Polymorph:
"Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.)"
Dragon Form:
"While in this form, you gain the dragon trait. You have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions."
Question:
Is it intended that you can't speak or cast spells while in Dragon Form, despite Dragons being able to do both?
How would you rule it if you were a GM (as per the clause in the polymorph section)?
I'd say it falls under the "If there's doubt" clause. As GM I'd rule that you could absolutely talk and cast spells in dragon form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that the form is meant to turn you from a caster to a melee capable character, hence battle form. Being able to do both has always been an end game druid type ability.
Imagine taking perfect form control to be a Dragon all the time, but your basically a mute dragon. Good luck fitting in with other dragons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation is that you definitely can't cast spells.
Not speaking doesn't look to be technically allowed either, but I think that's too harsh.
my question would be what causes you to lose your spell-casting?
rules aside you need a little bit of common sense when ruling on stuff
you don't become unable to cast spells if you shape-shift into a elf or an orc
you don't become unable to cast spells if you maker yourself larger with a spell
you don't become unable to cast spells if you get claws or if you turn your hands into tentacles
spells that change the shape of your mouth don't make you lose spell casting etc...
is there any spell that turns you into a speaking creature but takes away your ability to speak?
so what would cause you to lose spells?
my question would be what causes you to lose your spell-casting?
rules aside you need a little bit of common sense when ruling on stuff
you don't become unable to cast spells if you shape-shift into a elf or an orc
you don't become unable to cast spells if you maker yourself larger with a spell
you don't become unable to cast spells if you get claws or if you turn your hands into tentacles
spells that change the shape of your mouth don't make you lose spell casting etc...
is there any spell that turns you into a speaking creature but takes away your ability to speak?
so what would cause you to lose spells?
But the spells being talked about explicitly change you into a 'battle form'. Something that those other spells (enlarge, whatever alter self is called now, etc.) do not. And battle forms are what have the no casting restriction. So unfortunately, all of your common sense examples are actually allowed by the rules while casting (most spells) in dragon form is not (at least not as written).
I wonder how important the restriction is. Does being able to cast while in a form mean that much? I mean, you're using up rounds of you 1 minute transformation to do things you could in your normal form.
Battle forms are already never as good as actual melee characters, so it doesn't seem like it makes a huge difference if they can cast if the creature they've turned into could cast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, the rules are clear and explicit: no casting in Battle Form, and Dragon Form gives you a Battle Form. Therefore, no casting.
This is not a mistake on Paizo part, as it's quite consistent with the balance and approach to magic they've taken in this edition. Don't forget Wizards can use Dragon Form, and if you allowed them casting while in it, where would the game balance be?
Anyway. I suggest talk to your DM, but if you're asking rules-wise, it's clear. No casting.
Agreed. They say no casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands and can't activate any items
The speaking restriction is not required, the others are. I don't enforce it as a GM.
Short version: Making dragon form melee-viable near level 20 requires significant investment, and with that investment, a caster may be better at melee combat in their true form anyways.Returning to the question of GM ruling, the power level of casting spells in dragon form depends on the PC's level. Specifically, have they passed the point where dragon form's default attack modifier is close to a martial character's attack modifier? A safe approach could be to let the player cast spells in dragon form only if it's heightened to a 10th level. You could explain this as the 6th and 8th level versions of the spell being imperfect, but the 10th level version corrected these imperfections.
I don't think it is reasonable to consider just dragon form. Each wild shape form only scales within an obvious range so you have to consider a range of forms. At a certain level you should not be using Dragon form anymore.
Even though you can't cast spells in wild shape you can precast spells like longstrinder for instance. So your magic is not completely irrelevant.
If you think that you can do more significantly more damage in melee as a druid than in some of your appropriate leveled battle forms, then your interpretation of the wildshape rules is too bad to be true.
|
Battleform doesn't allow you to cast unless itclearly says it.
Trying to extrapolate it from the vague description is forcing things ( leaving apart how unbalanced would be compared to any other battleform ).
I mean, if we stick with the idea that every single time paizo doesn't explicitly say a thing it's a chance to go with with "reading the text it seems vague, so it can be both", we'll end up doing this over and over almost on every subject.
I agree wholeheartedly. Spellcasting while Xshaped is DISallowed unless the specific form you've chosen outlines that it is permitted.
Question:
Is it intended that you can't speak or cast spells while in Dragon Form, despite Dragons being able to do both?
How would you rule it if you were a GM (as per the clause in the polymorph section)?
my question would be what causes you to lose your spell-casting?
rules aside you need a little bit of common sense when ruling on stuff
Sorry that you asked a legitimate question about reasoning and got the usual slew of "because the rules say so" from folks that have lost their curiosity about why rules are in place.
You can't cast spells in dragon form because combat is supposed to be about options; choosing what's best for the situation. If you could perform as your normal caster self while in your dragon form, you'd be at a flat disadvantage any time you're NOT in dragon form. The game tries to avoid that situation. Any time you have a spell that gives you a bonus for a period of time with no disadvantage, generally the bonus is rather small to encourage you to keep your options open. Dragon Form is intended to give you a temporary trade-off.
As for the lore behind why you can't speak, the way we rule it is that dragons have a LONG youth to learn to speak clearly with such an outrageous mouth design. For a mortal that just picked up the form, it's like trying to talk through two sets of plastic vampire teeth. "Risha reereh kark ta sheek araark kashaw!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short version: Making dragon form melee-viable near level 20 requires significant investment, and with that investment, a caster may be better at melee combat in their true form anyways.Returning to the question of GM ruling, the power level of casting spells in dragon form depends on the PC's level. Specifically, have they passed the point where dragon form's default attack modifier is close to a martial character's attack modifier? A safe approach could be to let the player cast spells in dragon form only if it's heightened to a 10th level. You could explain this as the 6th and 8th level versions of the spell being imperfect, but the 10th level version corrected these imperfections.
I don't think it is reasonable to consider just dragon form. Each wild shape form only scales within an obvious range so you have to consider a range of forms. At a certain level you should not be using Dragon form anymore.
Even though you can't cast spells in wild shape you can precast spells like longstrinder for instance. So your magic is not completely irrelevant.
If you think that you can do more significantly more damage in melee as a druid than in some of your appropriate leveled battle forms, then your interpretation of the wildshape rules is too bad to be true.
and here we got two problems
1. the battle form is not that good in terms of attack avlue2. it still takes away options to fight
optional 3. I think battle forms should scale all the range of levels
I certainly wouldnt mind higher forms being stronger, but having battleform spells being effective at 4 levels out of 20 is kinda sad
why do I have to turn in a kaiju if I would prefer to be a gorilla or a dinosaur? *pout*
Sorry that you asked a legitimate question about reasoning and got the usual slew of "because the rules say so" from folks that have lost their curiosity about why rules are in place.
Every response in a thread is not a complete response to the original question. The question was how would you rule it. The response inculded a discussion of the actual rules. I also said how I would rule differently.
This particular part of the rules is crystal clear but odd. So people do this differently.Please don't try to assign motives to people. Be generous in your assumptions about other people. These are brief statements we make. They are often misinterpreted.
The Battelform rules are insainly poorly written and right out broken(in a bad way) with alot of holes, and i realy hope they look them over in the Remaster.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you get a laughable amount of temp hp and a soso melee attack set. Casting in this form is far from OP.
Well, lets see. You get
1) A speed of 40 and a fly speed of 1002) Resistance 10 against the energy of your choice (essentially)
3) Darkvision and imprecise scent
4) A quite decent breath weapon
5) A fairly decent (not great but definitely better than so-so) melee attack with reach
6) Some temp hit points
7) Often some other cool ability that you get to pick when you need it (eg, swim speed, burrow speed, climb speed, ability to see through smoke, etc).
All for the low cost of either a spell slot OR a focus spell together with some quite affordable class feats.
I've played a druid who used dragon form a lot and it is quite useful and powerful withOUT being able to cast spells. It is perfectly good as it is. Being able to cast spells would definitely have made it overpowered. Probably not game breakingly over powered but definitely overpowered.
Polymorph:
"Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.)"
Dragon Form:
"While in this form, you gain the dragon trait. You have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions."
Question:
Is it intended that you can't speak or cast spells while in Dragon Form, despite Dragons being able to do both?
How would you rule it if you were a GM (as per the clause in the polymorph section)?
RAW it's a now. However, I find it telling that this "unless otherwise noted" isn't noted anywhere, in any spell that grant a battle form, to the point where I think that paizo probably forgot that part of the trait. Dragons not being able to talk is already a bit silly, but an angel, a demon, a fae or a literal avatar of cayden cailean being mute by default is just dumb.
I'd authorise it, dragon casting spell is a big part of what make a dragon a dragon after, instead of just another big flying monster.
|
|
Polymorph:
"Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands. (If there’s doubt about whether you can use an action, the GM decides.)"
Dragon Form:
"While in this form, you gain the dragon trait. You have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions."
Question:
Is it intended that you can't speak or cast spells while in Dragon Form, despite Dragons being able to do both?
How would you rule it if you were a GM (as per the clause in the polymorph section)?
RAW it's a now. However, I find it telling that this "unless otherwise noted" isn't noted anywhere, in any spell that grant a battle form, to the point where I think that paizo probably forgot that part of the trait. Dragons not being able to talk is already a bit silly, but an angel, a demon, a fae or a literal avatar of cayden cailean being mute by default is just dumb.
I'd authorise it, dragon casting spell is a big part of what make a dragon a dragon after, instead of just another big flying monster.
Actually, Dragon Form does note it since it explicitly allows using Manipulate actions.
Actually, Dragon Form does note it since it explicitly allows using Manipulate actions.
I was talking specifically about the "prevent you from speaking" part. Some forms allow manipulate actions and stipulate that you have hands. Some allow you to cast spells. None say that you can speak, even those that obviously should.
No feat allow you to speak in battle form either as far as I can recall, and I honestly can't recall any other material from PF2 that even mention the fact that battle form can't talk apart from the polymorph trait, which is what make me think that paizo might have forgotten it themselves.
The Shapespeak Mask lets you speak (but you still can't cast spells) while polymorphed into the form of an animal - but only an animal, which is weird. Did they think the higher level forms could already speak? Doesn't look like they updated that when they included it in Treasure Vault.
|
|
The Shapespeak Mask lets you speak (but you still can't cast spells) while polymorphed into the form of an animal - but only an animal, which is weird. Did they think the higher level forms could already speak? Doesn't look like they updated that when they included it in Treasure Vault.
I would definitely allow this use for other forms.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: We are level 11 now, flight has been becoming a thing for far longer than the 1 min in dragonform be it the spell, ancestries, or otherwise
2: Given my prompt was a draconic sorcerer you'd be limited to the type you chose though again level 11 you've had means to get resistance to things long before be it magic, items, ancestries, etc
3: The former is easily done better by a 2 level spell as well as again easily obtained long before level 11 be it ancestry, feats, items, etc
4: The only contention point and it is a decent blasting option...every other round on average and again only in the one element if a draconic sorcer. You know what else are decent blasting options every round, your spells 6th and lower.
5:Again so-so melee that while on par to hit of a barbarian or the like, still less than fighter but who isn't you only get a measly +6 to damage so anything worth its salt will have more riders to their attacks than the measly 6.
6:Once again a weak amount of temp hp, comparable to what barb has had since level 1. On that note you can have a dragon instinct barb that could cast spells with the proper feat or even do a lot of what this form does, all the time every rage.
7:Really skill feats or in the case of barbarian a single class feat? This is a 6th level spell you are level 11 at this point and that's a major boon?
....huh...
1: Fly gives flight for 2 actions and a speed of....? The answer is not 100 ft in case you were curious. Fly, or other similar flight spells, also don't give you an AC that is comparable to a martial. Also doesn't give you melee attacks with a bonus to attacks comparable to a martial. Also doesn't give you damage with the attacks it doesn't give you comparable to a martial.
2: So..how many actions before you can fly, have resistance, get melee attacks, have a decent aoe, get a decent AC...oh, and how many spell slots did you use up?
3: refer back to 2
4: refer back to 2
5: If you want to play a martial, then play a martial
6: If you want to play a barbarian, then play a barbarian
7: How many wizards are rocking Athletics? How many martials have swim speeds? Burrow speeds?
Your counters just sound silly to me given that you can get all of the things dragon form can give you for...2 actions. Only 2 actions!
Some Stats comparison at level 11
....DF..vs..avg martial
AC 29 vs 29
Attk +22 vs +22
Dmg 3d10+6 vs 2d10+2d6+7
HP low vs high
Athletics +23 vs +23
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify something, Druids aren't supposed to be equal to or exceed martial characters when shape changed. So if that's your expectation, that's a problem.
Shaechange is supposed to put a druid at 85%-90% of effectiveness that a martial has, and it does that. The reason why you can't meet or exceed marital effectiveness is that you still have the ability to cast spells and it's ultimately a balance issue.
We shouldn't go back to the days of CODzilla.
Shaechange is supposed to put a druid at 85%-90% of effectiveness that a martial has, and it does that.
Maybe it does depending on what battleform rules we use - and that is not straight forward. Lets also not forget everything else that has been said. It is not just a matter of simple to hit numbers there is more too it than that. All those extra powers and defences martials get need to factor into this.
The reason why you can't meet or exceed marital effectiveness is that you still have the ability to cast spells and it's ultimately a balance issue.
Yes but you don't get to cast spells do you - so what are you trying to say here? It is one or the other. You are casting or you are in your form. But Martials can get spells too you know. They don't have any restrictions on them. Comparing apples with apples is tricky.
We shouldn't go back to the days of CODzilla.
No one wants that. The martials and the casters need to keep their niche. But the wildshape druid is mostly a melee character and it needs to be somewhat competitive as such.
I just want to chime in that there's no need to lock yourselves into one camp or the other, there are potential middle grounds to consider, and clearly and calmly challenging our assumptions about casting in battle forms is worthwhile.
Something about being completely forbidden from any casting while in a battle form doesn't sit right with me, from a balance perspective as well as a storytelling perspective. I could never put my finger on it, exactly, which is why I started this thread.
I think it's some combination of:
1. Battle forms need to take up valuable high level slots in order to get the "martial-adjacent" capability out of them.
2. Casting a high level buff to boost your martial capability, then not using it in order to continue to cast spells, feels suboptimal. Especially when the battle form time limit is short.
3. Some of the creatures you turn into lean heavily on spellcasting as part of their fantasy, like dragons, and being locked out of it, especially as a druid who wants to be a dragon full-time, feels kind of bad
4. Martials can spend, admittedly quite a few, character build resources to get casting while retaining their martial abilities. Surely a compromise could be made to let casters retain some of their casting when martially buffed.
5. There are buffs that you can acquire from ancestries, classes, items, and spells that can get you quite a lot of what a form gives you, all-told, without locking you out of spellcasting. Perhaps the action cost of all of them is high (though maybe you only care about one or two of the benefits from the battle form anyway), but couldn't there be a way to tack on an action cost to compensate allowing casting in battle forms?
6. In my experience, battle forms without the martial HP and feats to back them up, feel only a smidgeon better than the caster just pulling out a backup weapon in their normal form, if their only goal is doing martial stuff.
I'm not saying it should definitely be a thing, but I'd like some rational discussion about why it shouldn't be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the wildshape druid is mostly a melee character and it needs to be somewhat competitive as such.
I completely and utterly disagree with that.
A wildshape druid is an incredibly VERSATILE character, it is NOT "mostly a melee character"
Depending on circumstances it is
1) A fair-good martial (depending on exact level, wild shape taken, and rules at that particular table for wildshape). Taking the most pessimistic rules interpretation a Druid at L10-12 in Plant Shape is a very decent martial (to hit better than most martials, 2D10+11 damage with a reach of 15 ft is definitely very decent)
2) An incredibly fast flier with a quite good breath weapon (Dragon)
3) A spell caster with full access to all the spells they want
4) A decent gish (decent armor, hit points, and to hit for their third action attack)
5) A decent tank with their shield
6) A decent healer (you're wisdom based so medicine is good and you can easily fit in a few heal spells)
You don't have to give up ANY of your spell casting goodness to be a wild shaper as a druid. You only need the 4 stats (Str, Wis, Dex, Con). Heck, if you really care you can even (eventually) dump Dexterity and get plate mail
The key to playing a wild shaped druid is versatility. Yeah, they're (generally speaking) slightly weak as a martial. Being a full caster (with quite decent focus spells) more than makes up for that.
But if you play a wild shaping druid as "mostly a melee character" you are seriously underplaying it.
Edit: And don't forget that wild shape can be dismissed with a single action. If you need to cast a spell you have the option. Although one only does it when the situation REALLY calls for it I've dropped out of battle form several times in order to cast the killer spell (often heal)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shaechange is supposed to put a druid at 85%-90% of effectiveness that a martial has, and it does that.Maybe it does depending on what battleform rules we use - and that is not straight forward. Lets also not forget everything else that has been said. It is not just a matter of simple to hit numbers there is more too it than that. All those extra powers and defences martials get need to factor into this.
The reason why you can't meet or exceed marital effectiveness is that you still have the ability to cast spells and it's ultimately a balance issue.Yes but you don't get to cast spells do you - so what are you trying to say here? It is one or the other. You are casting or you are in your form. But Martials can get spells too you know. They don't have any restrictions on them. Comparing apples with apples is tricky.
We shouldn't go back to the days of CODzilla.No one wants that. The martials and the casters need to keep their niche. But the wildshape druid is mostly a melee character and it needs to be somewhat competitive as such.
Sorry, I was unclear I guess.
A Druid sacrifices nothing of their casting prowess to be able to wildshape. They have an opportunity cost (they can't cast and being a melee character at the same time) but I think the thing to keep in mind is that wildshape isn't supposed to be the only tool a Druid has or will use. If that is how you want to play the character, you're imposing a restriction on yourself that isn't there. And I get it, some people want to focus on wilshaping exclusively but Druid isn't intended to do that. And so wildshape, as an ability, isn't mean to foster a play style where you always and only wildshape. You can always dismiss the spell to do other things, including cast spells.
I guess the issue here is one of mindset, I think it's a mistake for people to have the mindset that wild shape should be 90% of what their character does, instead of like 40% caster, 40% wild shape, and 20% other.
Edit: Just realized Pauljathome pointed out all the reasons why I think you're wrong, and it's because you want the druid to be focused exclusively on wildshape, which isn't what the class is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even beyond numbers alone, wild shape is full of jankiness and things that need to be cleaned up tho. The fact that RAW your druid forget how to turn into a normal sized animal as the level go up (and as you always must use the highest heigtenning level) is silly, and it wouldn't be overpowered at all to allow you to chose the lower size when you can.
The fact that no form allow you to speak (not even cast spell, but merely speak) is silly too because now being in wildshape also mean you can't communicate with your teammate, no matter the form you turn into. The fact that very few forms actually specify that you have hand and allow manipulate actions mean that if you turn into a monkey, you can't use your hands for anything else than punching stuff.
There's also the feat issue, and the fact that a big chunk of wild shape feat are basically feat tax. Insect form being a feat instead of a "third level heightenning unlock" is silly, because it have the exact same power level as animal form, it's here solely to be a flavor tax if you want to play an insect themed wild druid, as it bring no power increase and only a smidge of versatility (for the few levels during which insect form is relevant).
And while it might be one of the most (if not the most) versatile focus spell, it's also the only one that refuse to heighten after a certain point and that you need to invest feat in if you actually want to use it during the whole level range. Once you get to level 11, congratulation, your wild shape is now irrelevant unless you invested a feat in it to keep it relevant, because animal form don't upgrade past this point. I understand keeping forms that bring something new to wild shape behind feat, like soaring shape "unlocking" flight via wild shape, and elemental form unlocking elemental damage/resistance, but the fact that the spell don't have access to relevant "ground beatstick" for the whole level range is silly. IMO, ferocious shape should definitively have been included in the base spell at the very least.
And finally, there's the problem of your usefullness varying greatly between levels. At some levels, your wild shape have a "to hit" that's almost on par, or even on par with martials, at some, you might be 4 point behind. Like summonning spells, battle forms suffer greatly from the "only heighten on odd level", which mean that they are suddently far less effective on even levels.
I can agree with a lot of your points Scarablob.
Honestly, I do think there needs to be some allowance for speaking while in wild shape, though it needs to still prevent casting.
And I think the wild shape spells could use some massaging to:
1) Allow you to use "lower level forms" while still having your to hit, AC, hp, damage etc to stay at usable levels. It doesn't even need to be as good as other options necessarily, but like if your druid only wants to turn into a bear it shouldn't be completely unviable after a certain level.
2) Smoother scaling between levels, as it is true that the powers up from spell heightening feel very uneven, although this is true of literally everything that automatically heightens.
Wild Shape is a nearly unlimited resource for a druid.
I allow casting while wild shaped in battle forms that could normally speak and cast as a house rule, but I would not recommend it unless you can handle it as a DM and are ok with the power increase as it is substantial due to the mobility a battle form provides. High mobility is very powerful in PF2.
I'd like the battle forms to make more sense within the game world myself. I don't like hard rules in place that don't make sense that create debates like can you open a door or knock a creature down with your dragon tail using Athletics. That shouldn't even have to be debated. When you write rules that create debates of this kind, your rules are badly written.
The prohibition on speaking for forms like Dragon or Celestial form are absolutely ridiculous and should have never been written. How can the designers really justify a dragon not being able to speak while plenty of PCs take the Draconic language and we all know dragons can speak?
Battle form spells should still take into account internal world consistency. A druid or wizard might use dragon or elemental form to interact with a creature of that type and not being able to speak makes that goofy.
I hope they do some rewrites in the Remastered Edition for polymorph and battle forms to clear up some of the strangeness of battle forms and make them make more sense within the game world.
I still think the default should be no casting in Battle Forms as I don't think most DMs or games can handle it. But speaking and use of skills for Athletic or Acrobatic maneuvers even by animal forms should be a given. And clarification for unarmed attack calculations and untyped damage like Weapon Specialization or Rage should be clarified as well.
|
|
Even beyond numbers alone, wild shape is full of jankiness and things that need to be cleaned up tho.
Oh yeah, there is a LOT that is unclear about wild shape. No argument there
The fact that RAW your druid forget how to turn into a normal sized animal as the level go up (and as you always must use the highest heigtenning level) is silly, and it wouldn't be overpowered at all to allow you to chose the lower size when you can.
I don't think I've ever seen a GM enforce that particular rule. But you're right its silly.
The fact that no form allow you to speak (not even cast spell, but merely speak) is silly too because now being in wildshape also mean you can't communicate with your teammate, no matter the form you turn into. The fact that very few forms actually specify that you have hand and allow manipulate actions mean that if you turn into a monkey, you can't use your hands for anything else than punching stuff.
You can actually speak in some forms. And no sane GM is going to stop a monkey from grabbing things. But I agree it should all be clearer
There's also the feat issue, and the fact that a big chunk of wild shape feat are basically feat tax. Insect form being a feat instead of a "third level heightenning unlock" is silly, because it have the exact same power level as animal form, it's here solely to be a flavor tax if you want to play an insect themed wild druid, as it bring no power increase and only a smidge of versatility (for the few levels during which insect form is relevant).
A wild shaped druid will spend on the order of 1/2 their feats. While that is a lot its affordable and well worth the cost.
And the various feats DO give you more flexibility. Although some shapes are definitely less generally useful than others.
And finally, there's the problem of your usefullness varying greatly between levels
I think you're significantly overstating the issue but I agree that it exists.
The biggest issue in my mind is that some of the forms require you to be really big and hence not always useful. But that is largely countered by the fact that you're STILL a full caster. Wild shape is ONE of the tools in your kit, if it doesn't fit a situation use the other tools.
But the wildshape druid is mostly a melee character and it needs to be somewhat competitive as such.I completely and utterly disagree with that.
A wildshape druid is an incredibly VERSATILE character, it is NOT "mostly a melee character"
Sigh. I was trying to be even handed about it. But someone always goes over the top and missread what I am saying. It really depends how you build your druid.
Depending on circumstances it is
1) A fair-good martial (depending on exact level, wild shape taken, and rules at that particular table for wildshape). Taking the most pessimistic rules interpretation a Druid at L10-12 in Plant Shape is a very decent martial (to hit better than most martials, 2D10+11 damage with a reach of 15 ft is definitely very decent)
The to hit is lower than martials unless you are missreading the +2 status to hit bonus from Wildshape. Hence my comment about the rules being a problem.
The equivalent Martial will have much better damage and some options besides.If you need to cast a spell you have the option.
Yes but you can't do both at once and while you can switch, you can't keep switching. There are resources and actions involved.
All I'm saying is that The Druid is 90% of the caster as the Wizard or the Sorcerer - they have less slots and less options but better defences. A wildshape form (which every caster can get with their spells) needs to be about 75% to 85% of a martial. An option which is 50% the value of a martial is useless, and not really a meanigful option . Because a base caster can do that as they are.You need to consider everything else a martial can do. 15ft reach is easy enough for them to do if they want it.
Yes those percentages are deliberately vague and are just an impression not qualitative.
You can actually speak in some forms. And no sane GM is going to stop a monkey from grabbing things. But I agree it should all be clearer
I literally went throught every battle form spells (both those accessible via wild shape and the other) to see if any actually allowed speach, but none say so, which is doubly silly for the divine battle form like angel demon or avatar who should absolutely be able to speak.
I do agree that the GM can fix most of these issue effortlessly, but the fact that it is GM dependent just make me cringe about those poor druids who I know ended up with the GM that "play it RAW" and refuse any change.
A wild shaped druid will spend on the order of 1/2 their feats. While that is a lot its affordable and well worth the cost.
And the various feats DO give you more flexibility. Although some shapes are definitely less generally useful than others.
While I agree that it is debatable for some of the feat I mention (I believe the dino shapes should be rolled into the base spell, but I can see why someone would disagree), I see no reason at all to lock insect shape behind a feat, exept to punish druid that want to be insect themed. It have no power advantage over animal shape, and the only ability it offer that you can't really get from animal form is the spider form "web attack", which is hardly worth a feat alone (while the ability to fly with soaring shape definitively justify the feat IMO).
EDIT : Can't believe I forgot about it, but one last big "problem" with wild shape is that one supposed advantage of it is the athletic modifier bonus, that supposedly let the druid do combat manoeuver almost as well as a martial... except that since these require hands, the druid can't do them RAW unless they specifically pick a form with a hand (the actions available throught athletism, grapple, shove, trip and disarm all require a free hand). While it make sense that handless forms couldn't grapple or disarm an opponent, it's silly for them to be unable to push things around, or shove them to the ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT : Can't believe I forgot about it, but one last big "problem" with wild shape is that one supposed advantage of it is the athletic modifier bonus, that supposedly let the druid do combat manoeuver almost as well as a martial... except that since these require hands, the druid can't do them RAW unless they specifically pick a form with a hand (the actions available throught athletism, grapple, shove trip and disarm all require a free hand). While it make sense that handless forms couldn't grapple or disarm an opponent, it's silly for them to be unable to push things around, or shove them to the ground.
Of course, that free hand requirement is obviously written for bipeds, not for universal application. It would take a remarkably silly person running the game to not let a snake animal companion ever Grapple, for example, when that is the only way they could ever use their Constrict ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are absolutely correct, but it's another thing to add to the bag of "incredibly easy to fix, but shouldn't even need a fix in the first place", along with the "forced to grow big at latter level" and the "what do you mean I can't talk in dragon form?", amongst other things.
You are absolutely correct, but it's another thing to add to the bag of "incredibly easy to fix, but shouldn't even need a fix in the first place", along with the "forced to grow big at latter level" and the "what do you mean I can't talk in dragon form?", amongst other things.
They have not addressed the hand issue. I guess that one is obvious but I know several GMs who would not let it work.
They have fixed the althetics checks are often attacks issue.
Animal Form
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can Strike with
But not on the other forms yet.
|
|
But the wildshape druid is mostly a melee character and it needs to be somewhat competitive as such.I completely and utterly disagree with that.
A wildshape druid is an incredibly VERSATILE character, it is NOT "mostly a melee character"
Sigh. I was trying to be even handed about it. But someone always goes over the top and missread what I am saying. It really depends how you build your druid.
I'll also sigh. My point is that a druid who is mostly a melee character has deliberately crippled themselves to a significant extent.
The to hit is lower than martials unless you are missreading the +2 status to hit bonus from Wildshape. Hence my comment about the rules being a problem.
The equivalent Martial will have much better damage and some options besides.
And that is NOT universally true.
Plant Shape is an example. From level 10 up a Druid with max strength gets the +2 status bonus and so their to hit is within 1 of most martials for quite a few levels (sometimes higher). And 2d10 +11 or +16 with 15 or 20 foot reach is quite respectable.
But yeah, I agree that a martial mostly does more damage than a wild shaped druid. But even as early as animal Form the various forms have situational non combat bonuses to partly compensate for that.
But this is also precisely WHY I think building a druid to mostly wild shape is a mistake.
An option which is 50% the value of a martial is useless, and not really a meanigful option . Because a base caster can do that as they are.
You need to consider everything else a martial can do. 15ft reach is easy enough for them to do if they want it.Yes those percentages are deliberately vague and are just an impression not qualitative.
And I think a wild shaped druid, who choses WHEN to wild shape intelligently and (at least as importantly) when to NOT wild shape is a whole lot closer to the 70=80% than the 50% (Sometimes even exceeding that 80% number).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WHY I think building a druid to mostly wild shape is a mistake.
Which really completes the argument. It shouldn't be a mistake. It should be a reasonably viable build. Wildshape needs to approach but not equal the output of a martial.
And that is NOT universally true.
The to hit is lower than martials unless you are missreading the +2 status to hit bonus from Wildshape. Hence my comment about the rules being a problem.
The equivalent Martial will have much better damage and some options besides.
Only if you consider an OutWit Ranger or a Ranger who never bothers to hunt prey as reasonable. You have to make an effort here.
Plant Shape is an example. From level 10 up a Druid with max strength gets the +2 status bonus and so their to hit is within 1 of most martials for quite a few levels (sometimes higher).
A level 10 Druid with Plant From can get the +2 - still leaving them 1 behind a martial who may have a status bonus from somewhere elese. A level 12 Druid with Plant From can get the +2 actually puting them one ahead. But if you had taken the forms people normally consider superior you would have got neither of those bonuses.
Only at level 4 and level 12 can you get ahead of a non fighter martial by 1. Mostly you are behind.