Not true, the bestiary defines what animal is. So, even if it is not in the bestiary it is nonetheless an animal if it meets the definition of animal in the bestiary.Namely, "An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture."
So, if you thought that closed the case, you need to get back on the case.
Bzzzzzzt, wrong.
That text is from the Creature Types: Animal section of the book. Which describes the traits of an Animal Type creature.
However...
No stat block, no Type.
No Type, no Animal Type.
No Animal Type, that text doesn't apply.
Better luck next time.
I just don't agree.
Whether you agree with facts or not is irrelevant. Facts are facts.
The sun does not revolve around the Earth.
When you drop things on Earth, they fall down.
You need air to live.
You can't Wild Shape into something not in the Bestiary.
The sun does not revolve around the Earth.
Technically speaking the Sun and the Earth revolve around each other. Just like the Earth and the Moon both technically revolve around a point 1000 miles below the surface of the Earth. (The revolution that the Sun makes around it's core from this is too small to be seen. :)
Just an irrelevant distraction... nothing to see here.
Technically neither the sun, earth or moon "revolve" around anything. They simply follow the curvature of the spacetime continuum created by the sum total of all the myriad, churning, gyrating mass and energy present. As far as any of them "know" they are all just moving in a straight line. It's spacetime itself that's getting all jacked up.
Not true, the bestiary defines what animal is. So, even if it is not in the bestiary it is nonetheless an animal if it meets the definition of animal in the bestiary.Namely, "An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture."
So, if you thought that closed the case, you need to get back on the case.
Bzzzzzzt, wrong.
That text is from the Creature Types: Animal section of the book. Which describes the traits of an Animal Type creature.
However...
No stat block, no Type.
No Type, no Animal Type.
No Animal Type, that text doesn't apply.
Better luck next time.
So... No humans, Halfling, half-elves, half-orcs, dwarves(except duerger)', elves(except drow)' or gnomes(except svirfneblin or hiwever you spell it) because they don't exist because they have no stat blocks in the bestiaries?
This is a joke, by the way. ;)
So... No humans, Halfling, half-elves, half-orcs, dwarves(except duerger)', elves(except drow)' or gnomes(except svirfneblin or hiwever you spell it) because they don't exist because they have no stat blocks in the bestiaries?
This is a joke, by the way. ;)
They, if you notice, have pages in the book anyway, and are specifically typed on their pages as Humanoids (subtype varies).
They have a Type, and therefore are a valid target for spells like Alter Self, which just like Beast Shape, targets a Type.
You likewise couldn't use Alter Self to transform into a "Large Human" because there is no such page, and the thing is not Typed.
=)
joesk, here is a reproduction of a post I made from another thread on this topic:
1) There are a finite number of animals that are printed as RAW.
2) Any animals not printed are, by default, not RAW. Why? Because they are not printed thus cannot be 'Rules as Written'.
3) A GM can use the Rules as Written to create any animal (or other creature) he desires. Yes, this is an application of Rules as Written to create something that is not Rules as Written.
4) a Player polymorphing into a GM created animal is polymorphing into an animal that is not Rules as Written.
5) A Player cannot use step 3 to create any animal he desires. Why? Because he is not the GM and cannot create custom items or creatures without the GM saying he can.
So where does that leave us?
By the Rules as Written, you can only change into a creature that does not have a template and is a generic version of its kind.
Custom creatures are by default, not RAW because they are custom. They may use RAW in their creation but they, themselves, are not RAW because they are not written anywhere.
Since there are no written generic versions of a Huge Rocs, Huge Wolves, or Small Humans then you cannot change into them by RAW. You can of course petition the GM to create one but at that point, you are still not using a RAW creature. Thus, you and your GM are using a houserule - which is a perfectly reasonable option, but still not RAW.
- Gauss
|
Technically neither the sun, earth or moon "revolve" around anything. They simply follow the curvature of the spacetime continuum created by the sum total of all the myriad, churning, gyrating mass and energy present. As far as any of them "know" they are all just moving in a straight line. It's spacetime itself that's getting all jacked up.
The sun does not revolve around the Earth.
Technically speaking the Sun and the Earth revolve around each other. Just like the Earth and the Moon both technically revolve around a point 1000 miles below the surface of the Earth. (The revolution that the Sun makes around it's core from this is too small to be seen. :)
Just an irrelevant distraction... nothing to see here.
I believe the correct term is that they are falling towards the different sources of gravity, however their inertia causes them to appear to orbit the object.
Changing the size of a Roc does not change his type or his subtype.
You people are ridiculous
You wanted to play the RAW Game, where "It doesn't specifically say I can't" means "I can do it, for sure".
The natural counter to that is the other side of the RAW Game, where you take the most literal possible interpretation of the rules to shut down the opposite side's b!&$@$*~.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't know what you are talking about. I am sure it makes sense in your own head. Bottom line in my head, you are ridiculous.
Yes, but your head is the one that thinks you can twist a ruleset into doing whatever you want it to do, so it's not like your opinion matters that much, does it?
Speak for yourself. I'm only adamant in pointing out that (a) RAW says no to rocs and (b) Driver 325 is not taking that well at all. As far as I'm concerned, Driver can go nuts in his own game, and I might allow it in mine as well after considering the extreme cases.
My head see Roc in Eagle Shaman and says "oh, a eagle shaman can turn into a Roc"
Then there's your problem. You see the word "roc" and, rather than actually parse the sentence, jump headlong into "HOORAY I HAS A ROK", then when people point out that, in fact, the sentence does not actually say that you can turn into a roc, you're all "NOOOO THEY BE STEALIN' MAH ROK".
Rule #51: Sometimes, you're wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Driver 325 yards, a number of people have explained to you over and over that "if you" is not the same as "you can".
A number of people have also explained what the author has stated. The author stated it is not possible within the current rules. The author also is said to have stated that he wrote the rules that would allow this but that those rules were cut from the final wording.
So what does that leave us with?
1) an If, then... statement
2) No rules to allow the "If" to actually happen because they were cut during development.
Thus, you cannot change into a Roc based on the Eagle Shaman.
Now, IF you can find a rule somewhere that states you can turn into a Roc, THEN you can do so. But the Eagle Shaman contains no such rule.
Many people have told you this, the author has stated it. Im not sure why you are so intent on this but conversing with you any further on this topic is really pointless.
- Gauss
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
IF you can find a rule somewhere that states you can turn into a Roc
His central incorrect point is you can bey anything because nothing in Wild Shape in his view limits you in any way to any creature you can dream up.
While his view is wrong on every level, it is his view and nothing short of Paizo coming out and saying "Driver, you are wrong man! Wrong!" will change his opinion that he can be any number of templates he wishes just by saying "oh it isn't a template man it is just a size change, yea"
Driver 325 yards, just because you misuse the English language does not mean that everyone does or that the rules are written with such misuse in mind.
"If you use the restroom please put down the toilet seat after you use it." does NOT grant permission to use the restroom. It may be implied, but it is not stated.
Talk to an English professor if anywhere in that sentence you grant permission. You may *think* you have granted permission, but you have not.
Rules attempt to use formalized English rather than the informal, improperly used English that is causing the degeneration of the language.
In fact, I would say that you are the one out of touch with how rules are written using formal English.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Driver, as a result of this thread, I will give less "logical weight" to your future contributions, in this thread or others.
Here's Why:
• The original author who wrote the content has admitted that the Eagle Shaman cannot turn into a Roc given the current wording (RAW). (Quoted in this thread.)
• Paizo's intention (RAI) in removing the allowing line of text for wild shaping into a Huge Roc was to prevent the expansion of wild shape into template allowances, even as an exception for specific archetypes. (Quoted in this thread also.)
• Disagreeing with both the RAI as stated by Paizo and the RAW as read by the guy who wrote the content is completely acceptable.
• Such disagreement usually results in admitting that you are unhappy with the ruling and houseruling it as you see fit for your own game. (I have many of these.)
• Trying to wordsmith your way around the RAW and the RAI, on the other hand, just comes off as "knowing better than everyone else".
• In my experience, those who "know better than everyone else" are difficult to convince of inaccuracies in their reasoning.
• Those who cannot be convinced of inaccuracies in their reasoning are likely to hold more inaccuracies than others.
• I take the opinions of those who are more likely to hold inaccuracies in their reasoning with a grain of salt, even more so than normal.
I hope this doesn't come off as me personally attacking you, as that's not my intention. My intention is to inform you that repeatedly denying RAW and RAI that is as clear as this (clear enough for the large majority) will impact my perception of the validity of your future reasoning. Also, I may not be the only one who feels this way, but I cannot speak for others.
Note to Paizo Admin: I have made a concerted effort of finding a "not jerk" way to say this... If I've been unsuccessful, please feel free to remove this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If you turn into a Roc".
Not "You can turn into a Roc".
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to get through to you. It's not that hard.
Telling someone "If you swim across the pool, I'll give you a cookie" does not magically give that person the ability to swim if they were not formerly able to do so.
Come on gang, Driver has 63 HP, an AC of 16, has Regen 5 (acid or fire), an Int of 6, and likes living in cold mountaints. Realize what that is and just let the thread die knowing anyone else who reads it realizes the other 20 people are right and Driver is wrong.
But if it is your pool, it does imply the permission to swim across the pool. I don't know why that is so hard to get into your head. In this case, the pool is owned by Paizo. So if paizo says if you turn into a Roc it means more than a hypothetical with no teeth.
Even if it implied permission to swim (which it doesn't necessarily do), permission to do something does not confer the ability to do so.
Telling a man with no legs "You may walk on my carpet" does not give him the ability to walk on my carpet. It just doesn't.
Likewise, implying "You may (have permission to) turn into a Roc" is not the same as saying "You are capable of turning into a Roc".
And the sentence here doesn't even do THAT.
It says IF. IF (implying uncertainty) you turn into a Roc you use your Druid level +2.
If.
The way the ability is worded currently does nothing to contradict the inherent limits of Wild Shape. Period. The intent is irrelevant here. The intent probably WAS for the Druid to be able to turn into a Roc.
But the intent does not change the RAW. And the RAW is what the Rules Questions forum is FOR.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-snip-
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because it's wrong.
Understanding how 2+2=Fwark is hard to understand too. That doesn't mean you're somehow smart for "figuring it out".
Driver, what I really do not get is why you are citing Paizo..and then IGNORING the author.
Do you really think the Author does not know what he wrote? Do you think that he does not know that the enabling wording was cut?
- Gauss
|
Based on the people posting you are the only one left in the yes committee.
We have tried to provide you with logical arguments which you have ignored.
We have brought evidence from the authors to support our argument, which you have ignored.
We have explained that the permission you perceive is not semantically accurate, which you have ignored.
As it stands the only one that is currently arguing your side is you, where as the Committee has done its best to address your issues and shown where your errors lie, which you have ignored.
My guess is that you will continue to post arguments but I don't think you have any other support other than yourself at this time.