Driver 325 yards wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: 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?
Semantics. I guess I could go back and add that those for it would say that the language in Eagle Shaman stongly suggest that you can turn into a Roc for completeness sake, but really. You get the point.
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 as an exception to the general principle that you can not wildshape into a template version of an animal.
Once again, I take this position because there is a reasonable position for it being RAW and because no harm no foul.
Yes, I know that some would argue that all Druids should be able to do it. However, that argument, while it can be made, could never make the same claim that the Eagle Shaman could make. 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). Actually, the above is what I specifically wrote.
Anyway, whatever, at least it is clear to everyone now.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Driver, not a single person in the thread disagreed that ES should be able to become a Huge Roc. We were arguing that they could not.
They could not - so PDF issued a ruling changing it so they can. If you were right all along, they wouldn't have needed to make an exception for the Eagle Shaman, nor make a lengthy post explaining the different size forms other archetypes get. You'll note Wolf Shamans don't get Huge wolves. You'll note the PDT post called Rocs "invalid" for ES.
You were wrong, man, get over it - just thank PDT for the ruling that allows them to do what they should have been able to, by could not. That's what I did.
They would have needed to make an exception because until it was stated explicitly some would have never accepted it.
To me it is like the Snap shot debate, it is implicit that snap shot allows a person to draw as a free action even outside of their turn. However, until the explicitly say so, many won't believe that either.
Whatever though, I am glad they explicitly said you could turn into a Huge Roc even though that was already implicitly clear.
Driver 325 yards wrote: Whatever though, I am glad they explicitly said you could turn into a Huge Roc even though that was already implicitly clear. Whereas I am glad they explicitly said you could turn into a Huge Roc because it was unclear.
Driver 325 yards wrote: you could turn into a Huge Roc even though that was already implicitly clear. The developers said it was implicitly clear you could not turn into a Huge Roc, but that once it was understood the Archetype didn't have a lot of utility they decided to allow it to break the normal rules of Pathfinder.
Driver 325 yards, I have bolded for you the section where the PDT specifically stated the Roc was an invalid choice.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote: <snip>
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).
This is what we have been saying all along. The Roc is implied to be a choice but the rules said it was invalid.
Are you going to argue with the Design Team's own statement that it was invalid?
- Gauss
Gauss wrote: Driver 325 yards, I have bolded for you the section where the PDT specifically stated the Roc was an invalid choice.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote: <snip>
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).
This is what we have been saying all along. The Roc is implied to be a choice but the rules said it was invalid.
Are you going to argue with the Design Team's own statement that it was invalid?
- Gauss
Ha! I rolled higher on my Will save than Gauss this time!
LOL MechE, that presumes I was trying to make my Will save. :)
- Gauss
MechE_ wrote: Gauss wrote: Driver 325 yards, I have bolded for you the section where the PDT specifically stated the Roc was an invalid choice.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote: <snip>
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).
This is what we have been saying all along. The Roc is implied to be a choice but the rules said it was invalid.
Are you going to argue with the Design Team's own statement that it was invalid?
- Gauss
Ha! I rolled higher on my Will save than Gauss this time! No, you quoted the right language. It "suggested" that it was invalid, but it was not invalid afterall. Why? Well, because the Eagle Shaman was a exception to the template rule. That was all I ever said all along.
Why you guys could not even imagine that the language for Eagle Shaman was an exception to the template rule will alway be beyond me. To me, it was not a concept that was that hard to grasp.
By the way, that is all that the FAQ says, it is an exception to the template rule.
Stop bickering over an issue that's been decided.
Thread closed.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
