4
\$\begingroup\$

Does Hybrid Form allow you to speak when using the abilities listed in the Rampaging Form (5th-level animal form, a Polymorph Battle Form, and 7th level fiery body)?

Hybrid:

When you Change Shape, you retain elements of your kitsune form, allowing you to speak in a fox form, use kitsune unarmed attacks in a tailless form, or gain a tail in your tailless form to use abilities that require one. You can Change Shape to alter the details of your hybrid form without fully changing into your true form or your alternate form. While in hybrid form, your foxlike features make it obvious that you aren't a normal humanoid.

Rampaging:

Once per day, when you Change Shape into a fox, you can instead gain the effects of both the canine form of 5th-level animal form and 7th-level fiery body for 1 minute or until you shift back, whichever comes first. You can cast produce flame from the fiery body effect even though you're in a battle form.

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

2
\$\begingroup\$

What does the (rampaging) fox say? Probably nothing

Rampaging Form, as you quoted, says "instead", as in "instead of A, you gain B". This to me seems to say that B (Rampaging Form) is a total replacement of A (Change Shape), which would include any rider abilities of that require Change Shape.

Admittedly, you could probably read that part alone both ways. However, the ability to talk seems like it would grant you the ability to cast spells with only verbal components (e.g. True Strike), considering the only requirement is that "[one] must be able to speak to provide [verbal components]." Since they already took the time to specify that one can cast Produce Flame while in Rampaging Form, if they intended to allow spells with only verbal components to be cast it seems like they would have mentioned that Hybrid Form would allow you to do so here. This line of thought is a bit weaker because Battle Forms expressly forbid spellcasting and talking separately, but it makes more sense from a narrative consistency perspective to think those two tie together (especially since spells like Dragon Form still forbid you from speaking, despite dragons being able to speak!).

Neither point is particularly strong, and I welcome another answer in the other direction. As a GM, I'd probably just rule that you can talk but not cast spells (aside from Produce Flame); although that breaks with narrative consistency a little bit, it makes a fairly "meh" feat shine a little more.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Probably the homerule I'd come to as well, but was interested if anyone else could point out something I wasn't considering. I'll give it a bit of time to see if anyone notices it with the Q getting bumped \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Jun 24, 2021 at 0:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .