BjörnToKill's page

BjörnToKill wrote:

The RAW gives wild morph both attacks at once, because thats how English works.

It doesn't though.

Did you see my origional post where I broke down word for word what it says and why it means that?

Somebody makes a rule. Somebody else notes that the rule says X. Yet another somebody says "oh, that can't be right, it must be a typo."

Until it's officially corrected, it says X.

That is essentially my argument. The RAW gives wild morph both attacks at once, because thats how English works. Thats why I came to the forum. I'm hoping someone from paizo will see this and include an update to the phrasing in an eratta.

It is obvious if you compare the dmg with any other class.

I see your logic, but find that to be a terrible argument. Under no circumstances should a player be required to go figure out how a spell balances against other classes to see if it works. It should stand on its own. And when read alone, it reads exactly as I've described it. You might be right, but if you are, then I'll say again, this needs to be reworded to mirror the much clearer draconic sorcerer claw ability.

Also, it's not "free" as you stated. It specifically says "You cannot hold an item while attacking". It does not say "you cannot hold an item in the hand that is being used for an attack". If you are holding an item - at all - you may not attack. So you cannot hold a shield, and you cannot hold a staff. This is effectively a 2 handed attack, which means the damage die should be increased beyond a d6. 1d12 for a 2 handed melee attack is not obscene and 2d6 is only slightly better than that.

Then when you add to this that you must focus for 10 minutes between each use, as compaired to a 2 handed weapon that you can just spam over and over, it seems fair.

Druid: Wild Morph focus ability

This ability is strange. The way it is written strongly suggests that you attack with both claws at once. It states "These claws are an unarmed attack you're trained in and deal 1d6 slashing damage EACH."

So here's my break down of that statement.

"These claws" is plural. So it is referring to both claws together as one.

"Are *AN* unarmed attack" is singular. So you make 1 attack roll, which uses both of your claws.

"Deal 1d6 slashing damage *EACH*" Means you roll damage twice, and add them together.

Because these are single die attacks, both are easily buffed by striking handwraps, or in the eratta, magic fang. So a strinking handwrap would cause this attack to deal 4d6 dmg as written.

Just about everyone on reddit who I asked about this disagrees. They believe that's meant to be 1d6 dmg, period. Though when I explained my reasoning, they also seem to think the phrasing makes it sound like that, but they think the wording must just be a mistake from paizo.

So please, if this is *not* how druids claws work, could that be edited to mirror the phrasing of the draconic sorcerer's claws? That was very clear and is literally the same thing. In fact, the existance of those claws is why I'm still not convinced i'm reading it wrong. Why would they be phrased differently in the first place? If I am reading correctly, and it deals 2d6 base, and 4d6 with striking, then it needs to be made *much* clearer, because people are missing it.

Further evidence in favor of my interpretation: Wild morph Druids got screwed on focus points. They get 1 unless they burn a ton of feats. This suggests the one ability they have should be vastly more powerful than those that easily get 2 to 3 points.

It states you can't hold anything in your hand while attacking. So shields are out. Apparently this can only be done as a 2 claw attack. Otherwise, that statement would be "you may not hold an object in a hand with which you are attacking", so that you can attack with 1 hand and raise your shield with the other. Taking this ability away makes this a 2 hand attack, which should again, deal extra damage.

"When do I gain additional focus points for the druid?"

From Feats that say you do. They seem a little rare for Wild Shapers.

Wors than rare. Try "desperately in need of eratta".

They get 1. You *must* multiclass if you want more than that. Wild order druids reaaaallly need rebalancing.

This isn't really about the rules - just about how to read them. Has anyone else found the new layout of spells to be confusing and cumbersome? In PF1, a spell would list at the top which class could cast it. I see no such thing in this new format. There are simply lists of spells in alphabetical order, with no indication as to who can cast them.

As it stands now, to select spells for say, a druid, you have to first see that druids cast primal spells. Ok, easy enough. Then you have to go and look at just the *list* of primal spells with no descriptions, select some that sound kind of cool, and then go cross reference the descriptions with the list to see if you actually want it.

If you wanted to streamline this process by going straight to the description - too bad. There is nothing in the spell descriptions which indicate their tradition (arcane, primal, divine, etc...) and therefore no indication as to who can and can not use them.

I can see this becoming less of a problem once people have established digital databases like D20PFSRD.com, but in the book format it is a disaster. This alone as pushed me away from spell casters, which until now were my favorite classes. It's just too much of a hasle.

I understand that due to the redundancy of some spells crossing multiple traditions it wouldn't make sense to have a seperate list for each spell next to each class (though that would be ideal). But at the very least, put an indicator in the description as to which class may cast it, or what tradition it is from.