You cannot simultaneously and coherently argue that the force effect is completely separate from the bracers which is completely separate from the force field which is completely separate from the armor bonus but that the force field is connected to the armor bonus. What your argument, IF true, would lead to is a force field with no armor bonus because the force field is a separate entity.
Too many "which". I don't say they are all separate. The idea was simple. Bracers generate the force filled, the force field provides armor bonus. Just direct sequence. Bracers were thought to be "separated", if you want, only from armor bonus as armor bonus was thought to be the property of the force field. As if providing permanent mage armor (the descriptions are very close, almost word by word.) The force field is not an armor bonus, so it is not negated by polymorph, but it can give armor bonus if written to do so.
Magic items which provide a shield (or armor) bonus do not get turned off by polymorph effects. They only lose that armor or shield bonus. Their other bonuses remain functional. If the bracers of armor provided Mage Armor (as they do in 2nd edition test) they would work fine. The description of the bracers looks exactly as if they just cast permanent Mage Armor on you. But unfortunately there is a coma, that I kept missing for quite a long time, which makes a change. So that formally the bracers provides the bonus, not the field.
"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."Bracers are part of the gear. Force filled, created by them, is not an item and not a part of the gear.
There is no distinction between the field and the armor bonus it provides.
Ordinary armor also provides armor bonus. Is there distinction between the armor and armor bonus it provides? One is the source and the other is an effect.
I thought my first statement in the citation above coincides with your opinion and flows from the rules - the item provide armor bonus and loose it after polymorph.The second statement on its own also flows from the rules, describing the way Mage Armor works under polymorph. As I remember, nobody argued with that. And the fact that melded items continue to generate bonuses other that armor and shield bonuses (including magic effects and force fields) is directly from the rules.
There is a reason. The list of remaining things can be not uniform. There can be some conditions. The next sentence could say that they all work under the full moon. You never know by default. It is always better to read the rules to the end. Everyone can miss something, and that's why we are here.
Why would someone say that red and green lasers work if orange blue purple and yellow lasers also work? The sentence has no reason to say A B and C work unless it means that X Y and Z don't work.
Because he is concerned only about orange blue purple and yellow lasers, or does not know about them. They are all separate and independent.
That's not good, because the bracers meld and the force field does not. So the bracers will lose the armor bonus, but the force field will not. That is why the mage armor works - it is a force field that do not meld into body as it is not an item.So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.
Ferious Thune wrote:
I do not really see what you disagree here. Maybe was not clear enough. I agree that you have to wield the shield to get the bonus. I agree that you have to wear the ring to wield the shield. Yes, most of the forms can't wield a shield, but some can.Do you disagree that after melding you are still wearing a ring? This is reasonable, but following the rules you still benefit from the ring, so I assume it is considered to be worn.
Well the rules says so."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)."
If the item is not melded into the body all these rules do not work. Your citation also does not say that
the "item needs to be activated so it doesn't function."
However I really found the sentence I previously missed that you didn't include into citation.
Now we should return to the OP question about the bracers of armor. It does not need to be activated, so this part of rule does not work. There, as I recall, were two problematic moments
Great. Does it really matter, what we are speaking about? :- )
Incorrect. Items that meld into the form lose shield bonuses. Others (laying on the ground, or hovering in the air) do not lose anything.Everything else is OK.
So the question is "does the force field meld into the form?"
Ferious Thune wrote:
Well, it looks like you are still wearing the items that are melded into you. At least because they still provide bonuses (except armor and shield). But I either didn't find that rings do not function if not worn. Most of them target the wearer, but this ring just generates a shield of force.
Ferious Thune wrote:
First of all, the ring does not disappear, just meld into the new form. And it continues to provide the force field. It is another question if you can wield the shield in a new form. And the most important question is if the force field meld into the body following the ring. I would say no. But I am not sure.What about Mage Armor? Does it meld into body, if polymorphed after it was cast?
You miss the most important part of the citation. The subject. What can be wielded as if it were a heavy shield? The complete citation:
"This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield"
You are not doing better, do not flatter yourself. One incomplete citation that does not prove anything is not s good support of your point of view.
Can you provide citation that the ring acts like shield? I did not find any. It is written only that the wall of force can be wielded as a shield. And then (if wielded) it provides the shield bonus.
I have never said that it is not a shield bonus. If I did, please provide citation.
Yes, I think that the reasons armor and shield bonuses shut off when you wildshape don't apply here and that, what I am speaking about. And I am waiting for you to say, what obviously wrong things I say. Supported with citations for simplicity.
Ferious Thune wrote:
The loss of armor bonus after taking the bracers off is because for the force field to be effective both bracers should be worn. Here is the rules citation: "Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective."For the Ring of Force Shield, the rules do not say that the ring has to be worn to provide the force wall (see the citation in my previous post). It is not said that the force shield disappears if you take it off. It is only written that to get the shield bonus you have to wield the wall as a shield (the wall, not the ring).
The force wall is not a manifestation, it is the effect, like conjured animal. But the source is not a spell, but an item. And the duration is "until switched off" for the ring and "while worn" for the bracers.
I checked the items you suggested and they all are explicitly said to provide armor bonus. So, yes, their armor bonus is lost after polymorphing and melding.
However you are still wrong about the Ring of Force Shield as it is completely different. Here is the citation:
Yes. It is that exact. Those are the exact words. It is an armor bonus. Those words are there objectively. Denying that is either an outright error or disingenuous.
I do not say that it is not an armor bonus. I say that it do not come directly from the bracers. And consequently this armor bonus is not the subject for the polymorph rules.
Well, it is really not that exact. And it is you, who denies the force field and removes it from the rules :-) I just want to read this correctly. What if I use analogy and change the force field to fog cloud and armor bonus to concealment?"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with a fog cloud, granting him concealment."
Would you still insist that it is the bracers, that provide the concealment? The bracers can not provide neither armor bonus nor concealment on their own, they need force field or fog cloud or whatsoever. That's how it is written. They could say "Bracers of armor grant a force armor bonus" and there would be no questions.
Louis IX wrote:
It would be funny, but the correct citation is "armor and shield bonuses". So your interpretation is much less possible :- )
Louis IX wrote:
I do not see any (formal) problems here. This is RAW.
Diego Rossi wrote:
So your "what matters 1" should be changed to "It is generated by an item that was in character gear and is melded into his new form."
When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you ... 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..
Then, return to your example with the wall. Assume that the item generates the wall of force.
The same should apply to the bracers.
This is RAW:"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor."
It is not said here that the bracers are armor bonus. It is said that the bracers provide the force field. And the polymorph effect can't stop the bracers from this field generation.
Unfortunately, this is not written in the rules :- ) "Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class"
So, do you insist that this rule should be applied to all items, including those lying on the floor or at other players posession?Here is the RAW: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you ... 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."
So, 1) the things not from your gear are unaffected by melding 2) things that are not melded and do not require activation are not mentioned by the rule, thus function normally. 3) If the melded, non-activated thing provided armor bonus, it stops doing so (with other effects functioning).
I'm not inserting anything, I just provide citations and read them word by word.
The reason for this is because polymorph does it's thing when the spell is cast. After the spell is cast items no longer meld. Why? Because that's RAW.
That is exactly what I am saying. The rule refers only to the things that are melded. Items that are not melded are unaffected.
Diego Rossi wrote:
But to apply those rules this item also should be a part of your gear that was melded into your body, isn't it? You just do not apply those rules to other things. For example you can put the bracers (or barding) on after you was polymorphed. And the items do not lose the armor bonus.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Even if it were to say "they conjure a 3 yards thick wall of polystyrene around you" it will be irrelevant for the polymorph rules. What matter is that it is an armor bonus.
I'm afraid that it does matter. In your example the conjured "3 yards thick wall of polystyrene around you" is not subject to the polymorph restrictions as it is not melded into the form. Only the bracers are melded and thus are subject to the polymorhp restriction, everything they conjure is not. That is why the Mage Armor works with the polymprph.
Diego Rossi wrote:
As you see the bracers description say a few times that they give an armor bonus.
This is more convincing, thanks. At least for the RAI.
Please, read the sentence:"When you put it on fire this substance surrounds you with dense smoke, granting everyoone inside concealment".
What does the substance do? It surrounds you with smoke. Does the substance provide concealment? No, the smoke does. It is ridiculous to say that the substance provides concealment, isn't it?
Now let's read another sentence:
This is how it is written. Do I miss something?
Ask your DM to change the rules for you if you want. I mean you're already playing one of the most powerful classes in the game, why shouldn't they make it stronger to suit you? Balance is over rated after all.
I am not speaking about power or balance here, I want to clarify the rules as they are written in the book. These rules are general for all polymorph spells, by the way.
If you had a “constant mage armor” magic item, wild shape would turn it off even though mage armor the spell is fine.
Why? The item provides the mage armor effect, not the ac bonus. So the Wild shape has nothing to do with it.
RAW: "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)." The effect is not an armor bonus, it is a force effect.
The problem here is if the bracers provide an armor bonus or a force effect.
They provide an Armor Effect, which means they're treated as armor with regards to the wildshape rules.
Not true, as they provide force effect. They even are not ignored by incorporeal attacks, which is explicitly written in the attack entry.
RAW says "armor and shield bonuses", not "worn armor or shields". Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus. They don't work when polymorphed, full stop. JJ discussed the "why", not the "what"; the "what" is right there in the Core Rulebook.
RAW says "Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force". And then the field is "granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8". It more looks like they apply a mage armor on you, not provide an armor bonus...
Well, for wild druid, for example, the importance of spellcasting proficiency is doubtful. I would rather take more wild or other Druid's feats instead. I will probably not cast offensive spells at all.
Good to see much improvement with wild shapes. The new Wild Morph looks very intriguing. However there are still some concerns.
First of all, the pest form. It still lacks utility, despite the big improvements, IMHO. The only thing you can use it for is to crawl and a bit of fly after 4 spell level. Why do not you give it more movement options and senses if it is supposed to be used only for movement and sensing? By the way, the range of scent is still unspecified.
Animal form. Is the shark still unable to breathe underwater? Is that really intended? :-)
I hope you don't mind me mentioning some other spells close to the druid question
Balefull polymorph. Unclear, how exactly the target is changed. So I transform a fighter into a frog. Does it still have 20 strength and 22+ AC? What about medium size and speed 25? Can it move or only make will saves?
Shapechange. It is not clear what exactly do we get. I can guess that it just copy the effect of the form spells from before. What benefit does it provide, compared to previous versions (I mean, for 20 lvl Druid)?
David knott 242 wrote:
Well, apparently, this rule speaks about the human with int14+. To be strict it even does not say that you get that language, but only can select it from the particular table.
David knott 242 wrote:
If humans did not by default have access to common languages, then what would be the second language of a Taldan human?
Nothing. Yes, it happens.
I mean, real talk, how many GMs are going to not let a Half-Orc/Elf take Orcish/Elvish with their 2nd language (after common) if a player asks if they can?
I know different ones. But the problem is the rules, not the suitable GM.
Data Lore wrote:
Doesn't getting the elf and orc traits qualify them somewhere in the rules for the languages? Weird that it wouldn't.
Traits do not convey any mechanical benefits, only influence on interactions with effects. It is written in the rules. I haven't seen traits in rules for languages.
David knott 242 wrote:
For humans (which would include half-elves and half-orcs), the automatic languages are Common and "One additional language, selected from those to which you have access." The bonus language for Int 14+ is basically chosen the same way.
Not really. The rules on Int 14+ are explicitly written at section Bonus Languages of each ancestry. The "... to which you have access" list is not specified anywhere so as there is no any sign that thay should work the same (if you know the citation, please provide).
David knott 242" wrote:
So a half-elf or half-orc could select Elven or Orcish as his second language, since both are currently common languages.
Could you, please, provide a citation from rulebook that allow you to use common language as your second language?
The problem is that only ethnicities explicitly say that "you gain access to ___ language", nothing else. This makes me convinced that only those languages from ethnicities are available for the second human language.
It's pretty clear in context that this is the Common Languages on p. 40
Unfortunately, it is not clear. Could you please provide a citation from the rules to support your statement?
FYI, those *are* at least available "instead of ethnic one" (or regional) because Elven and Orcish are Common access languages for ALL Inner Sea characters...
Not by RAW as I understand. It is written that you can choose from the list of common languages only if your Intelligence score is14 or higher:
p. 23 Languages and bonus languages wrote:
In bonus languages for human we also have
Note that, dwarves and halflings, for example, are not able to get orcish even with 14 Intelligence as it is not on theri Bonus languages list.And Multilingual needs Trained in Society. So, normal 10-Int half-orc can not learn its native language :- )
Oh, yes, you are right. I missed that it is the Wild Shape that gives you the extra uses, not the order. Thanks for clarification.
You can take Wild Shape only using Basic Wilding.It is written that the order only gives you skills and anathema:
Choose an order as you would if you were a druid. You become bound by that order’s anathema and count as a member of the order. You become trained in Nature and your order’s associated skill; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of order.
So you do not get extra uses per day either. Am I right?
Well, Druid and Monk archetypes seem flawed.
Well, the rules are different, so yes, it is.
You can compare, but you shouldn't base your conclusions on the old rules, because you have new ones. Many terms are more ore less redefined.
So, despite being called "feats", class feats function like class features, because many of the things class feats do were features in 3.PF. They even said this was a consideration with class design, touting the benefits of modularity over the old hard-coded class features.
Class feats function like feats work now: you choose them from a specific list when your class tells you to do so. Note that in previous edition it was not your class that gave you feat in general, as I remember. Now gaining a feat is explicitly a class feature.Class features are fixed as they were before.
Note that even archetypes do not change them as before, they just give you access to new class feats.
They printed powers separate from the (currently, only) class that gives them because they intend to allow multiple classes to get them in the future.
Well, the archetypes also allow multiple classes to get access to feats of particular class. Nothing different. By the way, there are even the same class feats that belong to different classes. So it would be logical to have them separated too.But usually a particular class feat and particular power is referred to some base class. For me it seems to be more convenient to have both collected inside class description. But I am also OK with separation. I just do not like it when they are presented differently.
They explicitly didn't do this for class feats because class feats aren't really "feats" as we've come to know them (feats in 3.PF were, with very few exceptions, not class-gated), they're really class features.
The class feats are feats by the rules, so as ancestry feats, general feats and so on. They all are treated the same but having different traits. "3.PF" has nothing to do with it, this is a different game.
I also want to note the contrary situation with powers. Now each of the powers belongs to only one class. However they all are moved to Spell Descriptions chapter, making it harder to read. It is the same as if all class feat desctiptions were moved to the Feats chapter. Very inconvenient if those things are not common for many classes.
The designers seem just not to follow the design rules they made.
For the initial atribute/feat/etc. topic , I really miss a convenience table which would show those things everybody get. This can also include spells slots table it is totally the same for all casters. It would be a lot easier for class entries describing only differences from this general table.
1) No. You just pick a deity and have to meet the alignment restrictions.
Then what is "as you would if you were a cleric" there for?
2) Yes. Note that staves do have cantrips, so there is a possibility of using some of them.
What part of question does this yes refer to? :- )A cantrip is a first level spell (at second character level), so formally you fulfill the requirement. Note that it does not speak about spell slots or spell list, just an ability to cast spells of certain level.
Some questions about cleric dedication feat that are not obvious from the rules.
1) Does the phrase "Choose a deity as you would if you were a cleric." mean that you gain the diety weapon, signature skill and spell access?
2) Does the phrase "You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level that you can cast" mean that you actually can't use those untill you get Bsic Spellcasting feat? Can you use only wands and the other with cantrips inside?
Why restrict Druids?
Well, the -form spell issue is not only the wild druid concern and probably should have a separate discussuin under spells topic.
I think that Paizo made this to simplify the spells and let the player not to calculate the ststs. Why ther decided that the calculations are hard is unclear as we do them for the character itself. For me it would be best if the forms just tweaked the ability scores as it was before: let the animal form redefine the strength score to be 18 (22 for heightened) with magical +1 and it solves all problems:You get the appropriate scaling formulas
You do not have strength 10 (+0) huge bears.
You do not have to dig through the whole book to find that all attacks of polymorphed creatures are magical.
You do not have to build complex tables to compare yourself with the fighter.
If you make a table, you will find that each level you are about the same as a fighter with 4 strength, some d8 weapon with level-matched potency rune, nonmagical dexterity-matched armor. All for free. This consideration neglects some other things like feats and magic. The fighter has his feats, but forms also give you Athletics, damage types, movement types and senses.
What I do not understand is why all those forms-spells are separated into different spells, being effectively all the same. The differences are minimal. It could be just one spell, heightenning from 1 to 10 spell levels like "summom monster". Well 3 spells actually to separate utility form, battle form and probably magical form (for arcane spell list).
These costumes give quite good damage, movement types and senses. Probably, the price gap is too heigh: you need to buy all the gear in addition to the vestment to get those +4.
The problem is that without commas the feat becomes doubtfull.Furthermore, to be strickt, the Graceful poise does not say that you can do an unarmed attack. It says "if you make an unarmed attack". It is out of concern if you are able to do that or not.
By the way I do not say that Double slice can not be used with unarmed attacks (feel free to use claws). It can not be used with weapons with "unarmed" trait.
And unarmed attacks have no mention about traits whatsoever in their description.
Yes, because the trait is a different thing and that is what I am speaking about. Unarmed attack is a name of the paragraph that describes unarmed Strikes -- a way of attacking, a weapon, that uses the statistics of the fist. But every weapon have special traits, describing its properties. And among possible traits we find an "unarmed" trait, that is not related to unarmed attacks and Strikes.
By your interpetation, you can't "unarmed attack" with your fist since it's a completely different thing. Which doesn't makes any sense.
The rules specifically say that you make unarmed attacks with your fists.
What I get from the whole "unarmed" thing, is exactly like the old "Ally" issue: Unarmed counts as a wielded weapon WHEN it makes sense to do so.
Sounds the same as using commas :- ) It is all up to GM after all.
So wild shape is always a level behind the caster except for animal form and Pest form.
I know and I am unhappy with this too. But you are a caster and actually it do not seem to reduce the combat capabilities. Only versality.
Easier and what should be done is to make Intimidate a Strength or Charisma skill. This would give fighters and barbs a bigger role in social situations and let the wild order druid actually use their signature skill.
I totally agree. Note, however, that there are the following words in the skill rules:"If the GM deems it appropriate, she may have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC" (p 142.)
So this is not impossible as is.
I really don't like the idea of particular magical items being essential for certain builds, and druid's vestments are looking that way. The problem with these items is they are fundamental enough that characters are assumed to acquire them, thus those types of characters are assumed to possess these items when determining powers/abilities. Magical items should not make up for a class's shortcomings - the class should be fixed.
Is the vestment so essential? The forms give you attack no worse then Str +3 including levelled potency (though only trained proficiency) and average damage better then Str +5 longsword including potency. The AC is no worse then dexterity-matched +1 potency armor (trained proficiency). And you get all these for free.
So we can say that the vestment is no more essential for druid than a +5 potency sword with +1 potency armor for a fighter.
I did not say anything about Double slice. We are speaking about Graceful poise, which is ill-worded.
Yes and this is exaclly the problem. There are no brackets commas or whatsoever when we need them so badly. We both see the problem and I suggest a solution that do not break the logic of the rules.
I say the same, but not only for Double slice. An unarmed attack is a weilded melee weapon. If it do not have "unarmed" trait in its entry.
But "fist" weapon refers to atatcks "with any part of your body" and that includes claws, teeth and the like.
Yes, unless this part of the body explicitely has an entry with its own damage and traits. Just read further "Some ancestry feats, class features, class feats, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks". After that you get something like "claw 1d6(agile, finesse)", nothing in common with fist. Note that no "inherence" is in the rules, but "substitution" is everywhere (IMHO).
Furthermore, we can clearly see every single "animal" companion having his "natural attacks (for lack of better term) be labelled as Unarmed attack.
They are said to be unarmed for the purpose of proficiency, but they do not have "unarmed" in traits.
So, you want to tell me that "monster" lion's claws are treated like Wielded weapons and "Animal companion" lion's claws are treated as unarmed?
Again no. They both do not have "unarmed" traits so they are both weapons. There were even some issues if you do not treat the animal companion armed with weapon. I do not remember where exactly.
and all natural weapons inherit all the "unarmed" traits, including.. "unarmed".
Doubtfull.1) Fist is a fist 1d4 B (Agile, finesse, nonlethal, unarmed) and claw is a claw 1d6 slashing (agile, finesse).
2) There is no term "natural weapons" and no inherit trait rules.
3) Barbarian totem forms have "unarmed" trait explicitely, others do not.
Not exactly. It says"While in this stance, if you make your second Strike from Double Slice with an agile weapon or agile unarmed attack..."
It does not say that agile unarmed attack comes from Double slice as I understand. Let me use brackets: "While in this stance, if you make your second Strike from (Double Slice with an agile weapon) or (agile unarmed attack)..."
as an example, savage slice, which should be a wild druid feat, works on a melee weapon... well, is the claw, which is "unarmed" a melee weapon? no one knows.
As I said, claw do not have "unarmed" trait. So it is a weapon, and can be used with this feat.
But that is my interpretation and FAQ from the designers would be appreciated :- )
I would say that the citations are just speaking about different things with the same name (Breaking the law of identity? That's a shame!).
The page 183 is a definition of a weapon trait, named "unarmed". Some weapons have this trait and some do not. Note that all the animals have their attacks without "unarmed" trait (bug or feature?).
The page 178 speaks about an unarmed attack as an option of attacking with the "noncombat" parts of your body, e.g. weapon. So that you technically treat them as fists (which has an "unarmed" trait).
So an unarmed attack without an "unarmed" trait is technically a weapon. The only issue (or feature?) is that without the "unarmed" trait a creature can be disarmed. Break the claws and knock out teeth! Sounds reasonable.
... and base wild shape uses on Charisma instead of Strength. A druid in melee would wild shape and not use strength but the provided stats and Charisma works well with Wild Empathy and Intimidate.
It is an interesting idea to make heigh charisma druid. Maybe I evel like it. However I do not think that locking the core ability of melee offensive character to noncombat mental ability is a good idea. First of all, basing the wild shape on charisma will restrict those who want strength-based melee builds. As you said they need Strength constitution, dexterity, wisdom. And they are MAD :- ) Do not forget also the druid vestment.
I would recommend to use constitution for wild shape as a secondary druid ability important for any build. So we have both options (charisma or strength) avaliable. Furthermore you benefit from constitution every time everywhere.
Well, the pest form was not intended for battle. So it should not have top AC and attacks. 17 would be reasonable for level 3 character, when the Pest form is obtained. However, this probably also should be scaled with heighten. For the damage, I think it should be animal form that starts earlier with some inferior form for battle. Pest form is for avoiding fighting with sneak, which should probably also scale with heightening.
That is a good point. Maybe not to just make it count as magical, but at least allow to spend a use (spellpoint ) for magical +1.
Actually, Druid gets all form spells at the same time as everybody to cast through spell slots. So you can't say it is behind. The feats just allow you to cast them with wild points and without preparation. In fact this already makes you better then the sorcerer as you do not have to choose the exact form in the morning. This is also the reason, why the shapechange is useless for druids.
Well, it is actually avaliable from character level 11 as all other 6 spell level spells. And regarding blindsence, resistance fly 100 and breath weapon up to 11d6 is quite comparable to other forms. It is a pity that it is not included in wildshape till 14.
The form spells (polymorph) have some issues and typos.
1) Some of the spells speak about "natural attacks" that are not described anywhewe, while all animals usually have unarmed attacks. Furthermore none of them has "unarmed" trait. This is important as some feats require a weapon attack (such as Savage Slice), so that its use with attacks with "unarmed" trait is prohibited.
2) There is no scent range specified anywhere, while scent rule p. 302 implies it does.
3) It looks strange that while being in the form you preserve old racial traits. I turn into an insect, but I am still human and humanoid by traits. Same for statistics: a huge tyrannosaurus with strength 10 (+0).
4) Plant form 6 level (heightened) damage did not get more dice, while the damage bonus was reduced.
5) Balefull polymorph. Unclear, how exactly the target is changed. So I transform a fighter into a frog. Does it still have 20 strength and 22+ AC? What about medium size and speed 25? Can it move or only make will saves?
6) Shapechange. It is not clear what exactly do we get. I can guess that it just copy the effect of the form spells from before.
7) Animal form. All forms listed to have scent, it could be moved to the bullet with low-light vision. However a bull probably shouldn't have one (compared to shark and canine).
8) It is strange to see so many different spells with the same effect when others fully use heightening system. All of the form spells have the same text and only the numbers differ. All of them can be easily reduced to three spells:
9) The Pest form. Note it is a level 2 spell and do not forget it. It is ridiculous now and looks more like debuff. Like balefull polymorpf. I would rather use it as debuff with all that speed 10, Athletics -4, weakness 5 and AC 13 (any level 1 through 20!), 1 attack damage and no ability to manipulate things.