Changeling and Assume Supernatural Ability?

[alexstrasa81]

Hi I was reading this thread: forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647320-What-are-the-reasons-for-Minor-Change-Shape-NOT-working-with-Assume-Su-Ability&p=25506785#post25506785
and it seems it was closed because of some drama.

Anyways, is the author of that post correct?

Those who don't want to read it, the cliff notes version is basically that minor change shape directly fits the definition of the polymorph effect described in the DMG, rules compendium says minor change shape is a form changing effect which is what polymorph is, and disguise self is explicitly called out as a form altering effect like polymorph in both player's handbook and rules compendium. So there is no good faith argument to say minor change shape is not "similar" to polymorph. Or something like that.

[Beni-Kujaku]

So there is no good faith argument to say minor change shape is not "similar" to polymorph. Or something like that.

That is indeed the cusp of the argument of the previous thread's OP. The counterargument is that Minor Change Shape emulates Disguise Self, and does not have most of the powers Polymorph has. For the sake of not restarting an old argument that already led nowhere the last time with both sides staying in their position, I'll just say that you should decide what you are comfortable with. If you're a player, ask your DM. If you're the DM, make a rule call. I will not go into more detail and I hope nobody does. Most of what anybody could say has already been said in the thread you link in your opening post.

[alexstrasa81]

That is indeed the cusp of the argument of the previous thread's OP. The counterargument is that Minor Change Shape emulates Disguise Self, and does not have most of the powers Polymorph has. For the sake of not restarting an old argument that already led nowhere the last time with both sides staying in their position, I'll just say that you should decide what you are comfortable with. If you're a player, ask your DM. If you're the DM, make a rule call. I will not go into more detail and I hope nobody does. Most of what anybody could say has already been said in the thread you link in your opening post.

DM says it's fine if it works. So I'm trying to show it works.

In that thread to be honest, the other side seemed very desperate. When responding to the fact that disguise self is explicitly called out as a form changing effect, they just said the rules are wrong. Wtf is that?

In that thread someone also said Sleep the supernatural ability and Sleep the spell are not similar because rules compendium used the word similar only in the spell school section.

And nobody I mean nobody addressed any of the OP? I usually call it first poster. But ok. Nobody addressed any of the OP's facts. Nobody addressed that minor change shape fits the definition of the polymorph effect in DMG. I think that's damning but nobody addressed it. They just ignored it and said Sleep supernatural and Sleep spell are not similar.

To me that seems like the end of the entire discussion. But I'm biased cause I want it to work. But the other side's arguments make no sense.

[Beni-Kujaku]

To me that seems like the end of the entire discussion. But I'm biased cause I want it to work. But the other side's arguments make no sense.

Then you have made your choice. Good for you.

[alexstrasa81]

I mean like, I'm all for grey area and all that. If there are two ways to interpret the text and the thing that would say one is right and the other is wrong doesn't exist then yeah, its DM's call.

But this. I've been looking at a lot of posts on other sites too and just, the other side makes no sense.

Like here they're seriously arguing a polymorph effect is not similar to polymorph and that the feat requires you to do more than just assume a form even though nowhere in the text says you need anything other than changing forms.

So from what I gather they're saying a polymorph effect is not similar to polymorph self and only things that grant you the same changes as polymorph self is similar to polymorph self because...? and then there's a guy who kept saying sleep supernatural and sleep spell is not similar because rules compendium didn't use the word similar.

I mean, I think saying polymorph effect not being similar to polymorph self is desperate.

If that is genuinely all there is to the argument then yeah, I think I'm good. No way my DM would ever buy an argument that polymorph effects are not similar to polymorph self.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho it doesn't work. I have explained my reasoning in detail in the other thread. But I'll add a few points to it..


"Polymorph Self spell or similar effect" ain't referring to "overall form changing effects".
It refers to stuff that has a similar ruling as Polymorph Self. The rule is specific here and doesn't ask for any type of form change. Otherwise they could have just demanded some type of physical form change and wouldn't need to specify Polymorph Self.

"Polymorph Self" is 3.0 and thus the DM needs to convert it into 3.5 rules. This brings us to Polymorph.

Minor Shape Change doesn't refer to Polymorph nor does is produce a similar effect.

To give a real life example:

Would you say a FIAT Punto is similar to a F1 supercar?
No? Why not? They are both cars.

But if you compare the F1 car from Mercedes to the one F2 car from Ferrari, you might say that they are similar.

As you can (hopefully) see, just being in the same overall category ain't always enough to count as similar to a specific example. While we can always argue which "similarities" are relevant, imho ASA is still asking for a Polymorph related effect and not for any form changing ability.

[alexstrasa81]

Imho it doesn't work. I have explained my reasoning in detail in the other thread. But I'll add a few points to it..


"Polymorph Self spell or similar effect" ain't referring to "overall form changing effects".
It refers to stuff that has a similar ruling as Polymorph Self. The rule is specific here and doesn't ask for any type of form change. Otherwise they could have just demanded some type of physical form change and wouldn't need to specify Polymorph Self.

"Polymorph Self" is 3.0 and thus the DM needs to convert it into 3.5 rules. This brings us to Polymorph.

Minor Shape Change doesn't refer to Polymorph nor does is produce a similar effect.

To give a real life example:

Would you say a FIAT Punto is similar to a F1 supercar?
No? Why not? They are both cars.

But if you compare the F1 car from Mercedes to the one F2 car from Ferrari, you might say that they are similar.

As you can (hopefully) see, just being in the same overall category ain't always enough to count as similar to a specific example. While we can always argue which "similarities" are relevant, imho ASA is still asking for a Polymorph related effect and not for any form changing ability.

ASA is a polymorph related effect. DMG directly calls it a polymorph effect.

[bekeleven]

9 or more Spells describe themselves as similar to Polymorph. Disguise Self is not one. Animal Shapes, Baleful P, Draconic P, Feathers, P Any Object, Shapechange, Spider Shapes, Spider Form, Warp Truename
I am right now able to track down 30 spells in the [Polymorph] Transmutation subschool. Once again, disguise self is not one.

I would also not allow a Shifter to take Assume Supernatural Ability. Even if they wore a hat of disguise.

[daremetoidareyo]

I’m on the changelings side, especially if they have racial emulation.

ASA reads:
You learn to use a single supernatural ability of another kind of creature while assuming its form through a polymorph self spell or a similar effect.

Minor Change Shape (Su): Changelings have the supernatural ability to alter their appearance as though using a disguise self spell that affects their bodies but not their possessions. This ability is not an illusory effect but a minor physical alteration of a changeling's facial features, skin color and texture, and size, within the limits described for the spell.

That’s a similar enough effect for me. The directions aren’t exclusive to polymorph based spells, they include similar effects, and changing your size coloration and morphology is similar by my measure.

[Darg]

The argument breaks down into two camps: mechanical relevance vs grasping at straws.

Saying MCS is similar to polymorph is like saying the Bite of X spells count as a similar effect because it flavorfully describes you as changing your form.

[daremetoidareyo]

The argument breaks down into two camps: mechanical relevance vs grasping at straws.

Saying MCS is similar to polymorph is like saying the Bite of X spells count as a similar effect because it flavorfully describes you as changing your form.

This is why the last thread was shut down. “There’s an arbitrary binary that I’ve chosen to subscribe to, people like me who are superior wrinkle brains, and wrong people”.

Changing your physical shape, not an illusion, is a “similar effect” to polymorph.

And yes those spells like bite of the wererat do have a similar effect, but they don’t turn you into a nominal creature type or race and thus are even further into a mechanical grey zone and likely to be nixed. But like, polymorph itself, is a spell. And it works with that. It’s not out of the question that spells that change your shape are in bounds for the feat.

Why make the feat suck when the language that’s there is enough to make it fun.

[Crake]

DM says it's fine if it works. So I'm trying to show it works.

Sorry, but your DM needs to toughen up and make a decision himself, this is not a clear cut case. People on both sides vehemently insist they are correct, though personally I think its just people trying to justify cheese.

Your DM needs to read up on it and make a ruling.

[Zanos]

Changing your physical shape, not an illusion, is a “similar effect” to polymorph.
It's subjective. If you told your wizard buddy to polymorph you into a troll for the next fight, and he tells you he has "something similar", and then he physically alters your appearance but none of your vital game statistics into that of a troll, you're not going to agree with you that the effect is "similar". "Similar is not a defined game term. All [Death] spells aren't similar. All [Fire] spells aren't similar. All [Polymorph] spells aren't similar.

There is no way to make an objective ruling on this because the trick relies on an "or similar" clause that is inherently subjective.

[daremetoidareyo]

It's subjective. If you told your wizard buddy to polymorph you into a troll for the next fight, and he tells you he has "something similar", and then he physically alters your appearance but none of his vital game statistics into that of a troll, he's not going to agree with you that the effect is "similar". "Similar is not a defined game term. All [Death] spells aren't similar. All [Fire] spells aren't similar. All [Polymorph] spells aren't similar.

There is no way to make an objective ruling on this because the trick relies on an "or similar" clause that is inherently subjective.

Agreed. It comes down to preference

[tyckspoon]

Does it work? Probably yes, entirely because 'effect' is quite possibly the broadest term in D&D rules, and as mentioned by other posters 'similar' is not defined or limited, so it kind of parses as 'polymorph or anything that is even vaguely like it.' This is what you get when you start with a ruleset that operates mainly off explicitly stated exceptions/permissions to do things, and then have your design staff muck it up by using excessively open wording.

Should it work? Personal opinion, no, but if you make me swear to it I would say the balance of evidence is that the -most likely result of trying to parse the RAW- is that it does.

[Doctor Despair]

Agreed. It comes down to preference

I believe that's where I came down in those threads except where people forced me to play devil's advocate for one side or the other. "Similar effect" is undefined; there's supporting evidence for both sides. The DM needs to make a decision. My DM would not let me use it, I can almost guarantee. I could be persuaded depending on the composition of the party for the purposes of this campaign, but I wouldn't greenlight it permanently, as I'm sure there's niche absurd things out there that can be abused. On the other hand, someone could access some absolutely ridiculous abilities at ECL5 anyway with Warshaper (depending on whether you count things like the Umbral Blot's Disintegrating Touch as natural weapons or not), and the game breaks down with various abilities without a modicum of common sense on the part of the DM, so ASA might not be so out of place anyway in terms of balance relative to the higher end of the scale.

Ultimately, though, the only people wrong in these discussions are people saying it's conclusive. It's a super vague term. Fortunately, any 3.0 material immediately prompts a "check with your DM in case it needs revision" which, in this case, it sorely does. What that revision will look like will vary from table to table.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Thread closed.