Is plant shape overpowered? Or are there limits?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

So prove it. Give me the other valid intepretation, while following the rules of English, of 2 handed power attack.

Arguing that rules as a concept can't exist is absolute absurdism.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I cannot come up with one ^_^

But do not accept my anecdotal inability as proof that the concept is incorrect.

This has been a fact since writing began.

It's also why I grate my teeth together anytime someone uses the acronym "RAW".

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Arguing that rules as a concept can't exist is absolute absurdism.

I wrote the exact opposite.

A rule is indeed a concept.

Grand Lodge

Well until someone can think of another valid interpretation of that power attack rule I'm not convinced :)

It's all well and good for someone to say that they believe there is no true RAW in any situation, but I find that they'll be hard pressed to prove it.


Nefreet: I pretty sure 'there's no such thing as RAW' is offtopic. Maybe start a thread about it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Two people can read the same passage and come to two entirely different conclusions.

Reading and Writing are skills which you can be objectively better or worse at. If two people read the same passage and come to two different conclusions, than it means that one or more (and most likely all) of those people suffer from an imperfect understanding of the language the passage was intended to be written in. Either the writer was incompetent, and wrote a passage with multiple (or no) correct meanings, or one (or more) of the readers' interpretations of the text was incorrect. That doesn't make the concept of RAW a fallacy. It just tends to result in some sets of RAW being better than others.

Errata exists because sometimes we need to make corrections to or clarify a passage that doesn't actually say what we originally thought it did, or to include an important piece of explanatory text which was omitted by an overzealous editor that didn't understand it's value...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Derklord wrote:


Diego Rossi wrote:
Some of them are clearly blocked by the "no specific creature" text, other aren't.

You mean the "specific individual" sentence that can be interpreted to either be soley about appearance (as the following sentence indicates), or be about form even though it notable does not use that term and, if it does, prevents every polymorph effect from working?

Yeah, totally "clearly blocked"!
PRD wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals.
PRD wrote:

Bokrug

CN Large magical beast (aquatic, chaotic, extraplanar, Great Old One)

There isn't a race called "Bokrug", there is only a single, specific, entity. So yes, you are clearly blocked from polymorphing into a "Bokrug", while you have no problem into polymorphing into a large magical beast with the right spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Just gonna chime in on the "no such thing as RAW" comments. In some cases RAW is vague, but in many it's perfectly clear and there isn't more than one valid intepretation.

By RAW power attack adds 3 to your damage per 4 bab you have when you're wielding a 2 handed weapon barring any special abilities that augment this. There's not another way to interpret that.

Actually that is not what the rule say. It say that "You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls." (+3 with a 2 handed weapon) and " When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2." (+3 with a 2 handed weapon.)

You have have shortened that and doing that you have given an interpretation that is demonstrably wrong.

Your post support more Nefreet argument than yours.

Grand Lodge

Except it doesn't because the interpretation is exactly the same. You get 3 points of damage and an additional 3 per every 4 points of BAB you have. Whether you express that as 2 x 1.5 or 3 doesn't lead to 2 different interpretations.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I like to remember you all that we are arguing that a older rule don't cover situations that are born by adding creatures that didn't exist when the rule was written. Are you really surprised if the rule don't cover exactly that situation?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Except it doesn't because the interpretation is exactly the same. You get 3 points of damage and an additional 3 per every 4 points of BAB you have. Whether you express that as 2 x 1.5 or 3 doesn't lead to 2 different interpretations.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Just gonna chime in on the "no such thing as RAW" comments. In some cases RAW is vague, but in many it's perfectly clear and there isn't more than one valid intepretation.

By RAW power attack adds 3 to your damage per 4 bab you have when you're wielding a 2 handed weapon barring any special abilities that augment this. There's not another way to interpret that.

Notice the difference from you initial interpretation of the rule and the more recent post.

Grand Lodge

The end result of the interpretation is what I meant Diego. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. There are some cases where RAW is absolutely a thing in terms of the end result.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

So prove it. Give me the other valid intepretation, while following the rules of English, of 2 handed power attack.

Arguing that rules as a concept can't exist is absolute absurdism.

Power Attack wrote:

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.

You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

I'll admit I am not a linguist, but an alternative is that the feat does nothing as written. Because it does not apply on attacks that do melee damage, only attacks that do hit point damage. Now, within the context of the game we know that melee damage as it is referenced here is hit point damage done with a melee attack.

I thoroughly admit I am reaching to come to this conclusion, but it seems like a valid way of interpreting the text as written without any other context.

Grand Lodge

Doesn't work because melee is a type of damage roll that does hit point damage.

Anyways, this digression has probably gone on long enough. We should probably let the thread go back to it's original topic :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
The end result of the interpretation is what I meant Diego. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. There are some cases where RAW is absolutely a thing in terms of the end result.

But your interpretation in the older post was BAB 1-3 0/0, 4-7 -1/+3. 8-11 -2/+6 and so on. In the second post BAB 1-3 -1/+3, 4-7 -2/+6. 8-11 -3/+9.

And Paradozen post point out an inconsistency: you add the effect to melee damage, but it applies only to hit point damage.
It applies even to melee attacks that deal energy damage, if the aren't touch attacks.
Reading it in a vacuum, if I have a held shocking grasp and punch someone, so making a normal attack, how I should apply power attack?

It is a melee attack
It isn't a touch attack
I have taken the -1
So, how I add the +2? to the non lethal hit point damage dealt by the physical fist? To the spell damage? To both?

Read in contest with the other rules, it is applied to the physical damage of the fist,but that rule alone don't give enough information.


Diego Rossi wrote:

? to the non lethal hit point damage dealt by the physical fist? To the spell damage? To both?

Read in contest with the other rules, it is applied to the physical damage of the fist,but that rule alone don't give enough information.

Non lethal damage isn't hit point damage it's a separate track. Thus, power attack doesn't add to non lethal damage,


Do we have anything saying the green men are actual deities? Sure they are deity-like creatures, but that’s not the same thing. It’s the same way that spell-like abilities aren’t actually spells.


Blindmage wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

? to the non lethal hit point damage dealt by the physical fist? To the spell damage? To both?

Read in contest with the other rules, it is applied to the physical damage of the fist,but that rule alone don't give enough information.

Non lethal damage isn't hit point damage it's a separate track. Thus, power attack doesn't add to non lethal damage,

It's not on a seperate track it's on the same track with different starting points. When hp-(damage+non-letal damage) = 0 you're staggered, when <0 you're unconscious. Additionally if your "current hitpoints" (hp-damage) <0 you're dying. Power attack adds to non-letal damage because a non-lethal damage roll is a kind of damage roll.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Well until someone can think of another valid interpretation of that power attack rule I'm not convinced :)

It's all well and good for someone to say that they believe there is no true RAW in any situation, but I find that they'll be hard pressed to prove it.

Valid is subjective and also open to interpretation, and while some rules are very clear, people still misread them.

That is basically what the other poster was getting at. The rules still have to be interpreted. Even power attack has to be interpreted. It just so happens it is one of the easier ones to interpret, and people on these forums have somehow gotten it wrong before.

Two examples of incorrect rule readings:
Manyshot calls out a full attack, but someone tried to argue that you can do it with a standard action.

Someone tried to argue that you can get 9th level spells at level 1 as a caster.

If you check the FAQ's you will some question that may make you wonder why it ever needed an FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Blindmage wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

? to the non lethal hit point damage dealt by the physical fist? To the spell damage? To both?

Read in contest with the other rules, it is applied to the physical damage of the fist,but that rule alone don't give enough information.

Non lethal damage isn't hit point damage it's a separate track. Thus, power attack doesn't add to non lethal damage,

QED, another different interpretation.


Blindmage wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

? to the non lethal hit point damage dealt by the physical fist? To the spell damage? To both?

Read in contest with the other rules, it is applied to the physical damage of the fist,but that rule alone don't give enough information.

Non lethal damage isn't hit point damage it's a separate track. Thus, power attack doesn't add to non lethal damage,

It's hit point damage, but it's non-lethal hit point damage. The rules don't say that power attack only applies to lethal hit point damage. It just calls out hit point damage as a whole.

The book even calls out non lethal damage as being measured in hit points.

Quote:
Healing Nonlethal Damage: You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
Nefreet: I pretty sure 'there's no such thing as RAW' is offtopic. Maybe start a thread about it?

It’s explicitly on topic. We have one side saying their RAW is that you can be a Green Man because no rule says you can’t. We have another side that says each green man is a unique creature and not a generic type of creature, backed up by developers saying a line saying as much was removed because of fear it would confuse readers of non-green men deities by not having a similar line.

Discussion of the invalidity of RAW as a rules discussion method is inevitable. Not to mention arguing over Power Attack only has one interpretation. To us. Today. But would Chewbacca or Worf read Power Attack the same as us?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Do we have anything saying the green men are actual deities? Sure they are deity-like creatures, but that’s not the same thing. It’s the same way that spell-like abilities aren’t actually spells.

They grant high level spells to Druids, so they are dietities.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Quote:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls." (+3 with a 2 handed weapon) and " When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2." (+3 with a 2 handed weapon.)

Another take, is that I can choose each time I gain 4 BAB. So at level 20 I pick to take -1, -2, -3, -4, or -5 to hit in in exchange for the corresponding damage bonus.

We know this isn’t correct, but only because we read all the relevant threads during creation on how this way of 3.5 was a time sink. If you have never played 3.5 or never read those threads you could legitimately fail to interpret it correctly.

Also another point, even if you fail to get it right. What you, your fellow players, and your GM decide is ok. It doesn’t have to match up to everyone else interpretation.


James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Do we have anything saying the green men are actual deities? Sure they are deity-like creatures, but that’s not the same thing. It’s the same way that spell-like abilities aren’t actually spells.
They grant high level spells to Druids, so they are dietities.

Mythic characters can do the same thing. You don’t have to be a deity to grant spells.


James Risner wrote:
We have one side saying their RAW is that you can be a Green Man because no rule says you can’t. We have another side that says each green man is a unique creature and not a generic type of creature, backed up by developers saying a line saying as much was removed because of fear it would confuse readers of non-green men deities by not having a similar line.

I'd disagree with that assessment: It's one side saying 'you can be a Green Man because the rules says you can' and the other saying that even though it's presented in the book as a collection of creatures, that they should instead be counted as individuals first, somehow different than every other collection of creatures that's also is comprised of unique individuals.

On developers comments: that's nice and all but unofficial. What we have that's official is in the book and none of that indicates what the other side is putting forth. In fact it all points to them being a 'race', indicating that they have a range of alignments and such, indicating different dispositions and domains based on those alignments.

So as it stands, IMO, you can't turn into Bob the greenman, for you can turn into a generic one, as presented in the book. From my perspective, the 'other' side is adding 'unique' status to them that is no longer there [for whatever reason]. And maybe they should be, but that's not how they are presented.

As to granting spells: Nothing in the polymorph rules mentions you can't change into a race that grants spells. Spells like spellcasting contract and mythic rules can allow PC to do it and you can still change into those races.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Graystone, that summary is fine. If you can understand that one side is ok with you saying it works if you can appreciate that another side doesn’t believe it works in the rules because the creature feels unique, plus the developer felt it was clear enough that they are unique that the line was removed.

In short, just because you or I see a rule one way doesn’t make us right. Especially if we have many more than one person sharing our interpretation.

Look at nearly every FAQ, there were two sides to them all. In the vast majority, the “RAW” side was passed over for the nuanced side.


James Risner wrote:
if you can appreciate that another side doesn’t believe it works in the rules because the creature feels unique

This is the part I disagree with. There is nothing in the rules to suggest it's unique: FEELING unique isn't a rule and shouldn't be treated as such. "feels unique" IMO, is a good reason for a houserule and not for declaring the words in the book do not mean what they actually say. 'Seems like it should be' and 'is' are two different things.

James Risner wrote:
Look at nearly every FAQ, there were two sides to them all. In the vast majority, the “RAW” side was passed over for the nuanced side

When there are two readings, that could be true. We aren't talking about that though: it's what the rules say vs what some want the rule to say. Even then, a FAQ could prove the 'want it to say' side right, but that doesn't change what it says now. As is currently stands, I see no rules reason for it now to work.

So in conclusion, I can understand a DM removing greenmen from being valid shapes for polymorph spells: I just consider that a rule 0/house rule and not a valid reading of the current rules/errata/FAQ's.

PS: as to “RAW” vs nuanced. "RAW" happens often enough that "nuanced" can't be assumed as correct IMO. Everytime we hear 'the text is meant to be read conversational, not technically' we get a FAQ that's based 100% on technical reading. If there was an actual consistent identifiable method to their madness it would be much easier to divine what is correct. The 'majority' isn't large enough to ignore the 'minority'.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are failing to remember a whole host of FAQ that deviated from a technical reading you suggest. I could list you 15-20 just brainstorming. I’m sure you could just by reading the FAQ and remembering the various FAQ over the years you have participated.

The other thing you are missing is most of the time when we have developer comments “it works this way” as a known thing, the resulting FAQ ends up confirming those concepts. I can count a couple that failed to do so compared to a large number of successes.


James Risner wrote:

Graystone, that summary is fine. If you can understand that one side is ok with you saying it works if you can appreciate that another side doesn’t believe it works in the rules because the creature feels unique, plus the developer felt it was clear enough that they are unique that the line was removed.

In short, just because you or I see a rule one way doesn’t make us right. Especially if we have many more than one person sharing our interpretation.

Look at nearly every FAQ, there were two sides to them all. In the vast majority, the “RAW” side was passed over for the nuanced side.

It's extremely clear that Green Men are not a unique creature the same way that for example Cthulhu is.

Their entry states that there's multiple of them around. If there's more than one of something, they can't be unique. That's literally the definition of something being unique.

Compare Cthulhu's entry in beastiary 4. It's extremely clear also that he's a unique creature.

Quote:
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature’s type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.

This is all the rules we have on what polymorph spells can't do.

You've repeatedly argued that they're divine or deific or whatever. The thing with that is, even if you're right, there's no rule that says you can't turn into divine or deific creatures.

It's very simple; the Plant Shape spell checks if it's a plant(yes), and if it's of the appropriate size(yes). Because the Plant Shape spell belongs to the polymorph subschool, it also checks if it has templates or is a unique creature.

Plant Shape does not care if the creature you turn into is divine, deific, or smells like vanilla; it cares if it's got the plant type or not, what size it is, and if it's unique or has any templates. End of story.

Green Men happen to fulfill all the correct variables (plant type, medium size, not unique, not templated) and so Plant Shape can turn the target into a Green Man.

Is this rule a good, reasonable rule? I don't think so. That's why we have rule 0, though, for making exceptions and changing unreasonable rules. There's no reason to start torturing the text.


James Risner wrote:
You are failing to remember a whole host of FAQ that deviated from a technical reading you suggest.

I'm not: I'm just remembering the host of them that DO. 'hands of effort', magic ammo, defending weapons, the explanation of nested sources, ect. There is a non-negligible amount of them to discount and/or assume the 'conversational' method is correct by default.

James Risner wrote:
The other thing you are missing is most of the time when we have developer comments “it works this way” as a known thing, the resulting FAQ ends up confirming those concepts.

I'm not sure how we quantify those. I KNOW of a comment on glorious heat where we were told that if it was reprinted it WOULD be the was the DEV thought it should be: It was reprinted unedited, not the way the Dev said. SO even stronger statement of 'we will' are not guarantees of future rulings. We also have situations where it clear that their thoughts have changed, as rulings/FAQ have also changed. Finally, we have situations where different Devs had made contradictory comments or have said 'I'd have done it different but the group decided differently'.

Again, I don't have an exact percentage, but it's enough for me and it's not just one or two: they happen often enough that it's IMO disingenuous to always drag out the 'but it's meant to be conversational' argument anymore. The Dev's clearly don't follow it consistently enough for it to be a standard.

Groundhog wrote:
Is this rule a good, reasonable rule? I don't think so. That's why we have rule 0, though, for making exceptions and changing unreasonable rules. There's no reason to start torturing the text.

Yep, this. It's most likely a good houserule/rule 0 ruling but there's no reason try to force it into a RAW reading. Wanting it to be a rule doesn't change the actual written words.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
I'm just remembering the host of them that DO. 'hands of effort', magic ammo, defending weapons, the explanation of nested sources, ect. There is a non-negligible amount of them to discount and/or assume the 'conversational' method is correct by default.

Well this is a problem. You see those as highly technical?

I see hand of effort, defending, double cha doesn’t stack, flanking requires melee attacks, throwing shield isn’t infinite attacks, eagle shaman druids break rules, and a whole host of FAQ as examples of conversational winning over technical.

The magic ammo and the “no free actions while taking AoO actions” as technical and non conversational rulings.

Seems while we differ on what RAW means we also differ on what conversational means?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Groundhog wrote:
It's extremely clear that Green Men are not a unique creature the same way that for example Cthulhu is.

I see it as pretty clear that each different deity of the various domains are each unique green men. AKA individual entities that supply spells for their domains/portfolio.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see it as pretty clear each humanoid of various different species with various skills and feats are each unique humanoids, AKA individual entities so you can't use Alter Self.

Huh, kind of breaks down when you point out the green men are part of a race, doesn't it? I mean, if you can't turn into green men then, following that idea, none of the polymorph spells work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Groundhog wrote:
It's extremely clear that Green Men are not a unique creature the same way that for example Cthulhu is.
I see it as pretty clear that each different deity of the various domains are each unique green men. AKA individual entities that supply spells for their domains/portfolio.

But every individual creature is an individual creature. In fact, most creatures are unique (on an individual level), and are still valid Polymorph options.

The only difference in this regard between Green Men and any given humanoid (for example) is rarity, and the "no individuals" rule of Polymorph doesn't come with a specific minimum population.


James Risner wrote:
Well this is a problem. You see those as highly technical?

Was highly suggested? Not that I know. The issue is technical vs conversational, not the amount something was technical. Its needing to take the rules and NOT use the general read.

James Risner wrote:
hand of effort

When text now says hand, it might mean an actual hand, the effort of one hand or something in between: Yeah, that requires technical reading.

James Risner wrote:
defending

It invented a new type of welding then created a chance for a paradox by having the trigger [attacking] come AFTER the activation [start of turn]. Technical reading all around.

James Risner wrote:
double cha doesn’t stack

Not the actual ruling but the explanation: stats aren't their own type, but the invention of multiple nested sources, adding a new complexity to the game.

James Risner wrote:
throwing shield isn’t infinite attacks

How was it conversational to add a limit that wasn't in the text? This was fixing loose text, not a 'win' for conversational.

So I'n NOT seeing a lot of 'win' in your "conversational winning over technical" examples.

James Risner wrote:
The magic ammo and the “no free actions while taking AoO actions” as technical and non conversational rulings.

But even your acknowledging that they exist means that you can't take 'conversational' as a default: it's not the 100% go to way to read. We can quibble over the percentages, but the end result is the same.

James Risner wrote:
Seems while we differ on what RAW means we also differ on what conversational means?

You'd HAVE to if you can't see how 'hands of effort' and actual hands sharing the same word, hands, in rules text requires a technical read of the rules.


James Risner wrote:
Groundhog wrote:
It's extremely clear that Green Men are not a unique creature the same way that for example Cthulhu is.
I see it as pretty clear that each different deity of the various domains are each unique green men. AKA individual entities that supply spells for their domains/portfolio.

Every race includes individuals and nothing about granting spells, deities or domains factor into polymorph rules.

Nothing in your post suggests that they AREN'T valid forms for polymorph spells. You'd have to prove that something disqualifies them. Is there anything that states deities are exempt forms? If not, the bestiary entry straightforwardly presents them as a collection of creatures. It's not greenman but greenmen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Groundhog wrote:
It's extremely clear that Green Men are not a unique creature the same way that for example Cthulhu is.
I see it as pretty clear that each different deity of the various domains are each unique green men. AKA individual entities that supply spells for their domains/portfolio.

There's no Generic Human, but humans are a valid target for Alter Self, which carries the same "specific creature" clause as Plant Shape, both having it beacause they're Polymorph Subschool spells.

Even if what you're saying is correct (which I don't believe, but let's grant it) you can still turn into a general iteration of the "green man" creature.

The Barrier for entry into polymorph is "Unique".

Unique doesn't mean "sort of rare", it means "There's only one of these."

There's more than one Green Man. QED.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And just granting spells doesn’t make you a proper deity, anymore than a mythic character is a deity. Green men are only deity-like creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Didn't D&D have a rarity/frequency entry for critters back in the day? Such an entry would be useful for this dispute, I think. Named, specific creatures are obvious, of course, but not all are.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:


James Risner wrote:
double cha doesn’t stack

Not the actual ruling but the explanation: stats aren't their own type, but the invention of multiple nested sources, adding a new complexity to the game.

The green men fall exactly in this category.

They are semi deity creatures. The older (1st, 2nd AD&D) rules covered that as they prohibited to polymorph/shape change in one of them. The third edition and Pathfinder don't have stats for deities, only for some avatar, and there wasn't a spell to turn into their types, so who wrote the rules about Polymorph didn't think to add a caveat about turning into one. probably they thought the "you can't turn into a specific creature" was enough.

Now we have a way larger number of Polymorph spells (giants, vermin, undead and so on) and some race of deities and it has become possible to turn into god level creatures.
People like James, me and others remember the older rules and see it as wrong and against the spirit of the game, other, probably younger, people see that as acceptable "as it isn't against the rules". It is one of the classical rule problems, adding options without considering the interactions with existing rules.

Personally I think it should be vetoed and a list of "deity level creatures" should be made, while future products should say when a creature is deity level. Alternatively it can be allowed, but I would want a official ruling on that, not simply having it available because of a hole in the rules.

Sadly the corpus of Pathfinder rules is very large and this kind of problems increase with each new product.

I have FAQed the original post. Maybe we need a more generic question, but it is worth a FAQ or errata.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
I'n NOT seeing a lot of 'win' in your "conversational winning over technical" examples.

Again. If you saw those as conversational like I do, you’d agree. Apparently where you see some degree of technical reading I’m seeing some degree of conversation reading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
People like James, me and others remember the older rules and see it as wrong and against the spirit of the game, other, probably younger, people see that as acceptable "as it isn't against the rules".

Or, y'know, we just think that a rule system should be relatively self-contained, instead of forcing you to sift through decades of other systems.

You’ll note that pretty few people here actually argue that the Green Men should be allowed (and those that do generally accompany that with nerfs, like lacking vine attacks) - most of us just argue that they are (and need some text to change that).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Taks, they still have that sorta:

Quote:

Organization solitary

Ancient beyond measure, the legendary green men are avatars and guardians of the primeval forest.

Also, all of the Webster definitions of avatar read to me to describe specific individuals representatives or similar unique concepts. Not a form, race, or type.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Rajnish, while I’d like to see that also. It’s unlikely. The more text you write, the higher change some will get misinterpreted. The example given as a reason the line saying no polymorph was that line may have been miss interpreted to apply only to green man and not to other unique creatures missing the line.

Having a rules system as clean as you (and frankly I also) would want is impossible. You can’t write a game in computer like code and expect non programmers to buy and play the game. Us programmer types have to read and parse English language sentences like all other humans in the world do every day.


Just because perfection is impossible doesn't mean that you should leave obvious flaws unfixed.

All they'd need to do is add a few words to the Polymorph subschool - "You can't take the form of an individual or a creature that grants spells".

Of course, this still wouldn't fix the Euryales and their snake heads, so the problem is probably something else entirely. Maybe target CR should be limited by caster level?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Word count is a thing. If they added every “easy fix” for everyone’s issues the books would be 700 pages.

Euryales is a Problem, that is mostly mitigated by polymorph not granting any of the viper rod or fangs weapons hidden inside Supernatural abilities.


Viondar wrote:

Hey all,

As I really like the idea of a mauler (or maybe valet) leaf leshy familiar, I was reading into plant shape (because that's all a leshy warden has for wild shape).

As such, I found out that plant shape 1 (available for 6 hours per day to a level 6 leshy warden) allows you to assume the form of any medium plant.

Then I found this medium plant.

Now, as you would be taking the form of an avatar by means of a weak, mortal spell, you would be a mere shade of the real thing. But, by means of the spell, you'd still get:

1. Darkvision 60'
2. Low-light vision
3. Two slams at 1d8
4. Six vines (30' reach) at 2d6+grab
5. Six thorns (120' ranged touch) 2d6 (I'm not sure if you'll get the movement inhibitor as well)
6. Grab (colossal)
7. Constrict 2d6
8. The standard ability score adjustments
9. Quite humanoid form (wear your armor)

Isn't this a bit much? Are there restrictions on which plant forms can be taken?

Polymorph subschool wrote:

Subschools

Polymorph: 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. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume. If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing. The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form.

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.

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.

Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature’s type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.

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 bonuses and 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. Other polymorph spells might be subject to this restriction as well, if they change you into a form that is unlike your original form (subject to GM discretion). If your new form does not cause your equipment to meld into your form, the equipment resizes to match your new size.

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. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

If a polymorph spell is cast on a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes using the following table before applying the bonuses granted by the polymorph spell. (see Table: Ability Adjustments from Size Changes)

Fortunately for us GMs, this is one of those game features that still kindly remember the sometimes-not-so-obvious "GM discretion" and "the GM is the final arbiter".

Taking that into account, from what you listed I'd let my players gain:

1. Darkvision
2. Low-light vision
3. Two slams at 1d8+STR
4. One vine attack that can be finessed: 30' range, 1d6+STR + grab (CMB equal to a medium creature) + constrict damage 1d6+STR
5. One thorn attack: 120' range, 1d8+STR + crippled movement
6. Able to spellcast if you have Schew Materials and/ or Natural Spell feats.
7. Ability score adjustments and other resistances granted to a medium size plant creature by spell. I.e. Resist electricity 20 when plant shape II and DR 15/Slashing when plant shape III
8. +10 to disguise checks
9. Equipment melded because you still transform into a plant form and it doesn't matter the humanlike appearance (no armor and shield bonuses), I'd allow to retain the weapon.


Nefreet wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Just gonna chime in on the "no such thing as RAW" comments. In some cases RAW is vague, but in many it's perfectly clear and there isn't more than one valid intepretation.

By RAW power attack adds 3 to your damage per 4 bab you have when you're wielding a 2 handed weapon barring any special abilities that augment this. There's not another way to interpret that.

It is genuinely a linguistic fallacy. I guarantee you. Linguistic Anthropology would not exist as a field of study if you were correct =)

It is literally impossible to "write" a rule. A rule is a concept. It has no substance. It is purely theoretical. That concept is then communicated from one individual to another, either via written communication, symbolism or verbal communication.

What people really mean is "Text as written", which then requires interpretation.

But there is no such thing as "Rules as Written".

Sociology exists as a field of study and is also a giant load of bull. I don't think your argument holds merit.


James Risner wrote:

Word count is a thing. If they added every “easy fix” for everyone’s issues the books would be 700 pages.

Euryales is a Problem, that is mostly mitigated by polymorph not granting any of the viper rod or fangs weapons hidden inside Supernatural abilities.

Mmm. Six natural weapon attacks with reach is better than anything else for MP I, with a nasty poison added at MP III. They're only secondary if you use a weapon/unarmed strike as they're the only natural weapon a Euryales gets. 'Mostly' still makes it the single best form in some respects.

51 to 100 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is plant shape overpowered? Or are there limits? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.