There are too many long and angry posts in here for me to read and know if someone else already said this but...
In response to someone asking about one of the shaman archetypes not having a full wildshape spectrum for their abilities, the devs (I'm pretty sure it was James, but I am way to lazy to dig for it again and site it hehe but feel free)stated that due to their own deadlines and interests in making new content, they will never publish a book with every size and shape of animal and that a GM could work with you to resize the animals to make full use of the shamans wildshape power.
Meaning they did not necessarily leave out all the different shapes and sizes to mess with wildshapers, but also meaning that there is not and never will be official support for every size of a given animal type. This also unfortunately means that you cannot wildshape into non beastiary animals without GM interaction/permission.
Sorry mate. :(
Rynjin wrote:
Understanding how 2+2=Fwark is hard to understand too. That doesn't mean you're somehow smart for "figuring it out".
I agree. That is why you should not count yourself smart for figuring out some convoluted argument that turns "if you turn into a Roc" into "you can't turn into a Roc."
Gauss wrote: 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
I am not ignoring the author. The author gives an account of what he believes happened behind the scenes. Who knows if it is a full account. At the end of the day, however, the language remained in the text of the Eagle Shaman and has not been changed.
Further, it is the conclusion that the author reached that I am in disagreement with (assuming that the posters here have cited the author correctly which many times they don't).
Namely, even if what the author is purported to say is the truth it still does not equal that an Eagle Shaman can't turn into a Roc.
Last, the author is not Paizo. This is evident by the very fact that the author had not control over the final edited. If he has no control over the edit, then how can he have control over what the final edit means.
The author is not the FAQ, eratta nor Sean.
thelemonache wrote: There are too many long and angry posts in here for me to read and know if someone else already said this but...
In response to someone asking about one of the shaman archetypes not having a full wildshape spectrum for their abilities, the devs (I'm pretty sure it was James, but I am way to lazy to dig for it again and site it hehe but feel free)stated that due to their own deadlines and interests in making new content, they will never publish a book with every size and shape of animal and that a GM could work with you to resize the animals to make full use of the shamans wildshape power.
Meaning they did not necessarily leave out all the different shapes and sizes to mess with wildshapers, but also meaning that there is not and never will be official support for every size of a given animal type. This also unfortunately means that you cannot wildshape into non beastiary animals without GM interaction/permission.
Sorry mate. :(
I will ignore the "sorry mate" and just respond to the substance.
You have made my point for me. It is intended and indeed RAW that an Eagle Shaman can turn into a Roc. The question is what would the Roc look like. To the extent that the Huge Roc that an Eagle Shaman turns into is RAW, there should be no problem for the person to sit down at any table and play a Roc. To the extent that the Huge Roc that an Eagle Shaman turns into is discretionary, it is RAW that will have table variation.
So, what is the RAW version of the Roc that should be able to be played at any table. It is a Huge Roc with attacks and reach that are scaled down to Huge size. Paizo already has rules for doing this that do not require GM discretion. The physical stats of the Roc are determined by the wildshape ability, so you don't need GM discretion for that. You don't inherit the natural armor, skills or feats of the Roc when you wildshape, so those issue are handled by RAW as well. No other stat ability is dependent on size. So, this Roc can be made per RAW without GM discretion.
Now the discretion part comes in with regard to whether or not a Huge Roc has grab. There is no written version of the Huge Roc in the bestiary so we don't know. Further, there are no rules that tells us whether an animal that goes from gargantuan to huge still keeps his grab ability.
Accordingly, if a person sat down at my table as an Eagle Shaman and said that they wanted to turn into a Huge Roc with reach and attacks scaled down to Huge size, I would say fine you can do so accordingly to RAW.
If they said they wanted to play a Huge Roc with grab, then I would have to say that that is discretionary RAW and I will have to think about it.
What if the rules are just leaving room for a future spell or feat or mythic ability that adds the ability to wild-shape into Giant/Young template creatures or Gargantuan creatures? That would justify the phrasing without making it a default ability of the eagle shaman.
Driver 325 yards wrote: The author is not the FAQ, eratta nor Sean. This is basically the same as:
Player sits down at Driver's table (the GM) and says his longsword does 1d20 damage. Until a FAQ or SKR comes along to tell the player his longsword only does 1d8, he won't take no for an answer.
James Risner wrote: Driver 325 yards wrote: The author is not the FAQ, eratta nor Sean. This is basically the same as:
Player sits down at Driver's table (the GM) and says his longsword does 1d20 damage. Until a FAQ or SKR comes along to tell the player his longsword only does 1d8, he won't take no for an answer. Only its not the same, so you should be put at ease.
Matthew Downie wrote: What if the rules are just leaving room for a future spell or feat or mythic ability that adds the ability to wild-shape into Giant/Young template creatures or Gargantuan creatures? That would justify the phrasing without making it a default ability of the eagle shaman. Did you read what Thelemonache wrote. According to him, the writers do intend for the different Shaman to turn into different sized creatures and to the extent that doing so requires GM discretion, they intend for the GMs to work with the playyer to determine those things that need to be determined through discretion.
Luckily, only whether a Huge Roc has grab needs to be determined through GM discretion. Everything else is determined by RAW without GM discretion. Thus, if you want to play a Huge Roc without Grab, you should be okay via RAW and without GM discretion to do so.
This means that a Huge Roc without grab "should be" okay at a PFS table. Hopefully noone on the No Committee is your PFS GM.
However, if you want to play a Huge Roc with grab, you are out of luck at a PFS table because they give their GMs no discretion when it comes to builds (or at least I am told such).
If one person tells you you're a horse, they're crazy.
If three people tell you you're a horse, its a conspiracy.
But if ten people tell you you're a horse, its time to buy a saddle.
Just make it a large saddle, cause you can't be a huge horse.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
As a PFS GM I would not allow this at all at my table as it is completely not RAW.
We have explained it several times and you fail to see your logical, semantic and reasoning errors.
Since no one agrees with you, I think the rest of us have done a successful job at answering the original question, Can you turn into a Huge Roc? By RAW, no, with a reasonable GM in a home game, shouldn't be a problem.
Taenia wrote: As a PFS GM I would not allow this at all at my table as it is completely not RAW.
We have explained it several times and you fail to see your logical, semantic and reasoning errors.
Since no one agrees with you, I think the rest of us have done a successful job at answering the original question, Can you turn into a Huge Roc? By RAW, no, with a reasonable GM in a home game, shouldn't be a problem.
Well then let it go. I feel I have done a reasonable job explaining my position as well.
Agree to disagree. Do what you will at your PFS table and home game.
Removed some posts. Leave the hostility out of the conversation, please.
Driver 325 yards wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: What if the rules are just leaving room for a future spell or feat or mythic ability that adds the ability to wild-shape into Giant/Young template creatures or Gargantuan creatures? That would justify the phrasing without making it a default ability of the eagle shaman. Did you read what Thelemonache wrote. According to him, the writers do intend for the different Shaman to turn into different sized creatures and to the extent that doing so requires GM discretion, they intend for the GMs to work with the playyer to determine those things that need to be determined through discretion.
Luckily, only whether a Huge Roc has grab needs to be determined through GM discretion. Everything else is determined by RAW without GM discretion. Thus, if you want to play a Huge Roc without Grab, you should be okay via RAW and without GM discretion to do so.
This means that a Huge Roc without grab "should be" okay at a PFS table. Hopefully noone on the No Committee is your PFS GM.
However, if you want to play a Huge Roc with grab, you are out of luck at a PFS table because they give their GMs no discretion when it comes to builds (or at least I am told such). Under what circumstances would you accept that RAW does not allow you to wild shape into a huge roc?
This is bringing to mind that old Dave Chappelle sketch where the prosecutor asked Dave Chappelle what it would take to convince him that R. Kelly was guilty.
Quote: Under what circumstances would you accept that RAW does not allow you to wild shape into a huge roc?
This is bringing to mind that old Dave Chappelle sketch where the prosecutor asked Dave Chappelle what it would take to convince him that R. Kelly was guilty.
Oh, good question. Am I remembering my classes right - falsifiability, right? That there has to be an imaginable scenario where you'd be wrong (and then you demonstrate that you're right)?
blahpers wrote:
Under what circumstances would you accept that RAW does not allow you to wild shape into a huge roc?
I can answer this, though I doubt you could answer the counter question of under what circumstances would you accept that RAW does allow you to wild shape into a huge Roc.
For me, if there were no Pathfinder Rules that one could follow to obtain all of the information that you need to know to change into a RAW Huge Roc, then I would accept that you could not change into a Huge Roc.
So, if Pathfinder had no rule for resizing weapon attacks you would be left asking the question how do you determine the claw attacks of a Huge Roc without having a Huge Roc in the bestiary. There would be no RAW way to determine this. Thus, this issue would be left solely to the discretion of the GM.
Further, if your stats were determined by bestiary stats instead of by beast shape, you would be left acting the question "what are my stats when I change without viewing a bestiary version of the creature"
The same would be true for if you needed the beastiary to determine your feats, skills, and natural armor as a Huge Roc.
Luckily, it turns out that to turn into a Huge Roc, all you need is the Gargauntuan Roc and the existing rules for resizing and the wildshape rules. You literally don't need a Huge Bestiary Roc at all.
So in short, if the existing rules did not provide me with enough information to turn into a Huge Roc, I would say that while Eagle Shaman implicitly grants me the ability to be a Roc (and yes, I believe the implicit to be RAW), I can not because there exist no rules that tell me how.
But this is not the case, the rules do exist.
Now let me here the same blah blah blah arguments all over again.
I thought you guys said you were growing tired.
Sorry, I could not respond to the other goofy comments recently submitted. I have other things to do.
The rules provide me with enough information to turn into a gargantuan wolf.
Therefore I can turn into a gargantuan wolf?
BigNorseWolf wrote: The rules provide me with enough information to turn into a gargantuan wolf.
Therefore I can turn into a gargantuan wolf?
Different issue, which I am not arguing. Other people have taking such a stance in other threads. Go argue with them about that.
Gargatuan Wolves don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist.
Tiny Elephants don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist.
I could go on, but you get my point
Quote: Luckily, it turns out that to turn into a Huge Roc, all you need is the Gargauntuan Roc and the existing rules for resizing and the wildshape rules. You literally don't need a Huge Bestiary Roc at all. What rules are those that you can use for resizing? Templates. Which are called out as not being allowed. You cannot simply use the rules contained under a template, but then go "oh yeah but I'm not actually using the template". That isn't even a grey area in rules, that's just cheating. I can't use a tower shield as a cleric an just say "I'm using the rules for a tower shield, but it's not actually a tower shield, so I'm proficient in it". That'd be cheating.
Quote: Gargatuan Wolves don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist. Why? I don't understand the difference between these distinctions. Neither of those things exist in the Bestiary. Why is it legit to create one but not the other?
Quote: I can answer this, though I doubt you could answer the counter question of under what circumstances would you accept that RAW does allow you to wild shape into a huge Roc. There are two scenarios where I'd be wrong:
1: the text contains something along the lines of: "If the Eagle Shaman can Wild Shape into a Huge animal, he may also Wild Shape into a Roc"
Which would allow a Gargantuan roc.
2. The text contains something like: "the Eagle Shaman may apply the Giant or Young templates to Eagles or Rocs when determining what forms he can take when he uses Wild Shape".
This would allow Huge Rocs and also Medium and Tiny eagles.
My argument is falsifiable. The rules contain neither of these things, however.
Bizbag wrote: Quote: I can answer this, though I doubt you could answer the counter question of under what circumstances would you accept that RAW does allow you to wild shape into a huge Roc. There are two scenarios where I'd be wrong:
1: the text contains something along the lines of: "If the Eagle Shaman can Wild Shape into a Huge animal, he may also Wild Shape into a Roc"
Which would allow a Gargantuan roc.
2. The text contains something like: "the Eagle Shaman may apply the Giant or Young templates to Eagles or Rocs when determining what forms he can take when he uses Wild Shape".
This would allow Huge Rocs and also Medium and Tiny eagles.
My argument is falsifiable. The rules contain neither of these things, however. Okay, then we have defined our impasse. The implicit is RAW to me and only the explicit is RAW to you. We can never fill in this void so for you and I to continue discussing the matter is really pointless.
To me "if the Eagle Shaman turns into a Roc" implicitly equals "If the Eagle Shaman can Wild Shape into a Huge animal, he may also Wild Shape into a Roc" and/or implicitly equals "the Eagle Shaman may apply the Giant or Young templates to Eagles or Rocs when determining what forms he can take when he uses Wild Shape"
Now I guess we can keep going round and round in circles, but it will always come back to this as far as you and I are concerned. I am not sure if this is also the difference that has my point of view at an impasse with others. That said, at least you and I can just agree to disagree and move on.
Bizbag wrote: What rules are those that you can use for resizing? Templates. Which are called out as not being allowed. You cannot simply use the rules contained under a template, but then go "oh yeah but I'm not actually using the template". That isn't even a grey area in rules, that's just cheating. I can't use a tower shield as a cleric an just say "I'm using the rules for a tower shield, but it's not actually a tower shield, so I'm proficient in it". That'd be cheating. No, you can also do it with weapon re-sizing rules and wildshaping rules. You should go through the exercies of creating a Wildshape Huge Roc with just weapon resizing rules and wildshaping rules and see just how successful you will be without needing a template. You might amze yourself. It works.
Quote: Gargatuan Wolves don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist. Quote: Why? I don't understand the difference between these distinctions. Neither of those things exist in the Bestiary. Why is it legit to create one but not the other? Because there are creatures that exist implicitly in Pathfinder that are not in the Beastiary. It is implicit in Pathfinder that Rocs come from medium eggs (because the description says that in the bestiary) and then they grow up to become large and then huge and then gargantuan. So to those who take the implicit as RAW, Huge Rocs, Large Rocs and Medium Rocs do exists even though the Paizo people have not taken on the impossible task of placing every implicit creature that exist into the Bestiary explicitly.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Driver 325 yards wrote: Bizbag wrote: What rules are those that you can use for resizing? Templates. Which are called out as not being allowed. You cannot simply use the rules contained under a template, but then go "oh yeah but I'm not actually using the template". That isn't even a grey area in rules, that's just cheating. I can't use a tower shield as a cleric an just say "I'm using the rules for a tower shield, but it's not actually a tower shield, so I'm proficient in it". That'd be cheating. No, you can also do it with weapon re-sizing rules and wildshaping rules. You should go through the exercies of creating a Wildshape Huge Roc with just weapon resizing rules and wildshaping rules and see just how successful you will be without needing a template. You might amze yourself. It works.
Quote: Gargatuan Wolves don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist. Quote: Why? I don't understand the difference between these distinctions. Neither of those things exist in the Bestiary. Why is it legit to create one but not the other? Because there are creatures that exist implicitly in Pathfinder that are not in the Beastiary. It is implicit in Pathfinder that Rocs come from medium eggs (because the description says that in the bestiary) and then they grow up to become large and then huge and then gargantuan. So to those who take the implicit as RAW, Huge Rocs, Large Rocs and Medium Rocs do exists even though the Paizo people have not taken on the impossible task of placing every implicit creature that exist into the Bestiary explicitly. A. You can't resize a Roc into something smaller than Gargantuan without applying a template. Which is forbidden in the wildshape mechanics. It's up to a GM to give you a pass on that forbiddance.
B. Yes there are creatures that exist outside the Bestiary, but if you insist on turning into a creature that is not statted, then it's up to your campaign GM to either stat such a creature, or declare that it's not available to you. You are entirely on GM suffrage on this. The Beastshape spells that are the engine on Wildshape require a statblock for you to draw upon, either from a Bestiary, or another source. What you can't do as a player is make one up on the spot unless your GM signs off on making that additon to his ecology.
LazarX wrote:
A. You can't resize a Roc into something smaller than Gargantuan without applying a template. Which is forbidden in the wildshape mechanics. It's up to a GM to give you a pass on that forbiddance.
Not true. I think you just haven't tried. I have already walk you through how to do it step by step above. So either you are not reading what I wrote or you are ignoring it.
So you (the player) believe it is legal to resize a creature because the GM can resize a creature?
- Gauss
To Gauss, I know you know my counter response because I have seen you on different threads. Generally you listen and understand both sides of an issue and don't play dumb to you oppositions counter argument. For some reason, today is different.
That said, I am done gentlemen. I have made my point. I will let you write another twenty post to drown out the lastest comment by your opposition. There will be a few off topic post, followed by a few jokes, followed by someone on the No Committee saying something like "and yeah, it is clear that you can't turn into a Huge Roc"
I guess you can count my unwillingness to keep rehashing an obvious impasse as a victory. I see why others a decided to stop making their points on this topic to you.
Quote: No, you can also do it with weapon re-sizing rules and wildshaping rules. You should go through the exercies of creating a Wildshape Huge Roc with just weapon resizing rules and wildshaping rules and see just how successful you will be without needing a template. You might amze yourself. It works. A roc isn't a weapon. What makes you think weapon rules apply to them? Can you make a roc masterwork? Can I take Improved Critical (Roc)?
Quote: Because there are creatures that exist implicitly in Pathfinder that are not in the Beastiary. It is implicit in Pathfinder that Rocs come from medium eggs (because the description says that in the bestiary) and then they grow up to become large and then huge and then gargantuan. So to those who take the implicit as RAW, Huge Rocs, Large Rocs and Medium Rocs do exists even though the Paizo people have not taken on the impossible task of placing every implicit creature that exist into the Bestiary explicitly. I'm quite sure that at some point in a Roc's life, she would count as the sizes between Medium and Gargantuan. Yes, that means that a Roc actually loses a template as it matures to adult size.
But you can't Wild Shape into those things. You can't Alter Self into a tiny baby human, even if such things exist, conceptually.
I generally do, but that does not mean I am super-human and remember every single response that has been made in a multi-day thread.
It is a legitimate question that I do not remember you ever answering.
However, you appear to prefer insulting me by stating that I am playing dumb. So be it.
- Gauss
Gauss wrote: I generally do, but that does not mean I am super-human and remember every single response that has been made in a multi-day thread.
It is a legitimate question that I do not remember you ever answering.
However, you appear to prefer insulting me by stating that I am playing dumb. So be it.
- Gauss
Your right, I apologize, but I am, nonetheless, done with the conversation.
Driver 325 yards wrote: I am, nonetheless, done with the conversation. I predict that this is not the last post from Driver in this thread.
I also (not so subtly) hope that by saying this, I will provoke him into ACTUALLY being done with this thread. =)
We shall see whether I am right or happy. Either way, I win.
Driver 325 yards wrote: if there were no Pathfinder Rules that one could follow to obtain all of the information that you need to know to change into a RAW Huge Roc, then I would accept that you could not change into a Huge Roc.
successful you will be without needing a template. You might amze yourself. It works.
But there are no rules that says you can ignore the prohibition on templates. You also don't know if it loses any abilities (like Poison, Grab, Rake etc) when you make it smaller.
You can use weapon rules as a tool to do that, but that isn't RAW, allowed, or proper to do so.
Bizbag wrote: "If the Eagle Shaman can Wild Shape into a Huge animal, he may also Wild Shape into a Roc"
"the Eagle Shaman may apply the Giant or Young templates to Eagles or Rocs when determining what forms he can take when he uses Wild Shape".
The first one wouldn't allow Gargantuan Roc's, but the second would allow templated Rocs.
MechE_ wrote: I will provoke him into ACTUALLY being done with this thread. =) I predict that he may be done with this one, but all future questions will have him pushing his unique view on anyone who doesn't know his view isn't RAW, allowed, proper, or acceptable.
Quote: The first one wouldn't allow Gargantuan Roc's, but the second would allow templated Rocs. Well, whatever. In a situation where permission was specifically granted, my position would be falsified.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Different issue, which I am not arguing. Its the exact same issue.
Your argument is "I can turn into X if i have the rules for it"
When its a roc, you're for it. When its a wolf you're against it. That demonstrates an inconsistency somewhere in your argument.
Quote: Gargatuan Wolves don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist.
Tiny Elephants don't exist, but Huge Rocs do exist.
I could go on, but you get my point
They exist but they're not a generic roc.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Driver 325 yards wrote:
Different issue, which I am not arguing. When its a roc, you're for it. When its a wolf you're against it. Which translates into "I don't have an answer cause I don't care about a Wolf but my Eagle Shaman cares about continuing to be able to shape into a Huge Roc, man!"
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
