I read the new version of metamorphosis and i am not agree with this version for some reasons.
You're talking about polymorph spells, right?
First, I think that this version is very fight-oriented version and forget a little the using we can do to spy.
Actually, this new version is a lot less combat oriented than before. Before, if you polymorphed into, say, a troll, your physical ability scores would be changed to Str 23, Dex 14, Con 23.
Let's assume for now that we're talking about an arcanist (wizard or sorcerer) with str 8, dex 14, con 14 (in fact, that's what I often see for arcanists: Str 8, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 10; switch Int and Cha for sorcerers). That character would basically get +15 Str and +9 Dex. Quite the boost.
But if you use Giant Form I now, you just get +6 Strength and +4 to con (along with -2 to dex). Oh, and your natural armour is only +4 instaed of +5
You'll still look like a troll, so you can use it to spy.
Morever, I think that this version lack of flexibility, we need a lot of differents version of metamorphosis to have a large choice of shapes. That's a handicap for sorcerers.
You can always use the spells polymorph, greater polymorph and shapechange, which are several spells rolled into one.
I suggest, that, we conserve the ancient versions of metamorphosis.
BUT the mage can't have a total of physical bonus superior than the half of the mage level.
I actually like the current system. Well, to be honest, I think it has some problems that need to be changed (and hopefully have been changed in the final game, which, by the way, is off to the printers), but they are of a different nature.
There's still some catch-all spells (see above), druids still get to use polymorph effects, but the search for the perfect monster for your polymorph spell is a lot pressing now that its ability scores won't be carried over to you if you change into that shape.
Plus, it's a great way to handle spell power by spell level. Spell power capped by caster level would still make you look for monsters with high physical attributes as you need them to support your 1/2 level max.
Morever, the mage can't use each supernatural abilitys more than one by
spell casted.
The old polymporph spells didn't grant you the use of any supernatural abilities, actually.
The druid can use all shapes of the animal of his environment( and the bloody versions )
I think you mean "dire" (meaning "terrible")
The only problem I really do see with polymorph is that all the bonuses you get are enhancement bonuses. Not useful if you already have aa belt of physical enhancement. Plus, righteous might still grants size bonuses to clerics, so druids should definetly get some size bonus action!
I'd split the spell's bonuses in two:
Every spell grants enhancement bonuses to str/dex/con. Those bonuses are depandant on the spell in question, and you get them regardless of shape. If beast shape IV would grant +6 strength, and II only +2 strength, you'd get the +6 if you cast IV, even if you used the spell to assume the form of a small animal, and with II you'd only get the +2, even if you use a large form.
Additionally, every spell grants you the ability to assume the form of animals from a certain range dependant to your size. Each size change has a fixed set of size modifiers to str/dex/con, and those are dependant on how many sizes you change.
So beast shape II might grant you the ability to assume animal form of a size up to 2 categories smaller than you, or up to 1 category larger, and IV grant you up to 4 down and 3 up (meaning that with II, a human could become a large creature, but a gnome only a medium one). If you use II to become large (from medium), you'd get the size bonuses for one size increase. If you use IV to become medium (for medium), you don't get anything (even though you use the higher-level spell), because your size didn't change.
|
I agree that the various shape changing spells work much more consistently now. I like them.
As KaeYoss pointed out, the biggest boon of the new spells is that the mage doesn't go searching through the MM trying to find the absolute best shape to take in order to maximize physical stats. With the new spells, the physical stats have consistent modifiers which mean the mage is going to focus on the shape or race that they want to emulate, which is much more in line with role-playing than combat min-maxing.
I do need to watch the spells, though. I let a druid wildshape into an octopus and gain the creature's swim speed, but the new beast shape spells have a limit on movement rates that I hadn't noticed.
actually, when my druid beast shape into a diminutive bat, he gains fly 90ft, as per the spell... but the animal entry says bat are only at fly 30ft... so if you see a super-bat in the jungle, it might be a druid! LOL!
Actually, this is not completely true.
Page 159 (Polymorph Subschool):
"In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead."
This basically means that, if the spell grants you Fly 90 (good) and the animal form grants you Fly 30 (good), you take Fly 30 (good).
The spell grants you the ability 'up to the listed value', not precisely 'the listed value'; if you take the form of an animal with Fly 60 (average) thanks to Beast Shape III (or equivalent spell/ ability), you end with Fly 60 (average), not Fly 90 (good)...
Ok, so with a drd8/ftr1, do I wild shape as per beast shape III for fly 60ft, or do I fly at 30ft? oh, right... I use the lesser (the bat's fly speed of 30ft, right?)
Precisely. Although the Fly speed of a Bat is 40 (good), so that would be the final Fly speed of your Drd8/Ftr1.
As another example, if a Druid Wild Shapes into an Eagle, which has a Fly speed of 80ft (average), his actual Fly speed would be:
- at 4th and 5th level : Fly 30 (average) (since Wild Shape emulates Beast Shape I)
- at 6th and 7th level: Fly 60 (average) (Wild Shape = Beast Shape II)
- from 8th level: Fly 80 (average) (Wild Shape = Beast Shape III)
Note that the maneuverability would never improve above average, since the 'real' animal has Fly (average) (Beast Shape II and III would grant a good maneuverability, but - as always - you take the lesser quality among that of the animal and that of the spell).
|
...the kings of flying, I meant! :P
Anyways... it occurs to me: can a druid wild shaped into a diminutive bat via beast shape III, and via the Natural Spell feat, cast flame blade and make melee touch attacks modified by DEX instead of STR? (as some animals use DEX instead of STR, even without Weapon Finesse, I believe... but I might be off on this one...)
Anyways... it occurs to me: can a druid wild shaped into a diminutive bat via beast shape III, and via the Natural Spell feat, cast flame blade and make melee touch attacks modified by DEX instead of STR? (as some animals use DEX instead of STR, even without Weapon Finesse, I believe... but I might be off on this one...)
And a diminutive flame blade, instead of 1d8, would deal 1d3 damage? And the bat would have no hands to wield it with, even if he could cast the spell in the first place...
|
|
Flame Blade
School evocation [fire]; Level druid 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
effect
Range 0 ft.
Effect sword-like beam
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
description
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your
hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks
with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8
points of fire damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10).
Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply
to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as
parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.
The spell does not function underwater.
|
|
A strict reading of the spell does not seem to indicate a druid, in the shape of a bat, could NOT wield this... the effect specifically mentions a "beam" and not the creation of a "scimitar"
The "wield as a scimitar" part refers to the need to have "martial proficiency: scimitar" which the druid has, even in beast shape...
As it is a spell and not an actual weapon, I'd be inclined to allow this. It's not more broken then having the same bat cast produce flame, flame strike, or any other spell for that matter...
Thoughts?
A strict reading of the spell does not seem to indicate a druid, in the shape of a bat, could NOT wield this... the effect specifically mentions a "beam" and not the creation of a "scimitar"
The "wield as a scimitar" part refers to the need to have "martial proficiency: scimitar" which the druid has, even in beast shape...
As it is a spell and not an actual weapon, I'd be inclined to allow this. It's not more broken then having the same bat cast produce flame, flame strike, or any other spell for that matter...
Thoughts?
It's not broken, it's just rediculous. You're trying to play the words to mean what YOU would like them to mean. No where in the text does it say treat the blade as a scimitar for purposes of proficiency. It says "WIELD AS"...
Definition of "WIELD": To handle with skill and ease, especially of a weapon or tool; To handle effectively.
Last I checked... BATS DON'T "WIELD" WEAPONS... nor does anything else with a lack of hands and/or an opposable thumb. If you want to "wield" a weapon or weapon-like object, use an APE or MONKEY (possibly even a squirrel-type). At best you could CARRY something since Bats do not have hands they only have feet... See Diagram 1-1 HERE
As for the other spells...
Produce Flame = Can be a HURLED(ranged touch) or MELEE TOUCH. It would be entirely possible for a bat to melee touch with this, but Hurled is again APE or MONKEY. The flame would have to be on your foot, that's the closest thing a bat has to a hand, and the spell specifies appears in your HAND.
Flamestrike = Targeted AoE(from the sky), not wielded or thrown, HUGE difference and not a valid comparison.
Furthermore...
Natural Spell [General]
Prerequisites: Wis 13, wild shape ability.
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while in a wild shape.
-----------------
No mention of growing limbs the animal does not possess, like hands. No mention of being able to manipulate objects AS IF you had hands or opposable thumbs. No mention of treating an animal form's existing appendages as hands just because your starting form had them.
(as some animals use DEX instead of STR, even without Weapon Finesse, I believe... but I might be off on this one...)
You are. They all get weapon finesse as a bonus feat.
(as some animals use DEX instead of STR, even without Weapon Finesse, I believe... but I might be off on this one...)You are. They all get weapon finesse as a bonus feat.
Well, but a Druid does not take Bonus Feats as a result of a Wild Shape.
Fortunately, you are not stuck with STR 1 anymore, if you Wild Shape into a Bat (you use your Str -4, as per the spell Beast Shape III). It would be a good choice to take Weapon Finesse as a general feat, though, in order to be able to exploit the higher Dexterity that some forms (small creatures and Air/Fire Elementals) grant.
Just my 2c.
EDIT: sorry, I've just understood what you mean - and we are on the same line (I must be a little slow these days...)
Still, since changing into a small animal does not grant you automatically Weapon Finesse, the rest of my reasoning is valid...
|
|
Excellent. Thanks for your input, all.
If using Flame Blade or using natural weapons when in tiny forms, Weapon Finesse appears to be a must for druids now. However Flame Blade is wielded as a scimitar, so some DMs could disallow it as a finesseable weapon. Other DMs could allow it on the basis that it is used as a melee touch attack (and melee touches are very much finesseable).
As per bats or toads being able to wield Flame Blade, I would say yes, as a fiery beams comes out of you. The damage would not scale downwards either, as there is a listed damage die within the spell.
Shillelagh, however, is different, as it transforms a weapon into another, so if the base weapon is NOT medium sized, then the resulting shillelagh stick will cause more or less damage, depending on its size. Shillelagh would not be useable in wild shape mode. Flame Blade would, IMO (and Produce Flame; and other similar spells, etc.)
Great. Now I'm picturing a tiny capuchin monkey grinning wildly whilst swinging about a flaming scimitar. That is totally my next character.
Great. Now I'm picturing a tiny capuchin monkey grinning wildly whilst swinging about a flaming scimitar. That is totally my next character.
lol, I've played this Druid, it was fun as hell! I used Produce Flame from the tree tops and the form was a Golden Lion Tamarin. His other forms (that I got to use) were Panther(medium) and Lion(large), good stuff.
-----------------------------
EDIT: (more to say)
On 'Flame Blade', I personally wouldn't allow or ask a DM to allow me to use a "wielded weapon" with an animal that doesn't have hands. The next thing you know you'll see Panthers fencing with a rapier in their non-prehensile tails, horses mouth-wielding lances(spears) for spirited charge and other silly Disney-style animated events. I feel pieces of my soul whithering and dying just typing it. "Mass hysteria, dogs & cats living together, etc."
I can see 'Produce Flame' being a bit more versitile though, perhaps as spitting(breathed) instead of thrown.
Honestly, whatever works for your group, to each his own. :)
The think that I don't like is that if the spellcaster decide to be a cow or a tiger, he will be have the same bonus to his physical characteristics. So, if I don't think to the natural weapon, I can transform myself into a cow or a tiger, that's the same thing. I think that the polymorph spell must be the image of the shape. If I want to be a tiger, I will be agile, if I will be a cow I will be strong. If we give limits to the bonus of the shape and the abilitys availaible, we can have a good spell.
Sorry for how I writte, I must improve so much in English...
Don't worry too much about your spelling, there is no problem understanding what you mean:-)
I think different bonusses for different forms (and not just sizes) might be a little too difficult to implement. I would mean a lot of difficult bonusses, and in many cases it might not be as easy as the tiger vs. cow. Even if it was possible to create a list of different ability enhancement, it would take up way too much space in a book.
On a generel note on the new polymorph, I think there is still too much looking a round for the best creature. Playing a 7 lvl druid I have a time changing into a wolf when I've got the option of a tiger. When level 8 comes, Violet Fungus seems pretty superior to everything else (although the speed sucks).
When i become higher levels I can't really see the idea in many of the shapes, especially concerning plant creatures. They are build around few heavy attacks, but I can't see why I should trade my AC, extra attacks, and attack bonus, for something that only has the advantage of a higher CMB.
Don't worry too much about your spelling, there is no problem understanding what you mean:-)
Ignore that sentence. Improve your English. Always improve. Sure, we know what you want to tell us, but that doesn't mean you should not try to become better.
I'm not attacking you, mind you.
It's just my opinion that the day we stop getting better, we stop being good.
There's always room for improvement. Don't settle for adequate!
My point wasn't that improving languange isn't an important thing, just that there is no reason to apologize for it.
|
Don't worry too much about your spelling, there is no problem understanding what you mean:-)Ignore that sentence. Improve your English. Always improve. Sure, we know what you want to tell us, but that doesn't mean you should not try to become better.
I'm not attacking you, mind you.
It's just my opinion that the day we stop getting better, we stop being good.
There's always room for improvement. Don't settle for adequate!
KaeYoss, cut him some slack! He (or she?) already writes English better than half of the American high school students I've seen...
KaeYoss, cut him some slack! He (or she?) already writes English better than half of the American high school students I've seen...
He can have all the slack.
As I said, I'm not attacking. Just encouraging.
But hey: If what we keep reading about those American high school students is true, it's no big accomplishment to write English better than them. A cat chasing a mouse all over the keyboard can do that ;-)
|
|
KaeYoss, cut him some slack! He (or she?) already writes English better than half of the American high school students I've seen...He can have all the slack.
As I said, I'm not attacking. Just encouraging.
But hey: If what we keep reading about those American high school students is true, it's no big accomplishment to write English better than them. A cat chasing a mouse all over the keyboard can do that ;-)
Seriously, literacy is a fairy tale here, it seems.
Seriously, literacy is a fairy tale here, it seems.
My sincere condolences.
It's not like things were golden around here, but at least most of the kids can read and write here.
I thank you for your attention and don't hesitate to correct me.
Okay, you told me to...
"I think that we might may be prupose different type of monsters."
I think you mean maybe (= peut-être), which is one word.
And it's propose.