Eagle Shaman & the Roc


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Doesn't RAW stand for rules as written. It is written that an Eagle Shaman can become a huge Roc. Deal with it. He is an exception to the rule.

It doesn't say Hugh Roc RAW.

Any method used to become a Roc is a house rule.

Any use of this is going to be frustrating, because it will be subject to table variance. I, for example, wouldn't allow any shaping or summoning of a Roc.

Now if you shape into a Eagle and would like your Eagle to look like a Roc but have the stats of an Eagle, I'm fine with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At no point does the Eagle Shaman state she can become a Roc. What it DOES state that IF the Eagle Shaman takes the form of a Roc she uses her druid level +2.

"IF" is not permission.

APG p102 wrote:
Wild Shape (Su): At 6th level, an eagle shaman’s wild shape ability functions at her druid level – 2. If she takes on the form of an eagle or roc, she instead uses her druid level + 2.

Now, does that mean she 'should be able to'? Perhaps. But without supporting rules to counter the existing rules she cannot.

- Gauss

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Gauss wrote:

"IF" is not permission.

APG p102 wrote:
Wild Shape (Su): ... If she takes on the form of an eagle or roc

Excellent point to which I'm sure the response will be "if = allows"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And I will leave that discussion to those who enjoy endless RAW arguments.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bizbag wrote:
What happens if a new book introduces a new Plant that can Attach with four attack, but is mitigated by being Tiny and having low Strength? Can you just say "I'm a Large version of that" (Feed me, Seymour!)

the intent of the Beast Shape and other Polymorph spells in pathfinder vs. those in 3.5 is that the strength of the creature is already game balanced by the spells, to protect the game from the ever increasing trove of creatures that get published in bestiaries.

if that balance does exist, which i've seen when sizing up /down creatures for home play a lot and advancing creatures by hand sometimes, then it doesn't matter if they publish a lemure or an octapus, the strength of those abilities is that beast shape I, II, III etc only grant what the spell states. so if some crazy creature gets published with some awesome new ability, you can take its form, but you only get the ability if its listed in the spell. ::shrug:: that seems enough protection for most. and if its a really wild and kooky creature, they're going to make it a magic beast, so only higher level arcanes can polymorph to it anyway.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Gauss wrote:

"IF" is not permission.

APG p102 wrote:
Wild Shape (Su): ... If she takes on the form of an eagle or roc
Excellent point to which I'm sure the response will be "if = allows"

i believe the reports of the redacted text. the way the ability is currently worded, the author clearly intended the shaman to be able to transform into a Roc. otherwise If is too strong a word. "if she ever gets an ability to turn into a roc" would be more likely , and indicate that the archetype didn't grant this ability. but its "if she takes the form of an eagle or roc". eagle is clearly legal RAW. Roc either becomes legal by writing it into that sentence, when it becomes RAW, or becomes legal through extra text that was later removed from the ability.

in home games its great, they should publish a fix to it so people don't have to go searching on forums to realize it was intended. they should just update the polymorph section to allow young and giant template, so they don't have to update 7 to 9 shaman archetypes individually, if they're worried about extra text in republishing/new editions of the APG.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Seraphimpunk wrote:

the author clearly intended the shaman to be able to transform into a Roc

they should publish a fix to it so people don't have to go searching on forums to realize it was intended.

What the author wants isn't important, as the author doesn't publish the material. If you find something from the design team saying they would do it as Young or Giant, then you are gold. Until then it doesn't matter what the author wanted.

I highly doubt they are going to add Young templates to Polymorph section as it would be inconsistent with the rule you can't go into templated forms. I don't think they regret blocking templates and I doubt they ever will. So you are hoping for something extremely unlikely to ever happen.


The Eagle Shaman and Roc issue obviously requires an errata to correct the problem. The options are:

1) Remove the reference to being able to wildshape into a Roc in the Eagle Shaman archetype.
2) Add verbiage into the Eagle Shaman (and other Shaman Archetypes) allowing them to apply the young or giant templates to their wild shapes.

Personally, I feel like number 1 is just so much more likely to occur than number two that any further discussion on the topic is unnecessary. (Reasons for option number 1 over option number 2 include: it's simpler, it causes less people to interpret the rules differently than they currently do, and it avoids expanding wild shape closer to the palce it was in 3.5e, which most people agree is a good thing.)

Some others, obviously disagree with that, but I don't think any further discussion is going to cause the FAQ to be answered any sooner. It'll all be sorted out in a few days/weeks when the PDT gets around to it, so let's all be patient.


MechE, I agree with your post except for one thing. More discussion is more likely to increase the number of FAQ hits which does cause a FAQ to rise to the top thus *probably* get answered sooner. The Devs have stated this is how the FAQ system works. :)

- Gauss


I doubt either 1 or 2 will happen, as the current version leaves open the possibility that an future module, adventure path or bestiary will have stats for a smaller roc.


Gauss wrote:

MechE, I agree with your post except for one thing. More discussion is more likely to increase the number of FAQ hits which does cause a FAQ to rise to the top thus *probably* get answered sooner. The Devs have stated this is how the FAQ system works. :)

- Gauss

Yeah, I know... I didn't roll so well on my Bluff check on that one, huh? =)


MechE, considering the -20 penalty we all suffer due to the text medium, I'm not surprised. :)

- Gauss

Liberty's Edge

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Doesn't RAW stand for rules as written. It is written that an Eagle Shaman can become a huge Roc. Deal with it. He is an exception to the rule.

RAW says nothing of the sort.

The way wild shape works is when you can change into large or tiny creatures, you look in the bestiary for a creature that is large or tiny. If an animal is Huge you can't wild shape into it until you can wild shape into Huge creatures (which is typically 8th level.)

Since wild shape never allows gargantuan creatures, what makes you think they could change into a ROC?

The Eagle shaman also doesn't say anywhere that they specifically can change into a ROC. It says if they do, they are considered two levels higher.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If I'm on the moon, i'm +30 for caster level checks...
If the fighter has three heads, he can issue three separate Cavalier Challenges per day for free...
If an eagle shaman turns into a roc, they're considered 2 levels higher.

it would be wrong to include an impossible IF statement in the archetype's description of its abilities. its misleading. I'm reading an archetype to find out the differences between the base class, and what abilities the archetype confers. I'd rather not have to weed out abilities that don't work as written.

the other condition, if an eagle shaman turns into an eagle, is clearly possible, and not misleading.

when you consider both as possibilities, eagle and roc, you realize the archetype gives specific permission, trumping general polymorph rules, to turn into a Roc.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Seraphimpunk wrote:
it would be wrong to include an impossible IF statement in the archetype's description

Or it would be a mistake.

You know it isn't RAI and it isn't RAW because it doesn't say you can (only that IF you do you gain this benefit.)

Yet because you want to be able to do it, you just keep saying it is RAW when it clearly isn't.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

its a rule. it exists. its written. even if it only exists in a conditional sense.
it creates a paradox possibly, hence why I hit FAQ.


It's not strictly a paradox, because they can both be true at the same time (if he gained the ability to assume Gargantuan forms from somewhere, he'd get the +2). Also, the General/Specific rule exists to resolve paradoxes.

The issue, like you said, is that there is a conditional, but no Specific rule to trump the General prohibition against becoming a Gargantuan creature.

Liberty's Edge

Seraphimpunk wrote:

If I'm on the moon, i'm +30 for caster level checks...

If the fighter has three heads, he can issue three separate Cavalier Challenges per day for free...
If an eagle shaman turns into a roc, they're considered 2 levels higher.

it would be wrong to include an impossible IF statement in the archetype's description of its abilities. its misleading. I'm reading an archetype to find out the differences between the base class, and what abilities the archetype confers. I'd rather not have to weed out abilities that don't work as written.

the other condition, if an eagle shaman turns into an eagle, is clearly possible, and not misleading.

when you consider both as possibilities, eagle and roc, you realize the archetype gives specific permission, trumping general polymorph rules, to turn into a Roc.

So how does this happen?

In a home game my GM and I, or I (as the GM) and my player can figure out what stats a Huge Roc has.

In PFS, however, creating new stat blocks to satisfy an archetype is not OK. The stat block matters. And changing size is the most difficult modification to make. You have to change STR, CON, DEX, Natural Armor, and apply all size modifiers. Then you gotta downsize the damage dice (this is the most important change for wild shape purposes, as you get the damage dice and natural attacks of the creature).

Further, typically you get a bonus on disguise checks to make others believe you really are that creature type. How is that bonus affected if you aren't a typical Roc?

In PFS you can't assume permission on an if statement, because they haven't included the rules to make it possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bbauzh, damage dice changes are the only ones that matter, everything else is already given by the spell. The original creature's str/dex/con/na doesn't matter at all for wildshape. And other size modifiers don't depend on shape at all so would be the same for each huge creature the shaman shapes into.

The list of special abilities available is also already restricted by the spell, and therefore the power level is kept in check in that regard as well.

Liberty's Edge

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:

If I'm on the moon, i'm +30 for caster level checks...

If the fighter has three heads, he can issue three separate Cavalier Challenges per day for free...
If an eagle shaman turns into a roc, they're considered 2 levels higher.

it would be wrong to include an impossible IF statement in the archetype's description of its abilities. its misleading. I'm reading an archetype to find out the differences between the base class, and what abilities the archetype confers. I'd rather not have to weed out abilities that don't work as written.

the other condition, if an eagle shaman turns into an eagle, is clearly possible, and not misleading.

when you consider both as possibilities, eagle and roc, you realize the archetype gives specific permission, trumping general polymorph rules, to turn into a Roc.

So how does this happen?

In a home game my GM and I, or I (as the GM) and my player can figure out what stats a Huge Roc has.

In PFS, however, creating new stat blocks to satisfy an archetype is not OK. The stat block matters. And changing size is the most difficult modification to make. You have to change STR, CON, DEX, Natural Armor, and apply all size modifiers. Then you gotta downsize the damage dice (this is the most important change for wild shape purposes, as you get the damage dice and natural attacks of the creature).

Further, typically you get a bonus on disguise checks to make others believe you really are that creature type. How is that bonus affected if you aren't a typical Roc?

In PFS you can't assume permission on an if statement, because they haven't included the rules to make it possible.

The simple answer for PFS is that unless you have a newish GM than you wont be able to change into a huge roc, cause most of us realize that the eagle Shaman Roc thing is simple a Edit problem inwhich they didnt catch that line and so it is not legal. I have read all the arguments for and against. I would like to see them allow it but the fact is it is not at this moment a legal option. In a home game I may allow it though.


jjaamm wrote:
The simple answer for PFS is that unless you have a newish GM than you wont be able to change into a huge roc, cause most of us realize that the eagle Shaman Roc thing is simple a Edit problem inwhich they didnt catch that line and so it is not legal. I have read all the arguments for and against. I would like to see them allow it but the fact is it is not at this moment a legal option. In a home game I may allow it though.

Oh, absolutely. I'd let them use the Young template to do it; templates are banned under normal circumstances for good reason, but given that this isn't a cheesy OP template, I'd let it fly.

Also, I'm not sure if it was mentioned earlier, but I presume a Giant Eagle is legal for the Shaman; it's Large instead of Huge, but it's got the same attack types (two claws, one bite). It's up to you whether a Huge animal is worth the -4 effective Druid level.

Liberty's Edge

Giant eagles are magical beasts. Thats why dino wins out in my mind cause they have all the sizes.


Oh! So it is. Excuse me.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite.

They probably will never ever FAQ this because if you read the rules for the subschool Polymorph it plainly states that you use the form of the creature and the spell sets the size. Not the other way around. The form does not set the size, it is the spell that does. When wildshaping you go by what you know of the animal then when shaping select what size the form is going to be. Beast shape 1 gives you the choice of small and medium. 2 gives tiny through large and 3 gives diminutive through huge. The spell sets the sizes you can obtain and the form tells what attacks and abilities you can choose from what the spell is able to provide. Its that simple. No templates are needed or used. Just think of it as a xerox machine that you can scale down or up what you copy. Your not adding a template to the creature you just take the form of of that creature at what size you can and choose to be.

That's why they will never ever FAQ this. Cause they don't need to. They might release a rules clarification for the ones that see this as too vague of a rule and causes too much confusion for some.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
joesk wrote:
the spell sets the size. Not the other way around.

Your view is certainly the minority view.


Posted this on the other thread, thought it should go here too...

That the Druid is not meant to be able to utilize templates (or size changes) when using wild shape is known by most who are aware of the history of the Druid class, going back to 3.5e...

In 3.5e, the Druid was very different, mechanically. It did not use it's own physical stats when wild shaped, but instead replaced it's own Str, Dex, and Con with those of the base animal form. In addition to this, the other part of the Druid that was very powerful was it's ability to apply templates (including the young and giant) to their wild shapes. This specifically did allow the Druid to take the form of a huge roc, a huge wolf, a small lion, etc.

One of the goals of Pathfinder was to bring the Druidzilla down to the level of the rest of the classes. (It was called Druidzilla in 3.5e due to it's ability to out perfom all melee except for the Clericzilla, which also received many adjustments to the spells that made the Cleric too powerful in melee.)

Paizo made two primary (and intentional) design changes to the Druid:

1) Eliminate the replacement of stats with animal stats, forcing Druids to distribute their stats differently causing them to choose between being highly effective in melee, highly effective at casting, or some less optimized combination of the two.

2) Do not allow polymorph effects to apply templates (including the wild shape ability) in order to limit the massive quantity of options. The result of that second intentional design change is that druids cannot take the shape of nearly as many forms, including a huge roc, a huge wolf, a small lion, etc.

Even with these changes, most people still consider the Druid to be a solid tier 1 or tier 1.5 class (one of the most effective in the game, maybe behind the wizard and cleric, depending on who you ask). With that in mind, most conversation regarding increasing the allowances if wild shape is pretty much immediately written off due to the history of where the game came from, at least by those who know the history.


Never mind that the problem with Druidzilla was that it swapped in the snimal's physical stats and that it granted arbitrary abilities as new splat books were printed. Pathfinder druids are immune to this (unless they print an animal with eight oversized bite attacks, fly, burrow, climb, pounce, trample, etc).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

MechE_ wrote:
In 3.5e, the Druid ... it's ability to apply templates (
3.5 Wild Shape rules wrote:

Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.

Alternate Form wrote:
A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.

So in 3.5 you also couldn't take Templates.


James Risner wrote:
MechE_ wrote:
In 3.5e, the Druid ... it's ability to apply templates
3.5 Wild Shape rules wrote:

Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.

Alternate Form wrote:
A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.
So in 3.5 you also couldn't take Templates.

Been wrong once or twice before. Won't be the last time. =) In all honesty though, doesn't the fact that I am wrong actually solidify the "you shouldn't be able to wild shape into a form with a template" argument though?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I'm having DejaVu ;-)

Lantern Lodge

With 40 people requesting for an faq. I do hope this would be looked into.

That said, I don't think there is a quick or easy way to "fix" this. The good people at Paizo would have to take some time debating and evaluating a solution.


Secane wrote:
With 40 people requesting for an faq. I do hope this would be looked into.

Unfortunately, I do agree with the above... I say unfortunately because I believe the answer is pretty clear from the polymorph rules, but enough people seem to disagree that it would be nice to have this put to bed...

Secane wrote:
That said, I don't think there is a quick or easy way to "fix" this. The good people at Paizo would have to take some time debating and evaluating a solution.

The above here, not so much. I think there's many ways to word the proper FAQ response. Here is just an example of something that could be said...

Possible FAQ Answer wrote:

Can polymorph effects be used to take the shape of a creature that is smaller or larger than the one listed in the bestiary?

No, the polymorph rules explicitly do not allow taking forms with templates, including the young or giant templates. This is an intentional limitation to polymorph spells, though DMs are free to allow exceptions if they wish.


Templates are not the only way to change size. The Monster Advancement section in the Bestiary includes possible size changes for adding racial HD. Likewise smaller (younger) versions could be created by taking away HD. (from another game I recall the guideline of increasing by 1 size whenever you double HD)

Those advancements have no impact on the the actual abilities a character would gain through wildshape, therefore there should be no problem by RAW.


Isil-zha wrote:

Templates are not the only way to change size. The Monster Advancement section in the Bestiary includes possible size changes for adding racial HD. Likewise smaller (younger) versions could be created by taking away HD. (from another game I recall the guideline of increasing by 1 size whenever you double HD)

Those advancements have no impact on the the actual abilities a character would gain through wildshape.

I'm pretty sure this part is covered by the "your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type" line in the polymorph spell. The bestiary lists the "generic" creatures. Using the monster advancement rules to change the size of something you want to polymorph into goes beyond the "generic" creature if you ask me.


Well, monster advancement rules can be used to create new (sub)species, that then are the generic creature of their type. E.g., a variant that because of rough environmental conditions doesn't grow quite as large as the ones in other areas of the world. Or others that, due to some mutation grow larger and are tougher but all the ones in that area share this characteristic.


Mutants are not generic. GMs can invent new subspecies of animal, but players can't.

I would favor this ruling:

Can polymorph effects be used to take the shape of a creature that is smaller or larger than the one listed in the bestiary?

No, the polymorph rules explicitly do not allow taking forms with templates, including the young or giant templates. This is an intentional limitation to polymorph spells.
Exception: Animal shamans can wild shape into young or giant template versions of their associated animals.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok I am going to try again this again but use an easy example to follow. I will put the applying rules with the examples.

Ok Amber a 8th lvl Halfling druid with Str:10 Dex:18 Con:14 Int:10 Wis:14 Chr:12 (15 point build with both stat ups on dex) use her wildshape ability. For this instance she wishes to assume the form of a common household Mouse. First she looks at her ability to wildshape

8th lvl wildshape:
At 8th level, a druid can also use wild shape to change
into a Huge or Diminutive animal, When taking the form of animals, a druid’s wild shape now functions as beast shape III.
. She then looks up the spell that it refers to.
Beastshape III:
This spell functions as beast shape II, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Diminutive or Huge creature of the animal type. This spell also allows you to take on the form of a Small or Medium creature of the magical beast type. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: burrow 30 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 90 feet (good maneuverability), swim 90 feet, blindsense 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, constrict, ferocity, grab, jet, poison, pounce, rake, trample, trip, and web.
Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –4 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.
Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a –4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.
She now looks through all the bestiaries printed and all the associated AP’s, Players Guides and expansion books for anything close to a mouse. Hmm this is strange there is not one single mention of any thing called a mouse I know there has to be a mouse in the pathfinder world. She even remembers some box text in an adventure that had mice scurrying away as the door opened. So instead of changing her mind she looks further into the rules. Hmm under the spell school descriptions under polymorph
Polymorph Paragraph 1:
A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type, granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor.
Hmm there is that word FORM again. So she looks again in the bestiaries to find something that could be a mouse and finds the listing for a Rat
Rat:
N Tiny animal
Init +2; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +1
DEFENSE
AC 14, touch 14, flat-footed 12 (+2 Dex, +2 size)
hp 4 (1d8)
Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +1
OFFENSE
Speed 15 ft., climb 15 ft., swim 15 ft.
Melee bite +4 (1d3–4)
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
STATISTICS
Str 2, Dex 15, Con 11, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 2
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 6 (10 vs. trip)
Feats Weapon Finesse
Skills Climb +10, Stealth +18, Swim +10; Racial Modifiers
+4 Stealth
ECOLOGY
Environment any temperate
Organization solitary, pair, nest (3–12), or plague (13–100)
Treasure none
Fecund and secretive, rats are omnivorous
rodents that particularly thrive in urban areas.
This could work, Rats are just big ugly mice. So going back to the spell she reads about the sizes the spell allows
Beastshape III sizes:
Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –4 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.
Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a –4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.
The spell lets me take the form of diminutive through huge. Well a huge mouse is just silly so I will use the diminutive size. Looking back at the School description
Polymorph paragraph 3:
If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the
size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class,
attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill
modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this
change unless noted by the spell.
so the only stats that are changed are Str Dex and Natural armor. And she has to apply the size modifiers
Size modifiers:
Diminutive +4 (Applied to AC and To Hit. Diminutive -4 Applied to CMD and CMB. Diminutive +12 Applied to stealth. Diminutive +6 Applied to fly
. And to finish her changes in her transformation she reads
Polymorph School Paragraphs 5,6 and 2:
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you
into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical
beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into
your body. Items that provide constant bonusesand
do not need to be activated continue to function while
melded in this way (with the exception of armor and
shield bonuses,which cease to function). Items that
require activation cannot be used while you maintain
that form. While in such a form, you cannot cast any
spells that require material components (unless you have
the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only
cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form
you choose has the capability to make such movements or
speak, such as a dragon.

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all
extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your
original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as
well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed
by your original form. You also lose any class features that
depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features
(such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function.

In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the
natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency
in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base
attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity
as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for
determining damage bonuses.

So when she changes into her furry brown mouse she will have these stats and abilities.
Str: 6, Dex:24, Con:14, Int:10, Wis:14, Chr:12
AC: 22 (Dex +7, NaR +1, Size +4) T:21 FF:15
Attacks: +17(She has the Weapon finesse feat) Bite 1D2-2
Saves: Fort: 8 Ref: 9 Will: 8 (Notice she doesn’t get her Halfling Luck bonus because of the spell)
Move: 15’, Climb 15’, Swim 15’
Senses: Low-light vision, Scent.
Skills Modifiers: Stealth +19, Climb +6, Swim +6 (added to whatever her skill ranks are)
She then scurries about doing whatever it was she wanted to do.
I didn’t list her hit points cause they don’t change. And she is a destitute druid that has no magic items account for.

So my question is, where in that whole process was any templates used? I used the example of the mouse because it is one of the most common ANIMALS next to Rats that could and do exist in pathfinder.

The key word which is repeated countless times is the word FORM. The FORM of the animal is chosen then the SIZE which is set by the particular spell used bases the stat modifiers that modify your PC. With Beastshape III there are six sizes available to the Druid. There are no templates used when wildshaping if you want to be a large bear you choose the form of a bear and then by the spell you use it sets the stat mods and what abilities of the bear you get. You go Huge same thing. You go small same thing. No matter what size you are you are still in the FORM of a bear which is a specific animal type. You can’t be a bear with 6 legs or a bear with wings cause then you are adding templates to it. You can’t have DR; 5 good (as with the celestial template) because it is a template. The only purpose that the Giant and Young templates are for the DM that wants to do a quick change up on a particular creature. When you wildshape you do not add a template to the creature to change the size you use the corresponding spell to select the size of the FORM you wish take.

If you don't want to take my word for it, just look through all the bestiaries and find all the Huge and Diminutive animals listed in there. If the Druid is only restricted (and they aren't) to using an exact 100% copy of the same animals as printed in the books then all your going to see is Dinosaurs(for huge) and bats and toads(for diminutive{I'm not kidding those are the only Diminutive animals listed}.) at those sizes.

Hope this helps a few of you out who are trying to make sense of the confusion caused here.


Nice Joesk - favoriting just for the great "process flow" for wildshaping.

However I have to disagree. The Form determines the size. The polymorph spells do not give you size options, they give you creature options, which typically must fall within a certain size range. They are not separate choices from the spell.

Do I think a druid can wildshape into a mouse? Sure. But are their defined rules for it? No.

The gap between the rules, and what you delivered so nicely above is the damage on the bite attack. You have nothing to tell you to reduce it from 1d3 to 1d2, other than common sense or a template. Without that rules bridge, someone could argue (senselessly of course) that they can turn into a diminutive Roc, with a full 2d6 bite attack.


joesk wrote:

Ok I am going to try again this again but use an easy example to follow. I will put the applying rules with the examples.

[...]

Okay, here are some problems i have with what you did there:

1. You assume "form" excludes "size" without giving a reason to do so
2. You assume that this sentence is anything other than a different way of saying "allows you to polymorph into an animal..." without giving a reason to do so
3. You used lack of variety of diminutive animals with actual stats as an indicator for how beast shape works, when that's completely unrelated
4. there are plenty of non-dinosaur animals that are huge. Such as orcas, giant squids and elephants
5. You did not give a compelling argument for why the size adjustment determined by the spell is anything other than the adjustment you get from the size of the animal you chose
6. rats are not mice
7. rats are not ugly

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

joesk wrote:

bestiaries printed and all the associated AP’s, Players Guides and expansion books for anything close to a mouse.

select the size of the FORM you wish take.

FORM is a stat block in a Bestiary.

Isil-zha wrote:
Well, monster advancement rules can be used to create new (sub)species, that then are the generic creature of their type.

Only a DM can do this. A player can not do this and then Wild Shape into that new sub-species.

Majuba wrote:
diminutive Roc, with a full 2d6 bite attack.

The "size doesn't matter" crowd will say in effect:

Yes of course the Diminutive Roc deals 2d6 bite.
I'm betting 2 to 1 odds.


Isil-zha wrote:
Well, monster advancement rules can be used to create new (sub)species, that then are the generic creature of their type. E.g., a variant that because of rough environmental conditions doesn't grow quite as large as the ones in other areas of the world. Or others that, due to some mutation grow larger and are tougher but all the ones in that area share this characteristic.

In Pathfinder, advancing a creature's HD is considered a template. Likely for this reason, now that I think of it.

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:

The gap between the rules, and what you delivered so nicely above is the damage on the bite attack. You have nothing to tell you to reduce it from 1d3 to 1d2, other than common sense or a template. Without that rules bridge, someone could argue (senselessly of course) that they can turn into a diminutive Roc, with a full 2d6 bite attack.

That rule is covered under the size of natural attacks in the bestiary. That whenever a creature changes sizes its attack damage changes. Again no template needed just a firm understanding of the rules. Anyone that thinks that the damage doesn't change doesn't know how the system works. Not to mention that it would be a horrible looking Roc and wouldn't be able to fly. It wouldn't have the str to carry its beak.


Quote:
]Not to mention that it would be a horrible looking Roc and wouldn't be able to fly. It wouldn't have the str to carry its beak

Be careful going down that road or your GM may start ruling that dwarves can't swim and sink automatically.

Liberty's Edge

Threeshades wrote:


Okay, here are some problems i have with what you did there:
1. You assume "form" excludes "size" without giving a reason to do so

Simple. Size and Form are two different things. A 1 inch square has the same form as a 6 inch square. There FORM is that of a square. Size is a separate attribute of an object.

Quote:
2. You assume that this sentence is anything other than a different way of saying "allows you to polymorph into an animal..." without giving a reason to do so

Animal type is the type of form you have to go by for Beastshape.

Quote:
3. You used lack of variety of diminutive animals with actual stats as an indicator for how beast shape works, when that's completely unrelated

This was used to illustrate why the rules for polymorph are written in the way it is. That you can assume the size of any base creature that you wish to do based on its form.

Quote:
4. there are plenty of non-dinosaur animals that are huge. Such as orcas, giant squids and elephants

85% of all the huge ANIMALS are dinosaurs. Make a list of them and see for yourself.

Quote:
5. You did not give a compelling argument for why the size adjustment determined by the spell is anything other than the adjustment you get from the size of the animal you chose

Its the fact that the first sentence refers only to the FORM that is chosen. The a later sentence with its own qualifiers refers to the spell used as it determining what size is used. When there is a variable (as in many choices) it is a given that when casting the spell it fixes the size to what the caster intends.

Quote:
6. rats are not mice

They are in the same subfamily(Murinae) so that is close enough for me.

Quote:
7. rats are not ugly

That's your opinion. :b


joesk - I think there's an important distinction here that needs to be made... What you are saying about changing into animals that don't have a full stat block sounds very reasonable. If you are the GM and want to let your players do so, nobody will argue with you. If you are the player and would like to utilize forms that are not fully detailed in the bestiary, then talk to you GM ahead of time and determine what additional (mundane) forms they will allow you to take, if any, what attacks those forms have, what movement types and speeds they have, and what special qualities (that transfer to wild shape) those forms have. Both of these things, GMs allowing additional mundane forms and players requesting additional mundane forms, are completely fine, and I think most people on these boards would agree that they are very valid rules adjustments to make... Most people call these "house rules".

However, since we are in the the "Rules" forum, and this thread specifically discusses whether you can take the form of an animal that is not fully fleshed out in the bestiary (a huge Roc), I must answer it with a firm "RAW" answer of "No, you cannot, because you cannot apply templates to polymorph abilities." (Monster advancement rules are open only to the DM - otherwise why can't I advance my animal companion?)

Additionally, the general consensus is that it is a "RAI" answer of "No" as well. (There may be some disagreement on that, but I doubt you'd get any disagreement from a developer.)


joesk wrote:
Threeshades wrote:


2. You assume that this sentence is anything other than a different way of saying "allows you to polymorph into an animal..." without giving a reason to do so
Animal type is the type of form you have to go by for Beastshape.

Okay, I see your argumaent about form=/=size, but i think you're over-analyzing the sentence. It's merely meant to illustrate that you turn into an animal. I mean sure it doesn't say anything about the size, but that also means it doesn't say you can pick one arbitrarily.

Quote:
Quote:
3. You used lack of variety of diminutive animals with actual stats as an indicator for how beast shape works, when that's completely unrelated

This was used to illustrate why the rules for polymorph are written in the way it is. That you can assume the size of any base creature that you wish to do based on its form.

Quote:
4. there are plenty of non-dinosaur animals that are huge. Such as orcas, giant squids and elephants
85% of all the huge ANIMALS are dinosaurs. Make a list of them and see for yourself.

True that but still none of these have any impact on how beast shape does or should work. It just means those options are limited.

Quote:
Quote:
5. You did not give a compelling argument for why the size adjustment determined by the spell is anything other than the adjustment you get from the size of the animal you chose
Its the fact that the first sentence refers only to the FORM that is chosen. The a later sentence with its own qualifiers refers to the spell used as it determining what size is used. When there is a variable (as in many choices) it is a given that when casting the spell it fixes the size to what the caster intends.

Yes and when the caster transforms into an elphant he intends to polymorph into an animal that is huge. Thus you use the adjustments for a huge animal.

Quote:
Quote:
6. rats are not mice
They are in the same subfamily so that is close enough for me.

By that logic transforming into a particularly tall chimpanzee, is the same as transforming into a human. Just saying.

Quote:
Quote:
7. rats are not ugly

That's your opinion. :b

Nope. Cold hard fact.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

When the book says animal its referring to a specific type of creature.
Types are defined in the bestiary under individual monster entries.
Mouse has no type since its not listed in any legal source.
Therefore you cannot even pick it as an option to transform into.

The problem without a legal entry is how to define stats that are not readily available. For example imagine you have a Cat, normally size Tiny, and you want to make it Diminutive. Do you simply reduce its claw/claw/bite routine by one step? Do you combine the claws into one attack like is done for some animals? Do you remove all attacks because some diminutive creatures don't actually have attack entries? You don't know what you are legally by RAW supposed to do so you can't do it.

Templates provide an in game way of making adjustments legally, the bestiaries have rules for monster advancement. Neither of these produce a generic creature so cannot be used for polymorph.

P.S. Rats are not ugly, IMO.


Wow, this "debate" is still going on. Unbelieveable. Agree to disagree. The same arguments are just restated over and over again.

For once and for all, those for allowing the Huge Roc per RAW are simply saying the following:

1) The RAW allows the Eagle Shaman to change into a Roc
2) Wildshape let's him turn into a huge animal
3) Generic Huge Rocs do exist in Galarion
4) The rules for physical stats are determined by Wildshape/Beastshape and rules for adjusting attack damage / reach from Gargauntuan to Huge are readily known and spelled out by the RAW.
5) Thus you can turn into a Huge Roc even without there existing a stat block in the bestiary and even without using a template. That is, even if there existed no templates in Pathfinder, making a Huge Roc would be possible under the rules. Furthermore, if you must think of a Huge Roc as a Roc with a young template (which you don't have to) then the Eagle Shaman is the exception to the general rule that you can't use templates.
6) Turning into a diminutive Roc is a different story because diminutive Rocs do not exist.
7) Who cares if the language about the Roc was a typo or not. It is, nonetheless, the RAW until they change the langauge.

Those against it say the following:

1) The statement that the Eagle Shaman can turn into a Roc is a typo;
2) Because it is a typo it is not an exception to the general rule that you can't turn into a template Roc via wildshape / beastshape;
3) The only Huge size Roc is a template Roc;
4) Thus, the Eagle Shaman can't turn into a Huge Roc.

Never shall these opposing views meet. So, why should we not all just wait to hear from the design team. That is, unless anyone truly has a new perspective to add.

I tend to fall on the side that it should be allowed via RAW even in PFS simply because everyone seems to agree that there is no real harm and because there is a reasoned point of view to allow it via RAW.

Let the endless repeat of arguments now continue on.


Since you left it out, I'll ad this to the "against" list:

5). Even as a typo, the statement is not be an exception, as it does not state that an eagle shaman can turn into a roc--it states that if the eagle shaman turns into a roc, then yadda yadda. ("If the eagle shaman is made of potato starch, then she gains vulnerability to fire" does not imply that the eagle shaman is always (or ever) made of potato starch.

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Eagle Shaman & the Roc All Messageboards