Is plant shape overpowered? Or are there limits?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

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:

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

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


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals.

Each Green Man is an individual demigod, so not a valid target for Plant Shape.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Quote:
Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals.
Each Green Man is an individual demigod, so not a valid target for Plant Shape.

Each human is an individual human, each animal an individual animal, in fact, each creature is an individual creature.

Green Men seem to be similar enough to each other that there is a standard "Green Man" stat block, so they should be valid targets. Unless there's something besides "no mimicking individuals" blocking the shape.

Silver Crusade

Yeah, it does seem to be just 'a green man'

I can't imagine there to be more than one or two per continent, but they're not unique.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that the writers of this and other polymorph spells didn't consider CR 20+ creatures that hadn't been thought of yet. Take a look at monstrous physique and this lady. Euryales absolutely aren't unique, they're 'powerful medusa matriarchs'.

You can put in place house rules to reasonably restrict access, but RAW there are some horrific things polymorphers/wild shapers can do.


The whole bit about polymorphing into individuals is to prevent it from being used to disguise as a certain individual. As a Green Man you wouldn't be able to fool anyone into believing they worship you. Well, it would take more than just Plant Shape.

I can see two stumbling blocks with this idea. The major stumbling block would be the material component. When there is only 1 or maybe 2 of these creatures in any campaign setting...how do you explain getting a piece of the creature? Yes, sure, spell component pouches are suppose to have everything you need that isn't over 1gp in value. But get serious here, asking for a piece of a extremely rare and powerful creatures is way beyond unreasonable. Actually as a GM I'd give them a value of around 1,000 gp so you can't just eschew it away either.

The other obstacle would be: how does your character even know what they are like? If you are talking about something that rare and basically unknown how do you even know what they really look like? This isn't a rule per se, but I'm not comfortable with players just turning into creatures they haven't had any personal experience with unless they are considered very common or they've run into other similar creatures. Like from a wolf its easy to imagine a giant wolf, but probably not a hell hound.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well... Druid wild shape doesn't require a material component.

And if you're any psychic caster (like the psychic bloodline sorcerer, for example) you can sacrifice 'emotionally charged' items of equal value to cast your spells. So, let's not find the solutions in material components.

The 'how do you know this thing??' argument makes sense, of course, but the rules don't really ask for this by RAW.

As a house rule, it would be cool if you could only polymorph into or summon creatures that have a challenge rating equal to or less than your ranks in the corresponding knowledge skill. (or some variant to this rule)

But for PFS... It appears that the above stats are yours if you want them when you're a level 6+ leshy warden.

I think something needs to be done about that. Same for the medusa lady.


The only thing that really seems to be a problem is the sheer number of natural attacks the Green Man shape would give you.

Not that it's not a problem, but it's not game ending. There are ways as a GM you could limit the effect, but it's still going to be very powerful.

Probably a good candidate for FAQ.

Silver Crusade

How would we formulate such a faq request?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Viondar wrote:

Well... Druid wild shape doesn't require a material component.

And if you're any psychic caster (like the psychic bloodline sorcerer, for example) you can sacrifice 'emotionally charged' items of equal value to cast your spells. So, let's not find the solutions in material components.

The 'how do you know this thing??' argument makes sense, of course, but the rules don't really ask for this by RAW.

As a house rule, it would be cool if you could only polymorph into or summon creatures that have a challenge rating equal to or less than your ranks in the corresponding knowledge skill. (or some variant to this rule)

But for PFS... It appears that the above stats are yours if you want them when you're a level 6+ leshy warden.

I think something needs to be done about that. Same for the medusa lady.

Actually, PFS already did something about those creatures

Additional Resources: Bestiary 6 wrote:
All creatures in this book—except the blight (any), deathsnatcher, Euryale, fen mauler, green man, mezlan, rawhead, and vespergaunt—are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters.

So for PFS, it is illegal to turn into those creatures.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Viondar wrote:
Now, as you would be taking the form of an avatar

Green Men are Deific, an avatar as you say.

Quote:
your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type

There is no "generic" member of a deific/avatar/god.

Same is true for Yig and other avatars/gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
There is no "generic" member of a deific/avatar/god.

Source?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Derklord wrote:
James Risner wrote:
There is no "generic" member of a deific/avatar/god.
Source?

The same that say that water is wet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are no generic cats in real life; each cat is a specific cat. But we can imagine a generic cat, just as we can imagine a generic god. An individual Green Man might have a different spell selection; the generic Green Man is the one in the Bestiary.

The point of the 'generic' clause is that you can't turn into the specific cat of your choice in order to sneak into its owner's house. All you can do is turn into a cat.

But we don't need a legalistic reason to ban this option. In a home game, you can say, "no wildshaping into anything outside of Bestiary 1". In PFS, it's already banned.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

We seem to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of "your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type".

Some see it as "your appearance is always that of a generic form, not similar to a specific individual".

Other see it as "you appear as a creature of that type. You may not take the form of unique creatures, as they are the only form of that creature."

Ask your GM which is their interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Derklord wrote:
James Risner wrote:
There is no "generic" member of a deific/avatar/god.
Source?
The same that say that water is wet.

So you're telling me to use real life experience in something that doesn't exist in real life?

James Risner wrote:

We seem to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of "your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type".

Some see it as "your appearance is always that of a generic form, not similar to a specific individual".

Other see it as "you appear as a creature of that type. You may not take the form of unique creatures, as they are the only form of that creature."

Ask your GM which is their interpretation.

First, where is the quote? You made a claim, this is the rules questions forum, so back up your claim.

Second, the green man is definitely not unique - the description even talks about "most green men".
Third, all the sentence you quoted talks about is appearance - it doesn't affect mechanics at all. It uses neither the word "form", nor "unique". Indeed, even the preceding sentence doesn't use the word "form", unlike the entire mechanical part of the polymorph rules (including the following sentence).

Only two sentences in the polymorph rules limit your choices ("Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals.", and "Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature."), and only the latter uses the language that's used for mechanical aspects.


Derklord wrote:
First, where is the quote? You made a claim, this is the rules questions forum, so back up your claim.

It's from the Polymorph subschool section of the general Magic rules.

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.

Since 'a Green Man' is not a specific individual, I don't think it matters here.

Silver Crusade

I'm happy that PFS solved the problem for itself. It would've been pretty if that rule was included with the monster entry, for us home gamers :)

As to the Green Man being a deific creature or not... It's a bit confusing.

I mean, the Green Man is a deity in real life, that dies and gets reborn every year. A spirit/god of the seasons, so to speak. But in Pathfinder, he's more a protector spirit of vast woodlands or jungles, of which naturally there would be more than one. And apparently, they are plants, not gods (although they do get the fey type)

I think it's important to stick to the game world in such matters. Green men, Shabti, Druids, Anubis, Shamans, Ahriman... They're all not who they are in the mythology / religion of the real world. The names are just reinvoked to paint us a picture, and they're cast in a ruleset so we can play with them.

Don't second guess the game about the divinity of the Green Man. The game says there are multiple, and that they're not gods, but very powerful plant-fey creatures.


Oh, I'd say we can certainly call the Green Men deific creatures in Pathfinder - they actually have a special ability called "Deific"!

It's just that the rules don't say that you can't turn into a deific creature. Also, there are human gods, and super powerful space aliens and other mythic creatures that aren't even demigods, so the whole thing is kinda weird.

@Matthew Downie: The claim was "There is no "generic" member of a deific/avatar/god." - your rules quote has nothing to do with that.


Viondar wrote:
As to the Green Man being a deific creature or not... It's a bit confusing.
Bestiary 6 wrote:

Deific A green man grants divine spells to worshipers. This does

not require any specific action on the green man’s behalf. The
domains granted by a green man vary according to the green
man’s alignment. Most green men are neutral and grant access
to the domains of Plant, Protection, Strength, and Weather
and to the subdomains of DefenseAPG, GrowthAPG, ResolveAPG,
and SeasonsAPG. A neutral good green man grants access to the
domains of Good, Plant, Protection, and Weather and to the
subdomains of DefenseAPG, GrowthAPG, PurityAPG, and SeasonsAPG.
A neutral evil green man grants access to the domains of
Evil, Plant, Strength, and Weather and to the subdomains of
DecayAPG, GrowthAPG, ResolveAPG, and SeasonsAPG. Regardless of
his alignment, a green man’s favored weapon is the sickle. If a
druid worshiping a green man chooses to take a domain, the
druid must choose the Plant domain, regardless of alignment.
The green man’s holy symbol is that of a masculine face made
of leaves, but the exact expression and appearance of the face
varies by green man, and each is unique in detail.

I believe this is part of what causes the confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going strictly by the book, yes, you can plant shape into a green man and get all of its natural attacks.


The actual problem with the Green Man is that the vines aren't defined for a polymorphed character - you don't get the Vines special ability, after all.

We talked about this before, and Mark Seifter, writer of the Green Man, doesn't know how it works, either.

When there are no specific rules for something, normally, you fall back to the default rules. As you don't get the ability making the attacks primary, and the Natural Attacks Table lists other attacks as secondary, having the vines as secondary attacks wouldn't be unreasonable, I'd say, but even not granting the vine attacks at all would probably be within the rules as well.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

A fine point he made was that green men had a demigod line that was remove (possibly out of fear it would confuse by suggesting other demigod without the line allows polymorph.)

In other words, it’s unique. You can’t poly into it. His original version had a line to that effect. Despite being removed, it’s still assumed true.


James Risner wrote:
In other words, it’s unique.

Do you even know what the word "unique" means? The entire description is in plural ("the legendary green men"), it can not possibly be a unique creature!

If a line got removed, it's no longer in the book. That's how the rules work. Are all the lines from the playtests that got removed also still valid? We also don't know what the line would have said exactly, and Mark himself does not claim the removed line to be valid for the finished product.

Either give us some rules quote that actually supports your argument, or admit that you're wrong. So far, the only rules quote you've used (in both these threads, incidentally) soley talks about "appearance", not about form. You keep saying stuff like "it’s unique. You can’t poly into it.", but you have yet to provide a single rules quote that mentioned the term 'unique'.

The polymorph rules don't mention "unique" at all.
The Polymorph rules don't say you can't take the form (that's the word used for the mechanical aspects) of a specific individual, only that you can't take it's appearance.
Every single creature is per definition* an individual - if the polymorph rules would prevent using an individual as a base, it would not be possible to use polymorph effects at all.

*) In biology, an individual is
"a. a single organism capable of independent existence.
b. a member of a compound organism or colony.
"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the green men weren’t a valid target for polymorph, why would PFS have created a special rule to keep you from doing it?


Melkiador wrote:
If the green men weren’t a valid target for polymorph, why would PFS have created a special rule to keep you from doing it?

As this thread demonstrates, the uniqueness of a deific creature is blurry ergo just explicitly banning it serves two purposes: 1) killing an overpowered polymorph object and 2) limiting table variance due to multiple GMs coming to their own conclusions whether Green Men are valid polymorph targets in the first place.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Each Green Man is a different unique entity that grants different spells.

And each human is a different unique entity that has a different taste in music. That doesn't mean you can't take the form of that general type of creature.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

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.

RAW interpretation is not nebulous. It's very exact.

Darklord is not stating that he's in favour of green men being a legal polymorph forms in his games. He's stating that the rules do not preclude us from polymorphing into green men. A GM still might (and probably should).

If there are multiple creatures (regardless of them being deific) who are of the species 'green men', then you don't have to impersonate any of those very unique deific personae or appearances to shape into something resembling a green man. You'd just become a general massive powerhouse, not a specific one.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Each Green Man is a different unique entity that grants different spells.
And each human is a different unique entity that has a different taste in music. That doesn't mean you can't take the form of that general type of creature.

Not all humans are unique. Some are hipster graphic designers with glasses and beards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess Paizo doesnt want you to use Green Men, but they took the words out that had the restriction. If the vines ability is a special ability then plant shape should not grant it. They really need to make a decision on this even if its only by FAQ.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avoron wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Each Green Man is a different unique entity that grants different spells.
And each human is a different unique entity that has a different taste in music. That doesn't mean you can't take the form of that general type of creature.

That isn’t how they write the rules. You can be a generic human. You can’t be a generic diety. You can choose to assert “But RAW” but that just means you are choosing to ignore parts of the rules by using a interpretation counter to design, known stated intent, and convention.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Viondar wrote:

RAW interpretation is not nebulous. It's very exact.

He's stating that the rules do not preclude us from polymorphing into green men.

I’m stating there is an alternative RAW that precludes taking the form of a green man because each different green man is a unique diety and not a valid polymorph Target. I’m backed up by the line prohibiting was in the stat block but removed because of potential for confusing readers into thinking only green men deities can’t be polymorph targets. When the actual RAW is all dirties including green men are not valid.

I’m good with a GM that allows it, especially if they haven’t read developers comments. But it certainly seemed counter to the polymorph rules to me on first read and the dev comments back up that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
You can be a generic human. You can’t be a generic diety.

Why not?

Or a bit more elaborate: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Please quote your source.

And to elaborate even further:
I have a rule that allows me to turn into plants. It has some restrictions on which kind of plants (based on size, mostly), but no restrictions on the divine status of the plant.
Unless there's some other rule, nothing prevents me from turning into a Green Man. They're a race of plants. A race of slightly divine plants, but there is no restriction on divinity in plant shape.
Neither does "They are all individuals" count, because so is every individual of any race. You always turn into a generic snowflake, even if every snowflake is unique.

Sure, there's rule 0, and it definitely should be applied here, but that's another matter. The rules (outside of reasonable GM interference) say the Green Man is fine for plant shape.


RAW = Rules As Written. If it's not written in some rules document, it cannot possibly be RAW, because that's what the words mean.

James Risner wrote:
You can choose to assert “But RAW” but that just means you are choosing to ignore parts of the rules (...)

What part(s) of the actual written rules am I/are we ignoring? Show me the part, and present proof that I'm/we're ignoring it.

James Risner wrote:
I’m stating there is an alternative RAW that precludes taking the form of a green man because each different green man is a unique diety and not a valid polymorph Target.

That's right, you are stating it, but you aren't backing it up with anything tangible.

I have backed up my RAW position by actual rules quotes, until you do the same, my position carries more weight - that's how a rules debate works because without some rules quote, we can not possibly accept your position to be true.

James Risner wrote:
I’m backed up by the line prohibiting was in the stat block but removed (...)

I'm backed up by written rules, where you're only backed up by some forum post that explicitly considered non-official.

Mark Seifter wrote:
As usual, of course, forum posts are not official.

Source.


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:

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

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

Note that you still have to put your armor on after you transform or else it melds despite your humanoid-shaped form. Not a problem for druids, but is for anyone else.

Also note that vines and thorns are both abilities that plant shape doesn't grant. So the benefits spelled out in vines and thorns aren't granted. For thorns, that is the ability to make the attack. You don't get it. For vines it is them being primary, doing bludgeoning and piercing damage, and having 30' reach.

With these in mind it is still a powerful form, but isn't too much better than other options. Its comparable to the Giant Octopus other druids can become at 6th which has more attacks, but fewer primary attacks and doe have reach but a worse grab/constrict.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Us old boys recall the older version of the polymorph spell, that said: "you can't take the form of unique creatures and deities or demigod" (or something similar, I don't want to spend time searching the exact wording), but that was removed in the new version. Probably more an oversight than a intended change, but the new version will allow to take the form of a Green Man.

Personally I think that game balance and rule consistency would not allow that, but until the spell is patched, it is possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Poison Dusk wrote:
Viondar wrote:
As to the Green Man being a deific creature or not... It's a bit confusing.
Bestiary 6 wrote:

Deific A green man grants divine spells to worshipers. This does

not require any specific action on the green man’s behalf. The
domains granted by a green man vary according to the green
man’s alignment. Most green men are neutral and grant access
to the domains of Plant, Protection, Strength, and Weather
and to the subdomains of DefenseAPG, GrowthAPG, ResolveAPG,
and SeasonsAPG. A neutral good green man grants access to the
domains of Good, Plant, Protection, and Weather and to the
subdomains of DefenseAPG, GrowthAPG, PurityAPG, and SeasonsAPG.
A neutral evil green man grants access to the domains of
Evil, Plant, Strength, and Weather and to the subdomains of
DecayAPG, GrowthAPG, ResolveAPG, and SeasonsAPG. Regardless of
his alignment, a green man’s favored weapon is the sickle. If a
druid worshiping a green man chooses to take a domain, the
druid must choose the Plant domain, regardless of alignment.
The green man’s holy symbol is that of a masculine face made
of leaves, but the exact expression and appearance of the face
varies by green man, and each is unique in detail.
I believe this is part of what causes the confusion.

As an aside, being "deific" is not a refutation of being generic. or confirmation of being a deity. Mythic creatures can do the same thing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
James Risner wrote:
I’m backed up by the line prohibiting was in the stat block but removed
I'm backed up by written rules, where you're only backed up by some forum post that explicitly considered non-official.

When JR says "RAW", it's best to read that as "Rules as Wanted". He doesn't tend to subscribe to literal interpretations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’d say that if the prohibitive text was there and then it was removed, then that would be proof that the editor decided it was fine to use for polymorphing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I would just go with disallowing the "Vines" attacks, on the grounds that they are not "normal" attacks because they have a separate entry after the monster stat block in Bestiary 6. A size Medium plant creature with two slam attacks is certainly within reasonable limits for a Plant Shape spell.


David knott 242 wrote:

I would just go with disallowing the "Vines" attacks, on the grounds that they are not "normal" attacks because they have a separate entry after the monster stat block in Bestiary 6. A size Medium plant creature with two slam attacks is certainly within reasonable limits for a Plant Shape spell.

I'm surprised this didn't come up sooner. This is the other big issue with the green man.

Do unique natural attacks described as EX abilities count as natural attacks or EX abilities for the purpose of whether or not you gain them from polymorph? I've seen people argue it both ways and, frustratingly, Mark's answer in the earlier linked post is essentially that he's not sure either.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Melkiador wrote:
I’d say that if the prohibitive text was there and then it was removed, then that would be proof that the editor decided it was fine to use for polymorphing.

With the rewriting that was done on polymorph that can be seen as an intended change or an oversight. Originally Pathfinder ad no stats for deities level creatures, now it has the great old ones and other stuff that count as deity level creatures with printed stats.

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

Currently there aren't clear rules on how we should treat deity level creatures, so claiming that "they are allowed because there is no rule specifically saying that they aren't a valid target for polymorph" is stretching it.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Remember, there is no such thing as "Rules as Written". That's a fairly recent internet philosophy which really means "I believe my interpretation is correct, you should listen to me".

Reading is an interpretive activity. Two people can read the same passage and come to two entirely different conclusions. That alone should be strong enough evidence to show that "RAW" is a fallacy.

To lessen that chance of occurring, you not only need more text (which is difficult when you have a limited word count), but you need to have a firm grasp of the system itself and all its nuances and implied understandings (which is what GMs are for).

The first can be alleviated through FAQs. Imagine how thick the Core Rulebook would be if it included the entire FAQ. The second can be alleviated by not stubbornly limiting your understanding to a narrow viewpoint using limited resources.


Jeff Morse wrote:
I don't know whom is right in this, but please take a moment before posting like this. You just make Sarah Marie's job more difficult and yelling with cuss words is offensive to most.

You're right, I apologize. There's nothing in the rules prohibiting the use of profanity, but still.

I got too riled up from James Risner constantly even the most basic etiquette of rules discussions.

swoosh wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
I would just go with disallowing the "Vines" attacks, on the grounds that they are not "normal" attacks because they have a separate entry after the monster stat block in Bestiary 6. A size Medium plant creature with two slam attacks is certainly within reasonable limits for a Plant Shape spell.
I'm surprised this didn't come up sooner. This is the other big issue with the green man.

Er, I already mentioned that in post #22, including a link to the author's comment on the issue.

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"!

Nefreet wrote:
Remember, there is no such thing as "Rules as Written".

Sure there is, that's what's printed/released in official material. It's often not possible to use RAW without interpretation*,and sometimes it's not even possible to follow the rules as written because they contradict each other.

*) Which is why I wrote "my RAW position", because the rules in question are ambiguous, even though one of the two obvious interpretations breaks the game.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter 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.

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".

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Now, sometimes it is very hard to interpret written text differently. But that is only because we all have a common understanding that we take for granted. Today. But imagine tens, hundreds, or thousands of years down the road, and I guarantee you someone will begin to interpret it differently.

I point to modern day interpretations of ancient religious texts, and all of the different denominations that have spurned off of them, as evidence ^_^

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Is plant shape overpowered? Or are there limits? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.