Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
why you are enforcing those requirements.
I have previously.
Fox Shape
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.
"in addition to your other forms" - you have some natural Shapechange, ideally Change Shape.
"Changing from kitsune to fox shape" - you must currently be in kitsune form to change to fox form.
----
These are rules interpretations, not house rules. So by that RAW. Not the only RAW, just the RAW I support and many others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
look how many mental leaps you had to make. You cannot do that while beating the drum for raw is all and complaining that things weren't filled out specifically enough for you. You had to arbitrarily write in half the feat, all just to dismiss a line that tells you exactly what it does as fluff. That line isn't always fluff: it gives you the big picture for the feat. Remember pummeling style?
Tail terror has "you can" in it too. Except you can't.
I went through all that effort of logically compiling my argument, and you dismiss it with a single hand wave of "look how many mental leaps you had to make". I see no mental leaps, only logical steps.
=/
"in addition to your other forms" - you have some natural Shapechange, ideally Change Shape."Changing from kitsune to fox shape" - you must currently be in kitsune form to change to fox form.
----
These are rules interpretations, not house rules. So by that RAW. Not the only RAW, just the RAW I support and many others.
Since I don't think I covered those specific things in my post, I think I will provide why I view those to be incorrect -- though I do see why one might see them to be reasons against.
-Question: Is "In addition to your other forms" meant to require that you have to previously have the ability to transform?
-A: I personally do not believe so.
-"In addition to your other forms" is part of fluff text, which is only translated into prerequisites when the rules text dictates it. People have pointed out examples of background traits, and I myself feel that to consider fluff as law is to limit your personal creativity. For example, I don't want it to be a "rule" that my character who took the nervous drawback is afraid of an oppressive government. I want him to be nervous around women, and whenever he tries to concentrate on taking 10 with a skill, he just panics and thinks "Did I really say that!?". I think pirates have it best here: "We've always viewed the fluff as... guidelines".
Plus, There's a bit of logical argument that can be made. The definition of "other forms" can be very ambiguous. 0 forms +1 still satisfies the formula "Gain fox shape in addition to your other forms".
-Question: Is the human able to transform into a fox from his "human form"?
-A: Yes.
-Maybe the base kitsune cannot transform to a fox while in human form, but this situation is different. Racial heritage states that "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. ... for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." This is just a fancy way of saying that for all intents and purposes, you ARE a kitsune, just that you don't gain any of their racial traits or useful physical characteristics. Therefore, your "human form" IS your "kitsune form", and thus you can switch from human form to fox shape as a standard action.
---
Those are my views on those particular arguments. I think I might add them to my megapost.
EDIT: I have just learned that you apparently can't edit older posts. Interesting.
Yes, you only have an hour to make changes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
0 forms +1 still satisfies the formula "Gain fox shape in addition to your other forms".
There have been many examples in the past of rules elements using similar logic being clarified to not use that type of logic.
I get it is a way to read the rules, it just isn't the way they are written or assumed to be interpreted.
I went through all that effort of logically compiling my argument, and you dismiss it with a single hand wave of "look how many mental leaps you had to make". I see no mental leaps, only logical steps.
Which is exactly what you dismiss about the idea that the feat alters change shape. You cannot complain that that logical step is verboten but yours are sacrosanct.
I went through all that effort of logically compiling my argument, and you dismiss it with a single hand wave of "look how many mental leaps you had to make". I see no mental leaps, only logical steps.Which is exactly what you dismiss about the idea that the feat alters change shape. You cannot complain that that logical step is verboten but yours are sacrosanct.
I don't dismiss that it's intended to alter change shape.
I do, however, not see any written indication that it requires it. I am going very literal on this interpretation. I do not claim that your interpretation is wrong, I simply have been showing why my interpretation seems to read as correct and invite you to do the same. So far all I've seen is "it's inferred" and "you're making mental leaps".
How, exactly, does the feat require change shape?
You argue that if it was properly written as an add on to change shape it would have "your change shape ability can...." but look at everything its missing to function as its own independent ability. A lack of neigh prescient ability to predict interactions with one of the thousands of available feats is pretty understandable. Not giving a duraction, type, number of times per day would be a really big screw up.I'll note that the Kitsune's change shape racial trait also doesn't list a duration or a number of uses per day.
Well, for one, Kitsune's change shape actually got errata'd with the ARG errata. It now properly states that they can remain in their human form indefinitely. Though, the Bestiary 4 entry is still incorrect.
And secondly, apparently not even the universal monster rules' change shape has a uses per day. Odd that it doesn't say at will or something. So, that's a thing apparently. You learn something new about the rules every day.
If nothing else, that lends credence to the interpretation of using Fox Shape at will with Racial Heritage.
This whole thread is hilarious, considering that in the case of missing information, it isn't up to players to decide the outcome...
So if a player wants to argue that it is unlimited uses per day, they need to draw a clear path from human without shapechanging to human with unlimited Fox form per day...
Any time an interpretation is required, there is room for discussion, but if it isn't clear, the GM _is_ the final arbiter, whether we like it or not.
I would point out once again that text exists in the feat that offers a solution...
"This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II".
So for any missing info, consult the spell.
How many uses per day are listed in the spell?
None.
This is a RAW approach, I'm not inferring anything or leaping to any conclusions... so...
Food for thought.
Johnny Devo, seems spot on, though why not spell-like ability due to "works like Beast Shape"? Is it not allowed to be spell-like ability if it modifies anything at all about the spell other than "casting" time? Otherwise this seems most intuitive.
I would say it's (Su), not an SLA, just like the kitsune's change shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Racial Heritage let you count as another race for purposes of Favored Class Bonuses the way that a half-elf can select the FCBs of Humans or Elves?
The two situations seem very similar and they both have "and so on" clauses, so I'm inclined to think that they would both cover the same rules elements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread is hilarious, considering that in the case of missing information, it isn't up to players to decide the outcome...
So if a player wants to argue that it is unlimited uses per day, they need to draw a clear path from human without shapechanging to human with unlimited Fox form per day...
Any time an interpretation is required, there is room for discussion, but if it isn't clear, the GM _is_ the final arbiter, whether we like it or not.
I would point out once again that text exists in the feat that offers a solution...
"This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II".
So for any missing info, consult the spell.
How many uses per day are listed in the spell?
None.
This is a RAW approach, I'm not inferring anything or leaping to any conclusions... so...
Food for thought.
Once again I'd like to refer to the similar "change shape" ability. Change shape does not allude to any restriction on number of times per day, and it likewise gives a spell that it "otherwise functions as". Alter self, just like beast shape II, does not state any number of times per day.
Does this, then, mean that change shape is also broken and unusable?
Yes.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Johnny Devo, seems spot on, though why not spell-like ability due to "works like Beast Shape"? Is it not allowed to be spell-like ability if it modifies anything at all about the spell other than "casting" time? Otherwise this seems most intuitive.
why you are enforcing those requirements.I have previously.That is not of interest to a rules forum. I'm not telling you not to play that way or that it's a bad idea or even that it may not be interesting. It's just not what the space is for. We are discussing the rules, not people's personal history of doing things whether or not they happen to line up with the rules.
"in addition to your other forms" - you have some natural Shapechange, ideally Change Shape.That is not "interpretation," that is unambiguous invention of new terms and conditions that clearly don't exist in the text. What about that phrase implies anything about "natural" whatsoever?
"Changing from kitsune to fox shape" - you must currently be in kitsune form to change to fox form.You count as a kitsune for purposes of feats, abilities, and so on. So you are a kitsune for this purpose. Not a problem.
So if a player wants to argue that it is unlimited uses per day, they need to draw a clear path from human without shapechanging to human with unlimited Fox form per day...I don't understand where you're coming from with this.
The rules say you can turn into a fox. They don't put any restrictions on it. So, you can turn into a fox. Period. That's not "filling in missing information", no such information is needed, you just do what it says....
In other words, times per day is not a value that NEEDS to be defined, because a thing doesn't have to logically have any number of times per day it is restricted to. Thus a lack of such a number cannot and should not be concluded to be missing info.
Where I'm coming from with this is that if something isn't defined, you (the player) don't dictate the answer (in this case, the frequency).
If no printed text lists the number of uses per day as unlimited, then it isn't by default unlimited.
As shown previously, the feat says to "otherwise treat" this ability as Beast Shape II, so for any missing info (like frequency), see what the spell says.
So RAW you consult the spell if the feat is incomplete. If, after this, you determine that the uses per day is no number at all...
Then it is no number at all.
To sum up, the feat says to consult the spell if confusion occurs.
If confusion still exists after reading the spell, GM decides.
This feat isn't clear for humans, hence this debate. RAW, it doesn't look like it would work, unless it simply adds a toned down version of a second level spell to a casters list of spells known.
Where I'm coming from with this is that if something isn't defined, you (the player) don't dictate the answer (in this case, the frequency).
If no printed text lists the number of uses per day as unlimited, then it isn't by default unlimited.
As shown previously, the feat says to "otherwise treat" this ability as Beast Shape II, so for any missing info (like frequency), see what the spell says.
So RAW you consult the spell if the feat is incomplete. If, after this, you determine that the uses per day is no number at all...
Then it is no number at all.
To sum up, the feat says to consult the spell if confusion occurs.
If confusion still exists after reading the spell, GM decides.
This feat isn't clear for humans, hence this debate. RAW, it doesn't look like it would work, unless it simply adds a toned down version of a second level spell to a casters list of spells known.
I don't think you've addressed this yet.
Once again I'd like to refer to the similar "change shape" ability. Change shape does not allude to any restriction on number of times per day, and it likewise gives a spell that it "otherwise functions as". Alter self, just like beast shape II, does not state any number of times per day.
Does this, then, mean that change shape is also broken and unusable?
My point is that when frequency isn't defined, then it is, in fact, infinite. When something tells you "you can" and then doesn't tell you "you can only do it X times per day", that means you simply can. Can you do it after I did it 5 minutes ago? Yes, you can. Can you do it after you've done it 50 times today? Yes, you can.
Where I'm coming from with this is that if something isn't defined, you (the player) don't dictate the answer (in this case, the frequency).
If no printed text lists the number of uses per day as unlimited, then it isn't by default unlimited.
As shown previously, the feat says to "otherwise treat" this ability as Beast Shape II, so for any missing info (like frequency), see what the spell says.
So RAW you consult the spell if the feat is incomplete. If, after this, you determine that the uses per day is no number at all...
Then it is no number at all.
To sum up, the feat says to consult the spell if confusion occurs.
If confusion still exists after reading the spell, GM decides.
This feat isn't clear for humans, hence this debate. RAW, it doesn't look like it would work, unless it simply adds a toned down version of a second level spell to a casters list of spells known.
I don't think you've addressed this yet.
My point is that when frequency isn't defined, then it is, in fact, infinite. When something tells you "you can" and then doesn't tell you "you can only do it X times per day", that means you simply can. Can you do it after I did it 5 minutes ago? Yes, you can. Can you do it after you've done it 50 times today? Yes, you can.
Once again I'd like to refer to the similar "change shape" ability. Change shape does not allude to any restriction on number of times per day, and it likewise gives a spell that it "otherwise functions as". Alter self, just like beast shape II, does not state any number of times per day.
Does this, then, mean that change shape is also broken and unusable?
Can you kill dragons?
Yes you can.
This doesn't mean it is automatic, or unlimited, it simply states that you aren't PREVENTED from it.
If we apply the same logic being used on this fox argument to the dragon question above, then I can kill all the dragons, instantly, as often as I like. Um... as a standard action, I guess.
Because that's what 'you can' means. Right?
I would argue that 'you can' simply states that the action isn't explicitly forbidden, not that you suddenly have the ability to perform it at will, without limits.
It is permission to do something. You must still meet the requirements to perform the action.
I can't just kill all dragons because someone told me I 'can kill dragons'...
Agreed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if there were a hypothetical race called wyvernslayer and you could show us a feat like this, then yes you could…
Dragon Slaughterer
You can slaughter dragons in addition to your other special attacks.Prerequisites: Str 21, base attack bonus +11, wyvernslayer.
Benefit: You can slaughter dragons of a specific chromatic color, which cannot be changed each time you fight. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Intimidate checks made to demoralize a dragon. Slaying a dragon is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as Mythic Deadly Stroke.
The wyvernslayer race has a racial ability that allows them to deal extra damage to wyverns and drakes, otherwise functioning as Vital Strike. This feat is presumably meant to upgrade that racial ability but no part of its prerequisites or language precludes a human from taking and benefiting from this feat with Racial Heritage.
Regardless, I again encourage people to hit the FAQ button on the original post. =]
So, again, tell me how your application of this logic doesn't break...
Kitsune's Change shape
Arcane Strike
Bullseye shot
Blinding Flash
Bard's Lore Master
Magus's Spell Combat
Cleave
Call Out
Rogue's Trapfiniding
Witch's Hex
Ranger's Wild Empathy
Dazzling Display
Now, this is not a comprehensive list of feats and abilities that say "you can" do something without providing a set limit, be it "at-will" or "1/day". This is simply a list of feats and abilities that I found by randomly clicking different things on d20pfsrd.
My point is, there is overwhelming evidence that when something tells you that you can do something but does not provide a limit on times per day, it is simply that you can do it as many times as you want.
As per your "you can kill dragons", there's no ability out there granting you the ability to kill dragons as a standard action. Indeed, there's no such ability that lets you automatically kill dragons, at least directly. Killing dragons is always a side effect. In fact, so long as you had the means to, you can, in fact, kill dragons an unlimited number of times per day. But that's completely irrelevant, and the "argument" you made with that example is called a strawman argument, so I really shouldn't need to address it.
So, again, tell me how your application of this logic doesn't break...
Kitsune's Change shape
Arcane Strike
Bullseye shot
Blinding Flash
Bard's Lore Master
Magus's Spell Combat
Cleave
Call Out
Rogue's Trapfiniding
Witch's Hex
Ranger's Wild Empathy
Dazzling DisplayNow, this is not a comprehensive list of feats and abilities that say "you can" do something without providing a set limit, be it "at-will" or "1/day". This is simply a list of feats and abilities that I found by randomly clicking different things on d20pfsrd.
My point is, there is overwhelming evidence that when something tells you that you can do something but does not provide a limit on times per day, it is simply that you can do it as many times as you want.
As per your "you can kill dragons", there's no ability out there granting you the ability to kill dragons as a standard action. Indeed, there's no such ability that lets you automatically kill dragons, at least directly. Killing dragons is always a side effect. In fact, so long as you had the means to, you can, in fact, kill dragons an unlimited number of times per day. But that's completely irrelevant, and the "argument" you made with that...
I'll simplify my point.
Please provide a citation (actual rule) regarding frequency of use on this.
If none exists, assumptions can be made but GM gets final say.
Not looking for examples that are similar... looking for published rules that actually address this.
Please provide a citation (actual rule) regarding frequency of use on this.
If none exists, assumptions can be made but GM gets final say.
Please provide a citation regarding whether or not casting spells at all physically requires a cucumber to be held in hand. If none exists, assumptions can be made but GM gets final say, officially.
Please provide a citation for whether you are or are not allowed to continue pumping blood through your heart when confronted with a painting of an elf. If none exists, assumptions can be made but GM get's final say.
Game is a circus of ridiculousness if done this way. If it says you can do X, then you can DO X, subject only to other printed restrictions (or usually in my opinion also physics as a fallback, but that has nothing to do with magic, there are no real world magic laws/rules to assume, purely written stuff only since it is made up)
I agree with everything you have said.
You absolutely CAN use this feat, exactly as written.
Filling in blanks using numbers you choose isn't using the rules.
I asked for where this unlimited use thing is written, and haven't seen anybody answer it.
That's just how the game (and English) works. Take a look at the feats he linked above, it's the same logic.
This game doesn't define everything, because that would make it even more cumbersome than it already is. Inference is always required, and it's pretty easy to conclude the point that items/feats/abilities are restricted down from unlimited uses (example: Pearls of Power, Metamagic rods, and Staves, which all have explicit restrictions on number/frequency of usage).
Rather than just asking for rules text, can you provide any examples of abilities that are explicitly defined as "unlimited" uses per day? That might help your argument.
Unrelated: I can't believe people are arguing this hard over an underwhelming and mediocre ability.
Never underestimate the ability of humans to argue, I suppose.
Unrelated: I can't believe people are arguing this hard over an underwhelming and mediocre ability.
Never underestimate the ability of humans to argue, I suppose.
Whether we admit to it or not, at least some of this has become a point of pride, not wanting to admit fault.
Me, I just get bored, this helps.
I just don't feel that this feat should grant a non-shapechanging race the ability to suddenly (and without limit) turn into another form. It seems out of line for the level/feat investment.
Foxes aren't combat monsters, but shapechanging CAN be abused if built around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just tried searching the CRB for several key phrases, including "uses per day" "times per day" and "per day" as well as every definition in the book regarding extraordinary, Supernatural, and spell-like abilities.
Nowhere is it mentioned at any point whether there is or is not an assumed number of times that you are limited in using an ability.
The general matter is that whenever an ability does not state the limitation on number of uses, there is no written limitation on the number of uses. To state that there is a limit is, in fact, writing in rules where they do not exist.
I'm not trying to argue that the DM doesn't have final say, because the DM literally has final say on everything. I'm just trying to say that if I had a DM rule that a feat that doesn't state the limit of uses does, in fact, have a limit on the number of uses, I would instantly have to start asking the DM how he believes every ability in the game functions before I take it, because he's clearly reading the rules differently than commonly accepted.
EDIT:
I just don't feel that this feat should grant a non-shapechanging race the ability to suddenly (and without limit) turn into another form. It seems out of line for the level/feat investment.Foxes aren't combat monsters, but shapechanging CAN be abused if built around.
The general point of a rules question is not asking about if it's intended, nor is it asking about if it can be abused. It's just asking if it works. Sure, it might be abused, but that's more a problem with the player than anything else.
I'm confused, does it say "at will"?
Have I been missing it the whole time?
I'm confused, does it say "at will"?
Have I been missing it the whole time?
No, it does not.
Neither do... Counting them... 12 examples I provided you.
What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't need to say at-will.
I have provided my examples of why it is this way. Please counter them with your own examples, instead of repeating the same argument over and over again as if I had never provided those examples.
When a feats says you can do something without specifying a number of times per day, it's either 0 or infinite.
One makes too many feats unusable, the other doesn't
|
How many other feats/traits based off of spell use grant unlimited uses per day?
I was under the impression they generally defaulted to 1...
So, if we assume unlimited uses of this second level spell, where is an example to compare it to?
Still reading this thread, buuuut...
Every single aasimar alternate racial heritage in Blood of Angels has no limits on how often you can use the SLA that replaces Daylight. Daylight on the other hand is once per day.
I'm confused, does it say "at will"?
Have I been missing it the whole time?
No, it does not.
Neither do... Counting them... 12 examples I provided you.
What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't need to say at-will.
I have provided my examples of why it is this way. Please counter them with your own examples, instead of repeating the same argument over and over again as if I had never provided those examples.
None of the examples that you listed that grant shapechanging abilities list frequency of use.
So once again, why would you assume unlimited use?
Using examples like a Bard's Lore ability is confusing, what's the connection between that and this Supernatural ability that literally polymorphs someone into another form?
Witch hexes can get used once per day per target... so if you want to use that as an example, i'm willing to accept it, that is kind of what I was leaning towards.
Feats and abilities that aren't SLA/SU (i.e. Class abilities/EX abilities) don't seem relevant here, I would suggest ignoring those for now, it's kinda like trying to say Power Attack is unlimited, so this should be too...
I understand your desire to prove unlimited uses, and sympathize (that would be pretty cool) but what I'm curious about is the text stating this is the case.
Obviously I can't DISPROVE this (It's not gonna have printed material saying "This ability ISN'T unlimited)... So I'm just gonna ignore that request...
But then, I don't need to prove anything. I'm not claiming this ability has infinite uses per day.
Can anyone else find text that would help figure this out?
I've looked over the universal monster abilities, and there isn't anything useful in there...
All the examples i listed have the words "you can", are something that you normally can not do, and do not list a hard limit on the number of times you can use the ability. What the ability itself does should not be relevant in determining how you are limited in using it in this case. "Fox shape isnt limited because power attack isnt limited" is actually exactly the kind of thing i am saying.
I think its more appropriate to say that there are no abilities that have a limited number of uses without spelling out that limit, therefore you should have to prove that an ability has a limit, not the other way around.
So once again, why would you assume unlimited use?Because pathfinder is a boolean rules system! This isn't that complicated. "Can do X" instantly opens up all uses of X unless some other rule whittles away some of them. There need be no text to show or find. The burden is on you to do that if you want to prove a restriction on any established allowance.
I'm simply asking for verification of someone else's claim, I don't see how that becomes my responsibility.
Someone claimed something, I'm just wondering where they got it from.
The closest example I've seen so far was the Witches Hexes, which are once per day (per target).
Kitsune don't list a frequency either, neither do universal monster rules regarding shapechange.
MANY SLA that monsters have, however, are limited to uses per day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So once again, why would you assume unlimited use?Because pathfinder is a boolean rules system! This isn't that complicated. "Can do X" instantly opens up all uses of X unless some other rule whittles away some of them. There need be no text to show or find. The burden is on you to do that if you want to prove a restriction on any established allowance.I'm simply asking for verification of someone else's claim, I don't see how that becomes my responsibility.
Someone claimed something, I'm just wondering where they got it from.
The closest example I've seen so far was the Witches Hexes, which are once per day (per target).
Kitsune don't list a frequency either, neither do universal monster rules regarding shapechange.
MANY SLA that monsters have, however, are limited to uses per day.
The burden of proof falls upon the person who tries to make a claim that goes against the accepted norm. I submit that because the accepted norm of abities is "unlimited until stated otherwise", a party that says it is different must provide the proof.
And trust me, i looked for that proof. Couldn't find it.
All the examples i listed have the words "you can", are something that you normally can not do, and do not list a hard limit on the number of times you can use the ability. What the ability itself does should not be relevant in determining how you are limited in using it in this case. "Fox shape isnt limited because power attack isnt limited" is actually exactly the kind of thing i am saying.
I think its more appropriate to say that there are no abilities that have a limited number of uses without spelling out that limit, therefore you should have to prove that an ability has a limit, not the other way around.
Interesting.
I asked for a reference hoping to figure out why people think that missing information equals unlimited use, and instead of seeing evidence to support a point, I'm asked to provide evidence instead.
That's a bit defensive.
You can just admit that there isn't text entitling people to unlimited uses of things, it's okay.
This game is built on the assumption that it tells you what you get.
If you have unlimited uses, it will say so.
If it doesn't say you have a limit, this isn't the same thing.
Frequency per day=unknown. Unless someone can find something, anything, showing otherwise.
How many other feats/traits based off of spell use grant unlimited uses per day?
I was under the impression they generally defaulted to 1...
So, if we assume unlimited uses of this second level spell, where is an example to compare it to?
Still reading this thread, buuuut...
Every single aasimar alternate racial heritage in Blood of Angels has no limits on how often you can use the SLA that replaces Daylight. Daylight on the other hand is once per day.
In the case of the aasimar alternate racial heritages, it's near literally just telling you to what to copy and paste over the usual aassimar stats. They don't even list what the exact bonuses for the alternate bonuses are. Could 1/day be there for further clarity? Sure, but RAI is obvious and RAW is clear on what to do.
And on the whole thing of how many uses of Fox Shape:
It would be best to look to Change Shape. The language is similar and there's the RAI connection if you think that Fox Shape is intended to modify a kitsune's change shape.
Change Shape is pretty obviously an at will ability despite it not stating that.
How many other feats/traits based off of spell use grant unlimited uses per day?
I was under the impression they generally defaulted to 1...
So, if we assume unlimited uses of this second level spell, where is an example to compare it to?
Still reading this thread, buuuut...
Every single aasimar alternate racial heritage in Blood of Angels has no limits on how often you can use the SLA that replaces Daylight. Daylight on the other hand is once per day.
In the case of the aasimar alternate racial heritages, it's near literally just telling you to what to copy and paste over the usual aassimar stats. They don't even list what the exact bonuses for the alternate bonuses are. Could 1/day be there for further clarity? Sure, but RAI is obvious and RAW is clear on what to do.
And on the whole thing of how many uses of Fox Shape:
It would be best to look to Change Shape. The language is similar and there's the RAI connection if you think that Fox Shape is intended to modify a kitsune's change shape.Change Shape is pretty obviously an at will ability despite it not stating that.
Obvious? In what way? There is literally no discussion of frequency of use. None.
It's a great big question mark.
I can find tons of examples of 1/day abilities, but that proves nothing...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Actually, the quantifiers for both feats are in the "Fluff" section of the feat. One gives an attack (called a Tail Slap attack) while the other gains an additional form.The big thread about this (more than Tail Slap was discussed) discussed tails suddenly becoming something that had always been there somehow (Schroeder's Tail) and this being able to suddenly get the ability to have another form when you don't have a clue how to do it is the same thing.
This feat assumes you already know how to shapeshift into one form, it is simply giving you another. Until that human gains (Shapeshifter) as a type, he can't use this feat. He can take it, sure, RH allows that, just as
For organized play the Additional resources says "no, you can't because you aren't actually a kitsune". Which is great.
Outside of Organized Play though, I'd tend to agree here. You have Racial Heratage: Kitsune, you have the blood of kitsune running through your veins. Maybe it does nothing and is just fluff. Maybe you have some fox traits, ears and/or tail for example. Doesn't matter, the point is you DO have the blood of a kitsune. You count as a kitsune. Someone's favored enemy is kitsune will do extra damage and have an easier time hitting you even if there's no outward indications of your family history.
I'd have zero problems with someone taking Fox Shape or Magic Tail in that case. This can easily be explained as your kitsune heritage growing stronger. Granted, a human with the racial heritage will never have all the abilities of the full Kitsune race. They wont have the anthropomorphic fox form. Or if they have animal features, they can never hide them to appear fully human without learned magic or outside sources. And if they ever do develop additional tails via Magic tail then they'd only ever be able to develop eight of them rather then a full kitsune who would have 9 tails.
As a GM I would rule their first tail grown would provide Dancing Lights though. Then tails 2 through 8 would use the list the feat gives in the order it provides. Thus for a human with Magical Tails due to their heritage they would get 8 tails with the following SLA (in order)
1st: dancing lights
2nd: disguise self
3rd: charm person
4th: misdirection
5th: invisibility
6th: suggestion
7th: displacement
8th: confusion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked for a reference hoping to figure out why people think that missing information equals unlimited use, and instead of seeing evidence to support a point, I'm asked to provide evidence instead.
but i did provide evidence. Several examples of abilities that all have the same wording and are all unlimited uses per day.
That's a bit defensive.
You can just admit that there isn't text entitling people to unlimited uses of things, it's okay.
This game is built on the assumption that it tells you what you get.
If you have unlimited uses, it will say so.
If it doesn't say you have a limit, this isn't the same thing.
Frequency per day=unknown. Unless someone can find something, anything, showing otherwise.
Number of abilities that are unlimited number of uses without explicitely stating that fact: almost all of them. I very rarely see the phrase "at-will" and ive never seen an ability outright state that its unlimited.
Number of abilities that are limited in their use and do not explicitely write this limit: 0.
Do you see the difference? The way rules are written is my proof. Now i ask for something, anything, that proves an ability is not unlimited when a limit is not otherwise written.
EDIT: unless you're trying to say that roughly 50% of this game has a big question mark on number of uses per day...
How many other feats/traits based off of spell use grant unlimited uses per day?
I was under the impression they generally defaulted to 1...
So, if we assume unlimited uses of this second level spell, where is an example to compare it to?
Still reading this thread, buuuut...
Every single aasimar alternate racial heritage in Blood of Angels has no limits on how often you can use the SLA that replaces Daylight. Daylight on the other hand is once per day.
In the case of the aasimar alternate racial heritages, it's near literally just telling you to what to copy and paste over the usual aassimar stats. They don't even list what the exact bonuses for the alternate bonuses are. Could 1/day be there for further clarity? Sure, but RAI is obvious and RAW is clear on what to do.
And on the whole thing of how many uses of Fox Shape:
It would be best to look to Change Shape. The language is similar and there's the RAI connection if you think that Fox Shape is intended to modify a kitsune's change shape.Change Shape is pretty obviously an at will ability despite it not stating that.
Obvious? In what way? There is literally no discussion of frequency of use. None.
It's a great big question mark.
I can find tons of examples of 1/day abilities, but that proves nothing...
Well, these abilities have no limitation on use listed. There's nothing to suggest any such limitations and it's obvious that they are to be used and do indeed function.
It may be helpful to recall that these are Supernatural Abilities, not SLAs. Any usage restrictions are specific rules for the ability. Otherwise they just work or need an action to activate.
Ah. So "I say the rules in stark contrast to the rules written, and now you must find explicit proof, that my rule exception isn't true."
That's what is going on, yes?
No.