At the risk of being pedantic, there is no statement saying Eagle Shamans can change into Rocs.
There is a rule saying that if they turn into a Roc, they treat their level as two levels higher. It doesn't say when or how they can do this. You might conclude that all druids can, or all eagle shamans can, but maybe they can only do it with the aid of a Wish, or with a feat that doesn't exist yet, or by divine will.
As for 'it should be allowed by RAW', what is 'it'? Eagle shamans being able to turn into Huge Rocs? All druids being able to turn into any-sized versions of any animals?
For once and for all, those for allowing the Huge Roc per RAW are simply saying the following:
...
3) Generic Huge Rocs do exist in Galarion
...
It is the fact that this statement is false that breaks the "For" argument. If it were true, I doubt you'd have any argument at all. (Admittedly, the word "Generic" is not the best one they could have used.) If generic Huge Rocs did exist in Golarion, i would be able to find their detailed stats, without using any templates or advancement, since both of those things are explicitly not allowed per the below quote... (Also, no splatbooks.) Since I cannot do this, generic Huge Rocs do not exist in Golarion, at least not as far as the rules are concerned.
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.
To those making the "for" argument, I would ask this: What do you believe to be intent of the bolded statement?
Namely, the Eagle Shaman could say, look, it is explicitly written/suggested (I added suggested for your sake) that I can be a Roc. Therefore, if nothing else, I am an exception to the general rule that you can't change into a template version of a Roc (in response to those who say that the only Huge Roc is a template Roc).
Except that the original author (Jason Nelson, IIRC) has already stated that the Eagle Shaman archetype originally included an exception in it's wild shaping rules that allowed it to apply the young or giant templates to creatures when taking wold shapes, much as they can when using their summon nature's ally spell. That specific line was removed from the archetype during editing, but whoever performed the editing missed the specific mention of being able to turn into a Huge Roc. Thus, the original author has admitted that as currently written, an Eagle Shaman cannot take the shape of a Huge Roc, as it is explicity forbidden by the Polymorph rules and only (accidentally, at this point) implicitly semi-allowed by the specific ability.
Bullet Point Summary
• The original intent of Jason Nelson was to be able to turn into a Huge Roc via an explict exception to many (maybe all) of the Shaman archetypes Wild Shape ability that allowed them to take the "young" or "giant" templates.
• This specific exception was removed from many (maybe all) of the Shaman archetypes Wild Shape ability during editing.
• The specific mention of the "Huge Roc" in the Eagle Shaman Archetype was missed.
It is, nonetheless, the RAW until they change the langauge.Except it is RAW and until you can post a rule that says "Huge Roc looks like this" you don't get to claim it is RAW.RAW does tell you all you need to know about what a Huge Roc looks like. It looks like any other Roc, except it is huge. Further, I don't care what its stat block is because I don't need it. If I would need the stat block (taking your position) I would use the young template and say that Eagle Shaman is an exception to the rule that says that you can't use a template. Now I have a stat block, if for some reason you insist on one.
Oh, but I already stated that in the laid out arguments on both sides. I also already stated your response to what I just stated above. It will not stop you from restating your position, however, I am sure. So have at it.
I guess you guys beleive that if you state something over and over again and ignore the others guy's position over and over again, it makes your argument stronger.
News flash. It doesn't.
Not to be rude, but is that not exactly what you are also doing?
Same old argument. Same old ignore the counter argument.
Driver, pointing out that someone has ignored the counter argument on their first post in the thread... While ignoring their argument is not helping discussion.
As I said quite a ways up, there are two flaws in the argument "For" Huge sized Rocs:
1) There is no generic Huge Roc. (Point 3 of your argument above.) Achieving this is done through templates or advancement, both of which are explicitly forbidden by the polymorph subschool rules. (This is disputed by some, but I consider it a weak argument, personally.)
2) The intention of Paizo (RAI) was to disallow using templates with all wild shapes, including the Eagle Shaman. (This has not and cannot be disputed.)
The fact that you are ignoring the intention of the rules is a big flaw in your discussion above. You must admit that.
|
Where in RAW are there Huge Rocs.
Not in Bestiary
Not in Adventure Path
Not in any Module or Scenario
So Your point 3 is completely false.
You first point demonstrates you have no understanding of what RAW means. RAW is Rules As Written. You say something is suggested with regard to eagle shaman turning into Rocs which by its very definition is NOT RAW.
2 Wild shape lets you turn into a Huge Animal, Huge is a defined size, Animal is a defined type. In order to be eligible for Wild Shape target you must be of the appropriate type. Since a Huge Roc has no listed stat block, only one modified by you, it is 1. not legally an Animal, 2. not RAW because there is no Huge Roc written down. By your logic you could turn into a Medium Eagle or a Large Eagle or even a Huge Eagle. They exist just as much as a Huge Roc.
4 Rules for adjusting size do exist, once you implement any of these rules you violate the polymorph subschool for generic creature.
You base your point entirely on this idea that Huge Rocs exist. Maybe they do but since they are not Written down anywhere you cannot say by any means that they are RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Driver, RAW is not what you want it to be when there is ambiguity.
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 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
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Driver, you have repeatedly stated your position is RAW. Are you now retracting that and instead stating that it should be house ruled guidelines to fix what you consider to be ambiguity?
- Gauss
As for "what should be RAW", I beleive that, at the very least, it should be taken as RAW that an Eagle Shaman can turn into a Huge Roc
Driver, you have repeatedly stated your position is RAW. Are you now retracting that and instead stating that it should be house ruled guidelines to fix what you consider to be ambiguity?
- Gauss
Practically took the words right out of my mouth...
Additionally, instead of going with the clear (undisputed) intention of Paizo:
when there is ambiguity concerning the RAW, a GM should interpret that ambiguity according to the guidelines that I have pointed out early.
Those guidelines do not mention the intent of the rules.
Official Rules Response
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9raj
Druid, Eagle Shaman: How can I take the form of a roc if a roc is Gargantuan and the maximum size I can reach with wild shape is Huge?
The lack of suitable giant bird stat blocks in official Paizo products hinders the rules options for this archetype.
To remedy this problem, an eagle shaman druid can use wild shape to take the form of a Medium eagle (even though there aren't any actual Medium eagles in the game that don't use templates), and can use wild shape to take the form of a Huge roc (even though there aren't any actual Huge rocs in the game that don't use templates). Abilities of the assumed form are determined by which beast shape spell the wild shape ability functions as, as determined by the eagle shaman's effective druid level.
Ho boy. This'll open the floodgates on the other shamans as well.
Regardless, thanks very much for looking at this.
Wow, a major change. Ok...so be it. I know a druid that will be happy about this. :)
- Gauss
Wow, a major change. Ok...so be it. I know a druid that will be happy about this. :)
- Gauss
I'm presently playing a Druid who just hit second level, and I'm not happy about this one... I'm going to attempt to refrain myself slightly, but this one makes me =( nearly as much as the Spell-Like Ability FAQ. I just hate adding house rules into my list that shouldn't have to be there because NOBODY thought to allow it to work that way until the FAQ. (Which results in Paizo attempting to change the game that I've always played, and thus results in me having to add a house-rule to prevent it.)
I suppose I'll find a nicer way to say this then: I believe that unless clarified better as a specific exception to the Eagle Shaman Archetype, this will lead to people on the forums asking more questions than were answered by the FAQ.
MechE, thing is, this actually matches how I view the shaman archetypes should be played.
While I may have been arguing against the pre-FAQ RAW of them being played this way that doesn't reflect how I feel the RAW *should* be.
I just hope they add wording to the general Shaman types that you can go up or down one size compared to normal.
- Gauss
|
Official Rules Response
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I'll find a nicer way to say this then: I believe that unless clarified better as a specific exception to the Eagle Shaman Archetype, this will lead to people on the forums asking more questions than were answered by the FAQ.
The design team is not able to stop people from extrapolating FAQ answers to unrelated topics, or trying to use any rule in the books or comment by staff to get a desired ruling on an unrelated topic.
Bear shamans have Medium and Large bears. Lion shamans have only Large lions, but that's a more powerful option than only having a Small (i.e., eagle) animal as its archetype-named creature. Serpent shamans have snakes of various sizes, and includes both constrictors and vipers. Wolf shamans have Medium and Large wolves.
But of the druid archetypes presented in the APG, the eagle shaman is the only one which (1) only has a Small animal as its legal archetypical form (and therefore never benefits from the higher-level beast shape spells), and (2) suggests an invalid animal choice (roc) for its wild shape ability. Something had to be done to correct this problem, and adding more forms is the only option that makes the math worthwhile (barring creating unique stat blocks for "eagles" at every size category, which wouldn't fit in the printed space alloted for the archetype).
I suppose I'll find a nicer way to say this then: I believe that unless clarified better as a specific exception to the Eagle Shaman Archetype, this will lead to people on the forums asking more questions than were answered by the FAQ.The design team is not able to stop people from extrapolating FAQ answers to unrelated topics, or trying to use any rule in the books or comment by staff to get a desired ruling on an unrelated topic.
Bear shamans have Medium and Large bears. Lion shamans have only Large lions, but that's a more powerful option than only having a Small (i.e., eagle) animal as its archetype-named creature. Serpent shamans have snakes of various sizes, and includes both constrictors and vipers. Wolf shamans have Medium and Large wolves.
But of the druid archetypes presented in the APG, the eagle shaman is the only one which (1) only has a Small animal as its legal archetypical form (and therefore never benefits from the higher-level beast shape spells), and (2) suggests an invalid animal choice (roc) for its wild shape ability. Something had to be done to correct this problem, and adding more forms is the only option that makes the math worthwhile (barring creating unique stat blocks for "eagles" at every size category, which wouldn't fit in the printed space alloted for the archetype).
I can see where you're coming from on this, but I think a lot of people (who don't see this specific post) are going to think this hints towards a more general exception. I'm not trying to be a pain, but what you've posted here is great information and it needs to be read by people much more frequently than it will be just left her. If some parts of this were placed into the FAQ, it would keep Gauss, myself, and many, many other posters from having to continually link this post for the coming years...
Alternatively, could a Large Eagle and a Huge Roc not have been created as a Blog post, or in an upcoming adventure path module? (Bestiary IV already went to print as I understand) It may be seen by slightly fewer people than will find the FAQ, but it's also an option. On the down side of that option, it would expand the available wild shapes for all druids. Though I'm not sure taking the shape of a Large Eagle would ever be better than taking the shape of a Medium Air Elemental (so it may be a non-issue), unless the abilities given to it were advantageous. (Grab, maybe?)
MechE, thing is, this actually matches how I view the shaman archetypes should be played.
While I may have been arguing against the pre-FAQ RAW of them being played this way that doesn't reflect how I feel the RAW *should* be.
I just hope they add wording to the general Shaman types that you can go up or down one size compared to normal.
- Gauss
And I understand how the Shaman Archetypes were supposed to work as originally written by the author. I can see where they are going with this one, but as I just indicated, I expect we'll be answering questions regarding intent for the other shamans. Specifically because there is now a way to do what the original author intended for one of the shaman archetypes, but not the others... Just concerned, that's all.
|
Official Rules Response
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where you're coming from on this, but I think a lot of people (who don't see this specific post) are going to think this hints towards a more general exception.
The design team is not able to stop people from extrapolating FAQ answers to unrelated topics, or trying to use any rule in the books or comment by staff to get a desired ruling on an unrelated topic.
Alternatively, could a Large Eagle and a Huge Roc not have been created as a Blog post, or in an upcoming adventure path module?
That wouldn't accomplish anything that the FAQ hasn't already addressed, would require more work, and would require players to have another obscure reference to play the archetype (instead of just knowing the FAQ, which is an assumed resource and is easily referenced, compared to a blog which has a new post every day).
Remember that wild shape uses beast shape for its mechanics, and those spells explicitly lists what ability score modifiers you get and what monster abilities you can select. If an ability isn't on the list, you don't get it; if it is on the list, you do. So by saying "eagle shamans can take the form of a Medium eagle or a Huge roc," that allows the shaman to use the necessary beast shape spell for those sizes, and doesn't change the list of monster abilities available for either of those creatures. And it doesn't require the player to have a link to or printout of a blog post with two new stat blocks and keep track of which abilities the Medium, Large, and Huge eagles have as compared to the Small eagle and Gargantuan roc.
Furthermore, answering the problem this way allows Paizo to errata the archetype in the APG without referring to an outside source (such as the blog); the correction is fully contained within the archetype and the additional sentence of text can be added to APG pages 103-103 without affecting the layout of the book.
I like the ruling and the confined nature of it.
PDT: Should the weapon dice of the original creatures be used for the newly allowed Medium Eagle (1d4 bite and claws) and Huge Roc (2d6 talons and 2d8 bite), or adjust due to the size change? (1d6 Eagle, 1d8/2d6 Roc)
As someone who loves the idea of the eagle shaman, and now the reality, I'm happy with this ruling.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
this will lead to people on the forums asking more questions than were answered by the FAQ.
Alternatively, could a Large Eagle and a Huge Roc not have been created as a Blog post
I think this FAQ will be a confirmation of those that think it is an allowance to change the size of any wild shape, instead of the admission that is not possible but is allowed specifically for an Eagle Shaman.
this way allows Paizo to errata the archetype in the APG without referring to an outside source
The key question this FAQ leaves unanswered (and that I think most people here are confused) is what is the damage dice of the granted natural weapons and the movement speeds. These are things that a size change would typically change. This FAQ doesn't address these questions.
FAQ updated to prevent extrapolation to other animal shamans and to specify how to build a Medium eagle and Huge roc.
Perfect, many thanks.
And sorry for the hasty poorly worded, already deleted response. =)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well well, who would have thought that they intended for an Eagle Shaman to be able to turn into a Huge Roc. Surprise, surprise
Did you read it?
It explicitly said the Eagle Shaman could NOT turn into a Roc or Medium Eagle, but that they felt this specific class deserved a rules exemption.
So they specifically created an exception for this ONE Archetype.