How long to study a creature to 'learn how to be it?'

[Emirikol]

I need some opinions on my house rule. In order to use any of the shape-shifting style spells to change into something, you have to have seen the creature before for at least a couple rounds.

E.g. In order to "Alter Self" or "Polymorph" into an Aquatic Elf, you have to have had a chance to see and study the elf for a few moments.

This all got me thinking when one of my players decided to play a Shifter.

How many rounds do you think should be adequate? What skills would be involved? Should there be a limit? Other thoughts?

jh

 

[MarauderX]

I also use this house rule, to a further extent. I have the PC that is studying it make an Int check, and it takes a full minute to make the first check. If the PC fails, she has to take another full minute to study it before making the check again... etc. If she takes 10 or 20, it's usually no problem, but if they are in a hurry and the shape shifter spies something to alter into just on the fly, she will fail miserably most of the time.
Why so long? I treat the process as a 'scientific' study of the subject to an extent that she would be comfortable turning into as well as remembering the subtle details that make it work. The same goes for all of the spells in the genre.

 

[Emirikol]

I think I'll probably keep it somewhat simple. It's been recommended as the following:

Full-round action to observe and learn the appearance and behavior of the creature: Spot, Disguise, or Search check (DC 15 + 1 per 2 HD of the creature) to succeed learning the type. If you fail, you may try again next round.

Player should then record the form on a list on their sheet. Should they start knowing some forms? Well, sure. Most local animals are OK, as are any creature that they've sat in a tavern with or negotiated with for products since the game began. Either way, they should be noted.

Sound great?

jh

 

[Thomas Hobbes]

I say in my campaign that if they make a DC 20+HD of creature knowledge check (figuring out which knowledge is made much easier by the fact that 3.5 specifically lists creature types under various knowledge skills) to know a creature well enough.

But that's of questionable utility to you, since study isn't enough in your campaign. Hope it helps, anyway.

 

[Erila of Sune]

Generally, I treat this differently for Divine and Arcane spellcasting.

Divine: You've got to know some sort of common name for the critter. "Those big floating thingies with the eyeballs" will not turn you into a beholder, no matter how many times you've seen one or even if you've dissected one for some reason. The force that's helping you cast the spell needs to know what you're talking about. On the other hand, if you know you want to turn into a "Shambling Mound" and state that, you'll be able to turn into one if you're casting the right spell, even if you've never seen a shambling mound in your life, but just read a vague description once. The entity you're asking to change you takes care of the details.

Arcane: You need to have had some sort of experience with the critter to know what you're changing into. In this case, "Those big floating thingies with the eyeballs" is sufficient to turn you into the beholder. Generally, the spell will use the existing 'flow' of the magic to make up for technical inaccuracies, which is why you always change into an utterly typical example of what you want.