The only natural weapon rule only applies if it’s the only attack you get. If you have two or more secondary attacks, then they all count as secondary. Just check out the pony to see this.
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.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.
Let's not forget the 60 feet base speed (which you get) and the ability to cast spells (which you keep)...
Again. If you saw those as conversational like I do, you’d agree.
I literally find it impossible to find hands meaning [physical hands OR the effort of a hand] to be conversational. Seeing 'hands' in a ruling requires analyzing the entire the context it's in and trying to divine which it should be, often ending up with a completely different meaning than the one you'd get if you didn't know that 'hands of effort' is a thing.'
So I simply can not see the 'conversational' nature of those rulings you somehow see as they require that I have to read them in a technical manner to get the resulting rule to work that is in direct contrast to how it reads 'conversationally' to me.
As to degrees: It's simply the fact that I HAVE to read it differently than if I just read it normally. .01%-100% technical are all the same in my book as it goes against the thing that always gets brought up in rules debates: 'but the Dev's SAID we're meant to read it 'conversationally''. For instance, nothing in reading Defending suggests it requires attacking with it anymore than a Staff Magus using Quarterstaff Defense, but somehow they differ: it's worded the same, wield, but having different meanings is technical reading as conversational would have the same thing always meaning the same thing no matter where it is.
PS: I think our tangent has gone on far enough. From now on, I'll try to stay on point: that greenmen are technically valid forms for polymorph spells. ;)
Can't sleep so-
@Melkiador: The pony is a special case. Its docile special quality makes the hooves secondary. The rule is that one and only one natural attack makes it primary with 1.5 * Str to damage, one type of natural attack but multiple attacks of that type makes it primary.
@Rajnish: You would really want to get full attacks in given the six snake attacks though so you'd try to avoid taking move actions. A conjurer wizard could swift action teleport, or a magus could get the natural spell combat arcana and cast storm step or force hook charge (or bladed dash making the snakes secondary), or a bloodrager could get amazing reach ... none of which use the 60' move. It'd matter occasionally but I think the euryale's senses would matter more often.
@avr:
Oh, it's not as amazing as the other abilities, but the option to move around easily (for example, to "line up" a line spell while avoiding Attacks of Opportunity) and still being able to cast is yet another drop in the bucket. And Monstrous Physique III not only gives you poison, but also burrow, which is probably the second best movement mode after flying (and gives you cover).
It's better not having to use them, but it's neat to have them if something unexpected happens.
Fey Form is also rather new, and... Well, from Ultimate Wilderness. Which is suffering from a "mixed reception". (Primarily directed at the Shifter, but still.)
So it's probably not the best example.
Any other spells with similarly powerful forms?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So I simply can not see the 'conversational' nature of those rulings you somehow see as they require that I have to read them in a technical manner to get the resulting rule to work that is in direct contrast to how it reads 'conversationally' to me.
I get that. It’s evident from your responses. Do you get that we are two different humans with different life experiences that lead us to different interpretations?
Do you get that we are two different humans with different life experiences that lead us to different interpretations?
While I understand there is some variance in POV's, there is a limit and most of those ruling go WAY beyond that. I was NOT kidding when I posted "I literally find it impossible to find hands meaning [physical hands OR the effort of a hand] to be conversational." I LITERALLY can't comprehend that ruling being seen as conversational in any way, shape or form. 0%. No. Nada, Not happening.
So I understand the concept of differing interpretations, I can't see how these specific ruling instances can be seen in a non-technical light. If you insist they ARE, well then your thought processes are well outside my ability to comprehend or think of as 'normal'. To me, it's like you're telling me that moonmen hide the moon every day or that the world is flat with a straight face: you seem to believe it, and from your POV it might seem right, but it doesn't match my sense of reality.
conversational: "appropriate to an informal conversation." Meaning how a random person that ISN'T intimately familiar with the material/conversation sees it. 'this must be in your hand' meaning in your 'hand of effort' is in no ones* conversational reading.
* I understand that nothing is ever 100%, so there must be a statistical anomaly that 'bucks the trend': I however, treat it as such an anomaly and give it very little weight.
PS: Darn you, I was trying to stay on topic. :P
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I LITERALLY can't comprehend that ruling being seen as conversational in any way, shape or form. 0%. No. Nada, Not happening.
PS: Darn you, I was trying to stay on topic. :P
I feel you. I've seen hundreds of rules interpretations I literally can't comprehend how they got that out of the sentence. It happens. We all come to the rules with our preconceived notions of what those lines mean. It's especially hard to divorce ourselves from that.
You are staying on topic, well at least I am.
The OP title was
" Is plant shape overpowered? Or are there limits? "
The answer is, if you don't rush to the "it doesn't say I can't" side then there are limits.
- The developers believe there are limits prohibiting green man from being a polymorph target.
- There is a line in the polymorph school that prohibits individuals.
For a moment, let's assume a GM considers it a valid target, Plant Shape III gives you
- Darkvision
- Low-Light Vision
- +2 size bonus to your Strength
- +2 enhancement bonus to your Constitution
- +2 natural armor bonus.
- Resistance 20 Electricity (Plant Shape II Wizard 6)
- Regen 5 (deific or mythic) (Plant Shape III Wizard 7)
- DR 15/epic and slashing (Plant Shape III Wizard 7)
- Speed 40 ft., climb 40 ft.
- 2 slams 1d8
Missing items like vines and thorns are behind Thorns (Su) and Vines (Ex) which polymorph explicitly doesn't provide. Thorn and Vines are not listed as natural weapons in the chart.
I think very few people are saying it should be a valid target for polymorph, just that it is. It’s an important distinction. By RAW, you can turn into a Green Man. But by RAW you also can’t see the sun, so....
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think very few people are saying it should be a valid target for polymorph, just that it is. It’s an important distinction. By RAW, you can turn into a Green Man. But by RAW you also can’t see the sun, so....
And I’m saying what you can and can’t do RAW is defined by your GM interpretation of RAW..
But there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations. And interpreting a race of creatures to somehow be “unique”, with zero rules text to support that, is unreasonable.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations. And interpreting a race of creatures to somehow be “unique”, with zero rules text to support that, is unreasonable.
That is a good assertion. But in truth, it translates into developers/designers are using unreasonable interpretations.
One person's reasonable is another person's unreasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We aren’t worried about the designers and developers though. If you are trying to guess how they would play something, then you might be right. But if you are going to use any reasonable interpretation of what’s currently written, then you are wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations. And interpreting a race of creatures to somehow be “unique”, with zero rules text to support that, is unreasonable.That is a good assertion. But in truth, it translates into developers/designers are using unreasonable interpretations.
One person's reasonable is another person's unreasonable.
I really don't get this attitude. It's like they're afraid that the rules can ever say something that's bad or wrong, so they torture the text until they can start to believe that it says something they agree with.
James' thought proccess clearly goes
1)"Whelp, people shouldn't be allowed to polymorph into this thing."
2)"Look for rules that disallow polymorphing into the thing"
3)"Doesn't find any"
4)"Changes the definition of 'Unique' to something that includes the Green Men somehow"
It's an "interpretation" that's based entirely on what they think the rules should say, rather than anything that's actually written down anywhere in the rules, except perhaps in other systems like 2nd edition that have no bearing on pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Derklord, How the rules work is how your GM says they do.
But if you ignore how the rules were designed in favor of some nebulous “RAW” that you define all the interpretations, that’s ok. However, if you care about how the game is designed and intended to be read then Green Men are unique. Each Green Man is a different unique entity that grants different spells.
By Nebulous RAW you mean literally what it says in the book rather than what is used to say in the book before it was removed pre publiciation which we could never have possibly known about had I not made that thread?
RAW as much as you like to argue it doesn’t exist is pretty clear in this case.
You can turn into a green man at level 6. Because there is nothing anywhere in the rules which says you can’t.
The undocumented editorially removed opinion of one author is not and has never been the standard for how the rules work.
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?
No I am not.
Does the fact it was an oversight change anything at all about what the rules say?Still no.
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.
So people who take the mythic path ability which allows one to grant spells are deities?
No?Thought not.
This human fighter has power attack and weapon focus this human sorcerer has spell focus and spell specialisation. Humans are unique beings and alter self doesn’t work.
Oh wait no, because they’re members of a race. Like the green men(note plural), and whilst they may differ within that race they’re still a race. Regardless of how special the race is if you release a generic stat block for that entire race you can’t then claim every single one is unique.
Every single Seilenos will be different, they’re still a valid for, for the fey form spells.
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.
And plenty of times that happened because the developer failed to wright down what they meant. Such as now.
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.
Oh look a straw man, let’s dance around and set it on fire.
People aren’t saying it’s acceptable or good. Just that it is.
But good job on not only putting words in people’s mouths but also appealing to age as a type of authority and bringing morality in a strictly technical excercize in reading the rules.
Inflammatory, disingenuous and super patronising. All at once.
I think very few people are saying it should be a valid target for polymorph, just that it is. It’s an important distinction. By RAW, you can turn into a Green Man. But by RAW you also can’t see the sun, so....And I’m saying what you can and can’t do RAW is defined by your GM interpretation of RAW..
You realise the acronym is rules as written?
Not rules as informed by the opinion of an author whose work was edited out?
As in, not written.
But there are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations. And interpreting a race of creatures to somehow be “unique”, with zero rules text to support that, is unreasonable.That is a good assertion. But in truth, it translates into developers/designers are using unreasonable interpretations.
One person's reasonable is another person's unreasonable.
I really don't get this attitude. It's like they're afraid that the rules can ever say something that's bad or wrong, so they torture the text until they can start to believe that it says something they agree with.
James' thought proccess clearly goes
1)"Whelp, people shouldn't be allowed to polymorph into this thing."
2)"Look for rules that disallow polymorphing into the thing"
3)"Doesn't find any"
4)"Changes the definition of 'Unique' to something that includes the Green Men somehow"
It's an "interpretation" that's based entirely on what they think the rules should say, rather than anything that's actually written down anywhere in the rules, except perhaps in other systems like 2nd edition that have no bearing on pathfinder.
See if you can dig up the thread about Alchemists using blade and tankard style.
James definition of drinking became pretty incomprehensable in favor of the rules being infallible if I remember correctly.
Since it keeps getting brought up...
They grant high level spells to Druids, so they are dietities.
Diet-ities.
As in diet deities.I hope it was an intentional pun, because the description of "diet deity" kind of fits. They're not proper deities, but they're pretty close.
So, I hope James didn't actually meant "deities", and that it was more than just a typo. Because if he did mean "deities", then he's just wrong - granting spells does not make you a deity, the same way a mythical PC with the divine source universal path power isn't a deity, even though they may grant spells and access to up to four domains and subdomains.
/Edit:
See if you can dig up the thread about Alchemists using blade and tankard style.
James definition of drinking became pretty incomprehensable in favor of the rules being infallible if I remember correctly.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly This Thread has me far more interested in how many natural attacks the Green Men actually gets since it's unclear whether they're only granted by their special abilities.
2 slams are clear.
Anything beyond that requires ignoring the rule about not getting any abilities not listed (Vines/Thorns).
So, I hope James didn't actually meant "deities", and that it was more than just a typo. Because if he did mean "deities", then he's just wrong - granting spells does not make you a deity, the same way a mythical PC with the divine source universal path power isn't a deity, even though they may grant spells and access to up to four domains and subdomains.
Moreover, they are expressly not deific because it states in the Mythic Adventures handbook that Mythic Rank 10 is the "height of mortal power". So any mythic ability that deities somehow mimic is well within the realm of mortal power.
The Green Man monster is more of a summoned creature that manifests spontaneously, not a deity.
Powerful, yes. Deific, no.
|
By Nebulous RAW you mean literally what it says in the book rather than what is used to say in the book before it was removed pre publiciation which we could never have possibly known about had I not made that thread?
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.Oh look a straw man, let’s dance around and set it on fire.
People aren’t saying it’s acceptable or good. Just that it is.
But good job on not only putting words in people’s mouths but also appealing to age as a type of authority and bringing morality in a strictly technical excercize in reading the rules.
Inflammatory, disingenuous and super patronising. All at once.
Fast to get offended reading something the wrong way?
Check what is in the first row you wrote "what is used to say in the book before it was removed pre publiciation which we could never have possibly known about". I was pointing out that "older people", i. e. those that had read and played for years with the older rule,feel that is wrong out of habit. But you decided that that wa patronizing.About the "putting words in people’s mouths", you are saying that there aren't a few post in this thread that say "it is acceptable" in a way or another?
Using your meter, how should I define your post?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fast to get offended reading something the wrong way?
I’d say frustrated.
Check what is in the first row you wrote "what is used to say in the book before it was removed pre publiciation which we could never have possibly known about". I was pointing out that "older people", i. e. those that had read and played for years with the older rule,feel that is wrong out of habit.
Referring to the authorial intent. We cannot know that if they don’t publish it. Which they didn’t.
We can guess, a guess which you seem to think your years of experience have informed. You seem to be ignoring the fact that most people in this thread can see that it probably wasn’t the intention for people to be able to turn into Green Men.
The difference is we can see that whilst it wasn’t the intention it is the rule, we’d would rather acknowledge that than contrive a reason why the rules work as intended. Instead of telling people who’re reading the rules, rather than guessing what they should be, how you think they should be and claim it is how they are. Which is what to use your own word you “older” forum goers are doing.
But you decided that that wa patronizing.
The patronising part was the bit where you tried to take the moral high ground for contriving an argument for your interpretation of what the rules should be. Which you seemed to think was an insight uniquely gifted to more senior members. And at the same time implying that anyone disagreeing with your is trying to exploit the rules for mechanical game.
Rather than just acknowledge that the rules simply didn’t read as intended.
About the "putting words in people’s mouths", you are saying that there aren't a few post in this thread that say "it is acceptable" in a way or another?
I would say the majority of people disagreeing with you are saying not that it’s good that it works that way. Simply that it does.
The only ways to read this
probably younger, people see that as acceptable "as it isn't against the rules"
you either are neglecting to address those people I refer to above.
Or you’re suggesting that actually everyone that disagrees with you is simply trying to exploit the rules.
Using your meter, how should I define your post?
Frustrated.
|
|
Chromantic Durgon <3, my posts and James post aren't identical. I think you have mixed them.
And you are still ranting for that "probably younger" that was meant as "probably younger, so they don't have played with the older version" (I thought it was clear in the contest of the post and the earlier posts, but evidently it wasn't) and not as "probably younger our older people insight". That don't imply anything about superiority, only imply that our mindset was born with a different set of rules.
If you haven't played with it, it is probable that you would be surprised by the amount of abuse that was possible with the old Polymorph spell.
Having played several set of rules can give an insight in the evolution of some rule, but not in the current developers opinion on them.
Some of the devs that published the CRB have left, probably at least some of the current devs weren't even born when the first version of D&D and AD&D were printed. It is highly probable that they see things differently from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Chromantic Durgon <3, my posts and James post aren't identical. I think you have mixed them.
The inevitable consequence of you replying to my reply to him and then you group yourself and him into the same corner of the argument is it’s going to sound like the arguments get fused.
And you are still ranting
Never started ranting. You could try addressing what I’m saying rather than be dismissive.
for that "probably younger" that was meant as "probably younger, so they don't have played with the older version" (I thought it was clear in the contest of the post and the earlier posts, but evidently it wasn't) and not as "probably younger our older people insight". That don't imply anything about superiority, only imply that our mindset was born with a different set of rules.
Actually the whole post you initially implied was that you old people had a unique understanding earned by age about how the rules were intended. It doesn’t as I have already said.
Others can see how the rule was intended, the difference is we’d rather acknowledge how the rules actually work than create some tortured definition of the terms used to try and twist the rules into actually working as intended. Which they don’t.You also implied some kind of moral superiority came with this unique (not unique) understanding.
If you haven't played with it, it is probable that you would be surprised by the amount of abuse that was possible with the old Polymorph spell.
I doubt it would be, given I’ve read them, I’ve read stories about what they did and know people who have played them.
Which is beside the point. It doesn’t take sage wisdom to see that an ability Aquried at level 6 wasn’t intended to give you a humanoid form with a panoply or abilities and defences attached including 8 primary attacks.
The difference is whilst we can see it wasn’t intended we can also see that it is the consequence. Rather than try to torture the rules into doing what we think they might of been intended to mean, we simply acknowledge a possible mistake.
Having played several set of rules can give an insight in the evolution of some rule, but not in the current developers opinion on them.
Some of the devs that published the CRB have left, probably at least some of the current devs weren't even born when the first version of D&D and AD&D were printed. It is highly probable that they see things differently from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Do you think this is news to anyone?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The difference is whilst we can see it wasn’t intended we can also see that it is the consequence. Rather than try to torture the rules into doing what we think they might of been intended to mean, we simply acknowledge a possible mistake.
That is the key issue.
Those that subscribe to the strict "RAW" method see it as the right thing to do. Some honorable action to be upheld.
The other side tends to us an interpreted "RAW". They see it as ignoring known intent (in this case we know it's considered unique deities and not valid), requiring directly addressing the issue which is unlikely (FAQ are sparse), and mocking the rules as flawed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also have designer intent vs editor intent. The designer had text to prevent this. The editor removed that text. Editor wins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other side tends to us an interpreted "RAW". They see it as ignoring known intent (in this case we know it's considered unique deities and not valid), requiring directly addressing the issue which is unlikely (FAQ are sparse), and mocking the rules as flawed.
The problem is that they haven't been proven to be a) unique nor b) deities.
The proof to the opposite is a) a generic stat block, and b) the "deific" ability is available to mortal creatures (specifically mythic creatures, which are by RAW, mortals).
These counter-arguments are being ignored by the "interpreted RAW" group in preference to their preferred conclusions.
It would be more honest to open a FAQ to ask the question of whether green men are able to be used by the plant form spell series or not.
But as it stands now, the evidence weights heavily in the favor of the "strict raw" group.
Note: I'm neither.
Btw, polymorph never specifies that the natural attacks must be in a specific place in a stat block. Just that the creature your form is based on must have them.
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Btw, polymorph never specifies that the natural attacks must be in a specific place in a stat block. Just that the creature your form is based on must have them.
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.
Care to explain what you mean by this?
The difference is whilst we can see it wasn’t intended we can also see that it is the consequence. Rather than try to torture the rules into doing what we think they might of been intended to mean, we simply acknowledge a possible mistake.That is the key issue.
Those that subscribe to the strict "RAW" method see it as the right thing to do. Some honorable action to be upheld.
It’s got nothing to do with honourable action.
I just don’t see the point it twisting the rules to ignore a problem rather than address one. And I will not accept people then toating there twisted interpretation as the right one. Especially in rules forum. In advice sure I’d give the same advice on how to run it.
But how I’d run isn’t how the rule reads.
The other side tends to us an interpreted "RAW". They see it as ignoring known intent (in this case we know it's considered unique deities and not valid), requiring directly addressing the issue which is unlikely (FAQ are sparse), and mocking the rules as flawed.
You’re making it too emotional
It’s got nothing to do with mocking. It’s acknowleging a flaw.
I just don’t see the point it twisting the rules to ignore a problem rather than address one. And I will not accept people then toating there twisted interpretation as the right one. Especially in rules forum. In advice sure I’d give the same advice on how to run it.
The problem is you're characterizing the plain english reading of the rules, and indeed, anything other than the sola raw school of rules interpretation, as twisting. It very much is not. It is by far the most accurate, sane, playable and consistent way to read them.
I just don’t see the point it twisting the rules to ignore a problem rather than address one. And I will not accept people then toating there twisted interpretation as the right one. Especially in rules forum. In advice sure I’d give the same advice on how to run it.The problem is you're characterizing the plain english reading of the rules, and indeed, anything other than the sola raw school of rules interpretation, as twisting. It very much is not. It is by far the most accurate, sane, playable and consistent way to read them.
No it isn’t, the most obvious sane way is to see a generic stat block for a none unique medium plant creature and assume you can use the spell to transform into it.
I then read into it and see that, that would be abnormally powerful. So I made a thread equring into the issue.
From which we saw the initial authorial intent was different. Before it was edited away.
That has nothing to do with reading the rules and everything to do with exploring the intent.
They grant domains doesn’t a deity make, mortal humans can - ergo not grounds to exclude.
Them having different creatures within there race doesn’t exclude you from anything otherwise alter self wouldn’t work for any playable race.
You have to do some pretty explicit digging and twisting to make it not work. Regardless of the fact it probably shouldn’t.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don’t see the point it twisting the rules to ignore a problem rather than address one. And I will not accept people then toating there twisted interpretation as the right one. Especially in rules forum. In advice sure I’d give the same advice on how to run it.The problem is you're characterizing the plain english reading of the rules, and indeed, anything other than the sola raw school of rules interpretation, as twisting. It very much is not. It is by far the most accurate, sane, playable and consistent way to read them.
I can't say how Chromantic Durgon <3 acts in other discussions, but I don't see anything in the Green Men writeup - the actual writing we're given - that would prevent taking its shape. No matter whether it's read as legalese or plain English.
The only reasons against it come from outside the rules - previous editions, writer's intend, "common sense" because it's to powerful. ("Do not invoke common sense, for it is not common.")
These are by definition not RAW, because they're not written into the rules.
The way I see it, we don't really have a "it should be allowed / it shouldn't be allowed" disagreement - instead, the disagreement is over whether it shouldn't be, but is, or whether it shouldn't be, and in fact isn't. (The few people arguing that it works just fine seem to be a marginal minority.)
One side wants to acknowledge a rules flaw so that they can consciously work around it. The other side wants to close their eyes and pretend it isn't there to begin with.
Is this comparison unfair? Possibly. But no more than "Those who want to acknowledge the problem are mocking the rules".