Perfect example of common sense and unwritten rules. The exact RAW of Style Feats don't mention its' exclusive use with unarmed attacks, but that's the clear RAI of it.
In fact, according to strict RAW, once you're in a style, you retain that style until you drop it or change it. Wild Shape or not. So, technically, yes, you retain the style feat benefits.
BUT:
I would say it depends on what you transform into. If it's a humanoid form, I wouldn't argue it at all. But you better have a damn good story as to how exactly a bear manipulates his paws the correct way to utilize tiger style. Or a giant eagle is able to walk across difficult terrain on the ground.
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed.
GM's discretion as to what you lose and what you don't while wildshaped.
I'd allow the movement through difficult terrain part of dragon style, if you were a bear or lion or creature that could obviously use that advantage.
Other creatures might not be so lucky. Like a snake. As I said, be ready to explain it situationally to your GM, depending on the form you assume. Likely if you can rationally explain it, he'll let you retain it.
But, strictly by RAW, the answer is still technically yes. You're still in that style until dropped or changed, so you'd get the bonuses.
|
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed.GM's discretion as to what you lose and what you don't while wildshaped.
I'd allow the movement through difficult terrain part of dragon style, if you were a bear or lion or creature that could obviously use that advantage.
Other creatures might not be so lucky. Like a snake. As I said, be ready to explain it situationally to your GM, depending on the form you assume. Likely if you can rationally explain it, he'll let you retain it.
But, strictly by RAW, the answer is still technically yes. You're still in that style until dropped or changed, so you'd get the bonuses.
Do you think a druid should lose Power Attack while wildshaped? After all, practicing more powerful swings with your arms has nothing to do with biting harder. Lose Dodge? After all, jumping around on two legs is different from four, or with wings. Why so much hate for style feats? There is nothing in the feats that rely on body shape; anything else is just attempting to impose some sort of real-world physics on magic.
Animals can use unarmed combat just like anyone else. They just do not typically do so. Why would you lose style feats due to being in a different form?
If you practice different forms you would adapt it to that form. Heck, the fact that a Druid bothered to get a style feat is payment enough.
P.S. one of my cavalier builds is based on the idea that a Boar (3 intelligence at level 4) learns both Improved Unarmed Combat and Dragon Style.
- Gauss
Do you think a druid should lose Power Attack while wildshaped? After all, practicing more powerful swings with your arms has nothing to do with biting harder. Lose Dodge? After all, jumping around on two legs is different from four, or with wings. Why so much hate for style feats? There is nothing in the feats that rely on body shape; anything else is just attempting to impose some sort of real-world physics on magic.
First, no. I don't think a Druid should lose Power Attack, Dodge, etc. Those feats are completely different. They are "general" feats.
Style feats, as indicated by name, are based on using your limbs in a very specific manner for a very specific outcome. Those are to be treated as a completely separate scenario as Power Attack, at least with me as the DM.
Second, I don't have any hate for Style Feats. I love Monks. I love Druids. I love diversity in combat and unarmed combat styles. I also love (and even note in my post) that RAW says this still applies.
All I did was specify that it's the DM's call as to what you lose and what you don't. At some tables, this will mean losing your style feat. At others, it won't.
Animals can use unarmed combat just like anyone else. They just do not typically do so. Why would you lose style feats due to being in a different form?
If you practice different forms you would adapt it to that form. Heck, the fact that a Druid bothered to get a style feat is payment enough.
P.S. one of my cavalier builds is based on the idea that a Boar (3 intelligence at level 4) learns both Improved Unarmed Combat and Dragon Style.
First, there is nothing in RAW that specifically limits Style Feats to unarmed attacks, though that is clearly the RAI of how they are set up.
Second, there are limitations to adapting a style feat to a form without the physiological capability to carry out attacks or other abilities given under style feats in that form. It doesn't matter if you have Improved Doorknob Opening. If you're in bear form, you don't have opposeable thumbs and have to bust through the door. That's why it's the DM's call as to what you'd lose and what you wouldn't. It's to be weighed within the realm of reason, common sense, and interpretation.
A Boar with Dragon Style makes complete sense. As would a Dragon with Boar Style. Those "forms" and "functions" are compatible. Others won't be.
I maintain that RAW allows you to do this, technically, and Feral Combat Training even specifies it for ONE of your Natural Weapons, but the Polymorph rules for GM's call still applies.
Barry Armstrong, could you please quote which Style feats specify a form such as humanoid?
The section of the rules regarding Polymorph that you bolded above does not really apply here since these are not EX or SU abilities or class features. They are feats, feats which anyone from any class can take.
Note: your example for Improved Doorknob Opening does not apply. It would not be the feat that is the problem, it is the base ability (can they turn a doorknob). Additionally, you do not need opposeable thumbs to open a door. You can use two feet to do it (and if you don't think that is possible, I've seen it done).
- Gauss
Well, not that I agree with Barry on a GM's fiat to arbitrarily counter RAW, but I do think it is a bit hard to argue that a snake can perform Crane Wing Deflections (or deflect arrows for that matter) because Snakes do not possess the hands to be free for these activities.
But that's RAW, which many find reason to despise, but I find myself cherishing.
prototype00
I didn't state there wouldn't be any feats that specify a form or part of a form that another form wouldn't have. However, I would like to move this out of vagaries into specifics.
- Gauss