can implicitly disprove my detractors, swaying the rest! It's a very complicated process known as argumentative momentum (http://i.imgur.com/dxF4NOf.gif).

[eggynack]

The general case is that a templated creature is "created by adding a template to an existing creature."

The question is: Is this an exception to that rule?

In my opinion, nothing indicates so.

Ergo, although there's a creature at the end, and although a template is involved, this is not a creature with a template.
But your cited text isn't about what a creature with a template is. It's about what a template is. And living spell is necessarily an exception to that rule, because it's defined as a template, regardless of how the primary source defines the term. Moreover, your text doesn't even define creature with a template, so there's nothing general that needs to be specificed. All you have is templated creature, and even that is barely defined. And, to the extent that the term is defined, the term template is defined even moreso, as an already noted superseding construct of that text, which is obviously being excepted.

[jiriku]

Ok let's look at your argument in detail.


It's not a creature with a template, it's a spell with a template that happens to have wisdom, charisma, and hit dice.


....living spell is a spell... with a template added....it is, well, a template that's been applied to a spell....


It's a creature made of a template....a living spell is a template, but not one on a creature.


Once again, I disagree - I think a living spell is a creature made with a template, and you could say it's a creature made of a template, but it's not a creature with a template.

So if I get you, you are essentially arguing for a textual interpretation that hinges upon perceiving "made of a template" as a qualitatively different concept than "with a template." In your view, a living spell is not "with" its template.

Now, I'm getting the impression that your viewpoint is quite entrenched and I'm not so fond of debates as I used to be, so I'm just going to offer some arguments for you to consider and then let you be.

Getting quickly to the point:
The living spell is, as its description states, unusual. However, even if a living spell creature is "made of template", the template is inextricably associated with the final product. Without the template, the living spell has no hit dice, no ability scores, no creature type, etc. The living spell is therefore "with" its template in a real and meaningful way. The template has not wandered off somewhere and gotten lost in a dark alley. Yes, you can make a semantic argument otherwise using some narrowly defined version of the word "with", but when you start splitting the meaning of common English words, you've got a very weak argument.
The obvious intent of the "no templates" restriction in form-changing was to restrict the user of such effects to base creatures. There is no "base creature" here.
An equally obvious intent was to prevent the use of templates. Living spell is a template. You see where I'm going with this.
Any argument of "well if they'd meant to exclude living spells they'd have written 'made with' instead of just 'with'" is disingenuous. ECS was written long after the rules for alternate form and MoMF, and by different authors. It is conceptually impossible to pre-emptively forbid use of a concept that will be thought of years later by a different person.
The goal of eliminating template use would likely be to eliminate the plethora of unknown possible power combinations that could result from applying n number of templates at once. Living spell presents just such a problem multiplied many times over, since it includes a potentially enormous number of spell effects in various combinations. Even without getting into Supernatural Spell Shenanigans, the (ex) engulf attack carries the spell effect, which presents so many possible combinations you'd need scientific notation to count them all.
There is a massive balance problem inherent in your interpretation. At 13 HD when you'd first get the ability to turn into an ooze, it would permit you to wildshape into every buff spell of 7th level or lower in the game all at once, then engulf your allies and buff them all at the same time. You could likewise turn into every attack spell of 7th level or lower and engulf your foes. Even a trivial application of one spell, say, a living limited wish, would enable you to produce 14,000 limited wishes per day with no xp cost. If you can interpret text in two ways and one of them breaks the game badly while the other is unremarkable, the one that breaks the game is the wrong interpretation.

So, to sum up, I argue that your interpretation doesn't sit well with a straightforward reading of the words involved, nor with the functional intent of the rules at hand. Instead, it relies on a narrow semantic argument about word choice, which is a weak position. It adds an enormous level of power and versatility that is orders of magnitude beyond what makes sense for the abilities in question, and it breaks the game quite handily into itty bitty pieces. Now, those are my thoughts. You are welcome to find them persuasive or unpersuasive, as you choose. I leave you in peace.

[Necroticplague]

This seems like a fairly straightforward "no.". Alternate Form mentions 'creature with a template'. For something to fit that category, 2 things must be true: it must be a creature, and it must have some template. A living spell is definitely a creature, no arguing there. It also has a template (the 'living spell' template), unquestionably. That there is no base creature is irrelevant. Still has a template, still a creature, disqualified from Alternate Form.

[daremetoidareyo]

Why not alternate wildshape into a mistling dryad from the forge of war which has summon living spell of any spell that the mistling can sla or cast?

[Necroticplague]

Why not alternate wildshape into a mistling dryad from the forge of war which has summon living spell of any spell that the mistling can sla or cast?

Runs facefirst into 'can't turn into a creature with a template', because the mistling dryad is just a dryad with the Mistling template applied.

[Eloel]

I'm inclined to agree that RAW, a living spell is not a creature with a template.

A Celestial Ape is an Ape (creature) with Celestial (a template)
A Living Cloudkill is a Cloudkill (not a creature) with Living (a template)

Celestial Ape = Creature with a Template = Creature
Living Cloudkill = Spell with a Template = Creature


That said, I'd never allow it in my games.

[eggynack]

I'm inclined to agree that RAW, a living spell is not a creature with a template.

A Celestial Ape is an Ape (creature) with Celestial (a template)
A Living Cloudkill is a Cloudkill (not a creature) with Living (a template)

Celestial Ape = Creature with a Template = Creature
Living Cloudkill = Spell with a Template = Creature

That just seems inaccurate. The templated creature's prior nature is subsumed by the templating process, leaving you with living cloudkill, which is a creature, with a template, which is living spell. Living cloudkill is a spell that was given a template, but spell with a template no longer describes the object in question.

[Troacctid]

It's pretty clearly against the rules. You can't turn into a templated creature. Living Spell is a template. Therefore, you can't turn into a Living Spell. Not really that complicated.

[Psyren]

That's 9 against and 3 in favor, not that anyone's opinion actually matters but the DM in question. I will say though that there is no way I can parse a living spell as not being a creature with a template.

[ryu]

Gonna add to the long list of people saying that there is a creature with a template being shown and it can't be wildshaped.

[Eloel]

It's pretty clearly against the rules. You can't turn into a templated creature. Living Spell is a template. Therefore, you can't turn into a Living Spell.

Cloudkill, unfortunately, is not a creature.

[eggynack]

Cloudkill, unfortunately, is not a creature.
But living cloudkill is, and one with a template at that.

[ryu]

Cloudkill, unfortunately, is not a creature.

Ah but living cloudkill most certainly is. It even has a template. Either we're dealing with a creature that has a template losing eligibility or we're dealing with something that isn't even a creature and have the same result.

And the swordsaging is what happens when one is doing like four things on the net at once. Less efficient per thing.

[Admiral Squish]

I don't think it matters what RAW says in this situation. If somebody tried to turn into a living spell at my table, I wouldn't care if they had an irrefutable proof that it was legal RAW-wise, I'd still say no. Just way too much power there.

[Eloel]

I don't think it matters what RAW says in this situation. If somebody tried to turn into a living spell at my table, I wouldn't care if they had an irrefutable proof that it was legal RAW-wise, I'd still say no. Just way too much power there.

I am sure most everyone agrees to that, I'd not allow it either even though I think it's RAW.

[Troacctid]

Cloudkill, unfortunately, is not a creature.

And that's why you can't turn into a Cloudkill with wild shape. Wild shape only lets you turn into creatures. I hope this is not something that's disputed now.

[Eloel]

And that's why you can't turn into a Cloudkill with wild shape. Wild shape only lets you turn into creatures. I hope this is not something that's disputed now.

It is obviously not. What is debated is how you get "templated creature" from template + spell. You get a templated spell, that also happens to be a creature.

[eggynack]

It is obviously not. What is debated is how you get "templated creature" from template + spell. You get a templated spell, that also happens to be a creature.
You don't even need templated creature. The requirement is creature with a template. It's fundamentally a two pronged process. Is it a creature? Yes. Is it with a template? Indeed it is. Honestly, the only semantic situation I can think of where "X with Y" doesn't use the current state of X in its nature is when using the present version of X would be redundant. Even then though, while saying, "This is a cheeseburger with cheese," is redundant, it's not technically wrong, and this obviously doesn't fall into that category. By the same token, you wouldn't say that living spell is a templated creature with a template. You just say that it's a creature with a template, which it is.

[Troacctid]

It's a creature with a template. You can't wild shape into a creature with a template. Unless you're arguing that it doesn't have a template, or that it isn't a creature, either of which would make it an illegal choice for other reasons.

[Necroticplague]

It is obviously not. What is debated is how you get "templated creature" from template + spell. You get a templated spell, that also happens to be a creature.

You don't. The rules for Alternate Form don't say you can't turn into a templated creature. It says you can't turn into a creature with a template. If it has a template, and is a creature, you can't turn into it. A living spell is a creature, and has a template (the Living Spell template).Ergo, it is a creature with a template. Thus, you can't turn into it.

[Ruethgar]

If Alternate Form were prohibiting templated creatures, then yes, you could Wildscape into one. However, it is prohibiting creatures with templates regardless of the association between the two. Does the thing have a template? It doesn't matter what the template it applies to. If it has an SLA of Living War Cloudkill it has a template. Is it a creature? Wisdom, check. Charisma, check. Hit Dice, check. Has both? Disqualified.

An alternate option. Using the Spell Sovereign to get a living spell Familiar you can cast Familiar form to take over its body(get extra familiar and cast it twice for permanent results). Retrain and rebuild it all away and you're a living spell. It would lack the versatility I assume you are after, but you get some of the result.

As an aside, nothing in the Living Spell template seems to remove the status as a spell. Living spells aren't on any class list that I know of, but I'm sure a clever optimizer could figure out something.

I think the KoK feat Magical Affinity(AFB may be Magically Adept) may not specify what list the spells can be drawn from. Also the Living Spells themselves may be able to be copied to a Spellhoarding Dragon's hoard if they go and attack the dragon.

[Kazyan]

*scratches head*

Wait, so we're arbitrarily deciding to parse straightforward combinations of English words as entirely different terms that contradict how adjectives and nouns work, based on an obtuse interpretation of a preposition, so that we can do something non-RAI and blatantly abusive?

This isn't optimization; it's munchkinry.

[Troacctid]

"The RAW says you can't turn into a creature with a template, but I'm not turning into a creature with a template, I'm turning into a creature with my wild shape ability! That has nothing at all to do with these thingies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_(racing))!"

[VisitingDaGulag]

I nearly posted a knee-jerk "NO!" but then I looked at the rules. I think the crux of it is that living spells are their own creatures, not just variants of some other creature: human vs unseelie fey human or green dragon vs draconic vampire green dragon, etc. It looked like this is a really, really, odd case but seems to work. A DM could always ban it, though.


It's pretty clearly against the rules.If it is, you did a poor job of demonstrating:

You can't turn into a templated creature.Yes

Living Spell is a template.yes

Therefore, you can't turn into a Living Spell.Where are you getting that? Is it because you think that a living spell is a templated creature? Can you prove this?


Is it with a template? Indeed it is.Proof?

It's a creature with a template.Proof?


A living spell is a creature, and has a template (the Living Spell template).Ergo, it is a creature with a template. Thus, you can't turn into it.Most convincing so far. But are you sure that living spells have the living spell template? I propose a test: clearly the creature type has changed (from nothing into something) so they should read Ooze (Augmented) if they have template after it makes them into creatures.


Your view is that a living spell is not a creatureNo his view is that it wasn't a creature (that had a template applied). And that's kinda what the text said too.


I think it means that the thing in question is a creature, and there is a template attached.So how do we know a living spell has the template after is applied? Would an example creature be a "Living Spell Fog Cloud" (a creature with a template) or a "Living Fog Cloud" (a unique creature based off a spell)? I'll let other's check, since I forgot where living spell was from.

[ryu]

If living template isn't applied the fog cloud isn't a creature. It's a simple spell with a duration. The only thing exceptional about living spell is that it's a template that targets non-creatures. Nothing special happens outside of that. The resulting effected spell is a creature? If and only if living spell is applied.

[eggynack]

Proof?
The creature has the living spell template. I'm not really sure what proof could possibly exist beyond that.


Proof?
It's a creature, definitionally, and as noted above, it has the living spell template.

Most convincing so far. But are you sure that living spells have the living spell template? I propose a test: clearly the creature type has changed (from nothing into something) so they should read Ooze (Augmented) if they have template after it makes them into creatures.
Creature type change doesn't necessarily require (augmented). In any case, I'm not really sure how you can say that there is no living spell template here.



No his view is that it wasn't a creature (that had a template applied). And that's kinda what the text said too.
Indeed, but what it was is irrelevant. What matters is what it is, because the question is whether it is a creature with a template.


So how do we know a living spell has the template after is applied? Would an example creature be a "Living Spell Fog Cloud" (a creature with a template) or a "Living Fog Cloud" (a unique creature based off a spell)? I'll let other's check, since I forgot where living spell was from.
Because if it didn't have the template, it wouldn't have the stats based off of the template. The template is what's giving it those statistics, because without it, you just have a normal fog cloud.

[bekeleven]

The most convincing argument so far is Eggynack's statement that nothing in RAW equates "Templated creatures" with "Creature with a template." If you view those as separate, then you can't wild shape into a living spell.

If you view those as equal, then the Living Spell template isn't Adding a Template To An Existing Creature.

[ryu]

The most convincing argument so far is Eggynack's statement that nothing in RAW equates "Templated creatures" with "Creature with a template." If you view those as separate, then you can't wild shape into a living spell.

If you view those as equal, then the Living Spell template isn't Adding a Template To An Existing Creature.

Of course they aren't equal for the very reason that you have templates that apply to non-creatures which then make creatures with templates.

[bekeleven]

Of course they aren't equal for the very reason that you have templates that apply to non-creatures which then make creatures with templates.

Oh, of course they aren't equal, because if they were this exact situation would end up ruled a certain way. Therefore, they aren't equal, so it's ruled the other way.

How many templates of this type are there?

[ryu]

Oh, of course they aren't equal, because if they were this exact situation would end up ruled a certain way. Therefore, they aren't equal, so it's ruled the other way.

How many templates of this type are there?

Exactly one that I'm fully familiar with. Not the point. You know what is the point? Strictly different words used whose literal meaning comes up in exactly this situation. Why did WoTC catch this one example? Most likely because for once there was only one unusual thing to catch in their own work rather than entire classes of them like with most limiting sentences.

[Necroticplague]

. But are you sure that living spells have the living spell template? I propose a test: clearly the creature type has changed (from nothing into something) so they should read Ooze (Augmented) if they have template after it makes them into creatures.


Except the creature type hasn't changed. In order for it to change, it would have had to be something else before. However, it didn't have a creature type before. To quote the Augmented subtype on its own:

A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.
You can't change something it didn't originally have, and it didn't have an original type to pair it with. Just like how Animated Objects also don't have the augmented subtype, because they weren't creatures before. Actually, Animated Object is pretty similar in its status, taking something that isn't a creature and making it one.

So yes, I stand by my stance: A living spell is a creature, and it has a template, making it a creature with a template.